Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 130 (Friday, October 7, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 130 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8750-H8778]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GASOLINE FOR AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2005

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 481, I
call up the bill (H.R. 3893) to expedite the construction of new
refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and
affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
481, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 3893

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Gasoline
for America's Security Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--INCREASING REFINERY CAPACITY

Sec. 101. State participation and presidential designation.
Sec. 102. Process coordination and rules of procedure.
Sec. 103. Refinery revitalization repeal.
Sec. 104. Standby support for refineries.
Sec. 105. Military use refinery.
Sec. 106. New source review under Clean Air Act.
Sec. 107. Waiver authority for extreme fuel supply emergencies.
Sec. 108. List of fuel blends.
Sec. 109. Attainment dates for downwind ozone nonattainment areas.
Sec. 110. Northwest crude oil supply.
Sec. 111. Discounted sales of royalty-in-kind oil to qualified small
refineries.
Sec. 112. Study and Report Relating to Streamlining Paperwork
Requirements.

TITLE II--INCREASING DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE

Sec. 201. Process coordination; hearings; rules of procedure.
Sec. 202. Issuance of Commission order.
Sec. 203. Backup power capacity.
Sec. 204. Sunset of loan guarantees.
Sec. 205. Offshore gathering pipelines.
Sec. 206. Savings clause.

TITLE III--CONSERVATION

Sec. 301. Department of Energy carpooling and vanpooling program.
Sec. 302. Evaluation and assessment of carpool and vanpool projects.
Sec. 303. Internet utilization.
Sec. 304. Fuel consumption education campaign.

TITLE IV--GASOLINE PRICE REFORM

Sec. 401. FTC investigation on price-gouging.
Sec. 402. FTC study of petroleum prices on exchange.

TITLE V--STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Sec. 501. Strategic Petroleum Reserve capacity.
Sec. 502. Strategic petroleum reserve sale.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) No new refinery has been constructed in the United
States since 1976. There are 148 operating refineries in the
United States, down from 324 in 1981. Refined petroleum
product imports are currently projected to grow from 7.9
percent to 10.7 percent of total refined product by 2025 to
satisfy increasing demand.
(2) While the number of American refineries in operation
has reduced over the last 20 years, much of the resulting
lost capacity has been replaced by gains from more efficient
refineries.
(3) Hurricanes Katrina and Rita substantially disrupted
petroleum production, refining, and pipeline systems in the
Gulf Coast region, impacting energy prices and supply
nationwide. In the immediate aftermath of Katrina alone,
United States refining capacity was reduced by more than
2,000,000 barrels per day. However, before Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, United States refining capacity was already
significantly strained by increased levels of production,
with industry average utilization rates of 95 percent of
capacity or higher.
(4) It serves the national interest to increase refinery
capacity for gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel
wherever located within the United States, to bring more
reliable and economic supply to the American people.
(5) According to economic analysis, households are
conservatively estimated to spend an average of $1,948 this
year on gasoline, up 45 percent from 3 years ago, and
households with incomes under $15,000 (\1/5\ of all
households) this year will spend, on average, more than \1/
10\ of their income just on gasoline.
(6) According to economic analysis, rural Americans will
spend $2,087 on gasoline this year. Rural Americans are
paying an estimated 22 percent more for gasoline than their
urban counterparts because they must drive longer distances.
(7) A growing reliance on foreign sources of refined
petroleum products impairs our national security interests
and global competitiveness.
(8) Refiners are subject to significant environmental and
other regulations and face several new Clean Air Act
requirements over the next decade. New Clean Air Act
requirements will benefit the environment but will also
require substantial capital investment and additional
government permits. These new requirements increase business
uncertainty and dissuade investment in new refinery capacity.
(9) There is currently a lack of coordination in permitting
requirements and other regulations affecting refineries at
the Federal, State, and local levels. There is no consistent
national permitting program for refineries, compared with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's lead agency role over
interstate natural gas pipelines, liquefied natural gas, and
hydroelectric power and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
role over nuclear plant licensing. More regulatory certainty
and coordination is needed for refinery owners to stimulate
investment in increased refinery capacity.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency;
(2) the term ``refinery'' means a facility designed and
operated to receive, load, unload, store, transport, process,
and refine crude oil by any chemical or physical process,
including distillation, fluid catalytic cracking,
hydrocracking, coking, alkylation, etherification,
polymerization, catalytic reforming, isomerization,
hydrotreating, blending, and any combination thereof, in
order to produce gasoline or other fuel; and
(3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.

[[Page H8751]]

TITLE I--INCREASING REFINERY CAPACITY

SEC. 101. STATE PARTICIPATION AND PRESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION.

(a) Federal-State Regulatory Coordination and Assistance.--
(1) Governor's request.--The governor of a State may submit
a request to the Secretary for the application of process
coordination and rules of procedure under section 102 to the
siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any refinery
in that State.
(2) State assistance.--The Secretary and the Administrator
are authorized to provide financial assistance to State
governments to facilitate the hiring of additional personnel
with expertise in fields relevant to consideration of
applications to site, construct, expand, or operate any
refinery in that State.
(3) Other assistance.--The Secretary and the Administrator
shall provide technical, legal, or other assistance to State
governments to facilitate their review of applications to
site, construct, expand, or operate any refinery in that
State.
(b) Presidential Designation.--
(1) Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall designate sites on
Federal lands, including closed military installations, that
are appropriate for the purposes of siting a refinery. Any
such designation may be based on an analysis of--
(A) the availability of crude oil supplies to the site,
including supplies from domestic production of shale oil and
tar sands and other strategic unconventional fuels;
(B) the distribution of the Nation's refined petroleum
product demand;
(C) whether such sites are in close proximity to
substantial pipeline infrastructure, including both crude and
refined petroleum product pipelines, and potential
infrastructure feasibility;
(D) the need to diversify the geographical location of the
Nation's domestic refining capacity;
(E) the effect that increased refined petroleum products
from a refinery on that site may have on the price and supply
of gasoline to consumers;
(F) national defense; and
(G) such other factors as the President considers
appropriate.
(2) Military installations.--Among the sites designated
pursuant to this subsection, the President shall designate no
less than 3 military installations closed pursuant to a base
closure law (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of title 10,
United States Code), as suitable for the construction of a
refinery. Until the expiration of 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal Government shall not sell
or otherwise dispose of the military installations designated
pursuant to this subsection.
(c) Applicability.--Section 102 shall only apply to
refineries sited or proposed to be sited or expanded or
proposed to be expanded--
(1) in a State whose governor has requested applicability
of such section pursuant to subsection (a) of this section;
or
(2) on a site designated by the President under subsection
(b).
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``Federal lands'' means all land owned by the
United States, except that such term does not include land--
(A) within the National Park System;
(B) within the National Wilderness Preservation System; and
(C) designated as a National Monument; and
(2) the term ``State'' means a State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.

SEC. 102. PROCESS COORDINATION AND RULES OF PROCEDURE.

The failure of an agency or official to act on a Federal
refinery authorization in accordance with the Secretary's
schedule established pursuant to subsection (c) shall be
considered inconsistent with Federal law for the purposes of
paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(2) Court action.--If the Court finds that an order or
action described in paragraph (1)(A) is inconsistent with the
Federal law governing such Federal refinery authorization, or
that a failure to act as described in paragraph (1)(B) has
occurred, and the order, action, or failure to act would
prevent the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of
the refinery, the Court shall remand the proceeding to the
agency or official to take appropriate action consistent with
the order of the Court. If the Court remands the order,
action, or failure to act to the Federal or State
administrative agency or official, the Court shall set a
reasonable schedule and deadline for the agency or official
to act on remand.
(3) Secretary's action.--For any civil action brought under
this subsection, the Secretary shall promptly file with the
Court the consolidated record compiled by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (d).
(4) Expedited review.--The Court shall set any civil action
brought under this subsection for expedited consideration.
(5) Attorney's fees.--In any action challenging a Federal
refinery authorization that has been granted, reasonable
attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation shall be
awarded to the prevailing party. This paragraph shall not
apply to any action seeking remedies for denial of a Federal
refinery authorization or failure to act on an application
for a Federal refinery authorization.

SEC. 103. REFINERY REVITALIZATION REPEAL.

Subtitle H of title III of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
and the items relating thereto in the table of contents of
such Act are repealed.

SEC. 104. STANDBY SUPPORT FOR REFINERIES.

(a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``authorization'' means any authorization or permit required
under State or Federal law.
(b) Contract Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into contracts
under this section with non-Federal entities that the
Secretary determines, at the sole discretion of the
Secretary, to be the first non-Federal entities to enter into
firm contracts after the date of enactment of this Act to
construct new refineries in the United States or refurbish
and return to commercial operation existing but nonoperating
refineries in the United States. The Secretary may enter into
contracts under this section with respect to new refineries
or refurbished refineries that add a total of no more than
2,000,000 barrels per day of refining capacity to the
refining capacity of the United States as in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Conditions.--Except as provided in paragraphs (4) and
(5), under a contract authorized under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall pay to the non-Federal entity the costs
specified in paragraph (3), using funds deposited in the
Standby Refinery Support Account established under subsection
(c), if--
(A) the non-Federal entity has substantially completed
construction of the new refinery or the refurbished refinery
and the initial commercial operation of the new refinery or
of the refurbished refinery is delayed because of--
(i) litigation that could not have been reasonably foreseen
by the non-Federal entity at the time the non-Federal entity
entered into the firm contract to construct; or
(ii) a failure of an agency of the Federal Government or of
a State government to grant an authorization within a period
specified in the contract authorized by this section; or
(B) the throughput level of commercial operation of the new
or refurbished refinery is substantially reduced due to--
(i) State or Federal law or regulations enacted or
implemented after the firm contract was entered into; or

[[Page H8752]]

(ii) litigation, that could not have been reasonably
foreseen by the non-Federal entity, disputing actions taken
by the non-Federal entity to conform with and satisfy Federal
law or regulations enacted or implemented after the firm
contract was entered into.
(3) Covered costs.--Under a contract authorized under this
section, the Secretary shall pay--
(A) in the case of a delay described in paragraph (2)(A),
all costs of the delay in the initial commercial operation of
a new refining or a refurbished refinery, including the
principal or interest due on any debt obligation of the new
refinery or of the refurbished refinery during the delay, and
any consequential damages; and
(B) in the case of a substantial reduction described in
paragraph (2)(B), all costs necessary to offset the costs of
the reduced throughput and the costs of complying with the
new State or Federal law or regulations.
(4) Costs not covered.--The Secretary shall not enter into
a contract under this section that would obligate the
Secretary to pay any costs resulting from--
(A) except as provided in paragraph (3)(B), a failure of
the non-Federal entity to take any action required by law or
regulation; or
(B) events within the control of the non-Federal entity.
(5) Deposit.--The Secretary shall not enter into a contract
authorized under this section until the Secretary has
deposited into the Standby Refinery Support Account amounts
sufficient to cover the costs specified in paragraph (3).
(c) Standby Refinery Support Account.--There is established
in the Treasury an account known as the Standby Refinery
Support Account. The Secretary shall deposit into this
account amounts appropriated, in advance of entering into a
contract authorized by this section, to the Secretary for the
purpose of carrying out this section and payments paid to the
Secretary by any non-Federal source for the purpose of
carrying out this section. The Secretary may receive and
accept payments from any non-Federal source, and amounts
deposited into the account, whether appropriated or received
from a non-Federal source, shall be available to the
Secretary, without further appropriation, for the payment of
the costs specified in subsection (b)(3).
(d) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue regulations
necessary or appropriate to carry out this section.
(e) Reports.--The Secretary shall file with Congress
annually a report of the Secretary's activities under this
section and the activities of the non-Federal entity under
any contract entered into under this section.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as are
necessary to carry out this section.
(g) Applicability.--This section shall only apply to
refineries sited or proposed to be sited--
(1) in a State whose governor has requested applicability
of this section; or
(2) on a site designated by the President under section
101(a).

SEC. 105. MILITARY USE REFINERY.

(a) Authorization.--The President may authorize the design
of, obtain all necessary Federal refinery authorizations for,
acquire an appropriate site for, and authorize the
construction and operation of a refinery for the purpose of
manufacturing petroleum products for consumption by the Armed
Forces of the United States. A refinery constructed under
this section shall be located at a site designated by the
President under section 101(b).
(b) Solicitation for Design and Construction.--The
President shall solicit proposals for the design and
construction of a refinery under this section. In selecting a
proposal under this subsection, the President shall
consider--
(1) the ability of the applicant to undertake and complete
the project;
(2) the extent to which the applicant's proposal serves the
purposes of the project; and
(3) the ability of the applicant to best satisfy the
criteria set forth in subsection (c).
(c) Refinery Criteria.--A refinery constructed under this
section shall meet or exceed the industry average for--
(1) construction efficiencies; and
(2) operational efficiencies, including cost efficiencies.
(d) Operation.--When all design, Federal refinery
authorization, acquisition, and construction activities are
completed with respect to a refinery under this section, the
President shall offer for sale or lease the rights to operate
such refinery. If the President is unable to sell or lease
the right to operate the refinery, it shall be operated by
the Federal Government.
(e) Use of Products.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), all
petroleum products manufactured at a refinery constructed
under this section shall be for use by the Armed Forces of
the United States.
(2) Exception.--The Secretary of Energy, at the direction
of the President, may sell any portion of the petroleum
products manufactured at the refinery that are not needed for
the purposes described in paragraph (1) in private markets at
the products' fair market value.

SEC. 106. NEW SOURCE REVIEW UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT.

(a) Rulemaking.--Considering the devastation brought about
by the recent natural disasters, and the adverse impact of
such disasters on the United States energy markets, including
both the availability and the price of energy, the
Administrator shall initiate a rulemaking, to issue guidance,
and to take all other appropriate steps to reform, as
expeditiously as practicable, the New Source Review programs
under title I, parts C and D of the Clean Air Act. Taking
into account the urgent need to increase the efficiency and
availability and to improve the reliability of the energy
supply to consumers and industrial sources, and to secure a
decrease in energy prices, the Administrator, in undertaking
these reform efforts, should utilize and draw upon the
maximum legal flexibility available under existing law, in
order to enable energy industry facilities, including, but
not limited to, refineries, electric power generating
stations, and compressor stations, to undertake without
hindrance, promptly and in the least-cost manner, projects to
maintain, to restore, and to improve the efficiency, the
reliability, or the availability of such facilities.
(b) Definition.--Section 302 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7602) is amended by adding the following new
subsection at the end thereof:
``(aa) Physical Change, or Change in the Method of
Operation of Existing Emissions Unit.--For purposes of parts
C and D of this title, the term `physical change, or change
in the method of operation of,' as applied to an existing
emissions unit, means a `modification' as defined in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e), and (h) of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, section 60.14 (as in effect on
September 22, 2005), except that paragraph (h) shall apply to
all industrial categories and paragraph (e)(1) shall include
all repairs and replacements covered by section 51.166(y) of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on
December 31, 2004).''.

SEC. 107. WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR EXTREME FUEL SUPPLY
EMERGENCIES.

Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating the second clause (v) as clause
(viii);
(2) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vii);
(3) by inserting after clause (iv) the following:
``(v)(I) For the purpose of alleviating an extreme and
unusual fuel or fuel additive supply emergency resulting from
a natural disaster, the President, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Secretary of Energy--
``(aa) may temporarily waive any control or prohibition
respecting the use of a fuel or fuel additive required by
this section; and
``(bb) may preempt and temporarily waive any related or
equivalent control or prohibition respecting the use of a
fuel or fuel additive prescribed by a State or local statute
or regulation, including any such requirement in a State
implementation plan.
``(II) The effective period of a waiver under this clause
shall be the time period necessary to permit the correction
of the extreme and unusual fuel or fuel additive supply
emergency caused by the natural disaster.''; and
(4) by inserting after clause (v) (as inserted by paragraph
(3)) the following:
``(vi) A State shall not be subject to any finding,
disapproval, or determination by the Administrator under
section 179, no person may bring an action against a State or
the Administrator under section 304, and the Administrator
shall not take any action under section 110(c) to require the
revision of an applicable implementation plan, because of any
emissions attributable to a waiver granted by the
Administrator under clause (ii) or by the President under
clause (v).''.

SEC. 108. LIST OF FUEL BLENDS.

(a) List of Blends.--Section 211(c)(4)(C)(viii) of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(viii)), as so
redesignated by section 107(1) of this Act, is amended--
(1) by striking subclauses (I) through (V);
(2) by redesignating subclause (VI) as subclause (V); and
(3) by inserting the following before subclause (V), as so
redesignated by paragraph (2) of this subsection:
``(I) The Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary
of Energy (hereinafter in this clause referred to as the
`Secretary'), shall identify and publish in the Federal
Register, within 12 months after the enactment of this
subclause and after notice and opportunity for public
comment, a list of 6 gasoline and diesel fuel blends to be
used in States that have not received a waiver under section
209(b) of this Act or any State dependent on refineries in
such State for gasoline or diesel fuel supplies. The list
shall be referred to as the `Federal Fuels List' and shall
include one Federal diesel fuel, one alternative diesel fuel
blend approved under this subparagraph before enactment of
this subclause, one conventional gasoline for ozone
attainment areas, one reformulated gasoline (RFG) meeting the
requirements of subsection (k), and 2 additional gasoline
blends with Reid vapor pressure (RVP) controls for use in
ozone nonattainment areas of varying degrees of severity.
None of the fuel blends identified under this subclause shall
control fuel sulfur or toxics levels beyond levels required
by regulations of the Administrator.
``(II) Gasoline and diesel fuel blends shall be included on
the Federal Fuels List based on the Administrator's analysis
of their ability to reduce ozone emissions to assist States
in attaining established ozone standards under this Act, and
on an analysis by

[[Page H8753]]

the Secretary that the adoption of the Federal Fuels List
will not result in a reduction in supply or in producibility,
including that caused by a reduction in domestic refining
capacity triggered by this clause. In the event the Secretary
concludes that adoption of the Federal Fuels List will result
in a reduction in supply or in producibility, the
Administrator and the Secretary shall report that conclusion
to Congress, and suspend implementation of this clause. The
Administrator and the Secretary shall conduct the study
required under section 1541(c) of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 on the timetable required in that section to provide
Congress with legislative recommendations for modifications
to the proposed Federal Fuels List only if the Secretary
concludes that adoption of the Federal Fuels List will result
in a reduction in supply or in producibility.
``(III) Upon publication of the Federal Fuels List, the
Administrator shall have no authority, when considering a
State implementation plan or State implementation plan
revision, to approve under this subparagraph any fuel
included in such plan or plan revision if the fuel proposed
is not one of the fuels included on the Federal Fuels List;
or to approve such plan or revision unless, after
consultation with the Secretary, the Administrator publishes
in the Federal Register, after notice and opportunity for
public comment, a finding that, in the Administrator's
judgment, such revisions to newly adopt one of the fuels
included on the Federal Fuels List will not cause fuel supply
or distribution interruptions or have a significant adverse
impact on fuel producibility in the affected area or
contiguous area. The Administrator's findings shall include
an assessment of reasonably foreseeable supply distribution
emergencies that could occur in the affected area or
contiguous area and how adoption of the particular fuel
revision would effect supply opportunities during reasonably
foreseeable supply distribution emergencies.
``(IV) The Administrator, in consultation with the
Secretary, shall develop a plan to harmonize the currently
approved fuel blends in State implementation plans with the
blends included on the Federal Fuels List and shall
promulgate implementing regulations for this plan not later
than 18 months after enactment of this subclause. This
harmonization shall be fully implemented by the States by
December 31, 2008.''.
(b) Study.--Section 1541(c)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Focus of study.--The primary focus of the study
required under paragraph (1) shall be to determine how to
develop a Federal fuels system that maximizes motor fuel
fungibility and supply, preserves air quality standards, and
reduces motor fuel price volatility that results from the
proliferation of boutique fuels, and to recommend to Congress
such legislative changes as are necessary to implement such a
system. The study should include the impacts on overall
energy supply, distribution, and use as a result of the
legislative changes recommended. The study should include an
analysis of the impact on ozone emissions and supply of a
mandatory reduction in the number of fuel blends to 6,
including one Federal diesel fuel, one alternative diesel
fuel blend, one conventional gasoline for ozone attainment
areas, one reformulated gasoline (RFG) meeting the
requirements of subsection (k), and 2 additional gasoline
blends with Reid vapor pressure (RVP) controls for use in
ozone nonattainment areas of varying degrees of severity.''.

SEC. 109. ATTAINMENT DATES FOR DOWNWIND OZONE NONATTAINMENT
AREAS.

Section 181 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.7511) is amended
by adding the following new subsection at the end thereof:
``(d) Extended Attainment Date for Certain Downwind
Areas.--
``(1) Definitions.--
``(A) The term `upwind area' means an area that--
``(i) affects nonattainment in another area, hereinafter
referred to as a downwind area; and
``(ii) is either--

``(I) a nonattainment area with a later attainment date
than the downwind area, or
``(II) an area in another State that the Administrator has
found to be significantly contributing to nonattainment in
the downwind area in violation of section 110(a)(2)(D) and
for which the Administrator has established requirements
through notice and comment rulemaking to eliminate the
emissions causing such significant contribution.

``(B) The term `current classification' means the
classification of a downwind area under this section at the
time of the determination under paragraph.
``(2) Extension.--Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsection (b)(2) of this section, a downwind area that is
not in attainment within 18 months of the attainment deadline
required under this section may seek an extension of time to
come into attainment by petitioning the Administrator for
such an extension. If the Administrator--
``(A) determines that any area is a downwind area with
respect to a particular national ambient air quality standard
for ozone;
``(B) approves a plan revision for such area as provided in
paragraph (3) prior to a reclassification under subsection
(b)(2)(A); and
``(C) determines that the petitioning downwind area has
demonstrated that it is affected by transport from an upwind
area to a degree that affects the area's ability to attain,

the Administrator, in lieu of such reclassification, may
extend the attainment date for such downwind area for such
standard in accordance with paragraph (5).
``(3) Approval.--In order to extend the attainment date for
a downwind area under this subsection, the Administrator may
approve a revision of the applicable implementation plan for
the downwind area for such standard that--
``(A) complies with all requirements of this Act applicable
under the current classification of the downwind area,
including any requirements applicable to the area under
section 172(c) for such standard;
``(B) includes any additional measures needed to
demonstrate attainment by the extended attainment date
provided under this subsection, and provides for
implementation of those measures as expeditiously as
practicable; and
``(C) provides appropriate measures to ensure that no area
downwind of the area receiving the extended attainment date
will be affected by transport to a degree that affects the
area's ability to attain, from the area receiving the
extension.
``(4) Prior reclassification determination.--If, after
April 1, 2003, and prior to the time the 1-hour ozone
standard no longer applies to a downwind area, the
Administrator made a reclassification determination under
subsection (b)(2)(A) for such downwind area, and the
Administrator approves a plan consistent with subparagraphs
(A) and (B) for such area, the reclassification shall be
withdrawn and, for purposes of implementing the 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard, the area shall be
treated as if the reclassification never occurred. Such plan
must be submitted no later than 12 months following enactment
of this subsection--
``(A) the plan revision for the downwind area complies with
all control and planning requirements of this Act applicable
under the classification that applied immediately prior to
reclassification, including any requirements applicable to
the area under section 172(c) for such standard; and
``(B) the plan includes any additional measures needed to
demonstrate attainment no later than the date on which the
last reductions in pollution transport that have been found
by the Administrator to significantly contribute to
nonattainment are required to be achieved by the upwind area
or areas.

The attainment date extended under this paragraph shall
provide for attainment of such national ambient air quality
standard for ozone in the downwind area as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the end of the first complete
ozone season following the date on which the last reductions
in pollution transport that have been found by the
Administrator to significantly contribute to nonattainment
are required to be achieved by the upwind area or areas.
``(5) Extended date.--The attainment date extended under
this subsection shall provide for attainment of such national
ambient air quality standard for ozone in the downwind area
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the new
date that the area would have been subject to had it been
reclassified under subsection (b)(2).
``(6) Rulemaking.--Within 12 months after the enactment of
this subsection, the Administrator shall, through notice and
comment, promulgate rules to define the term `affected by
transport to a degree that affects an areas ability to
attain' in order to ensure that downwind areas are not
unjustly penalized, and for purposes of paragraphs (2) and
(3) of this subsection.''.

SEC. 110. NORTHWEST CRUDE OIL SUPPLY.

Section 5(b) of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 1978 to carry out the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972'', enacted October 18, 1977
(Public Law 95-136) is amended by striking ``for consumption
in the State of Washington''.

SEC. 111. DISCOUNTED SALES OF ROYALTY-IN-KIND OIL TO
QUALIFIED SMALL REFINERIES.

(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior shall issue
and begin implementing regulations by not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, under which the
Secretary of the Interior shall charge a discounted price in
any sale to a qualified small refinery of crude oil obtained
by the United States as royalty-in-kind.
(b) Amount of Discount.--The regulations shall provide that
the amount of any discount applied pursuant to this section
in any sale of crude oil to a qualified small refinery--
(1) shall reflect the actual costs of transporting such oil
from the point of origin to the qualified small refinery; and
(2) shall not exceed $4.50 per barrel of oil sold.
(c) Termination of Discount.--This section and any
regulations issued under this section shall not apply on and
after any date on which the Secretary of Energy determines
that United States domestic refining capacity is sufficient.
(d) Qualified Small Refinery.--In this section the term
``qualified small refinery'' means a refinery of a small
business refiner (as that term is defined in section
45H(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that
demonstrates to the Secretary of the Interior that it had
unused crude oil processing capacity in 2004.

SEC. 112. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO STREAMLINING PAPERWORK
REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall study

[[Page H8754]]

ways to streamline the paperwork requirements associated with
title V of the Clean Air Act and corresponding requirements
under State laws, particularly with regard to States that
have more stringent requirements than the Federal Government
in this area.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall report to
Congress the results of the study made under subsection (a),
together with recommendations on how to streamline those
paperwork requirements.

TITLE II--INCREASING DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE

SEC. 201. PROCESS COORDINATION; HEARINGS; RULES OF PROCEDURE.

(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this title--
(1) the term ``Commission'' means the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission; and
(2) the term ``Federal pipeline authorization''--
(A) means any authorization required under Federal law,
whether administered by a Federal or State administrative
agency or official, with respect to siting, construction,
expansion, or operation of a crude oil or refined petroleum
product pipeline facility in interstate commerce; and
(B) includes any permits, special use authorizations,
certifications, opinions, or other approvals required under
Federal law with respect to siting, construction, expansion,
or operation of a crude oil or refined petroleum product
pipeline facility in interstate commerce.
(b) Commission Authorization Required.--
(1) Requirement.--No person shall site, construct, expand,
or operate a crude oil or refined petroleum product pipeline
facility in interstate commerce without an order from the
Commission authorizing such action.
(2) Notice and hearing.--Upon the filing of an application
to site, construct, expand, or operate a crude oil or refined
petroleum product pipeline facility in interstate commerce,
the Commission shall--
(A) set the matter for hearing;
(B) give reasonable notice of the hearing to all interested
persons;
(C) decide the matter in accordance with this title; and
(D) issue or deny the appropriate order accordingly.
(c) Designation as Lead Agency.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall act as the lead
agency for the purposes of coordinating all applicable
Federal pipeline authorizations and for the purposes of
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to a crude oil or
refined petroleum product pipeline facility.
(2) Other agencies.--Each Federal and State agency or
official required to provide Federal pipeline authorization
shall cooperate with the Commission and comply with the
deadlines established by the Commission.
(d) Schedule.--
(1) Commission's authority to set schedule.--The Commission
shall establish a schedule for all Federal pipeline
authorizations with respect to a crude oil or refined
petroleum product pipeline facility. In establishing the
schedule, the Commission shall--
(A) ensure expeditious completion of all such proceedings;
and
(B) accommodate the applicable schedules established by
Federal law for such proceedings.
(2) Failure to meet schedule.--If a Federal or State
administrative agency or official does not complete a
proceeding for an approval that is required for a Federal
pipeline authorization in accordance with the schedule
established by the Commission under this subsection, the
applicant may pursue remedies under subsection (f).
(e) Consolidated Record.--The Commission shall, with the
cooperation of Federal and State administrative agencies and
officials, maintain a complete consolidated record of all
decisions made or actions taken by the Commission or by a
Federal administrative agency or officer (or State
administrative agency or officer acting under delegated
Federal authority) with respect to any Federal pipeline
authorization. Such record shall be the record for judicial
review under subsection (f) of decisions made or actions
taken by Federal and State administrative agencies and
officials, except that, if the Court determines that the
record does not contain sufficient information, the Court may
remand the proceeding to the Commission for further
development of the consolidated record.
(f) Judicial Review.--
(1) In general.--The United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over any civil action for the review of--
(A) an order or action related to a Federal pipeline
authorization by a Federal or State administrative agency or
official; and
(B) an alleged failure to act by a Federal or State
administrative agency or official acting pursuant to a
Federal pipeline authorization.
The failure of an agency or official to act on a Federal
pipeline authorization in accordance with the Commission's
schedule established pursuant to subsection (d) shall be
considered inconsistent with Federal law for the purposes of
paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(2) Court action.--If the Court finds that an order or
action described in paragraph (1)(A) is inconsistent with the
Federal law governing such Federal pipeline authorization, or
that a failure to act as described in paragraph (1)(B) has
occurred, and the order, action, or failure to act would
prevent the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of
the crude oil or refined petroleum product pipeline facility,
the Court shall remand the proceeding to the agency or
official to take appropriate action consistent with the order
of the Court. If the Court remands the order, action, or
failure to act to the Federal or State administrative agency
or official, the Court shall set a reasonable schedule and
deadline for the agency or official to act on remand.
(3) Commission's action.--For any civil action brought
under this subsection, the Commission shall promptly file
with the Court the consolidated record compiled by the
Commission pursuant to subsection (e).
(4) Expedited review.--The Court shall set any civil action
brought under this subsection for expedited consideration.
(5) Attorney's fees.--In any action challenging a Federal
pipeline authorization that has been granted, reasonable
attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation shall be
awarded to the prevailing party. This paragraph shall not
apply to any action seeking remedies for denial of a Federal
pipeline authorization or failure to act on an application
for a Federal pipeline authorization.

SEC. 202. ISSUANCE OF COMMISSION ORDER.

(a) Criteria.--Upon application by a qualified applicant,
the Commission shall issue an order authorizing, in whole or
in part, the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of
a crude oil or refined petroleum product pipeline facility in
interstate commerce--
(1) unless the Commission finds that such actions or
operations will not be consistent with the public interest;
and
(2) if the Commission has found that the applicant is--
(A) able and willing to carry out the actions and
operations proposed; and
(B) willing to conform to any terms, conditions, or other
requirements of the Commission under this section.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--The Commission may by its order
grant an application, in whole or in part, with such
modification and upon such terms and conditions as the
Commission may find necessary or appropriate.
(c) Rights-of-Way.--When any holder of an order from the
Commission under this section cannot acquire by contract, or
is unable to agree with the owner of property to the
compensation to be paid for--
(1) the necessary right-of-way to site, construct, operate,
and maintain a pipeline or pipelines for the transportation
of crude oil or refined petroleum products; and
(2) the necessary land or other property for the location
of compressor stations, pressure apparatus, or other stations
or equipment necessary to the proper operation of such
pipeline or pipelines,

the holder of the order may acquire such property by the
exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court
of the United States for the district in which such property
may be located, or in the State courts. The practice and
procedure in any action or proceeding under this subsection
in the district court of the United States shall conform as
nearly as may be with the practice and procedure in similar
action or proceeding in the courts of the State where the
property is situated.

SEC. 203. BACKUP POWER CAPACITY.

(a) Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue regulations
requiring the owners or operators of crude oil or refined
petroleum product pipeline facilities that the Secretary
finds to be significant to the Nation's supply needs to
ensure the availability of sufficient backup power capacity,
in areas that have historically been subject to higher
incidents of natural disasters such as hurricanes,
earthquakes, and tornados, to provide for the continued
operation of the pipeline facilities in the event of any
reasonably foreseeable emergency situation.
(b) Suspension of Certain Requirements.--The Administrator
shall promulgate regulations providing for the temporary
suspension, for the duration of an emergency described in
subsection (a), of all or part of any requirement (including
any Federal or State permitting requirement, emissions limit,
or operations limit) in effect under the Clean Air Act or
under any implementation plan in effect under that Act to the
extent that such requirement applies to the process or
equipment necessary to provide backup power capacity under
subsection (a).

SEC. 204. SUNSET OF LOAN GUARANTEES.

Section 116(a) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) The Secretary shall not enter into an agreement under
paragraph (1) or (2) after the date that is 60 days after the
date of enactment of the Gasoline for America's Security Act
of 2005 if the State of Alaska and all interested parties
have not entered into an agreement pursuant to Alaska
Stranded Gas Development Act which contractually binds the
parties to deliver North Slope natural gas to markets via the
proposed Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.''.

SEC. 205. OFFSHORE GATHERING PIPELINES.

Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and to natural gas companies'' and
inserting ``to natural gas companies'';

[[Page H8755]]

(2) by inserting ``, gathering in Federal waters,'' after
``such transportation or sale''; and
(3) by striking ``the production or gathering of natural
gas'' and inserting ``the production of natural gas or to the
gathering onshore or in State waters of natural gas''.

SEC. 206. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

Nothing in this title shall be construed to amend, alter,
or in any way affect the jurisdiction or responsibilities of
the Department of Transportation with respect to pipeline
safety issues under chapter 601 of title 49, United States
Code, or any other law.

TITLE III--CONSERVATION

SEC. 301. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CARPOOLING AND VANPOOLING
PROGRAM.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Metropolitan transit organizations have reported
heightened interest in carpooling and vanpooling projects in
light of recent increases in gasoline prices.
(2) The National Transportation Database reports that, in
2003, American commuters traveled over 440,000 miles using
public transportation vanpools, an increase of 60 percent
since 1996.
(3) According to the Natural Resource Defense Council, if
each commuter car carried just one more passenger once a
week, American gasoline consumption would be reduced by about
2 percent.
(b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall
establish and carry out a program to encourage the use of
carpooling and vanpooling to reduce the consumption of
gasoline. The program shall focus on carpool and vanpool
operations, outreach activities, and marketing programs,
including utilization of the Internet for marketing and
outreach.
(c) Grants to State and Local Governments.--As part of the
program established under subsection (b), the Secretary may
make grants to State and local governments for carpooling or
vanpooling projects. The Secretary may make such a grant only
if at least 50 percent of the costs of the project will be
provided by the State or local government. If a private
sector entity provides vehicles for use in a carpooling or
vanpooling project supported under this subsection, the value
of those vehicles may be counted as part of the State or
local contribution to the project.

SEC. 302. EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF CARPOOL AND VANPOOL
PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary, shall evaluate and assess carpool and van pool
projects funded under the congestion mitigation and air
quality program established under section 149 of title 23,
United States Code, to--
(1) reduce consumption of gasoline;
(2) determine the direct and indirect impact of the
projects on air quality and congestion levels; and
(3) ensure the effective implementation of the projects
under such program.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary, shall submit to Congress a report
including recommendations and findings that would improve the
operation and evaluation of carpool and vanpool projects
funded under the congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program and shall make such report available to
all State and local metropolitan planning organizations.

SEC. 303. INTERNET UTILIZATION.

The program established under section 301 shall include
outreach activities and marketing programs, including the
utilization of the Internet for marketing and outreach, to
encourage, facilitate, provide incentives for, and maintain
carpools and vanpools without regard to any limitation on
operating costs.

SEC. 304. FUEL CONSUMPTION EDUCATION CAMPAIGN.

(a) Partnership.--The Secretary shall enter into a
partnership with interested industry groups to create an
education campaign that provides information to United States
drivers about measures that may be taken to conserve
gasoline.
(b) Accessibility.--The public information campaign shall
be designed to reach the widest audience possible. The
education campaign may include television, print, Internet
website, or any method designed to maximize the dissemination
of gasoline savings information to drivers.
(c) Cost Sharing.--The Secretary shall provide no more than
50 percent of the cost of the campaign created under this
section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary $2,500,000 for carrying
out this section.

TITLE IV--GASOLINE PRICE REFORM

SEC. 401. FTC INVESTIGATION ON PRICE-GOUGING.

Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, does not apply to
the collection of information for the investigation required
by this section.
(b) Subject Companies.--The companies subject to the
investigation required by this section shall be--
(1) any company with total United States wholesale sales of
gasoline and petroleum distillates for calendar year 2004 in
excess of $500,000; and
(2) any retail distributor of gasoline and petroleum
distillates against which multiple formal complaints (that
identify the location of the particular retail distributor
and provide contact information for the complainant) of
price-gouging were filed in August or September 2005, with a
Federal or State consumer protection agency.
(c) Evidence of Price-Gouging.--In conducting its
investigation, the Commission shall treat as evidence of
price-gouging any finding that the average price of gasoline
available for sale to the public in September, 2005, or
thereafter in a market area located in an area designated as
a State or National disaster area because of Hurricane
Katrina, or in any other area where price-gouging complaints
have been filed because of Hurricane Katrina with a Federal
or State consumer protection agency, exceeded the average
price of such gasoline in that area for the month of August,
2005, unless the Commission finds substantial evidence that
the increase is substantially attributable to additional
costs in connection with the production, transportation,
delivery, and sale of gasoline in that area or to national or
international market trends.
(d) Reports.--
(1) Notification to state agencies.--In any areas of
markets in which the Commission determines price increases
are due to factors other than the additional costs, it shall
also notify the appropriate State agency of its findings.
(2) Progress and final reports to congress.--The Commission
shall provide information on the progress of the
investigation to the Appropriations Committees of the House
of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Energy
and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate, every 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act. The Commission shall provide those Committees a written
interim report 90 days after such date, and shall transmit a
final report to those Committees, together with its findings
and recommendations, no later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act. Such reports shall include
recommendations, based on its findings, to for any
legislation necessary to protect consumers from gasoline
price-gouging in both State and National disaster areas and
elsewhere.
(e) Evidence of Criminal Misconduct.--If, during the
investigation required by this section, the Commission
obtains evidence that a person may have violated a criminal
law, the Commission may transmit that evidence to appropriate
Federal or State authorities.

SEC. 402. FTC STUDY OF PETROLEUM PRICES ON EXCHANGE.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall transmit to Congress
a report on the price of refined petroleum products on the
New York Mercantile Exchange and the effects on such price,
if any, of the following:
(1) The geographic size of the delivery market and the
number of delivery points.
(2) The proximity of energy futures markets in relation to
the source of supply.
(3) The specified grade of gasoline deliverable on the
exchange.
(4) The control of the storage and delivery market
infrastructure.
(5) The effectiveness of temporary trading halts and the
monetary threshold for such temporary trading halts.

TITLE V--STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

SEC. 501. STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE CAPACITY.

(a) Authority to Drawdown and Sell Petroleum Products for
Expansion of Reserve.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary may drawdown and sell petroleum products
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to construct, purchase,
lease, or otherwise acquire additional capacity sufficient to
permit filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its maximum
authorized level.
(b) Establishment of SPR Expansion Fund.--The Secretary of
the Treasury shall establish in the Treasury of the United
States an account to be known as the ``SPR Expansion Fund''
(in this section referred to as the ``Fund'') and the
proceeds from any sale pursuant to subsection (a) shall be
deposited into the Fund.
(c) Obligation of Funds for Expansion.--Amounts in the Fund
may be obligated by

[[Page H8756]]

the Secretary to carry out the purposes in subsection (a) to
the extent and in such aggregate amounts as may be
appropriated in advance in appropriations Acts for such
purposes.
(d) Offsetting Collections.--The proceeds from any sale
pursuant to subsection (a) shall be credited to the Fund as
offsetting collections in amounts not to exceed the amounts
annually appropriated from the Fund.

SEC. 502. STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE SALE.

Section 161(e) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6241(e)) is amended by inserting after paragraph
(2) a new paragraph as follows:
``(3) Any contract under which petroleum products are sold
under this section shall include a requirement that the
person or entity that acquires the petroleum products
agrees--
``(A) not to resell the petroleum products before the
products are refined; and
``(B) to refine the petroleum products primarily for
consumption in the United States.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of
House Report 109-245, is adopted.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified,
is as follows:

H.R. 3893

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Gasoline
for America's Security Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--INCREASING REFINERY CAPACITY

Sec. 101. State participation and presidential designation.
Sec. 102. Process coordination and rules of procedure.
Sec. 103. Refinery revitalization repeal.
Sec. 104. Standby support for refineries.
Sec. 105. Military use refinery.
Sec. 106. Waiver authority for extreme fuel supply emergencies.
Sec. 107. List of fuel blends.
Sec. 108. Attainment dates for downwind ozone nonattainment areas.
Sec. 109. Rebates for sales of royalty-in-kind oil to qualified small
refineries.
Sec. 110. Study and report relating to streamlining paperwork
requirements.
Sec. 111. Response to biomass debris emergency.

TITLE II--INCREASING DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE

Sec. 201. Federal-State regulatory coordination.
Sec. 202. Process coordination and rules of procedure.
Sec. 203. Backup power capacity study.
Sec. 204. Sunset of loan guarantees.
Sec. 205. Offshore pipelines.
Sec. 206. Savings clause.

TITLE III--CONSERVATION AND EDUCATION

Sec. 301. Department of Energy carpooling and vanpooling program.
Sec. 302. Evaluation and assessment of carpool and vanpool projects.
Sec. 303. Internet utilization study.
Sec. 304. Fuel consumption education campaign.
Sec. 305. Procurement of energy efficient lighting devices.
Sec. 306. Minority employment.

TITLE IV--GASOLINE PRICE REFORM

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Gasoline price gouging prohibited.
Sec. 403. FTC investigation on price-gouging.
Sec. 404. FTC study of petroleum prices on exchange.

TITLE V--STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Sec. 501. Strategic Petroleum Reserve capacity.
Sec. 502. Strategic Petroleum Reserve sale.
Sec. 503. Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve capacity.

TITLE VI--COMMISSION FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY

Sec. 601. Establishment.
Sec. 602. Duties of Commission.
Sec. 603. Membership.
Sec. 604. Staff of Commission; experts and consultants.
Sec. 605. Powers of Commission.
Sec. 606. Report.

TITLE VII--CRITICAL ENERGY ASSURANCE

Sec. 701. Evacuation plan review.
Sec. 702. Disaster assistance.
Sec. 703. Critical Energy Assurance Account.
Sec. 704. Regulations.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) No new refinery has been constructed in the United
States since 1976. There are 148 operating refineries in the
United States, down from 324 in 1981. Refined petroleum
product imports are currently projected to grow from 7.9
percent to 10.7 percent of total refined product by 2025 to
satisfy increasing demand.
(2) While the number of American refineries in operation
has reduced over the last 20 years, much of the resulting
lost capacity has been replaced by gains from more efficient
refineries.
(3) Hurricanes Katrina and Rita substantially disrupted
petroleum production, refining, and pipeline systems in the
Gulf Coast region, affecting energy prices and supply
nationwide. In the immediate aftermath of Katrina alone,
United States refining capacity was reduced by more than
2,000,000 barrels per day. However, before Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, United States refining capacity was already
significantly strained by increased levels of production,
with industry average utilization rates of 95 percent of
capacity or higher.
(4) It serves the national interest to increase refinery
capacity for gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel
wherever located within the United States, to bring more
reliable and economic supply to the American people.
(5) According to economic analysis, households are
conservatively estimated to spend an average of $1,948 this
year on gasoline, up 45 percent from 3 years ago, and
households with incomes under $15,000 (\1/5\ of all
households) this year will spend, on average, more than \1/
10\ of their income just on gasoline.
(6) According to economic analysis, rural American
households will spend $2,087 on gasoline this year. Rural
Americans are paying an estimated 22 percent more for
gasoline than their urban counterparts because they must
drive longer distances.
(7) A growing reliance on foreign sources of refined
petroleum products impairs our national security interests
and global competitiveness.
(8) Refiners are subject to significant environmental and
other regulations and face several new Clean Air Act
requirements over the next decade. New Clean Air Act
requirements will benefit the environment but will also
require substantial capital investment and additional
government permits. These new requirements increase business
uncertainty and dissuade investment in new refinery capacity.
(9) There is currently a lack of coordination in permitting
requirements and other regulations affecting refineries at
the Federal, State, and local levels. There is no consistent
national permitting program for refineries, compared with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's lead agency role over
interstate natural gas pipelines, liquefied natural gas, and
hydroelectric power and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
role over nuclear plant licensing. More regulatory certainty
and coordination is needed for refinery owners to stimulate
investment in increased refinery capacity.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency;
(2) the term ``refinery'' means--
(A) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process, and refine crude oil by
any chemical or physical process, including distillation,
fluid catalytic cracking, hydrocracking, coking, alkylation,
etherification, polymerization, catalytic reforming,
isomerization, hydrotreating, blending, and any combination
thereof, in order to produce gasoline or other fuel; or
(B) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process, and refine coal by any
chemical or physical process, including liquefaction, in
order to produce gasoline, diesel, or other liquid fuel as
its primary output; and
(3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.
TITLE I--INCREASING REFINERY CAPACITY

SEC. 101. STATE PARTICIPATION AND PRESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION.

[[Page H8757]]

on the price and supply of gasoline to consumers;
(F) ``the impact of locating a refinery on the site on the
readiness and operations of the Armed Forces''; and
(G) such other factors as the President considers
appropriate.
(3) Special rules for closed military installations.--
(A) Designation for consideration as refinery site.--Among
the sites designated pursuant to this subsection, the
President shall designate no less than 3 closed military
installations, or portions thereof, as suitable for the
construction of a refinery.
(B) Effect of designation.--In the case of a closed
military installation, or portion thereof, designated by the
President as a potentially suitable refinery site pursuant to
this subsection--
(i) the redevelopment authority for the installation, in
preparing or revising the redevelopment plan for the
installation, shall consider the feasibility and
practicability of siting a refinery on the installation; and
(ii) the Secretary of Defense, in a managing and disposing
of real property at the installation pursuant to the base
closure law applicable to the installation, shall given
substantial deference to the recommendations of the
redevelopment authority, as contained in the redevelopment
plan for the installation, regarding the siting of a refinery
on the installation.
(c) Use of Designated Sites.--
(1) Lease.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Federal Government shall offer for lease any site designated
by the President under subsection (b) consistent with
procedures for the disposition of such site under applicable
Federal property laws. Notwithstanding any provision of such
Federal property laws providing for the disposition or reuse
of the site, a lease under this paragraph shall be deemed to
be the appropriate disposition of the site. A site shall not
be leased under this paragraph except for the purpose of
construction of a refinery.
(2) Special rules for closed military installations.--
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a closed military
installation. The management and disposal of real property at
a closed military installation, even a closed military
installation or portion thereof found to be suitable for the
siting of a refinery under subsection (b)(3), shall be
carried out in the manner provided by the base closure law
applicable to the installation.
(d) Applicability.--Section 102 shall only apply to a
refinery sited or proposed to be sited or expanded or
proposed to be expanded--
(1) in a State whose governor has requested applicability
of such section pursuant to subsection (a);
(2) on a site (other than a closed military installation or
portion thereof) designated by the President under subsection
(b);
(3) on a closed military installation, or portion thereof,
made available for the siting of a refinery in the manner
provided by the base closure law applicable to the
installation; or
(4) on a site leased by the Secretary of a military
department under section 2667 of title 10, United States
Code, or by the Secretary of Defense under section 2667a of
such title for the siting of a refinery.
(e) Definition.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``base closure law'' means the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) and title II of the
Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and
Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note);
(2) the term ``closed military installation'' means a
military installation closed or approved for closure pursuant
to a base closure law;
(3) the term ``Federal lands'' means all land owned by the
United States, except that such term does not include land--
(A) within the National Park System;
(B) within the National Wilderness Preservation System;
(C) designated as a National Monument; or
(D) under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or
withdrawn from the public domain for use by the Armed Forces
(other than a closed military installation); and
(4) the term ``State'' means a State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.

SEC. 102. PROCESS COORDINATION AND RULES OF PROCEDURE.

(a) Definition.--For purposes of this section and section
105, the term ``Federal refinery authorization''--
(1) means any authorization required under Federal law,
whether administered by a Federal or State administrative
agency or official, with respect to siting, construction,
expansion, or operation of a refinery; and
(2) includes any permits, special use authorizations,
certifications, opinions, or other approvals required under
Federal law with respect to siting, construction, expansion,
or operation of a refinery.
(b) Designation as Lead Agency.--
(1) In general.--The Department of Energy shall act as the
lead agency for the purposes of coordinating all applicable
Federal refinery authorizations and related environmental
reviews with respect to a refinery.
(2) Other agencies.--Each Federal and State agency or
official required to provide a Federal refinery authorization
shall cooperate with the Secretary and comply with the
deadlines established by the Secretary.
(c) Schedule.--
(1) Secretary's authority to set schedule.--The Secretary
shall establish a schedule for all Federal refinery
authorizations with respect to a refinery. In establishing
the schedule, the Secretary shall--
(A) ensure expeditious completion of all such proceedings;
and
(B) accommodate the applicable schedules established by
Federal law for such proceedings.
(2) Failure to meet schedule.--If a Federal or State
administrative agency or official does not complete a
proceeding for an approval that is required for a Federal
refinery authorization in accordance with the schedule
established by the Secretary under this subsection, the
applicant may pursue remedies under subsection (e).
(d) Consolidated Record.--The Secretary shall, with the
cooperation of Federal and State administrative agencies and
officials, maintain a complete consolidated record of all
decisions made or actions taken by the Secretary or by a
Federal administrative agency or officer (or State
administrative agency or officer acting under delegated
Federal authority) with respect to any Federal refinery
authorization. Such record shall be the record for judicial
review under subsection (e) of decisions made or actions
taken by Federal and State administrative agencies and
officials, except that, if the Court determines that the
record does not contain sufficient information, the Court may
remand the proceeding to the Secretary for further
development of the consolidated record.
(e) Judicial Review.--
(1) In general.--The United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over any civil action for the review of--
(A) an order or action, related to a Federal refinery
authorization, by a Federal or State administrative agency or
official; and
(B) an alleged failure to act by a Federal or State
administrative agency or official acting pursuant to a
Federal refinery authorization.
The failure of an agency or official to act on a Federal
refinery authorization in accordance with the Secretary's
schedule established pursuant to subsection (c) shall be
considered inconsistent with Federal law for the purposes of
paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(2) Court action.--If the Court finds that an order or
action described in paragraph (1)(A) is inconsistent with the
Federal law governing such Federal refinery authorization, or
that a failure to act as described in paragraph (1)(B) has
occurred, and the order, action, or failure to act would
prevent the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of
the refinery, the Court shall remand the proceeding to the
agency or official to take appropriate action consistent with
the order of the Court. If the Court remands the order,
action, or failure to act to the Federal or State
administrative agency or official, the Court shall set a
reasonable schedule and deadline for the agency or official
to act on remand.
(3) Secretary's action.--For any civil action brought under
this subsection, the Secretary shall promptly file with the
Court the consolidated record compiled by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (d).
(4) Expedited review.--The Court shall set any civil action
brought under this subsection for expedited consideration.
(5) Attorney's fees.--In any action challenging a Federal
refinery authorization that has been granted, reasonable
attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation shall be
awarded to the prevailing party. This paragraph shall not
apply to any action seeking remedies for denial of a Federal
refinery authorization or failure to act on an application
for a Federal refinery authorization.

SEC. 103. REFINERY REVITALIZATION REPEAL.

Subtitle H of title III of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
and the items relating thereto in the table of contents of
such Act are repealed.

SEC. 104. STANDBY SUPPORT FOR REFINERIES.

[[Page H8758]]

to conform with and satisfy Federal law or regulations
enacted or implemented after the firm contract was entered
into.
(3) Covered costs.--Under a contract authorized under this
section, the Secretary shall pay--
(A) in the case of a delay described in paragraph (2)(A),
all costs of the delay in the initial commercial operation of
a new refining or a refurbished refinery, including the
principal or interest due on any debt obligation of the new
refinery or of the refurbished refinery during the delay, and
any consequential damages; and
(B) in the case of a substantial reduction described in
paragraph (2)(B), all costs necessary to offset the costs of
the reduced throughput and the costs of complying with the
new State or Federal law or regulations.
(4) Costs not covered.--The Secretary shall not enter into
a contract under this section that would obligate the
Secretary to pay any costs resulting from--
(A) except as provided in paragraph (3)(B), a failure of
the non-Federal entity to take any action required by law or
regulation; or
(B) events within the control of the non-Federal entity.
(5) Deposit.--The Secretary shall not enter into a contract
authorized under this section until the Secretary has
deposited into the Standby Refinery Support Account amounts
sufficient to cover the costs specified in paragraph (3).
(c) Standby Refinery Support Account.--There is established
in the Treasury an account known as the Standby Refinery
Support Account. The Secretary shall deposit into this
account amounts appropriated, in advance of entering into a
contract authorized by this section, to the Secretary for
the purpose of carrying out this section and payments paid
to the Secretary by any non-Federal source for the purpose
of carrying out this section. The Secretary may receive
and accept payments from any non-Federal source, which
shall be made available without further appropriation for
the payment of the covered costs.
(d) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue regulations
necessary or appropriate to carry out this section.
(e) Reports.--The Secretary shall file with Congress
annually a report of the Secretary's activities under this
section and the activities of the non-Federal entity under
any contract entered into under this section.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as are
necessary to carry out this section.
(g) Applicability.--This section shall only apply to
refineries sited or proposed to be sited--
(1) in a State whose governor has requested applicability
of this section pursuant to section 101(a)(1); or
(2) on a site designated by the President under section
101(b).

SEC. 105. MILITARY USE REFINERY.

(a) Authorization.--If the President determines that there
is not sufficient refining capacity in the United States, the
President may authorize the design and construction of a
refinery that will be--
(1) located at a site--
(A) designated by the President under section 101(b), other
than a closed military installation or portion thereof; or
(B) on a closed military installation, or portion thereof,
made available for the siting of a refinery in the manner
provided by the base closure law applicable to the
installation;
(2) disposed of in the manner provided in paragraph (1) of
section 101(c) or, in the case of a closed military
installation, or portion thereof, paragraph (2) of such
section; and
(3) reserved for the exclusive purpose of manufacturing
petroleum products for consumption by the Armed Forces.
(b) Solicitation for Design, Construction, and Operation.--
The President shall solicit proposals for the design,
construction, and operation of a refinery ``(or any
combination thereof)'' under this section. In selecting a
proposal or proposals under this subsection, the President
shall consider--
(1) the ability of the applicant to undertake and complete
the project;
(2) the extent to which the applicant's proposal serves the
purposes of the project; and
(3) the ability of the applicant to best satisfy the
criteria set forth in subsection (c).
(c) Refinery Criteria.--A refinery constructed under this
section shall meet or exceed the industry average for--
(1) construction efficiencies; and
(2) operational efficiencies, including cost efficiencies.
(d) Use of Products.--All petroleum products manufactured
at a refinery constructed under this section shall be sold to
the Federal Government at a price not to exceed the fair
market value of the petroleum products,'' for use by the
Armed Forces of the United States.
(e) Funding.--A contract for the design or construction of
a refinery may not be entered into under this section in
advance of the appropriation of funds sufficient for such
purpose. Funds appropriated for the Department or Defense or
for Department of Energy national security programs may not
be used to enter into contracts under this section for the
design, construction, or operation of a refinery. Funds
appropriated for the Department of Defense may be used to
purchase petroleum products manufactured at a refinery
constructed under this section for use by the Armed Forces.
(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms
``base closure law'' and ``closed military installation''
have the meanings given those terms in section 101.

SEC. 106. WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR EXTREME FUEL SUPPLY
EMERGENCIES.

Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating the second clause (v) as clause
(viii);
(2) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vii);
(3) by inserting after clause (iv) the following:
``(v)(I) For the purpose of alleviating an extreme and
unusual fuel or fuel additive supply emergency resulting from
a natural disaster, ``the President, in consultation with the
Administrator and the Secretary of Energy may temporarily
waive any control or prohibition respecting the use of a fuel
or fuel additive required by this subsection or by subsection
(h), (i), (k), or (m); and may, with respect to a State
implementation plan, temporarily waive any equivalent control
or prohibition respecting the use of a fuel or fuel additive
required by this subparagraph. Nothing in this clause shall
be construed to authorize the waiver of, or to affect in any
way, any Federal or State law or regulation pertaining to
ethanol or methyl tertiary butyl ether.''
(4) by inserting after clause (v) (as inserted by paragraph
(3)) the following:
``(vi) A State shall not be subject to any finding,
disapproval, or determination by the Administrator under
section 179, no person may bring an action against a State or
the Administrator under section 304, and the Administrator
shall not take any action under section 110(c) to require the
revision of an applicable implementation plan, because of any
emissions attributable to a waiver granted by the
Administrator under clause (ii) or by the President under
clause (v).''.

SEC. 107. LIST OF FUELS.

(a) List of Fuels.--Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)) is amended as follows:
(1) By redesignating subclause (VI) of clause (viii) (as so
redesignated by section 107(1) of this Act) as clause (x).
(2) In such redesignated clause (x) by striking ``this
clause'' and inserting ``clause (viii) or clause (ix)''.
(3) By inserting the following new subclause at the end of
clause (viii) (as so redesignated by section 107(1) of this
Act):
``(VI) The provisions of this clause, including the
limitations of the authority of the Administrator and the
limit on the total number of fuels permitted, shall remain in
effect until the publication of the list under subclause
(III) of clause (ix).''.
(4) By inserting the following new clause after clause
(viii) (as so redesignated):
``(ix)(I) The Administrator'', in coordination with the
Secretary of Energy (hereinafter in this clause referred to
as the `Secretary'), shall identify and publish in the
Federal Register, within 12 months after the enactment of
this subclause and after notice and opportunity for public
comment, a list of ``6 gasoline and diesel fuels'' to be used
in States that have not received a waiver under section
209(b) of this Act or any State dependent on refineries in
such State for gasoline or diesel fuel supplies. The list
shall be referred to as the `Federal Fuels List' and shall
include one Federal diesel fuel, ``one other diesel fuel'',
one conventional gasoline for ozone attainment areas, one
reformulated gasoline (RFG) meeting the requirements of
subsection (k), and ``2 additional gasolines'' with Reid
vapor pressure (RVP) controls for use in ozone nonattainment
areas of varying degrees of severity. ``None of the fuels''
identified under this subclause shall control fuel sulfur or
toxics levels beyond levels required by regulations of the
Administrator.
``(II) Gasoline and ``diesel fuels'' shall be included on
the Federal Fuels List based on the Administrator's analysis
of their ability to reduce ozone emissions to assist States
in attaining established ozone standards under this Act, and
on an analysis by the Secretary that the adoption of the
Federal Fuels List will not result in a reduction in supply
or in producibility, including that caused by a reduction in
domestic refining capacity triggered by this clause. In the
event the Secretary concludes that adoption of the Federal
Fuels List will result in a reduction in supply or in
producibility, the Administrator and the Secretary shall
report that conclusion to Congress, and suspend
implementation of this clause. The Administrator and the
Secretary shall conduct the study required under section
1541(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on the timetable
required in that section to provide Congress with legislative
recommendations for modifications to the proposed Federal
Fuels List only if the Secretary concludes that adoption of
the Federal Fuels List will result in a reduction in supply
or in producibility.
``(III) Upon publication of the Federal Fuels List, the
Administrator shall have no authority, when considering a
State implementation plan or State implementation plan
revision, to approve under this subparagraph any fuel
included in such plan or plan revision if the fuel proposed
is not one of the fuels included on the Federal Fuels List;
or to approve such plan or revision unless, after
consultation with the Secretary, the Administrator publishes
in the Federal Register, after notice and opportunity for
public comment, a finding that, in the Administrator's
judgment, such revisions to newly adopt one of the fuels
included on the Federal Fuels List will not cause fuel supply
or distribution interruptions or have a significant adverse
impact on fuel producibility in the affected area or
contiguous area. The Administrator's findings shall include
an assessment of reasonably foreseeable supply distribution
emergencies that could occur in the affected area or
contiguous area and how adoption of the particular fuel
revision would effect supply opportunities during reasonably
foreseeable supply distribution emergencies.
``(IV) The Administrator, in consultation with the
Secretary, shall develop a plan to harmonize

[[Page H8759]]

the ``currently approved fuels'' in State implementation
plans with ``the fuels included'' on the Federal Fuels List
and shall promulgate implementing regulations for this plan
not later than 18 months after enactment of this subclause.
This harmonization shall be fully implemented by the States
by December 31, 2008.''.
(b) Study.--Section 1541(c)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Focus of study.--The primary focus of the study
required under paragraph (1) shall be to determine how to
develop a Federal fuels system that maximizes motor fuel
fungibility and supply, preserves air quality standards, and
reduces motor fuel price volatility that results from the
proliferation of boutique fuels, and to recommend to Congress
such legislative changes as are necessary to implement such a
system. The study should include the impacts on overall
energy supply, distribution, and use as a result of the
legislative changes recommended. The study should include an
analysis of the impact on ozone emissions and supply of a
mandatory reduction in ``the number of fuels'' to 6,
including one Federal diesel fuel, ``one other diesel fuel'',
one conventional gasoline for ozone attainment areas, one
reformulated gasoline (RFG) meeting the requirements of
subsection (k), and 2 ``additional gasolines'' with Reid
vapor pressure (RVP) controls for use in ozone nonattainment
areas of varying degrees of severity.''.

SEC. 108. ATTAINMENT DATES FOR DOWNWIND OZONE NONATTAINMENT
AREAS.

Section 181 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511) is
amended by adding the following new subsection at the end
thereof:
``(d) Extended Attainment Date for Certain Downwind
Areas.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) The term `upwind area' means an area that--
``(i) affects nonattainment in another area, hereinafter
referred to as a downwind area; and
``(ii) is either--

``(B) The term `current classification' means the
classification of a downwind area under this section at the
time of the determination under paragraph (2).
``(2) Extension.--Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsection (b)(2) of this section, a downwind area that is
not in attainment within 18 months of the attainment deadline
required under this section may seek an extension of time to
come into attainment by petitioning the Administrator for
such an extension. If the Administrator--
``(A) determines that any area is a downwind area with
respect to a particular national ambient air quality standard
for ozone;
``(B) approves a plan revision for such area as provided in
paragraph (3) prior to a reclassification under subsection
(b)(2)(A); and
``(C) determines that the petitioning downwind area has
demonstrated that it is affected by transport from an upwind
area to a degree that affects the area's ability to attain,

the Administrator, in lieu of such reclassification, may
extend the attainment date for such downwind area for such
standard in accordance with paragraph (5).
``(3) Approval.--In order to extend the attainment date for
a downwind area under this subsection, the Administrator may
approve a revision of the applicable implementation plan for
the downwind area for such standard that--
``(A) complies with all requirements of this Act applicable
under the current classification of the downwind area,
including any requirements applicable to the area under
section 172(c) for such standard;
``(B) includes any additional measures needed to
demonstrate attainment by the extended attainment date
provided under this subsection, and provides for
implementation of those measures as expeditiously as
practicable; and
``(C) provides appropriate measures to ensure that no area
downwind of the area receiving the extended attainment date
will be affected by transport to a degree that affects the
area's ability to attain, from the area receiving the
extension.
``(4) Prior reclassification determination.--If, after
April 1, 2003, and prior to the time the 1-hour ozone
standard no longer applies to a downwind area, the
Administrator made a reclassification determination under
subsection (b)(2)(A) for such downwind area, and the
Administrator approves a plan consistent with subparagraphs
(A) and (B) for such area, the reclassification shall be
withdrawn and, for purposes of implementing the 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard, the area shall be
treated as if the reclassification never occurred. Such plan
must be submitted no later than 12 months following enactment
of this subsection, and--
``(A) the plan revision for the downwind area must comply
with all control and planning requirements of this Act
applicable under the classification that applied immediately
prior to reclassification, including any requirements
applicable to the area under section 172(c) for such
standard; and
``(B) the plan must include any additional measures needed
to demonstrate attainment no later than the date on which the
last reductions in pollution transport that have been found
by the Administrator to significantly contribute to
nonattainment are required to be achieved by the upwind area
or areas.

The attainment date extended under this subsection shall
provide for attainment of such national ambient air quality
standard for ozone in the downwind area as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the end of the first complete
ozone season following the date on which the last
reductions in pollution transport that have been found by
the Administrator to significantly contribute to
nonattainment are required to be achieved by the upwind
area or areas.
``(5) Extended date.--The attainment date extended under
this subsection shall provide for attainment of such national
ambient air quality standard for ozone in the downwind area
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the new
date that the area would have been subject to had it been
reclassified under subsection (b)(2).
``(6) Rulemaking.--Within 12 months after the enactment of
this subsection, the Administrator shall, through notice and
comment, promulgate rules to define the term `affected by
transport to a degree that affects an areas ability to
attain' in order to ensure that downwind areas are not
unjustly penalized, and for purposes of paragraphs (2) and
(3) of this subsection.''.

SEC. 110. REBATES FOR SALES OF ROYALTY-IN-KIND OIL TO
QUALIFIED SMALL REFINERIES.

(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior shall issue
and begin implementing regulations by not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, under which the
Secretary of the Interior shall pay to a qualified small
refinery a rebate for any sale to the qualified small
refinery of crude oil obtained by the United States as
royalty-in-kind.
(b) Amount of Rebate.--The amount of any rebate paid
pursuant to this section with respect to any sale of crude
oil to a qualified small refinery--
(1) shall reflect the actual costs of transporting such oil
from the point of origin to the qualified small refinery; and
(2) shall not exceed $4.50 per barrel of oil sold.
(c) Subject to Appropriations.--The requirement to pay
rebates under this section is subject to the availability of
funds provided in advance in appropriations Acts.
(d) Termination.--This section and any regulations issued
under this section shall not apply on and after any date on
which the Secretary of Energy determines that United States
domestic refining capacity is sufficient.
(e) Qualified Small Refinery Defined.--In this section the
term ``qualified small refinery'' means a refinery of a small
business refiner (as that term is defined in section
45H(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that
demonstrates to the Secretary of the Interior that it had
unused crude oil processing capacity in 2004.

SEC. 111. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO STREAMLINING PAPERWORK
REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Study.--The Administrator shall study ways to
streamline the paperwork requirements associated with title V
of the Clean Air Act and corresponding requirements under
State laws, particularly with regard to States that have more
stringent requirements than the Federal Government in this
area.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall report to
Congress the results of the study made under subsection (a),
together with recommendations on how to streamline those
paperwork requirements.

SEC. 112. RESPONSE TO BIOMASS DEBRIS EMERGENCY.

(a) Use of Biomass Debris as Fuel.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy may authorize
any facility to use as fuel biomass debris if--
(1) the debris results from a major disaster declared in
accordance with section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5170);
(2) the debris is located in the area for which the major
disaster is declared; and
(3) the requirements of subsection (b) are met.
(b) Certification.--A facility described in subsection
(a)--
(1) shall certify to the State in which the facility is
located that no significant impact on meeting national
ambient air quality standards will result and shall propose
emission limits adequate to support such certification; and
(2) may begin burning biomass debris fuel upon filing the
certification required by paragraph (1) unless the State
notifies the facility to the contrary.
(c) Emission Limits.--The State in which a facility
described in subsection (a) is located shall--
(1) adopt (or as appropriate amend) the proposed emission
limits for the biomass burning at the facility; and
(2) retain other existing emissions limits wherever they
are necessary and reasonable.
(d) New Source Review.--No activities needed to qualify a
facility to burn biomass debris as fuel in accordance with
this section shall trigger the requirements of new source
review or new source performance standards under the Clean
Air Act.
TITLE II--INCREASING DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE

SEC. 201. FEDERAL-STATE REGULATORY COORDINATION.

(a) Governor's Request.--The Governor of a State may submit
a request to the Commission for the application of process
coordination and rules of procedure under section 202 to the
siting of a crude oil or refined petroleum product pipeline
facility in that State.
(b) Applicability.--Section 202 shall only apply to crude
oil or refined petroleum product pipeline facilities sited or
proposed to be sited in a State whose Governor has requested
such applicability under subsection (a).

[[Page H8760]]

(c) Interstate Compacts.--(1) The consent of Congress is
given for 2 or more contiguous States to enter into an
interstate compact, subject to approval by Congress,
establishing regional pipeline siting agencies to facilitate
siting of future crude oil or refined petroleum product
pipeline facilities within those States.
(2) The Secretary may provide technical assistance to
regional pipeline siting agencies established under this
subsection.

SEC. 202. PROCESS COORDINATION AND RULES OF PROCEDURE.

The failure of an agency or official to act on a Federal
pipeline authorization in accordance with the Commission's
schedule established pursuant to subsection (c) shall be
considered inconsistent with Federal law for the purposes of
paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(2) Court action.--If the Court finds that an order or
action described in paragraph (1)(A) is inconsistent with the
Federal law governing such Federal pipeline authorization, or
that a failure to act as described in paragraph (1)(B) has
occurred, and the order, action, or failure to act would
prevent the siting of the crude oil or refined petroleum
product pipeline facility, the Court shall remand the
proceeding to the agency or official to take appropriate
action consistent with the order of the Court. If the Court
remands the order, action, or failure to act to the Federal
or State administrative agency or official, the Court shall
set a reasonable schedule and deadline for the agency or
official to act on remand.
(3) Commission's action.--For any civil action brought
under this subsection, the Commission shall promptly file
with the Court the consolidated record compiled by the
Commission pursuant to subsection (d).
(4) Expedited review.--The Court shall set any civil action
brought under this subsection for expedited consideration.
(5) Attorney's fees.--In any action challenging a Federal
pipeline authorization that has been granted, reasonable
attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation shall be
awarded to the prevailing party. This paragraph shall not
apply to any action seeking remedies for denial of a Federal
pipeline authorization or failure to act on an application
for a Federal pipeline authorization.

SEC. 203. BACKUP POWER CAPACITY STUDY.

Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a report
assessing the adequacy of backup power capacity in place as
of the date of enactment of this Act, and the need for any
additional capacity, to provide for the continuing operation
during any reasonably foreseeable emergency situation, of
those crude oil or refined petroleum product pipeline
facilities that the Secretary finds to be significant to the
Nation's supply needs, in areas that have historically been
subject to higher incidents of natural disasters such as
hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornados.

SEC. 204. SUNSET OF LOAN GUARANTEES.

Section 116(a) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) The Secretary shall not enter into an agreement under
paragraph (1) or (2) after the date that is 24 months after
the date of enactment of the Gasoline for America's Security
Act of 2005 if the State of Alaska has not entered into an
agreement pursuant to the Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act
which in good faith contractually binds the parties to
deliver North Slope natural gas to markets via the proposed
Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.''.

SEC. 205. OFFSHORE PIPELINES.

The Natural Gas Act is amended--
(1) in section 1(b) 15 U.S.C. 717(b)) by inserting after
``to the production or'' the following: ``, except as
provided in section 4(g),''; and
(2) in section 4 (15 U.S.C. 717(b)) by adding at the end
the following:
``(g)(1) For the purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `gas service provider' means an entity that
operates a facility located in the outer Continental Shelf
that is used to ``gather or transport natural gas'' on or
across the outer Continental Shelf; and
``(B) the term `outer Continental Shelf' has the meaning
given that term in section 2(a) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(a)).
``(2) All gas service providers shall submit to the
Commission annually the conditions of service for each
shipper served, consisting of--
``(A) the full legal name of the shipper receiving service;
``(B) a notation of shipper affiliation;
``(C) the type of service provided;
``(D) primary receipt points;
``(E) primary delivery points;
``(F) rates between each pair of points; and
``(G) other conditions of service deemed relevant by the
gas service provider.
``(3) This subsection shall not apply to--
``(A) a gas service company that serves exclusively a
single entity (either itself or one other party), until such
time as--
``(i) the gas service provider agrees to serve a second
shipper; or
``(ii) a determination is made that the gas service
provider's denial of a request for service is unjustified;
``(B) a gas service provider that serves exclusively
shippers with ownership interests in both the pipeline
operated by the gas service provider and the gas produced
from a field or fields connected to a single pipeline, until
such time as--
``(i) the gas service provider offers to serve a nonowner
shipper; or
``(ii) a determination is made that the gas service
provider's denial of a request for service is unjustified;
``(C) service rendered over facilities that feed into a
facility where natural gas is first collected, separated,
dehydrated, or otherwise processed; and
``(D) gas service providers' facilities and service
regulated by the Commission under section 7 of this Act.
``(4) When a gas service provider subject to this
subsection alters its affiliates, customers, rates,
conditions of service, or facilities, within any calendar
quarter, it must then file with the Commission, on the first
business day of the subsequent quarter, a revised report
describing the status of its services and facilities.''.

SEC. 206. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

SEC. 301. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CARPOOLING AND VANPOOLING
PROGRAM.

[[Page H8761]]

(d) Considerations.--In making grants for projects under
subsection (c), the Secretary shall consider each of the
following:
(1) The potential of the project to promote oil
conservation.
(2) The contribution of the project to State or local
disaster evacuation plans.
(3) Whether the area in which the project is located is a
nonattainment area (as that term is defined in section 171 of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7501)).

SEC. 302. EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF CARPOOL AND VANPOOL
PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary, shall evaluate and assess carpool and vanpool
projects funded under the congestion mitigation and air
quality program established under section 149 of title 23,
United States Code, to--
(1) reduce consumption of gasoline;
(2) determine the direct and indirect impact of the
projects on air quality and congestion levels; and
(3) ensure the effective implementation of the projects
under such program.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary, shall submit to Congress a report
including recommendations and findings that would improve the
operation and evaluation of carpool and vanpool projects
funded under the congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program and shall make such report available to
all State and local metropolitan planning organizations.

SEC. 303. INTERNET UTILIZATION STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, under the program
established in section 301, shall evaluate the capacity of
the Internet to facilitate carpool and vanpool operations
through--
(1) linking riders with local carpools and vanpools;
(2) providing real-time messaging communication between
drivers and riders;
(3) assisting employers to establish intercompany vanpool
and carpool programs; and
(4) marketing existing vanpool and carpool programs.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report including recommendations and findings that would
improve Internet utilization in carpool and vanpool
operations and shall make such report available to all State
and local metropolitan planning organizations.

SEC. 304. FUEL CONSUMPTION EDUCATION CAMPAIGN.

SEC. 305. PROCUREMENT OF ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING DEVICES.

Section 553(d) of the National Energy Conservation Policy
Act is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) The head of an agency shall procure the most energy
efficient and cost-effective light bulbs or other electrical
lighting products, consistent with safety considerations, for
use in that agency's facilities and buildings.''.

SEC. 306. MINORITY EMPLOYMENT.

Section 385 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Program.--The Secretary of Energy is authorized and
directed to establish a program to encourage minority
students to study the earth sciences and enter the field of
geology in order to qualify for employment in the oil, gas,
and mineral industries. There are authorized to be
appropriated for the program established under the preceding
sentence $10,000,000.''.
TITLE IV--GASOLINE PRICE REFORM

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Gas Price Gouging
Prevention Act''.

SEC. 402. GASOLINE PRICE GOUGING PROHIBITED.

(a) Unlawful Conduct.--During a period of a major disaster,
it shall be unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act for any
person to sell crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, or home
heating oil at a price which constitutes price gouging as
defined by rule pursuant to subsection (b).
(b) Price Gouging.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission
shall promulgate any rules necessary for the enforcement of
this section. Such rules shall define ``price gouging'' for
purposes of this section, and shall be consistent with the
requirements for declaring unfair acts or practices in
section 5(n) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
45(n)).
(c) Enforcement by FTC.--
(1) In general.--A violation of subsection (a) shall be
treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or
deceptive act or practice prescribed under section
18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce
this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with
the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and
provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were
incorporated into and made a part of this section.
(2) Exclusive enforcement.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no person or State or political subdivision
of a State other than the Federal Trade Commission, or the
Attorney General to the extent provided for in section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission Act, shall have any authority to
enforce this section, or any rule prescribed pursuant to this
section.
(d) Penalties.--Any person who violates subsection (a), or
the rules promulgated pursuant to this section, shall be
subject to a civil penalty of not more than $11,000 per
violation.
(e) Definition of Major Disaster.--
(1) Determination.--As used in this section, and for
purposes of any rule promulgated pursuant to this section,
the term ``major disaster'' means a major disaster declared
by the President as defined in section 102(2) of the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5122(2)) that the Secretary of Energy determines to
have substantially disrupted the production, distribution, or
supply of crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, or home heating
oil.
(2) Applicable area and period.--The prohibition in
subsection (a) shall apply to the United States or a specific
geographic region of the United States as determined by the
President and the Secretary of Energy at the time in which a
determination under paragraph (1) is made, and for a period
of 30 days after such determination is made. The President
may extend the prohibition for such additional 30-day periods
as the President determines necessary.

SEC. 403. FTC INVESTIGATION ON PRICE-GOUGING.

(a) Study.--The Federal Trade Commission shall conduct an
investigation into nationwide gasoline prices in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, including any evidence of
price-gouging by subject companies described in subsection
(b). Such investigation shall include--
(1) a comparison of, and analysis of the reasons for
changes in, profit levels of subject companies during the 12-
month period ending on August 31, 2005, and their profit
levels for the month of September, 2005, including
information for particular companies on a basis that does not
permit the identification of any company to which the
information relates;
(2) a summary of tax expenditures (as defined in section
3(3) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622(3)) for such companies;
(3) an examination of the effects of increased gasoline
prices and gasoline price-gouging on economic activity in the
United States;
(4) an analysis of the overall cost of increased gasoline
prices and gasoline price-gouging to the economy, including
the impact on consumers' purchasing power in both declared
State and National disaster areas and elsewhere; and
(5) an analysis of the role and overall cost of credit card
interchange rates on gasoline and diesel fuel retail prices.
(b) Subject Companies.--The companies subject to the
investigation required by this section shall be--
(1) any company with total United States wholesale sales of
gasoline and petroleum distillates for calendar year 2004 in
excess of $500,000,000; and
(2) any retail distributor of gasoline and petroleum
distillates against which multiple formal complaints (that
identify the location of the particular retail distributor
and provide contact information for the complainant) of
price-gouging were filed in August or September 2005, with a
Federal or State consumer protection agency.
(c) Evidence of Price-Gouging.--In conducting its
investigation, the Commission shall treat as evidence of
price-gouging any finding that the average price of gasoline
available for sale to the public in September, 2005, or
thereafter in a market area located in an area designated as
a State or National disaster area because of Hurricane
Katrina, or in any other area where price-gouging complaints
have been filed because of Hurricane Katrina with a Federal
or State consumer protection agency, exceeded the average
price of such gasoline in that area for the month of August,
2005, unless the Commission finds substantial evidence that
the increase is substantially attributable to additional
costs in connection with the production, transportation,
delivery, and sale of gasoline in that area or to national or
international market trends.
(d) Reports.--
(1) Notification to state agencies.--In any areas of
markets in which the Commission determines price increases
are due to factors other than the additional costs, it shall
also notify the appropriate State agency of its findings.
(2) Progress and final reports to congress.--The Commission
shall provide information on the progress of the
investigation to the Appropriations Committees of the House
of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Energy
and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate, every 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act. The Commission shall provide those Committees a written
interim report 90 days after such date, and shall transmit a
final report to those Committees, together with its findings
and recommendations, no later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act. Such reports shall include
recommendations, based on its findings, for any legislation
necessary to protect consumers from gasoline price-gouging in
both State and National disaster areas and elsewhere.
(e) Evidence of Criminal Misconduct.--If, during the
investigation required by this section, the Commission
obtains evidence that a person may have violated a criminal
law, the Commission may transmit that evidence to appropriate
Federal or State authorities.

[[Page H8762]]

SEC. 404. FTC STUDY OF PETROLEUM PRICES ON EXCHANGE.

SEC. 501. STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE CAPACITY.

(a) Authority to Drawdown and Sell Petroleum Products for
Expansion of Reserve.--``In addition to the authority
provided under part B of title I of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6231 et seq.),'' the Secretary
may drawdown and sell petroleum products from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve to construct, purchase, lease, or otherwise
acquire additional capacity sufficient to permit filling the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its maximum authorized level.
(b) Establishment of SPR Expansion Fund.--The Secretary of
the Treasury shall establish in the Treasury of the United
States an account to be known as the ``SPR Expansion Fund''
(in this section referred to as the ``Fund''), and the
proceeds from any sale pursuant to subsection (a) shall be
deposited into the Fund.
(c) Obligation of Funds for Expansion.--Amounts in the Fund
may be obligated by the Secretary to carry out the purposes
in subsection (a) to the extent and in such aggregate amounts
as may be appropriated in advance in appropriations Acts for
such purposes.

SEC. 502. STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE SALE.

SEC. 503. NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE CAPACITY.

Section 181(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6250(a)) is amended by striking ``2 million
barrels'' and inserting ``5 million barrels''.
TITLE VI--CRITICAL ENERGY ASSURANCE

SEC. 601. EVACUATION PLAN REVIEW.

Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a report of
the Secretary's review of the fuel supply plan components of
State evacuation plans and the National Capitol region. Such
report shall determine the sufficiency of such plans, and
shall include recommendations for improvements thereto.
Annually after the transmittal of a report under the
preceding sentence, the Secretary shall transmit a report to
the Congress assessing plans found insufficient under
previous reports.

SEC. 602. DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

(a) Authority.--During any federally declared emergency or
disaster, the Secretary may provide direct assistance to
private sector entities that operate critical energy
infrastructure, including refineries.
(b) Assistance.--Assistance under this section may include
emergency preparation and recovery assistance, including
power generation equipment, other protective or emergency
recovery equipment, assistance to restore access to water,
power, or other raw materials, and transportation and housing
for critical employees. The Secretary may request assistance
from other Federal agencies in carrying out this section.

SEC. 603. CRITICAL ENERGY ASSURANCE ACCOUNT.

There is established in the Treasury an account known as
the Critical Energy Assurance Account. The Secretary shall
deposit into this account amounts appropriated to the
Secretary for the purpose of carrying out this title and
payments paid to the Secretary by any non-Federal source for
the purpose of carrying out this title. The Secretary may
receive and accept payments from any non-Federal source,
which shall be available to the Secretary, without further
appropriation, for carrying out this title.

SEC. 604. REGULATIONS.

The Secretary may issue regulations necessary or
appropriate to carry out this title.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed
in part B of the report, if offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak) or his designee, which shall be considered read, and shall be
debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

General Leave

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on the legislation before us and to insert extraneous
material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me say to all my colleagues that are
concerned about this bill, within the bill is a gas price gouging
prevention portion, the ``Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act,'' my
amendment that was approved in Committee. Included in the manager's
amendment, it will for the first time direct the Federal Trade
Commission to define price gouging and prosecute it as an unfair and
deceptive trade practice.
It will direct Federal Trade Commission expertise and resources in
addition to existing State anti-gouging laws on eliminating retail and
wholesale price gouging in a designated disaster area as well as any
extended problem in the areas around the country, as determined by the
President and the Secretary of Energy. Penalties include fines up to
$11,000 for violation in addition to equitable remedies, like returning
ill-gotten profits.
The amendment prohibits price gouging in the market for crude oil,
home heating oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel. This has been extended. It
is difficult to define price gouging. For the first time in this
country, we are going to define it. We are going to prosecute it, and
we are going to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to do
just that.
The amendment provides for the exclusive enforcement by the Federal
Trade Commission of the provisions as a violation of a rule defining an
unfair deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act. As I mentioned
earlier, there are stiff penalties involved.
The bill is triggered for 30 days in the affected area, not just 1 or
2 weeks, but 30 days and beyond if the President of the United States,
in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems it to be
appropriate. When the President declares a major disaster, and only for
those major disasters that the Secretary has determined could
significantly affect production, distribution or supply, then it is
extended, it is enforced. As mentioned earlier, it includes not just
crude oil, home heating oil, and gasoline and diesel fuel.
I urge my colleagues to look carefully at this bill. If you are going
to vote against this bill, you are going to vote against a provision
that establishes for the first time price gouging that is defined and
prosecuted on a Federal level.
I urge all my colleagues to support the bill.
The amendment prohibits price gouging in the market for crude oil,
home heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel.
It is difficult to define ``price gouging.'' The existing State
statutes in this area have vastly different definitions and
interpretations. Therefore, the amendment directs the FTC to define
price gouging within 6 months of enactment consistent with the
requirements for declaring unfair acts or practices in Section 5 of the
FTC Act.
The FTC's authority to define ``price gouging'' is tempered by the
traditional unfairness principles under Section 5(n) of the FTC Act.
Under this section, to be ``unfair'' a practice must: cause or be
likely to cause substantial injury to consumers; not be reasonably
avoidable by consumers themselves; and not be outweighed by
countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.
The amendment provides for the exclusive enforcement by the FTC of
the provision as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive
act or practice under the FTC Act.
The amendment provides for civil penalties of up to $11,000 per
violation.
The bill is triggered for 30 days in the affected areas--and beyond
if the President, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems
it to be appropriate--when the President declares a major disaster, and
only for those major disasters that the Secretary has determined could
significantly affect production, distribution, or supply. The President
may

[[Page H8763]]

extend the prohibition for such additional 30-day periods as he or she
determines necessary.
In addition, the issue of price gouging must be addressed.
Unfortunately, the tremendous goodwill of the American people in
helping their fellow citizens on the devastated gulf coast was marred
by some now infamous instances of gasoline price gouging. Experts say
the rapid rise in gasoline and diesel fuel prices nationwide following
these natural disasters primarily resulted from a supply crisis. Yet,
there were some specific gasoline price increases that the average
American, and maybe even the experts, knows are gouging. Certain market
situations, particularly those involving natural disasters like
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, require aggressive and targeted Federal
prosecution of gasoline price gouging.
My amendment, the ``Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act,'' which is
included in the Manager's amendment, will for the first time direct the
Federal Trade Commission to define price gouging and prosecute it as an
unfair and deceptive trade practice. The ``Gas Gouging Prevention Act''
will direct FTC expertise and resources, in addition to existing state
anti-gouging laws, on eliminating retail and wholesale price gouging in
a designated disaster area, as well as any extended problem areas
around the country as determined by the President and Secretary of
Energy. Penalties include fines of up to $11,000 per violation, in
addition to equitable remedies like returning ill-gotten profits.
It's time to flush out the gougers and protect consumers with a new
Federal weapon to prosecute gasoline price gouging. I thank my
colleagues, especially Mr. Walden, for their help in making the
amendment even better and I urge that we pass ``Gas Price Gouging
Prevention Act'' included in H.R. 3893, the ``Gasoline for America's
Security Act.''
In closing, this legislation will go a long way to better protect the
U.S. oil markets, as well as all consumers who depend on them. I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a hastily crafted
minimally reviewed bill of doubtful value and most curious
circumstance. We have had no hearings on the specific measure before
us. The major changes in language in the bill were revealed late last
night, I believe at 11 p.m. We have not received a single response to
the questions we asked of the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
We do not know whether the provisions in the energy bill passed less
than 2 months ago to expedite refinery siting are working. We do not
know what these new provisions on refinery sitings are going to do. We
literally have before us a bill which is composed of scraps assembled
from the waste baskets at the House Legislative Counsel, crafted
together by my Republican colleagues to do something which they will
have great difficulty in explaining today.
There can only be one explanation for this rush to the floor, and
that is the desire of the Republican leadership of the House to use the
hardship of the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to push
various parts of their agenda. The former majority leader, as is
custom, has tried to blame Democrats for all ills, saying, and I quote,
``[t]he Democrats made us drop many important issues out of the last
energy bill that would have helped this situation that we have found
ourselves in now, and it is time to go back and revisit those.''
I would remind the House that it was widely pointed out when that
legislation was before us what a remarkable example of bipartisanship
and legislative cooperation it was. Of course, the committee chairman
has offered to negotiate, and I want to express my affection and
respect for him.
But the predetermined schedules of the goal meant that all the
Republicans wished to negotiate for was political cover for themselves
and perhaps surrender by the Democratic members. Now we have before us
a poorly thought out and poorly vetted effort to pass the Republican
and energy wish list. This is not the way to respond to energy issues
raised by hurricanes.
If we decide to act on an expedited basis, we should be focusing on
immediate problems of rising gasoline prices and anticipated increases
in natural gas and home heating oil prices which are coming upon us in
the fall. Democrats will today offer a sensible substitute that
provides tough consequences for price gouging whenever it occurs in the
industry, not just by the little corner gas station.
Our substitute will tackle the problem of limited refinery capacity
head-on by creating a national Strategic Refinery Reserve patterned
after the successful Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We direct the
Secretary of Energy to establish and operate refineries that will help
protect our national security and protect consumers from supply
disruptions. The public interest demands no less.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill and for the Democratic
substitute.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee.

{time} 1115

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Barton), I appreciate the expeditious way he has
responded to this crises. If there is a silver lining to the Hurricane
Katrina crisis, it is that it has opened the eyes of Congress and our
business community to the urgent need to add to the capacity of our oil
refineries. The fact that gas prices shot up in the wake of this
monstrous hurricane is a reflection of the reality that we do not have
the capability to meet the sort of refining needs the country has that
will put the kind of pressure on gas prices that are so important to
our consuming public.
Hurricane Katrina is telling us very clearly that we have a challenge
and an opportunity here to increase that capacity. In the last year, I
met on several occasions with Adel Al-Jubeir, a representative of the
country of Saudi Arabia. On any number of occasions he has rather
smiled at me saying America does not have the capacity to provide the
gasoline that your consuming public needs. You have not built a
refinery in three generations.
We do have that opportunity by this action today, and I strongly urge
the House to recognize it. This is the one chance for us to make a
long-term commitment to reducing gasoline prices. I strongly urge an
``aye'' vote on this measure.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the
remainder of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and
that he be allowed to control the time for this side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lahood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), a senior member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3893
and in strong support of the Stupak substitute.
The Gulf Coast of the United States was devastated by a catastrophic
hurricane. Hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their homes and
their possessions. Gasoline prices jumped 46 cents per gallon
overnight. Price gouging was rampant. The big oil companies charged
more, simply because they could. The oil companies took shameless
advantage of the disaster, and now Washington Republicans are trying to
do the very same thing.
The Republican leadership is trying to use this tragedy and Missouri
to undermine our environmental laws and pass more special interest
giveaways to the oil industry. It wants to exploit Hurricane Katrina
for a special interest bonanza. This is the legislative equivalent of
price gouging, and it is unconscionable.
The bill before us is supposed to be a response to Hurricane Katrina.
It is supposed to respond to the damage done to our Nation's energy
infrastructure and address the Nation's runaway energy prices, but what
it does is give the oil companies even more taxpayer subsidies and
exemptions from environmental laws, and the bill is not even limited to
the oil industry.
If this bill becomes law, the entire eastern half of the United
States can suffer more pollution for years to come. The ideas in this
bill are not

[[Page H8764]]

new. They are the same egregious environmental assaults that
Republicans in Congress have tried unsuccessfully to pass for years.
All that is new is the rationale. There is no excuse for this
legislation to allow children with asthma to have to suffer more
medical problems on the eastern coast of the United States in order to
address a tragedy in the gulf coast of the United States.
Ten years ago, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) introduced
legislation to repeal the Clean Air Act piece by piece. Today,
Washington Republicans are using hurricanes as a cover to enact his
radical agenda. These were very bad ideas when they were first
proposed. To pass them now in the guise of helping hurricane victims
would be shameful.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for putting
this bill together. I want to talk about one very important provision
of this bill, and I want to endorse the passage of this legislation.
This legislation builds on progress we had in the energy bill dealing
with boutique fuels, but what I want to do is explain the problem we
have with boutique gasoline blends in America.
Today we have 18 different fuel types, which translates into 45
different fuel blends. This map of America looks like a piece of modern
art and shows the different fuel blends we have to have running through
America today. When we designed our pipeline and refinery system three
generations ago, it was designed for one kind of gasoline: conventional
gasoline. Today we have to pump 45 different blends of gasoline through
that system.
Any time there is a problem with supply, a pipeline break, a
hurricane, a refinery fire, what happens? The price of gas skyrockets.
There are refineries that cannot even make the needed gasoline for
particular areas. The problem is getting worse. This map is because we
have 217 counties that have to have some kind of reformulated boutique
fuel. Because of the new, 8-hour ozone regulations this year, 474
counties will have to adopt new blends of gasoline so the problem will
get even worse if we do nothing. This bill fixes that.
This bill says that, over the next year, the EPA and the DOE will
have to design a six-fuel-blend system. So we go from 18 different base
blends with 45 different fuels down to six fuels, to make sure we can
meet and exceed our Clean Air Act standards, no compromise on those,
and have stable, fungible blends of gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, we can have cheap gas and clean gas at the same time in
this country. We need to harmonize our gasoline blends so we have
standard, stable blends of gasoline. If we do that, we stabilize the
supply. If we do that, we stabilize the price. I urge passage of this
legislation.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today was rushed through the
committee. It did not receive a single legislative hearing. It would
weaken environmental protections but would do nothing to reduce the
price of gasoline.
There has been much attention given to the fact that our Nation's
refinery capacity is limited, but there has been no substantial
evidence presented to conclude that the reason for this shortage is
difficulty in siting or obtaining the environmental permits necessary
in order to build a new refinery. In fact, there has been some evidence
that suggests the reason for the thin refinery capacity is that
refiners are reluctant to build new facilities since they are enjoying
record profits under the current regime.
The bill before us would seek to increase refinery capacity by easing
environmental requirements and providing additional Federal authorities
for siting new facilities. Based on the evidence before us, that would
be the wrong remedy. There is a better approach.
Later today I will be joining with our colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), in offering a substitute for the bill. Our
substitute would address the refinery capacity issue by creating a
strategic refinery reserve. The new reserve would build on the success
of the strategic petroleum reserve and would provide the Nation with a
reserve refinery capacity that could be used in times of national
emergency to increase the supply of gasoline and minimize supply
disruptions and price spikes.
Given the choices that are before us today, the substitute that the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and I will be offering is far more
likely to address our real gasoline supply problems than the underlying
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, 1976 was a great year. We built our last
refinery in this country, and I graduated from high school. That is too
long for that to occur.
Our domestic demand for crude oil averages 21 million barrels a day.
We refine only 17 million barrels a day. That means we import gasoline.
People understand we have a dependence upon foreign oil. What they do
not understand and find incredibly ridiculous is that we import refined
product just making us more dependent on the industry.
This is a great piece of legislation, and anyone from coal country
ought to support it. Coal to liquid, fisher trove technology developed
during World War II is evident in production in South Africa today.
What we have done in this bill is we have taken the definition of
refinery and added coal to liquid, which means we can harvest the great
coal reserves of this country. We can turn them into clean fuel and use
that clean fuel to reduce our demand for foreign oil. We are also able
to disburse our refinery assets around the country so we are not held
hostage by having 47 percent of our refineries in hurricane alley.
This bill is a tremendous step forward in decreasing our reliance on
foreign oil, new technology, diversifying our refinery portfolio, and I
ask all of my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
It is ironic that this bill is called the Gasoline for America's
Security Act, or GAS Act, because this bill is certainly filled with a
lot of hot air.
This bill will do nothing to bring down the cost of gasoline. My
constituents and millions of Americans want to know why they are paying
$3 and more for gasoline. Just today in the newspaper it reported that
Americans can expect to spend 45 to 90 percent more on home heating
fuel this year than they did last winter. This is absolutely
unconscionable.
We saw during Hurricane Katrina looters in New Orleans, but the real
looters are the big oil companies. They are looting the American
people. They are making record profits. What does this bill do? It does
nothing to bring down the price of gasoline. That is what Americans
want. They do not want rhetoric. They do not want more SOP to the oil
and gas industry. They do not want more of the same.
Since I am from the Bronx, I will quote Yogi Berra of the Yankees: It
is deja vu all over again.
Once again, the majority has presented us with legislation that
purports to respond to skyrocketing gas prices, but does nothing of the
sort. Under the guise of responding to Hurricane Katrina, we are voting
on a bill that guts environmental and public health protections and
does nothing to reduce our Nation's devastating dependence on Middle
Eastern oil.
Further, we are once again witnessing the majority undermining
States' rights on the floor of the House. This bill includes provisions
that preempt State and local government's authority to decide where
refinery facilities are placed in individual communities.
What this country critically needs, but was neither in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, which was signed into law, nor in this bill, is a
policy to reduce our addiction to oil through the promotion of
alternatives and clean renewables, automotive fuel efficiency

[[Page H8765]]

and the reduction of greenhouse gases. We must create policies that
achieve these goals, and we need not destroy the environment and the
rights of our citizens in doing so.
This is a sop to the industry. It gives us more of the same. It does
nothing to lower gas prices. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, what have Members been hearing in their
districts? I will tell Members what I have been hearing: There is a
constant uproar and anguish about the gas prices across this country.
One of the home builders that I met with earlier this week, it cost
him $94 to fill up his pickup. Sadly, I do not see that price going
down any time soon. This is a long-term, not a short-term, problem.
Worldwide, we consume what we produce. This country uses 25 percent
of the world's energy, yet we have only 2.5 percent of the world's
energy reserves. And in fact in Alaska, we are getting 50 percent of
what we got only 7 years ago.
The energy bill signed in August will help us in the long term, but
it will not help us in the short term. This bill will help us in the
long term, not in the short term.
We have heard the arguments. We have fewer refineries than we had 30
years ago. We have not built a new refinery in a generation. We need
more, and this bill will bring that about.
We have dozens of boutique fuels, 45 different blends of gasoline to
serve this country. That means we have a different blend for St. Louis
than Milwaukee than Detroit than Los Angeles than Houston than
Philadelphia than Washington. It is crazy.

{time} 1130

This bill is going to reduce that from 45 blends to no more than six
or eight.
The bottom line is if we are not happy with $3 gas, we need to vote
``yes'' on this bill. We need to send it to the Senate. I will remind
my colleagues that this bill passed by a voice vote after 16 hours of
markup, and I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my
chairman, for making sure we did it in a bipartisan way.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have always believed something many
politicians do not realize: the American people are not stupid. This
winter, as their car gasoline prices remain high, their home heating
bills from natural gas and heating oil go up, they are going to
understand this bill has no connection to lowering gas prices and no
connection to Hurricane Katrina.
What this bill does do is it rides roughshod over environmental laws,
and it rides roughshod over local control of new refineries. Just wait
for the public outcry if this bill passes when people find out that
refineries can be put up in their backyards with no local input and
especially when they find out that these refineries' profits went up
255 percent last year.
So what should we be doing? Number one, we should genuinely address
price gouging. The provisions in this bill are toothless at best. If we
really want to stop price gouging, what we should do is pass the
Democratic substitute, which would actually beef up the FTC's ability
to prosecute this practice.
Number two, I have been saying this for the 9 years I have been in
Congress: we need a forward-looking energy policy that puts real teeth
into conservation and renewables so that we can reduce our dependence
on foreign oil.
What does this bill do about conservation? Members will be pleased to
know it encourages carpooling and van pooling. I am going to tell the
Members the other soccer moms at my kids' school would be appalled to
know that this is all Congress is doing to encourage conservation.
What about renewables? Well, I offered an amendment both in committee
and at the Committee on Rules which was denied. All this amendment says
is let us increase the use of renewable energy in this country. I think
that the majority of Coloradans who voted for an initiative on a ballot
last year would agree with this along with the rest of Americans. What
we need, Mr. Speaker, is a comprehensive energy policy that is more
than a sop to Big Oil.
Vote for the substitute and ``no'' on final.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his excellent
work on this issue.
It is so interesting for me to stand here in this body and listen to
people say it was rushed through committee, that we have not given
proper thought to this issue.
Mr. Speaker, it seems this issue has been around for about 10 years,
trying to get an energy bill through, and we did. We passed the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. But this issue has been on the table for 10 years,
and if former President Clinton had not vetoed drilling in ANWR in
1995, we might not be standing here having this discussion today. But
that happened.
So this is not being rushed through. This is something that is the
culmination of a decade's worth of talk. And the people in Tennessee,
in my district, are tired of the talk, Mr. Speaker. They are ready for
some action. This is a right step. It is the right time.
I want to hit two provisions that are included in this bill. One is
streamlining the countless regulations, then helping to prevent some of
the frivolous lawsuits. When we look at streamlining some of the
process they have to go through to build a refinery, that is a good
thing. It is going to help us to be able to move forward on refineries
in a more expeditious manner. The other thing is establishing the
Department of Energy as the lead agency for siting refineries and
eliminating some of the unnecessary requirements on waiting on multiple
bureaucracies to respond to a request to build one refinery. This is
not about bureaucrats and building. It is about meeting real American
needs of real families for energy uses on a daily basis.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
wrongly named Gasoline for America's Security Act. It would be more
appropriate to call this the Don't Hold Your Breath Act, as this bill
will not do what my colleagues on the other side claim.
While it is clear to all of us that our Nation does not have the
refinery capacity that we need, it is equally clear that the bill
before us will not increase this shortfall. The idea that simply
eliminating environmental standards and removing judicial control will
solve this problem is absolutely wrong.
Over the past 30 years, there has been only one application filed to
build a new refinery. I will say that again: only one application has
been filed. We are not talking about permit after permit being thrown
out. We are not talking about an industry trying time after time to
site a facility and being denied.
What we are talking about is the fact that the gasoline industry
makes the vast majority of their profits at the refinery level, and
there is zero economic incentive for them to increase their capacity.
As long as the refineries are operating at near 100 percent, their
profit margins are through the roof. This bill ignores this obvious
fact and instead focuses on eliminating environmental protections,
which is nothing more than a scapegoat measure that will not do
anything to address the basic problem.
So what does this bill actually do? It strips virtually all of the
environmental protections of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act,
and the Endangered Species Act when they come into conflict with the
siting of a refinery. The bill removes all cases challenging refinery
siting from local State courts and forces communities to come to
Washington, D.C. in order to challenge the selection of their hometown
for a new refinery. And, further, if the local communities lose in
court, they have to pay all of the industry's legal bills. This bill
also will limit the Federal Trade Commission's ability to impose
penalties when presented with evidence of price gouging, effectively
incentivizing industry to take advantage of disasters like Katrina.
For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to reject this bill. Democrats

[[Page H8766]]

have a substitute that will address critical shortages during disasters
without gutting our environmental laws, and it deserves our support.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the committee and the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, the
speaker before me, because what he has really laid out is sort of the
complaints that we hear from the Democrat side of the aisle, the
complaints for years when they controlled Congress and laid out
policies and rules and regulations that prevented, really, people to
bring capital at risk to build refineries. So we hear a lot of
complaints, but we do not hear of ideas and actions to help an industry
that will help America.
This is a good bill. I support the bill. I want to compliment the
chairman for his good work.
I also believe that Hurricane Katrina did reveal a weakness in our
energy supply systems, highlighting the reliance this country has on
the gulf coast for our energy resources. Approximately 47 percent of
the U.S. refining capacity and 28 percent of oil production are located
in the hurricane-prone region. So I think it is time for America to
take steps to build more refineries and protect this country in time of
natural disaster.
This is a good bill. It will address our growing need for gasoline,
heating oil, and other fuels and will bring more supply to the market
and for the American people. So despite the noise that we maybe hear on
the floor, for the American people this is a good bill.
I am concerned, though, that a section of the bill was removed that
dealt with the interchange rates, and what we wanted to do was to
address the channels of trade to bring more transparency to how credit
card companies actually apply these interchange rate fees and how the
consumer then picks it up. I am pleased, in a conversation with the
chairman and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), they are going
to consider having a hearing on the issue; and I think that is a good
thing.
I strongly support the Bush Administration's clean diesel rules,
which will reduce air pollution from diesel engines by more than 90
percent, and reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel by more than 95
percent. These rules will not only help clean the air, but they will
also encourage greater use of highly fuel-efficient clean diesel
engines. The use of highly fuel-efficient clean diesel engines is a
mandates free way of making our existing domestic refining and oil
production go further. In fact, according to the Department of Energy,
if diesel vehicles made up 20 percent of our fleet in 15 years, we
would save 350,000 barrels of oil a day.
I understand the challenges that so-called ``boutique fuels''
present. Section 108 takes steps towards addressing these challenges.
However, I want to make it clear that I have been assured by the
Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Gentleman from
Texas, that Section 108 of the legislation does not intend to alter or
delay--in any way--the Bush Administration's on- and off-road diesel
rules.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-
conceived legislation.
This bill is a shameless attempt to use the tragedy of Katrina as an
engine to drive bad policies into law. The purported reason behind the
bill is the high cost of gas caused by Katrina, and this is the bill
that is supposed to meet that challenge. But gas prices were at record
highs before Katrina hit. Katrina merely ramped them up and provided an
excuse to push more failed Republican energy ideas.
I guess the best thing we can say about the bill is what is not in
it, namely, the repeal of the longstanding, bipartisan moratorium on
new offshore drilling. But the bill, however, does gut public health
and environmental laws. It does strip States and localities of the
authority to protect their own citizens. And, bottom line, it fails to
protect consumers from price gouging at the pump, which we have seen
going on on a regular basis.
Mr. Speaker, the problem of high gas prices is a serious one. It
affects businesses and families on a daily basis, and I should know
because my gas prices in my district are usually among the highest in
the Nation. Right now they hover around $3.50 a gallon. But this bill
is not about trying to do something about that. It is about trying to
distract the American people from a failed Republican energy strategy,
a strategy that fails to realize that we have 3 percent of the world's
oil reserves while we account for 25 percent of the world demand. This
is a strategy that relies on increasing our supplies at all costs while
conservation efforts are ridiculed by our Vice President as ``signs of
personal virtue.'' This is a strategy that says if laws that protect
public health or environment get in the way, we should just waive them.
It is a strategy that dooms America to never-ending energy crises that
consistently enrich energy companies at the expense of hard-working
American families and businesses.
Over the past several years, we have had repeated chances to craft
commonsense, efficient, and effective energy legislation that would set
America on a more stable future; but this Republican Congress has
failed to do that and this, failure is once again realized in this
bill.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for the alternative and to vote down
this awful legislation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to cut to the chase on this
issue.
In 1981 there were 324 operating refineries in the boundaries of the
United States of America. Today there are 148. Do the math: 184 is a
smaller number by 176 than 324. There are a lot of reasons for it, but
one of the reasons is this flow diagram to my left.
To the left we have all of the permits that are required for what is
called ``new source review.'' That is if they want to expand an
existing refinery. Now, this is actually the permitting application to
expand an existing refinery in the State that I live in, the State of
Texas. In the new source review, every one of these steps has to go
forward. On the right of the chart are additional permits in addition
to the new source review.
This is not a made-up chart. This is the law as it exists today. What
company's board of directors in their right minds would want to go
through this process and tie up billions of dollars for years and years
if they did not know that they would at least get a definite decision
in a timely fashion?
The bill before us may not be the best bill. It may not be the only
approach. But it is a fact that we use 21 million barrels of oil a day
in this country and we only have the refining capacity for about 16 on
a good day; and, unfortunately, since Katrina and Rita, we have had
many good days. We are down to 14 million barrels of refinery capacity
that is available, and we need 21 million barrels of refinery capacity
to refine our consumer demands that we have right now in this country.
So this bill before us today does not eliminate any of these
requirements. It does not lower the standard.
What it does do is require the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of Energy to appoint officials within their agencies to
consolidate and to coordinate all of these reviews if, if, a State
Governor wants them to or if the President of the United States wants
them to on Federal property. If a Governor does not want it to expedite
the review, they do not have to; and this stays in existence, which
means in those States they will not get any new or existing refineries
built or expanded.

{time} 1145

But in some States, and I hope my State of Texas is one, I think
Governor Perry would ask for this expedited review. If that happens,
and if we can get a company that wants to invest in a new refinery or
expand an existing refinery, you will actually get a decision in a
timely fashion. I have reason to believe that if we pass this bill and
if the Senate passes this bill within the next year, you are going to
see America's systems step forward and actually ask to build new
refineries in the United States of America.
This is a good bill. We should vote for it. We should send it to the
Senate, encourage them to vote for a similar bill

[[Page H8767]]

and then go to conference and produce a conference report that the
President can sign, and let us get our country moving again and at
least begin to start the process to lower gasoline prices for every
American in this country.
In the days right after Hurricane Katrina, gasoline prices shot up
past the $3 dollar mark almost everywhere. Shortages caused some
gasoline stations to run dry. Americans nationwide worried if the price
would be higher on their way home from work than it was in the morning.
Many consumers worried that they were getting gouged, and wondered if
prices would ever go down again. Today, we take action. Today, the
House of Representatives will support building new refineries,
improving gasoline markets, and outlawing price gouging.
My committee was voting on the Gasoline for America's Security Act
just 4 weeks after Hurricane Katrina crossed the coast. On that day, 11
refineries remained closed by flooding and power failures, and most had
no restart dates. Roughly 18 percent of all U.S. gasoline production
was still halted, and prices everywhere had spiked as a consequence.
Katrina damaged refineries all over Louisiana and Mississippi. Then
Hurricane Rita came along and damaged refineries in Louisiana and
Texas. Some have not restarted yet. We were all surprised to learn what
happens when a chunk of our domestic capacity goes off line. Every
driver in America has endured shortages and price spikes that still
have not fully subsided.
This bill encourages new refineries to increase supply. We improve
siting procedures, provide regulatory risk insurance, suggest non-park
Federal lands for consideration, and give refiners more certainty about
the rules they have to live under. Our Nation is more secure if
refineries are spread more throughout the country.
This bill promotes new pipelines to get new crude oil and gasoline to
consumers at lower prices. We encourage those who might build the
Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline to speed up, by setting a deadline on their
incentives. We require a study of whether pipelines should have backup
power capability, so that they could operate during power outages.
The bill outlaws price gouging during emergencies for gasoline, crude
oil, and home heating oil. We leave in place State measures against
price gouging. We increase penalties to $11,000 per incident and expand
the geographic scope of the provision. I want to thank Chairman Cliff
Stearns of our Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee and
Congressman Greg Walden for their help on this provision.
We promote conservation with a DOE program to encourage carpooling
and vanpooling. We also require evaluation of using CMAQ funds,
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, for carpool and vanpool
projects. We can make it easier for Americans to network and do these
voluntary reductions of demand.
We authorize a refinery built for military use. If the President
determines that there is insufficient refining capacity, the President
can enter into contracts to permit, construct and operate a refinery
with private industry to manufacture refined products for the military.
This bill doesn't do everything I think it should do. Last night, I
agreed to drop very important New Source Review provisions that would
give clarity to refiners and other energy providers. An operator of a
refinery, a power plant, or an industrial facility should not feel
scared to conduct routine maintenance or modernize the system without
hurting emissions. A bipartisan majority of the Energy & Commerce
Committee believes we should codify the Administration's return to a
sensible NSR policy. Those who want to delay these sensible reforms are
taking a step back from increasing supplies of gasoline, heating oil
and other forms energy.
But I don't want this to get in the way of expanding refinery
capacity after Hurricane Katrina, so I will set it aside for now until
we can hold the additional hearings that some believe are needed. We
will have a vote in the future on this policy, and when it passes, our
Nation's supply of both energy supply and common sense will expand.
But today we have a chance to strike a blow against high gasoline
prices. We can increase competition among refineries by seeing new ones
built. We let any retail gasoline provider know the Federal government
is watching--so don't gouge consumers in an emergency.
People everywhere expect us to do the right thing, and there's been
honest and candid debate about what constitutes the right thing.
According to some, doing nothing is not only right, but cheap and easy,
too. The do-nothing plan is the one we've followed for decades. I think
the two killer hurricanes have weakened the will to continue doing
nothing, however. I hope so.
Our country needs more oil refineries because the people who work for
a living need gasoline to get to work. These are people who earn
paychecks and buy groceries at the Safeway and pay their bills,
including their taxes. That means they use gasoline every day. They
need it, and they need it at a price they can afford. They aren't
activists and they don't contribute to campaigns or hire any lobbyists.
Sometimes Washington forgets about them, but I haven't, and that's why
we're taking up this bill.
Our cars, our jobs, our Nation's economic growth and our people's
opportunity to prosper--they all rely on gasoline. Gasoline does not
come from heaven, it comes from a refinery.
Let's send to the Senate and the President this antidote for high
gasoline prices. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
(Mr. MARKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
We cannot begin to discuss how we are going to reduce our dependence
upon imported oil unless we debate increasing the fuel economy
standards for automobiles and SUVs in the United States. The gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and I have made this amendment for 4 years
in a row. Now that the public's attention is on it, the Republican
majority refuses to have a debate on how we can dramatically increase
the fuel economy standards for SUVs and automobiles, and we put 70
percent of all the oil we consume into gasoline tanks.
We also are not having the debate out here on solar energy. Europe
now outspends us on solar energy by four to one. Japan outspends us
four to one. China is now passing us. No debate, however, under the
Republican rules, on solar energy as a solution.
Instead, what we have here is new law which will allow for refineries
to be built on closed-down military bases, on wildlife refuges, with a
mayor or a State incapable of blocking it. In fact, if the State or
city sues and loses, they must pay the legal bills of Exxon-Mobil. But
if the city wins, Exxon-Mobil does not have to pay the legal bills of
the city. That just shows you how backwards all of this is.
We should be debating a futuristic, innovative, energy strategy to
cut in half our dependence upon imported oil, to use automotive
technologies, to use solar and wind, to quadruple our expenditures, to
surpass the world, to be number one looking over our shoulders at
number two and three in the world, to do what President Kennedy did in
responding to the Sputnik challenge of the Soviet Union.
Instead, our industry that engaged in a conspiracy to shut down 30
refineries in the last 10 years is now coming here and asking us to
waive the Clean Air Act as the answer to their irresponsible actions.
That is absolutely wrong. This bill must be defeated.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
The race is on. It is a worldwide race among nations to embrace and
own the energy technology of the future. Right now, the United States
is not even at the starting line. We're not even tying up the laces on
our running shoes.
Energy is the lifeblood of our economy, of our security, or our
lives. Oil, black gold, runs our cars, machines, and planes and heats
our homes--what if it just stopped coming? Think about it. It would
take simply a decision of one or two oil producing nations to cut off
critical supplies of oil to the U.S. tomorrow. The impact of such
disruption to our economy would be crippling.
Al Qaeda has already identified this American vulnerability--our
energy dependency Achilles heel. They call on jihadists everywhere to
attack not just people, but also oil wells and pipelines, arguing that
``the killing of 10 American soldiers is nothing compared to the impact
of the rise in oil prices on America and the disruption that it causes
in the international economy.''
The decisions being made today by the Republican-controlled Congress
are handicapping our nation at the starting line.
While this House is busying itself with the care and feeding of the
industries of the last century--oil and gas production and refining, we
are doing precious little to develop the energy technologies of the
21st Century. The only solution the Republican Leadership in Congress
has to offer up to our current energy problems is giving oil companies
more giveaways and more exemptions from environmental laws. Meanwhile,
other nations around the world are beginning to race ahead of us.
The European Union already has set a target of meeting at least 20
percent of its overall

[[Page H8768]]

energy consumption with renewable energy technologies by 2020. They've
just passed a resolution in the European Parliament to increase that
target up to 25 percent.
Aggressive renewable energy policies have put Europe on track to
increase electricity generated from wind ten-fold and from solar
photovoltaics 45 times by 2020. A major factor making this rapid growth
possible is the significant investments European governments have made
in R&D. We spend a paltry $80 million on photovoltaics, for example,
whereas Europe spends $300 million. So does Japan.
What's more, according to Christopher Flavin, Chairman of the World
Watch Institute, China is set to overtake everyone. ``In 5 years' time
we see China as a world leader in this department. . . . Already, 35-
million homes in China get their hot water from solar collectors. That
is more than the rest of the world combined.'' China has also adopted
CAFE standards that by 2008 will require cars to get 40 miles per
gallon and trucks to get 21 miles per gallon. China is also purchasing
Hybrids from abroad and developing hybrid production capabilities.
How do we expect to keep up, let alone lead, in these emerging
innovative energy technology markets if we starve our R&D sector and
refuse to set bold goals that stimulate creativity and achievement?
Americans know in their bones that we need to do more--that we are
lagging behind in this race. Every time we pull up to the pump and
watch the cost of the gasoline filling up our cars, ringing up to
$40.00 for a tank that is barely full, we are reminded of the need to
get out of this mess.
Consumers are paying the price for the Republican Congress'
submissiveness to the Big Oil companies, for its lack of vision.
Consumers lose when the Republican Congress allows America to slip
behind the pack of nations racing to lead the energy industries of the
future. Right now, we have few choices but to return to the pump, fill
our cars and hope that this spike that has lasted for over 2 years is
going to break soon.
We owe our citizens a new vision for America's energy future to hang
their hopes on. Hope without vision is a four letter word--our vision
for restoring America's greatness through an energy challenge gives
wings to the hopes of Americans wondering when this crunch will end.
This is a can-do Nation that has never stepped down from a challenge.
Today we cannot afford to walk away from the challenge to lead the
world in the future of energy technology.
In 1961, President Kennedy announced a goal of sending a Man to the
Moon and returning him safely to Earth. By 1969, Neil Armstrong was
standing on the Moon looking up at the earth. We need a similar
visionary leadership today.
Instead of the bill before us now, we should be bringing a bill to
the floor of this House which would:
Adopt a national policy of cutting our dependence on imported oil in
half within the next decade.
Recognize that since we consume 25 percent of the world's energy but
have only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, we cannot drill our
way into energy independence.
Embrace innovative energy technologies to improve the fuel efficiency
of our cars and SUVs so that we make our motor vehicles at least 1 mile
per gallon more efficient every year for the next 10 years.
Launch a Manhattan Project scale R&D initiative that is twice the
size of comparable programs in the European Union, Japan, and China
combined.
Mandate that at least 30 percent of our Nation's overall energy needs
be met with solar, wind or other renewable energy sources, or with
energy efficiency measures.
Create public and private partnerships to help rapidly commercialize
and deploy a whole new generation of super-efficiency hybrid vehicles
to deploy solar energy to our homes and businesses, to broadly deploy
wind turbines around the country, to deploy Fuel Cells, clean-burning
coal, more efficient natural gas and alternative fuels.
The U.S. is the technological engine of the world and we must lead
the innovation in wind, solar energy and new fuel sources. We cannot,
we must not lose this race.
If the Democrats were in charge of this House, we would be
challenging America to establish a national oil savings goal, drive the
future of the energy industry, and revolutionize our domestic use of
fuels.
Democrats would be setting an agenda of innovation and establishing
measurable goals to test the success of this to measure the success of
their energy policy.
We would be demonstrating that a modern economy can grow and provide
jobs to its citizens without sacrificing the quality of its air, its
water or its most precious natural heritage areas.
That is what we need to be doing on the Floor of this House, and that
is what the bill before us today entirely fails to do.
I urge the House to vote down this bill.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vigorous support of H.R.
3893. This bill takes us back to Earth in reality. This bill recognizes
the need for increased supplies of refined petroleum products and takes
the necessary steps to increase refining capacity.
No new refinery has been constructed in the United States since 1976.
We just heard the numbers earlier. The demand for gasoline exceeds
domestic production by an average of 4 million barrels per day. This
growing gap is met by importing refined petroleum from foreign sources,
which is a threat to market stability and national security. Refining
capacity is not being increased, due in part to a permitting process
that is overly cumbersome and capital intensive.
The two hurricanes only further exposed the lack of a comprehensive
national energy security policy. Currently, 20 percent of our Nation's
refinery production is shut down. 600,000 barrels are off line in my
southwest Louisiana district.
This bill makes the necessary commitments to expand and diversify the
refining industry in this country. By reforming and expediting a
permitting process that is excessively slow and nearly impossible to
navigate, we will enable refiners to meets the energy needs of
America's citizens.
This legislation would not circumvent or remove any environmental
protection, but would simply coordinate and streamline the process. It
would also encourage investment in new pipelines and expansion of
existing infrastructure to transport petroleum products more
efficiently and at a lower cost to consumers.
The farmers of Louisiana need to harvest crops. The industries of
Louisiana need to rebuild, and families of Louisiana would like to
return. Affordable energy is going to be an important factor in our
ability to do that.
The people of my district have realized the responsibility of
providing fuel for this Nation for a long time, and they are happy to
do so. It is now time to give them the tools to meet this growing task
and share it with others. I urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Science.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
H.R. 3893 will increase the deficit, harm the environment, undermine
the States and give charity to oil companies, while doing virtually
nothing, virtually nothing, to help consumers.
The whole premise of this bill is faulty: Refining capacity in U.S.
is increasing. Let me repeat that: Refining capacity in the U.S. is
increasing, and it has been increasing for a decade.
Yes, the number of refineries has declined, but that is irrelevant.
Saying that we have less refining capacity today because we have fewer
refineries is like saying that we have fewer crops today than we did in
1920 because fewer Americans are farming. It just does not make sense.
It does not pass the laugh test.
Not only that, the marketplace offers incentives, and plenty of them,
for oil companies, all the incentives they need to build more
refineries. They have record profits and demand for their products
keeps increasing. Refining capacity is likely to increase even more
with or without this bill responding to the market demand.
But with this bill, we burden taxpayers by sending their hard-earned
tax dollars into the pockets of oil companies through rebates and
special payments. With this bill, we interfere with environmental rules
designed to improve public health. With this bill, we take away, take
away, authority from the States and local governments.
What we do not do with this bill is take any steps to reduce demand
for oil, the only step that will actually reduce the price of gasoline,
not to mention to make our Nation more secure.
I urge opposition. The priorities are all wrong.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New

[[Page H8769]]

Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the committee.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that
bothered me at the time of Katrina and then Rita was when you saw on
the television long lines of cars at gas stations that were charging $5
or $6 for gas that you knew they did not pay that much to get in there.
I do not believe that disasters should be a windfall for opportunists,
and I appreciate the chairman and his staff working with us over the
last week to strengthen the price-gouging provisions in this bill.
Currently, under current law, most price-gouging statutes are at the
State level, and only 23 States in the Nation have price-gouging
statutes. The only authority at the Federal level is through antitrust
laws. You have to have two companies colluding in order to investigate
it. With this bill, that will change for the first time.
For the first time, there will be Federal authority under the Federal
Trade Commission to investigate price gouging after a disaster area has
been declared. We have worked to strengthen this bill from the
committee. The fines will be up to $11,000 per instance. It will apply
in a disaster area and also beyond that disaster area if the President
expands the area of coverage.
It covers any person or company, not just the retailers, but up and
down the supply chain, and it applies to gasoline, crude oil, home
heating oil and natural gas. It is quite a broad provision compared to
what we had coming out of the committee.
I want to thank the chairman for his leadership and his staff for
really strengthening the price-gouging provisions in this bill and, for
the first time in this country, giving the Federal Government the tools
they need to combat people who are taking advantage of terrible
situations and take care of this problem of windfalls.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and in support of the
Democratic substitute. I would like to start out by saluting the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for having the courage as a
Republican to stand up and to take the position that he has.
I think it is a sad day when the Republican Party is no longer
holding on to the environmental mantle. One of my predecessors, Pete
McCloskey, was a great champion in the Congress on those issues, and I
think it is regrettable that that is where the Republicans are today,
because if there were more that would stand up, we would be able to put
into place a bill that would really serve the American people well.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita only exacerbated what has been happening
to consumers in our country for the past year. Weeks before Katrina
hit, consumers were paying higher and higher prices at the pump. In
California, prices climbed $1 between January and August. They rose 50
cents in a month's time between July and August, with prices rising to
well over $3 a gallon. I paid close to $4 a gallon in my congressional
district just a week ago. Consumers in other parts of the country have
seen similar hikes.
If we look at what the Washington Post recently reported, it is
painfully evident that the oil industry and the refiners have profited
handsomely. The money going to crude producers has climbed 46 percent
over the last year. For refiners, revenues have increased 255 percent
in one year, from September 2004 to September 2005.
The last time I remember seeing revenue increases like this was when
Enron, Reliant and other gougers were raking in their profits during
the so-called California energy crisis. And the explanations are also
too familiar. We are being told again we are paying the price for
having too little capacity. It is not the case, Mr. Speaker. The record
shows otherwise. It is economics, not regulations, that have led to the
shortfall in capacity.
I hope everyone will support the Democratic substitute. It is the
legislation that will really put the gougers' feet to the fire and do
something about it. I urge everyone to vote for the substitute and
against the base bill.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a member of committee.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for working so
hard to accommodate those of us who represent the northeastern part of
this country in this bill. I rise in strong support of this
legislation, and I do so having worked hard to make sure that those of
us who represent the northeastern part of the country are satisfied
with what we have before us today.
I wish to make three points. The first is that the issue of new
source review is gone. It is a debate for another day, and I think that
is an enormous improvement to the bill. The issue of pollution in this
country needs to be addressed, and the Clean Air Act definitely needs
to be amended, but I felt for a long time a refinery bill was not the
place to do that, and I commend my leadership for being able to work
that out. As the gentlewoman from New Mexico mentioned in her speech,
there is a wonderful provision on price gouging that will protect
consumers against price gouging from the refinery on down.
The third point is that the only cost in this bill is the cost
associated with increasing the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve from
2 million to 5 million barrels a day, which is critical to the
northeast.
The bottom line is, if you are satisfied with higher gas prices, if
you are satisfied with the concentration of refinery capacity in
hurricane-prone areas, if you are satisfied with the fact that we have
not built a new refinery in so many years, if you are satisfied with
the status quo and if you think your constituents are satisfied with
that, if you think that 2 million barrels is enough for the Northeast
Heating Oil Reserve, if you think this bill is going to cost money even
though it will not, then vote against it.

{time} 1200

But this is your opportunity to support an energy bill that you can
tell your constituents will help, over the short term and the long
term, provide gasoline and heating oil to your constituents who need it
badly.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill
and in support of the Stupak-Boucher substitute.
This bill does nothing to help us gain energy independence, to
increase refining capacity, or lower prices at the pump. And no Member,
and particularly no one who represents the Midwest, should vote for
this bill.
The Federal Energy Information Agency predicted that the price of
natural gas would increase by 71 percent in the Midwest this winter. In
Chicago, the average heating bill is predicted to be $1,475 per
household. Yet, instead of addressing an impending heating crisis and
protecting consumers, this bill is filled with giveaways to the same
energy companies that are making record profits in the aftermath of the
hurricanes.
This bill's attempt to prevent gasoline price gouging is little more
than a charade. But this bill does not even pretend to prevent natural
gas companies from gouging consumers. Even though natural gas prices
are four times what they were in 2001, there is no mention of natural
gas in the price gouging section of this bill. For natural gas
suppliers and distributors, this bill is a green light to jack up the
prices.
In Illinois, to qualify for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, a family of four must earn under $29,000 a year, under that.
Because of increasing energy costs, LIHEAP has covered a smaller share
of a family's average heating bill over the last 4 years, and that
share will be lower this year due to these record price spikes. This
winter, millions more Americans may find that they cannot pay their
home heating bills, not just poor Americans. What are we doing to
protect them?
The Democratic substitute gives the FTC new authority to prevent and
punish corporations that gouge consumers for the oil, gasoline, and
natural gas they need to get to work, heat their homes, and run their
businesses. It is

[[Page H8770]]

the only proposal before the House today that will address the
impending heating crisis facing millions of Americans this winter.
Mr. Speaker, we were unprepared for Katrina. We cannot let that
happen again. Members in this body are faced with a choice:
representing consumers and small businesses, or big oil companies. We
should not leave the American people in the cold this winter while
energy companies are left with money to burn.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the anti-public
health, anti-consumer ``GAS Act.'' The legislation is an insult to the
American public which needs real relief, but this is an attack on our
public health; and it is a giveaway to corporate America.
Their interests will harm, in my opinion, 5.5 million Latinos that
live within 10 miles of coal-powered plants and the 68 percent of all
African Americans that live within 30 miles of a coal-powered plant.
These changes will increase the risk of disease to schoolchildren in
Texas who are exposed right now to 43.4 million tons of toxic
pollutants in just 1 year because of almost 140 nearby industrial
facilities. These changes will increase the risk of disease to over
207,000 children who go to schools within a 2-mile radius of a chemical
plant or refinery in Texas. These changes will not help construct new
refineries or guarantee an increase in refinery capacity and will do
nothing to lower the cost of gasoline.
This is a Washington bill drafted on K Street by those lobbyists and
is an attack on our public health. No State air boards were consulted,
no mayors, no city managers, no land use planners, no attorneys
general, not even mine from California.
There is a reason why the bill is opposed by the National Association
of Counties, the National League of Cities, and nine attorneys general.
The local air pollution program and control officers, the South Coast
Air Quality Management District, the American Lung Association, and
many others are in opposition to this bill.
It is time that the administration and the Republican leadership
learn that public health and the environment and the voices of our
communities are not exploitable commodities.
I will support the Democratic alternative which protects public
health, protects consumers, and secures our refineries in times of
emergency. I will not support the underlying legislation which gives
Americans a false sense of hope and security. I urge my colleagues to
join me in opposition. America deserves better.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the
discourse from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, very 1960s
rhetoric for a 2005 problem. You cannot regulate and put hurdles and
tell the oil industry that is really global these days that you cannot
build refining capacity in America. It is bad.
Most Americans, when they saw the hurricane strike, realized that 30
percent of our refineries were at risk, 30 percent. They understood
that you cannot concentrate our refineries in one place and that you
have to have more capacity.
The reason it is expensive is because we import refined product.
Americans understand that. Your rhetoric today, the old-fashioned ideas
of regulate and hinder and put hurdles up, will not solve these
problems. It took 20 years to get here because we would not allow them
to build refineries across this country to meet public demand.
I tell you, I have working families in my district that pull up to
that pump and talk about mortgaging their house in order to get it
completely full. This is a serious problem, and it needs serious
solutions.
This bill goes a long way. It says we are going to protect the
environment, we are encouraging some conservation, and we are going to
build capacity so that we do not have to have this foreign dependence
on refined product. I thank the chairman for doing this. This is the
responsible thing to do, moving this country forward, and putting us in
a place where we are not foreign-dependent and we have the ability to
lower the prices and give stable prices in the future in this great
country.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, the so-called
Gasoline For America's Security Act. Now, this is not a partisan rant.
I am a Democrat, but I supported the last energy bill. It had
considerable merit and a few flaws. This bill is very flawed and has
very little merit.
Let us talk about refineries. Over the past 20 years, U.S. demand has
increased 20 percent. No new refineries have been built. In fact,
refining capacity has declined by 10 percent. But contrary to what my
colleagues just heard, there are no barriers stopping the refining
industry from building new refineries and expanding capacity. In fact,
the key thing people need to understand in this debate is that the
profit margins for the refineries has gone up 255 percent. They are
making more money than anybody else. So there is no reason why we
should give them some big subsidy or big benefit to encourage them to
build refinery capacity.
This bill really is outrageous in terms of having the taxpayers pay
the refineries to cover their unanticipated costs. It is in the bill
and it is called stand-by support, stand-by support. What that means is
if they encounter some sort of reasonable delay, government regulation,
or something like that, and they suffer losses and they cannot open on
time or they are delayed in their operations, we, the taxpayer, get to
pay for that. That is not unusual. That is not a crisis situation. That
is not the airlines after September 11. That is not an unusually high-
risk situation. These are delays in the normal course of business; but,
yet, this bill would have the taxpayer pay for those losses, and that
does not make sense.
Let me take a minute and talk about price gouging. Now, they came out
of committee with a very limited bill that basically talked about
gasoline, and now they say, well, we want to broaden it a little bit.
Let me suggest that the broadest possible protection for the American
people in terms of price gouging comes from the Democratic substitute.
It gives the broadest jurisdiction over the most types of fuel,
including propane, home heating oil, crude oil. That is where we need
to be, not with the limited approach of the Republicans.
They also do not deal with market manipulation, and market
manipulation is where the consumer takes the hit. I urge rejection of
the Republican bill and adoption of the Democratic alternative.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the two most important bills that has
come before this Congress maybe in the last 10 years, one we passed a
couple or 3 months ago. This bill is not just important to us in
Congress that we pass something; it is not just important to companies
that have to adhere to the contents of it; not just to the big oil
companies, as they have been referred to, we need them, they need us,
we need what they can do for us; but it is important to the youth of
our Nation. This is really a generational bill because it affects your
children and my children and my grandchildren.
I probably have asked myself a dozen times what is the primary duty
of a Member of Congress. It is probably to prevent a war. And how do
you do that? You do that by removing the causes of war, and energy or
lack of energy is a major cause of most wars that I know anything about
or remember.
Who fights wars? Your children do. They are today in school, juniors
or seniors or maybe in junior college, totally unaware of what we are
doing here, but so affected by what we do. Our children have to fight
wars, not us anymore. About 64 years ago I was a senior in high school,
and I heard Frank Roosevelt at that podium right there stand up and say
in a speech after our Nation had been attacked, ``To some generations
much is given, of some generations, much is expected,

[[Page H8771]]

but this generation has a rendezvous with destiny.'' That rendezvous
was World War II. We do not want that rendezvous for our children. If
we remove the causes of war, and energy is a major cause of war, if we
pass this bill, we will have refinery capacity to prevent a war for
this generation and those that are waiting.
So, Mr. Speaker, of course I rise today in support of H.R. 3893.
While the impetus for the bill arose from tragedy, it opened our eyes
to the vulnerability of our Nation's gasoline supply and causes us to
act to prevent the price spikes and shortages from happening again, and
everything we have said or done here on this floor is going to be in
the Congressional Record for the American people to see. I would hate
to say that I opposed everything that had been offered to solve the
energy crisis.
There has not been a new refinery built in some 25 or 30 years, and
the ones that are currently running are doing so at 95 percent of
operating capacity and at peak times of the year, even higher.
The main thrust of this bill before us today encourages the building
of new refineries, and in more diverse locations. It gives areas with
closed military bases a chance to convert these bases into refineries
so that they can keep their citizens employed and remain economically
stable. I have one in my district at Texarkana, not subject to the
vicissitudes of nature or the hurricanes; it is inland far enough.
There are other areas in here. I hope consideration is given to them.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3893 insomuch as it is a
bill that addresses head-on the high price of gasoline and provides
solutions from supply to conservation. I am tired of seeing my
constituents have to pay almost 3 bucks for a gallon of gas. If you
want your constituents to keep on paying these exorbitant prices, then
go ahead and vote against this bill. If you want to help them, like I
do, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a giant missed opportunity. We
had an opportunity to do something significant. Kennedy said we were
going to go to the Moon in 10 years; this bill will not get us to
Cleveland. And the reason is it invests in old technology. Did Kennedy
challenge the country to invest in propeller plane technology? Here we
are simply investing in oil fossil fuel technology, a giveaway to the
oil and gas industry of millions and billions of dollars of taxpayer
money.
We need a new Apollo energy project. H.R. 2828 will get us there with
new technologies and fuel-efficient cars, new technologies and new
productive capabilities in wind and solar and wave power and a whole
slew of other things. We need new ideas, we need a new vision, not an
old giveaway to oil and gas.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is one small misstep for man and one giant
leap backwards for mankind, and it should be defeated.

{time} 1215

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Maine is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3893.
This bill is a laundry list of giveaways to the oil industry, one of
the most profitable industries in America and one that is right now
gouging American consumers. Big oil and its supporters are exploiting
the tragedy and human suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina to ram
through Congress ideas so bad they were rejected just 2 months ago when
Congress last approved a laundry list of giveaways to the oil industry.
For example, the bill guts key environmental and human health
protections of the Clean Air Act by limiting the States ability to use
specialized blends of gasoline to achieve their clean air goals, and
permitting up-wind States to continue to send pollution downwind. The
result: More dirty air at higher emissions rates for a longer period of
time.
Supporters of this bill will tell you that environmental regulations
make it impossible to build or expand refineries. But that simply is
not true. Environmental regulations are not the problem. The truth is
that the oil industry's profits will decline if the capacity is
increased, so they have not really tried to keep up with demand. The
oil companies are making billions these days. They do not need another
subsidy.
Moreover, there are no offsets for subsidies to big oil in this bill.
Apparently, the Republican operation offset applies only to programs
that help poor people, like Medicaid and food stamps, and not to oil
industry subsidies.
I am pleased that the manager's amendment appropriately modified the
provision requiring the President to designate three closed military
bases for construction of a refinery against the will of the local
community. I am also pleased that the chairman deleted the section of
the bill that eviscerated the Clean Air Act's new source review
program.
But these welcome programs do not make the underlying bill a good
one. I believe that we should act to increase refinery capacity, and
that the Stupak-Boucher amendment is the right approach. Let us reject
this bill and move forward on a better solution to our energy crisis.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3893,
which pretends to be a response to our Nation's exorbitant energy
costs, but which is actually a giveaway to oil and gas companies that
doesn't help America's struggling consumers. In fact, many of the
provisions in this legislation are not new; we have seen them before,
but they have proven so controversial that they were excluded from the
energy bill that Congress passed earlier this year.
Rhode Islanders are paying an average of $2.86 for a gallon of
gasoline, and high home heating oil and natural gas prices are causing
families to wonder how they will be able to afford to stay warm in the
coming winter months. In recent weeks, Rhode Islanders have learned of
two utility rate increases for both electricity and gas. These proposed
increases come at a time when the average price of gasoline at the pump
is up 51 percent, compared with last year, and home heating oil is up
57 percent in the same period.
Congress must take swift action to reduce the cost of energy, but
this bill benefits only the oil and gas industries, which have been
reaping record profits in recent months. We have heard legitimate
questions about how much of the recent increase in energy costs is the
result of price fixing, yet this legislation's provisions to combat
price gouging are insufficient and amount to no more than a slap on the
wrist. Furthermore, it would reverse long-standing health and
environmental protections, despite strong opposition nationwide to
these proposals. In fact, one of the bill's original provisions--
expanding loopholes for refineries and power plants to avoid compliance
with the Clean Air Act--was deemed so controversial that it was removed
in the dead of night.
I support the Democratic plan to establish strong federal laws and
new penalties to crack down on price gouging. The Stupak-Boucher
substitute empowers the Federal Trade Commission to combat price
gouging for gasoline, diesel, natural gas, home heating oil, and
propane. Unlike the Republican bill, the Democratic proposal includes
real penalties for price gouging and energy market manipulation--up to
$3 million per day. Additionally, the Democratic plan would create a
Strategic Refinery Reserve, which like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
would improve our Nation's ability to prevent oil and gasoline
shortages in the wake of a natural disaster such as a hurricane.
Our Nation needs a new, long-term energy policy that encourages the
use of renewable fuels and energy conservation efforts. To this end, I
have cosponsored legislation to increase automobile fuel efficiency
standards and have strongly supported Congressman Inslee's New Apollo
Energy Act, which would establish a nationwide commitment to developing
and promoting new energy sources for the future. This strategy is
important not only for our economy, but also for our national security.
Unfortunately, the Republican bill considered today does nothing to
move us toward that goal, but instead offers us more of the failed
policies of the past. I urge my colleagues to support the Stupak-
Boucher substitute and to oppose H.R. 3893.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, times of tragedy should not
be windfalls for opportunists in the wake of Hurricane Katrina gas
prices fluctuated to upwards of $6.00 in some communities.

[[Page H8772]]

Prosecution for price gouging is generally a state matter unless it
involves some form of collusion or other activity in violation of
federal laws.
Only 23 states have anti-gouging laws on the books, and definitions
vary widely. Only 13 of those states have emergency anti-gouging laws.
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has shown that the patchwork of
state anti-gouging laws does not work to deter opportunists.
While the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) monitors gas prices and
investigates possible antitrust violations in the petroleum industry,
there is no federal law to prohibit price gouging by individual bad
actors.
I welcome H.R. 3893 the Gasoline for America's Security (GAS) Act of
2005 price gouging language. It incorporates penalties of up to $11,000
per violation and covers retail and wholesale sellers of crude oil,
gasoline, diesel fuel and home heating oil.
The GAS Act Requires the FTC to enact a price gouging definition as
soon as possible within six months, an improvement from the potential
delay in the language reported out of Committee.
The House should pass a strong price gouging law that would be in
effect in disaster areas. This bill includes a strong national policy
providing stiff penalties for gasoline price gouging. Times of tragedy
should not be windfalls for opportunists. I urge my colleagues to vote
in favor of H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
3893, which in many ways is little more than a hastily assembled--and
opportunistically revived--retread of discarded ideas from past energy
debates.
Mr. Speaker, our constituents are asking for transparency in markets
and price relief at the pump. So what does this bill do?
Rather than empowering the FTC to launch an aggressive investigation
into recent reports of market manipulation, this legislation actually
reduces the maximum penalty for price gouging from $11,000 per incident
to $11,000 per day. So much for strengthening transparency and
deterrence.
Instead of ensuring additional refining capacity, this bill blames
and then proposes to eliminate key provisions of the Clean Air Act--as
if public health protections are the barrier to additional refining
capacity. They are not. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
concluded--and industry representatives concede--that the decisive
factor is economics. Indeed, far from cheering this legislation,
Attorneys General from across the nation are sounding the alarm that
H.R. 3893 will cripple states' ability to meet basic clean air
standards for our citizens.
Finally, not content to relieve industry of its environmental
obligations, H.R. 3893 extends the gravy train begun several months ago
by lavishing oil companies with an additional $1.5 billion over and
above the $4 billion they just received under the last energy bill.
This--during a time of record deficits and industry profits.
Mr. Speaker, we do indeed have an energy crisis in this country--one
that cannot begin to be solved by the kind of special interest wish
list being passed off as legislation today. In the near term, we need
to restore confidence and transparency to the marketplace by taking
decisive steps to punish and deter market manipulation where necessary.
Next, it is imperative we make long overdue improvements in automobile
fuel economy while diversifying our fuel mix to include alternatives
like cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel. Finally, we need to invest in
the next generation of 21st century technologies that create jobs,
protect the environment and move us towards energy independence.
I ask my colleagues to embrace that vision and to oppose this bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the Gasoline for America's Security Act has
a nice name, but it does little to help Missouri's farmers and rural
commuters who are experiencing record high energy costs.
Motorists in Missouri and across the Nation are paying a premium for
gasoline and diesel fuel, especially in the wake of severe weather in
the Gulf of Mexico. Missouri's Fourth Congressional District is
primarily rural, and residents rely heavily on transportation in going
about their daily lives. This is especially true for farmers who are
also facing additional costs for natural gas, propane, fertilizer, and
pesticides.
As energy expenses have sky-rocketed over the past few weeks, many
Missourians have expressed concern and skepticism about high prices and
simultaneous reports of record oil industry profits.
In order to make sure consumers are being treated fairly, the Federal
Trade Commission and the Justice Department should be given explicit
authority to investigate collusion and price gouging within the oil
industry. Penalties must have teeth and must be severe. And,
importantly, the government must be guaranteed broader authority to
look into potentially illegal behavior within other energy sectors, at
least during times of national emergency.
The bill being considered by the House today contains scant
assistance for the rural Americans I am privileged to represent. It
will not lower their energy prices and it puts in place weak price
gouging standards. It also does little to promote additional refining
capacity, while gutting important environmental safeguards and creating
additional corporate tax breaks.
Waiving environmental protections and offering federal tax breaks to
oil companies will not entice them to build new oil refineries. While
more refineries would certainly help produce more gasoline, oil
companies have had the opportunity and financial capability for years
to increase their refining capacity. Environmental regulations are not
stopping them. Rather, the inability to build profitable refineries has
led oil company executives away from constructing or resurrecting them.
An alternative to this bill is being offered by Mr. Stupak of
Michigan and others. The Stupak bill would strengthen the hands of the
Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, targeting price
gouging across the energy spectrum. It would also help Americans who
are struggling to deal with high gas prices and bracing for record home
heating bills this winter, while creating a Strategic Refinery Reserve
to provide additional gas supplies during energy shortages like the one
we are currently facing.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican bill and support the
more wisely drafted alternative.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I come before you today to express my
opposition to H.R. 3893, the so-called ``Gasoline for America's
Security Act of 2005.''
I share my colleagues' concern for the rising costs of fuel in this
country, and I too am outraged at the allegations of those who would
profit through other Americans' misfortunes by price gouging. However,
I do not feel that we should join in the exploitation of this tragedy
by using it as an opportunity to pass unsound, short-sighted, and
irresponsible legislation.
This bill will do virtually nothing to lower gasoline and other fuel
costs. It will not get relief to those Americans who are currently
bearing the burden of more expensive gas and those who will be facing
much bigger home heating bills this winter.
In fact, as far as I can tell, the only ones who will see relief from
this bill are the ones who need it least: the gas and oil industry who
are currently enjoying record profits. We seem to be offering subsidies
to big oil with one breath and excuses to the American people with the
next.
Just last week I came before you and assured you that I could not and
would not support a bill that ignores and endangers public health. I
make that promise again today. This bill's weakening of environmental
protections poses a great threat not only to the viability and
sustainability of our environment, but also to the people who inhabit
it. Limiting judicial review and EPA oversight, allowing increased air
emissions, and permitting delays in meeting current deadlines under the
Clean Air Act is irresponsible and dangerous.
In my own state of New Jersey, studies have shown that our air
pollution levels cause 2,000 premature deaths every year. At this rate,
pollution ranks as the 3rd most serious public health threat in the
State. Only smoking and obesity kill more New Jerseyans each year. Air
pollution has also been directly linked to the rise in child asthma
rates, lung cancer, learning disabilities, and heart attacks.
I will not endanger the lives and health of the people of my State. I
will not support the weakening of environmental protections that will
lead to increased pollution and threats to public health. I will not
participate in fiscal irresponsibility by giving the oil and gas
industry subsidies that do nothing to ease the cost burden on the
American people, especially those who can least afford it.
In other words, I will not support H.R. 3893.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
the Gasoline for America's Security Act and in strong support for the
substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
Our Nation is facing a real energy crisis. The people of Connecticut,
and millions of Americans, are paying record amounts to fill their gas
tanks. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that in
the upcoming winter, homeowners in the northeast can expect to pay
almost 30 percent more to heat their homes. American families will pay
hundreds, if not thousands, more in extra energy costs this year. This
will be a hard year for too many Americans.
Yet, in the name of Hurricane Katrina the House majority leadership
is pushing a bill that does nothing to reduce our dependence on oil,
lower gas prices, or help Americans get through the upcoming winter. We
cannot solve high gas prices by throwing money at oil companies. We
need to bring some real transparency into the oil industry and shine
the brightest possible light on how these companies--making billions in
record profits are

[[Page H8773]]

squeezing every possible dollar out of the American people. It's our
American families who are struggling to heat their homes and fill their
tanks this winter that need relief, not big oil.
I was honored to join the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Slaughter)
in offering an amendment that would have ended the practice of
wholesale price discrimination by prohibiting oil companies from
restricting the source of a dealer's supply of gasoline. This
amendment, based on legislation proposed by Connecticut Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal, would have gotten straight to the heart of
high gas prices by freeing our local gas stations from the hold of big
oil companies. The hard truth is that our small local gas station
owners are just as much at the whim of big oil companies as the rest of
us. They are locked into restrictive franchising agreements that
require them to purchase their supply from a single wholesaler. As a
result many of these owners, who may own two or more stations in
different towns, often have to pay different prices on the same gas on
the same day, depending on where their stations are located. Our
amendment would have simply freed station owners to find the most
competitive and fair market price to purchase their supply and pass
real savings on to their customers.
Last night, while I was waiting at the Rules Committee to testify on
our amendment, I had the opportunity to listen to many of my colleagues
offer amendments that would have significantly improved this bill. From
increasing fuel efficiency, addressing the natural gas crisis and
making our Nation energy independent, it was clear to me that there are
many worthwhile ideas that deserve real debate on the House floor.
Unfortunately, as they do time and again, the majority rejected these
excellent amendments in favor of pushing a bill that will do nothing
for Americans paying high energy costs.
Instead of throwing taxpayer dollars at an industry making record
profits, let us debate the real issues that are driving up the cost of
energy. Let us take on the price gouging and market manipulation that
is happening at all levels of oil production and distribution. Let us
have a real discussion on how we can free our nation from dependence on
foreign oil and develop the hydrogen and fuel cell technologies that
will lead our energy future.
These debates are not taking place on the House floor today. The
American people deserve better.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
3893, the ``Second Energy Special Interest Act of 2005.'' The Bush
administration's energy policy and the machinations of the Republican
leadership on this subject have an Alice in Wonderland quality.
It was the Vice President, after all, who said that energy
conservation may have been a virtue but it was no basis for a national
energy policy. Yet just last week the President was compelled by
circumstances to urge the only things that are really going to work to
get us out of this energy crisis: conservation, the use of mass
transit, and changing American driving habits. Unfortunately, the
administration has not put forward any concrete proposals or
recommendations for conservation initiatives. Instead, he has cut
funding for the conservation and efficiency programs we already have in
place.
It is unconscionable that this most recent energy bill completely
misses the point. We're not going to drill, dig, and subsidize our way
out of this energy crisis. Burning money is not an efficient way to
produce energy. We must have an energy program for this century, not
the 1950s. This new energy policy should consist of more efficiency,
new technology, and less petroleum.
If we're going to spend more money, it should be invested in programs
that actually help people. Higher fuel efficiency standards, public
transit, and even bicycles, will do much more to reduce our dependence
on foreign oil than what's in this bill. If just two percent of trips
taken nationwide were taken by bikes, we would save more than two
thirds of a billion gallons of gasoline a year and up to $5 billion in
total consumer driving costs.
Increasing fuel economy standards by a mere 1.5 miles per gallon--
less than 10 percent--over the next 10 years would save more oil than
we currently import from the Persian Gulf and more than we could ever
recover from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, combined.
Last but not least, this bill's focus on making it easier to build
more refineries by limiting our environmental standards completely
misses the point. The fact is, the energy industry makes more money by
restricting refinery capacity; the refiners' profits have jumped 80
percent over the past 5 years. As long as the oil companies stand to
make more money with limited supply, this approach is doomed to fail.
This energy bill is not only a missed opportunity, but it is a
cynical effort by Washington Republicans to exploit the tragedy of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to give more subsidies to oil companies and
to roll back environmental laws.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005. This legislation
will do nothing to lower the high cost of gas or help families pay for
home heating oil this winter. Rather, it's another taxpayer subsidy
from the Republican Majority to the oil and gas companies while the
American people continue to face the increasing burdens that the rising
cost of fuel is placing on family budgets.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, since the 1973 energy crisis, we are no more
energy independent now than we were then, and this legislation will do
nothing to resolve this Nation's bankrupt energy policy.
For those of you who support federalism, this measure goes in
opposition to state rights!
Our current energy policy is bankrupt. If this Congress is to pass a
real energy policy, here are some things what we must do: Open up ANWR;
invest the revenue into renewable energy resources; and provide
incentives to promote the ingenuity of Americans to develop energy
measures that are progressive and will rid us of energy dependence. The
President has it right, we must conserve, but we must go further like
improve CAFE standards and provide incentives to build a High Speed
Rail network. Conservation is an American value, and it is lacking from
this bill.
This Congress must craft a real energy policy that goes beyond the
status quo.
Therefore, I urge that we vote down this measure, and support the
Democratic substitute.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3893, the
so-called Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.
This bill represents the worst of legislation written by and for
corporations. In the name of helping the economy, it decimates
environmental laws and eliminates the ability of state and local
governments to decide what's best for them. It then reimburses oil
companies for the inconvenience of having to act appropriately to
protect our air and water. It is so far afield of economic reality that
even the oil companies admit that refining capacity will increase
without it. It is so environmentally reckless that one has to wonder if
Republicans think that they, in addition to being exempt from our
ethics rules, breathe different air than the rest of us.
While the Majority says that environmental regulations are the reason
for high gas prices, the facts just don't support their claim. The
reason that the cost of refining has increased is because oil companies
voluntarily closed 30 refineries in the late eighties and early
nineties to increase their profit margins. The scheme worked: Refinery
revenues increased by 255 percent last year alone.
As one would expect, high profits are now encouraging companies to
once again build and expand refineries. 1.4 million barrels per day of
refining capacity were added between 1996 and 2003. Due to this
expansion, even the American Petroleum Institute acknowledges that the
Republican's bill is completely unnecessary.
This bill is shamefully using hurricanes and high gas prices as an
excuse to advance the extreme anti-environment agenda of the Republican
Party's corporate bankrollers. It would:
Allow the President to place new refineries in national forests,
wildlife refuges, and closed military bases. The military base in my
district would probably be an appealing target for this President:.
It's the site of a planned National Wildlife Refuge. Like many
communities around the country, the City of Alameda has undergone an
extensive planning process to convert the base to civilian use, but if
the President said the word, all that could be undone without any local
recourse.
Give the Federal Government sole authority to place new refineries,
even those not on federal land. Apparently the oil executives running
the Bush Energy Department know better than your City Council where an
oil refinery should be placed.
Requires the Federal Government to reimburse refinery operators for
the cost of lawsuits and any new environmental regulations. Citizens
beware: If the Bush Administration wants to put a refinery next to your
child's preschool, you can sue to block it, but you'll have to pay back
the oil company every cent the lawsuit costs them.
We could have raised fuel economy standards today--the one policy
that would actually have a dramatic impact on gas prices--but the
Majority blocked the House from even voting on the issue. Then again,
it would hardly be germane to consider such an amendment on a bill that
has nothing whatsoever to do with lowering gas prices. I vote no on
this reckless bill.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, these are very hard times for
energy consumers--from people on fixed incomes filling up their tanks
to multi-billion dollar chemical

[[Page H8774]]

companies facing soaring natural gas feedstock costs.
I think we did a good job with the energy bill, which cannot provide
immediate relief, but will allow prices to stabilize in the future and
to become more affordable over time.
If the global market gives us $60 per barrel oil, we are going to pay
a lot for gas.
People say there is no global spare oil capacity.
Well, there is a lot here in the U.S. but we aren't allowed to use
it--that is why I support expanded oil and gas production offshore in
the OCS.
Limited refining capacity is leading to higher prices, but it is not
the refiners fault.
We have 12 refining companies that make over 500,000 barrels per day.
That is more competitive than the software operating system industry,
the airline industry, the semiconductor industry, and many others.
In the refining business, historical profits are well below average--
that's why no one invested in expansion until recently, when margins
improved.
Throughout this process, I have been concerned with both parties'
approach to consumer protection on gasoline prices.
The original refinery bill had no FTC authority to protect consumers,
only a study.
However, I am grateful to Chairman Barton for making significant
improvements to the committee-passed version of this bill.
The Stupak substitute goes even further by expanding refining
capacity and applying tougher and clearer consumer protection standards
to this bill.
It is clear that some price increases should be investigated--
especially given price spikes in Atlanta that topped $6 after Hurricane
Katrina.
But, I object to singling out the energy industry.
If we need the FTC to investigate price spikes for gasoline during
emergencies, it should have the authority to investigate price
increases for any necessity during an emergency.
We should cover water supplies, financial services, clothing, food,
and other things we need to survive in the modern world.
I also don't agree with critics of this bill who call it a give-away
to the energy industry.
When the refining industry has historically low returns and lots of
pollution control investments to make, there is not much we can do to
force them to expand capacity.
I am particularly grateful to Chairman Barton for eliminating the New
Source Review reform provisions in the committee-passed version of the
bill.
That language had the potential to hinder our efforts to improve air
quality in Houston.
My constituents are extremely concerned with air pollution in our
district, and we are working on solutions with the help of both
industry and residents.
The elimination of this provision greatly improves this bill and
ensures that it will do no environmental harm to the Houston area,
which has long struggled to contain air pollution and smog.
The courts and the EPA are working to reform New Source Review, a
highly complex and controversial program, and it is wise for Congress
to let them address this issue.
For my part, I am thankful for the Chairman accepting my amendment to
respond to the crisis that brought us here--gasoline shortages and
prices spikes after Hurricane Katrina and now Rita.
The amendment added an Energy Assurance title to the bill to require
the Department of Energy to review, approve, and offer recommendations
of the fuel supply segments of State evacuation plans.
The amendment also specifically authorizes critical energy facilities
like refineries to request direct help from the Department of Energy
during a federally declared emergency or disaster. It is in the
national interest for refineries not to go down, and if they do, to get
back up quickly,
The Department of Energy is authorized to provide assistance with
generation capacity, water service, critical employees, ensure raw
materials can be accessed, and any other necessity.
Neither the base bill nor the Stupak amendment is a perfect answer to
our problems with refining capacity.
However, it is clear that the American public is feeling an energy
pinch and is looking to Congress for action.
At this time, some amount of positive action is better than no
action--which is why I will ultimately support this bill and encourage
my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
this bill today.
This so-called GAS Act has nothing to do with bringing the prices of
gasoline down--its ostensible purpose--and everything to do with the
Republican leadership overreaching, exploiting the catastrophes of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to their own advantage.
As I said earlier this year when the House passed the Energy Policy
Act, there is nothing I'd rather vote for than a balanced energy bill
that sets us on a forward-looking course--one that acknowledges that
this country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil
fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and
our economy.
But like its predecessor, this bill is far from balanced.
Although there is bipartisan recognition that this bill should--at a
minimum--address price-gouging that occurred in the wake of Katrina,
this bill's price-gouging provisions are weak. They give the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) authority to pursue price gouging by sellers of
gasoline or diesel fuel only in those areas where a natural disaster
has occurred. And the provisions are directed at small gas station
owners rather than at refiners, when recent studies show that
refineries' prices have increased 255 percent--as compared to an
increase of retailers' margin of about 5 percent.
The bill also includes subsidies for oil companies if a refinery is
delayed because of litigation, even if the litigation results from the
oil company violating the law. We shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars
to help profitable oil companies evade local, state, and federal laws
and regulations.
More problematic, the bill claims to solve a problem that doesn't
exist. The Republicans would have us believe that environmental permit
requirements are to blame for the fact that no new refineries have been
built since 1976. In fact, the only refinery that industry has
attempted to build since 1976--a facility in Arizona--received its
permit in just nine months. The truth is that over the last ten years,
30 existing refineries have been closed, but our refining capacity has
been increasing. Refining capacity has become tight in recent years--so
now companies can use their substantial profits to increase that
capacity. But there is no reason to think that market forces cannot
solve the current problem, and no reason to believe that ``burdensome''
environmental rules had anything to do with industry decisions not to
add to refining capacity in recent years.
The Republicans tell us we need a smaller federal government and
greater local government control. Yet this bill is yet another example
of where their message doesn't mesh with reality. The reality is that
this bill preempts state and local government responsibilities and
relaxes environmental laws. The National Association of Counties,
National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities,
and U.S. Conference of Mayors oppose this bill--and for good reason.''

H.R. 3893 gives federal bureaucrats at the Department of Energy sole
authority over the location of new refineries, taking away the primary
permitting and oversight authority from all other state and local
agencies. The bill also gives the D.C. Appeals Court exclusive
jurisdiction over states' actions related to refineries or pipelines,
as opposed to allowing state and local agencies review refinery and
pipeline construction. And even though the energy bill passed earlier
this year limited the number of gasoline and diesel fuel blends, H.R.
3893 would limit them even further, undermining the ability of states
and localities that already cannot meet national air quality goals to
clean up the air their constituents breathe.
The bill instructs the president to designate sites on Federal lands,
including closed military installations, for the purposes of siting a
refinery. The bill excludes national parks, national monuments, and
wilderness areas, but wildlife refuges and wilderness-quality lands
such as Wilderness Study Areas and National Forest roadless areas are
fair game.
I share the concerns of Thomas Markham, the Executive Director of the
Lowry Redevelopment Authority in Colorado who also serves as the
president of the Association of Defense Communities, about how this
provision might affect former military bases. As he writes in a letter
on behalf of the ADC, ``Shifting the responsibility to the federal
government for planning how closed military installation will be reused
would interfere with the time-tested approach developed over the past
two decades. The conversion of military property to civilian uses is
the responsibility of the community. Communities must be in charge when
planning for life after closure.''
I realize that the rule as adopted today improved the bill language
slightly to give communities more voice in the proposed process. But
the essence of the bill language is the same. Again, this provision is
a solution in search of a problem. There is nothing in the BRAC statute
or in new DoD regulations that prevents a local community, through its
redevelopment authority, from building or permitting an oil refinery on
a military base.
And then there are the things the bill would not do. It fails on the
``demand side'' by not increasing vehicle fuel economy standards, which
have been frozen since 1996. Raising CAFE standards is the single
biggest step we can take to reduce oil consumption, since about half of
the oil used in the U.S. goes into the gas tanks of our passenger
vehicles.

[[Page H8775]]

I support legislation that would actually help lower gas prices.
I support the substitute introduced by Representative Bart Stupak
that gives explicit authority to the FTC to define, for the first time,
price gouging--not just for gasoline and diesel, but for natural gas,
home heating oil, and propane. And the provisions are directed at the
entire chain of gasoline production and distribution, including
refineries. The substitute also authorizes new civil penalties of up to
three times the amount of unjust profits gained by companies who engage
in price gouging. The substitute would also increase our nation's
refinery capacity by establishing a federal Strategic Refinery Reserve,
patterned after the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with capacity equal to
5 percent of the total U.S. demand for gasoline, home heating oil and
other refined petroleum products.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita did highlight a serious problem this
country faces--our excessive reliance on fossil fuels. But the solution
isn't to give still more incentives to oil and gas companies to drill.
Instead, we should act to wean our nation from its dependence on fossil
fuels, especially foreign oil. The Republican leadership claims this
bill will help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil by stimulating
domestic development and production. Yet with only 3% of the world's
known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our energy
vulnerability by drilling at home.
Our excessive dependence on fossil energy is a pressing matter of
national security. We have an energy security crisis. We need to think
anew to devise an energy security strategy that will give future
generations of Americans an economy less dependent on oil and fossil
fuels.
Unfortunately, this bill does not even begin to address this problem.
For that reason, I cannot vote for it.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the spike in gasoline prices
after hurricanes Katrina and Rita has drawn national attention to
domestic energy supplies, as well as fuel efficiency standards. Instead
of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress offering a bill
reducing gas prices, home heating prices, declare our Nation's energy
independence, protect the environment, and put funds into increasing
energy research and development, this Republican Congress promotes a
bill that includes massive subsidies to oil companies at the expense of
Americans.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated much of the energy
infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico. The region contains 47 percent of
the Nation's oil refining capacity, and 19 percent of the Nation's
natural gas production. Immediately after Hurricane Katrina the
national average price for gasoline increased 46 cents to $3.07 per
gallon.
Home heating costs, including home heating oil, natural gas and
electricity are predicted to increase 50-90 percent over last year's
prices. Since 2001, home heating oil costs have nearly tripled, and
natural gas costs have more than doubled, nearing crisis levels for
homeowners and Americans on a fixed and low income.
President Bush recently gave a speech calling on consumers to
conserve gasoline and other fuels. I have yet to hear the President
urge oil, coal, utility, and energy companies to reduce their costs.
During a time oil and refinery company profits are more than 200
percent, the Republican solution is to offer subsidies to a profitable
industry, to rollback environmental regulations, and to increase
gasoline and home heating prices to Americans.
This bill is anti-consumer and anti-environment. The American people
need real relief at the gas pump and with their heating bills.
Democrats support an energy policy that helps Americans by stopping
price gouging and increasing refinery capacity to keep gas and home
heating prices low. The bill before us today will do nothing to lower
gas prices at the pump or lower home heating costs.
If the alternative offered by my Michigan colleague, Representative
Bart Stupak is accepted, we would have a strong energy bill. The Stupak
substitute gives the Federal Trade Commission new powers to prohibit
price gouging for gasoline, diesel, natural gas, home heating oil, and
propane. The substitute also creates a new Strategic Refinery Reserve
that would give our country the ability to produce refined oil products
during extreme energy situations. This approach is more favorable and
will help Americans at this most difficult time.
The underlying legislation is a bad deal for America. I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting against passage of the energy bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it goes with out saying that
we are facing a serious energy crisis in this country. Since the
beginning of the year, crude oil prices have been continuously
escalating, and most recently have exceeded $70 dollars a barrel. Many
factors, ranging from the war in Iraq, to increased demand from China
and India have caused the spike in prices. While the factors may vary,
the results are constant. Many Americans are suffering from the high
cost of gasoline which has exceeded $3 dollars a gallon in some areas.
In addition, as winter approaches the price of natural gas is also
expected to be exceedingly high which will further increase the burden
Americans, particularly those who fall into low income brackets, will
have to shoulder as they figure out how to pay for gas to get to work
and electricity to heat their homes.
Unfortunately, Hurricane Katrina and Rita did not help the situation.
With their devastating power, Katrina caused U.S. oil and refinery
operations in the Gulf of Mexico to shut down an estimated 1 million
barrels of refining capacity. With Louisiana and Mississippi being such
a crucial part of the U.S. energy infrastructure, these interruptions
played a vital role in spiking prices. Both hurricane Katrina and Rita
should serve as flashing light that we need more refineries in this
country. While this may be the case, we as policy makers must go about
it in smart way that gives us the capacity we need, but also does not
jeopardize the environment and health of the American people. This
means ensuring that we have sound environmental laws that protect, but
not restrict development. While I realize this can be difficult to
achieve at first sight, I believe this goal can be achieved if party
lines are dropped and the needs and concerns of the American people are
put first. I hope this will be the course followed as we move through
conference.
While I am pleased that the New Standard Review provision has been
removed from the Barton bill, it is still not perfect. For example it
does not list factors that the FTC must use when defining price
gouging. In addition, the bill does not provide any additional
penalties for those who engage in price gouging, and does not direct
penalties collected back to consumers. Further, the bill does not event
mention market manipulation or price transparency.
In contrast, the Stupak/Boucher substitute list factors that the FTC
must use when defining price gouging. It also applies to all crude and
refined petroleum products including propane and Natural Gas. The
substitute also strengthens enforcement against those who price gouge
by providing new civil penalties with up to triple damages of the
profits gained by the violation. In addition, it directs penalties
collected from price gougers to go towards LIHEAP. Further, it provides
the FTC with authority to stop market manipulation and provide
information on price transparency. Finally, the bill builds on the
proven success of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by requiring the
Federal Government to operate Strategic Refinery Reserve to ensure
adequate supply of refined products in emergency situations. Most
importantly, the bill maintains environmental standards.
Before closing let me take a few moments to mention my amendment that
was adopted by voice vote during the Full Committee Mark-up. I
appreciate Chairman Barton's willingness to work with me on this issue.
In essence, the provision would authorize and direct the Secretary of
Energy to establish a program at Historically Black Universities,
Hispanic serving institutions, and community colleges to encourage
minority students to study the earth and other sciences and enter the
field of geology in order to qualify for employment in the oil, gas,
and mineral industries. As we continue to deal with the energy crises
we are facing, we need qualified individuals in the fields who can
assist with providing new information as to the location of reserves.
As we are all aware, there has been a great deal of talk about where
the next source of oil will come from that will sustain this country.
If we do not encourage individuals to study the earth sciences we may
never find this country's next source of oil. Geology is more than the
study of rocks; it has become the corner stone of this country's oil
supply.
Today, HBCU's remain one of the surest ways for an African American,
or student of any race, to receive a high quality education. Seven of
the top eleven producers of African American baccalaureates in
engineering were HBCU's, including #1 North Carolina A&T State
University. The top three producers of African American baccalaureates
in health professions (#1 Southern University and A&M College, #2
Florida A&M University and #3 Howard University) were HBCU's. The
twelve top producers of African American baccalaureates in the physical
sciences, including #1 Xavier University of Louisiana, were all HBCU's.
While, Hispanic Serving Institutions (HIS's) have also produced great
leaders in this country, according to the Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities Hispanics are historically underrepresented
in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. HIS's
receive only half the federal funding per student, on average, accorded
to every other degree-granting institution. This provision would seek
to encourage all minorities to study the earth sciences and geology to
better equip them for jobs in the oil and gas and minerals industries.

[[Page H8776]]

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule
and this legislation.
This legislation is a corruption of special energy interests, it
displays an abject disregard for human health and the environment, and
it fails completely to find consensus to address the impending energy
crisis.
Today, we have the opportunity to lead and help the people of this
country in a genuine and lasting manner.
Instead, we are turning our back on the people and are catering to
the self-interests of the highest bidders.
History will not look favorably on the actions of this administration
and this Congress.
Confirmation of this criticism is contained in today's rule.
The rule corrects an overreach by some within the oil and gas and
electric utility industries.
It seems the majority could not muster the votes to perpetrate a
complete gutting of the Clean Air Act's New Source Review provisions.
Under the pretext of lowering the cost of building new refineries by
waiving certain environmental laws designed to protect the public, a
few bad electric utilities operators tried to hitch a ride and enact
what they have been trying for years to achieve: enable their older
coal-fired power plants to operate without adding modern emission
controls to reduce harmful emissions.
Given the refinery industry's high profits and cash reserves, I find
it hard to believe that we need to endanger the public's health to
increase refinery capacity, but why should electric utilities be
granted the same exemption from the New Source Review provisions?
Despite the full support of the Bush administration, the utility
companies' goals have been blocked by the courts and enforcement
actions by the Justice Department which has continued to uphold the law
and prosecute violators.
The bill approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee would have
enabled refineries and utilities making physical changes that do not
increase emissions above a maximum level the plant could have
theoretically once emitted to be exempt from the New Source Review
requirements.
The late Senator John Chaffee, when crafting the New Source Review
provisions, stated:

[O]lder plants are operating well below their maximum
capacity. To allow a refurbished utility to emit at its old
potential levels could permit an almost twofold increase in
emissions. * * * So this amendment could permit a powerplant,
even one where its emissions directly affected a national
park, for example, to refurbish or add a new boiler, to
double its NO[x] and particulate emissions, triple
its SO2 emissions and cover these SO2
emissions by purchasing allowances and never have to
demonstrate what impact this would have on visibility or
other air quality standards. Similarly, a powerplant * * *
could increase emissions in one of these nonattainment areas
and neither have to demonstrate air quality impacts nor be
required to offset these increases of emissions as they are
required to do under existing law.

Beyond making it easier and cheaper to increase refining capacity and
to prosecute for price gouging, what does this legislation do to wean
our dependency from oil and from a growing worldwide shortage in oil?
Nothing.
In fact, this rule blocks us from even considering what is clearly
one greatest opportunities to reduce the country's dependence of
imported oil.
My colleagues Representatives Boehlert and Markey had an amendment
that this rule does not allow us to consider that would require auto
manufacturers to improve the fuel efficiency of their automobiles by
raising the Corporate Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) for SUVs and
minivans.
Had the current President's father adopted tougher CAFE standards,
put us on a gradual path to 27 miles per gallon for light trucks and 34
gallons for cars, we would have displaced all oil we import from the
Persian Gulf today.
Of course we would still be importing oil from the Persian Gulf, but
our economy and our transportation sector and today's auto
manufacturers would not be reeling from the consequences of $60 barrels
of oil and $3.00 gallons of gasoline.
We are an oil-based economy, with about 60 percent of our oil
imported from abroad. While coal, uranium and some renewable sources
such as wind and hydro comprise a majority of the fuel used to generate
electricity, most of our economy is dependent or exclusively reliant on
oil, from fertilizers for agriculture, plastics for manufacturing to
gasoline and diesel for transportation.
You would think that, in light of world events and the
vulnerabilities Hurricane Katrina and Rita illuminated, we would have a
different bill. World oil supplies have tightened, the price of oil has
shot up to over $60 a barrel and many of our foreign sources of oil,
the Middle East, in particular, but Africa and Venezuela as well, have
grown even less stable.
This bill, while better than what was approved by the Energy and
Commerce last week, is woefully deficient and heads our country in the
wrong direction. It rushes us closer to the day oil shortages occur and
sets us backward on our ability to address it.
Oppose today's rule and oppose this bill.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina may not only have been one
of the most destructive natural disasters in our nation's history, the
argument could be made that Katrina was the perfect storm in exposing
our nation's vulnerabilities in supplying oil and gas to meet our
energy needs.
There is absolutely no doubt that our country must become energy
independent. Today we rely on foreign sources of oil to supply 60
percent of our energy needs. We are at the mercy of the Oil Producing
Export Countries. Disruption in our energy supply--whether through OPEC
polices to reduce production, disruption in domestic drilling and
shipping caused by hurricanes, or limited refining capacity--energy
security is a matter of national security.
I understand the serious impact that rising fuel prices have on the
everyday lives of people and the strength of our economy. It is an
issue which impacts everyone who drives or uses oil and every sector of
our economy. We must find ways to improve conservation of oil
resources, increase domestic production and oil refining capacity.
Progress also needs to be made in developing alternative fuels as well
as making the machines we use more energy efficient.
The argument has been made that our nation's ability to refine both
imported and domestic sources of oil is limited because no new oil
refineries have opened in the United States in almost 30 years.
Additionally, just under half our refinery capacity or 47 percent is
concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico. If every refinery is operating at
full capacity, 17 million barrels per day are refined, however, demand
averages at 21 million barrels a day. The legislation before the House
today, H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005,
attempts to increase refining capacity through provisions to encourage
new refinery construction and streamline the regulatory path to build
new refineries, among other provisions.
Mr. Speaker, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to Chairman Barton
and the Energy and Commerce Committee on this bill and I will vote for
it, albeit reluctantly, to help move the process forward. But I believe
we need more debate, especially on the issue of making certain we
maintain strong environmental protections for clean air and water and
endangered species when siting refineries, and I am hopeful that the
House can negotiate with the Senate to come up with a more balanced
bill. I am glad to see that the provisions modifying the New Source
Review Program and the New Source Performance Standards Programs, which
would reduce protections against pollutants, were removed from the
final version of the bill.
I also am pleased that the bill authorizes the president to have a
refinery permitted, constructed and operated for the sole consumption
of the United States Armed Forces. It is absolutely necessary that we
do everything possible to ensure that our ability to defend our
citizens is inhibited by a simple lack of oil and refined gas.
If our nation ever hopes to reduce its dependence on imported oil, we
also must increase automobile fuel economy standards. I was very
disappointed that the Rules Committee failed to make in order an
amendment to H.R. 3893 to increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards. I enclose for the record a copy of the text of the
letter I signed with Representatives Boehlert, Shays, Gilchrest and
others to the Rules Committee. We must have fuel efficient automobiles
that do not waste gasoline. I support boosting CAFE standards for U.S.
auto makers to 33 mpg over 10 years (by 2015), consistent with the
findings of the National Academy of Sciences, in order to save 10
percent of the gasoline the nation would otherwise consume by 2015. The
current standard of 27.5 miles per gallon has been in effect for nearly
two decades despite proven technology that promises to stretch engine
efficiency to much higher levels. I believe such a reasonable approach
is needed to put U.S. auto makers on notice that they must work to
produce more fuel efficient vehicles.
I am also disappointed that, although the bill establishes a program
to encourage the use of carpooling and vanpooling to save energy, there
is absolutely no mention of telework. Ridesharing is important, but
telework is the most efficient way to reduce gasoline consumption and
reduce pollutants by taking commuters off the roads and allowing them
to work at home or at a telework center close to home. Allowing all
eligible federal employees to telework is the law of the land. Why is
telework not included in this bill?
I also believe we must have tough penalties on price gouging. I am
very concerned when

[[Page H8777]]

I hear from my constituents who don't understand how the price of
gasoline at the pump can jump 25 cents in one day or how the same brand
of gasoline can be selling at widely different prices at gas stations
only a few miles apart. Then we hear the major oil companies reporting
record profits while consumers deal with skyrocketing gas prices.
This is far from a perfect bill. In the wake of the perfect storm
that Katrina brought to our nation, we need to take action to both
increase our energy supply and to become more energy and fuel
efficient. Congress has an opportunity to craft a fair and balanced
bill. I hope the legislation that is brought to the House after
conference with the Senate is a bill that protects consumers, protects
the environment and moves our nation to energy efficiency and is a
final bill that I can support.

Hon. David Dreier,
Chairman, House Committee on Rules,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to urge that the Rules
Committee make in order Congressman Boehlert's amendment to
increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards when
it reports out a rule for the consideration of H.R. 3893, the
``Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.''
The amendment, a version of which has been made in order in
each of the last three Energy Bill debates in the House, is
germane to H.R. 3893. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the
House could be seen to have a complete debate on the
availability of gasoline without a discussion of fuel economy
standards. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and $3 per gallon
gasoline prices, more Americans are becoming aware of the
need to address the demand, as well as the supply side of our
gasoline crisis--to protect their own family pocketbooks, as
well as to enhance the nation's energy security. Indeed one
recent poll found that 86 percent of Americans favor higher
fuel economy standards, more than the percentage favoring any
other approach to the current energy pinch. At this time when
both the public and their representatives are becoming more
open to toughening fuel economy standards, fairness dictates
that a serious amendment on fuel economy standards be part of
the debate about how the nation will ensure that gasoline
remains affordable and accessible.
The transportation sector is the nation's single largest
consumer of oil, yet it is also the only sector of the
economy that is less fuel efficient than it was 20 years ago.
A debate on gasoline needs to include measures that will
address that fact, especially when the National Academy of
Sciences concluded four years ago that the technology exists
to accomplish fuel economy goals cost-effectively and safely.
And the study did not even consider three important
technologies that automakers have since begun to introduce in
the marketplace that can achieve even greater fuel economies:
hybrid engine technologies, clean diesel technologies and
high-strength, lightweight composites and steels.
The House needs and deserves to have a discrete debate on
fuel economy, just as it has had during the debate on past
energy bills. The issue must not get lost in disputes about
other aspects of H.R. 3893, which deals with a wide variety
of legal and regulatory issues. We urge you to allow a clear,
full and open debate on the single measure that would do the
most to reduce the U.S. demand for oil.
Sincerely, ------
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3893.
Our country is facing a painful energy crisis under the policies of
this Administration and Congressional leadership. Just last week, I
received a letter from a constituent of mine, Paul Perry of Dunn, North
Carolina, a small businessman struggling to make ends meet. He wrote:
``We just broke ground on a new brick plant and should be in operation
by August of 2006. I just hope gas prices don't break us before we get
the new plant in production.'' The American people desperately need
effective new energy policies, but H.R. 3893 is simply more of the same
failed giveaways to Big Oil.
The bill on the floor today is nothing more than a giveaway to big
oil companies; and on top of this, it contains environmental rollbacks
that the Administration has been unsuccessfully pursuing for years for
gas and coal fired power plants. These provisions would relax existing
pollution controls on thousands of industrial facilities across the
country in what one energy industry official even called the most
blatant attack on state and local environmental authority that he's
ever seen.
This legislation would throw out provisions my state of North
Carolina implemented when we passed our own clean smokestacks
legislation. This legislation would cap penalties levied against big
oil companies and refineries caught price gouging to meager amounts at
a time when they are recording record profits. Finally, this bill would
give tax breaks to those same oil companies at a time of record budget
deficits.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and to support the
substitute that provides real provisions to crack down on price
gouging. The substitute bill provides real help to the American people.
It punishes price gougers, not just the gas stations but the
refineries, the wholesalers, and any of the big oil companies if they
are caught taking advantage of the American people.
The substitute also creates a strategic refining capacity for the
country in times of a national emergency, without jeopardizing the
environmental safeguards put in place by the Congress to protect our
air, water, land, and public health.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R.
3893. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused tremendous devastation along
the Gulf coast, and I appreciate the need to address the suffering and
destruction that resulted. However, I am appalled at this effort by the
Republican majority to exploit this national tragedy to weaken
environmental, public health, and consumer protections under the guise
of lower gasoline prices; and protect consumers from price-gouging on
gasoline. Sadly, the bill will accomplish none of these things, while
being loaded down with controversial unrelated provisions. This is why
it was opposed by every Democrat on the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
While claiming to protect consumers, this bill actually weakens the
Federal Trade Commission's authority to deal with price gouging, at a
time when we have seen gasoline prices rise at astronomical rates. It
focuses all price gouging efforts on mom-and-pop retailers, rather than
the big oil companies and refiners who are actually reaping enormous
profits. This bill limits the areas that can be investigated for price-
gouging, and there is no real enforcement authority to prosecute bad
behavior.
The bill gives new regulatory subsidies to the refining industry at a
time when that industry's profits are breaking records. The Washington
Post reported last month that over the past year, refinery profit
margins on a gallon of gasoline have increased over 255 percent. Yet
the bill could also put taxpayers on the hook for unlimited damages if
a refinery is stalled in litigation or must meet new regulatory
standards. The fact is that refineries are not being built in this
country because the companies do not want to build them for economic
reasons.
And this bill will undermine local control by forcing some
communities with closed military bases to accept refineries without
having any input in the process. These communities will not be able to
develop sites for years even if the Federal Government does not
ultimately build refineries on them.
I was at a roundtable with high tech leaders last weekend, and the
one thing they talked most about was energy. They emphasized the need
for new alternative energy supplies and highlighted the role that new
technologies can play in using energy more efficiently and generating
it in new ways. Sadly, the Republican bill will do nothing in this
area. And one amendment that would have led to real strides in
efficiency, the Boehlert-Markey amendment which would have increased
fuel economy standards for cars and trucks to 33 miles per gallon by
2015, was not even allowed by the Rules Committee. I am incredulous as
to how we could be considering a bill that is supposed to address high
gasoline prices and not have a debate on increasing the efficiency with
which vehicles use fuel. Even the President is now advocating
conservation, which his own Vice President once claimed was a virtue
but not a policy.
That is why I oppose H.R. 3893 and support the Democratic substitute,
which will provide real enforcement against energy price gouging and
establish a Strategic Refinery Reserve, patterned on the successful
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to protect against loss of refinery
capacity.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, more than ever in the wake of the recent
hurricanes, Congress and the American people are focused on meeting our
energy needs. Whether it's the rise in gas prices at the pump or the
anticipation of expensive home heating bills this winter, all Americans
are feeling the pinch.
We have already signed into law an energy bill that sought to expand
domestic production of oil and other sources of energy, but we have
done very little to reduce demand. Yet again, we are considering a bill
that will only address the supply end of the equation. Even if
increasing refinery capacity were to positively affect gasoline prices,
as the The Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005 (H.R. 3893)
purports, it would do so at the expense of our environment and public
health, and by trumping state law.
While I am pleased that the manager's amendment strikes changes to
the ``New Source Review'' program, provisions remain that ill hurt
taxpayers, pollute our environment, supersede state law, and give
unnecessary payments to the oil companies. This bill outlines erroneous
solutions to our current energy challenges, and ultimately fails to
``secure'' Americans from energy price surges.
Whereas intended to respond to temporary refinery shortages caused by
recent hurricanes and to address high gasoline prices, the bill weakens
environmental laws and undermines states' rights by limiting the kinds
of

[[Page H8778]]

cleaner fuels states can require to meet their clean air targets;
federalizing many siting and permitting decisions relating to
refineries; limiting the kinds of diesel fuel that can be required and
interfering with the low sulfur diesel rule that was championed by the
Bush Administration; rewriting the permitting process for refineries to
limit environmental reviews without any evidence that current processes
are at all a problem; and enabling cities with harmful levels of ozone
air pollutants to delay improving air quality.
Adoption of this bill would constitute a major setback for air
quality across the nation. The longterm costs for backtracking on
important pollution measures will be far greater than the short terms
gains from this bill. Our states have worked aggressively to ensure
that improvements are made to air quality and it is our duty to
support, not hinder, such efforts.
Instead of only meeting our energy needs by increasing supply, we
need to continue to improve conservation methods and our R&D efforts in
renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power. And, we must
take a hard look at automotives, from creating additional consumer
incentives for domestic production and purchase of efficient hybrid-
electric vehicles to the possibility of increasing fuel economy
standards, so cars can go further on a tank of gas. A diversified
approach, based on a variety of resources, will truly save consumers
money at the pump and help to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
The legislation before us today can only hurt our states and our
environment and I urge a no vote on this legislation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following exchange of
letters for the Record.
House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, October 5, 2005.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Barton: On September 28, 2005, the Committee
on Energy and Commerce ordered reported H.R. 3893, the
``Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.'' In
recognition of the desire to expedite floor consideration of
H.R. 3893, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives any
consideration of the bill.
Several sections of H.R. 3893 contain matters within the
Committee on the Judiciary's rule X jurisdiction. A summary
of principal provisions within the Committee on the
Judiciary's jurisdiction follows.
Section 102(e) grants original and exclusive Federal court
jurisdiction to adjudicate civil actions filed under this
section. Section 202(e) grants original and exclusive Federal
court jurisdiction to adjudicate civil actions filed under
this section. These matters fall within the Committee on the
Judiciary's jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(1) (``The
judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal'').
Section 605(f) grants members of the ``Commission for the
Deployment of the Hydrogen Economy,'' as creted under Title
VI of the bill, the authority to issue subpoenas without
requesting the assistance of the Attorney General. This
matter falls within the Committee on the Judiciary's
jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(1) (``The judiciary and
judicial proceedings, civil and criminal'').
The Committee on the Judiciary agrees to waive any formal
consideration of the bill with the understanding that its
jurisdiction over these and other provisions contained in the
legislation is no way altered or diminished. This waiver is
further conditioned upon the understanding between our
Committees that there are no provisions contained in H.R.
3893 that could be construed or interpreted to alter, modify,
or to have any effect on any laws or regulations pertaining
to any fuel additive, including ethanol and MTBE. The
Committee on the Judiciary also reserves the right to seek
appointment to any House-Senate conference on this
legislation. I would appreciate your including this letter in
the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 3893 on
the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these
matters.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, October 4, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: I write in regards to H.R.
3893, Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.
While the Committee on the Judiciary did not receive a
referral of the bill upon introduction, I appreciate your
willingness not to seek a referral on H.R. 3893. I agree that
your decision to forego action on the bill will not prejudice
the Committee on the Judiciary with respect to its
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or future legislation.
Further, knowing of your interest in the debate surrounding
fuel additive liability, nothing in H.R. 3893 should be
construed or interpreted to alter, modify, or to have any
effect on any laws or regulations pertaining to any additive,
including ethanol and MTBE.
I will include our exchange of letters in the Committee's
report on H.R. 3893, and I look forward to working with you
as we prepare to pass this important energy legislation for
the American people.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Chairman.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.

____________________