[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.
____________________