Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005

Floor Speech

GASOLINE FOR AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2005 -- (Extensions of Remarks - October 18, 2005)

SPEECH OF
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
OF MINNESOTA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2005

Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, as our nation continues to reel from the tragic effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we need to have an honest debate about our nation's energy policy and dependency on foreign sources of oil. The recent natural disasters along the Gulf Coast not only revealed the failures of our federal emergency plans, they also exposed the vulnerability of our nation's refineries and oil and gas pipelines. A comprehensive energy policy that promotes efficiency and invests in alternative energy is desperately needed. The proof is at the pump--consumers are facing soaring prices on the road, and record heating costs will await them at home this winter. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that home heating prices will experience the biggest annual increase in three decades. In my state of Minnesota, the largest natural gas utility is projected to charge 77 percent more than last year.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today appears to reflect the wishes of special interests, not the reality facing ordinary Americans. This Republican bill promotes consumption and increases pollution but does nothing to lower the cost of gasoline, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, or keep our environment clean.

It was very disappointing that the Rules Committee rejected a very important amendment, which I would have supported, offered by Rep. GUTKNECHT of Minnesota. This amendment would have added a 10 percent ethanol requirement for all gasoline sold in the United States by the year 2010. Minnesota is a leader in renewable fuels, having enacted a 10 percent ethanol requirement in 1997. Unfortunately, the House was denied the opportunity to consider this worthy amendment.

This bill severely limits the use of ethanol and homegrown fuels by creating a federal fuels list limited to two diesel and four gasoline fuel blends for the entire nation. If a state or local program wished to promote a cleaner-burning fuel, the EPA could deny the plan on the grounds that it would interrupt the fuel supply in surrounding states.

This bill also fails to protect the American consumer from price gouging. As prices soared in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, refineries cashed in. The industry reported a 255 percent increase in profits from just one year prior. Provisions in this bill, however, target only retailers, many who show only marginal gains during price hikes. These anti-gouging measures are also limited to disaster zones, leaving consumers in the rest of the country at the industry's mercy.

H.R. 3893 further exploits these natural disasters by rolling back basic environmental and public health protections. Cities with the most persistent smog problems would be allowed to delay their cleanup deadlines for many years. The bill also requires the president to designate sites for new refineries on federal land, with no exemptions for national wildlife refuges and national forests.

When it comes to our energy policy, Americans can no longer afford business as usual. The Democratic energy plan offered by Representatives Bart Stupak and Rick Boucher, which I support, is a reality-based solution to our energy needs. This package provides meaningful relief to American consumers and small businesses by promoting efficiency and investing in alternative sources of power.

The Stupak-Boucher bill establishes a Strategic Refinery Reserve to allow for the release of refined product during energy emergencies. This reserve would maintain a capacity of five percent of the total U.S. daily demand for gasoline and home heating oil. This would double the spare capacity that currently exists and would help curb the skyrocketing prices that disproportionately affect seniors and low-income households.

The Democratic plan provides real protection from price gouging by covering the entire production and supply chain. In addition to gasoline, it would protect against price gouging of propane, natural gas, and home heating oil. It would extend beyond disaster zones to anywhere in the country price gouging occurs.

The Republican-controlled Rules Committee demonstrated their intolerance for energy efficiency by rejecting the Boehler/Markey amendment. This amendment would have increased the fuel efficiency standards of cars and trucks from twenty-five to thirty-three miles per gallon by 2016. By reducing our consumption of gasoline we could have relieved market pressure and decreased our dependency on foreign oil.

Now is the time to invest in the next generation of efficient technologies and to move our nation toward a sustainable and energy-independent future. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3893 and support the Democratic substitute.

Source