[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 83 (Wednesday, June 16, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1147-E1148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THE GASOLINE PRICE REDUCTION ACT OF 2004

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 15, 2004

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
4545, the so-called ``Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004.''
  My opposition is based both on grounds of the bill's content and the 
process by which it has been considered. I don't believe this bill is 
good policy, nor do I think it should have been brought up in a way 
that severely limited debate and completely eliminated the opportunity 
for the House to even consider any amendments.
  The bill's title--gasoline price reduction--is more of a slogan than 
an accurate description of the measure. And like any good advertising 
slogan, it has a certain appeal. But it is not an example of truth in 
advertising.
  I do believe that the bill's authors had the right goals in mind when 
drafting this bill. But reducing the ``proliferation'' of boutique 
fuels won't affect today's high gas prices. According to EPA, clean air 
protections add, at most, a nickel to the price of a gallon of 
gasoline. There are many other factors that can affect supply and 
price, such as merger activity, refinery shutdowns, and pipeline 
capacity. Besides, gas prices have risen across the nation, not just in 
states with cleaner fuel requirements.
  The bill we are considering today would amend the Clean Air Act by 
allowing the EPA and the Department of Energy to grant waivers to 
states, if there is a fuel shortage, to use fuel or fuel additives, 
which might contribute to air pollution. The bill would give the EPA 
Administrator authority to waive cleaner-burning gasoline or diesel 
requirements indefinitely if there is a ``significant fuel supply 
disruption,'' a term that the bill does not define.
  I am concerned that this bill would give EPA limitless authority to 
streamline current regulations. In addition, since the bill calls for 
the EPA Administrator merely to deem a waiver ``necessary,'' I am 
concerned that EPA's decision might not be subject to judicial review, 
or that any review would be very limited.
  Finally, this bill appears to put considerations of price before 
those of health. It contains no obligation to mitigate or make up for 
the excess air pollution that may occur over the waiver period.
  I understand that the more than 100 different fuel blends across the 
country have periodically resulted in regional price spikes, which is 
something we should try to address. A leading voice on energy in the 
other body has pressed for action from the Administration using legal 
authorities that the President already has. He has called first for an 
in-depth study to analyze the impact that federal, state, and local 
boutique fuels programs have on our nation's gasoline marketplace and 
to come up with specific recommendations for action.
  I think the House should be considering mandating such a study--not 
passing legislation that won't address gas prices and that gives EPA 
unlimited authority that could be used to weaken important clean air 
protections. But because no amendments are permitted, that proposal 
cannot even be considered in connection with this bill. So, I cannot 
support it.

[[Page E1148]]



                          ____________________