[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 22659-22689]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 22660]]

     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, etheri-
     fication, 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.

                 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.

       (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

[[Page 22661]]

     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
       (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);

[[Page 22662]]

       (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 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

[[Page 22663]]

     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 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

[[Page 22664]]

     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'';
       (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.

       (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; and
       (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.

     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--

[[Page 22665]]

       (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 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

[[Page 22666]]

     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.

       (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) Designation 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 ``subject to paragraph (3)'', that are 
     appropriate for the purposes of siting a refinery.
         (2) Analysis of refinery sites.--In considering any site 
     on Federal lands for possible designation under this 
     subjection, the President shall conduct 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 is'' in close proximity to 
     substantial pipeline infrastructure, including both crude oil 
     and refined petroleum product pipelines, and potential 
     infrastructure feasibility;
       (D) the need to diversify the geographical location of the 
     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) ``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--

[[Page 22667]]

       (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.

       (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
       (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, 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

[[Page 22668]]

     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 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--

       ``(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).
       ``(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

[[Page 22669]]

     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).
       (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.

       (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 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 of a crude oil or refined 
     petroleum product pipeline facility in interstate commerce.
       (b) 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 related environmental 
     reviews 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.
       (c) 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 (e).
       (d) 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 (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 Commission 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 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 (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

[[Page 22670]]

     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.

        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 AND EDUCATION

     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.
       (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.

       (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.

     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:

[[Page 22671]]

       ``(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.

     SEC. 404. 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.--``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.

        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.''.

     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

[[Page 22672]]

     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. 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 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. 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

[[Page 22673]]

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 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

[[Page 22674]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 22675]]

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 
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

[[Page 22676]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 22677]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 22678]]

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. 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 
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

[[Page 22679]]

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 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,

[[Page 22680]]

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, 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

[[Page 22681]]

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. 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.
  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

[[Page 22682]]

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

[[Page 22683]]

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 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 (Ms. 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

[[Page 22684]]

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 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

[[Page 22685]]

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.
  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

[[Page 22686]]

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.
  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

[[Page 22687]]

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 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

[[Page 22688]]

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 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. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to the 
Gasoline for America's Security Act.
  We are all too aware of this government's failed response to 
Hurricane Katrina and the problems that are continuing in the 
aftermath. Despite all the issues that we must address to assist the 
victims of this disaster, some of my colleagues are attempting to use 
this tragedy as a means to push through their flawed initiatives that 
were left out of the Energy Policy Act. Fortunately, a degree of 
rationality prevailed late last night and a few of the most egregious 
provisions were removed.
  However, this bill still contains many misguided measures and 
continues the Majority's irrational economic policy of subsidizing one 
of the most successful industries--the oil and gas industry. Yet this 
direct handout of taxpayer dollars is not enough and at every 
opportunity this Congress finds ways to gut environmental regulations 
that protect the health of our citizens in order to preserve this 
unsustainable form of energy production.
  Specifically, this bill will allow cities and States to delay meeting 
Clean Air Act requirements and undermines States that are seeking to 
meet these deadlines by limiting the number of fuel blends that can be 
used. Furthermore, this bill provides an open-ended taxpayer subsidy to 
cover all the costs that an oil company may incur due to a delay in the 
initial operation of a new or upgraded oil refinery, including delays 
due to compliance with State or Federal laws or regulations.
  Time and again, we come to this floor to commemorate the lives of 
remarkable Americans that have changed the course of history. We 
recognize the importance of their contributions and the ways that they 
improved our lives. We disgrace this American legacy of ingenuity every 
time that this Congress passes these shortsighted, deeply flawed bills.
  This Nation is facing an energy crisis and a planet that is suffering 
from our mismanagement. We have the ability to become independent from 
fossil fuels and to revitalize the

[[Page 22689]]

health of our environment. Scientists, researchers and business leaders 
across this Nation are standing ready to develop and make innovative 
technologies a reality. Even my constituents in New Jersey that have no 
connection to the energy industry write me with ideas and their desire 
to contribute to solving our energy problem. But instead of investing 
in this ingenuity and our Nation's future, this government keeps 
spending billions to keep America stuck in the quicksand of 
nonrenewable energy sources.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this flawed bill that will do nothing 
to alleviate the energy crisis facing this Nation and removes important 
environmental regulations.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act.
  While I believe our Nation needs to improve and increase our refining 
capacity, I voted against H.R. 3893, because it would weaken and 
eliminate important public health and environmental regulations. 
Specifically, H.R. 3893 would delay existing smog cleanup deadlines in 
cities with some of the most persistent smog problems--a provision that 
would likely hurt minority and low-income areas the worst. In addition, 
this legislation is not only harmful to the environment but it also 
creates a fiscally irresponsible ``Standby Refinery Support Account,'' 
which would compensate corporations if their refinery construction is 
delayed by State or local laws or litigations. At a time when some 
refineries are turning record profits, taxpayers should not be paying 
for the legal costs of refineries, when they are facing legitimate 
challenges to their evasion of State, local, or Federal regulations.
  Instead, I supported a substitute amendment offered by Representative 
Bart Stupak, which would: Create a strategic refinery reserve based 
upon the strategic petroleum reserve; allow the President to declare a 
``Federal energy emergency''; and prohibit gasoline price gouging in 
times of such emergencies. Under this substitute amendment, the 
Department of Energy, DOE, would operate a strategic refinery reserve 
from either constructing new refineries or opening closed refineries to 
create this reserve, which would have a capacity of 5 percent of the 
daily U.S. demand for gasoline, home heating oil, and other refined 
petroleum products. I believe this is an important proposal, which 
would help address our strained refining capacity in times of 
emergency. In addition, the substitute amendment would provide explicit 
authority for the FTC to define price gouging for the first time, and 
would provide them with the authority to prosecute any entity in the 
chain of gasoline production, including refineries and not just 
retailers, for engaging in price gouging.
  Hurricanes Katrina and Rita further highlighted the instability of 
energy prices and the fragility of our Nation's energy infrastructure, 
particularly our domestic refining capacity.
  Prior to Hurricane Katrina, our domestic refining industry was 
already operating at near capacity, with 176 refineries closing in the 
U.S. over the past 25 years. While we need to strengthen our energy 
infrastructure, it is essential that the Federal Government does not do 
this at the expense of important environmental regulations, which 
protect the safety and health of our communities.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, as our nation continues to 
reel from the tragic effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we need to 
have an honest debate about our nation's energy policy and dependency 
on foreign sources of oil. The recent natural disasters along the Gulf 
Coast not only revealed the failures of our federal emergency plans, 
they also exposed the vulnerability of our nation's refineries and oil 
and gas pipelines. A comprehensive energy policy that promotes 
efficiency and invests in alternative energy is desperately needed. The 
proof is at the pump--consumers are facing soaring prices on the road, 
and record heating costs will await them at home this winter. The U.S. 
Department of Energy estimates that home heating prices will experience 
the biggest annual increase in three decades. In my state of Minnesota, 
the largest natural gas utility is projected to charge 77 percent more 
than last year.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today appears to reflect the wishes 
of special interests, not the reality facing ordinary Americans. This 
Republican bill promotes consumption and increases pollution but does 
nothing to lower the cost of gasoline, reduce our dependency on foreign 
oil, or keep our environment clean.
  It was very disappointing that the Rules Committee rejected a very 
important amendment, which I would have supported, offered by Rep. 
Gutknecht of Minnesota. This amendment would have added a 10 percent 
ethanol requirement for all gasoline sold in the United States by the 
year 2010. Minnesota is a leader in renewable fuels, having enacted a 
10 percent ethanol requirement in 1997. Unfortunately, the House was 
denied the opportunity to consider this worthy amendment.
  This bill severely limits the use of ethanol and homegrown fuels by 
creating a federal fuels list limited to two diesel and four gasoline 
fuel blends for the entire nation. If a state or local program wished 
to promote a cleaner-burning fuel, the EPA could deny the plan on the 
grounds that it would interrupt the fuel supply in surrounding states.
  This bill also fails to protect the American consumer from price 
gouging. As prices soared in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, refineries 
cashed in. The industry reported a 255 percent increase in profits from 
just one year prior. Provisions in this bill, however, target only 
retailers, many who show only marginal gains during price hikes. These 
anti-gouging measures are also limited to disaster zones, leaving 
consumers in the rest of the country at the industry's mercy.
  H.R. 3893 further exploits these natural disasters by rolling back 
basic environmental and public health protections. Cities with the most 
persistent smog problems would be allowed to delay their cleanup 
deadlines for many years. The bill also requires the president to 
designate sites for new refineries on federal land, with no exemptions 
for national wildlife refuges and national forests.
  When it comes to our energy policy, Americans can no longer afford 
business as usual. The Democratic energy plan offered by 
Representatives Bart Stupak and Rick Boucher, which I support, is a 
reality-based solution to our energy needs. This package provides 
meaningful relief to American consumers and small businesses by 
promoting efficiency and investing in alternative sources of power.
  The Stupak-Boucher bill establishes a Strategic Refinery Reserve to 
allow for the release of refined product during energy emergencies. 
This reserve would maintain a capacity of five percent of the total 
U.S. daily demand for gasoline and home heating oil. This would double 
the spare capacity that currently exists and would help curb the 
skyrocketing prices that disproportionately affect seniors and low-
income households.
  The Democratic plan provides real protection from price gouging by 
covering the entire production and supply chain. In addition to 
gasoline, it would protect against price gouging of propane, natural 
gas, and home heating oil. It would extend beyond disaster zones to 
anywhere in the country price gouging occurs.
  The Republican-controlled Rules Committee demonstrated their 
intolerance for energy efficiency by rejecting the Boehler/Markey 
amendment. This amendment would have increased the fuel efficiency 
standards of cars and trucks from twenty-five to thirty-three miles per 
gallon by 2016. By reducing our consumption of gasoline we could have 
relieved market pressure and decreased our dependency on foreign oil.
  Now is the time to invest in the next generation of efficient 
technologies and to move our nation toward a sustainable and energy-
independent future. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3893 and 
support the Democratic substitute.
  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.

                          ____________________