Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 461.
June 5, 2006
View full timeline
Introduced in House
May 2, 2006
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
May 2, 2006
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
May 2, 2006
Mr. Barton (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
May 3, 2006 • 11:20 AM
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1993-1999)
May 3, 2006 • 11:21 AM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5253.
May 3, 2006 • 11:21 AM
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
May 3, 2006 • 12:00 PM
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2031)
May 3, 2006 • 2:47 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 389 - 34 (Roll no. 115).(text: CR H1993-1994)
May 3, 2006 • 2:57 PM
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 389 - 34 (Roll no. 115). (text: CR H1993-1994)
May 3, 2006 • 2:57 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
May 3, 2006 • 2:57 PM
Received in the Senate.
May 4, 2006
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
May 26, 2006
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 461.
June 5, 2006
Voting History
1 vote recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
20 membersWhat members said about H.R. 5253 on the floor
CFB
BS
RBHW
BM+15
Floor Debate
20 membersWhat members said about H.R. 5253 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the pending legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do likewise. As others have stated, it…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the pending legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do likewise. As others have stated, it is clear that refinery capacity has not been able to keep up with demand. Although current refiners have been able to ramp up their production sometimes in excess of 100 percent, which is an interesting mathematical challenge, the fact of the matter is that our population has grown, our economy has grown, and the resulting demand for more energy across the board has created a situation where, when we have a disaster similar to the one we had last summer with Hurricane Katrina where refiners were clustered in one specific area of the country, they were running at full capacity, they were shut down for a period of time, we had a short-term crisis which we were able to get over, but it was not easy.
Historically, utilization has been much lower than it has for the last 20 or so years; and the reason for that is we have not built a new refinery.
I agree that this bill is not going to circumvent any of the procedural hurdles that need to be crossed in order to build a new refinery. But what it does do is something that is, in my opinion at least, is innovative and imaginative in that it establishes a coordinator that will help make sure that the process, although not shortened because you are circumventing any regulation, makes this process work coterminously rather than successively.
Nobody will lose the ability to have their voice heard. There will be no part of the process circumvented. But an investor, a developer, a refiner, will have the certainty of knowing that there is a master plan in place, that there is a Federal coordinator and that there is a process that can be more predictable.
And I don't see how you can be against a process that uses the current system and all of its hurdles that need to be crossed but simply makes it run more efficiently. That is all this bill is trying do.
Now, there is a provision that allows the President to simply suggest that three base closures be identified for possible location. There is no requirement that it be done. And it also contains a provision that allows for the same expedited process to apply to biorefineries as well. And as one who comes from New Hampshire, we need to develop biorefinery capacity in this country. We are moving away from MTBEs as an oxygenate for gasoline, and I have as a high-priority project the development of an ethanol refinery from cellosic fiber, in other words, wood products somewhere in the northeast. And this process, although not circumventing, as I said before, any particular rule or regulation, will make the process go quicker.
And I understand my colleague's concern about not having enough hearings and so forth. But this bill simply speeds up the process. And if you want the process to last as long as possible and not have any new refinery capacity in this country, vote ``no'' on this bill. I understand that. But I believe in the process, but I believe that it should be quick and expedient but fair.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter dated May 3, 2006, from the National School Transportation Association, expressing their support for the pending bill.
National Association for Pupil
Transportation,
Albany, NY.
National School Transportation
Association,
Alexandria, VA, May 3, 2006.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of
school transportation interests around the country (both
public and private), I am writing to urge quick action on
H.R. 5254, to increase the availability of reasonably priced
fuel by streamlining the permitting process for new or
expanded refineries and H.R. 5253, to ensure that the Federal
government has the authority necessary to investigate price
gouging by fuel suppliers. Our industry is struggling with
staggeringly high fuel costs that are threatening our ability
to provide low-cost, safe transportation for 25 million
school children each day. Enactment of these two measures can
help drive down the cost of fuel in the long-run and we
support their approval by the House.
The nation's school bus fleet is the largest mass
transportation fleet in the country, 2.5 times the size of
all other forms of mass transportation including transit,
intercity buses, commercial airlines and rail, combined. This
system is also the safest way to transport children to and
from school every day. The National Academy of Sciences has
reported that there are approximately 800 fatalities per year
among children who do not ride school buses, while the school
bus related annual fatality rate is less than 20. Keeping our
school buses running is vital to the safety of our children.
In the wake of instability in crude oil supplies, Hurricane
Katrina and other factors, rising fuel costs have devastated
the industry and now threaten to force the involuntary
reduction of school bus transportation nationwide. In
addition, today's diesel fuel prices are significantly higher
than they were one year ago and are more than twice what they
were four years ago. This is proving to be a burden to public
and private operators alike.
Public school systems and their school transportation
providers are not able to pass
on the costs to the students they drive to and from school
every day. Instead, many school districts have responded to
this crisis by eliminating field trips and worse, reducing
transportation to and from school, forcing students to find
less safe and reliable ways to access their education or even
temporarily closing schools. For example, in Ohio school
districts have eliminated school bus service to 80,000 school
children a day and, just last week a local school system in
Tennessee closed for two days due to the inability to provide
school transportation due to the high cost of fuel for their
buses.
We understand that there are no easy solutions to this
problem, but are writing to ask for your help nonetheless. We
ask that Congress act quickly to help increase supplies of
fuel by ensuring that adequate refining capacity is available
as quickly as possible and that any allegations of price
gouging are fully investigated. We understand that the House
is preparing to act on H.R. 5254 and H.R. 5253 later today.
We welcome and support these initiatives and ask for broad,
bipartisan action to enact these important measures as a way
to help bring down prices for fuel as quickly as possible so
that school children will continue to be able to have access
to the safest possible mode of transportation. We also pledge
to work with you to find and advance other solutions that
might provide more immediate relief, such as H.R. 4158,
legislation introduced earlier this year to provide grants to
cover the cost of energy for financially strapped school
districts.
Sincerely,
Leonard Bernstein,
President, National Association of Pupil Transportation.
John D. Corr, Jr.,
President, National School Transportation Association.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I just want to correct the record if I could. It is my understanding that the bill only allows the President to identify a possible closed military base for a refinery location. It is only drawing attention, and it does nothing more than that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to say that it is interesting that my friend from California now is on the same side as ExxonMobil, which opposes this bill because they claim there is no need for new refinery capacity, and I would only point out that he makes a great argument for the passage of the bill, because what this bill does is take the argument that government red tape and bureaucracy is holding up the process completely off the table. And if that doesn't lead to more production, more construction after passage of this bill, I will be the first one to step forward and blast the industry for not creating more capacity.
So I appreciate the apparent support that my friend from California has for making sure that this process, permitting process, is sped up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
The date of the letter?
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
This is a very odd debate. One of the previous speakers said that this bill would do nothing to lower gasoline prices. If you increase refinery production, you are going to have more supply, and obviously more supply is going to lead to lower prices.
Another speaker said that this bill would somehow create more environmental pollution. It does absolutely nothing to change any existing environmental rule or regulation. It just increases the time. So if you want less supply, higher prices and the only reason you are against that is because you think that an additional refinery would create more pollution, then you should vote ``no'' on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.
I will match my environmental record in this Congress with anybody else's and certainly my record in supporting the development of alternative energy resources. And, quite frankly, this bill does just that because the expedited permitting process, which does not in any way change the requirements for the process at all but simply makes it more organized and more manageable, also applies to coal to liquid and biorefineries. And this is critical for my part of the country. We cannot afford to wait 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years to increase our supplies not only of traditional motor fuels but also these alternatives. We need to remove the uncertainty that a successive permitting process creates and the chilling effect that has on the ability of investors where large amounts of money are involved to stick with the process year after year after year.
There is nothing in this bill that will reduce in any fashion the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency, the States, or any other entity to go through the appropriate process in order to permit a new refinery. But what it does do is for the first time in 30 years is make it incrementally more possible that we will get more capacity.
So when your constituents call you and say that they are unhappy with the high cost of fuel, remember that part of that high cost is associated with the fact that we have a very, very tight inventory of fuel in this country. As the chairman of the committee said a few minutes ago, we are consuming considerably more gasoline in this country than we are producing domestically, so some of it is imported. Our refineries are clustered in one region of the country.
If you want to answer your constituents by saying that you voted against a bill that would not have any environmental impact but would simply make it possible for us to address this issue in a more timely, quicker fashion, that is your choice.
But we are doing what we can quickly and expeditiously and incrementally to address the issue of refinery capacity in this country. I hope the House will adopt this bill, and I urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering legislation that would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and prosecute price gouging in gasoline. This bill, H.R. 5253, was…
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering legislation that would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and prosecute price gouging in gasoline. This bill, H.R. 5253, was introduced just yesterday.
For 8 months, Democrats have been calling for the Republican leadership to allow a vote on my price gouging legislation, the Federal Response to Energy Emergencies, the FREE Act.
129 Democrats have signed a discharge petition to request that my price gouging legislation be brought to the floor for a vote. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well, after 8 months of Democrats demanding that the Republican leadership bring legislation to the floor to protect the American consumers from price gouging, the Republicans have finally proposed their own bill.
While I am pleased that we have finally convinced the Republicans to bring legislation on price gouging to the floor, it is the American people who should be the winners today.
This legislation is long overdue. In the past 8 months the Republicans have failed to act to address price gouging, gas prices have exceeded $3 a gallon. Crude oil prices have broken records. Americans have endured significant financial hardships, and oil companies have reaped record profits.
Let us be clear. Republicans claim to have passed a price gouging bill last October. However, that legislation was so toothless that it is being ignored by the Republicans in the other body.
During that debate, I offered the FREE Act amendment as a substitute. All but two Republicans voted against my legislation. While I am pleased that the Republican leadership has finally brought a gas bill to the floor, I will say that this new bill was immediately put on the suspension calendar without any hearings, without any meaningful debate.
Several of my colleagues may not appreciate the differences between the bill before us today and the Democratic legislation, the FREE Act. Although these differences should not delay price gouging legislation any longer than it already has been, it is my hope that the Republicans will be willing to address these issues of true price gouging as this piece of legislation moves forward.
Our bill, the FREE Act, would specifically set out guidelines for the FTC to use to define price gouging, including provisions that make unconscionable pricing, providing false pricing information, and market manipulation illegal, all of which is lacking in the bill before us today.
The FREE Act also contains a provision that would promote price transparency, providing consumers with the information to know that oil and gas prices are fair and reasonable, again a standard lacking in the legislation before us today.
The FREE Act would also apply to natural gas and propane. Neither natural gas nor propane are even mentioned in the bill before us today.
Had the Republican bill, H.R. 5253, the bill before us today, been considered even by any committee in this Congress, or even just allowed to be amended on the floor here today, we could make changes that would make this a better bill.
Nonetheless, Congress has a responsibility to pass a price gouging bill. I am pleased the Republicans have stopped stonewalling. Democrats will continue to put pressure on the Republican leadership until a real, true price gouging bill is enacted, to ensure that it contains the strongest provisions to protect the American consumer.
It has taken 8 months for Democrats to finally shame the Republican leadership into passing price gouging legislation. If the Republicans are serious about helping American people, several of my Democratic colleagues have proposals to help ease the pain at the pump. It is my hope that it will not take 8 months for the Republicans to consider these proposals as we continue to work on the issue of high gas prices.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins) who has been a real advocate on lowering some of these special tax privileges for the big oil and gas companies.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), an advocate of consumers before she got to Congress, and she continues in that present capacity today as a strong advocate for consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and has been advocating to try to get energy prices under control from refinery to gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who is always down here every day advocating for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.
Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, so let me say a few words, and then will yield back.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are quite fed up with the price gouging that is going on at the gasoline pump. They know gouging when they see it, and they are being gouged. The Federal Government has the responsibility to protect consumers from price gouging.
Congress needs to pass legislation to allow the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute price gouging. While the bill before us is not perfect, I am pleased that the Republicans have finally realized that price gouging is a serious issue and it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Our constituents are looking to Congress for relief. It is our duty to approve legislation that would provide relief to protect Americans from the increased financial hardship from gasoline price gouging rates that is currently taking place.
Mr. Speaker, just as Republicans have finally joined with us Democrats in addressing price gouging, I challenge the Republicans, I challenge the chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee to take up other proposals we have, Mr. Markey's proposal, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to reduce the royalties. Oil companies get to drill on Federal lands; they do not have to pay any royalties. With record profits, they should be paying increased royalties to the American people. Or Mr. Higgins who spoke earlier today about his piece of legislation that takes away the tax break from the oil companies that have record profits last year of $113 billion, or in its first quarter of this year, it is approximately $20 billion, in the first quarter, in the first 90 days, $20 billion in profits. Why do they need tax breaks? Even the President said, as we were debating the Energy Policy Act of 2005 last year, that when oil is over $40 a barrel, there is no need for tax breaks. But yet we continue to give tax breaks to the oil companies. So there are other proposals. Or even the proposal I have before this committee that Mr. Kucinich spoke of, the Pump Act, to prevent unfair manipulating of prices. We know that if this Congress were to act, we could immediately bring down the price of a barrel of oil by $20 if we take the speculation, the fear and greed out of the oil futures market.
Mr. Speaker, of the billions of dollars of oil that is traded in futures market, 75 percent is not regulated. A mere 25 percent is regulated by NYMEX, New York Mercantile Exchange. The other 75 percent is unregulated. Therefore, they use fear; they use speculation to drive up that price.
So we have legislation that would actually reduce that, and let all those who trade in the futures market when we deal with oil to bring their transactions, to bring some transparency and bring it before the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to reduce that price of oil by $20 per barrel.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this House, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation. It is an initial start. We can improve on it. And as this process goes through, even though we were denied hearings, even an opportunity to amend this legislation; in fact, most Members have never seen it before. It was only introduced yesterday. We would hope that as this bill moves through the entire legislative process, that the other body would at least include all energy products, like natural gas which is not included in this bill, propane which is not included in this bill. What about the market manipulation, predatory pricing, regional price differences, all the things that we know happen in this country but yet we do not address in this bill? Like I said, it is an initial good start. We are glad to see the Republican leadership finally acknowledge there is price gouging, but rest assured, the Democrats will continue to come up with bold new ideas on how to get our hands on this energy crisis we are dealing with and the skyrocketing high gasoline prices. The American people are fed up. They have a right to be. This is a good first start. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
The gentlewoman is wrong on our legislation. My legislation, the FREE Act, applies to everything. It was your legislation that only dealt with national emergencies.
If we had hearings and witnesses, we could bring out the differences between the bills, but since we have been denied it, I have to use this tactic to get the record straight on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and urge its rejection by the…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and urge its rejection by the House.
Democrats are more than willing to work with the majority Republicans to write legislation which addresses constricted refinery capacity in a proper manner. But on the measure we are debating this morning, we were not consulted. In fact, no hearings have been held on the bill. No markup sessions have been conducted. There has been no consideration whatsoever of this measure by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is the committee of jurisdiction. The bill was not even introduced until late last night or early this morning.
If the majority party is willing to work with us, we would make every effort to construct a thoughtful bill that addresses the refinery shortage in a constructive way and bring that bipartisan measure to the floor of the House within a matter of days or at most a matter of weeks. I hope the majority Republicans will consider and accept our offer.
But the bill before us is not constructive. According to testimony the Congress received last year, the bill would weaken environmental protections but do virtually nothing to encourage the construction of new gasoline refineries.
The bill before us repeals the law requiring the States and the Federal Government to work together to set deadlines and streamline the process for issuing permits for new refinery construction. That new requirement became law just last August. Rather than repeal it now, let us give it a chance to work.
The bill before us adds a new layer of Federal bureaucracy by creating a Federal coordinator to oversee State permitting actions, and States would be mandated to meet a Federal schedule for issuing refinery construction permits.
States that have legitimate environmental concerns would find their normal review process short-circuited under a mandated Federal schedule for permit issuance. And the bill proceeds from a deeply flawed assumption that the reason we have a refinery shortage is burdensome State permitting processes. The real reason we have a refinery shortage is that the companies that own refineries are profiting enormously from the present market structure, including the refinery bottleneck. In essence, they are making more money by refining less gasoline.
The real reason we do not have enough refineries is economic interest, not environmental constraints.
Here is what the oil company CEOs had to say about the regulations regarding the regulations citing new refineries.
Last November, the CEO of Shell testified to the Senate, ``We are not aware of any environmental regulations that have prevented us from expanding refinery capacity or siting a new refinery.''
Conoco's CEO testified, ``At this time, we are not aware of any projects that have been directly prevented as a result of any specific Federal or State regulation.''
The record before the Congress is clear. It is devoid of any evidence that environmental permitting has delayed or prevented the construction of new refineries. In fact, the record clearly shows that environmental permitting is simply not a problem. And yet this bill weakens environmental permitting. It is the wrong answer for the problem that we face.
Let us reject this measure and begin working in a bipartisan fashion this afternoon in order to write a law that will make a genuine difference. If the Republicans are willing, Democrats pledge our best efforts to work with you to achieve that goal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a letter dated May 3, 2006, from the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, joined in that letter by the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials.
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators, Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Dear Representatives: On behalf of the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and
the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(ALAPCO), we write to you today to express the associations'
concerns regarding the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.
First, we question the premise of this bill--namely, that
environmental permitting requirements obstruct efforts to
construct or expand refining capacity and contribute to
escalating gasoline prices. We are aware of no evidence that
such requirements, particularly those related to air
pollution, have prevented or impeded construction of new, or
the major modification of existing, refineries. In fact, what
experience shows is that when regulated sources comply with
federal, state and local permitting requirements in a timely
manner, state and local agencies are able to act
expeditiously to approve permits.
Second, it is unclear how this bill would expedite the
issuance of permits. Rather, it appears that it could have
the opposite effect. Subtitle H of Title III of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, approved by Congress last year to
streamline the permitting of refineries, already provides
states the ability to request special procedures to
coordinate federal and state agency permitting actions for
refineries. Repealing those provisions and replacing them
with ones that insert a ``Federal Coordinator'' into the
process and impose additional procedural requirements on
states and localities--including a requirement to enter into
judicially enforceable schedules--would almost surely delay
the permitting process.
Third, we are concerned that this bill is moving directly
to the floor of the House of Representatives, circumventing
consideration by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
and open public debate during which state and local
permitting authorities and other stakeholders could present
their views.
STAPPA and ALAPCO understand the desire to take swift
action of some kind to address fuel prices. Moreover, we
recognize that this particular bill is an improvement over
other refinery permitting legislation introduced in the past
few years. Notwithstanding this, however, we firmly believe
environmental permitting requirements have been wrongly
targeted and, further, that the Refinery Permit Process
Schedule Act could result in unintended, problematic
consequences. Therefore, our associations oppose the bill.
Sincerely,
Eddie Terrill,
STAPPA President.
John A. Paul,
ALAPCO President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the sentiments of my friend from Illinois with whom I have partnered on many coal-related issues over the years, and I certainly agree with him that we need to start rebuilding refineries that will turn coal into a liquid fuel. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not need this bill to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not an effective way to address the gasoline refinery shortage. It tramples on State environmental laws without solving the fundamental problem.
The CEOs of the refining companies have testified to the Congress that the permitting process is not burdensome. It has not prevented the construction of needed new refineries, and yet this bill addresses the permitting process.
For our part, Democrats are more than willing to work with our Republican colleagues and to do so on a bipartisan basis, to write a law that will make a difference, a law that will get the needed new refineries built. We could produce and bring to the floor a bipartisan bill within a matter of days or, at most, within a matter of weeks.
So what I would say to the Members of the House is reject this measure and then, beginning this afternoon, let us sit down in a bipartisan exercise to draft a bill that addresses the fundamental need for new refineries. We pledge to you our best efforts to achieve that goal, and we hope that you will accept this offer.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague from Michigan talks about the need to move quickly, and the truth is, I introduced a price-gouging bill in September of last year…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague from Michigan talks about the need to move quickly, and the truth is, I introduced a price-gouging bill in September of last year in the wake of Katrina. It was a bipartisan bill with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) as the lead cosponsor.
In October, we passed price-gouging legislation combined with the refinery bill in what is called the Gas Act, and it is true my colleague from Michigan did propose an alternative which I opposed because I felt as though the definitions in his bill were unclear and would invite litigation rather than solutions.
We are trying to move forward with a piece of legislation that will give real authority to the Federal Trade Commission that they do not currently have now. Twenty-three States have laws on price gouging. So we have got about close to half the States in the Nation have some form of law in price gouging, all with various provisions, definitions and so forth, but the Federal Trade Commission that is empowered at the Federal level with being the agency responsible for looking at consumers and consumer protection only has authority to look at gasoline and oil with respect to collusion. If there is collusion between two companies on setting the price of gasoline, then they have the authority to investigate, but they have no authority to investigate when it comes to unreasonable and unfair trade practices. This legislation we are offering today would give them that new authority at the Federal level.
I think this is a good piece of legislation, and I would ask my colleagues to support it.
H.R. 5253 would prohibit price gouging at any time. It is not limited to emergencies or in the wake of natural disasters. I will be very honest; the thing that caused me to introduce price-gouging legislation last September was what we all saw in the wake of Katrina: opportunists taking advantage of a terrible situation and a natural disaster to pump up the price of gasoline for people who were trying to flee for their lives. That is not right, and it is what spurred me to introduce the price-gouging legislation.
The modification in the bill that is before us today is that the price-gouging authority for the Federal Trade Commission would not require a disasters trigger, but they could look at unfair trade practices at any time, not limited to emergencies. It also covers gasoline, diesel, crude oil, home heating oil and biofuels. So it goes across a wide variety of full types.
It also sets pretty stiff criminal and civil penalties for price gouging and allows these investigations by the Federal Trade Commission as well as by the States.
Under these provisions, the Federal Trade Commission would consider public comment in defining exactly what wholesale pricing is, what retail pricing is, and it gives them some regulatory authority to come up with definitions. The truth is, we have got 23 State laws. Some of those laws are very, very different, and I think it makes some sense to allow the States and those involved to come up with a national definition that will work best for consumers in the marketplace.
The legislation we are offering today would not, however, preempt those State laws. So the States would still be able to use their State laws to address problems with price gouging in their
own jurisdictions. This would give additional authority to the Federal Trade Commission and to States that choose to use the Federal law to investigate price gouging in their own States.
It seems to me that this is one thing that we have to do. We have done it first in a larger bill, as a piece of a larger bill last October, but I think the approach we are trying to take here in the House of Representatives is to say we want America to be more energy independent, and that is going to take a long-term, balanced approach that deals with supply, demand and protecting consumers.
This is one piece of that puzzle. We will be dealing with other pieces of that puzzle as we move along, everything from coal-to-oil gasification, encouraging more hydrogen-powered cars, encouraging more E85, using ethanol in our gas tanks, so both conservation and increasing domestic supply so that America becomes more energy independent.
I encourage my colleagues to support this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. I would yield 3 minutes to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection Chair from the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I reserve our time, and I believe I also have the right to close.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan for his support of this legislation. I introduced a bipartisan bill in September of 2005 about the same time that my colleague from Michigan did. Our approaches are different in some respects, but this legislation we are voting on today, a slightly different version of which was included in the October 2005 Gas Act that the House has already passed, is a good bill. It is a solid piece of legislation and deserves the support of the House.
I also recognize that this is only one piece of the puzzle. We want to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate possible price gouging. But that is not going to solve all of our energy problems. This focuses on one piece of the problem. The bill that we will consider next on the floor of the House will also look at another piece of the problem, and we are going to try to pass some further legislation that deals with tax codes, that increases domestic supply, that invests in alternative sources, things like E-85.
Since we passed the Energy Act in August and the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee came out to New Mexico to sign that landmark piece of legislation, there are 29 new ethanol plants that have requested permits so that we can use corn to fuel our vehicles rather than having to import oil from other countries.
Mr. Speaker, this bill includes strong penalties, in fact stronger than the ones that my colleague from Michigan has in his bill. I think maybe if we would have worked together, we could have come up with a good bill that both of our names were on. It gives us good clear definitions and says, we have got 23 States that have price-gouging laws, we need to get a clear Federal definition of price gouging, and the Federal Trade Commission will give that to us.
It also deals with every month of the year. The bill that we introduced in September, and my colleague from Michigan's bill as well, only deals with emergencies, when a disaster is declared. I think there is justification for saying the Federal Trade Commission should have authority to look at unfair trade practices, whatever time they may be.
I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
If I am incorrect on that, I apologize, Mr. Stupak. It was my understanding that your bill would require a trigger.
I thank my colleague from Michigan.
This is a piece of legislation that all of us have been working on for over 8 months now, and I look forward to working with him as we move forward.
Also, this piece of legislation does not overwrite State law. In other words, those 23 States that do have some form of price-gouging legislation, that law stays in effect so that States can use the Federal law, the Federal Trade Commission can use the Federal law, or States can use their own law so that we don't preempt State law.
I think this is a good piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that will help to address the problems that every American is feeling at the pump and help to make America more energy independent. I ask my colleagues for their support, and I urge adoption of H.R. 5253.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Federal Energy Price Protection Act (H.R. 5253). By protecting consumers at the gas pump, this legislation takes an important step towards a more…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Federal Energy Price Protection Act (H.R. 5253). By protecting consumers at the gas pump, this legislation takes an important step towards a more responsible federal energy policy.
H.R. 5253 bans price gouging in the sale of fuels, permits states to bring price gouging lawsuits against wholesalers or retailers and sets meaningful penalties for those convicted. After nearly a year of opposing these consumer protections, Republicans have finally realized this is a necessary and appropriate action to addressing rising gas prices. However, this is only a first step--it is what we do next that really matters.
We should not expect our energy situation to change until Congress gets serious about tackling our oil dependence. With the booming economies of China and India squeezing global oil supply, and political instability among key oil producing countries like Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria and Iraq, it is likely that world oil prices will remain volatile and could continue rising for some time to come. Unfortunately, the Republicans are proposing to meet this serious challenge with an ill-conceived policy of distraction.
The Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254) is a cynical attempt to relieve public pressure for new energy policies and divert attention away from meaningful solutions. It empowers the Secretary of Defense to evade state environmental laws and overrule the wishes of local communities by ``streamlining'' siting and permitting of new refineries on closed military bases. I strongly oppose this bill, which blames state environmental regulations for rising gas prices and would undermine local control in a misguided attempt to ease them. H.R. 5254 is another attempt by the Republican majority to sell Americans the false promise of easy answers.
With families burdened with gas at $3 per gallon, it is time for real leadership, vision and commitment from Washington to make the smart investments that will protect our BNation's economic security and our planet's future. A clean energy future that addresses oil dependence and environmental concerns such as climate change is achievable. It starts by rescinding the billion of dollars in subsidies for oil and gas companies and with investments in research and extending incentives for alternative energy sources such as wind, biomass and biofuels that keep energy costs down, create jobs and make us more competitive in the global economy. As Robert Samuelson stated in today's Washington Post, the United States has the energy policy it deserves but not the one it needs. It's time for real solutions.
[From the Washington Post, May 3, 2006]
How We Got to $3 a Gallon
(By Robert J. Samuelson)
The United States has the energy policy it deserves,
although not the one it needs. Having been told for years
that their addiction to cheap gasoline was on a collision
course with increasingly insecure supplies of foreign oil,
Americans are horrified to discover that this is actually the
case. But for all the public outcry and political hysteria,
high gasoline prices haven't significantly hurt the economy--
and may not do so. Since 2003 the economy has grown about 3.6
percent annually. It's still advancing briskly. That may be
the real news.
But first, how did we get to $3 a gallon? The basic story
is simple enough. Oil was cheap in the 1990s. From 1993 to
1999, crude prices averaged about $17 a barrel. Low prices
discouraged exploration and encouraged consumption. China
emerged as a big user. In 1995 global demand was about 70
million barrels daily; now it's almost 84 million barrels
daily.
Spare production capacity slowly vanished, meaning that now
any supply interruption--or rumor of interruption--sends
prices up sharply. An Iraqi pipeline is attacked; prices
jump. Nigerian rebels menace oil fields; prices jump.
These pressures get transmitted quickly to the pump,
because there are few fixed-price contracts in the oil
business. At each stage of distribution--from producers to
refiners, from refiners to retailers--prices are adjusted
quickly. They're often tied to prices on major commodities
exchanges, where oil and other raw materials are traded.
``A gas station will get a delivery every four to eight
days at a different price,'' says Mary Novak of Global
Insight. Even between deliveries, station owners may push
prices up because they know that ``for my next tankload, I'll
have to pay the market price.''
Of course, profits have exploded. Production and refining
costs haven't risen in tandem with prices. To the extent that
oil companies have their own crude reserves--as opposed to
buying from producing nations--they've reaped a bonanza. From
2002 to 2005, profits for most U.S. oil companies more than
quadrupled, to almost $140 billion a year, the American
Petroleum Institute reports. But the really big winners are
the oil-producing countries. In 2005 their oil revenue
exceeded $750 billion, up from $300 billion in 2002. (Crude
oil and taxes represent about three-quarters of the retail
price of gasoline; refining, distribution and marketing
account for the rest.)
It's conventional wisdom that big increases in oil prices
usually trigger a recession--or at least a sharp slowdown.
Why haven't they? One oft-cited reason is that the economy
has become more energy-efficient. True. Compared with 1973,
Americans use 57 percent less oil and natural gas per dollar
of output; compared with 1990, the decline is 24 percent.
Cars and trucks have gotten more efficient, though not much
more so since 1990. New industries (software programming,
health clubs) use less energy than the old (steelmaking,
farming). But there's a larger reason: The conventional
wisdom is wrong.
Big oil price increases in the past (1973-74, 1979-80 and
1990-91) did not cause recessions, though recessions occurred
at roughly the same time. The connection has been repeated so
often that most people probably accept it as gospel. But much
economic research has concluded that it's a myth. These
recessions resulted mainly from rising inflation--inflation
that preceded higher oil prices--and the Federal Reserve's
efforts to suppress it. Higher oil prices merely made matters
slightly worse. In 1980, for example, consumer prices rose
12.5 percent; excluding energy prices, they increased 11.7
percent.
This may explain the economy's resilience. One hopeful
sign: most nonenergy companies aren't yet passing along
higher energy costs to their customers. ``Businesses have had
wide profit margins,'' says Mark Zandi of
Moody's Economy.com. ``They may be willing to eat the higher
costs.'' In 2006, he expects the economy to grow 3.5 percent,
with average unemployment of 4.7 percent.
Indeed, he thinks oil prices may retreat to about $50 a
barrel, from today's levels of about $70, later this year.
Higher prices will slightly dampen demand, and added supplies
will create some spare production capacity. Naturally, he
could be wrong. Energy economist Philip K. Verleger Jr.
thinks oil could be headed for $100 a barrel, with inflation
going to 5 percent and inducing a recession. Continuing
strong oil demand will collide with rigid supply (both
production and refining). The conventional wisdom--wrong in
the past--could be right in the future.
Whatever happens, the larger question is how Americans
build on this episode. It may feel good to vilify the major
oil companies and the oil cartel. But that won't help. We now
import 60 percent of our oil; large imports will continue
indefinitely. So far, we've escaped a true calamity. We may
not be so lucky in the future. We could minimize our
vulnerabilities to supply interruptions and price increases.
We could open up more acreage (including Alaska) to drilling.
We could orchestrate--through tougher fuel economy standards
and a gradually rising energy tax--a big shift toward more-
efficient vehicles. Once again, we've been warned. Will we
contine to ignore it?
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have…
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and insert extraneous material on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we now take up a second bill today to help improve our energy outlook, H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. Getting new refinery projects sited and permitted is a challenge to energy developers, especially to new market entrants who could offer alternatives to today's overworked refineries.
The plain fact is that our country is losing its ability to refine oil into motor fuel. We are not only importing oil in ever-greater quantities, now we are importing gasoline by the shipload, too. The threat that we face today is not only to the price but also to the supply.
If you tried to buy gasoline at one of the stations that have run out of gas lately, you will remember the gasoline lines of 1970s. High prices are a hardship, but dry pumps are a disaster. As I pointed out earlier today, at the 7-Eleven station at Glebe Road and Second Street in Arlington, Virginia, when I went by this morning to get some gasoline, there was no gasoline to be had.
My Taurus that I am driving here in Washington is now literally on ``E'' and I hope I have enough to get to a station that has some gasoline later this evening when Congress recesses for the day.
The last American refinery to be built from scratch in this country was over 30 years ago, and I believe it was in Louisiana. We have shut down more refineries in the last 30 years than we have refineries in operation today in the United States. Most of those are clustered in the gulf coast region, which, as we know because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, are in harm's way if hurricanes continue to batter that part of the country.
Hurricane Katrina has taught us some very bitter lessons. One was do not put too many of your refinery eggs in one basket.
This bill does nothing to dictate new refinery locations. Only developers and local State governments can do that. But it will make certain that the Federal Government does its part to eliminate some of the needless, in my opinion, bureaucratic delay if somebody wants to build a new refinery or expand an existing refinery. And, in my opinion, we need to do that.
We consume about 21 million barrels of refined product in the United States every day. Our refinery capacity located domestically is less than 17 million barrels per day. That is a shortage of 4 million barrels a day in refining capacity for domestic demand for refined products from oil.
Are we trying to take a backseat to environmental protection? Nothing of the sort. Under this bill, while the EPA will be given priority to coordinate and consolidate the permitting process, we are not backing down on one permit that is required at the State or Federal level. The EPA and the Department of Energy under this bill would work together to consolidate and streamline the permitting process so that you can get a decision in a timely fashion.
The bill before us would put all agencies responsible for considering permitting applications for an oil refinery, a coal-to-liquid refinery, or a biofuel refinery, that they would have to sit down at the same table and hammer out a coordinated action schedule. They would put permitting schedules on parallel tracks and instill focus and teamwork in process.
The schedule will appear in the Federal Register for all stakeholders to see; and if an agency drags its feet and throws everyone else off schedule, you can go to court and a court can order to get that particular agency back on track. They cannot tell the agency how to rule, but it can require that they meet the schedule that has been agreed to by all of the other State and Federal agencies that have permitting authority under the current laws.
Public participation will go on exactly as it has in the past. All of the open records requirements will go on exactly as it has in the past. So we are not short-sheeting any environmental protection law under this pending legislation. All we are doing is saying, since we have a situation in the United States of America where we use 21 million barrels of refined products every day and we only have refining capacity for 17, it is about time that we do something to make it possible to build and expand existing refineries in the United States.
It takes a million dollars per thousand barrels of capacity. So we need 4 million barrels of new refinery capacity. That is somewhere between $40 billion and $60 billion. Nobody in their right mind is going to put up that kind of money to expand refinery capacity when it takes as long as 10 years just to get the permit to build or expand existing refinery.
The bill before us will make it possible to get a decision on the permits. The President has asked that we do it within 1 year. The bill before us does not set a 1-year timetable exactly, but we would hope that the consolidation process and the parallel-track process would shorten the permitting window. If we can get it down to a year or 18 months, I think the day would come very soon where we would see companies announcing new refinery projects, which would be good for the public in the form of lower prices.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) manage the rest of the floor time on the majority side.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this exchange of letters be included in the Record during today's debate on H.R. 5254.
May 3, 2006.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter
concerning H.R. 5254, a bill to set schedules for the
consideration of permits for refineries.
I appreciate your willingness not to seek a referral on
H.R. 5254. I agree that your decision to forgo action on the
bill will not prejudice the Committee on the Judiciary with
respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or future
legislation. Further, I recognize your right to request
conferees on those provisions within the Committee on the
Judiciary's jurisdiction should they be the subject of a
House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation.
I will include our exchange of letters in the Congressional
Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5253) to prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil, and for other purposes. Mr.…
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5253) to prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil, and for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are again seeing spikes at the gas pumps, with prices reaching over $3 a gallon all over the country. This morning, I went by the 7-Eleven at Second and Glebe Road in Arlington, Virginia, and there were no prices posted on the sign outside the station. I thought, oh, maybe they are giving gasoline away. No, they did not have any gasoline to sell at any price.
We need to do something, not only to bring these prices down, but we need to do something to make sure that there is adequate gasoline supply available at every service station in the country that serves the American driving public.
$3 a gallon gasoline may mean nothing to some people, but it sure means a lot to most of us and everything to the poorest of our society that really have to have gasoline to get back and forth to work and it is a big part of their budget.
Soaring gasoline prices drain the budgets of the working families who rely on cars to get their kids to school and themselves to work. If the spike in gasoline prices are due to anything other than market conditions, consumers have a right to count on us, the government, for protection from these rip-offs.
H.R. 5253, sponsored by Congressman Wilson of New Mexico, the bill that we are considering right now, prohibits price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil.
While price fixing, collusion and other anti-competitive practices are currently illegal, there is no Federal statutory prohibition on the books against price gouging. Nobody has really defined at the Federal level exactly what it is yet.
It is true that we all think we know what price gouging is when we see it, but that is not the sort of definition that a prosecutor can take to a judge or a jury. We are not here today saying something is just awful and somebody ought to stop it. We are here to put the gougers out of business, if there are gougers, and behind bars.
Last October, the House passed anti-price gouging provisions in the Gas Act. Like the provision in that act, the Gas Act, the legislation before us today provides an explicit Federal prohibition on gasoline price gouging, treating it as an unfair trade practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act.
It would also provide for additional enforcement in that it gives the United States Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission, the States attorney generals, the authority to enforce against price gouging at any time, not just in times of a major disaster. It provides for greater civil penalties and even criminal penalties in some cases for the most serious offenses.
The legislation would ensure that the definition of price gouging promulgated by the FTC rule-making does not cover spikes in gas prices that are caused by market conditions.
Committee hearings have demonstrated that when artificial regulations supplant normal supply and demand as the primary means of pricing a commodity, the result is market distortion and shortages. Ask those of us who were lining up for gas in the mid- and late 1970s.
We are also not here today in pursuit of consequences, unintended or otherwise, that makes it tough for people to get to work and to school. Price spikes
are a scourge, but dry pumps are a catastrophe. As I mentioned this morning, at Second and Glebe Road in Arlington, Virginia, there was no gas at any price at the 7-Eleven.
I know the difference, and I will strenuously oppose any policies that choke off the flow of gasoline to drivers. We want to have effective enforcement against scams without interfering with the efficient functioning of the market.
In my opinion, H.R. 5253 does that. I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of consumer protection legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) manage the remainder of the majority time on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this exchange of letters be included in the Record during today's debate on H.R. 5253.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Barton: In recognition of the desire to
expedite consideration of H.R. 5253, a bill to prohibit price
gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and
home heating oil, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby
waives consideration of the bill. There are a number of
provisions contained in H.R. 5253 that implicate the Rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Specifically,
the bill contains increases in criminal penalties under title
18 of the United States Code, which implicate the Judiciary
Committee's jurisdiction under Rule X(I)(l)(7) (``criminal
law enforcement'').
The Committee takes this action with the understanding that
by forgoing consideration of H.R. 5253, the Committee on the
Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter
contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also
reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate
conference on this legislation and requests your support if
such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your
including this letter in the Congressional Record during
consideration of H.R. 5253 on the House floor. Thank your
attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, a recent General Accounting Office investigation in 2004, which I am holding in my hand, concluded that gasoline refineries have intentionally limited their capacity to keep gasoline…
Mr. Speaker, a recent General Accounting Office investigation in 2004, which I am holding in my hand, concluded that gasoline refineries have intentionally limited their capacity to keep gasoline prices high and their profits up.
You did not write this. I did not write this. This is the General Accounting Office. For the consumers, these higher energy costs are a disaster for their pocketbooks and further stagnates our economy.
Now there is a difference here between what your side approaching the problem will do and what our side will do. Question, who is going in the right direction? We have heard that a lot lately.
Former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said that we are a 21st- century superpower with a third-world transmission grid. Remember that debate a few years ago on utilities and electricity and who got blamed for it? And then we finally discovered that the industry itself was fooling the market and manipulating the market, and those characters are on trial right now. A 21st-century superpower with a third-world refinery infrastructure, and that is what we have come to.
This refinery legislation, which I will vote against, which is before us right now is an effort to solidify our dependence on fossil fuel. On one side of our mouth, we are saying we are addicted to oil. On the other side of our mouth, we are saying let us build more refineries, make it easier for more refineries to be built so that we can produce gasoline.
You want to streamline the permitting because you want to produce more gasoline from fossil fuel. I must remind you that in a report presented by the Rocky Mountain Institute in 2004, it was very specific: America's energy future is a choice, not our fate. Oil dependence is a problem we need not have, and it is cheaper not to.
When the United States last paid attention to the oil efficiency problem was between 1977 and 1985. Oil use fell 17 percent; gross product went up 27 percent. During those 8 years, oil imports fell 50 percent and imports from the Persian Gulf fell by 87 percent. That exercise of market muscle broke OPEC's pricing power for a decade.
Look, the other side, in all due respect, you have made your bed. You have got to lie in it now. And you are trying to get out of it, but you are doing it in the wrong way. This bill does nothing to increase refinery capacity in the first place, and it certainly does not help in lowering gas prices.
We have done a disservice to the American people, and we only confuse the issue. We are either addicted to oil or we are not. And if we are, let us go in a different direction. Please join us.
Call it what you will: price-gouging, profiteering, or simple old fashioned greed.
Oil companies have the greatest corporate profits in history, yet they were able to stiff taxpayers over $7 billion in royalties that they owe us for drilling on public lands. But the jig is finally up.
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, whether you believe collusion is the cause of the high gas prices or not.
No matter how you define it, what we have witnessed in the past several months is the looting of the American public.
And don't take my word for it--a recent report by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights found that corporate markups are primarily responsible for price spikes, not crude oil costs or the national switchover to ethanol, as the industry has claimed.
In this crisis, we hear echoes of Enron--hotshot oilmen departing their companies with golden parachutes, while average Americans live on the edge, some so desperate they are intentionally breaking down on highways to receive a free tank of gas.
President Bush and the leadership in Congress don't have dismal approval ratings merely because they don't have skilled public relations flaks.
They have dismal approval ratings because the vast majority of Americans recognize that something has gone very wrong in this country.
Despite the recent political posturing, the Administration has dedicated its time in office to protecting the oil industry from any restrictions or oversight at all--and that is what has led us to where we are today.
We need to get serious about this issue. We cannot just clamor for change when gas prices
are high, and return to a passive stupor if prices settle down again.
Remember, this is not only about our pocketbooks.
Americans have come to believe that we have fought one war too many in the Persian Gulf--at least partially to ensure a continuous supply of foreign oil.
Now is the time for leadership to get us started down the path of real energy independence.
Let us live up to our responsibility today--let's reign in the bloated oil companies and protect the public from economic catastrophe.
Let us invest in far-sighted renewable energy and conservation programs, so that we will never again sacrifice our precious blood and treasure to slake this terrible thirst for Middle Eastern oil.
Mr. Speaker, as I think most of us know after listening to this debate, the fuel prices around this country have been rising. Beginning with the summer driving season, I think particularly in Florida…
Mr. Speaker, as I think most of us know after listening to this debate, the fuel prices around this country have been rising. Beginning with the summer driving season, I think particularly in Florida where we have so many tourists, we are concerned about it, and of course we know that during the time of growing economies, and China and India are consuming more and more of the world's available petroleum supplies, that puts us competitive here in the United States.
To make matters worse, nuclear ambitions in Iran, the fourth largest producer of oil, intentions in Nigeria, the 12th, have created what would be perceived to be a perfect storm, which is a precipitous rise in gasoline and other fuel prices.
Our problem back home now is how to manage those global issues so that they will have as little impact at home on the average working American who just wants to take his family on that planned vacation to Florida, let us hope, under a tight budget or maintain his delivery business without taking out additional loans just to fill up his car. I am happy that my colleague, Mrs. Wilson, is taking up this bill, H.R. 5253, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006. I commend her leadership for this.
I believe this bill deals directly and aggressively with the need to stabilize the price of fuel in an uncertain world market and ensure that greed and opportunism does not worsen those challenges by gouging the consumer at the pump. This bill for the first time allows the Federal Trade Commission, which I have jurisdiction over as chairman of the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, at any time, my colleagues, to prosecute price gouging. This bill takes aim at those in the wholesale and retail markets for gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, home heating oil and biofuels who prey on their consumers for their own unjust enrichment.
The FTC is directed to define what price gouging actually is. We have had them in a hearing, and they have described it, but it is not a precise definition. Let us get a precise definition. And a very important point: This legal recourse and its enforcement provisions against gouging are always available, not just in times of natural or energy emergencies like we had in Katrina.
Mr. Speaker, this bill's hammer is triggered by consumer rip-offs, not just bureaucratic proclamations. In addition, State Attorney Generals will be empowered to bring cases under the Federal law, and those cases can lead to extremely strong civil and criminal penalties and to multi-millions of dollars, and the possibility of a visit to the nearest correctional facility.
This is a very aggressive piece of legislation targeted at a problem that weakens this country not only in dollars but what it does to the everyday life of an American, vacations missed, budgets broken and businesses stretched thin.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5253 and once and for all make it clear that we in Congress are serious about solving our energy challenges at home so that we can be more successful in solving them abroad. This bill will serve us and our children well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the tremendous impact that the cost of gasoline is having on my West Virginia constituents and on working families across the country. Rural communities that make…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the tremendous impact that the cost of gasoline is having on my West Virginia constituents and on working families across the country. Rural communities that make up a large portion of my congressional district are especially hard hit by rising fuel costs because of the distance many people must travel to work and school and the limited public transportation options.
In addition to high prices, gas stations in some areas have run out of fuel all together. It is vital that we take every possible step to ensure that the gasoline market is priced fairly and it is important that we take steps to increase the supply of gasoline available to the market.
This week in my district I highlighted a 5-point plan to reduce the price of fuel. These steps include:
1. Take tough action against price gougers.
2. Waive boutique fuel requirements so that supply can be easily transferred between regions of the country.
3. Temporarily waive the 2.5 percent and 54 cent per gallon tax on ethanol so that imported ethanol can help make up the difference with the recent phase-out of MTBE in our gasoline supply.
4. Make use of coal--West Virginia's natural resource--as part of our fuel supply. Coal liquefaction technology has been available for many years and our government has invested in research that would allow for fuel to be produced now. Our nation has a 250-year supply of coal that already provides over half of our nation's electricity. Coal is an answer to the gasoline problem as well.
5. Allow for responsible drilling in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf to increase our domestic supply of crude oil.
I am pleased that the House took action today on two elements of this important plan. I strongly support H.R. 5253, passed by the House today that will punish price gougers with tough fines or jail time. Provisions of the bill will allow for enforcement by either the Federal Trade Commission or state Attorney Generals to provide the maximum possible protection for consumers. We must investigate and punish instances of gouging wherever they occur on the energy supply chain.
I am extremely disappointed that the House did not take action today on H.R. 5254 to improve the permitting and approval process for new refineries. Our nation has not built a new refinery since 1976 and it is clear that the regulatory process is a major reason why. This improved permitting process would also have applied to coal liquefaction facilities--another step that should be taken to increase our fuel supply. Once again opponents of increased fuel supplies and lower prices blocked action on common sense energy solutions.
Passage of price gouging legislation is a positive first step. I urge my colleagues to support further legislation to increase supply by allowing new domestic exploration and waiving tariffs and boutique fuels.
Mr. Speaker, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act sends the right message--more refinery capacity in this country is a good thing. Unfortunately this legislation did not follow the Committee…
Mr. Speaker, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act sends the right message--more refinery capacity in this country is a good thing.
Unfortunately this legislation did not follow the Committee process, since the House leadership is struggling to appear like they are doing something about gas prices, which they know are beyond their control.
As a result, this legislation probably could be improved with hearings, amendment, and more careful consideration.
However, I will support the legislation because it does not alter or repeal any environmental rule, regulation, or law. The bill would just ensure that permits do not sit on any federal bureaucrat's desk for too long.
That is a worthy goal, and I believe that if Chairman Barton could do this bill his preferred way, then he would have brought this legislation to the Committee for a hearing. But the American people are very angry with energy prices right now, and during these politically- charged times the House often operates differently than it should.
Many Americans and Members of the House are upset that we have not built a new refinery in this country in 25 years. That is true but that is also irrelevant, because it is much cheaper and more efficient to expand existing refineries than to build brand new refineries.
Since 1994, U.S. refiners added 2.1 million barrels of capacity, which is the equivalent of adding a larger than average refinery each year.
Over the next several years, capacity will increase another 1.2 million barrels per day. For example, here are some refinery expansions that have already been announced:
Chevron--80,000 barrels per day at its Pascagoula, MS, refinery.
CITGO in Lake Charles, LA--105,000 barrels per day.
Coffeyville Resources in Kansas--15,000 barrels per day.
Flint Hills Resources in Minnesota--50,000 barrels per day.
Holly Corp. in Artesia, NM--10,000 barrels per day.
Marathon Petroleum--180,000 barrels per day in Garyville, LA, and 26,000 barrels per day in Detroit, MI.
ConocoPhillips will spend $3 billion over four years on refinery expansion, which means tens of thousands of extra barrels per day.
Motiva Enterprises is considering doubling the capacity of its large refinery in Port Arthur, TX.
Sunoco recently announced plans to commit $1.8 billion over the next 3 years, leading to thousands more barrels per day.
Tesoro Petroleum Company will devote $670 million in the next year alone to refining facility expansions.
And the Nation's largest refiner, Valero plans to spend $5 billion to add over 400,000 barrels per day of new capacity nationwide.
So the debate about a lack of new refineries is a red herring. We should really focus on expansion projects, since that is where the action is.
If this legislation fails to gain the required \2/3\ support by the full House, I hope we could revisit this legislation in Committee.
Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 2006, the House of Representatives voted on legislation, H.R. 5253, to federally prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel, home heating oil, and biofuels. While I…
Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 2006, the House of Representatives voted on legislation, H.R. 5253, to federally prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel, home heating oil, and biofuels. While I am committed to working with my colleagues to enact energy policies that will lower gas prices and help out American families, I do not believe that this legislation will help.
I voted against this legislation because I believe it irresponsible to criminalize an action without defining exactly what we would be criminalizing. As my constituents in East Texas would say, this legislation simply does not pass the smell test. Not only does this legislation criminalize an action without defining the crime, but it passes off that responsibility to unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Trade Commission. Thus, this legislation could effectively criminalize profit making by companies according to some artificial and arbitrary definition determined by bureaucrats in Washington--and that's not the American way.
Additionally, at a November 9, 2005, joint hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Federal Trade Commissioner Deborah Platt Majoras testified that federal price gouging laws would unnecessarily hurt consumers, instead emphasizing that enforcement of our current antitrust laws is the best method by which to protect American consumers. I find it interesting that not even the Federal Trade Commission believes that federal price gouging laws are an effective protection for consumers.
While I believe that price gouging may exist in limited circumstances, such as the immediate aftermath of a hurricane where market forces have broken down, I have seen no evidence that we are experiencing high gas prices because of price gouging. Instead, I believe that the following factors are responsible for high gasoline prices: (1) A huge increase in worldwide demand, especially in China and India; (2) Supply uncertainty and political instability from large producers like Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria; (3) Over-reliance on the Gulf Coast region; (4) Environmental concerns limiting domestic production and refining; (5) Failure of new technologies to yet mature. Only through increasing our domestic production and reducing excessive federal regulations will we create conditions for lower gasoline prices in the future.
In the face of high gas prices, Congress must not pass knee-jerk reaction legislation that will only worsen the problem in the future. We owe it to our constituents to pass solid, sensible legislation that will promote American energy independence in the future and address this issue in the long term. Ultimately, I did not believe this bill would do anything to lower gas prices for my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives the FTC explicit authority to define and prosecute price gouging by gasoline retailers and wholesale distributors. Given the amount of anger that Americans are…
Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives the FTC explicit authority to define and prosecute price gouging by gasoline retailers and wholesale distributors.
Given the amount of anger that Americans are feeling at the gasoline pumps, we should have enacted similar legislation in law long ago.
There are certainly some price gougers out there, especially in situations with tight supplies during emergencies, but the American people should know that this legislation will not bring relief at the pump this year.
First, the FTC will take six months to define price gouging before they can enforce the new law.
Second, when the price of oil is $75 like it is this week, the price of gasoline is going to be high, without any price gouging by anybody.
The price of oil used to be controlled by OPEC, but most energy experts believe that stable OPEC nations are producing at near full capacity.
The two major reasons why prices are going up is because of high global demand, particularly the booming economies of China and India, and instability in producing nations.
Iraq's oil production has never recovered to pre-war levels due to the insurgency, and many believe that Iran's oil production could soon be reduced due to our tensions with that nation.
In addition to being a large oil producer, Iran sits on the Straits of Hormuz between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.
If conflict were to occur in that global oil shipping choke point, the price of oil will increase even further.
Unfortunately instability in oil producing countries is not limited to the Middle East. Nigeria, Angola, and other areas of Africa are experiencing civil wars which are limiting oil exports.
Our Administration has been engaged in a war of words with the President of Venezuela, which is one of our major oil suppliers.
Bolivia just sent the army in to occupy its oil and gas fields, some of which had been jointly explored with Spanish and U.S. oil companies under contracts approved by previous governments.
With all of these developments in oil producing nations and the surging global economy, the price of oil has gone up dramatically and the price of gasoline tracks the price of oil.
If a gas station or a gasoline distributor wants to use the background of a rising market price to engage in price-gouging, they should be stopped and punished.
The legislation by my friend Bart Stupak may be superior to this legislation in some ways, and if the House was under Democratic control we would have a more democratic process.
But this is a decent piece of legislation that gives the FTC authority to investigate price gouging, so for that reason alone we should approve it.
Show 11 more
Mr. Speaker, as every American knows, fuel prices around the country have begun to rise with the beginning of the summer driving season, when demand is at its peak, and during a time when growing…
Mr. Speaker, as every American knows, fuel prices around the country have begun to rise with the beginning of the summer driving season, when demand is at its peak, and during a time when growing economies like China and India are consuming more and more of the world's available petroleum supply. To make matters worse, nuclear ambitions in Iran, the fourth largest oil producer, and tensions in Nigeria, the twelfth, have created the perfect storm for a precipitous rise in gasoline and other fuel prices. Our problem back home is how to manage those global issues so that they have as little impact at home on the average American who just wants to take his family on that planned vacation under tight budget or maintain his delivery business without taking out an additional loan. I am very happy that we are taking up H.R. 5253, the ``Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006.'' This bill deals directly and aggressively with the need to stabilize the price of fuel in an uncertain world market and ensure that greed and opportunism don't worsen those challenges by gouging the customer at the pump. H.R. 5253, for the first time, allows the FTC, at any time, to prosecute price gouging. This bill takes aim at those in the wholesale and retail markets for gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, home heating oil, and biofuels who prey on their customers for their own unjust enrichment. The FTC is directed to define what price gouging actually is. And a very important point--this legal recourse and its enforcement provisions against gouging are always available, not just in times of natural or energy emergency. Mr. Speaker, this bill's hammer is triggered by consumer rip-offs, not bureaucratic proclamations. In addition, state attorneys general will be empowered to bring cases under the federal law and those cases can lead to extremely strong civil and criminal penalties in the multiple millions of dollars and the possibility of a visit to the nearest correctional facility. This is a very aggressive piece of legislation targeted at a problem that weakens this country not only in dollars but in what it does to the every day lives of all Americans--vacations missed, budgets broken, and business stretched thin. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5253, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006 and once and for all make it clear that we are serious about solving our energy challenges at home so we can be more successful in solving them abroad. This bill will serve us and our children well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254). This bill is based on a false premise--that requirements for environmental permits are to blame for…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254). This bill is based on a false premise--that requirements for environmental permits are to blame for the lack of refinery capacity. As many of my colleagues have expressed, oil companies have openly stated that environmental standards are not stopping them from building new refineries. In fact, the truth is that oil companies simply do not want to build more refineries. The solution that H.R. 5254 prescribes does not match the problem that our nation faces with energy. Instead of investing our efforts in sustainable energy sources to meet our growing energy needs, we remain stuck in our old ways.
I would like to take the opportunity to discuss one point of this bill that I find particularly disturbing. Section 5 directs the President to designate three closed military bases for new oil refining facilities. This section will ultimately force communities that have already suffered from the closure of a military base to welcome unwillingly an oil refinery in their backyards if the President and the Secretary of the Army deem it worthy of a refinery.
I recently joined with New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine, Representative Frank Pallone and other New Jersey state legislators for the signing of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Act, which creates a ten-member authority charged with overseeing the transition and revitalization of Fort Monmouth once it closes in or before 2011. Creating such an authority is an important step for communities to protect their interests as communities are revitalized following a base closure. What frightens me even more about this provision is that the Secretary of Defense can override any decision made by a local authority. The federal government can supersede a local decision. This is not just about Fort Monmouth in my district in Central New Jersey. This is about communities who are already dealing with the closure of a military base. This is about allowing the federal government to overrule what state and local authorities believe is best for their communities.
We owe it to our constituents to debate meaningful energy legislation that reaches the root of our growing energy problems, not something that tries to fix a problem that does not exist.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation because it does not address our growing energy needs and is unfair to local communities.
Mr. Speaker, just a brief part of good news. I just heard from Champion Laboratories that makes fuel filters that they are closing their Mexico plant and adding 100 jobs back in my district and…
Mr. Speaker, just a brief part of good news. I just heard from Champion Laboratories that makes fuel filters that they are closing their Mexico plant and adding 100 jobs back in my district and developing a line. So the economy is moving forward. And that is good news. And sometimes we don't hear that.
A lot of focus of this debate is on crude oil and gas. And the fact that we import refined product, the fact that we import gasoline and not just crude oil, should make us all concerned, and that is really the premise of this debate.
Two years ago, Chairman Alan Greenspan stated at the Economic Club in New York that we do not have any refineries, not just in the United States but we do not have any expanded refinery capacity in the world, especially as we are making fuel products. And I have the quote right here, but for time I will save that.
But I want to focus on another provision of this bill. If you do not like Big Oil, support this bill. If you do not like Big Oil, if you want a competitive to crude oil gasoline, support this bill. Why? Because the incentives to increase the refinery capacity will also apply to biofuels.
Twenty-nine new ethanol facilities are in Illinois. I drive an E85 flexible fuel vehicle, 10 to 15 cents less a gallon; and 2 years ago I did not have a single retail location in my district when I had a flexible fuel vehicle, Ford Taurus. Now I have over 20 locations. That is good; and if we want to incentivize new competitors to Big Oil, we need new biorefineries. That is in this bill. So all my ag friends need to look at this bill.
Secondly, and I have some here in this Chamber, my friends from the coal basin, another great way to defeat Big Oil is to get the rebirth of big coal. And Btu conversion, taking our coal fields, can you imagine this: a coal mine in Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois; and on top of that coal mine, you put a refinery. Look at all the issues that we address. No longer dependent on foreign crude oil, no longer having refineries on the coast where they are subject to damage and destruction through hurricanes, diversified fuel refineries across this country. That is in this bill.
So for all my friends who want to beat up on Big Oil, this is your opportunity to do this. To incentivize renewable fuels, to incentivize coal to liquid, this is your opportunity. We will get a chance to count the votes later on.
I thank Mr. Bass for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, we all know why this bill was rushed to the floor today, and why it is being considered under a shortcut process that limits debate and prevents any consideration of even a single…
Mr. Speaker, we all know why this bill was rushed to the floor today, and why it is being considered under a shortcut process that limits debate and prevents any consideration of even a single amendment.
It's because the Republican leadership thinks they need to make a show of doing something about the price of gasoline.
But just because they are feeling some political heat does not mean that we should pass this bill, which I think does not deserve to be approved.
The bill would require State and local governments to comply with a new Federal schedule for approving permits to site, construct, or expand a refinery. To do that, it would repeal part of the brand-new Energy Policy Act of 2005 that gave the States the ability to request authority to trigger a process that would coordinate Federal and State actions on a refinery.
In other words, it is a new Federal mandate--and it probably would not do anything to speed up construction of any refineries, for several reasons.
First, more Federal bureaucracy and red tape means more delays, because heavy-handed Federal requirements--including judicially- enforceable deadlines--will bring exactly the resistance and litigation that the provisions in the Energy Policy Act were intended to forestall.
And, second, it's economics that controls decisions about refinery capacity.
That's why, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, Exxon thinks building a new refinery would be bad for its long-term business even as it expands the capacity of is existing refineries.
Just last November, in fact, Shell's CEO testified in a Senate hearing that ``[w]e are not aware of any environmental regulations that have prevented us from expanding refinery capacity or siting a new refinery'' and Conoco' s CEO echoed that, saying ``we are not aware of any projects that have been directly prevented as a result of any specific Federal or State regulation.''
But, when the Republican leadership gets scared, who cares about the facts or wants to bother with thinking things through?
So here we are, rushing to take up a bill that was just introduced, on which there have been no hearings and no opportunity for anyone who will be affected--including the State and local governments--to have a chance to comment.
That's a bad way to do business, and this is a bad bill. I cannot support it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived legislation, nothing more than a shameless attempt to blame public health and environmental…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived legislation, nothing more than a shameless attempt to blame public health and environmental protections for the shortage of refinery capacity and high gas prices.
First of all, public health and environmental laws are not impeding construction or expansion of refineries. My colleague, Mr. Boucher, already quoted the CEO for Shell saying on record that he is ``not aware of any environmental regulations preventing us from expanding refinery capacity or siting a new refinery.''
Also, this bill will do nothing to lower gas prices in the short term or the long term. What it will do, however, is lead to increased pollution at the expense of public health; and that is why both State and local officials, air pollution control officials, oppose this bill.
I have here the letter, which I know is being submitted to the Record. State and Territorial Air Pollution Program administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control officials sent this letter in strong opposition to this bill. Specifically, they say the bill's new Federal coordinator position is certain to lead to more, not less, delay in permitting.
Mr. Speaker, the problem of high gas prices is serious. It affects businesses and families on a daily basis. I know that well.
I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
The date of the letter, May 3, 2006.
Mr. Speaker, I know that because gas prices in my district are usually among the highest in the Nation; and right now they are way over $3 a gallon. But this bill does not do anything about that. It is, in fact, trying to distract the American people from a failed Republican energy strategy, a strategy that says if laws that protect public health or environment get in the way, then we should just waive them. This is a strategy that dooms America to never-ending energy crises that consistently enrich energy companies at the expense of hardworking American families and businesses and their health.
Over the past several years, we have had repeated chances to craft commonsense, effective energy legislation setting America on a more stable future. But this Republican Congress has failed to do that. This failure has resulted in this bill. We should vote this harmful legislation down.
Mr. Speaker, for years, many Members of this Congress have pushed for exactly this type of measure to be adopted today that would give the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, the authority it needs to…
Mr. Speaker, for years, many Members of this Congress have pushed for exactly this type of measure to be adopted today that would give the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, the authority it needs to investigate price gouging.
We are living in a time in my home State of Florida and every State with record profits and record prices, and I think the only people in the United States of America who think there is nothing wrong with these prices are the executives of these oil companies.
The only good thing that has come out of the price that we are all having to pay at the pump, it has finally forced this Congress to take a necessary first step. I commend Congresswoman Wilson. This bill is meaningful. It is a good first step in setting significant fines and penalties if, in fact, there is truly an investigation and enforcement or even the threat of enforcement. This bill will give the FTC the authority to define what price gouging is and then to take action.
The strong arm of the Federal Government is necessary to act. This is too much power in the hands of a few companies for a single State to act against.
As Congresswoman Schakowsky pointed out, the unfortunate gratuitous remarks by the President that he does not think there is price gouging undermines our actions today. I do not know what it feels like to him and others, but it sure feels like price gouging to me when I fill up my car, and I think I can say that on behalf of the Floridians that I represent.
So this is only a first step. If this administration is not truly serious about investigating and letting these companies know there is a meaningful risk of enforcement and fines and penalties, this Congress should take further action, and we should not wait until prices go up further and profits go up further.
I would also say now is the time for the leadership in this Congress to bring up the CAFE standards as well. There are other steps we can be taking to raise fuel efficiency standards and to reduce interdependency on other countries. So I salute Congresswoman Wilson on this bill, but this has to be the first step of many in this Congress if we are truly serious as Democrats and Republicans at cracking down on price gouging.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to this bill. The bill will not increase refinery capacity. It will not bring down the price of gasoline, and it will not ensure any ability of the…
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to this bill. The bill will not increase refinery capacity. It will not bring down the price of gasoline, and it will not ensure any ability of the United States to refine its own gasoline.
The bill is based on a false premise. There is no evidence that refineries are being denied needed permits either for construction or expansion. In written testimony before the Senate, Chevron CEO stated, and I quote, ``we are not aware of any projects that have been directly prevented as a result of any specific Federal or State regulation.''
The truth is that refiners do not want to expand existing or construct new refineries. The dirty secret is they are not going to make any money off of that.
The five largest oil companies reported a record $110 billion in profits in 2005, and three of the largest petroleum companies made more than $16 billion in the first quarter of 2006.
Existing law already provides for new permitting assistance; 1 year ago, in fact, this body passed the Energy Policy Act. Title 3, subsection H, of the Energy Policy Act allowed States to seek additional assistance from the Federal Government for permitting when it was needed.
Yet the legislation before us today repeals this provision and replaces it with less effective language. Last year Democrats brought a plan to this floor that would have set our Nation on the right course. It would have created a Strategic Refinery Reserve, giving the U.S. Government the ability to refine its own oil for use by military and first responders. The Strategic Refinery Reserve would have made that difference.
But rather than solve the problem, we are here with a plan that will not increase refinery capacity, will not bring down the price of gas and will not ensure any ability of the United States to refine its own gasoline.
I urge my colleagues to reject and give us the opportunity to take this action that will really make a difference for our constituents.
And I would also like to make reference to letters that we will be submitting later from the State Air Quality Program administrators and various environmental organizations.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is called the Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006 because the bill will protect today's excessive gasoline prices from government intervention. This bill will prevent…
Mr. Speaker, this bill is called the Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006 because the bill will protect today's excessive gasoline prices from government intervention. This bill will prevent our government from actually doing anything to reduce the price of gasoline.
To reduce the price of gasoline, one must understand the underlying causes of excessive costs. Consider the fact that it costs only $20 a barrel to extract oil out of the ground today, but oil companies are making $72 a barrel. At the same time, the crude oil reserves already pumped out and in storage are at all-time highs. Therefore, crude is not constrained, and the excessive price for a barrel of oil is not based on a free market. The crude oil price is being manipulated with much speculation that recent increase in the oils futures market had played a significant role. The recent increase in profits in the refinery business correlate with the industry effort to shut down to independent refineries to constrict supply. These two factors account for 99 percent of the excessive profits.
Now, the FTC has approved the oil companies' monopolies, and they set the stage for the increased prices. This same FTC is going to define price gouging, as if they don't know what it already is? I suspect, under the FTC, the excessive profits are unlikely to be illegal unless the FTC can show manipulations occurred. Since manipulation is well disguised by the industry, the FTC will be easily able to brush aside excessive profits as nothing more than a market signal. Any definition drafted by the current FTC will also likely establish that the price of crude oil set by the world market and therefore any profits relative to that price are not price gouging. This bill will enable the Federal Government to cut off aggressive State actions by intervening and then settling with minimum penalties.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want something done now. We need a windfall profits tax, 100 percent on windfall profits. That will give the oil companies a signal that they won't forget.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has a problem. For 6 years, they have worked to give the big oil companies everything they could ever want, subsidies, environmental exemptions, loopholes and…
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has a problem. For 6 years, they have worked to give the big oil companies everything they could ever want, subsidies, environmental exemptions, loopholes and paybacks, and the results have been spectacular for the oil companies.
ExxonMobil just announced first-quarter profits of over $8 billion. They now make more in a single quarter than they used to make in an entire year. They rewarded their CEO with a retirement package totaling nearly $400 million.
Well, it is a different story for the American people. Gasoline prices have doubled. Home heating prices have soared. Natural gas prices have risen to unprecedented levels. And we are more dependent than ever on imported oil.
The Republican leadership has a problem. They want desperately to blame State and local governments, to blame environmental requirements for the cost of gasoline. That is the myth they want to create. But the facts are completely different.
Permits have been readily granted whenever refiners have applied for them. For instance, in Yuma, Arizona, permits have been issued not once but twice for the construction of a new refinery, but the oil industry refuses to actually invest and rebuild it. And recently, this project may have been dealt a death blow when the Mexican Government announced it would not supply the proposed refinery with crude oil.
To the extent there ever was a problem with permitting refineries, Energy Secretary Bodman has stated that the problem was solved in last year's energy bill.
Well, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators delivered a letter to the House that said this legislation would have the opposite effect that is intended. It would almost surely delay the permitting process.
Mr. Speaker, we need to reject this legislation. It is based on a faulty premise, repeals a law that is said to be successful and replaces it with an approach that will delay the permitting process. And presumably, it does all this so that we can claim we have done something about gasoline prices.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It is being rushed to the floor under expedited consideration with limited debate, no opportunity for amendments, no hearings, no markup. In…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It is being rushed to the floor under expedited consideration with limited debate, no opportunity for amendments, no hearings, no markup. In fact, as of yesterday, the bill hadn't even been introduced. This is yet another example of the ``ready, fire, aim'' approach that passes for legislating in the Republican-controlled House.
Unfortunately, some communities in this country that are suffering the most right now are caught in the crossfire. They are the communities that are coping with a military base closed
through the BRAC process. This bill resurrects the bad idea that communities with closed military bases become dumping grounds for refineries.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing in existing statutes or regulations that prohibits a local redevelopment authority from developing a closed base into a refinery complex. In fact, for some communities, a refinery may make sense. But that decision should be made by the local community, not by the President or the Secretary of Defense.
Proponents of this bill say they aren't forcing an LRA to build a refinery, only to consider one. But under current law, the Secretary of Defense has the final say about a reuse plan, and this bill requires an LRA to put a refinery into the reuse plan. Moreover, the Secretary has the power to transfer the land at little or no cost, if he chooses to do so.
So if Donald Rumsfeld wants to give away a closed military base in your community to ExxonMobil to build a refinery, there is nothing your community can do to stop it. Nothing. In fact, your community could have been forced to spend its own resources to draw up a plan to build a refinery, even if the community didn't want one.
The BRAC process has already punished these communities enough, including the town of Brunswick in my district. Congress should not add insult to injury by punishing them again.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill advised Republican refinery bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for recognizing me. I also thank her for her leadership in sponsoring this very important piece of legislation, and it would be a bright day in…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for recognizing me. I also thank her for her leadership in sponsoring this very important piece of legislation, and it would be a bright day in America and in this Congress if we could spend a minute or two working on issues that will increase supplies, assure honesty in the energy world in a difficult period of time and do so with a focus on policy and good sound legislation, rather than trying to make political points, speech after speech after speech.
What we have here before us today is a good piece of legislation, and it does four critical things. First, it directs the Federal Trade Commission to define price gouging, to define what wholesale sales are and what retail sales are and to come up with rules that will implement those definitions.
It also provides for strong civil enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission and the State attorneys general for criminal enforcement.
It provides strong civil penalties. Those penalties would be three times the ill-gotten gains for the retailer, plus an amount not to exceed $3 million per day for continuing violations.
It also provides for strong criminal penalties, and these penalties are $150 million and/or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, and on the retail side, $2 million and imprisonment not more than 2 years.
These are real penalties, and this will, with the proper rulemaking process, lead to a deterrent that will result, in my opinion, in energy prices reflecting true costs.
It is important to emphasize that this legislation does not upset State laws. It is enforceable by State attorneys general and, as I said a minute ago, does provide vigorous civil and criminal penalties.
There is no excuse for price gouging in energy, and with the passage of this
legislation, that will be more fully assured.
I want to thank my friend from New Mexico for her leadership in this area. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Bill Text
3 versions available
[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5253 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]
Calendar No. 461
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5253
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 4, 2006
Received
May 26, 2006
Read the first time
June 5, 2006
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
_______________________________________________________________________
AN ACT
To prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude
oil, and home heating oil, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Energy Price Protection Act
of 2006''.
SEC. 2. GASOLINE PRICE GOUGING PROHIBITED.
(a) Unlawful Conduct.--
(1) Unfair and deceptive act or practice.--It shall be an
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, home heating oil, or any
biofuel at a price that constitutes price gouging as defined by
rule pursuant to subsection (b).
(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``biofuel'' means any fuel containing any organic matter that
is available on a renewable or recurring basis, including
agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood wastes and
residues, plants (including aquatic plants), grasses, residues,
fibers, and animal wastes, municipal wastes, and other waste
materials.
(b) Price Gouging.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall
promulgate, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United
States Code, any rules necessary for the enforcement of this
section.
(2) Contents.--Such rules--
(A) shall define ``price gouging'', ``retail
sale'', and ``wholesale sale'' for purposes of this
Act; and
(B) 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.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d), 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 Act 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 Act.
(2) Exclusive enforcement.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no person, State, or political subdivision of
a State, other than the Federal Trade Commission or the
Attorney General of the United States to the extent provided
for in section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act or the
attorney general of a State as provided by subsection (d),
shall have any authority to enforce this Act or any rule
prescribed pursuant to this Act.
(d) Enforcement by State Attorneys General.--
(1) Civil action.--In any case in which the attorney
general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of
the residents of that State has been or is threatened or
adversely affected by any person who violates subsection (a),
the attorney general, as parens patriae, may bring a civil
action on behalf of the residents of the State in a district
court of the United States of appropriate jurisdiction--
(A) to enjoin further violation of such section by
the defendant;
(B) to compel compliance with such section; or
(C) to impose a civil penalty under subsection (e).
(2) Intervention by the ftc.--
(A) Notice and intervention.--The State shall
provide prior written notice of any action under
paragraph (1) to the Federal Trade Commission and
provide the Commission with a copy of its complaint,
except in any case in which such prior notice is not
feasible, in which case the State shall serve such
notice immediately upon instituting such action. The
Commission shall have the right--
(i) to intervene in the action;
(ii) upon so intervening, to be heard on
all matters arising therein; and
(iii) to file petitions for appeal.
(B) Limitation on state action while federal action
is pending.--If the Commission has instituted a civil
action for violation of this Act, no attorney general
of a State may bring an action under this subsection
during the pendency of that action against any
defendant named in the complaint of the Commission for
any violation of this Act alleged in the complaint.
(3) Construction with respect to powers conferred by state
law.--For purposes of bringing any civil action under paragraph
(1), nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent an
attorney general of a State from exercising the powers
conferred on the attorney general by the laws of that State.
(e) Civil Penalty.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any civil penalty that
otherwise applies to a violation of a rule referred to in
subsection (c)(1), any person who violates subsection (a) shall
be liable for a civil penalty under this subsection.
(2) Amount.--The amount of a civil penalty under this
subsection shall be an amount equal to--
(A) in the case of a wholesale sale in violation of
subsection (a), the sum of--
(i) 3 times the difference between--
(I) the total amount charged in the
wholesale sale; and
(II) the total amount that would be
charged in such a wholesale sale made
at the wholesale fair market price;
plus
(ii) an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 per
day of a continuing violation; or
(B) in the case of a retail sale in violation of
subsection (a), 3 times the difference between--
(i) the total amount charged in the sale;
and
(ii) the total amount that would be charged
in such a sale at the fair market price for
such a sale.
(3) Deposit.--Of the amount of any civil penalty imposed
under this section with respect to any sale in violation of
subsection (a) to a person that resides in a State, the portion
of such amount that is determined under subparagraph (A)(i) or
(B) (or both) of paragraph (2) shall be deposited into--
(A) any account or fund established under the laws
of the State and used for paying compensation to
consumers for violations of State consumer protection
laws; or
(B) in the case of a State for which no such
account or fund is establish by State law, into the
general fund of the State treasury.
(f) Criminal Penalty.--
(1) In general.--In addition to any other penalty that
applies, a violation of subsection (a) is punishable--
(A) in the case of a wholesale sale in violation of
subsection (a), by a fine of not more than
$150,000,000, imprisonment for not more than 2 years,
or both; or
(B) in the case of a retail sale in violation of
subsection (a), by a fine of not more than $2,000,000,
imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Enforcement.--The criminal penalty provided by
paragraph (1) may be imposed only pursuant to a criminal action
brought by the Attorney General or other officer of the
Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by
the Attorney General, in accordance with section 515 of title
28, United States Code.
Passed the House of Representatives May 3, 2006.
Attest:
KAREN L. HAAS,
Clerk.
Calendar No. 461
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5253
_______________________________________________________________________
AN ACT
To prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude
oil, and home heating oil, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
June 5, 2006
Read the second time and placed on the calendar