Gas Prices

---

Congress and the federal government cannot turn a blind eye toward the current gas price crisis in this time of need. All Americans have been hurt by the 300 percent inflation in gas prices over the last four years.

It would be one thing if the oil companies were also struggling, but the fact is they’re not. News of record oil company profits has been reported time and again over the last few months. Now, I firmly believe free market solutions are always best when it comes to supply and demand. But if a handful of companies are artificially manipulating prices, it’s no longer a free market.

Only a thorough and open investigation can determine whether this is currently the case. That’s why I have joined many of my colleagues in demanding Federal Trade Commission investigations into collusion, price-fixing, and price gouging in both the wholesale and retail oil markets.

In the face of widespread Democrat objections, the House of Representatives passed the Gasoline for America’s Security Act (H.R. 3893) back in October 2005. I strongly supported that bill, and if it were law, we would have a lot more answers by now. Unfortunately, the Senate has refused to act on this measure. The Gasoline for America’s Security Act would strengthen federal consumer protection law and empower the Federal Trade Commission to be more aggressive in prosecuting price gougers. H.R. 3893 would also make price-gouging for gasoline or diesel fuel a violation of federal law. This legislation would punish any violator with a civil penalty of $11,000 for each day of price gouging, and directs the Federal Trade Commission to work with the appropriate state agencies to study the effects of increased gas prices in the economy and to report any infractions of the new gouging law to the appropriate enforcement agencies.

To reinforce our point, the House also passed the Federal Energy Price Protection Act (H.R. 5253) on May 3, 2006 with a 389-34 vote. This legislation is similar to H.R. 3893 in its prohibition of price-gouging and price-fixing. H.R. 5253 sets tough new federal fines (up to $150 million) for oil companies and prison sentences for up to 2 year for company executives who are proven to use current and future energy crunches to gouge the public. In addition, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act allows the Federal Trade Commission to define “price gouging,” as many states already have.

However, even if we did eliminate any price gouging, the cost of gas would still be hurting most Americans’ pocketbooks. We’re simply not getting enough oil or gasoline into our nation to meet our growing needs. A limited supply with increased demand means high prices. That’s largely because initiatives I’ve supported to expand our nation’s energy infrastructure during my time in Congress have been thwarted by the environmentalists and liberals among my colleagues, even as they scream about our dependence on foreign oil.

For example, Senate obstructionists prevented House-passed energy legislation from coming to the floor over the last several years. As a result, America didn’t have a comprehensive energy policy until the Energy Policy Act (H.R. 6) was signed into law last summer. Similarly, if President Clinton had not vetoed a provision to expand oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 10 years ago, we could be domestically producing 1 million barrels of oil today and be less dependent on the whims of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Furthermore, because of their opposition to the Gasoline for America’s Security Act, these same folks voted against expanding refinery capacity, long considered the easiest way to increase the supply of gasoline in the United States. As you may know, the last domestic refinery was built in 1976 and the number of refineries in America has dropped from 324 in 1981 to 148 in 2005. H.R. 3893 creates a new expedited process for the construction, expansion, and operation of refineries.

In addition, this bill establishes a federally-directed implementation process for developing crude and petroleum product pipelines under the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Gasoline for America’s Security Act also makes several needed improvements to the structure of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The House also addressed the issue of refinery capacity with the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254). This legislation would allow new refineries to be built with some regulatory certainty and in an expedited fashion. While Democrats temporarily defeated H.R. 5254 on a suspension vote (on which a two-thirds majority is required for passage), I expect this legislation to be back on the House floor in short order. Together, these refinery measures could help increase our fuel supply without expanding our dependency on foreign oil.

In addition, Senate Democrats refused to protect refiners from Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE)-related lawsuits during consideration of the Energy Policy Act, forcing refiners to abandon MTBE and use ethanol instead. Have you noticed the “10% Ethanol” sticker on gas pumps? That change in gasoline formulation has been responsible for an additional 5 cent cost for each gallon of gas you buy.

These same Members of Congress demand alternative energy sources be made available immediately to provide for our nation’s energy needs, even though much of that technology is not yet capable of meeting our high demand.

Now, I fully support the development of alternative energy and have voted repeatedly for such efforts. However, as soon as these measures pass, these folks begin showing their true colors.

For example, the Energy Policy Act included a seemingly bipartisan provision to provide more than $1 billion to develop renewable sources including solar, wind, biomass, ocean, geothermal, and hydroelectric power.

However, Democrats and environmentalists who advocated wind power for years changed their tune when they realized wind power generators may obstruct waterfront skylines – their “viewsheds” - in their state or kill birds. They don’t want hydroelectric dams because of the impact on fish. Of course, they are all against nuclear power, the cleanest form of energy. We cannot slow down the process of diversifying our energy infrastructure simply because a few powerful senators don’t want power generators to block their view at a favorite vacation spot, such as Hyannisport, Massachusetts.

Now maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern emerging here. These folks oppose every realistic proposal to expand America’s energy infrastructure, whether that means exploring our domestic energy supply, nuclear energy development, investing in clean coal technology, or improving our current oil and natural gas delivery system. As a result of the contradictory demands of a few of my colleagues, the development of a comprehensive energy policy has been quite frustrating. Some people don’t seem to realize that we can’t keep up with our energy needs without expanding our energy infrastructure in some way.

Of course, the question remains as to where to go from here. For one thing, Congress needs to take another look at the tax breaks provided to oil producers last year. We also need to find ways to ensure some of the sky-high oil profits we’re seeing are reinvested in improving refining capacity so we can curb high gas prices in the future. I also hope that my colleagues can put extreme ideology aside for the sake of all Americans during this time of need so we’re able to get some meaningful legislation passed. While there are no easy answers, I promise to do what I can as a Member of Congress to improve our infrastructure to provide affordable energy for all Americans.