[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 13, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H3701-H3710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1415
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE FILL SUSPENSION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 
                                OF 2008

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6022) to suspend the acquisition of petroleum for the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

[[Page H3702]]

  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6022

       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 ``Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF PETROLEUM ACQUISITION FOR STRATEGIC 
                   PETROLEUM RESERVE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on 
     December 31, 2008--
       (1) the Secretary of the Interior shall suspend acquisition 
     of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the 
     royalty-in-kind program; and
       (2) the Secretary of Energy shall suspend acquisition of 
     petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through any 
     acquisition method.
       (b) Resumption in Calendar Year 2008.--During the period 
     specified in subsection (a) but not earlier than 30 days 
     after the date on which the President notifies Congress that 
     the President has determined that the weighted average price 
     of petroleum in the United States for the most recent 90-day 
     period is $75 or less per barrel--
       (1) the Secretary of the Interior may resume acquisition of 
     petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the 
     royalty-in-kind program; and
       (2) the Secretary of Energy may resume acquisition of 
     petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through any 
     acquisition method.
       (c) Existing Contracts.--
       (1) Department of the interior contracts.--In the case of 
     any royalty-in-kind oil scheduled to be delivered to the 
     Department of Energy for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     pursuant to a contract entered into by the Secretary of 
     Interior prior to, and in effect on, the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall accept delivery of 
     such oil.
       (2) Department of energy contracts.--In the case of any oil 
     scheduled to be delivered to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     pursuant to a contract entered into by the Secretary of 
     Energy prior to, and in effect on, the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, negotiate a deferral of the delivery of the oil 
     in accordance with procedures of the Department of Energy in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act for deferrals of 
     oil.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have long supported filling the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve and strongly support the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
provision that directed the Secretary of Energy to fill the reserve 
``as expeditiously as practicable'' to the full 1 billion barrel 
capacity authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, however, also requires that the Secretary 
time SPR acquisitions in a manner that does not incur excessive costs 
or do not appreciably affect the consumer price of petroleum products.
  On May 8, I wrote the President urging him to direct the Secretary of 
Energy not to enter into any new contracts to fill the SPR during 
calendar year 2008. This, regrettably, is what the Department of Energy 
has proposed to do under an April 4 solicitation for royalty-in-kind 
oil to be delivered between August and December of this year. In light 
of the record cost of oil and resulting hardship for average Americans, 
businesses, farmers, and the general economy, I believe it would be 
imprudent for DOE to take these barrels off the market.
  While there is no guarantee that putting this oil onto the market 
rather than into the SPR will lower prices, even such a modest step 
could potentially prick the speculative bubble now characterizing oil 
markets. In 2006, DOE suspended filling SPR during the summer driving 
season, and that is what is appropriate for it to do now.
  While it is in the discretion of DOE whether or not to enter into new 
contracts at this time, the administration seems determined to forge 
ahead. Common sense would say to us not to take the oil off the market 
at a time of record high prices. Given the administration's apparent 
determination to pursue this course, the Congress must act and I 
support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill 
and recognize myself for such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the beginning that I 
speak for myself, I don't necessarily speak for the House Republican 
leadership. I have asked if we had a minority position on the bill, and 
as of 30 minutes ago we did not. So I am speaking for myself as the 
ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  And let me say at the beginning that I think it is good to have a 
piece of energy legislation on the floor at this point in time. I think 
the American people are fed up with high gasoline prices, they're fed 
up with increasing imports, they're fed up with rising food prices that 
are caused, at least in part, by higher energy prices. So I think it's 
a good thing that we are beginning to debate energy legislation on the 
floor of the House of Representatives. I think it is a good thing that 
the chairman of the committee with primary jurisdiction, my good 
friend, John Dingell, is leading that debate on the majority side.
  Having said that, I don't think it's a good thing that we bring a 
bill on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the floor with no process at 
all. Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Boucher and I have 
spoken informally in the last 2 weeks about doing something on the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And I am very open to having a full 
vetting of the issue of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  I am fully supportive of the underlying policy in this bill, which is 
to suspend taking shipments into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when 
oil prices are at record levels. I am not supportive of doing that in a 
way that there is absolutely no input from the minority side. We've had 
no legislative hearing, no committee hearing, no markup, no nothing. We 
were notified late yesterday afternoon that the bill would be on the 
floor this morning, and as far as I can tell the bill wasn't printed 
until some time this morning. So one reason I'm opposed to the bill is 
because of process.
  Now I want to talk about the substance of the bill. Again, the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created in the 1970s in response to a 
coordinated Arab Oil Embargo against the United States of America when 
shipments of oil were suspended by the OPEC cartel for political 
reasons. We created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And my guess is, 
although I wasn't in Congress at that time, that John Dingell, who was 
a member of the committee--I don't believe he was chairman in the 
seventies--probably had a very positive influence on creating the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It was a good idea then and it's a good 
idea now. So that's a good thing.
  Now, we have been filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve since the 
late seventies. Most of the oil was put in under President Reagan's 
tenure from 1980 to 1988, but even since then we have continued to fill 
the Reserve. There have been little appropriated funds appropriated to 
fill it, and in the last 5 or 6 years most of the increase has been by 
taking what this bill would suspend, which is the royalty-in-kind oil, 
and putting that into the Reserve. Royalty-in-kind oil is oil that, 
instead of the oil companies that produce on Federal lands and the 
Federal OCS, instead of giving money to the Federal Government and to 
the taxpayer, they give royalty-in-kind oil. And that right now is 
about 62,000 barrels a day. So it is not a bad idea to suspend taking 
the royalty-in-kind oil.
  Where I have a policy difference with this bill is that the bill is 
either silent or ambiguous on what happens to the royalties that 
continue to accrue. The fact that you're not taking oil doesn't mean 
that the Federal Government doesn't have a royalty that should be paid.

[[Page H3703]]

  So one of the questions I would have is, do we receive the money, 
which 62,000 barrels of oil at $120 a barrel is, over the life of this 
bill, over a billion dollars. What happens to that billion dollars? 
Does it just go to the general revenue? Does it just go to the general 
treasury?
  If I were drafting the bill, I would direct that some of that 
royalty, in terms of cash, go into a LIHEAP fund for low-income heating 
and cooling assistance. I would direct that some of the funds go into a 
reserve to buy oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when oil falls 
below the target price in this bill, which I believe is $75 a barrel. I 
would direct that some of the funds go to an alternative energy fund. 
Those are things that we would have discussed in committee. Those were 
the things that we would have had amendments on. And those are the 
things that we're not allowed to do because this bill is being 
considered under suspension.
  As Chairman Dingell has pointed out, the fact that we're not going to 
take royalty-in-kind oil and put it in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
is probably not going to affect the price much on the world market. I 
think we would have as much impact on prices, if that's our goal, if 
all the Members on both sides of the aisle went out on the steps of the 
Capitol and we all clapped our hands three times and said, ``Down 
prices. Down prices. Down prices.'' That would probably have as much 
impact as passing this bill. It would be a lot more fun, too. We would 
all get a little exercise. And it would be a pretty good photo op, the 
united Congress, you know, dictating that oil prices go down. But it 
would have about the same impact that this bill does.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again, I don't quarrel with the fact that we are 
directing to suspend shipments of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We 
need to do a lot more than that, however, if we really want to bring 
oil prices down. And even in doing something on the SPR, I think we 
should go through committee, we should have a legislative hearing, we 
should have a markup, and we should really rethink the strategy of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  In the 1970s, the oil markets and the U.S. economy were significantly 
different than they are today. And the size of the Reserve, the uses of 
the Reserve are at least subject to a real debate today. And what we're 
getting is a bill that apparently was drafted in Majority Leader 
Hoyer's office late last night or early this morning that several 
Members have put their names on. And we're on a suspension calendar 
that we have no ability to amend it or do anything about it except vote 
``yes'' or ``no,'' so I'm going to encourage Members to vote ``no.'' If 
we were somehow to get 146 ``no'' votes, then we could have the debate 
and have the markup process that I've asked about and we could come 
back next week sometime and do it the right way.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6022, the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008. 
I am opposed to this bill for two reasons: process and substance.
  First, let's talk about process: I found out that this bill was going 
to be on the floor today less than 24 hours ago. I am the ranking 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction 
over energy in general and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, in 
particular. While there has been a lot of talk and press recently about 
the SPR, it has not been the subject of any committee briefings, 
hearings, or markups at all. I am not even aware of any discussions 
about this SPR bill at the staff level, except for Chairman Dingell's 
staff notifying my staff yesterday afternoon that this bill would be on 
the suspension calendar today.
  And now we are on the suspension calendar, where we get an up or down 
vote, with no chance for any amendments. It seems that, once again, the 
majority leadership of the House is shamelessly dictating the 
legislative process of the House in a way that demeans the jurisdiction 
of the Energy & Commerce Committee in order to make us vote on a bill 
before Memorial Day so the Democrats can send out press releases about 
how they are addressing the Pelosi Premium.
  Which leads me to my second point--the substance of this bill. When 
it comes to dealing with high energy prices, there are two groups in 
Congress. Those who want to say they are doing something, and those who 
want to do something. Today's bill is for those who want to say they 
are doing something.
  This bill tells the President, as long as oil prices stay above $75 a 
barrel, to quit filling the SPR for the rest of calendar year 2008, but 
do it in a way that does not affect current contracts. So, if this bill 
is signed into law, the real world effect will be to prevent about 11.4 
million barrels of oil from going into the SPR between August 1 and 
December 31 of this year--or about 76 thousand barrels a day for the 
rest of the year.
  Will this help with gas prices? We could probably have more effect on 
lowering gas prices if we stood on the steps of the Capitol and clapped 
our hands three times and shouted, ``Lower, lower, lower.'' It 
certainly won't do anything for prices for Memorial Day weekend because 
it will not start having any effect until August 1st. If the Majority 
wanted to have an immediate effect, they should have considered a 
provision to direct the Department of Energy to sell the SPR oil it is 
currently receiving into the open market.

  The title of this bill also indicates that it somehow protects 
consumers, but I cannot find anything in the bill that actually does 
that. The bill says to quit filling the SPR which would happen in 
August, but the bill is silent about a number of things: What happens 
to the Royalty-in-Kind oil that the Departments of Interior and Energy 
are currently getting? Do these departments sell it? Do the lessees 
sell it and give the proceeds to the Departments? I assume the lessees 
still owe the government the royalty payments, so I assume any cash 
would go into the general treasury. How does this help protect 
consumers?
  A better way to protect consumers, or at least help consumers by 
offsetting the current record energy prices would have been to do 
something useful with the revenue generated with the SPR oil. Perhaps 
we could have dedicated a portion of it to low income heating 
assistance. Or perhaps we could have dedicated a portion of it to 
developing alternative energy sources. Or, we even could have reserved 
a portion of it to start replenishing the SPR again sometime in the 
future when oil prices are not at $125 a barrel.
  But, since we had no process for this bill, we will never know what 
could have been. We're faced with an up or down vote, with no chance to 
discuss the policy of either this bill, or the policy of the SPR 
generally.
  I, for one, am in favor of having a policy discussion on the entire 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I think the circumstances of today's 
energy markets are much different than they were when we created the 
SPR, and therefore I think it would be a good idea to have a policy 
debate about the future of the SPR. Ultimately I may end up wanting to 
continue to have a billion barrel SPR, but I think the policy 
discussion would be a good thing to have. Unfortunately, the process 
for this bill does not foster such a debate.
  So where does this leave those of who want to not just say we're 
doing something about energy costs, but actually want to do something?
  In 1985 we produced 9 million barrels of oil per day and imported 
another 3 million per day. Since 1995 we've cut our domestic production 
in half and tripled our imports. Why? Because we continue to lock up 
our domestic resources, particularly in Alaska and in the OCS.
  Two of the most unstable foreign sources of oil today are Nigeria and 
Venezuela. That instability is a big factor in high oil prices because 
of the risk of supply cut-off. ANWR alone could be replacing all our 
imports from Venezuela or all our imports from Nigeria and only use a 
few thousand acres of a vast tundra.
  Better legislation comes from the deliberative process, a process 
that's inclusive. No sooner will this bill become law than people will 
be either calling for its repeal or wondering why we bothered at all. 
But that was true of the 2007 no-energy bill, as well.
  Let's go back to Committee and do the job we are capable of doing 
with SPR. Let it do some good for somebody. And let's let Congress turn 
to the real energy issue facing this country, domestic production.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent at this time that 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) be permitted to control the 
remainder of the time on this side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I want to thank Chairman Dingell for his leadership on energy 
issues and for assisting in bringing this legislation to the floor for 
consideration by the full House.
  I want to address a couple of observations by my friend from Texas. 
Number one, the revenues that would be generated from drilling on 
Federal lands

[[Page H3704]]

would go into the Treasury. And there are many uses and debates that 
can be had about whether that money ultimately should go into 
alternative energy, whether it should go into LIHEAP, and those will 
all be had in due course as part of other legislation.
  The question that we have before us today is whether or not taking a 
small step that in the past has been taken by this President Bush, by 
his father, by President Clinton, that when it has been taken has 
proven to actually have a direct and immediate impact on lowering the 
price of gas at the pump from 5 cents to 25 cents a gallon.
  All of us know, we're going home every weekend and we're hearing from 
our constituents. It doesn't matter what district we're in, it doesn't 
matter what part of the country we're from, folks are really feeling 
burdened by these ever-escalating home energy heating bills and the 
cost of filling up their pick-up truck and their car. And basically the 
question for us is whether or not, even as we have to proceed with 
long-term debates about our future energy policy, this Congress is 
going to be willing to take a short-term step that has the potential to 
bring down energy prices.
  You know, we could go out and clap, but I actually think this would 
be more effective. History tells us that, in fact, when we've used this 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve as an asset belonging to the American 
people and suspended purchases--and incidentally, this Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve is nearly full, we're talking about topping it off, 
it's very expensive to do so now with $126 per barrel oil--that when 
we've done it in the past, it has actually reduced that pump price. And 
just two examples of what it would mean in my small State of Vermont. I 
talked to a trucker from Barre, Vermont; they've got a company and 
drive a lot. It would put $300,000 on his bottom line if the price of 
gas went down 25 cents. A school district in a rural area, it would be 
$30,000 off their bottom line if we could get the price down 25 cents.
  No one here is suggesting that this is an answer to our energy 
situation. What we are suggesting--and, really, recommendations on a 
bipartisan basis--is that the tool that's within our reach we should 
use and do all we can on a short-term basis even as we debate long-term 
energy policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if it's possible, I'd like to enter 
into a dialogue with any of the three sponsors of the bill. Mr. Markey 
is on the floor. Mr. Lampson is on the floor. Mr. Welch is on the 
floor. I'd like to ask them some questions if one of them would like to 
try to respond on my time. I'm not going to use their time. So Mr. 
Markey, Mr. Welch or Mr. Lampson. I just want to ask some questions 
about the bill to the main sponsors.

                              {time}  1430

  My question, Mr. Speaker, and this is on my time, if either of those 
three gentlemen would like to respond. I'm not trying to be cute. I'm 
way too old to be cute.
  The bill is silent on whether or not the money that is the equivalent 
cash of the royalty in kind to oil is what's done with it. So my first 
question I would like one of the sponsors to answer is, instead of 
getting 62,000 barrels of oil a day, if this bill becomes law, does the 
general treasury get the equivalent of 62,000 barrels of oil times 
whatever the market price of oil that day is, which right now is over 
$120 a barrel? Is that revenue generated, and does it come to the 
Federal treasury, or do the oil companies keep it? That's my first 
question.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would be happy to yield to my good friend from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much for yielding.
  The money actually goes back to the general Treasury.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. It goes back to the general Treasury. All right.
  And my next question is the bill's effective date is upon termination 
of the contract. I think it goes into effect on July 31 and it runs 
through December 31 of 2008; is that correct?
  Mr. MARKEY. That is correct, yes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. What happens after December 31, 2008?
  Mr. MARKEY. Well, at that point we return to operations as they exist 
today.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. My next question is, if this bill were to become 
law, does the Secretary of Energy or the Secretary of the Interior have 
any discretion about accepting royalty in kind to oil or the cash 
equivalent, or is it a flat suspension with no exceptions?
  Mr. MARKEY. It is a flat suspension.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for 
those answers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, just in response, as a 
clarification for my friend from Texas, my understanding of the bill is 
we will continue to accept and will honor contracts during that 45-day 
period for royalty in kind.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
  This is an historic debate. The history is quite clear. At the point 
of which President Bush was sworn in as President in January of 2001, 
as a renowned oil industry veteran, the price of a barrel of oil was 
$30. Today, as we are now in the eighth year of the President's term of 
office, it is $126 a barrel, an historic high, nearly a quadrupling of 
the price of a barrel of oil.
  Other interesting facts: On the day that the President was sworn in, 
again, as President, gas was $1.45 a gallon, the good old days when the 
Bush administration was sworn into office. Today it has hit a record 
high of $3.72, on average, for self serve regular. So that is something 
else that is quite dramatically negative in terms of the impact on 
American consumers.
  Now, here's what has happened over the years with the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. Back in 1991 President Bush's father actually 
deployed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the price of a barrel of 
oil dropped 33 percent. In 2000 President Clinton deployed the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the price of a barrel of oil went down 
18 percent. In fact, President Bush himself deployed the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve in 2005, which led to a 5.6 percent drop in the price 
of a barrel of oil.
  Now, this is an interesting U-turn that the President has taken 
because what he said in 2006 was----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  What the President said, President Bush said, in April 25, 2006, was, 
``I have directed the Department of Energy to defer filling the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve this summer. So by deferring deposits until 
the fall, we will leave a little more oil on the market. Every little 
bit helps.'' The price of a barrel of oil when President Bush said that 
in 2006: $67 a barrel.
  Now here's what the President said as of April 29, just 2 weeks ago, 
in 2008. He said: ``In this case, I have analyzed the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve issue, and I don't think it would affect the price.''
  Well, that's a surprising change of economic analysis by the 
President in just 2 years. And as we debate this out here on the House 
floor, he seems to find himself in the minority because, in fact, what 
the President has at his disposal is the ability to be able to do 
something about this issue.
  As consumers get the shakedown at the pump, this Friday President 
Bush is going to meet with the sheiks in Saudi Arabia to ask for more 
oil. And while the President sent troops to the Middle East to look for 
weapons of mass destruction, he's avoiding using a weapon of price 
reduction here at home. The President has said he does not have a magic 
wand to wave away high gas prices, but he does carry a big stick. It's 
called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has again expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 15 
seconds.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  So here is the checklist right now to turn on the spigot of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Obama, yes; Clinton,

[[Page H3705]]

yes; McCain, yes; George Bush, no. He's saying ``no'' to the American 
consumer, ``no'' to the American economy. It is a dangerous economic 
position for our country to be in.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am going to recognize Mr. 
Shimkus, a member of the committee.
  But before I do that, I just want the record to show that the last 
day that I was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the price 
of gasoline in my district was $2 a gallon.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) 
for 3 minutes, a member of the committee.
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Battling charge, that's what I like. Finally we get to 
talk about supply.
  Mr. Speaker, for 18 months I have been coming to the floor to talk 
about the importance of bringing more supply to our economy so that 
prices would go down.
  Finally we have it, and I want to thank you for making the point. If 
you want to lower the cost, you've got to bring on supply.
  It was $58 a barrel when your majority came into power, $58. What is 
it today? It's $126.
  What has it done? I'm glad my friend talked about gas prices. It 
wasn't George Bush who promised to lower gas prices. It was Speaker 
Pelosi in 2006, Steny Hoyer in 2006, Jim Clyburn in 2006, who said, 
``We have a plan to lower gas prices.'' That's their quote. I have said 
it here 20 times here on this floor. ``We have a plan.''
  They've got a plan all right. It's not to lower gas prices; it's to 
raise gas prices.
  What has happened to a gallon of gas? It was $2.33 when this majority 
came in. What is it today? It is $3.77. Now my colleague from 
Massachusetts brings on climate change for a 50 cent additional tax per 
gallon of gas, per the chairman of the Commerce Committee. We would be 
paying $4.27 for a gallon of gas. That's not the type of change we 
need. We need to bring on supply.
  I thank you for finally coming to the floor and recognizing that if 
we bring on just some barrels more supply, you guys say we're going to 
lower prices 5 cents to 25 cents. Well, let's multiply that by bringing 
on a million barrels of crude oil into our supply. Where do we get 
that? We can get billions of barrels of crude oil from coal-to-liquid 
technologies right in the heartland, right in Southern Illinois, 
Fischer-Tropsch Technology, established in the World War II generation, 
currently developed by a South African oil company.
  And one of my personal favorites is the Outer Continental Shelf. 
Billions of barrels of oil on the eastern seaboard, on the western 
seaboard, on the eastern gulf coast. Trillions of cubic feet of natural 
gas.
  What's your policy? Let's don't go there. Oh, yes, let's settle for a 
little bit of oil out of the SPR and claim great victory for lowering 
prices when we could have billions of barrels of oil, trillions of 
cubic feet of natural gas if we just went to the Outer Continental 
Shelf, if we just went to the eastern gulf, if we just used coal-to-
liquid technologies, a bipartisan bill Congressman Boucher and I would 
like to take.
  We are the number one coal country in the world. So let's don't 
settle for a half step. This is good. We can do much better.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the leadership of both Chairman 
Dingell and Ranking Member Barton on what is being done and has been 
done for a long time with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in making 
sure that it stays strong and effective for us at a time that we do 
need it and will need it. And I think that if we keep cool heads and 
look for simple ways that we can reach and try to find commonsense 
solutions to some of the problems that we face, then we're going to 
have a good solution to those problems.
  And we are taking one step today. That's all. One of hopefully many 
to try to curb the price of gasoline for the American consumer and 
invest in alternative energy research to provide for the long-term 
energy solutions that we're going to need. Many of these things are 
going to be required for us to get the price of gasoline down to the 
point where we're going to be comfortable again, and let's hope that we 
accomplish it.
  This bill directs the President to suspend shipments to the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve through the end of the year or until prices drop 
below $75 a barrel.
  High oil prices are straining family budgets at the pump, and we know 
that they're driving prices up on groceries and other household goods. 
And families are starting to rethink even summer vacations, and it's 
going to have a negative impact on so many of our communities that 
depend on tourism. This ripple effect, well, from the high price of 
gasoline and diesel, there's going to be a touch to every family, to 
every industry, to every person, to every business in the United States 
and even around the globe.
  Not realizing the urgency of this situation is naive. Consumers need 
lower prices now, not later. This bill provides a quick first step, 
maybe not much, but at least it's an action on the part of our 
Congress.
  When I first introduced similar legislation affecting the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve back in January, gas was $3.11 a gallon. Now it's 
$3.73 a gallon. It has gone up 11 cents in the last week. And if the 
President turns a blind eye to the needs of the American people, we may 
see gasoline go to $5, $6, or $7 a gallon.
  Consider this: The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been tapped and 
suspended four times by the last three Presidents.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield another 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. LAMPSON. In 2000, as we have already heard, the prices fell by 
one-third, and they stayed low. Suspending the SPR will put an 
additional 70,000 barrels of oil on the market each day. It could help 
reduce prices at a critical time for us in our economy.
  This action has widespread bipartisan support. It was supported by a 
near unanimous support by the Senate this morning. I got a letter a few 
minutes ago from the American Trucking Association saying that the 
additional $391 million that truckers are having to pay for diesel 
cannot be handled by them for long.
  So I'm pleased that we are taking at least the first step. And I am 
looking forward to introducing other legislation later this week that's 
going to provide additional relief to consumers to provide and invest 
in our energy independence through research and development.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield myself 1 
minute.
  I want to just comment on what I think is the goal of the 
legislation, and that would be to lower prices for the American 
consumer. At least I think that is what I think the goal is.
  Having said that, 62,000 barrels a day in an 85-million-barrel-a-day 
oil market is about one twelve hundredth of 1 percent. So if you assume 
that oil markets are linear, the additional 62,000 barrels on an 85-
million-barrel-per-day oil market is going to lower the price perhaps 
two cents. Maybe.
  Again, if we just go outside and clap our hands, we would probably 
have a 2 percent chance of lowering the price of oil by two cents a 
barrel. Just by clapping our hands. So I don't think this bill does 
anything except show the American people that we want to do something, 
but we still don't know exactly what it is we can do that makes any 
sense.
  And I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, we get criticized a lot in this Congress for not taking 
a proactive approach to issues that we see facing the country. And here 
is an example of something where we are working together in a 
bipartisan way. The comments from my friend from Texas notwithstanding, 
this is an issue that has bipartisan support. And we can argue about 
how much is this going to save the American people. How much is this 
going to take off of a

[[Page H3706]]

gallon of gas? And Goldman Sachs, a group that knows something about 
the market certainly and the impact that the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve will have on the market, says it can be upwards of 25 cents a 
gallon that this saves.
  Now that is not a long-term solution. We understand that. And we can 
have the argument about whether we should drill off the coast or drill 
in ANWR and increase supplies in other ways or build more refineries. 
That is a long-term argument. What we are doing today is taking a 
short-term approach that is going to help families today.
  We cannot continue to do nothing. This Congress has to act. And we 
are going to act today. And we are going to save the American people a 
quarter on the gallon.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  I would like to ask the speaker who just spoke if he can show me the 
economic study by Goldman Sachs that says that suspending shipments is 
going to lower prices 25 cents a gallon. It won't even lower prices a 
penny a barrel. Is there a study?
  I believe that there is no study. And I guarantee you, this just 
won't lower prices 25 cents.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would be happy to yield to my good friend from 
Texas.
  Mr. LAMPSON. I don't know if we have a specific study that can show 
it, but I can tell you the people that we have been working with over 
the last several months from places like MIT who have come and asked us 
to consider this legislation, they are saying that historically we have 
seen prices drop when actions like this have been taken. If we can try, 
at least we are doing something that may put it in the right direction. 
We have additional legislation that is going to be proposed.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I sure hope so.
  Mr. LAMPSON. And I hope you will join me as a cosponsor of that 
legislation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself 30 additional seconds just to 
respond to my good friend, Mr. Lampson.
  I do not oppose suspension of oil shipments into the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. But to say that that, by itself, is going to lower 
prices 25 cents a gallon in an 85-million-barrel-a-day oil market is 
ludicrous.
  I sure hope that there is additional legislation besides this feel-
good legislation. I hope it is bipartisan. I hope it is substantive. 
And I hope it has a supply component to it.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I recognize the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Perlmutter) for 1 minute.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Welch.
  To the gentleman from Texas, I don't think there could be anything 
simpler than deciding during this busy driving season to stop buying 
oil or placing oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And I quote your 
Senator from Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a month ago said, ``I 
support an immediate halt in deposits of domestic crude into the SPR as 
we enter the busiest driving season of the year.''
  So I agree with Mr. Shimkus. This is just one of many things that has 
to be done. And we have done a number of those already. We have added 
mileage so we have better fuel economy. We passed a law against price 
gouging. We are pushing other sources of energy through biomass and a 
whole variety of things. This is going to take a lot of work across the 
board. But this is a very simple and very direct action we are taking. 
We need to take it today. This is simple. H.R. 6022 should be passed.
  And I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Congressman from the great State of Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman very much. When I hear how partisan 
some of my colleagues have gotten on the other side of the aisle, it 
really astonishes me that somehow it is the President's fault. The 
clear fact is that we had better find a way to work together, because 
in my judgment, we have a challenge because we are not working 
together, Republicans or Democrats. We all have our fingers on this. 
And we need to deal with it.
  It seems to me we need to conserve and not use so much energy to 
reduce demand. We also need to increase production. It is going to 
include alternative fuels, renewable fuel. It is going to include 
mining the outer slope of the continental shelf. It may include nuclear 
power. It is going to require increasing production and reducing 
demand.
  I think this legislation, while it is a drop in the bucket, it is a 
step that we need to take. But it will have minimal impact. But in the 
end, we can fight as much as we want to about this issue, and we are 
going to fool no one.
  There are basic laws of supply and demand that are coming into play 
here. And we don't seem to want to address it. When I vote not to mine 
ANWR, I know I am not adding to production. I am not voting to do that 
for a variety of reasons because I want us to conserve more. But when 
we conserve more, then we are going to have to look at other ways to 
increase the supply. T. Boone Pickens is saying we basically consume 
about 86 million barrels, and we are producing just about that level. 
We are going to have to produce more and consume less.
  So I would just make this concluding point. My Democratic colleagues 
won this Congress. And you are in charge. And I have seen prices 
continue to climb. It is not necessarily your fault. But you have your 
fingers on this as much as anyone else.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for 2 minutes.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, picking up on what my colleague from 
Connecticut said, which is nobody says this is a panacea, but all 
experience shows, both the Harvard study and the Department of Energy 
study, shows that about 20 percent, which would be about $25 a barrel 
drop in price, would occur because of this.
  There is plenty of blame to go around. Nobody is suggesting this is 
going to resolve the energy crisis. It is a short-term alleviation of 
high prices that would, in fact, allow us to take the steps that we 
have not taken for 20 years.
  And also in the last 5 or 6 years, when the Vice President derided 
conservation, you acknowledged on the floor the importance of 
conservation. It was dismissed as part of our arsenal in our energy 
policy. When those of us who talked about investing in new alternative 
energy, wind, solar, thermal, it was also dismissed, and continues to 
not only be dismissed, but vetoed. That, too, is unilateral disarmament 
by the United States.
  So you are right. There is plenty of blame to go around. But there 
are plenty of solutions to also be picked up. Conservation was denied 
as a national policy. And we have paid the price as a country. 
Alternative energy was denied and denied for years and issued veto 
threats by the President of the United States. And we pay the price 
because of that policy.
  This is a short-term solution, $25, which means a lot to Americans, a 
barrel, but it gives us the breathing space to do what we need to do 
and take care of America's energy independence.
  Now no one is going to claim that in 2005 when you all did pass your 
energy bill, let me quote your minority leader, ``the Energy Policy Act 
of 2005 is a balanced, bipartisan bill that will lower energy prices to 
consumers and spur our economy.'' Nobody is claiming that. This gives a 
short-term alleviation to allow us to tackle a problem that has been 
festering for 25 years and denying what all of us should have done in 
Washington, invest in long-term, alternative energy and technologies 
that will give America its leg of independence, as well as adopt an 
energy policy of conservation, it would also save.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has 
expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. EMANUEL. That is the strategy we are talking about. This is the 
right thing to do. It has been proven that when we have instrumented 
this tool, that is to stop purchasing from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, that in fact there will be immediate reduction in the prices 
at the pump and also a barrel of energy. That is the right thing to do.
  But let there be no mistake. In every step of the way for the last 6 
years, the President of the United States has either issued veto 
threats or leaned on

[[Page H3707]]

only one side of the policy, and that policy was dig, dig, dig. In 
fact, there are 9,300 licenses to drill here in the United States that 
the energy companies are not using.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is 
remaining in the debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Vermont has 3-\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  To the extent we have an historical record on what this would do, on 
April 25, 2006, President Bush announced suspension of 67,000-barrels-
a-day acquisition for the SPR for the summer driving season. The day 
before he made that announcement, the price of oil was $70.19. The day 
he made the announcement, it fell to $67.43 per barrel. And the day 
after he made the announcement, it went back up to $71.71 per barrel, 
which was a net increase of 62 cents a barrel. So to say that this is 
going to lower the price based on the historical record would be 
inaccurate.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  So here is where we are. There is something that President Bush can 
do right now to give relief to consumers at the pump after being shaken 
upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets as they refill 
their tank. President Bush said in 2006 that every little bit helps. We 
know it is not a panacea, but every little bit helps. Today he is 
saying, I am sorry. I am just going to go over and meet with sheiks in 
Saudi Arabia and ask them to please give us more oil that we can buy 
from them.
  We should be more aggressive. One, stop filling at 70,000 barrels a 
day; two, stop drilling 70,000 barrels a day and you will see a huge 
change on the open market.
  Obama says ``yes.'' Clinton says ``yes.'' McCain says ``yes.'' 
President Bush still says ``no.'' Vote ``yes'' on the Welch resolution 
to ensure that the American consumer is protected at the pump.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1-\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am going to yield myself 1 minute.
  I want my friends on the majority side to listen, because at the end 
of this, I am going to ask for a unanimous consent request. And this is 
language that we have shared with the majority staff.
  I am going to offer a unanimous consent request that at the end of 
the bill, insert the following new section:
  Section 3. Use of Funds.
  The Secretary of the Interior shall transfer to the Secretary of 
Energy an amount equal to the value of the petroleum that would have 
been deposited in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve from royalty-in-kind 
payments but for the suspension required under section 2(a)(1). Such 
amount shall be available for obligation by the Secretary of Energy 
without further appropriation as follows:
  (1) 50 percent shall be retained for future acquisition of petroleum 
products for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during any period when the 
price of oil is less than $75 per barrel.
  (2) 25 percent shall be transferred to the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services as an additional amount for use in carrying out the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981.
  (3) 25 percent shall be available for use by the Secretary of Energy 
to carry out alternative energy projects the Secretary is authorized by 
law to carry out.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that this be added to the 
bill. And if it is, I will vote for the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain that request from 
the manager of the motion.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we can't 
amend the bill at this stage, and that this is a question for the 
Speaker.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it's a unanimous consent request, 
and the body can work its will by unanimous consent at any time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The proper manner in which to amend a motion 
to suspend the rules would be to withdraw the motion and resubmit it in 
amended form.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am not asking that we withdraw 
the bill. I am just asking unanimous consent to add this to the bill, 
and we shared the language with the majority staff.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain such a request only 
from the manager.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, not having had an opportunity to 
review this, only hearing the recitation of it from my friend from 
Texas, not having any awareness as to whether this has been scored by 
the CBO, as has the underlying bill, I am not prepared to give 
unanimous consent to the gentleman's offer and would object at this 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The manager does not enter such a request.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. A point of inquiry. The ruling of the Chair is 
that that proposed amendment was not in order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would entertain a request for 
unanimous consent request to amend only from a manager of the motion.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am not making a request for unanimous 
consent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That disposes of the matter.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 30 seconds.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate once more, I am not opposed to the 
generic policy of suspending shipments in the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. I am opposed to doing it with no input from the minority and 
absolutely no process and no alternatives made in order to amend the 
specific language, which we just tried to do, which wasn't allowed.
  I do hope that this is the start of a serious effort to look at our 
strategic energy policy for this country. But for this bill, I would 
ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I want to answer a few questions 
that were raised by my friend from Texas. First of all, the question is 
how, when it's such a small amount of oil, 70,000 barrels a day, can 
suspending purchases have an impact on the price?
  There are two things, number one, history has shown that when the 
Federal Government, on behalf of the consumers of this country and the 
small businesses, have used this Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help 
alleviate market pressures. It's worked, and the previous speakers have 
recited how it happened with this President Bush, the prior President 
Bush and President Clinton. We have history as a guide that says taking 
this action does work.
  Second, the reason it works is that one of the problems we have in 
the oil market is speculation. There was legislation passed in 2002 by 
Congress that included a loophole that allowed the deregulation of the 
energy futures trading market, and there is enormous evidence, that 
that has allowed hedge funds and arbitrageurs and speculators to impose 
a premium in the cost of each barrel of oil and in the cost of a gallon 
of gas.
  The fact is, if the Federal Government is showing, particularly on a 
bipartisan basis, that we are going to use the levers that we have, 
even in a short-term way, to protect the consumer against the 
speculator, then that has a chastening impact on speculation and helps 
bring the price down.
  Third, the process. My friend from Texas is the distinguished ranking 
member of that committee, but this issue about the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is well worn. In fact, it's been used before, as I mentioned, 
so it's not all that complicated. We are doing it only for the period 
of 2008 in respect to the wishes of the chairman.
  The Senate has passed the Reid-Dorgan amendment by 97-1, essentially 
the

[[Page H3708]]

very same proposal that we are considering today. The bottom line is 
this, will we take the short-term actions that it's within our reach to 
take that have a proven capacity to help the consumer?
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6022, the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act 
of 2008, which will temporarily suspend filling the Nation's Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, SPR.
  Paying top dollar to fill the SPR is a poor use of precious taxpayer 
dollars, particularly when there's no pressing need to add additional 
petroleum to the reserve at this time.
  What's more, experts say that temporarily suspending the fill of the 
SPR is something that can be done right now to immediately lower gas 
prices for American families.
  As oil and gas prices continue to climb to new record highs and with 
the summer driving season approaching, consumers are in dire need of 
immediate relief from skyrocketing prices at the pump.
  Over the last 6 years, the price of oil has risen by nearly $100 and 
gas prices have more than tripled.
  According to recent projections by the Energy Department, consumers 
are likely to face even higher prices at the pump this summer. They 
project that gas prices could rise to above $4.00 per gallon during the 
summer driving season.
  Despite these record energy prices, the U.S. is currently taking 
70,000 barrels of oil a day off the market to continue filling the SPR. 
Moreover, the Energy Department recently announced plans to increase 
this SPR fill rate to 76,000 barrels per day before the end of the 
summer.
  Mr. Speaker, this just doesn't make any sense.
  Even President Bush has suspended SPR purchases in order to lower 
fuel prices. In April 2006, President Bush said:

       I've directed the Department of Energy to defer filling the 
     reserve this summer. Our strategic reserve is sufficiently 
     large enough to guard against any major supply disruption 
     over the next few months. So by deferring deposits until the 
     fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every 
     little bit helps.

  Well, the President was right about something: every little bit does 
help. It's time to halt filling the SPR.
  What's surprising is that now President Bush is rejecting bipartisan 
calls from Congress to once again suspend filling the SPR. It's curious 
that the President would now reject a sound proposal that he once 
embraced even though gas prices are now at record highs. In the absence 
of the President's leadership, the Democratic Congress is stepping in 
to force the administration to do the right thing and suspend filling 
the SPR.
  Allowing more oil to reach the market will send a signal to oil 
speculators and will provide the type of immediate, targeted relief 
that we need right now.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 6022, to help American 
families with skyrocketing gas prices.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6022, the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act 
of 2008.
  At a time when crude oil is over $120 a barrel, it makes absolutely 
no sense for the Federal Government to continue purchasing massive 
quantities of oil in order to stick it in a hole in the ground for 
safe-keeping.
  Under the current situation, the Federal Government is buying oil at 
record-high prices to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the rate 
of 70,000 barrels a day. These daily purchases create additional 
pressure on demand and further inflate prices at the pump. The 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve is roughly 97 percent full right now. We do 
not need to pay a premium to the oil companies just to top it off.
  In addition to the obvious economic reasons to suspend filling the 
Reserve now, the Federal Government should not use oil taken as a 
``Royalty-In-Kind'', RIK, from oil and gas production in the Federal 
waters of the Gulf of Mexico to fill the Reserve. By way of background, 
RIK is one of two methods used by the Government to collect the 
taxpayer's share of production from the Nation's substantial oil and 
gas mineral assets. The other method is good old-fashioned cash.
  I have been arguing for years that the Royalty-in-Kind program is a 
bad idea. Under the pretense of ``enhanced transparency'' and ``reduced 
litigation,'' the oil industry, with a little help from its Republican 
friends in Congress and the Administration, snookered folks into 
believing that taxpayers would get a better deal if Federal oil and gas 
royalty payments were made ``in-kind'' instead of paying in cash. 
Despite report after report, investigations and potentially even 
criminal indictments, the Minerals Management Service, MMS, has forged 
ahead with this misbegotten program. Today, the RIK Program is selling 
over 800 million cubic feet of natural gas per day and over 150,000 
barrels of crude oil per day on the open market.
  The MMS reports that revenues from sales of RIK oil and gas in fiscal 
year 2006 were approximately $4.1 billion. However, we have no way of 
knowing if it got the best price or even broke even. Even the MMS 
itself estimates that the Royalty-in-Kind program only increased 
royalty revenues by a meager 0.3 percent--which according to the 
Government Accountability Office, GAO, during a recent Natural 
Resources Committee hearing, could not be confirmed.
  As further evidence of the problems with RIK, earlier this year, the 
Inspector General for the Department of Energy found chronic 
mismanagement in the transfer of oil between the Department of the 
Interior and the Department of Energy. During a brief 4-month period of 
oil transfers between the two agencies, approximately 32,000 barrels of 
oil were lost or could not be accounted for--that is almost $4 million 
worth of oil that is simply gone. The GAO also concluded that the 
current method for filling the Reserve is not cost-effective.
  The bottom line--the Royalty-in-Kind program should not be used to 
fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Not now, not ever.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important first step in reducing the 
pain Americans are feeling at the pump. It cuts off the flow of 
Royalty-in-Kind oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when 
that flow is neither necessary nor prudent. I believe we need to pass 
this bill and then take a closer look at the Royalty-in-Kind program 
overall to see if that, too, is costing the American taxpayer more that 
it is worth.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of 
H.R. 6022, Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer 
Protection Act, introduced by my good friend from Texas, Representative 
Nick Lampson, and Representative Peter Welch.
  Today's rising petroleum and gasoline prices are set by a complex mix 
of factors, including global crude prices, increased world and U.S. 
demand, refinery capacity and maintenance schedules, gasoline imports, 
prescriptive fuel mandates, and geopolitical events. Most of these 
factors are out of our effective control. For those that aren't, like 
the proper management of fuel supplies in the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, SPR, I believe Congress should do all we can to help reduce 
the cost of energy to American consumers.
  H.R. 6022 requires the Interior and Energy Departments to discontinue 
the acquisition of oil and shipments to the SPR until the end of this 
year, and permits fill to resume if the average price of oil does not 
exceed $75 a barrel. The bill also allows petroleum shipments ordered 
under existing Interior Department contracts to be shipped to the 
reserve.
  This legislation is strongly needed because the current 
administration has also not been properly managing the SPR for American 
consumers. The SPR exists to protect us during an energy crisis, and is 
almost full to its 727 million barrels of oil capacity. But while the 
cost per barrel of oil continues to skyrocket, the administration 
continues to purchase high-priced oil off the market to put into the 
SPR, limiting the amount of oil available.
  When oil prices are very high, we should release SPR oil into the 
market to increase supply, as the Department of Energy did in response 
to Hurricane Katrina. While not expected to significantly reduce 
prices, some studies suggest suspending the purchase of oil for the 
reserve could reduce gas prices anywhere between 5 to 24 cents a 
gallon. Every cent helps.
  While there is no quick fix for gasoline prices, I hope Congress will 
also address America's need to produce additional domestic energy, both 
conventional and renewable, to ensure the reliability and affordability 
of our Nation's critical energy supplies.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this 
legislation and I urge its approval.
  The bill would direct the President to temporarily suspend putting 
oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the end of the year, 
unless before that time the price of oil should drop below $75 per 
barrel.
  This is the quickest step we can take to increase the supply of oil 
on the open market, and so to bring some relief to consumers suffering 
from the high price of gasoline and other petroleum products.
  Currently, the Federal Government is putting some 70,000 barrels of 
oil into the strategic reserve each day, even though the reserve is 97 
percent full. While there are no guarantees, economists estimate that 
suspending that action could reduce gas prices by 5 to 24 cents a 
gallon.
  It should not have been necessary for Congress to be considering this 
legislation. Current law gives the president authority to suspend 
diversion of oil into the strategic reserve.
  That authority has been used in the past, by the first President 
Bush, by President Clinton, and by the current President Bush, who did 
so

[[Page H3709]]

in 2006. And history shows using that authority can help consumers--in 
2000, after such action, the price of oil dropped by one-third, from 
$30 to $20 per barrel.
  That's why last November, with other Members of Congress from both 
sides of the aisle, I sent a letter asking President Bush to again 
suspend putting oil into the strategic reserve.
  Regrettably, the president did not agree to that request, or to a 
second similar request that many of us made last month. So now Congress 
must act to require what the president has declined to do on his own.
  That is what this bill does and why I support its passage. But I 
think we should not stop there. There are at least five other steps to 
reduce the extent to which American consumers are paying the price for 
our flawed energy policies.
  Specifically, we should--
  (1) Crack Down on price gouging--Speculators have contributed to oil 
prices increasing 82 percent in the last year. While these have been 
regulated markets in the past, more and more new investment tools are 
outside of regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(CFTC) or any other Federal Government oversight. That's why I am 
backing a bill (H.R. 594) to give the CFTC oversight over additional 
energy commodities trading and to establish civil and civil and 
criminal penalties for price gouging.
  (2) Consider Suspension of the tariff on ethanol imports--Suspending 
the 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol import tariff would mean more ethanol 
coming into the country, which would increase fuel supplies and lessen 
the pressure on prices.
  (3) Stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry--The Republican 
Congress passed an energy bill in 2005 that included about $2.6 billion 
in tax cuts for the oil and gas industry--an industry that has seen 
record profits in the last few years. I strongly support removing some 
of the unneeded tax credits for this industry, specifically the tax 
credit for taxes paid to foreign governments and the deduction for 
domestic manufacturing activities for major oil and gas producers.
  (4) Increase oil and gas drilling in certain areas--I support 
expanding exploration and development in appropriate areas both onshore 
and offshore, as long as it is done in a sustainable and 
environmentally sound manner. I also have proposed legislation (H.R. 
3182), with the support of Representative Jeff Flake and other Members 
from both sides of the aisle, to relax the current embargo that 
prevents U.S. oil companies from competing to develop oil offshore from 
Cuba, where companies from other countries are currently drilling.
  (5) Push renewable energy alternatives--promote cellulosic ethanol 
and the Production Tax Credit--Increasing America's use of renewable 
energy sources will also help address supply in future years by 
providing a more diverse energy portfolio. Cellulosic ethanol has great 
potential to not only lower our gas prices, but also our food prices as 
we move away from corn-based ethanol.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Strategic 
Petroleum Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act and I am pleased 
to be a cosponsor of H.R. 6022.
  As I travel around eastern Connecticut, I am confronted with 
families, business owners, truckers, farmers and fishermen who are 
struggling to maintain their lives and livelihoods.
  Rising oil and gasoline prices are choking our economy. Food and 
consumer goods are rising as fuel prices rise, bringing additional pain 
to many people across our country.
  In my hometown of Vernon, CT, the price of a gallon of gasoline hit 
$3.99. I am now hearing that some older gasoline pumps throughout the 
country are not even programmed to go above $3.99.
  The bill before us today is simple, straightforward and effective. 
Instead of continuing to add 70,000 barrels of oil per day to fill an 
already stocked Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, H.R. 6022 would 
instead, put that oil on the market to ease supply and price. And we 
should absolutely not increase the fill rate to 76,000 barrels per day 
like what the Administration has planned for later this summer.
  Petroleum economists expect that gasoline prices could decline by as 
much as 24 cents if we stopped filling the SPR now. The SPR is 97 
percent full with over 700 million barrels of oil; in March 2003, when 
we went to war in Iraq, the SPR stood at 599 million barrels.
  Diverting oil from the SPR is something that the President has done 
in the past. When he directed the Secretary to stop filling the SPR 
during the summer of 2006, he did so by saying, ``every little bit 
helps.'' At that time he further stipulated that the SPR was at a level 
that could weather any supply disruption during that summer. In 2006, 
the SPR stood at approximately 688 million barrels, less that what is 
there today.
  I have written to President Bush several times asking him to divert 
oil from the SPR, but as yet, he has refused to heed my and my 
colleague's requests.
  Our constituents need relief from rising oil prices and diverting oil 
from the SPR will achieve that goal. I urge my colleagues to support 
H.R. 6022.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 6200, To suspend the acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, and for other purposes, introduced by my 
distinguished colleague from Vermont, Representative Welch. This 
legislation suspends the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 
the rest of the year, as long as the price of crude oil remains above 
$75 per barrel, and is an important first step in addressing America's 
current energy crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all painfully aware of the devastation high 
energy prices have had on American families. This New Direction 
Congress, of which I am proud to be a part, is fighting to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil and bring down record gas prices, and launch 
a cleaner, smarter energy future for America that lowers costs and 
creates hundreds of thousands of green jobs. In addition to being a 
representative from Houston, Texas, the energy capital of the world, 
for the past 12 years, I have been the Chair of the Energy Braintrust 
of the Congressional Black Caucus. As such, I recognize that energy is 
the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it 
leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater 
economic and national security.
  Today, as the national average of gas has reached a record high of 
$3.72 a gallon, this legislation is an imperative step in addressing a 
burgeoning crisis. Each day, it takes 70,000 barrels of oil off the 
market to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which at 97 percent 
full is at it highest level ever. While the President last week stated 
that he did not believe suspending filling the reserve would affect 
prices, in 2006 when he was about to apply the same strategy we seek 
today, he stated, ``One way to ease price is to increase supply . . . . 
I've directed the Department of Energy to defer filling the reserve 
this summer. . . . So by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave 
a little more oil on the market.'' Despite calls from both sides of the 
aisle and both bodies of this Congress, President Bush has failed to 
listen to the will of the American people. As such, today the Senate 
passed a similar provision by a vote of 97-1, and this House intends to 
do the same.
  Not only will suspending the fill of the SPR work this time, it has 
in the past when it was utilized by President George W. Bush, President 
Clinton, and President George H.W. Bush. By temporarily diverting the 
70,000 barrels of oil that go into the SPR a day, this legislation 
could reduce gas prices from 5 to 24 cents a gallon, helping American 
families, businesses, and the economy as a whole.
  In 2006, when President George W. Bush deferred deliveries from the 
SPR, he stated, ``Our Strategic Reserve is sufficiently large enough to 
guard against any major supply disruption over the next few months.'' 
Today, we have 702 million barrels of oil in the SPR, which is 14 
million more barrels of oil than the 688 million in the SPR when 
President Bush suspended deliveries two years ago. I also believe we 
should put a moratorium on gas taxes through payment by energy company 
profits.
  The President has the legal authority to suspend the fill of the SPR 
and help already suffering American families during this period of 
economic downturn. Because the President has ignored our requests to 
address this crisis, it is our duty to support this legislation and 
help the families, businesses, and economy of the United States. As 
such, I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to 
join me and do the same.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, this week gas prices have hit yet another 
new high. Today, gas prices are higher than they have ever been in the 
history of our country, and rural Americans are getting hit 
particularly hard.
  Yet while most Americans are struggling to make ends meet, oil 
companies are making record profits. H.R. 6022, the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act, will suspend the 
acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to provide 
relief to the American consumer.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone from farmers, commuters, employers, and senior 
citizens have been hit hard by the rise in gas prices. This is 
affecting the rural economy of the people of the Second District of 
North Carolina, and indeed rural areas across the country where people 
must travel long distances to make sure they have the basic necessities 
of life, from school and jobs, to church and the grocery store.
  This legislation will suspend the purchase of as much as 70,000 
barrels of oil per day, and could have the effect of lowering our gas 
prices. While I believe that it is our duty to find alternatives to our 
reliance on foreign oil, right now we need to take this step to suspend 
deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

[[Page H3710]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 6022.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 6022.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________