|
House approves oil price-gouging fine Rejects bill that supporters say would make it easier to build refineries in hopes of easing tight gasoline supplies, could come back H. Josef Hebert Associated Press
On May 3 the U.S. House approved criminal penalties and fines of up to $150 million for energy companies caught price gouging, yet lawmakers acknowledged there is no quick and easy fix to higher pump prices.
President Bush summoned Democrats and Republicans to the White House to discuss legislation to address long-term energy concerns.
“The price of gasoline should serve as a wake-up call ... that we’ve got an energy security problem and a national security problem and now is the time to deal with it in a forceful way,” Bush said after the meeting.
With bipartisan support, the House approved on a 389-34 vote a measure that would create a price-gouging law and permit large fines and jail time for violators.
The Senate has yet to consider the legislation.
Reject refinery bill The House did reject a Republican bill that supporters said would make it easier to build refineries in hopes of easing tight gasoline supplies.
All but 13 Democrats opposed the measure, intended to quicken the permitting process. They said it would not bring down gas prices, could lessen environmental protection and usurp local say where refineries go.
Republicans branded Democrats as obstructionists on energy. The vote, 237-188, fell short of the two-thirds needed to pass under special procedures.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a leading supporter of the refinery bill, promised to bring it back, possibly next week, under rules that require a simple majority for approval.
“There is not a panacea of short-term solutions to the (gasoline) price situation today because it’s a demand-driven price,” Barton said at a news conference.
He said the government could set price controls or release large amounts of oil from the U.S. emergency reserve. But he opposes both ideas and said they would cause other problems.
Frist’s $100 goes down in flames Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s proposal to give people a $100 rebate checks – funds that were tied to future revenues from drilling in the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife refuge — was all but abandoned May 3, ridiculed even by members of his own party.
House Majority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, was quoted in press reports as saying, “I just think that trying to satisfy voters with a $100 voucher is insulting. Over the weekend, I heard about it from my constituents a few times. They thought it was stupid.”
Also seeming to lose steam was a Democratic proposal for a 60-day “holiday” from the 18.4-cent per gallon federal tax on gasoline.
“We would like to be able to do something now, quickly. The truth of the matter is we can’t,” Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told reporters after the White House meeting.
The price-gouging issue seemed to have the most potential as a congressional show of support for people angered by high gas prices.
Under Rep. Heather Wilson’s bill, the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department would have power over energy price gouging.
During House debate, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., said, “American consumers are demanding protection from price gouging.”
Democrats echoed that sentiment.
The legislation would direct the FTC to define price gouging. Violators could face penalties of up to $150 million for refiners and other wholesalers and $2 million for retailers. The measure would cover marketers of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil and heating fuel.
Wholesalers and retail outlets such as corner gas stations and service station chains could face civil penalties triple the amount of their unfair profit. Violators could go to jail.
Bush said last week he did not think oil companies were engaging in price gouging. He said May 3 there is a “need to make sure our consumers are treated fairly — that there is fairness in the marketplace.”
The president, in talks with lawmakers, discussed proposals aimed at increasing and diversifying energy supplies, extending tax credits for the purchase of hybrid cars and encouraging alternative fuels.
“I don’t think there were any new proposals that had not been kicked around, tried, talked about before,” said Domenici, R-N.M.
New rules for auto mileage requirements unlikely Also on May 3 the House Energy and Commerce Committee heard about the administration’s request for new rules for auto mileage requirements. Automakers would gain flexibility in meeting per-gallon standards for cars, but overall mileage would not necessarily rise.
Barton, the committee’s chairman, said he does not see Congress ordering higher mileage requirements. “A Draconian increase would be a stake in the heart ... of the auto industry in this country,” he told reporters.
According to a May 4 Boston Globe report Barton said the only things that would reduce gas prices immediately were government price controls or raiding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Neither, he said, were feasible.
Price controls would cause shortages, as they did in the 1970s, depleting the strategic reserve, which would be a ‘”short-sighted” answer to a complicated, long-term problem.
In late April Bush promised to stop government purchases of oil to add to the strategic reserve, a move analysts said would reduce demand by only a small amount.
Meanwhile, the Senate is shortly expected to take up a measure to open the 1002 area of ANWR to oil and gas drilling, and to increase capacity for oil refineries.
—Petroleum News contributed to this report
| 