[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12346-12352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                THE GASOLINE PRICE REDUCTION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 4545) to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce the 
proliferation of boutique fuels, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4545

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``The Gasoline Price Reduction 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. WAIVER OF FUEL PROVISIONS IN CASE OF FUEL SUPPLY 
                   DISRUPTION.

       Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7545(c)(4)(C)) is amended by adding the following at the end 
     thereof: ``The Administrator may waive the provisions of any 
     applicable implementation plan approved under this 
     subparagraph with respect to a fuel or fuel additive if the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, 
     determines that such waiver is necessary by reason of a 
     significant fuel supply disruption in any area subject to 
     such plan. Such waiver shall remain in effect in the area 
     concerned for such period as the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems necessary by 
     reason of such fuel supply disruption. No State or person 
     shall be subject to an enforcement action, penalties, or 
     liability solely arising from actions taken pursuant to the 
     issuance of a waiver under this section.''.

     SEC. 3. CAP AND REDUCTION OF BOUTIQUE FUELS.

       (a) EPA Approval of State Plans With Boutique Fuels.--
     Section 211(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)) 
     is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(D) In the case of gasoline, after the enactment of this 
     subparagraph, the Administrator may give a preference to the 
     approval of State implementation plan provisions described in 
     subparagraph (C) if the control or prohibition in such 
     provisions requires the use of either of the following:
       ``(i) Reformulated gasoline as defined in subsection (k).
       ``(ii) Gasoline having a Reid Vapor Pressure of 7.0 or 7.8 
     pounds per square inch (psi) for the high ozone season (as 
     determined by the Administrator).
     The Administrator shall have no authority, when considering 
     State implementation plan revisions under subparagraph (C), 
     to approve any fuel or fuel additive if the effect of such 
     approval would be to increase the total number of fuels and 
     fuel additives approved in all State implementation plans 
     nationwide prior to June 1, 2004.''.
       (b) Cross Reference.--Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)) is amended by adding the 
     following at the end thereof: ``After the date of enactment 
     of subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, any State 
     implementation plan revision under this subparagraph 
     involving gasoline shall be considered only pursuant to both 
     this subparagraph and subparagraph (D).''.
       (c) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     Energy, shall undertake a study of the effects on air 
     quality, on the number of fuel blends, on fuel availability, 
     and on fuel costs of the State plan provisions adopted 
     pursuant to section 211(c)(4)(D) of the Clean Air Act. In 
     carrying out such study, the Administrator shall obtain 
     comments from affected parties. The Administrator shall 
     submit the results of such study to the Congress not later 
     than 18 months after the enactment of this Act, together with 
     any recommended legislative changes to the list of fuels in 
     section 211(c)(4)(D), which, if expanded, shall not exceed 10 
     fuels.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this legislation 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4545, the Gasoline Price 
Reduction Act of 2004. This bill cosponsored by the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has 
three distinct provisions. One, it expressly gives the Administrator of 
the EPA, or the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with 
the Secretary of Energy, waiver authority with respect to fuels and 
fuel additives requirements in State implementation plans in the event 
of a significant fuel supply disruption.
  The second section of the bill would give the Administrator of the 
EPA a preference as to which of three types of fuel could be required 
when considering approval of State implementation plans, while at the 
same time capping the total number of fuels or fuel additives at the 
nationwide number in existence as of June 1, 2004, and I believe that 
number is 48.
  The third thing the bill would do would be to require the 
administrator of the EPA, again in cooperation with the Secretary of 
Energy, to undertake a study to determine the effect of State plan 
provisions on air quality, on the number of fuel blends, on fuel 
availability and on fuel costs. The results of this study are to be 
reported to the Congress within 18 months after enactment, with 
recommendations on legislative changes to the list of preferred fuels 
which, if expanded, shall not exceed 10 fuels.
  Over time, we have specialized our fuels in nonattainment areas in 
different regions of the country to the point that every talking head 
on every news show speaks of the Balkanization of the fuel supply; the 
dividing of our fuel blends into smaller and smaller groupings.
  This bill will not provide overnight relief, but it would represent a 
good start to limiting the proliferation of fuels so numerous that it 
takes a high-tech society just to keep up with them.
  I would urge the passage of this important legislation, H.R. 4545, 
the Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the primary author of the bill, the majority 
whip, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on leave, be 
able to control the balance of the time that I normally would control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the chairman for yielding and look forward to the discussion 
of this bill with my friends and others on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this is Energy Week, and I think most American families 
can tell us that what they really want to see is some common sense at 
the gas pump. Every summer we see wild spikes in the prices of gasoline 
at stations nationwide. This summer is one of the worst on record. 
Prices in some areas are peaking at $3.11 per gallon, according to my 
California colleagues.
  Communities across the country can use close to 45 different blends 
of gasoline. These so-called specialty boutique

[[Page 12347]]

fuels are specially formulated as these fuel requirements are necessary 
to meet air quality standards in certain areas. To make matters even 
worse, even more special blends of these special blends are often 
required, depending upon the season.
  When supply cannot meet demand for one of these boutique blends, 
prices spike, sometimes overnight, and families and commerce suffers. 
States use numerous blends and grades of fuel to meet clean air 
standards. This approach results in islands within our country that use 
a gasoline used by no other community. These areas prohibit other 
blends of gasoline, even in times of shortage. In other words, if they 
run low they cannot run next door to borrow a little fuel that is 
easily available somewhere else. Instead, consumers see tight supply 
and rising prices.
  Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Missouri, a person can fill their 
gas tank in Springfield, where I am from, and drive 3\1/2\ hours to St. 
Louis. When they get there they would be filling their tank up again, 
but probably after they have burned all the gas that they bought 
somewhere else in that community. They would buy a different type of 
gasoline, but if St. Louis ever runs short of gasoline, they cannot go 
just right across the river to East St. Louis, Illinois. They cannot 
use the gasoline that is available 25 miles from downtown, outside of 
that attainment area, but of course the people that buy gas in those 
places can drive to St. Louis easily.
  The essential Balkanization of the country in terms of fuel prices 
just does not make any sense. So the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan) and others and I have introduced the Gasoline Price Reduction Act 
to do something about this. Our legislation would assure a more 
reliable supply of gas nationwide.
  Essentially, we do four things. One is we create a waiver system if 
the refinery that serves a community for some reason is not able to 
produce gasoline.
  We cap the current number of fuel blends at a number around 45, and I 
say around 45 because there are so many blends out there one of the 
things we need to do is figure out exactly how many blends there are 
today and cap that number at that rate.
  We also encourage EPA to come up with three recommended blends that 
they would use in the country and, in the meantime, to have a study 
that would really determine the number of fuel blends that could be 
made available in a more efficient market, in a more efficient way.
  I hope our colleagues join us today, not only in the healthy 
discussion of this bill but also as we move to pass this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I need to go off the floor for a second, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) be 
allowed to manage my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, if we had a rule prohibiting false or 
misleading short titles on legislation, I would offer a point of order 
that the Gasoline Price Reduction Act being brought before the body 
today is a blatant violation of honesty and presentation of legislation 
because the bill does absolutely nothing to deal with the real causes 
of the increase in the price of gasoline at the pump.
  With this bill the Republicans have identified a problem. Gas prices 
are too high. The consumers are paying an arm for regular. They are 
paying a leg for plus, and for their first born they get premium.
  We need to do something, says the Republicans. The Democrats agree, 
but the Republicans have offered up a false solution. They say, let us 
waive the Clean Air Act. We have 24 million Americans with asthma. We 
have 8 million children in America with asthma. Is the solution to high 
gasoline prices waiving the Clean Air Act?
  We have a dramatic rise in breast cancer, in prostate cancer in 
America, much of it environmentally related, what we breathe in the 
air, but what is the Republican solution to that? They say, well, let 
us regulate softly and carry a big inhaler. That is the message to the 
children of our country.
  So what is the problem? Well, the Saudi Arabians, of course, took 
about 1 million barrels of oil off the market a year ago, and we heard 
just a little whisper from this White House that the Saudi Arabians 
were playing games with the oil prices in our country. The GAO actually 
did a study a year ago that indicated that all the oil company mergers 
in the 1990s led to a dramatic increase in gasoline prices.
  Are they investigating all these oil company mergers in America? Are 
they investigating what the Saudi Arabians are doing? Have we seen 
those hearings? No. Their answer is that it is the clean air that 
children are breathing in the United States that is the problem.
  We hear the complaints from the Republican Party, the air is too 
clean, the water in America is getting too clean; that is the problem, 
not what is going on in OPEC, not what is going on with the oil 
companies. What is their solution? Their solution is whenever there is 
a significant fuel supply disruption that the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the Bush administration, every polluter's ally EPA, is able 
to waive the Clean Air Act requirements to protect the children's air 
in America. That is what this bill is, the Gasoline Price Reduction 
Act. The Increase in Pollution Children Breathe Act is what it really 
is.
  Now, we say to the Republicans, we say to the White House, will you 
please deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 600 million gallons 
that the American people have purchased as a weapon against price 
gouging by the oil companies and by OPEC? They say, oh, no, that would 
be a disruption in the free market if we actually use the oil in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to drive down prices.

                              {time}  1645

  Their answer is to increase pollution in the air that the children 
breathe, that the seniors breathe in our country. That is what this 
bill is all about.
  And how long will the EPA have to keep this reduction in clean air 
protections on the books? Forever, indefinite. So we could have the 
worst possible supply disruption, and this administration says it will 
never deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but will immediately take 
the Clean Air Act off the books.
  So the language is actually whenever the EPA, in consultation with 
the Secretary of Energy, deems necessary by reason of such fuel supply 
disruption. So GOP, it used to stand for Grand Old Party, now it stands 
for Gas and Oil Party, now it stands for Gang of Polluters. Their 
solution to high gasoline prices is to pollute, not to go to OPEC, not 
to go to the oil companies. It is to pollute.
  This bill is absolutely atrocious. I beg Members, please do not be 
misled. This bill is nothing more than something that will result in 
more and more children in our country needing inhalers. Members should 
not vote for it. There is a direct correlation between the amount of 
pollution that goes in the air and the amount of disease we see in our 
country. We do not have to find this false solution to deal with the 
problem when it is so obvious what is going wrong in the oil markets, 
our OPEC allies.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  That was a very interesting speech. I do not think the speech really 
applied to the bill we have on the floor, though. I would first mention 
that this waiver authority is nothing different than the current waiver 
authority the EPA has. Last year when we had a pipeline break in 
Arizona when they could not get a lot of gasoline, the EPA waived 
certain parts of the Clean Air Act so they could get gas supplies to 
meet the demand that was occurring because they had a huge supply 
shock.
  Now, I would like to set this issue up in the following way. What 
this bill does is recognize the fact that we can have cheap gas and 
clean gas in America. The goal here is to improve the

[[Page 12348]]

Clean Air Act, make it function better and make our gas more affordable 
while maintaining every ounce of environmental standards that we 
already have on the books. This bill will help make it easier to meet 
the Clean Air Act, but let me put this issue in perspective.
  When we started the Clean Air Act, we had a good idea. The idea in 
the Clean Air Act at the time was if your area has dirty air, you need 
to clean it up. One of the things you need to do is burn cleaner 
gasoline through your cars. A very good idea. The problem is when they 
wrote this law, they did not think of the fact that if they allow 
cities, counties, States to select their own kinds of gasoline, that 
they would cause this huge problem we have today. Here is the problem.
  Please, Madam Speaker, look at this chart. What this chart shows is 
the map of America. It looks like a piece of modern art. It shows all 
of the different blends of gasoline that are required to occur in the 
summer in America. There are 16 different base blends of gasoline which 
translate today into 45 different fuels in America.
  However, we have a pipeline and refinery infrastructure system in 
America that has not been upgraded since the 1970s. No new refineries 
have been built since 1976, and when we built that system we had one 
kind of gasoline flowing through America. Now because of the Clean Air 
Act, a very good law, but one that does not take into account this 
problem, when we go from winter-blend gasoline, which is basically 
conventional gas, to summer-blend gasoline, we move from one kind of 
gas to 45 different blends of gasoline required around America.
  When we have our refinery capacity running at 96 percent, any little 
hiccup in supply, any little refinery fire that has happened all across 
America, a problem with the pipeline breaking like in St. Louis or 
Arizona, we have huge supply shortages and giant price spikes. What is 
more is all of these different blends of gasoline, we can have four 
different blends by going from Green Bay, Wisconsin, to St. Louis, 
Missouri. In Green Bay, they may have conventional gas; in Kenosha, 
they may have reformulated gas. Springfield, Illinois, may have a low 
RVP conventional gas. East St. Louis may have 7.0 RVP. Across the river 
in West St. Louis, they may have 7.2 RVP.
  The problem is these gas lines are not fungible, even though in 
Detroit and Chicago and Milwaukee and St. Louis and Kansas City and 
Minneapolis we have the same environmental requirements. They are out 
of compliance with the Clean Air Act. They have the same requirements 
with respect to the fuel standards they have to achieve, but they all 
have different blends of gasoline, proprietary blends of gasoline.
  What we want to do is bring common sense to this system. What this 
legislation does is it simply says we are going to have now a preferred 
list of fuels that people can choose from, local governments can choose 
from when they select their new gasoline blends to come into compliance 
with the Clean Air Act. We are capping the amount of boutique fuels so 
we do not proliferate more blends, but especially now when we go to the 
new 8-hour ozone requirement and we now recognize the fact that we have 
42 areas of America, as we see on this chart, which have 45 different 
fuel blends, we are adding 82 new areas of America this year that are 
going to be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act because of the new 
8-hour ozone standard.
  As we add these new 82 areas, do we want to have that many more 
different kinds of fuel in America? No, we simply want to bring some 
common sense to the system so that when all these new areas of America 
have to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act, we want to give 
them guidance so they can pick from a list of preferred clean blends of 
fuel that are compliant with the Clean Air Act that are standard blends 
of fuel so we can standardize not only the kinds of fuels we use in 
America, but stabilize our supply of gasoline in America.
  Why does that matter? Because gas is priced like any other commodity. 
It is priced based upon its supply. If we can stabilize the supply of 
gas, we can stabilize the price of gasoline and bring down the price of 
gasoline.
  What the intent of this legislation is to do is to make sure in the 
short term if we have huge supply problems, a refinery fire or a 
pipeline break, we have the authority to meet those supply problems; 
but in the medium term and long term, make sure we standardize our 
blends of gasoline so we can comply with the Clean Air Act and have 
inexpensive, affordable, clean-burning gasoline.
  What I believe this bill will actually achieve at the end of the day 
will be less expensive and more clean gas around America, even in areas 
that do not have to have clean gasoline. I think this is going to help 
us clean up our air, and it is going to help us have affordable 
gasoline.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, perhaps not in the dramatic fashion of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), but I do want to point out that this is 
probably the finest title I have seen to a bill in a very long time, 
the Gasoline Price Reduction Act. That is a marvelous title. If it did 
not have any text, I would vote for it. If we changed the text so it 
actually reduced gasoline prices, I would vote for it, and so would my 
colleagues on this side; but that is not the case.
  Let me begin with a couple of responses to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). He said this legislation is not different from 
the current waiver authority of the EPA. We disagree entirely. It is 
true there are occasions when EPA has not enforced what would otherwise 
be violations of the Clean Air Act, but that is enforcement discretion. 
What this legislation does is it puts into legislation language 
unlimited waiver authority for the EPA administrator.
  Let me go through a couple of other points here. Part of the problem 
with this bill is process. This bill was never considered by the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce. I got onto the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce so we could deal with these important types of energy and 
environmental issues, but here we did not even bother. This was simply 
brought to the floor by the leadership. We have no testimony from the 
Bush administration indicating we need this bill. We have no testimony 
from industry to explain how this bill would address our ever-
increasing demand for fuel. We have seen no research from the Energy 
Information Administration estimating the effect of this bill on fuel 
prices. We have no studies by the EPA quantifying the human health 
impact of this Clean Air Act repeal; and that is what it is, a repeal 
of critical portions of the Clean Air Act.
  The Washington Post today had a telling comment. Here is the quote 
from The Post today: ``Some are calling this Congress' answer to high 
gasoline prices. But if this is the answer, maybe it is time to ask 
whether Congress even understands the question. The Gasoline Price 
Reduction Act would give the EPA administrator permission to waive the 
Clean Air Act for unlimited periods of time at its own discretion in 
the case of a gasoline supply disruption.''
  Once again, the majority thinks that the Clean Air Act costs too 
much, but the Clean Air Act is not the problem. We agree that a 
gasoline supply disruption such as a refinery or pipeline shutting down 
unexpectedly can cause significant shortage of needed fuels. As a 
result, the EPA already may issue short-term waivers for some fuels 
under current regulations, not these, but some fuels. The administrator 
can and has used this regulatory authority in an appropriate manner, 
and that is why it has not been challenged.
  This authority, this legislation, gives the administrator broad 
authority to issue waivers that undermine the Clean Air Act. The bill 
does not define ``significant fuel supply disruption,'' but it allows 
the administrator to define the term.
  Furthermore, here is a reading from the bill: ``Such waiver shall 
remain in

[[Page 12349]]

effect for such period as the administrator, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Energy, deems necessary by reason of such fuel supply 
disruption.''
  There is no limit on the length of the waivers; therefore, the 
administrator has free rein to waive cleaner burning gasoline or diesel 
requirements in the Clean Air Act anywhere at any time. This bill would 
make enforcement of the Clean Air Act optional. That is what it does. 
It makes enforcement of the Clean Air Act optional.
  Now it also does cap the number of boutique fuels that may be 
approved to the number that currently exist. Frankly, there are about 
43 or 45 different blends and we agree, we agree that that number 
should be capped at around that number because there are too many 
blends, and it does make it difficult for refineries to meet demand in 
different States at different times. But this is not the way to go. 
This language that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) referred to 
has never been reviewed in a hearing. There is no way to know whether 
the provision will have the intended effect.
  We conclude on our side of the aisle this bill is about politics, not 
sound legislation. The title is wonderful; the text undermines the 
Clean Air Act in fundamental ways; and the Clean Air Act is simply too 
important to our citizens to allow this important piece of legislation 
to pass.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to 
respond.
  Madam Speaker, this is the same kind of waiver authority they already 
have under law. This is included in the Bush administration energy 
plan. This was in the Bush administration energy policy recommendations 
to solidify and consolidate boutique fuels. We have had numerous 
studies on this issue. A very comprehensive study was done on this 
issue by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001, which recommended 
doing exactly this. We had another study by the National Association of 
Convenience Stores recommending doing exactly this. Plus, we have 
already had multiple sources of testimony from gasoline marketers, from 
gasoline wholesalers, all talking about the need to consolidate the 
fuel blends. So this has been done based upon studies; this is a policy 
endorsed by the Bush administration. This is a policy talked about, 
vetted, and had hearings on for 3 years now.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Green), a cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and salute him for his tireless advocacy on 
behalf of lower gas prices.
  Our drivers have been through the ringer in recent years. Gas prices 
are far too high. Some of the reasons for those high prices do lie 
overseas. This legislation is not the answer by itself. There is so 
much more we should do.

                              {time}  1700

  But some of the problems lie here at home. In fact, they lie in this 
very body. We have cobbled together a patchwork system of hopelessly 
complicated, confusing and complex rules and regulations that make 
sense only to bureaucrats. Take a look at this map here that we have in 
front of us, this little colored patch area on the map that tells you 
that the blend of gasoline used from Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Chicago is 
unique in the entire world. There is no other place on the face of the 
Earth that uses it. What that means is when there is a disruption in 
the pipeline, or in the refining process, the price of gasoline 
skyrockets overnight. It makes our gasoline more expensive. It makes 
our prices more volatile. Simply put, under this crazy system, this 
Stalinist system, supply cannot move to meet demand.
  Madam Speaker, it is very clear today our drivers want relief. They 
are turning to us for help. It seems obvious to me that some people in 
this body are willing to respond to those drivers who are asking for 
help simply with fearmongering and scare tactics. This legislation does 
not weaken the Clean Air Act. It makes it work. It offers real help to 
our drivers, particularly drivers in these areas who are suffering 
because of government imposed barriers. Shame on us. We are the ones 
that have made gasoline more expensive in these areas. We are the ones 
who have made prices more volatile. It is time for us to take this 
commonsense approach to lowering the price.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time on this very important piece of legislation which I am astounded 
to know that we did not hear in our committee. The energy bill before 
us and the other legislative activities this week in my opinion are a 
scam. Republicans will try to mislead Americans, to try to hide their 
connections to the oil industry. H.R. 4545 will do nothing to reduce 
volatility in the gas markets, nothing to help America become 
independent and, most importantly, do nothing to help working families 
cope with the high cost of gasoline.
  While working families shell out money so they can get their kids to 
school, get themselves to work and buy their groceries, big oil 
companies are striking gold with high gas prices. The administration 
and the Republican-led Congress are letting their partners in crime rob 
working families and seniors blind.
  In the first 3 months of 2004, ChevronTexaco quadrupled its earnings 
from the first 3 months of 2003. British Petroleum reported a 165 
percent increase in profits. Conoco-Phillips reported a 44 percent 
increase in profits. Exxon-Mobil reported a 125 percent increase in 
profits. Yet here we are today not asking why companies are raking in 
enormous profits and why consumers are having to pay the highest prices 
in the last 23 years.
  Why are we not discussing these commonsense things to reduce gas 
prices for Americans today? One of the things we can do is investigate 
bad faith practices in the market. In California, gas prices went up 
faster than the Federal Trade Commission anticipated they possibly 
could. In my own district in Los Angeles, gasoline prices have been 
steady at $2.39, upwards of $2.50 a gallon for the last 2\1/2\ months. 
We saw something similar with electricity prices also in 2000 during 
the western energy crisis. Again that situation was ignored as well.
  We cannot let the situation repeat itself because working families 
and businesses will once again become the victims. But just as with the 
western energy crisis and even the Northeast blackout, those in charge 
of the Republican-led Congress are choosing to ignore the real 
situation. Instead of helping to lower gas prices, ensure stability in 
the market, guarantee American independence and set America on a 
responsible course of energy policy, the Republicans provide us with 
legislation that undermines the public process, risks public health and 
does nothing to help working families.
  This process is a sham, and it is a shame that the American public 
will have to suffer once again.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4545 is a well-meaning but 
ineffective attempt to address a serious problem, the problem of 
multiple blends of fuels required under our Clean Air Act. I believe 
the map that was shown earlier illustrated that we do have too many 
boutique fuels in our country to be able to have it and with the 
dwindling refinery supply to be able to do all this mixture of fuels. 
Supplies can be tight during high demand and prices will rise. But 
waiver authorities for specific areas and capping the number of 
boutique fuels are not a solution when compared to the provisions in 
the comprehensive energy bill we just passed. EPA already gives out 
waivers from the oxygenate requirement. The comprehensive energy bill 
contains a comprehensive study of the boutique fuel options and 
markets. The comprehensive energy bill contains limited liability for 
MTBE. If you are worried about supply and prices of boutique fuels, 
support the comprehensive energy bill. This legislation is an

[[Page 12350]]

unnecessary distraction when the real issue should be the bill that 
this House just passed.
  H.R. 4545 pales in comparison with the comprehensive energy bill when 
it comes to dealing with boutique fuels.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. American 
citizens every summer are assaulted by increased prices at the pump. 
They need to know that one of the factors that drive those summer 
prices up is switching from one blend of gasoline for the whole country 
to more than 40 blends of gasoline for the whole country. And to say 
that we are repealing the Clean Air Act in this bill is absurd. The 
Clean Air Act is a big bill. It covers a whole bunch of issues. This is 
a small fraction of it. This recommendation to go over to three 
different types of cleaner fuels for the summer months is a 
recommendation that was made by a GAO study and it is a recommendation 
that is being currently put forward by the industry and it will help 
keep prices down and it will not cause the air to get dirtier or kids 
to get asthma. This is an absolute ridiculous assertion. It is the 
right thing for us to do for our Nation.
  The American consumer is suffering right now. Many families on a 
limited budget are having difficulty making ends meet. This is the 
right thing for us to do.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I find it ironic to stand here on the floor 
and I am not one that is so lucky to be on the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce but I am one that spends weekends at home every week. I am 
amazed to stand here on the floor and hear the comments from the other 
side which offer absolutely no solution whatsoever to an abatement of 
the price of gasoline that we pay today. None whatsoever. There is an 
old saying in Washington that oftentimes legislation comes forward in 
search of a problem. The response from the minority party today is that 
they come forward with testimony in search of a policy. They have 
nothing. At least we are over here trying. The testimony we have heard 
this afternoon about the boutique fuels across the country, there is no 
refuting that. That is an absolute fact. It is directly related to an 
outgrowth of the passage of a policy that has been refined and 
perfected by the Members of that side of the aisle when they were in 
the majority. The people of America are paying a price in the form of 
higher prices for gas on the basis of policies they put into place. We 
are trying to reverse those. We are trying to increase refinery 
capacity. We are trying to reduce the number of boutique fuels that 
exist across this country and increase the fungibility of gasoline 
between markets so that people in Maine or people in California or 
people in Wisconsin or Missouri can all buy gasoline that is 
essentially the same.
  They have not come forward with a single material improvement to the 
infrastructure that exists today. They resist us on fixing the 
permitting process for refiners. They resist us on fixing the 
permitting process for pipelines. They resist us on fixing the 
permitting process to bring gasoline into the country in the form of 
refined products.
  They resist, they resist, they resist. I understand their policy. I 
applaud them for it. There is an election every 2 years. I hope the 
voters are paying attention.
  I rise today to discuss H.R. 4545, the ``The Gasoline Price Reduction 
Act of 2004,'' introduced by Messrs. Blunt and Ryan. I welcome this 
legislation today because I share their concerns over high gasoline 
prices and the proliferation of boutique fuels.
  Today's gasoline market is comprised of many types of gasoline that 
serve different regional markets to meet varying Federal and State 
environmental requirements. At last count, there were approximately 19 
different types of gasoline in the U.S. Arguably, there are almost 60 
types if you take into account that each is made into three different 
octane blends. Although these numerous fuel blends are seen as an 
efficient means of cleaning the air, the increase in boutique fuels 
adds a level of complexity into production, distribution, and storage 
of gasoline.
  The result of this targeted approach to air quality has been to 
balkanize the gasoline market and to create gasoline market islands. 
The primary examples are in my home State of California and the 
Chicago/Milwaukee area, in which the required gasoline blends are 
unique, and only a limited number of refineries make the products. 
Small disruptions in production, such as refinery outages or pipeline 
ruptures, can severely limit the supply of gasoline in these areas, 
causing artificial shortages and price spikes.
  Over the last four years, my Government Reform Energy Policy 
Subcommittee has held four hearings on gasoline markets (in June 2001, 
April 2002, July 2003, and May 2004). What I have learned from these 
hearings is that we should not be in the business of mandating what 
goes into a gallon of gasoline. Instead of dictating gasoline 
components, we should set high performance standards for what comes out 
of the tailpipe and let industry meet them.
  Anyone who knows anything about the gasoline problems in California 
can tell you that the de facto ethanol mandate in California is 
significantly affecting gasoline supply and is not necessarily 
improving the environment. In fact, using ethanol in California may 
actually degrade air and water quality. Despite ample scientific data, 
and letters from the California delegation, including two I sent as 
Subcommittee Chairman in February 2004 and April 2004, the 
Environmental Protection Agency has yet to approve California's oxygen 
waiver request, which is environmentally and economically sound.
  From these hearings, I have also learned that several measures need 
to be taken to address the gasoline supply issues in the U.S. One 
measure that is key to increasing supply is the expansion and 
enhancement of the entire petroleum infrastructure, which is currently 
stressed and at its limits. Addressing the constraints and bottlenecks 
within the petroleum infrastructure, which includes refineries, 
pipelines, storage tanks, and port facilities, is important because 
each component of the system must function properly and efficiently to 
ensure consumers receive an adequate and affordable supply of gasoline.
  Given the ever-widening gap between gasoline supply and demand in the 
U.S., we should look at ways to simplify the various infrastructure 
permitting processes and to reduce the costs and uncertainty associated 
with Federal and State regulations. If we fail to do so, we will be 
faced with increasing imports, increasing gasoline prices, or both. I 
venture to say that no American would be pleased with these outcomes.
  Additionally, we must consider ways to reduce the regulatory burden 
facing the refining industry. Refiners will need to invest about $20 
billion in the next decade to comply with Federal and State 
environmental regulations. As a result, less capital will be available 
for refinery maintenance and expansion, and some smaller refineries may 
close. We must examine ways to achieve our desired environmental 
results without putting companies out of business.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I certainly hope the voters are paying attention as well, because we 
do have a policy. We do have a plan. We presented it. Part of it was in 
the motion to recommit where we made a proposal dealing with the SPR. 
This debate is a good example of why this is not a can-do Congress, 
this is a can't-do Congress, because this legislation is not that 
difficult. If we had had hearings, if it had been worked out on a 
bipartisan basis in the committee, it would come to the floor and pass 
overwhelmingly, because what we are really arguing about is whether or 
not the waiver that is given to the EPA Administrator in this 
legislation should be unlimited as it is in this legislation or whether 
it should be time limited. That is the core of the debate that we are 
having right now, and the fact that this bill has been brought to the 
floor with no limit on the waiver authority of the EPA Administrator, 
no consultation with us, no hearings, that is what has led to our 
opposition.
  Let me run through a few things. The majority speakers have been 
saying we have got a problem with the number of boutique fuels. So do 
we. We think we need to contain the number of boutique fuels that are 
out there. It is reasonable to work that out. We do not object to doing 
that. But we do have a policy and it is real clear. Let me tell you

[[Page 12351]]

what should be in this legislation if we were going to actually reduce 
gasoline prices and not just have legislation with a title that says we 
should reduce gasoline prices.
  We need legislation that would hold refineries accountable for market 
manipulation and market concentration. We need legislation that would 
at least deal with the question of how to think about and how to use 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when gas prices are so high. We need 
action by this administration that would create stability in the Middle 
East and other oil-producing regions. We certainly do not have that 
now. We need to help families increase the efficiency of their homes 
and thereby reduce oil use. There is nothing of that in this 
legislation. This legislation does not require or create incentives to 
increase fuel efficiency in our vehicle fleet, which is at its lowest 
level since 1980. That issue has been brought up in front of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce time and again to increase and improve 
CAFE standards and save fuel and it has been voted down.
  This legislation does not invest in hybrid and hydrogen technology. I 
drive a hybrid vehicle. I get 45 miles to the gallon. I tell all my 
constituents, next time you buy a vehicle make sure that you pay 
attention to how efficient it is in terms of fuel. This legislation 
does not extend the tax breaks for the purchase of high efficiency 
vehicles. It does not end the tax breaks for Hummers and large SUVs. It 
does not reduce heavy truck idling. It does not improve air traffic 
management.
  What we have got is what we said at the beginning. We have got a 
title. We have one of the best titles for legislation ever to come 
before this Congress, at least this year. We just do not have the text 
to go with it.
  Just a couple of additional points. There was talk about we have held 
hearings. The truth is there have not been any hearings on this 
legislation. Sure we have had hearings on energy issues but not on this 
waiver authority put forth in here. There was one other comment I 
wanted to respond to. This legislation, one speaker said, is so small, 
it is so short that it cannot possibly repeal the Clean Air Act. All 
you need to do is to give the EPA Administrator the authority, the 
simple authority to waive, on a broad base, parts of the Clean Air Act 
and you have made enforcement of the Clean Air Act optional. It does 
not take much to undermine the Clean Air Act. It does not take much to 
do that in a way that risks the health of our population. That is what 
this legislation does. That is why we believe it should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. This 
does not give any extra waiver authority to the EPA that it does not 
already have.

                              {time}  1715

  This bill does not do a lot of the things he mentioned. It does very 
few things. What the intent of this bill is, is to have a preapproved 
list of fuels by the EPA for areas to choose from that are clean fuels 
so that we consolidate the fuel blends we have in America. That is it. 
And then study and make sure we are doing it right. And if the study 
says there is another way to do it better, we will do that. That would 
be the fourth study we would have on this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip and cosponsor of this 
legislation, for the purpose of closing.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for the debate.
  Both my friend from Wisconsin who feels strongly about this and my 
friend from Maine who has come to the floor, we have had a good debate 
on part of this bill, but only a very small part of this bill.
  I would like to make a couple of points. Some of the things that my 
friend from Maine pointed out that we needed, we agree that we need 
many of those things. In fact, that is why we have the energy bill. We 
voted on it again today. We voted on it in both of the last two 
Congresses. We clearly do need energy policy. We encourage all those on 
this side of the building to work hard to try to get that done. We have 
voted on an energy conference report now, and now we voted on a bill 
today that was very much like it.
  This brings one significant, but not very complicated, issue to the 
floor. I think, in fact, the center focus of this bill is so unarguable 
that nobody really argued about it. We have got too many fuel blends. 
Refineries have needlessly become profit centers in the distribution 
because there are too many fuel blends out there. Nobody really 
challenged that concept.
  I heard a lot of discussion about one principle, the waiver 
principle, whether that was good or not. Let me tell the Members the 
waiver is very good if the refinery that services their area is somehow 
shut down. In fact, the waiver is desperately good, and we do not have 
that kind of ability now to just simply allow families and commerce to 
continue when one of these very unique fuels is suddenly unavailable 
anywhere. That is what the waiver is supposed to take care of.
  But really the more central focus of this bill I did not really hear 
any real debate on. I am encouraged by that. I hope as we move forward 
with all kinds of energy legislation that we take strong consensus that 
there are too many fuel blends. We need a study to determine how we get 
a smaller number, and then we need to look for ways to encourage that 
smaller number of blends to become the number of fuel blends that 
communities look at in the future. We can make this system much more 
efficient. We can make it work more effectively. This is not designed 
to solve all the energy problems in the world; but if we adopted this 
bill, it would reduce gas prices. That is what the title calls for. I 
think we moved this debate forward today, and I appreciate everybody's 
participation that was part of it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4545, the 
``Gasoline Price Reduction Act.'' I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this bill, which relaxes Clean Air Act requirements and which has not 
been the subject of any hearings or markups by the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
  Because of the lack of hearings or markups, we have no idea whether 
the bill is actually necessary or whether its effect on gasoline prices 
will be positive or negative. We have no idea of the extent of its 
impact on air quality, except to note that its effect clearly cannot be 
positive.
  This bill is very poorly drafted, which reflects the lack of input or 
review by anybody except its sponsors. We do not know what the benefits 
and cost of this bill will be and we do not have any analysis from the 
executive agencies, such as the Department of Energy and the 
Environmental Protect Agency (EPA), who could tell us whether it is a 
good or bad idea.
  The bill allows EPA to waive Clean Air Act requirements in the event 
of a ``significant fuel supply disruption.'' Yet the meaning of this 
term is not supplied. Nor are there limits placed on the length of the 
waiver or on the overall detriment to air quality that could occur. 
Nothing in the bill would require anyone to either analyze or 
ameliorate the impacts on air quality in any way, regardless of how 
easily or inexpensively that could be done.
  The bill instructs EPA to give ``preference'' to particular fuels in 
approving state implementation plans, but what does it mean to give 
preference to a particular fuel? The bill also sets a cap on the total 
number of ``fuels'' in existence as of June 1, 2004. How many fuels is 
that? What is the definition of a ``fuel''? Would this cap apply to 
more desirable fuels, such as low-sulfur diesel, or to renewable fuels, 
such as biodiesel or ethanol? How would this bill affect supply, energy 
dependence, and price structure in particular regional markets, such as 
Michigan?
  High gas prices are of concern to all, but this bill is not the 
solution. We should examine the possible relationship between 
``boutique fuel'' requirements and gas prices and determine, through 
regular committee process, an appropriate solution with in put from all 
interested parties. I would welcome legislation that would lead to 
cleaner fuels and greater fungibility in the fuel supply.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and to give the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce a chance to address these matters 
properly.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garrett of New Jersey). The question is 
on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4545.

[[Page 12352]]

  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________