Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We do not have in the manager's amendment the words ``unconscionably excessive.'' We do not have the words ``gross disparity.'' I am not disputing the intent. I understand that. I do question the advisability of putting that in statute when it is not defined. That is my question. Can the gentleman answer questions about the strategic reserve?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman's intent is honorable. I am not questioning that. Can the gentleman answer questions about section 191, the Strategic Refinery Reserve? I know the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is the prime author.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. First of all, it says the Secretary shall establish and operate. Does that mean that the Federal Government would actually build these refineries and operate them with Federal employees?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Would these refineries operate continuously, around the clock, or would they only operate when the President has declared an energy emergency?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, on page 18, the implementation plan just says the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a plan. But it is your understanding that if this were to become law, these refineries that would be built by the Department of Energy would actually be operated on a continual basis; is that correct?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. But the strategic petroleum reserve is a reserve that you take crude oil and store it so if we need it you bring it up and transmit it to refineries to be refined into refined products. A strategic refinery reserve, as I understand it in this bill, you actually go out and build the refineries, and it is unclear to me whether you would operate them around the clock or just in some sort of an emergency. I do understand that you require the Secretary of Energy to transmit the plan. But if the Secretary of Energy did not want to operate them continuously, I guess he would have that authority in the plan to have them as a sort of ready reserve.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I support increased LIHEAP funding and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 the for LIHEAP funding from $2 billion to $5.1 billion. I will work with the gentleman to help increase the amount of funds appropriated for LIHEAP, to help those Americans, including those Americans in your great State of New York, most vulnerable to the higher energy costs we are seeing today. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit. I know we are tired and grumpy, and we want to go home and catch planes. Let me simply say that it appears to be the Stupak language on price gouging that was in the Democratic substitute. If that is correct, we have already had the vote, and we have in the pending bill language that addresses price gouging. So I guess we just have a difference of opinion. It reminds me of what Ginger Rogers said when she was asked to comment on what a great dancer Fred Astaire was. She said, ``Yes, but I do it, and I do it in high heels backwards.'' So we both agree on both sides of the aisle that we need to do something about price gouging. I would say the base bill before us does it a little bit more eloquently, and it does it so that we can actually get to the root cause without preempting the States. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to engage in a short colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) concerning LIHEAP funding.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am asking what if it was conscious? What if somebody set a price that was not unconscious, but said I am going to raise the price? Would that trigger it? Look, I am asking legitimate questions.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. So reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if they were up 250 percent, that would not be unconscionably excessive?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) if they are on the floor. I know the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is. I do not know if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is or not. First of all, I want to say that I think it is good that we have a Democrat substitute. I think it adds to the debate. It certainly adds to the fairness of the debate. But I do have some questions for my good friend from Michigan. On page 2, title I, section 101, it basically says if a President has issued a declaration that there is an energy emergency, it begins to talk about a price that is unconscionably excessive. That is line 4. What is unconscionably excessive?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway), the former mayor of Midland.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), one of my subcommittee chairmen. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), another distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Let me ask another question. It says ``in the area to which the declaration applies.'' What if the price gouging is outside of the declaration area? What does your amendment do then?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation before us and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the distinguished subcommittee chairman. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to cut to the chase on this issue. In 1981 there were 324 operating refineries in the boundaries of the United States of America. Today there are 148. Do the math: 184 is a smaller number by 176 than 324. There are a lot of reasons for it, but one of the reasons is this flow diagram to my left. To the left we have all of the permits that are required for what is called ``new source review.'' That is if they want to expand an existing refinery. Now, this is actually the permitting application to expand an existing refinery in the State that I live in, the State of Texas. In the new source review, every one of these steps has to go forward. On the right of the chart are additional permits in addition to the new source review. This is not a made-up chart. This is the law as it exists today. What company's board of directors in their right minds would want to go through this process and tie up billions of dollars for years and years if they did not know that they would at least get a definite decision in a timely fashion? The bill before us may not be the best bill. It may not be the only approach. But it is a fact that we use 21 million barrels of oil a day in this country and we only have the refining capacity for about 16 on a good day; and, unfortunately, since Katrina and Rita, we have had many good days. We are down to 14 million barrels of refinery capacity that is available, and we need 21 million barrels of refinery capacity to refine our consumer demands that we have right now in this country. So this bill before us today does not eliminate any of these requirements. It does not lower the standard. What it does do is require the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to appoint officials within their agencies to consolidate and to coordinate all of these reviews if, if, a State Governor wants them to or if the President of the United States wants them to on Federal property. If a Governor does not want it to expedite the review, they do not have to; and this stays in existence, which means in those States they will not get any new or existing refineries built or expanded. But in some States, and I hope my State of Texas is one, I think Governor Perry would ask for this expedited review. If that happens, and if we can get a company that wants to invest in a new refinery or expand an existing refinery, you will actually get a decision in a timely fashion. I have reason to believe that if we pass this bill and if the Senate passes this bill within the next year, you are going to see America's systems step forward and actually ask to build new refineries in the United States of America. This is a good bill. We should vote for it. We should send it to the Senate, encourage them to vote for a similar bill and then go to conference and produce a conference report that the President can sign, and let us get our country moving again and at least begin to start the process to lower gasoline prices for every American in this country. In the days right after Hurricane Katrina, gasoline prices shot up past the $3 dollar mark almost everywhere. Shortages caused some gasoline stations to run dry. Americans nationwide worried if the price would be higher on their way home from work than it was in the morning. Many consumers worried that they were getting gouged, and wondered if prices would ever go down again. Today, we take action. Today, the House of Representatives will support building new refineries, improving gasoline markets, and outlawing price gouging. My committee was voting on the Gasoline for America's Security Act just 4 weeks after Hurricane Katrina crossed the coast. On that day, 11 refineries remained closed by flooding and power failures, and most had no restart dates. Roughly 18 percent of all U.S. gasoline production was still halted, and prices everywhere had spiked as a consequence. Katrina damaged refineries all over Louisiana and Mississippi. Then Hurricane Rita came along and damaged refineries in Louisiana and Texas. Some have not restarted yet. We were all surprised to learn what happens when a chunk of our domestic capacity goes off line. Every driver in America has endured shortages and price spikes that still have not fully subsided. This bill encourages new refineries to increase supply. We improve siting procedures, provide regulatory risk insurance, suggest non-park Federal lands for consideration, and give refiners more certainty about the rules they have to live under. Our Nation is more secure if refineries are spread more throughout the country. This bill promotes new pipelines to get new crude oil and gasoline to consumers at lower prices. We encourage those who might build the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline to speed up, by setting a deadline on their incentives. We require a study of whether pipelines should have backup power capability, so that they could operate during power outages. The bill outlaws price gouging during emergencies for gasoline, crude oil, and home heating oil. We leave in place State measures against price gouging. We increase penalties to $11,000 per incident and expand the geographic scope of the provision. I want to thank Chairman Cliff Stearns of our Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee and Congressman Greg Walden for their help on this provision. We promote conservation with a DOE program to encourage carpooling and vanpooling. We also require evaluation of using CMAQ funds, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, for carpool and vanpool projects. We can make it easier for Americans to network and do these voluntary reductions of demand. We authorize a refinery built for military use. If the President determines that there is insufficient refining capacity, the President can enter into contracts to permit, construct and operate a refinery with private industry to manufacture refined products for the military. This bill doesn't do everything I think it should do. Last night, I agreed to drop very important New Source Review provisions that would give clarity to refiners and other energy providers. An operator of a refinery, a power plant, or an industrial facility should not feel scared to conduct routine maintenance or modernize the system without hurting emissions. A bipartisan majority of the Energy & Commerce Committee believes we should codify the Administration's return to a sensible NSR policy. Those who want to delay these sensible reforms are taking a step back from increasing supplies of gasoline, heating oil and other forms energy. But I don't want this to get in the way of expanding refinery capacity after Hurricane Katrina, so I will set it aside for now until we can hold the additional hearings that some believe are needed. We will have a vote in the future on this policy, and when it passes, our Nation's supply of both energy supply and common sense will expand. But today we have a chance to strike a blow against high gasoline prices. We can increase competition among refineries by seeing new ones built. We let any retail gasoline provider know the Federal government is watching--so don't gouge consumers in an emergency. People everywhere expect us to do the right thing, and there's been honest and candid debate about what constitutes the right thing. According to some, doing nothing is not only right, but cheap and easy, too. The do-nothing plan is the one we've followed for decades. I think the two killer hurricanes have weakened the will to continue doing nothing, however. I hope so. Our country needs more oil refineries because the people who work for a living need gasoline to get to work. These are people who earn paychecks and buy groceries at the Safeway and pay their bills, including their taxes. That means they use gasoline every day. They need it, and they need it at a price they can afford. They aren't activists and they don't contribute to campaigns or hire any lobbyists. Sometimes Washington forgets about them, but I haven't, and that's why we're taking up this bill. Our cars, our jobs, our Nation's economic growth and our people's opportunity to prosper--they all rely on gasoline. Gasoline does not come from heaven, it comes from a refinery. Let's send to the Senate and the President this antidote for high gasoline prices. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.