Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 46 (Tuesday, April 25, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1717-H1723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be back
in front of my colleagues talking about items that are of such
remarkable importance to us across our United States. We have been away
for 2 weeks now at home on a district work period, and it is my
privilege to come on back and take this leadership hour. I thank the
leadership for allowing me to spend a few moments with some of my
colleagues to talk about an issue that has really come to the fore in
the past couple of weeks. But first I want to just introduce the
Official Truth Squad once again.
The Official Truth Squad, many folks know, began with a group of
Republican freshmen Congressmen and -women who said after about 6
months here in Washington that, well, you know, there seems to be a
tone or a tenor to the debate here that is not productive, and there
seems to be a lot of personal animosity that is getting in the way of
solving the remarkable challenges that we have here in our Nation.
So we thought it was appropriate, because oftentimes when the anger
and the emotion get greatest, that is when truth flies out the window,
we thought it was appropriate to form this Official Truth Squad. What
we try to do is to come before the House of Representatives almost
every night when we are in session and to talk about particular issues
that are of importance to the American people and talk about them in a
way that hopefully is a little more positive, a little more
enthusiastic about the solutions to the challenges that we have before
us as a Nation, but grounded in truth, because if you don't talk about
truth, you can't get to the right solutions. Everybody knows that.
We have been very, very pleased with the response that we have had
really across the Nation, because one of the things we were so
disturbed by was the general level of politics, of what I call the
politics of division. The politics of division are tried and true, and
they occur when people pit one group in our society against another and
make it so that you have got to be for one and against another, and you
can't be for both. It just really makes it difficult to solve problems
when you have that kind of rhetoric going on.
There was a gentleman that kind of put it all in perspective a little
over 100 years ago, the Reverend William Boetcker, who was a public
speaker and a leader of the day back at the turn of the 20th century,
the 19th to the 20th century. One of his heroes was

[[Page H1718]]

Abraham Lincoln, and he attempted to crystallize what he thought would
be Abraham Lincoln's philosophy on social discourse in different
sectors of society.
I find it helpful always to look back at this quote, and I will share
it with the House this evening, Mr. Speaker. This is a quote: ``You
cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift; you cannot
strengthen the weak by weakening the strong; you cannot help the wage
earner by pulling down the wage payer; you cannot encourage the
brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred; you cannot help the
poor by destroying the rich.''
Really, I think that crystallizes what ought to be the American
philosophy, because we are all in this boat together. We have all of
these challenges that we must face together, and truly there are not
necessarily Republican solutions or Democrat solutions, but there are
American solutions. But unless we work together, we really won't be
able to get to the right solutions.
As I mentioned, we have all been home for the past 2 weeks on our
district work period. I have had an opportunity to meet with so many
constituents across the Sixth District of Georgia, and I know that my
colleagues have talked with their constituents and their friends and
neighbors at home.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that one of the most important issues
that is now confronting us as a Nation is the issue of energy prices,
gas prices at the pump. We have seen a significant increase over the
past number of weeks and months, and I think it is important when we
talk about this issue, especially to talk about truth.
I thought I would begin just by sharing, everybody knows what the gas
price is in their community. They range from, in my hometown it was
$2.89 when I drove to the airport this morning for a gallon of
gasoline. It goes down in some areas of the Nation to $2.40, $2.50. In
some areas it is up in the high $3s.
Because we are interested in the truth here, I thought it would be
helpful to share what some of the prices are around the world in other
Western nations. What are these nations paying? This is what they were
paying 2 weeks ago, the latest numbers we have. Belgium, $6.10 for a
gallon of gas; France, $5.00 for a gallon of gas; Germany, $5.96 for a
gallon of gas; Italy, $5.91 for a gallon of gas; the Netherlands, $6.73
for a gallon of gas; and the United Kingdom, Great Britain, $6.13 for a
gallon of gas. At the same time in the United States, $2.88 on average
for a gallon of gas.
That sounds like a lot of money, and indeed it is, but when we
compare it to the rest of the world, which is the truth about this
situation, it is extremely important that we talk about these numbers
in a way that allows the American people to have as much information as
possible when it comes to the issue of gasoline prices and energy
prices. Otherwise, we are all just getting up here giving our opinion.
This brings me to the favorite quote of the Official Truth Squad, and
that comes from a former Senator from the State of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, who used to say, ``Everyone is entitled to their own
opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.''
Mr. Speaker, that is so true about this issue and so many others,
because unless we are talking about facts, unless we are talking about
the truth, we can't get to the right solutions. So I would encourage my
colleagues across the House to remember this when we are dealing with
issues, especially as important as those that relate to energy prices
and gasoline prices.
We are going to talk tonight about how we got to where we are, where
are we, what the situation is and what kinds of things the United
States and this Congress is doing in a positive and productive way to
solve the challenges that we have in the area of energy.
I will be joined by a number of colleagues. First I am joined by a
great friend and colleague from Tennessee, the Congresswoman from
Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, who has been an incredible leader in our
conference about so many areas, including the economy. She participated
in small business, and just brings a wealth of experience and
information to the table. I know that she has some thoughts to share
with us tonight on the issue of energy and gas prices.
I welcome you this evening.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
his leadership on the issue. As you were saying, we are all in this
boat together when we look at the energy issue and look at not only the
fuel for our cars, but for our homes, how we generate electricity, how
we address the energy needs of a booming economy, how we address the
energy needs of a growing population.
As you said so very well, this is not a Democrat or a Republican
issue, this is an American issue, and we need to go back and let
history be a great teacher for us on this issue. How did we get to this
point? This issue didn't just happen last week or last month or even
last year. This is something that has been growing for a period of
time. I really look at it as something that has been coming together
over the past 30 years, when we look at what has happened with this.
If we go back to the mid-70s, a good start date to take for the sake
of discussion on this issue is 1976. The reason we go back to 1976,
Carter was President then and that was the last year that we had a
refinery built in this country. That was the last year in which a new
refinery, oil or gas refinery, was built on U.S. soil.
What we saw happen was an increase in regulation from the EPA and
from OSHA and different environmental groups and different demands that
environmental groups would place on creating or developing a new
refinery or going out and exploring for oil or gas or developing new
technologies to extract oil and gas to bring forward for the refining
process.
Since 1976, we have seen layer upon layer upon layer of mandates, of
rules, of regulations, that have made it very, very difficult to bring
forward new technologies so that we can meet the energy needs of this
Nation.

{time} 2045

So that we are meeting the energy needs of this Nation. Great for
instance. When you inventory what we had on line with refineries in
1981, there were 324 oil and gas refineries in this country in 1981.
Today there are 148 refineries; 148 refineries. And, you know, the last
refinery that went up in this country was out in Yuma, Arizona. It took
5 years and 4 months to get through the permitting process to put that
refinery in place.
So we see that what we have done is to put in place a process where
we have fewer refineries that are working, and fewer refineries to
actually process the oil and gas that we need. Now at the same time our
population is growing, we have more cars on the road, and we have more
houses. Home ownership is at an all-time high.
We need to be processing 21 million barrels of oil a day. We have the
capacity to refine 17 million barrels of oil a day. So what we have is
a very tight supply line, and it is difficult for us to meet those
needs with the current infrastructure that is in existence.
What we have to do also is couple those facts of fewer refineries and
making it very difficult to do exploration and development. Now, you
know, and I will tell you, the liberals on this issue need to realize
the double-talk ought to stop. The double-talk needs to stop because
you cannot have it both ways.
You do want oil and gas, but then you do not want the prices to be
high, but you do not want to go drill in ANWR, you do not want to
inventory the Outer Continental Shelf, and you do not want to extract
any of those gas deposits that are there, and heaven knows, let us not
go drill in the West. And that is what we have the tendency to hear.
But at the same time, they are saying gas is too high, we need to
immediately move to alternative fuels. But then they say, you are not
doing enough for alternative fuels, but the gas prices are too high.
And, you know, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of double-
talk that makes it very difficult to sit down and work out a solution
to this that is going to help us with this issue.
And I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I look at this with the fewer
refineries, with the lack of exploration and development, Hurricanes
Rita and Katrina taking fully 25 percent of our refineries off line,
and what you have is the perfect storm of an energy crisis. And at

[[Page H1719]]

the same time that is happening, we are switching from the MTBE to
ethanol.
There are some supply line problems with the distributors there. And,
yes, this has been a very difficult week. And I am like most persons. I
go to fill up my car, and I just, you know, gasp at the price. And I
think, my goodness, this is not what we are used to. This is not what
we have planned for. This is not what we have budgeted for. It is so
expensive.
And I held town hall meetings, as you were saying, as the gentlemen
from Georgia was saying, visiting with my constituents. And you talk to
those who are on the school boards who are saying, you know, it is
costing more to run buses, and you talk to those who are running their
county governments. They are saying, our supply costs and our fuel
costs are going up.
And it says, yes, indeed we need to do something. And I think it is
very important that we realize that there are some things we can do in
the short term. There are some things that we will do that will affect
the midrange, and then we need to be very conscious as we look at a
long-range plan, and as we look at working toward an energy
independence day.
And, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the gentleman from
Georgia in returning another night to talk a bit more about energy
independence day and how we would get there and what that would look
like.
And I think that as we look at this issue, we know legislatively
there are some things that we can do and have done. We have passed the
Energy Policy Act from the committee where I hold a seat, Energy and
Commerce. And we first passed that piece of legislation in 2001, and it
languished across the dome with our friends in the Senate. And finally
this past June we were able to get that signed into law and passed to
put $8 billion on to alternative fuels development, to simplify some
the permitting process so that it is easier for those refineries to
stand up and begin processing the fuels that we need.
You know, there is another piece of legislation, the Gas Act, that we
passed after Katrina took place, and that is the piece of legislation
we passed in this body on a 212-210 vote. It would federalize and put
in place Federal penalties for price gouging. Unfortunately we did not
have any help from our friends across the aisle on that. And we felt it
was important to put in place, to federalize price gouging. Now, that
piece of legislation that we passed is sitting in the Senate. The
liberals are holding it up. It is time for us to pass this.
I yield to the gentlemen from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
I have got a number of posters about what, in essence, is the double-
talk that you raise. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle,
the liberals on the other side of the aisle, tend to talk one way, and
then they vote another.
I just wanted to highlight the one you just mentioned, because this
Gas Act is so remarkably important for energy independence for our
Nation. It was roll call vote 519. This is what the Truth Squad is all
about, bringing you information, facts that you might not be able to
have otherwise. Roll call vote 519 in 2005, the Gas Act. Every single
Democrat voted no. Every single one voted no, which just crystallizes
that double-talk that you highlighted so very, very well.
I yield back.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman will yield. Yes, this is one of the
things, and let us continue to look at this poster. You know, do we
care more about caribou in ANWR, or do we want to come into an area
that is an enormously large area and go into an area land-mass-wise
that is about the size of the State of South Carolina, and go into an
area that is about the size of the Atlanta airport and drill, and go in
on ice roads during the winter and drill?

You know, I mentioned that we need 21 million barrels of oil a day,
and that we have the capacity for 17 million. In that field in the
North Atlantic Wildlife Refuge, that field would yield as much as 1
million barrels a day. So I think that this is the time when we have to
say, where are our priorities? And how are we going to use the fossil
fuels that we have while we try to wean ourselves from foreign oil, and
while we develop alternative sources, and as we look at this electric
power generation?
I was in another State in a coastal area with one of our colleagues,
and we were going across a bridge. I had been speaking in one area, and
we were going to the other for a speech. And there were two power
plants on either side of this bridge out in this bay. And as I looked
out there, I said, oh, are these on hydroelectric power? What are we
using? What is the source here? Is it wind? Is it water?
One was burning coal; the other was burning oil and gas. You know,
you have to say, if they are both using fossil fuels, why are we doing
that and not being good stewards of our fossil fuels and using all of
those other natural resources that we have?
So this is a time for us to say, let us be very thoughtful, let us
learn some lessons from what has happened over the past 30 years. Let
us look at what happens when you give environmental groups the say over
how you are going to develop your energy policy. When you say we are
going to work day in and day out, and we are going to keep you from
drilling, let us look at the lessons that we have learned and what ends
up happening in the long run.
And as we look at conservation and preserving efforts, which will
help us with the short-term fix, when we look at the legislative
efforts that will help us in the midterm and the long term, let us be
very, very mindful that every piece of legislation that we pass is
going to have some consequences whether intended or unintended, and we
need to be very mindful of that.
With that I yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her
perspective and a cogent laying out of exactly what this situation is
that we have right now, how we have gotten into this situation, and
what sort of alternatives that we have.
And your statement about things beginning 30 years ago is so
appropriate, because this did not happen overnight. We find ourselves
in this situation now because of the policies of past Congresses,
policies of past administrations, and the action of so many folks that
brought us to this point right now.
And it is not going to be fixed overnight, but we are well on our
way. We want to assure the American people that we are well on our way
to making it so that we are energy independent. I appreciate your
presentation so much.
I do want to highlight a couple of our items that were discussed as
we move forward with the Official Truth Squad and talk about energy
policy and gas prices. So much of the discussion that you have heard by
some of our friends on the other side are talking about, in fact it has
been this evening in the well and earlier today in the well, and they
talk immediately about their solution, which is always to either put a
cap on something or to tax something. And you have got to listen
carefully, because sometimes the language is couched. But price
controls or a windfall profit tax we have heard bandied about, increase
the taxes. But the truth is that that action would be extremely
detrimental. And I say that with all sincerity, pointing to the
Official Truth Squad poster.
And folks will say, well, how do you know that? Well, we know that
because of history. And history has a tendency to repeat itself unless
you learn from it. And there is great history that we have, and it is
not that long ago. There is a wonderful policy primer that was put out
by the Cato Institute in Washington. It has got great information about
what they call the case against oil price controls and windfall profit
taxes, and they do so in a very academic and appropriate way by citing
the information that we have available to us just a generation ago. And
I want to read some of the information that was presented in this. And
I will quote from it a number of different times.
One of the broad conclusions that they make is that, quote, free
markets are more efficient than controlled markets. And goods and
services are more available and less expensive in free markets as
opposed to controlled markets.

[[Page H1720]]

So restricting product prices for profit opportunities invariably
reduces investment in conservation and new supply. Now, that may seem
counterintuitive, but if you restrict the opportunity for our system to
work, our market system to work, our free market system to work, if you
restrict that in certain ways, then what happens is that people say,
well, I will not invest in new forms of energy. I will not invest in
the new opportunity to find more oil. I will not invest in things that
will declare our dependence on foreign oil. I will go invest in
something elsewhere if the government is not involved. And it actually
decreases supply. And we had a very clear example of that in the 1970s
and the 1980s when price controls were enacted by this Government, and
when the windfall profit tax was in place between 1980 and 1988.
There was an economist, Joseph Kalt, who, in 1981, a Harvard
economist, I do not often quote a Harvard economist, Mr. Speaker, but I
will tell you that he has some sage advice for us. And Kalt studied the
price controls that were enacted in the 1970s, and he drew these
conclusions.
He stated that price controls and the incentive to import created by
the entitlement program reduced the incentive to bring new domestic oil
to market. These are the things being considered on the other side of
the aisle right now, and being touted as the be-all and end-all.
Kalt calculated as a result, domestic production was .3 to 1.4
million barrels per day lower, lower than it would have been otherwise.
Clear example that price controls do not work.
In spite of that fact, clearly a demonstration, truthful
demonstration, of what happens when you restrict that market.
Another quote, a few observations about the price control experience
of the 1970s jumped out at the analysts. First, price controls are
simply ideas in theory, but they are extremely complicated exercises in
practice.

{time} 2100

Second, a tremendous amount of political pressure inevitably arises
under price control regimes to provide regulatory benefits to favorite
producers at the expense of less-favored producers, thus distorting
markets even further.
Third, price controls have unintended consequences and often
exacerbate the problems they ostensibly are designed to address.
Again, if you want to tell what the future is going to be, and you
want to enact policies that have been tried in the past, then it is a
pretty good bet that if you look at the consequences of the policies
that were tried in the past, that you can tell what the future is going
to be. Hopefully we want to look in a sober way at the policies that
were enacted in the past so that we can determine whether or not we
want, in fact, to go down that same path.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that going down that same path
for price controls and windfall profit tax, which sound wonderful, I
mean they really do. I mean, you say we ought not to be having to pay
that much at the gas pump. If we are paying that much, then somebody
else is just making too much money.
The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that the policies of price controls and
windfall profit tax don't have their intended effect. They don't result
in a decrease in price significantly, and they significantly decrease
the amount of availability, which then indeed drives up prices even
more.
The conclusion of this treatise on price controls and windfall profit
tax is very telling and, I think, very instructive. It goes as follows.
The observation that price controls induce scarcity and impose net
losses on the economy is as uncontroversial among economists as are
observations about gravity among physicists. Let me read that again.
Sometimes you can get lost in really the magnitude of a statement like
that, but I think it is important, and it is very instructive for us as
a Congress, for us as a Nation. The observation that price controls
induce scarcity and impose net losses on the economy is as
uncontroversial among economists as are observations about gravity
among physicists.
He goes on to say the experience of the 1970s further suggests that
price controls may not even achieve their stated goal of reducing
consumer prices. Intervention in oil markets historically has improved
the welfare of politically popular market actors, primarily small
independent oil producers and small refinery owners rather than the
welfare of consumers.
Whether politicians intended that to be the case is unclear.
Regardless, if wealth distribution is the rationale for price controls
and windfall profit taxes, general individual and corporate income
taxes are certainly less costly and more equitable than sector-specific
market intervention.
Now, people often support price controls and windfall profit taxes
because they don't believe that oil producers have a moral right to
higher-than-normal earnings. Mr. Speaker, how often have we heard that
the last 2 weeks, that these profits are immoral? I heard it, certainly
heard it. I heard it from the other side of the aisle.
He goes on there somehow there is a widespread sentiment that it is
somehow wrong for owners to profit when exogenous events greatly
inflate the value of commodities that they own. Yet those who hold that
opinion don't oppose windfall capital gains for homeowners. In fact the
public tends to cheer rising home prices and reacts to falling home
prices as a problem to be solved.
Now, why is it morally wrong for some parties but not others to
periodically earn windfall profits is a mystery that we cannot solve.
That is the writers of this paper.
Regardless of the moral issues involved, Federal efforts to take
excess profits from oil companies whether via price controls or excise
taxes are bad public policies. They fail to achieve their proximate
aim, which is to reduce prices paid by retail consumers, but do manage
to reduce supply, increase imports and impose steep costs on the
economy.
Mr. Speaker, I tell you, those comments, that statement, that
conclusion of history, which is truth based upon what happened, is
extremely telling. They fail to achieve their proximate aim, which is
to reduce prices paid by retail consumers, so they don't decrease the
prices. They don't decrease the prices.
If you put price controls on, and you put in place what is
euphemistically called a windfall profit tax, it doesn't decrease the
price. What it does do is it manages to reduce supply, increase imports
and impose steep costs on the economy.
I don't know that there is a more clear evidence that moving in the
direction of price controls or windfall profit taxes would just be the
wrong thing to do, wrong for the economy, wrong for consumers, wrong
for my constituents, wrong for the American people. I am hopeful that
my colleagues will be mindful of the information that we have available
to us about past actions.
I also want to just point out that when you hear people talk about
how it is, quote, immoral, unquote, for somebody to earn that kind of
profit, please harken back, harken back to the politics of division
that I mentioned before, that the philosophy that was felt to be that
of Abraham Lincoln and those who had a sensibility about how we as a
society ought to move forward, and remember what he said. You cannot
help the poor by destroying the rich. That is oh so true, Mr. Speaker.
I do also want to cite one other portion of this treatise. You have
heard a lot of people talk about price fixing or collusion between oil
companies for the cost of gasoline at the pump. This is a citation in
this paper, but it is very telling because it is a nonpolitical arm of
the government talking, and it is independent individuals who drew
these conclusions.
The conclusion that they drew is significant. We are unaware of any
governmental investigation since the formation of the OPEC cartel that
has found evidence of price fixing or collusion in U.S. gasoline
markets. The Federal Trade Commission concludes that, quote, the vast
majority of the FTC's investigations have revealed market factors to be
the primary drivers of both price increases and price spikes. Those
investigations, it should be noted, were undertaken by both Republican
and Democratic administrations.

Mr. Speaker, I am so disturbed when I go home and I hear people at
home talk about the inability of Congress to get together and solve
problems. What

[[Page H1721]]

I say to them is that the level of demagogy on the part of many here is
very disturbing, and it does a disservice to us all.
Again, these aren't Republican problems, they aren't Democrat
problems, they are American problems, they are American challenges. We
solve them best if we solve them together. I urge my colleagues to work
together to not throw around the kind of language that we have already
heard again today by others, because it is destructive, doesn't help.
What is the problem? Now, my good friend from Tennessee alluded to
much of the problem, and I want to refer to a number of things that she
said. I want to remind folks, though, about The Official Truth Squad
favorite quote, and that is, again, because we are going to talk about
facts now, that is from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said,
everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to
your own facts. Let's talk about some facts. Let's talk about why gas
prices are high now.
You will hear a lot of folks conjecture and throw around things that
they say are the reason that gas prices are so high. But I think there
are, there are five or six general areas that can be distilled as to
addressing why gasoline prices now are at the level that they are.
Remembering though, Mr. Speaker, that gas prices in other nations,
other Western nations, are significantly greater. Remember the U.K.,
$6.13 for a gallon of gasoline; Germany, $5.96 for a gallon of
gasoline; Belgium, $6.10 for a gallon of gasoline. But why are gas
prices at an average of $2.88 in the United States?
There are a number of reasons. First reason that can be clearly
pointed out is that we are in that time of year where we are changing
gasoline blends, and this change disrupts the supply chain. What
happens is that between winter and summer, the seasonal blends
traditionally cause spikes at this time of year in gas prices. We are
fond of saying at home, we have been for the past number of years, you
hear people say, well, it is time for summer vacation, so they will
crank up the prices again. But what is happening is there is a
different formula of gasoline, the season blend of gasoline that is
used in the summer, as opposed to the winter. That cost, just that
shift to that different blend, causes some increase in price.
Also, the Energy Policy Act that we passed in 2005 ends the federally
mandated oxygenate requirement for some gasoline blends beginning on
May 5. Fearing an exposure to MTBE lawsuits, Mr. Speaker, fearing an
exposure to MTBE lawsuits, refiners are, instead, turning to ethanol,
and that is causing a significant increase in the cost of gasoline.
I will say to my friends on both sides of the aisle that there are
three things that consistently drive up the cost of doing any business
and providing increased cost to the bottom line for a service or a
product. You know what these are well, Mr. Speaker. They are taxation,
they are litigation, and they are regulation.
My good friend from Tennessee earlier talked about a lot of the
regulatory challenges that we have in the area of energy policy that
make it so that the cost of gasoline is higher than it ought to be. But
what you just heard is that there are oil companies that because of the
true threat of litigation have changed their formulation to include
ethanol instead of MTBE. That cause, that threat of litigation, has
caused a significant increase in the cost of gasoline, the addition of
ethanol that they are using in place of the MTBE. Information agency
estimates that the switch from MTBE to ethanol is responsible for an
additional 5 cents a gallon in cost. Remember, that is a switch that
much of which is brought about because of the risk of litigation.
Now, there are also tariffs on ethanol imports. So more intervention
has resulted in tariffs on ethanol imports, which companies say they
are relying on in greater quantities, and that those tariffs add 54
cents a gallon to a gallon of ethanol. Reports forecast that we might
need an additional $2 billion of ethanol this year alone.
Mr. Speaker, 2 billion gallons of ethanol, 54 cents a gallon, an
extra $0.05 a gallon for the switch. Mr. Speaker, that looks to me like
something over $1 billion. That has got to be made up. So that is
driving the cost.
Now, that is truth. Changing the gasoline blends, the addition of
ethanol, those are two specific areas that have resulted in a marked
increase in the price of gasoline at the pump.
Now, we can talk all we want about price controls and windfall profit
taxes and the like, but they will not affect either of those costs at
all. Not at all. In fact, they will decrease the supply if we adopt any
of those, quote, solutions.
What is another reason that the price of gas is up right now? Gulf
coast disruption. Tight supplies mean even one unscheduled refinery
shutdown with can drive up gasoline prices; 22.3 percent of gulf coast
oil production is still shut down from the hurricanes of last fall,
22.3 percent of gulf coast oil production is still shut down. That
results in about over 300,000 fewer barrels of domestic oil available
to Americans on any given day. So we have got some factual reasons why
the price of gasoline at the pump is significantly increased.
What else? World supply and demand. Supply and demand. Our need for
oil has grown, but we face new competition from other markets,
particularly India and China, significantly increased economies. Their
increase in economic viability is positive for the world, results in
increased opportunities for all in the world, but they have a
significant increase in demand for oil.
Our domestic production and our refining capacity haven't kept up.
The gentlewoman from Tennessee earlier talked about the lack of any new
refinery in our Nation coming on line in the last 30 years. It is
phenomenal, Mr. Speaker, it is phenomenal.

{time} 2115

It is not right. And that has been a result of significant policies
that have increased regulation, have increased the threat of
litigation, and taxes have been so significant so that they haven't
brought new refineries on line. Those kinds of things do not happen
overnight. They do not happen overnight. And these problems haven't
happened overnight.
We are not functioning in a vacuum either. It is not like you can
order crude oil from one place in the world and expect it to always be
there. Threats of supply reduction from Nigeria, Iran, and Venezuela
have also caused crude oil prices to rise. So there is some real
certain truthful reasons why the price of gas is what it is right now,
not some conjecture. You don't have to make anything up. There is real
evidence as to why the price of gas is what it is.
Fifth. Lack of domestic oil production. Here is one that really irks
many folks in my district. They say, we've got gasoline available,
we've got oil available right under our own Nation and within our own
properties and off our own shores that can be obtained with great
respect for the environment, that can be obtained safely, so why on
Earth doesn't Congress enact the opportunity to be able to get that
oil?
We are going to need much more oil before we ever kick our dependence
on it, without a doubt. But, unfortunately, current law leaves nearly
100 billion barrels of oil out of reach to Americans. Out of reach to
Americans. It is American oil. It is an American resource. And until
that changes, American families will continue to pay more than they
should for gasoline.
At a time when we import most of our crude oil and, increasingly,
gasoline, these restrictions also undermine the Nation's security and
prop up authoritarian regimes around the world. I will tell you, my
folks at home are fed up. They say, look, we've got to, as a
government, make certain that we can utilize the resources that we
have.
And, finally, Washington inaction. Now that is something that
probably is as true for this as it is for many, many other areas; but
these problems, as I mentioned, took decades to develop and to come
about. Most folks don't remember that 10 years ago this Congress passed
the opportunity to utilize some of those resources that I mentioned and
that President Clinton vetoed, vetoed the opportunity to, in an
environmentally safe way, take care or utilize the resources that we
have available to us in Alaska.
That is a fact. That is the truth. That is the truth. And that is
what we

[[Page H1722]]

are here tonight to talk about, is the truth behind why gas prices are
where they are and what the solution is. So by way of summary, the gas
prices are significant and high, higher today than they have been in
the past for a variety of reasons. Changing gasoline blends, the
addition of ethanol, disruption down on the gulf coast, world supply
and demand, lack of our own domestic oil production, and then
Washington inaction. Bureaucratic Washington inaction.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that has been helpful to my colleagues
listening and those folks listening around the Nation as we talk about
the extreme importance of addressing an issue that during our 2 weeks
home I heard an awful lot about.
I am pleased to be joined by a number of colleagues, and now I would
like to introduce a good friend and colleague, a member of the freshman
class, a member of the Official Truth Squad, Congresswoman Virginia
Foxx from North Carolina. She has a great background of study, and I
have always been impressed with her ability to crystallize an issue and
to do the due diligence on how we got to a situation, how we arrived at
a problem and what the solution is.
I look forward to her comments this evening on the issue of energy
and gasoline prices, and I yield to Congresswoman Virginia Foxx.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Congressman Price. I appreciate very much again
your leadership in bringing the information from the Truth Squad here
to the floor of the House and am pleased to join you and Congresswoman
Blackburn tonight to talk about energy prices.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats sure do like to have their cake
and eat it too. Over and over again they complain about something and
then turn right around and oppose any commonsense solutions offered by
Republicans. I think you have done a good job of talking about some of
the issues related to the high price of gasoline. None of us likes to
pay a high price for gasoline, and those of us who are Members of
Congress who have large districts probably are affected by it as much
as a lot of the average Americans are because of our ability to get out
in the districts and travel and visit with our constituents.
But Democrats have a way of talking about things and doing something
differently. They are giving us a hard time now about the high price of
gasoline. They talk about the deficit, they whine about the deficit,
but they vote against slowing the growth of spending. They complain
about the President's plan in Iraq, but they offer no alternatives.
They say we need to increase border security, but they vote against the
bills that would do just that. The list goes on and on.
The Democrats' latest case of hypocrisy is that they hold a press
conference to complain about our rising energy prices, even though
their actions have contributed directly to the problem. For a party
that claims it is looking out for the best interests of the American
people, it has a funny way of showing it.
For decades the Democrats have fought to stop production of all forms
of energy. They voted against increasing domestic energy supplies,
which would not only lower prices but create more jobs here at home.
They have opposed Republican efforts to lessen the tax burden at the
pump. They have opposed nuclear energy and renewable fuels. They have
opposed cracking down on price gouging.
Republicans have been working hard, Mr. Speaker, to address rising
energy prices, but all the Democrats do is vote ``no,'' and we don't
think that ``no'' is an energy policy. Democrats have traditionally,
again, and consistently opposed all GOP efforts to increase domestic
energy production. For nearly three decades environmental extremists
and their liberal allies in Congress have fought to halt production of
all forms of energy. In fact, Democrat obstructionists have repeatedly
voted against Republican efforts to increase domestic supply, encourage
innovation and technology advancement, and lower the tax burden
Americans pay at the pump.
Let me talk a little bit about the specifics on that. Five times
Democrats have had a chance to vote for comprehensive energy reform for
programs to expand the use of nuclear energy and renewable fuels, and
five times they said no. And this is just in recent years.
July 25, 2005, H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on agreeing to
the conference report. It passed the House by a recorded vote of 275-
256, but 124 Democrats voted ``no.''
June 15, 2004, H.R. 4503, Energy Policy Act of 2004, on passage, 152
Democrats voted ``no.'' It passed by 244-178.
November 18, 2003, H.R. 6, Energy Conservation Research and
Development, on agreeing to the conference report, 154 Democrats voted
``no.''
So they have consistently voted ``no'' on issues that would help us
increase the energy supply.
We think that folks need to ask the minority leader some questions
about rising gas prices and her record on that, and the Democrats'
record on it. They have fashioned an abysmal record on energy issues
that are important to the American public, yet now they have the
temerity to complain about the strain of rising gas prices.
Here are some questions that need to be asked. In the face of rising
gas prices for working families, why have you and your Capitol Hill
Democrats consistently opposed measures designed to increase the supply
of American energy?
With world energy prices rising because of increased demand, why did
124 of your House Democrats vote against the energy bill in 2005 to
encourage the expansion of clean nuclear energy supplies?
Question number three that could be asked: In the face of rising gas
prices for Americans, why did 196 of your House Democrats vote against
the 2005 energy bill that would have streamlined the process of
refinery expansion and construction that is so critical to the future
of America's energy infrastructure?
Question number four: With gas prices for working Americans on the
rise, why do you oppose major labor organizations, such as the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who actively petitioned the
Congress to increase domestic energy supplies to create jobs for their
workers?
And last but not least, the fifth question: In the face of rising gas
prices for working families, why do you and the Democrats continue to
vote ``no'' on every responsible proposal that would put Americans to
work producing more of our own American energy to lower prices?
Again, the Democrats want to have it both ways. They want to talk
about the problem and put it off on us, but they want to avoid coming
up with a way to solve the problem. We need to ask these questions of
the Democrats and put them on the spot about why gas prices are so
high.
They are responsible for it, because they have refused to allow us to
come up with ways to provide alternative energy. I hope Americans will
write their Members of Congress, particularly the Democrats, and say to
them: Why are you doing this? Why do you want gas prices to be so high
and hurt working Americans?
Congressman Price, I think I am going to let you tidy up this
session, since you have done such a great job of it, and thank you for
letting me be a part of it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you, Congresswoman Foxx, so very much for
your wonderful observations and really astute observations about many
of the challenges that we have and bringing some truth to this issue of
gasoline prices and why we are in the situation that we are in right
now.
As we have talked about, this isn't a Republican problem or a
Democrat problem; it is an American problem. And so we work best when
we work together to solve these problems. So I encourage friends and
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make certain that as we move
forward with this situation that we work together. Political
demagoguery and casting aspersions on either side is just not helpful
to the solution.
Now, we have reviewed the clamor that we have heard out there
currently for price controls and windfall profit taxes and those kinds
of things that we have demonstrated clearly don't work. Remember, the
truth is that they do not work and we know that because of the history.
We have also talked about what has resulted in the situation that we
are

[[Page H1723]]

in, why our gas prices are high. We have reviewed the items that have
brought about the situation that we currently find ourselves in.
I thought it would be helpful to at this point very briefly talk
about what has been done, because a lot has been done. Again, these
problems that we have and the challenges that we have are a product of
decades of activity that have put us in this situation, so these aren't
going to be solved overnight. And anybody that says that they have the
solution to bringing down gas prices right now is just not being
truthful with the American people. And I think it is important to say
that, because the truth is that the solution to this will happen over
time, and it will happen by a number of things: increased production,
conservation, alternative fuels, and all sorts of things.
I want to just share with you, Mr. Speaker, some of the things that
have already been enacted. The Gasoline For America's Security Act of
2005 was passed, as was the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Energy
Policy Act of 2005 had some very specific items in it. It strengthens
current supply. Strengthens current supply. It allows for new domestic
oil and gas exploration and development. It requires the Department of
the Interior to inventory oil and gas resources on the Outer
Continental Shelf to enable the Federal Government to better assess the
extent of these resources.
Again, when I go home, I hear people say, why don't you get to work
and utilize the resources that we have? The technology is there to be
able to do it in a very environmentally friendly way. It is a tough
question to answer.

{time} 2130

We are moving forward on that, and we need the help of our colleagues
on both sides of the aisle.
The Energy Policy Act also encourages building of new refineries and
expanding existing refineries. We need to streamline those regulations
and decrease the amount of litigation exposure that those refineries
have. Remember, we have not brought a new refinery on line in this
Nation in 30 years, and we wonder why we are in the situation we are
in.
The bill includes $2.9 billion for fossil energy research to ensure
more efficient exploration and development of oil, gas and coal, while
decreasing the environmental impact of fossil energy production and its
use.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also increases conservation. That is
extremely important. Conservation is so important to this solution, and
anything we can do as a Nation and as a people to conserve fuel goes
right to the bottom line. It improves things immediately.
The bill increases funding to $17.5 million over 5 years to the
Department of Transportation to continue its work on improving the CAFE
standards which set fuel emission standards for cars and light trucks
sold in the United States.
It increases funding to the Department of Energy's Clean Cities
Program, provides tax credits for the purchase of hybrid fuel cell
advanced clean-burn diesel and other alternative-power vehicles. That
is important.
When I talk to groups, I always try to ask how many folks own a
hybrid vehicle. At this point only none or one or two folks raise their
hand. I am hopeful in a year we will see tens of hundreds of people in
my district, or thousands or more across the Nation. The tax credit is
up to $3,200 per individual depending on the vehicle. That ought to be
a great incentive, and it begins to make hybrid vehicles become
competitive with other vehicles that are sold.
The bill also provides a 30 percent credit, up to $30,000, for an
investment in alternative fuel refueling stations. A lot of the problem
is we do not have many of those stations right now, and it is important
to bring those on line.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also embraces new fuel choices,
authorizes $3.7 billion for a hydrogen fuel cell program, and requires
7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be included in all gasoline
sold in the United States by 2015.
Many of us are working to try to make certain that we bring that kind
of will and enthusiasm to bringing about energy independence for our
Nation within the next 10 years.
It includes $3 billion dedicated to developing affordable, efficient,
renewable energy technologies and promoting their widespread use.
It promotes clean and renewable fuels by providing incentives for
clean coal technology and renewable energy such as biomass, wind, solar
and hydroelectricity. It extends the renewable electricity production
credit through December 31, 2007, and authorizes the issuance of $800
million of tax credit bonds before December 31, 2007, to support
renewable investment in municipal power authorities, rural
cooperatives, and others.
I think it is important to talk about those things that we already
have done because I would venture to say, Mr. Speaker, when you go home
and when you talk to your constituents, I know when I go home and I say
we have done these things, they say, ``I have never heard about it.''
You are right, people do not hear about these things because they are
not mentioned on the nightly news. This Congress does not get any
credit for the positive work it is doing on the nightly news. You do
not read about it in your newspapers, and you have a portion of
individuals in this Chamber who want to down-talk and demagogue every
single issue.
Mr. Speaker, it is just not productive. It is not positive. It does a
disservice to every individual across this Nation, so I encourage my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get together and work to make
certain that we can continue to solve the energy challenges that we
have as a Nation.
We are blessed to live in a wonderful and a glorious Nation. We are
the hope of the world and continue to be a vessel of opportunity for so
many people around the world. We do ourselves best when we work
together and talk positively about the challenges that we have and
positively about the solutions and make it so we can solve those
challenges together as opposed to the kinds of difficult conversations
that some folks tend to degrade into so quickly.
I urge my colleagues to work together as we move forward on the
challenges as they relate to gas prices and energy policy.
I look forward to coming back and joining my colleagues once again
for the Official Truth Squad, putting a little truth and positive
perspective in front of the United States House of Representatives and
the American people.

____________________