mr. speaker , i rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan ( mr. stupak ) xz4003910 and the gentleman from virginia ( mr. boucher ) xz4000430 . 
the bill before us today proposes to gut the clean air act in order to promote construction of more refineries . 
it is predicated upon the false premise that somehow our nation 's environmental laws somehow stand in the way of the oil companies ' attempts to build new refineries . 
nothing could be further from the truth . 
the oil companies have shut down 30 refineries over the last decade . 
they 've ordered 1 new refinery , and that one got its permit through the epa in 9 months ! 
the republican energy bill that we passed just 8 weeks ago contained a refinery siting proposal that the speaker of the house said `` promotes greater refinery capacity so more gasoline will be on the market and it increases gasoline supply by putting an end to the proliferation of boutique fuels. '' the bill before us today repeals that provision . 
why ? 
has the majority lost confidence in its own new law ? 
the republican energy bill that we passed just 8 weeks ago contained boutique fuels language that you , mr. chairman , praised on the house floor , arguing that they would `` make it more efficient to use our boutique fuels '' by reducing the number of these fuels `` so that we have greater transportability of our boutique fuels between those regions of the country that need those fuel sources. '' now , the bill you have brought before us today has repealed that provision . 
why ? 
has the majority lost confidence that its earlier boutique fuels solution would work ? 
the republican energy bill that we passed just 8 weeks ago dropped provisions of the house bill that would have weakened the clean air act . 
these provisions were dropped because there was bipartisan opposition to their adoption , and chairman domenici stated during the conference that the bill could not pass the senate if they were included . 
the language that delays compliance with the clean air act was resurrected . 
why ? 
does the majority really think that they 've picked up any more votes for dirtying our nation 's air due to the terrible tragedies katrina and rita ? 
why would we allow the epa to extend deadlines for cleaning up ozone pollution , in some cases until 2015 , without imposing any of the additional cleanup requirements mandated under current law ? 
the proponents of this bad provision are trying to justify it by saying it is for the `` protection '' of downwind states . 
however , just yesterday , 9 attorneys general , including 6 from `` downwind '' states such as massachusetts , sent a letter to the house leadership opposing this bill . 
well if the states that are the supposed beneficiaries of these relaxed regulations do n't want them , then who does ? 
the polluters , that 's who ! 
the bottom line is that these rollbacks of clean air requirements do n't benefit the states that have to breathe dirty air for another 10 years , they benefit the corporations that do n't want to clean up their power plants . 
this bill before us today also proposes to preempt the ability of state or local officials to make decisions regarding the siting of a new refinery or an oil pipeline . 
instead of allowing state and local officials to make land use decisions , to consider environmental impacts , impacts on local communities , on historic or cultural sites , or other factors , we are going to have the bureaucrats at the department of energy and the federal energy regulatory commission make these decisions . 
state and local officials , the cities , the mayors , all oppose doing this . 
the democratic substitute would replace the many objectionable provisions of the underlying bill with language that would give the federal trade commission new authority to investigate and punish certain manipulative or abusive practices during any presidentially declared national or regional `` energy emergency. '' it would bar any party from selling crude oil , gasoline , home heating oil or other petroleum products at a price that is unconscionably excessive or which takes unfair advantage of the circumstances to increase prices unreasonably . 
at the same time , the substitute creates a new strategic refinery reserve that builds on the highly successful strategic petroleum reserve . 
the refinery reserve would provide the federal government with the ability to produce gasoline , home heating oil , or other refined petroleum products during an energy emergency . 
it would be designed to be able to serve 5 percent of daily demand . 
during non-emergency periods , the reserve would produce petroleum products to serve demand from the federal government , including the department of defense . 
it would also serve demand from state and local governments that elected to opt-in to receiving fuel supplies from the reserve . 
the substitute avoids the extreme overreaching of the underlying bill . 
it limits our response to the two issues that have been highlighted for us all as the result of katrina and rita -- the need for a federal price gouging law and the need for a federal refinery reserve . 
i urge adoption of the amendment . 
