Gas Price Relief and Oil Conservation Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

[Joejojoba111]

What do you all think, war-measures, or fascism? I'm for low prices too, but I have to constrain those urges, because the principles of freedom include the ability to raise gas prices 3 times a day if I like. Then again what if the market structure is already not a free market, so free market practices have no application, and what is needed are anti-trust practices?



"Gas Price Relief and Oil Conservation Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 3646 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3646

To provide consumers with relief from high gas prices.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 2, 2005

Mr. PALLONE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To provide consumers with relief from high gas prices.

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 `Gas Price Relief and Oil Conservation Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. LIMITS ON WHOLESALE GASOLINE PRICES AND OIL COMPANY PROFITS.

The Secretary of Energy shall promulgate regulations not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act to--

(1) prevent companies from raising wholesale prices for gasoline more than once every 24 hours; and

(2) limit, immediately and until the end of fiscal year 2006, the profits of oil companies that sell gasoline on the wholesale market to no more than the average of their profits during the five-year period from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2005.

SEC. 3. CONSERVATION OF OIL.

For purposes of reducing waste of oil and decreasing demand for foreign oil, not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, appropriate Federal Departments and agencies, as identified by the President, shall propose voluntary, regulatory, and other actions sufficient to reduce demand for oil in the United States by at least 1,000,000 barrels per day from projected demand for oil in 2013.

SEC. 4. INVESTIGATION OF PRICE GOUGING IN THE WAKE OF HURRICANE KATRINA .

The Federal Trade Commission shall commence an investigation to determine whether price gouging has occurred in the wholesale and retail gasoline markets in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and whether consolidation in the markets has led to higher prices for consumers. The Federal Trade Commission shall then recommend enforcement and regulatory actions to be taken by the Secretary of Energy and the Attorney General."

 

[M-Rex]

I agree. It is not the Federal Government's job to tell private enterprise what it can charge for a product.

A simpler solution would be to temporarily suspend fuel taxes for, say, a year...or at least lower them significantly.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

I agree with some of it.

It's not the gov't's place to set prices.

But, they can investigate gouging, price-fixing, collusion among oil companies and distributors. That might involve investigating some of GWB's best friends, so don't count on it happening.

For conservation, the gov't can set a good example, limit congressional trips, limit presidential trips, limit the size of the presidential motorcade and accompanying police escorts. Like any of that would happen ...

Also for conservation, changing some traffic laws might help, allow running red lights after stop, allowing "rolling" stops at stop sign and red lights. Fat chance.

Nope, conservation is hopeless.

Regards.

 

[Kaylee]

Much as I hate shelling out twenty bucks just to get to work :banghead: ...

the idea is stupid.

Price controls = rationing lines at best, stations closing for the duration at worst.

I mean, if you were in the business, would you sell at a loss, or would you close up shop until you could sell product at what it would take to stay afloat?

The one silver lining to all this mess is that it at least provides a market incentive for us to develop other energy sources.

 

[Ky Larry]

Typical "Feel Good" legislation. I hate being screwed by Big Oil as bad as anyone. However, remember that this is the government. If you want to see something really screwed up, just let the politicians get their fingers in it. Does anyone here remember the "Windfall Profit Tax?" How about the "Luxury Item Tax?" When we forget our history, we are doomed to repeat it.

P.S. Can anyone doubt the saying "People get the kind of government they deserve?"

 

[Old Fuff]

This is typical left-wing thinking. The cost of crude oil is determined by worldwide demand vs. supply. Thus the U.S. corporations that refine it into gasoline can't control what they have to pay for crude. We have to depend on foreign suppliers because our own homegrown environmentalists throw a tizzy-fit and go to court anytime anyone suggests they want to drill another hole in Mother Earth. As a consequence we don't really know what our domestic supplies of oil might be.

The radical enviro-mental cases object to the use of coal to generate electric power, and the thought of using nuclear technology drives them straight up a wall. They do approve of windmills, but you can only generate so much power using them. So the electric utilities are left with no options to drive their generators except natural gas or oil.

What is being called for here is to hold down the retail price of gas (to make the voters happy) while doing nothing in a serious way to control the cost of crude. Faced with that the oil companies would soon have to shut down their refineries. Then the lefties would call for a socialist/communist style nationalization of the oil industry - which is what they really want.

And even if the government took over the industry they'd still have to buy overseas crude for big bucks. Then if they sold gasoline for less then it took to make it the federal budget would take yet another hit. See? Your tax dollars at work.

 

[Stinger]

The cost of crude oil is determined by worldwide demand vs. supply.

Unfortunately it is not. The price of oil is determined by collusion amongst OPEC members. The price of fuel is determined by collusion amongst the oil companies.

But don't worry. The price of oil is going to drop tremendously. Didn't we invade Iraq to take control of their oil? I'm sure we did, because the price of fuel has only gone up 100% since the invasion.

Regards,

Stinger

 

[MudPuppy]

We've got anti-trust laws--if that's true and they're guilty of price fixing, then the government we elected isn't doing anything about it and it's our fault as voters. But, I've already got plans for a pity party later tonight and an organized blame game so I'll let others discuss the merits and facts of that particular matter.

When I got gas yesterday there was a little sticker that said .$48 was for taxes (or somewhere close to that--basically a half dollar per gallon) .

Suspend the taxes temporarily? That's not socialist or facist and I'd welcome a 50 cent per gallon immediate price drop.

 

[VaughnT]

Gotta agree with MudPuppy on this one. I realize our roadways need repair and maintenance, but a temporary suspension of the fuel taxes won't hurt that much. Even if they were halved, that would be something definitive for the average worker.

Hell, I have to commute 80mi/day just to get to work. That's a lot of gasoline in a week, and I drive a 4cyl Trooper with 245000 on the Odo.

If the .gov was serious about helping the people, they would be working hard to get hydrogen vehicles out there. That is a solution to our problem!

 

[SMMAssociates]

Not a good idea....

But there's got to be some price fixing and similar stuff going on.

Locally, all the independents are long gone, and we're down to two suppliers and a grocery store operated chain that seems to no longer be worth the drive.

So there's little incentive to keep prices down.

Meantime when the Saudi King died the other month, gas went up about $0.20 because of "uncertainties". He had been nothing more than a figurehead for ten or fifteen years....

The other night I filled up on the way back from the range. $2.79 or something like that. Next afternoon, about 1400, I had to take my mother-in-law to the doctor. $2.99 on the pump as we drove by. About 1600 (don't know how good the doctor is, but he took his time with her) we drove by the same station on the way back to her place. $3.19....

One thing to consider (and it frosts me a lot) is that much of this is "futures".... Betting on the price going up or down in a few weeks.

When the aforementioned Saudi died, the gas that suddenly cost me $0.20 more per gallon had been "in the system" for several months. That's pure profit for the oil companies. Later on - maybe a month - the price dropped back, but probably a week or so after the price the oil companies were paying dropped. Gouging doesn't begin to describe it.

Time was, too, that about $2.00/gal was a "trigger point" at which all kinds of alternatives were viable. The Opec folks admitted to trying to keep our pump prices below that. Now our inflation rate is such that $3.00 isn't quite there. Ethanol might be useful in some cases, but I think the economics (I said "think") don't really let us count on that too much, but it's time to look at alternatives.

Another real big problem here is that a lot of oil is going to places that never needed it before. China being the top of the list. Not good.... Meantime, our refining capacity hasn't grown. I'm sure that part of that was intentional to keep prices up, but part of it has to be the runaway EPA issues that add decades to the "permit process" before you can build a refinery even if you want to.

(A friend of mine was a coal miner. He shut down when the EPA insisted that his strip mine reclaim the land he was working to a condition better than he'd found it. Some of what they were asking for was sensible, but when it came to planting trees and other stuff in what had been a swamp....)

Everybody's saying "not in my backyard", and to some degree, with good intentions, but when you have the backyard, and the funds to build, and then run into regulatory hurdles beyond tolerance....

IAC, it's still a plot by the VRWC....

We did the consumption thing to ourselves, too. I blame the EPA for that.... By forcing smaller, less safe cars to stick with fuel economy issues, the big loophole for trucks and SUV's kept us in big gas guzzlers. As the cars shrunk, the SUV's got bigger.... I drive a Town Car - I'm not all that huge, but I just don't fit in a Taurus, for example. And the Town Car's kinda cramped.... (But it gets great gas mileage.... )

Regards,

 

[Waitone]

Let's remember the difference between futures price for oil and delivered price which may be under long term contracts and has not budged.

Once again our media friends confuse the two.

 

[Coronach]

We're having a similar debate on the gas prices/gas shortages thread.

This is a dumb idea. and while government can and should provide eventual relief by rolling back taxes on the product, in the short term it should not, as having the price high is reducing demand, thus preserving supply. Rolling back the tax now would merely cause the base price to rise again, in the short term.

Price capping/price controlling is nearly always a bad idea. Unless the government plans to make gasoline appear in storage tanks by legislative fiat, this will produce more problems than it solves.

Mike

 

[Art Eatman]

Purely feel-good legislation.

Remember: If you "roll back" the taxes on motor fuel, you reduce the amount of money for highway maintenance. Yeah, roll it back, but learn to love and cherish chug-holes and/or go to 8-ply tires.

Art

 

[R.H. Lee]

It's not what it seems to be. Here's how:

The bill purports to help consumers by limiting 'excessive' price increases. That's the veneer, the window dressing, the sizzle. It's really a shakedown of the oil industry by the sponsoring politicians, and it's right out of the Jesse Jackson School for Advanced Shakedown Studies (JJSASS).

Every sponsoring legislator will receive a visit from an oil industry lobbyist. The lobbyists will offer to help 'craft' the language so as to be 'fair' yet maintain the 'intent' of the legislation. And, oh, by the way, we appreciate the important work you do in your district, and would like to make a substantial contribution to your re-election campaign to ensure continuity of your efforts. The lawmakers will roll over and accept language that waters down the bill because they're only interested in maintaining office, and that takes money.

When re-election time comes, these same politicians will make speeches pointing to this legislation and how it limited the greed of the evil oil industry and prevented raping of the consumer. Their sucker constuency will buy it.

Now the oil industry has more regulation to deal with, true. But the language is so vague as to be easily overcome. 'Profits' have been so narrowly defined as to be meaningless within the context of the intent. We made $100 million too much in September 2005? No problem. We just had a big hurricane that will require substantial repairs and upgrades. We'll accrue $100 million worth of 'anticipated' expenses for September. Bingo! We're right where we should be an no one's the wiser. Our profits are in line with the legislation (or so it appears, we actually raked in an extra $100 million), the politicians are saviors, and the sucker constituency thinks government has once again come to their rescue.

It's a scam and a sham.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Not to mention anyone who wants to see the success of government price fixing can look to the Soviet Union for examples of how well that works... very reasonable prices on merchandise, if you can find any merchandise for sale.

 

[Tsonda]

Amen Bart you and many others hit the nail on the head. For those of you who might be confused about this, remember, if government is the answer it was a stupid question.

 

[Kaylee]

You know, the more of this I see, the more I think passing a "principles and history of economics 101" should be required for voting, much less serving in the legislature.

 

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, Kaylee, so long as it's not taught by a Keynesian.

, Art

 

[beerslurpy]

This is so hypocritical. If govt wants to reduce the price of gas, why dont they stop taking their cut of tax from it. That would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

[JohnBT]

It's coming down by itself. I just bought regular for $3.19 at the Citgo near Lowe's on Broad St.

John

 

[Azrael256]

We're back down to right at $3 here in OKC. It turns out that the price spike was caused by panic, and that things are not as bad as everybody would have you believe.

Real shocker, eh?

 

[mercedesrules]

What do you all think, war-measures, or fascism?

"B"

 

[KriegHund]

Although i dont thinks its exactly the governements place to say what businesses can and cannot do, they control it anyways.

In any case, i think it is extremely important for the entire economy that we keep gas from getting out of hand.

 

[WayneConrad]

The best way to ensure both adequate supply and investment in alternative sources is to let the price float. In the 70's, government capped gasoline prices. The result was gas stations out of gas and long lines to get what gas there was. If the price is allowed to climb in response to short supply, people will naturally use less. Also, as the price rises over the long term, private investment in other energy sources will occur without government subsidies being necessary.

 

[Bruce H]

Mr Pallone need his picture next to the New Orleans mayor and the Lousiana govenor. In the dictionary next to the word incompetent. Or better yet just stomp his posterior with the other two. $ 29.95 on pay per view. Charges waived.