[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 122 (Thursday, July 24, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H7079-H7093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CONSUMER ENERGY SUPPLY ACT OF 2008

  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6578) to provide for the sale of light grade petroleum from 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and its replacement with heavy grade 
petroleum, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6578

       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 ``Consumer Energy Supply Act 
     of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``light grade petroleum'' means crude oil with 
     an API gravity of 30 degrees or higher;
       (2) the term ``heavy grade petroleum'' means crude oil with 
     an API gravity of 26 degrees or lower; and
       (3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.

     SEC. 3. SALE AND REPLACEMENT OF OIL FROM THE STRATEGIC 
                   PETROLEUM RESERVE.

       (a) Initial Petroleum Sale and Replacement.--
     Notwithstanding section 161 of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241), the Secretary shall 
     publish a

[[Page H7080]]

     plan not later than 15 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act to--
       (1) sell, in the amounts and on the schedule described in 
     subsection (b), light grade petroleum from the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve and acquire an equivalent volume of heavy 
     grade petroleum;
       (2) deposit the cash proceeds from sales under paragraph 
     (1) into the SPR Petroleum Account established under section 
     167 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6247); and
       (3) from the cash proceeds deposited pursuant to paragraph 
     (2), withdraw the amount necessary to pay for the direct 
     administrative and operational costs of the sale and 
     acquisition.
       (b) Amounts and Schedule.--The sale and acquisition 
     described in subsection (a) shall require the offer for sale 
     of a total quantity of 70,000,000 barrels of light grade 
     petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The sale 
     shall commence, whether or not a plan has been published 
     under subsection (a), not later than 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act and be completed no more than six 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, with at least 
     20,000,000 barrels to be offered for sale within the first 60 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act. In no event 
     shall the Secretary sell barrels of oil under subsection (a) 
     that would result in a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that 
     contains fewer than 90 percent of the total amount of barrels 
     in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act. Heavy grade petroleum, to replace the 
     quantities of light grade petroleum sold under this section, 
     shall be obtained through acquisitions which--
       (1) shall commence no sooner than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act;
       (2) shall be completed, at the discretion of the Secretary, 
     not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       (3) shall be carried out in a manner so as to maximize the 
     monetary value to the Federal Government; and
       (4) shall be carried out using the receipts from the sales 
     of light grade petroleum authorized under this section.
       (c) Deferrals.--The Secretary is encouraged to, when 
     economically beneficial and practical, grant requests to 
     defer scheduled deliveries of petroleum to the Reserve under 
     subsection (a) if the deferral will result in a premium paid 
     in additional barrels of oil which will reduce the cost of 
     oil acquisition and increase the volume of oil delivered to 
     the Reserve or yield additional cash bonuses.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, gas prices are outrageous and we need to act. Families 
are hurting and are looking to us to do anything and everything that 
can help.
  There's no silver bullet, but there sure are things we can be doing 
better. One way is to make better use of our energy feedstocks, use 
what we ought to use today and save what we need to save for tomorrow.
  The goal of this bill, H.R. 6578, the Consumer Energy Supply Act, is 
simple: to increase the supply of oil in the United States that can be 
refined into gas. The bill will direct the Department of Energy to 
release 70 million barrels of light sweet crude oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. The bill requires the sale or exchange of light 
sweet crude to begin 15 days after enactment and to be completed within 
6 months. Under the bill the revenue from the release will go into the 
SPR petroleum account to purchase more oil so the SPR will end up with 
more oil than it started out with. The bill will make sure that the SPR 
level will not fall below 90 percent of the current level during the 
exchange.
  Now, the type of oil that will be released from the SPR is light 
sweet crude, which is the easiest and the cheapest to turn into gas.

                              {time}  1300

  And the oil that will replace the light oil will be heavy sour crude 
which happens to be the oil that is best suited to be refined into 
diesel.
  What we need more of in this country is the highest and best use of 
all of our energy feedstocks. And this bill takes the oil that we pump 
back into the ground to save for later and puts that oil to its highest 
and best use right now and replaces that oil with oil whose highest and 
best use is to be held in reserve for a true national emergency.
  This bill makes it easier and cheaper to get this fuel to the market 
right now while making sure we aren't putting our future needs at risk. 
We need to use today what is good for today and save for tomorrow what 
is good for tomorrow. Because our refineries need more oil they can 
refine quickly to get gas and diesel on the market, this bill gives it 
to them. Adding heavy sour crude to the SPR in its place will make sure 
that the SPR will be more effective if a real emergency arises. That is 
because the heavy oil we will be swapping for light oil can be refined 
to the diesel fuel needed to power our trucks, our trains and our 
military needs in times of a true emergency.
  In April this year, the acting director for natural resources of the 
Government Accountability Office, Frank Rusco, gave Congress a detailed 
report to modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and improve its 
flexibility and effectiveness. The Department of Energy has completed a 
study in 2005 which produced similar conclusions. This legislation will 
ensure that the SPR is more reflective of our Nation's modern refining 
capacity and that its strategic capabilities are better used while 
providing more oil available for refining right here in the U.S.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit these two documents for the 
Record.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will ease market tensions. It will help unlock 
some of the value in the SPR without negatively affecting the overall 
capacity or our strategic reserve policy. A release from the SPR will 
also help reduce the effects of market speculation on oil prices by 
sending the message that Congress is prepared to defend American 
families and businesses from these corrosive prices. That is what this 
bill will do. That is why it is a good idea for us to pass it. And that 
is why I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

       [From the United States Government Accountability Office]

Testimony Before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
                   Warming, House of Representatives

   Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Improving the Cost Effectiveness of 
                          Filling the Reserve

   (Statement of Frank Rusco, Acting Director Natural Resources and 
                              Environment)


                         Why GAO Did This Study

       The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was created in 1975 
     to help protect the U.S. economy from oil supply disruptions 
     and currently holds about 700 million barrels of crude oil. 
     The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of 
     Energy (DOE) to increase the SPR storage capacity from 727 
     million barrels to 1 billion barrels, which it plans to 
     accomplish by 2018. Since 1999, oil for the SPR has generally 
     been obtained through the royalty-in-kind program, whereby 
     the government receives oil instead of cash for payment of 
     royalties on leases of federal property. The Department of 
     Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) collects the 
     royalty oil and transfers it to DOE, which then trades it for 
     oil suitable for the SPR.
       As DOE begins to expand the SPR, past experiences can help 
     inform future efforts to fill the reserve in the most cost-
     effective manner. In that context, GAO's testimony today will 
     focus on: (1) Factors GAO recommends DOE consider when 
     filling the SPR, and (2) the cost-effectiveness of using oil 
     received through the royalty-in-kind program to fill the SPR.
       To address these issues, GAO relied on its 2006 report on 
     the SPR, as well as its ongoing review of the royalty-in-kind 
     program, where GAO interviewed officials at both DOE and MMS, 
     and reviewed DOE's SPR policies and procedures. DOE provided 
     comments on a draft of this testimony, which we incorporated 
     where appropriate.


                             What GAO Found

       To decrease the cost of filling the reserve and improve its 
     efficiency, GAO recommended in previous work that DOE should 
     include at least 10 percent heavy crude oil in the SPR. If 
     DOE bought 100 million barrels of heavy crude oil during its 
     expansion of the SPR it could save over $1 billion in nominal 
     terms, assuming a price differential of $12 between the price 
     of light crude oil and the lower price of heavy crude oil, 
     the average differential over the last five years. Having 
     heavy crude oil in the SPR would also make the SPR more 
     compatible with many U.S. refineries, helping these 
     refineries run more efficiently in the event that a supply 
     disruption triggers use of the SPR. DOE indicated that, due 
     to the planned SPR expansion, determinations of the amount of 
     heavy oil to include in the SPR should wait until it prepares 
     a new study of U.S. Gulf Coast refining requirements. In 
     addition, we recommended

[[Page H7081]]

     that DOE consider acquiring a steady dollar value--rather 
     than a steady volume--of oil over time when filling the SPR. 
     This ``dollar-cost-averaging'' approach would allow DOE to 
     acquire more oil when prices are low and less when prices are 
     high. GAO found that if DOE had used this purchasing approach 
     between October 2001 through August 2005, it could have saved 
     approximately $590 million, or over 10 percent, in fill 
     costs. GAO's simulations indicate that DOE could save money 
     using this approach for future SPR fills, regardless of 
     whether oil prices are trending up or down as long as there 
     is price volatility. GAO also recommends that DOE consider 
     giving companies participating in the royalty-in-kind program 
     additional flexibility to defer oil deliveries in exchange 
     for providing additional barrels of oil. DOE has granted 
     limited deferrals in the past, and expanding their use could 
     further decrease SPR fill costs. While DOE indicated that its 
     November 2006 rule on SPR acquisition procedures addressed 
     our recommendations, this rule does not specifically address 
     how to implement a dollar-cost-averaging strategy.
       Purchasing oil to fill the SPR--as DOE did until 1994--is 
     likely to be more cost-effective than exchanging oil from the 
     royalty-in-kind program for other oil to fill the SPR. The 
     latter method adds administrative complexity to the task of 
     filling the SPR, increasing the potential for waste and 
     inefficiency. A January 2008 DOE Inspector General report 
     found that DOE is unable to ensure that it receives all of 
     the royalty oil that MMS provides. In addition, we found that 
     DOE's method for evaluating bids has been more robust for 
     cash purchases than royalty-in-kind exchanges, increasing the 
     likelihood that cash purchases are more cost-effective. For 
     example, in April 2007, DOE solicited two different types of 
     bids--one to purchase oil for the SPR in cash and one to 
     exchange royalty oil for other oil to fill the SPR. DOE 
     rejected offers to purchase oil when the spot price was about 
     $69 per barrel, yet in the same month, DOE exchanged royalty-
     in-kind oil for other oil to put in the SPR at about the same 
     price. Because the government would have otherwise sold this 
     royalty-in-kind oil, DOE committed the government to pay, 
     through forgone revenues to the U.S. Treasury, roughly the 
     same price per barrel that DOE concluded was too high to 
     purchase directly.
       Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
       We are pleased to be here today to participate in the 
     Committee's hearing on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). 
     Congress authorized the SPR in 1975 to protect the nation 
     from oil supply disruptions following the Arab oil embargo of 
     1973 and 1974 that led to sharp increases in oil prices. The 
     federal government owns the SPR, and the Department of Energy 
     (DOE) operates it. The SPR currently has the capacity to 
     store up to 727 million barrels of crude oil in salt caverns 
     in Texas and Louisiana. As of April 21, 2008, current 
     inventory of the SPR stood at 701.3 million barrels of oil, 
     which is roughly equivalent to 58 days of net oil imports. 
     DOE made direct purchases of crude oil until 1994, when 
     purchases were suspended due to the federal budget deficit, 
     and in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 approximately 28 million 
     barrels of oil were sold to reduce the deficit. Since DOE 
     resumed filling the SPR in 1999, it has obtained oil from the 
     Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service 
     (MMS) ``royalty-in-kind'' program. Through this program, the 
     MMS receives oil instead of cash for payments of royalties 
     from companies that lease federal property for oil and gas 
     development. MMS contracts for some of this royalty oil to be 
     delivered to designated oil terminal locations or ``market 
     centers'' where DOE takes possession. Because the royalty oil 
     often does not meet SPR quality specifications, and because 
     the market centers can be distant from SPR storage sites, DOE 
     generally awards contracts to exchange royalty oil at the 
     market center for SPR-quality oil delivered to SPR 
     facilities. Obtaining oil for the SPR through the royalty-in-
     kind program avoids the need for Congress to make outlays to 
     finance oil purchases, but the foregone revenues associated 
     with using royalty-in-kind oil to trade for SPR oil imply an 
     equivalent loss of revenue because MMS would otherwise sell 
     the oil and deposit the revenues with the U.S. Treasury. 
     Interior estimates that the forgone revenue attributable to 
     using the royalty-in-kind program to fill the SPR were $4.6 
     billion from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2007.
       The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed DOE to increase the 
     SPR storage capacity to 1 billion barrels and to fill it ``as 
     expeditiously as practicable without incurring excessive cost 
     or appreciably affecting the price of petroleum products to 
     consumers.'' It required DOE to select sites to expand the 
     SPR's storage capacity within 1 year of enactment, by August 
     2006. On February 14, 2007, Secretary of Energy William 
     Bodman designated three sites for the expansion, including a 
     160 million barrel facility in Richton, Mississippi, an 80 
     million barrel expansion of a facility in Big Hill, Texas, 
     and a 33 million barrel expansion of a facility in Bayou 
     Choctaw, Louisiana. In its June 2007 SPR plan, DOE 
     anticipated these expansions would begin in fiscal year 2008 
     and be complete in 2018. DOE also indicated that it would 
     prefer to continue using the royalty-in-kind program to fill 
     the additional storage capacity. DOE estimates the capital 
     cost for the SPR expansion at approximately $3.67 billion, 
     and estimates the cost of operating and maintaining the 
     expanded portion of the SPR at $35 to $40 million per year.
       As DOE begins to expand the SPR, past experiences may help 
     inform future efforts to fill the SPR in the most cost-
     effective manner. In that context, our testimony today will 
     focus on: (1) Factors we recommend DOE consider when filling 
     the SPR, and (2) the cost-effectiveness of using oil received 
     through the royalty-in-kind program to fill the SPR.
       To address these issues, we are summarizing work from our 
     August 2006 report on the SPR and our ongoing review of the 
     royalty-in-kind program. For our August 2006 report, we 
     contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to convene a 
     group of 13 industry, academic, governmental, and 
     nongovernmental experts to collect opinions on the impacts of 
     past SPR fill and use and on recommendations for the future. 
     We also reviewed records and reports from DOE and the 
     International Energy Agency. In addition, for our ongoing 
     review of the royalty-in-kind program for this committee and 
     others, we identified and reviewed applicable laws and 
     documentation on DOE policies and procedures for evaluating 
     SPR purchase and exchange bids, and interviewed officials at 
     both Interior and DOE. We have also drawn upon previous GAO 
     reports on the royalty-in- kind program. We conducted our 
     work on this testimony from January to April 2008 in 
     accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
     standards. Those standards require that we plan and 
     perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 
     evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings 
     and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
     that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
     our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
     objectives.


                               In summary

       To fill the SPR in a more cost-effective manner, we 
     recommended in previous work that DOE include in the SPR at 
     least 10 percent heavy crude oils, which are more compatible 
     with many U.S. refiners and generally cheaper to acquire than 
     the lighter oils that comprise the SPR's volume. DOE 
     indicated that, due to the planned SPR expansion, such 
     determinations should wait until it prepares a new study of 
     U.S. Gulf Coast heavy sour crude refining requirements. In 
     addition, we recommended that DOE consider acquiring a steady 
     dollar value of oil over time and allowing oil companies more 
     flexibility to defer delivery of royalty-in-kind exchanges to 
     the SPR when prices are likely to decline in return for 
     additional deliveries in the future. In updating us on the 
     status of this recommendation, DOE indicated that its 
     November 8, 2006, rule on SPR acquisition procedures 
     addressed our recommendations; however, this rule does not 
     specifically address both how to implement a dollar-cost-
     averaging strategy and how to provide industry with more 
     deferral flexibility. In subsequent comment, DOE noted that 
     the November 8, 2006, acquisition procedures do not address 
     dollar-cost-averaging, but they do address flexibility of 
     purchasing and scheduling in volatile markets.
       Filling the SPR with oil purchased in cash is likely to be 
     more cost-effective than filling the SPR through the royalty-
     in-kind program for several reasons. For example, the 
     royalty-in-kind program adds a layer of administrative 
     complexity to the task of filling the SPR, increasing the 
     potential for waste or inefficiency. Moreover, DOE has 
     evaluated the cost of cash purchases more thoroughly than 
     exchanges, increasing the * * *

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would ask 
unanimous consent for an additional 30 minutes of debate on this bill 
for debate purposes only, equally divided between the majority and the 
minority. So, the minority would get 15 extra minutes, and the majority 
would get 15 extra minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. BARROW. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would like 
for us instead to proceed with the speakers that we have identified, 
and we will address this later on as circumstances warrant at the end 
of the debate time that is allotted.
  So I do object at this time with the understanding that I will be 
glad to consider such a request at the appropriate time at the end of 
the time allotted for debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this piece of 
legislation. I want to start by the simple statement that the House of 
Representatives, which is the body closest to the people of the United 
States, is considering a bill that wasn't written apparently until this 
morning. There hasn't been a committee hearing on the issue. There 
hasn't been a committee markup or a subcommittee markup. We could not 
even get the text from the committee of jurisdiction's majority counsel 
last

[[Page H7082]]

evening at approximately 7:30 because they didn't have it. Apparently, 
the text that was prepared in the middle of the night was changed some 
time early this morning at the request of unidentified parties.
  In an economy where we're paying some of the highest gasoline prices 
in the world, and certainly the highest gasoline prices the United 
States has ever paid in terms of absolute dollars, where our truckers 
are paying $5 for diesel and our airlines are hemorrhaging cash because 
of their fuel costs, we are now bringing to the floor a piece of 
legislation that nobody has really seen or vetted.
  I think that is absolutely unacceptable, terrible public policy and a 
travesty on the process of the House of Representatives. I can't object 
more strongly to the process that even the majority counsel on the 
committee of jurisdiction didn't have the text last evening. So on 
process grounds alone, we ought to reject this legislation.
  Now let's talk about the policy. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was 
established in 1975 as a consequence of the Arab oil embargo by OPEC 
against the United States of America where there was a conscience 
effort to prevent oil supplies from coming to this country. President 
Ford signed the SPR Act into law in December of 1975. It authorized 1 
billion barrels of oil to be put into a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
And that oil was only to be used in the event of a severe supply 
interruption that would result in severe economic harm to this country 
as a result of a Presidential declaration of emergency. The Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, as established, was not intended to be used in a 
manipulative way to control or affect prices.
  Now we haven't had any hearings, we haven't had a law that has 
changed the use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. What we have before 
us is a piece of legislation that was put together by unknown parties. 
I could give some pretty good guesses about who some of those parties 
are. But officially I don't know who they are. It's on the floor. It 
allows 70 million barrels of oil to be released from the reserve. But 
not just any 70 million barrels. It allows the sweet light crude, which 
is the best oil in the reserve, to be released with apparently the 
intent to lower prices.
  Now, the problem on policy grounds with this particular SPR release 
is that it also requires that that oil has to be replaced beginning no 
later than 6 months and within 5 years with heavy crude, which is some 
of the worst oil in the world. Do you know who has the heavy crude 
available today? Saudi Arabia. So we're going to sell oil, the light 
sweet crude, out of the reserve--right now, up to 70 million barrels--
and we're going to replace it theoretically over time with heavy crude 
that is not nearly as easy to refine and not nearly as amenable to the 
various product differentials as the sweet light crude is, and the only 
place to get it is Saudi Arabia, which is, as we know, in the Middle 
East, one of the most unstable regions of the world.
  So what we are really doing, apparently, is helping out our Saudi 
friends to make sure that the crude oil that they can't sell on the 
world market right now because it's too heavy and there's not a market, 
we will buy it and put it in the reserve, and we will use up the best 
oil in our reserve for some short-term price fix here in the U.S. 
market.
  Well, what kind of a price impact will we get, Mr. Speaker? We have 
got a supply-demand problem in the world oil markets. We are using 
about 85 million barrels a day. And there is only about 85 to 86 
million barrels a day of production available on the world market. If 
you put up to 2 to 3 million barrels a day of this oil on the market 
and sustain it, you probably will have a temporary price decrease. If 
you can get the supply-demand equation up to a 2 or 3 percent 
differential, I would say that oil prices will come down temporarily. 
But since we're only selling 70 million barrels, if we sold 3 million 
barrels, you can pump about 4 million barrels a day out of the reserve. 
So let's say we pumped it out at maximum. That would give us about 17 
days of oil. So for 17 days, you might see a price decline. But on the 
18th day, when there is no more oil to come out of the reserve, what is 
going to happen? You have not created new supply in the world. The 
price is going to shoot back up. Speculators are going to step back in, 
and the reserve is going to be 70 million barrels less.
  I mean if this isn't a cynical political ploy to hopefully lower oil 
prices for the next 2 months before the election, then I have never 
seen one. We ought to vote against this. If you want to have a real 
debate on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, if you really want to change 
the purpose for which it was intended, let's go through the committee 
system. Let's hold hearings. Let's have a give and take. Maybe we can 
come up with a way to use the SPR somewhat differently than what it was 
intended to be used. But unless you're willing to change the current 
Federal law on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, bringing up this piece 
of legislation is just a political sham to, A, maybe show the country 
that something is being done; B, help the Saudi oil ministry who can't 
sell their heavy crude on the market today; and, C, maybe get the price 
down for the next couple of months to help our majority friends in the 
upcoming election.
  I can't more strongly emphasize that we ought to vote against it on 
not only procedural grounds but also on policy grounds. The SPR was 
intended to be a buffer if we have a severe supply interruption that 
would harm the U.S. economy in a significant way. We don't have that 
today. We have high energy prices in America and high gasoline prices 
in America because we are not producing energy in America that we could 
produce.
  Let's bring an OCS drilling bill, an ANWR bill, a shale bill and a 
coal-to-liquids bill. Bring those bills to the floor, Mr. Speaker, and 
actually show the world that America will develop its own energy 
resources. If we do that, you're going to see the speculators get out 
of the market. And you're going to see that as the supply goes up and 
we hold demand constant, then you're going to see the price go down. 
And that will be permanent and productive for the American economy.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  I will just make a couple of points in response to my colleague from 
Texas (Mr. Barton). One, I look forward to working with the gentleman 
in modernizing and working to overhaul the SPR. It is certainly in need 
of improved management. And I might also mention that a version of this 
bill was introduced back in May. And we also have been working on it to 
make it as bipartisan a bill as we could possibly make it since 
November. So there has been a great deal of effort to try to make sure 
that we've heard everyone's concerns and to try to address them.
  And one of the points that the gentleman made about imports and where 
our heavy oil would come from to replace this, we purchase 14 percent, 
or 70,000 barrels, from Canada per month. Also the Gulf of Mexico has a 
significant amount of heavy crude that we also would be purchasing to 
put into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  And I might make the point that the refineries have made significant 
and actually great advances in technology. And they refine heavy crude 
just as easily as they refine light crude today.
  So, Mr. Speaker, today we consider this legislation that I believe is 
an important step for our Nation's future energy security. It will make 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve more compatible with modern U.S. 
refineries and thus more effective. Improving the SPR's flexibility 
will maximize its utility. Shoring up our Nation's energy reserves is 
just one piece of this energy supply puzzle which also includes 
increased domestic drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf as well as 
research and development for alternatives.
  I would like to address national security concerns that have been 
mentioned. The day that we went to war with Iraq, the SPR contained 
only 624 million barrels of oil. Today we have more oil in the SPR than 
we have ever had. And this bill ensures levels will not fall below 90 
percent of the current level. In 2006, President Bush declared the SPR 
is sufficiently large to guard against any major supply disruption with 
only 688 million barrels. Today it's more than 700 million barrels. 
Most

[[Page H7083]]

importantly, this change will strengthen the SPR and enable refiners to 
operate at full capacity during any potential supply disruption.
  When Congress created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1975 
following the Arab oil embargo to protect the Nation from any future 
oil supply disruptions, refiners largely processed only light and 
medium crude. Advances in technology over the years have led to the 
ability to efficiently process heavy oil as it has become a larger part 
of the market. In fact, 40 percent of the oil accepted last year by 
refiners was heavier than the oil contained in the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. With refiners planning to expand by 800,000 barrels worth of 
mostly heavy oil capacity in just the next few years, I believe it is 
incumbent upon us to ensure that the Nation's oil reserves match 
refining capacity.

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas has 
expired.
  Mr. BARROW. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LAMPSON. The GAO stated if forced to rely on SPR oil, about half 
of the refiners subject to potential supply disruptions would 
experience an additional 5 percent or 735,000 barrels a day reduction 
in production, further exacerbating any supply issues. This exchange 
will ensure that the SPR will provide maximum protection for the 
Nation's energy supplies.
  This will further strengthen our energy supply against potential 
disruptions because the exchange will raise funds that will be 
deposited in the SPR account that will allow the SPR to increase the 
total inventory level without the need for additional appropriations, 
further strengthening our energy supply against potential disruptions.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished minority leader from the great State of Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague for yielding, and let me say to my 
colleagues, this is a joke. This is this week's answer to America's 
energy crisis. We are going to take 70 million barrels of one type of 
oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and we are going to replace 
it with another. It doesn't bring us any more supply. And as I said, 
this is just the latest excuse for not having a real energy bill on the 
floor.
  We have got this bill this week. Last week we had Use It Or Lose It, 
another farce because it is already the law. We had another bill up 
that said, well, let's try to encourage the President to speed up the 
pipeline in Alaska. And let's make sure that we drill in the National 
Petroleum Reserve, which is already allowed. Nothing that is going to 
bring more supply. And it has been one excuse after another excuse when 
we actually could have a vote on a real energy bill that does all of 
the above.
  I and my colleagues yesterday introduced the American Energy Plan 
that says we ought to have more conservation, we ought to have more 
biofuels, more incentives for alternative sources of energy. We ought 
to have nuclear energy; and yes, we ought to have more American-made 
energy. And whether that oil and gas comes from the continental shelf 
of Alaska or the Outer Continental Shelf, or from the oil shale that we 
have in Intermountain West, why can't we produce more American energy 
to bring down gas prices for the American people.
  I'll tell you why, because they've done everything humanly possible 
to prevent a vote in this Chamber. The Speaker has gone through every 
hi-jinks, every legislative trick known to man to avoid allowing us to 
offer an amendment. That is why this bill is being considered under a 
suspension of the rules. We are not allowed to offer an amendment. That 
is why we have no appropriations, because my goodness, someone might 
offer an energy amendment on the floor of the House and it might pass. 
What does the Speaker have to fear in allowing this House to work its 
will?
  And I think the American Energy Plan is something that the American 
people support. I think the votes are in this Chamber to pass that 
bill, but we are not allowed to vote. I thought that is what the 
American people sent us here to do, to represent their will; and the 
Speaker is standing in front of the will of the American people by 
refusing to allow us to vote.
  Let's not vote for another excuse, another excuse to delay the actual 
vote for a real bill, a real bill that will bring down gas prices; and 
that is all this bill is, another excuse. It doesn't deserve our 
support.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Lampson and I and Mr. Van Hollen introduced this legislation 
under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi in order to ensure that the 
American people get the relief at the gas pump they need before Labor 
Day in 2008. But the Republicans are holding consumers hostage. No 
immediate relief, they are saying to American consumers, unless the 
ultimate agenda of Big Oil is met. Unless they are allowed to drill off 
the beaches 10 years from now, they will not allow the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve to be used now in order to preserve it. Ten to 20 
days of relief is all it will take for us to get help to the American 
consumer. The Republican plan is 10 to 20 years, according to their own 
Department of Energy.
  The President says he does not have a magic wand. Well, he does have 
a magic wand, he has a big stick and that big stick is the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve that he can use right now to beat down the prices of 
oil which are driving American consumers crazy in terms of their home 
budgets.
  Deploying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve works. It worked in 1991 
when President Bush's father used it. It worked in the year 2000 when 
President Clinton used it, and it worked after Hurricane Katrina when 
President Bush the Second used it. The President is willing to use the 
Army Reserve to go to Iraq to protect the oil over there, but he is not 
willing to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to protect 
American consumers here from the emergency which we are facing at 
home--high gas prices, home heating oil prices, natural gas prices, the 
airline industry going under, the trucking industry in desperate shape. 
But they will not use it right now.
  The Democrats have a short-term plan, and that is to give relief in 
10 to 20 days. Use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, use it as a weapon 
against speculators, against Big Oil and against OPEC; but the 
Republican Party is still the GOP; GOP, Gas and Oil Party. That's what 
this is all about.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our distinguished 
whip, I would again like to ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 
minutes evenly divided between the majority and the minority for debate 
purposes only on this pending legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I do need to object, and I 
would be happy to consider such a request at the end of the time 
allotted for debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I inquire how much time remains on each 
side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished whip from the Show-Me State of Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In fact, I think the discussion we just had about more time indicates 
the lack of seriousness on this issue. For the 12 years I have been in 
the Congress, a House which for the first 10 of it was led by 
Republicans, we repeatedly sent bills to the Senate that would solve 
this problem, bills to the Senate that would allow us to explore for 
oil and gas where oil and gas is.
  And again today, we have the same people that voted against all of 
those bills, that stood in the way of that discussion, that took 
advantage of the fact that the American people at that point said no, 
we don't really need to have more supply and let's not do the right 
thing for the future, let's do the right thing for now. And they bring 
this bill to the floor, as we face a generational problem, that is a 3-
day solution. A 3-day solution to a

[[Page H7084]]

generational problem. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny, but it 
is serious.
  And what we have to ask now, the good thing about this solution is 
our friends who bring this bill to the floor are admitting that supply 
matters. If supply matters, let's go after supply. If supply has an 
impact on price, let's find the oil and gas that we have and really 
affect the world market. Let's not assume that taking oil out of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the level of 5.6 gallons for every car 
in America is going to solve any real problem.
  The real way to solve this problem is to go after our own resources 
and to look for ways we can conserve energy and look for ways to invest 
in new alternatives in the future. It is not another gimmick that says 
let's be 3 days closer to being totally dependent on people who don't 
like us, instead of using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for what it 
is and going after the real supply that can make a difference.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
not told the American people is if you look at the report from our own 
Department of Energy, they can see that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge won't put one drop of new gas on the market for at least 10 
years, and then it will only wind up having an insignificant impact on 
price 20 years from now. The American people don't have 20 years to 
wait. We need action, and this is an opportunity to provide that action 
by tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a responsible way to 
help bring down price.
  After all, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the supply of oil we 
put away for America's rainy day. There are over 700 million gallons of 
oil there, more than any other time in American history. And when it 
comes to the hurt that the American people are feeling economically, 
their rainy day is now.
  This has been tapped into by the last three Presidents, including the 
current President, and if we responsibly just put a little bit of this 
oil away, we can provide relief at the pump today. Unfortunately, the 
President has resisted our call, just like he resisted our call to stop 
filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which he finally relented in 
doing.
  We need to pass this legislation. This is not a long-term policy. We 
need to work together to make sure that on a long-term basis we tap the 
ingenuity of this country on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and 
responsible drilling, but Americans are hurting now. This is not a so-
called ``mental recession'' as we heard from former Senator Phil Gramm. 
The pain is real, and we need to address it now.
  You know, a few months ago I think we all saw a spectacle that made 
us shudder. We saw President Bush travel to Saudi Arabia to plead with 
their king to pump more oil. The Saudi king turned him down cold--no, 
President Bush.
  I don't think we should have to go around begging other countries to 
pump more oil when we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve of oil right 
here at home that has been set aside for a rainy day. Our rainy day is 
now. Let's pass this legislation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I met a young lady the other day 
who made the determination that she could no longer afford to commute 
to work. The costs of her commuting outweighed any benefit from the 
long-term employment at that particular place. And it happens again and 
again. We have volunteer firefighters who can't volunteer to fight 
fires because they can't afford the fuels to get there. It is making a 
tremendous impact on our local economy.
  And what offer do we hear today, we are going to sell some oil so we 
can buy some other oil and that is really going to put us in a better 
place. That is an absolute shell game. In order to do this, according 
to the Department of Energy, if you want to buy that heavy crude, you 
have to go to Venezuela to get it. We send right now $150 million a day 
every day to Hugo Chavez, the same guy that is buying attack 
submarines, about nine of them according to local press reports, to 
interfere with United States shipping, according to his rhetoric. He 
buys guns for the FARC in Colombia.
  So you--what you are saying is that we are going to spend more money 
in Saudi Arabia and we are going to spend more money in Venezuela and 
we are going to spend more money in Russia, all of those places who do 
harm in one way or another to the United States of America. So your 
answer here isn't going to help America but maybe for a few days at the 
very expense of our national security.
  We beg you for the people who are dying at the pump right now, who 
are mortgaging their homes to fill up their tanks and trying to make it 
work, come up with a real energy policy, conservation, alternative 
fuels and American-made energy that lowers prices, brings jobs back, 
and it protects and keeps a billion dollars a day here in the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a shell game that is dangerous and it is 
reckless, and I would certainly encourage this body's strong rejection 
of sending more money to Hugo Chavez to do more bad things to freedom, 
democracy and to threatening the security of the United States.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding 
the time.
  I wanted to ask Mr. Markey a question, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask 
him how many votes the Democrats have in this Congress, and I believe 
it's 233. If I am not badly mistaken, it takes 218 to pass any piece of 
legislation in this body.
  So I don't understand why we are doing the smoke-and-mirrors game and 
the joke game of trying to say that Republicans are blocking this bill. 
They have got 218 votes. They can do anything they want to. They have 
changed the rules immediately when they want to. They can do anything 
with 218 votes, but yet they can't pass this bill.
  The reason they can't pass this bill is because they don't want to 
give us an opportunity to put forth what 73 percent of the American 
people want, and that's to drill here and to drill now. A quote from 
Mr. Kanjorski, to give you an idea of what we are talking about, is 
with a local newspaper, he was talking about the fact that the 
Democrats had promised to end the war and bring the troops home if they 
were elected to Congress and it had not come true.
  Ms. Pelosi had also promised to have a commonsense plan to bring down 
the skyrocketing price of gas. That's when gas was $2.10. It's now 
$4.10. And this is what Mr. Kanjorski said: ``We sort of stretched the 
truth, and the people ate it up.''
  ``We sort of stretched the truth, and the people ate it up.'' They're 
kind of stretching the truth today to make you believe that they cannot 
pass this bill. The reason they don't want to pass this bill is because 
they know it's smoke and mirrors. They know it's smoke and mirrors, and 
it won't have the immediate effect that they are saying. So what they 
are trying to do is to get something to go home to explain to their 
constituents why they are not going along with 73 percent of the 
American people that's saying drill here, drill now, lower our gas 
prices.
  They want to have an excuse, and that's their excuse. I think it's 
true to form to what Mr. Kanjorski said--``We sort of stretched the 
truth, and the people ate it up.''
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for 
his excellent management of this legislation on the floor today. I want 
to commend him, as well as commending Mr. Lampson for this legislation, 
which he has worked on for a very long time and which makes very good 
sense for the American people. I also thank Mr. Markey for his 
extraordinary leadership on this issue as well.

[[Page H7085]]

  The choice that we have before us today, my colleagues, is a simple 
one. The price at the pump is one that is a problem and challenge to 
the paycheck-to-paycheck economic security of America's families. It 
must be brought down.
  There are two goals that we have in what we are doing here. One is to 
protect the consumer. That is a responsibility that we have. And in 
order to do that, to increase the supply of oil that will help bring 
down the price at the pump.
  This week we have the SPR bill to release oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. Next week we will have the speculation bill which 
will address the issue of undue, excessive speculation in the oil 
markets and what impact that may have on the price of oil.
  In the course of this debate, I think it's important to remember some 
fundamentals, and one of them is the following. The United States 
Government is sitting on a stockpile of oil, 700 million barrels of 
oil. This fact is well known to you in the course of the debate, I 
know, 700 million barrels of oil. This is oil that the taxpayers have 
paid for and in some cases have paid a very expensive price for, and it 
is there.
  The President is sitting on that oil. It's called the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, and it is reserved for an emergency. The difference 
of an opinion that we have here is, is it an emergency that the 
American people are facing the prices at the pump that they have and 
home heating oil and the rest.
  We say it's an emergency, but an emergency that would justify our 
taking not more than, well, we would take it down to, I think it's 90 
percent of what is in the SPR. The SPR, as I said, has 700 million 
barrels, and 97.5 percent of this stockpile, this government stockpile, 
is filled. It's fuller than it's ever been in history. It's an historic 
supply.
  So what we are saying to the President is just take a small amount of 
that. Free our oil. This oil has been paid for by taxpayers' dollars. 
Free our oil, increase the supply on the market, and within 10 days the 
price at the pump can come down.
  A while back, we asked the President to stop filling the reserve. 
Imagine, we were buying oil at top dollar this spring to keep filling 
this stockpile. The President refused. This Congress voted 
overwhelmingly in both Houses to stop filling the SPR, recognizing that 
as we pulled oil out of the supply and into the stockpile, we were 
affecting the price at the pump.
  This time we are saying it hasn't come down enough, certainly not for 
America's consumers. We need you now to do the reverse, to follow up on 
that, not only not fill the stockpile, but to increase the supply in 
the marketplace.
  Every time this has been done, and it has been done three times in 
the last 20 years. Every time this has been done, and you have seen the 
charts here, Mr. Markey has those charts. Every time it has been done, 
the price of oil has come down.
  So it's a proven way to bring the price at the pump down. When the 
price of oil comes down in a very sound, market-oriented way, we will 
buy oil cheaper to replace this oil that we took out and sold at a 
higher price and make a profit on it.
  It makes all the sense in the world to do it this way. Those who 
oppose this are using this argument that instead of releasing the oil 
from the stockpile, government-owned stockpile, paid for by the 
consumer and the taxpayer, instead of releasing this oil to increase 
the supply in the market, we should be drilling more. We should be 
drilling in protected areas.
  Even the President has said that that is not any short-term fix. 
Everybody recognizes that if you drill, that it takes 10 years to 
affect the price at the pump, and only about 2 cents at that.
  So instead of saying only drill, only drill and get a 2 percent 
benefit 10 years from now, we are saying release the oil from this 
stockpile so that we can have a price at the pump result in 10 days, 
not 10 years. This is part of what we brought forth last week, too--use 
it or lose it.
  Democrats support drilling. It's important in this debate to 
recognize that there are 68 million acres in our country which have 
permits and are ready to go for drilling. So we are saying to the oil 
companies, use it or lose it. Use your permits, drill for oil, but 
don't say I don't want to drill there where I have an environmental 
permit to drill, I want to go drill in some protected area, which is 
going to take longer for me to do, by the way. And the reason I'm not 
drilling so much where I'm allowed to is I don't have the equipment to 
do it.
  See this for the hoax on the American people that it is. Yes, we are 
saying drill, use it or lose it as a way to increase domestic supply. 
We are also saying you increase domestic supply by investing in 
renewable energy resources, wind, solar, biofuels and the rest. No less 
a stalwart Republican than T. Boone Pickens is saying, ``I'm for 
everything.'' He's for drilling, he's for wind, he's for solar, he's 
for natural gas, he's for alternatives to foreign oil. We must reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil. It is a national security issue, it is 
an economic issue, not only for our economy but for the economics of 
America's families and for our consumers.
  It is an environmental health issue to reduce our dependence on 
fossil fuels and especially foreign oil. And it is a moral issue, 
because it has an impact on how we preserve our planet. That's why we 
have so many evangelicals supporting our efforts for renewables rather 
than fossil fuels.
  So it is an important debate that we are having, because this 
argument that we shouldn't have oil today on the market, which will 
reduce the price in 10 days, but, instead, should be drilling where we 
are not allowed to and have a 2-cent saving in 10 years, think of it. 
This isn't a reason, this is an excuse, and it's an excuse for a failed 
energy policy.
  It is the energy policy of the Bush administration and some of the 
Republicans in Congress, but not all, because many have voted in an 
enlightened way on this subject. This is an excuse for their failed 
energy policy. These are the same people, George Bush and Dick Cheney, 
who brought us over $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump. And now they are 
saying more of the same.
  We are saying a new direction. And now we can drill, we can increase 
the supply, we can invest in renewables, we can end speculation, we can 
protect the consumer. As we do all of that, including the drilling, we 
can do it now, and we can do it right. The fastest way to help the 
consumer is to release the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
but let's think of that as a government stockpile paid for by 
taxpayers' dollars that a small amount can have a big impact.
  I urge my colleagues to go down the same path you did before when 
overwhelmingly over 300 Members of the House and Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, voted to stop filling the SPR. Now let's just say 
there is so much in there, you can spare some to help the consumer. Do 
it right. Do it right now.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this very important legislation.
  Again, I would commend Mr. Markey, Mr. Barrow and Mr. Lampson, the 
author of this legislation. I thank you, Mr. Lampson, for your 
leadership.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, once again I am going to ask 
unanimous consent for an additional 30 minutes for debate purposes 
only, equally divided between the majority and minority. I still have 
at least six speakers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. BARROW. Just a quick question, was it 15 minutes that Mr. Barton 
was asking about?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thirty minutes total, 15 minutes each side.
  Mr. BARROW. We will consent to 15 minutes, but equally divided at the 
present time, 7\1/2\ minutes for each side.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I guess that's a start. So we have an additional 
15 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to request a 15-
minute unanimous-consent extension?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, we are increasing the supply of time. I 
will take 15 minutes right now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, debate is extended 15 
minutes, equally divided between the two sides.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank my colleague from Georgia for his 
courtesy.

[[Page H7086]]

  I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, from the great State of Texas, the MVP 
Republican of last week's thrilling 11-10 baseball victory, Mr. Brady.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, another day, another energy gimmick, 
it must be the 110th Congress. The American public, hammered by high 
fuel prices, is getting tired of the Jed Clampett energy plan put forth 
by Democrats. You just can't shoot at imaginary targets and hope that 
energy is going to come bubbling up.
  Look at the record. Look at the record. In this past year Democrats 
said, if we can sue OPEC, we will lower gas prices. Have your gas 
prices gone down? They said if we pass use it or lose it, which was 
laughed at around the world, they said gas prices will go down. Have 
your fuel prices gone down?
  Earlier they said we'll just stop filling the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, and your gas prices will go down. Did they? The answer is no.
  Today is just another gimmick. Depleting America's emergency oil nest 
egg at a time when the world is increasingly unstable in oil-producing 
nations like Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran, why, that makes no sense at 
all. Tapping our emergency reserves for three measly days of energy, 
three, that won't lower prices, nor does it send a signal to the rest 
of the world that America is serious about taking responsibility for 
our own energy needs. You really believe the world market that uses 85 
million barrels a day is going to look at this tiny amount and lower 
the prices?
  If this bill were to pass--and it won't, it will fail again--at the 
end of the drawdown, America would be more dependent on foreign oil 
than when we started. And when it's replenished, we will have just 
bought oil at a higher price out of taxpayers' money.
  So here's the question: How high does gas have to be before Congress 
will act? How many families will be hurt? How many small businesses 
will go under? How hard will our economy be hit before Speaker Pelosi 
allows an up-or-down vote on producing more American-made energy?
  We voted on conservation, we voted on renewables. Why can't we vote 
on more exploration?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. When will we put the special interests aside? 
When will the little guy have a vote? When will the little guy, that 
doesn't have a lobbyist, and big campaign contributions, when will he 
have a say in this public? It's time to vote this gimmick down and let 
us have a vote.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  (Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, July 28, 2005, the Republican Congress, the 
Republican Senate, President Bush, had an energy policy that they voted 
on 3 years ago.
  At that time the minority leader said it will lower prices, it will 
lower dependency on foreign oil. President Bush, when he signed the 
Republican energy plan, said it would lower prices, lower America's 
dependency on foreign oil and lead to a great economic boom when we 
look back at it.
  Well, in 3 short years, gas has gone from about $2.29 a gallon to a 
little over $4. By any measurement, dependence on foreign oil, the cost 
of energy, by any measurement or economic activity, it has been an 
absolute failure.

                              {time}  1345

  They got their way. They wrote the bill they wanted. July 28, 2005, 
on this floor, they passed their energy bill, and they promised you 
what it was going to do, and you now see the results.
  Now, there is enough blame to go around from all sides. Not everybody 
has been perfect. We have missed many an opportunity here to deal with 
energy, Democratic and Republican alike.
  But what is interesting now is their new line. The Republican line, 
as it relates to energy policy, is we are for everything. Except for 
you are for everything except when you can be for something.
  When it came to voting for fuel efficiency standards, raising them 
for the first time in 30 years, 163 Republicans voted ``no.'' You 
weren't for all of the above then.
  When it came to renewable electricity standards, 159 Republicans 
voted ``no.'' You weren't for all of the above then.
  When it came to alternative technologies, solar, wind, geothermal, 
other technologies, the DRILL Act, opening up Alaska, you voted ``no'' 
then. You weren't for all of the above then.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARROW. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. EMANUEL. The Republicans support all of the above, except they 
don't have any problem voting ``no'' when it counts.
  Today we have a bill on the floor that takes immediate action in 
helping us reduce prices. It is not a long-term policy. Reducing and 
increasing fuel efficiency standards for cars is a long-term policy. 
Making sure that the oil companies who are getting subsidies from 
taxpayers drill on the 80 million acres that are open for drilling, and 
not stockpiling permits when we could be stockpiling energy sources 
here in the United States, that is an energy policy for the future.
  I say vote ``yes'' and vote for a new strategy that has worked time 
and again in the past.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am going to recognize myself for 
2 minutes.
  I want to respond to what my good friend from Illinois just said. He 
is absolutely right that in July of 2005 we put an Energy Policy Act on 
the floor of this body. I would like to point out that that was a 
conference report that every relevant committee in the House of 
Representatives had had hearings and open markups on; we had a full 
conference with the Senate that was open, that the ranking member on 
the Democratic side at the time which was in the minority, Mr. Dingell, 
signed the conference report. The ranking member in the Senate, Mr. 
Bingaman of New Mexico voted for the conference report.
  And I said on the House floor when that conference report passed that 
it was an excellent bill for stationary energy, but it was not an 
excellent bill on mobility energy because we did not have in that 
report to drill in ANWR. We did not have in that bill to drill and 
explore in the Outer Continental Shelf, for the simple reason we didn't 
have the votes, primarily in the other body, to put those things in the 
bill.
  But the conference report that was voted on was bipartisan, it went 
through the regular process, it was not done the night before or the 
morning of and put on the floor under a suspension rule. And where it 
was, what was in the bill was good and is working today.
  But I said on the floor at the time, you can go back and look at it 
in the Congressional Record, on mobility energy, it was not as good as 
I think it should have been because simply we didn't have the votes.
  Today, the American people support drilling in ANWR. Today, the 
American people want to drill in the OCS, or at least explore what is 
in there, and we can't get those bills to the floor, Mr. Speaker.
  So I would ask that, at some point in time, after these political 
shams are concluded, we put some of those bills on the floor and see 
where the votes are. I think there is a bipartisan majority for those 
bills right now on the floor of this House.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to reducing gasoline 
and energy costs, the American people don't want more talk. They want 
action. They want Congress to make a difference. That is what this bill 
is all about.
  By releasing up to 70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, we can lower gasoline prices immediately, not 10 
years from now, not 20 years from now, immediately. That is not 
speculation. That is not a gimmick. This was done by former President 
Bush back in 1991 when he released 17 million barrels from SPR, and 
prices went down over 35 percent in just a few days afterwards.
  Now, some people may not think we are in an emergency. They say well,

[[Page H7087]]

SPR is supposed to be used for emergencies. Well, if being at war, if 
Americans, hardworking Americans paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, if 
American business is hurting, if our economy teetering on recession, 
and many families have been living with the effects in their lives of 
recession for months, if not years now, if that is not an emergency, 
what is?
  You know, I can understand why my colleagues have pushed for long-
term energy policies. I will support a bipartisan long-term energy 
policy. But let's not just talk about what we will do that will benefit 
Americans 10 years from now. Let's do something today that will benefit 
us today; and not just benefits American businesses and hardworking 
families, but our Nation's defense.
  I co-chair the House Army Caucus, a bipartisan organization. I can 
tell you, the United States Army today is paying hundreds of millions 
of dollars, if not billions of dollars more because of high energy 
costs.
  Helping businesses, helping hardworking families meet their budgets 
by lowering gasoline costs, supporting our Nation's defense at a time 
of war, I think those are excellent reasons to support this tested 
process to bring down gasoline costs.
  Now, I can understand why oil speculators may not want this bill. But 
the American people want it and they deserve it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton of Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, we need to send the signal across America 
that we are, indeed, going to get serious about this issue. And I was 
glad that a few moments ago, Speaker Pelosi referenced Mr. Pickens' 
plan, and I sure would like to vote on that. I sure would like to talk 
about all the things that he wants to do, because it is more than just 
one. We cannot afford to not have a plan to increase supply. In 2007, 
production fell from 125,000 barrels a day worldwide, while demand grew 
by a million barrels a day.
  I voted a couple of weeks ago to halt oil from going into SPR. But I 
believe seriously that it would be terribly unwise to now remove oil 
from that reserve.
  This bill is going to hurt us if it is enacted, long-term, 
particularly if there is a disruption. It is a Band-Aid, at best. It 
will remove our insurance policy in case something even worse happens.
  Last week, in my district, gasoline fell from $4.21 a gallon to, a 
week later, earlier this week, to under $4. It was reflective of the 
price of oil at the barrel, where that fell from $140 a barrel to $125 
today. Why is that?
  One of the reasons I am convinced that the world price of oil fell 
was because President Bush took the very first step by saying that he 
would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. But of course we know 
it is a two-step process. The executive branch and the legislative 
branch have to act.
  But what happened was, it got the attention of those speculators on 
Wall Street. They might have said, I am convinced that they did, maybe 
Congress is going to do something. The President has taken the first 
step. Maybe the Congress will follow suit.
  So it was no accident that the price at the barrel head fell 
dramatically from $140 to under $125 today. Let's send a signal to the 
American public that we are going to get serious about this. Let's 
defeat this bill.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Georgia colleague 
and member of our Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding to me.
  And I stand here in strong support of H.R. 6578, the Consumer Energy 
Supply Act for 2008, introduced by my good friend from Texas and a 
leader in the House on energy issues, Nick Lampson, as well as my 
esteemed colleague on our committee, Representative Ed Markey of 
Massachusetts.
  Now, I have to admit, I agree--we need everything, Mr. Speaker. We 
need to drill more. And frankly, my Michigan colleague, maybe we ought 
to drill in the part of Lake Michigan that we are not allowed to drill 
in, since Canada drills there and probably exports that gas to us.
  But this bill is so important because this is something we can do 
immediately. Today's rising petroleum gasoline prices are taking a toll 
on our hardworking families, even in our district that produce a lot of 
refined products.
  And let's be clear. There are no quick fixes or easy answers to the 
high price of gas. Prices are set by complex factors like climbing 
world demand and geopolitical events.
  But for the problems within our control, the proper management of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or the SPR, we need to take steps 
necessary to protect the American consumers' interest.
  I do not believe the current administration has properly managed the 
SPR. The SPR exists to protect us during the energy crisis, and is 
almost full to its 227 million barrel capacity.
  But while the cost per barrel of oil skyrocketed, the administration 
continued to purchase high-priced oil off the market to put in the SPR, 
limiting the amount of oil available. Granted, it is a small amount, 
but it would still allow for that additional oil to be on the market.
  But Congress fixed that when it sent legislation to the President. 
And I supported it and it was signed in law to suspend oil additions to 
the SPR until the end of the year, unless the price of oil falls below 
$75.
  I also believe that 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.
  Consistent with the Government Accountability Office recommendation 
to add heavy crude to our national reserves, this bill would modernize 
SPR by requiring DOE----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARROW of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. By requiring the DOE to conduct the sale or 
exchange within 6 months the 70 million barrels of light crude for 
heavy crude. The GAO found that refineries who, if forced to rely 
solely on SPR oil during an emergency, would experience a 5 percent 
reduction in their production capacity. This bill will increase the 
ability of refineries to respond to supply disruption, and optimize our 
SPR's effectiveness.
  This release would have an immediate impact on the market, reducing 
the prices at the pump, and easing the effects of energy market 
speculation.
  This is a good first step. And I urge my colleagues, make this step, 
because we do have a lot of other steps we have to make.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Terry of 
Nebraska.
  Mr. TERRY. We use, in this country, 20 million barrels of oil per 
day; 14 of that we import. In fact, a little over 14 million barrels 
per day we import.
  It is my personal mission and dream that we can displace that 14 
million barrels per day that we import, and use our own American-made 
resources instead.
  This bill here today, releasing 10 percent of the SPR, equals 3\1/2\ 
days of our total use. Now, that will, using my understanding of 
economics, will reduce the price at the pump by a few cents for a few 
days. So we have to balance that against the harm that is being caused 
by the high gas prices to our constituents, to people on lower income, 
especially with our national security needs, which is the intention of 
SPR.
  It is intended that when we go through an OPEC crisis where they cut 
off the supply to us, that we have our domestic reserves ready in case 
of such an emergency. And when you look at world politics today, with 
Iran and Israel and Nigeria and Venezuela, that is a real issue that we 
have to deal with.
  Now, the Speaker recognizes now that supply is the issue, that demand 
is outstripping world supply of oil, and we have to now add to our 
supply. I agree with the Speaker's statement when she says, free our 
resources.

                              {time}  1400

  So let's have a vote on freeing our resources. We've got American 
resources,

[[Page H7088]]

whether it's alternative energies, and why don't we make the tax credit 
permanent for alternative and renewable energy as opposed to the 1 year 
that was brought to us by the Democrat leadership? We can add, then, 
additional conservation. And the House did pass conservation in 
automobile fuel efficiency, but let's use the resources that we have 
with oil and get the resources in the middle of America and in Alaska 
and free our resources.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield an 
additional 2 minutes to the author of this legislation, the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Barrow, for yielding me the time.
  You know, advances in technology over the years have led to the 
ability to efficiently process heavy oil as it has become a larger part 
of the market. In fact, 40 percent of oil accepted last year by 
refineries was heavier than the oil contained in the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. That's a critical point in my opinion.
  Earlier we put into the Record the GAO report, and I would like to 
submit for the Record the report that was mentioned within the GAO 
report that came from the Department of Energy and read just one 
paragraph from it:
  ``To address the compatibility issues of the 11 heavy crude refiners 
and provide full protection for the Nation for all disruption 
scenarios, the SPR would need for approximately 10 percent of its 
inventory to be heavy oil. With consideration being given to a larger 
Reserve and additional storage sites, it may be desirable, and 
physically viable to store lower gravity crude than what is currently 
stored in the 700 million barrel Reserve.''
  The GAO stated that the Department of Energy may have underestimated 
this amount in recent testimony. All the more reason why we should be 
looking at how we can find a solution to this problem, use an 
opportunity that is available to us.
  That's exactly what I started out to do in November. When I 
approached many of my colleagues at this House, this is something that 
we should not be down here using partisan rhetoric over, pointing the 
finger at one side not doing something the other side should be doing. 
We understand this is a small part of the problem that we're going to 
be facing. It is only one thing that needs to be addressed. But it is 
one part, and it can make a difference.
  And who cares if it's 1 percent or 3 percent or 5 percent or 10 
percent? If the American people see the people from this House trying 
to do something that will make a difference in their lives, help with 
the pain at the pump, isn't it worth the effort? That's what we set out 
to do. That's all we set out to do. And there is no reason in the world 
why this legislation should not be made law of the land.

                           Executive Summary

       Over the past two decades, many refiners in the United 
     States (U.S.) have expanded and ramped their refineries to 
     process higher sulfur, lower gravity crudes to increase their 
     refining economics and profitability. As a result, overall 
     U.S. crude oil imports have been consistently moving from the 
     higher quality crudes toward the lower quality crudes.
       The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) inventory consists of 
     high quality oils that have been previously determined to be 
     the best crudes to address oil supply disruptions. However, 
     the industry's trend toward the use of lower quality crudes 
     has raised the question about how well the current SPR crude 
     inventory can meet refiner needs.
       This study provides a comprehensive assessment of the 
     compatibility of the crudes stored in the SPR with respect to 
     U.S. refining capabilities and likely disruption demands. 
     Specifically, the study addresses SPR crude compatibility 
     from two aspects (1) the compatibility and physical 
     limitations of U.S. refiners to substitute and refine SPR 
     crude in place of their usual foreign crude supplies, and (2) 
     the capability of the SPR to meet the Nation's refinery needs 
     in the event of potential supply disruptions.


                            a. spr inventory

       As of December 31, 2004, the SPR had a total inventory of 
     681 million barrels (MMBbls) in storage at its four 
     underground storage sites along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf 
     Coast.
       The SPR storage sites maintain only two crude type 
     segregations. One is a sweet crude having a sulfur content of 
     less than 0.5 percent and an API gravity ranging between 
     35 deg. and 37 deg., and the other is a sour crude having a 
     sulfur content of approximately 1.4 percent and an API 
     gravity ranging between 30 deg. and 34 deg.. The SPR's mix of 
     sweet and sour crudes is roughly 45 percent sweet and 55 
     percent sour.


        compatibility with u.s. refiner processing capabilities

       In 2004, the U.S. had 149 operating refineries which 
     processed an average of 15.3 million barrels of crude oil per 
     day (MMBbl/D). Of this total, 7.0 MMBbl/D came from U.S. 
     domestic oilfields or Canada, and are considered secure crude 
     supplies. The remainder, 8.3 MMBbl/D, was foreign imports 
     (exclusive of Canadian), for which SPR crude would be 
     considered a replacement in the event of an import 
     disruption.
       A two step approach was used to evaluate the compatibility 
     of each of the 149 refineries with respect to SPR crudes. A 
     screening analysis was then used to classify refiners as (a) 
     not SPR connected, (b) domestic/Canadian only, (c) fully SPR 
     compatible, (d) high SPR compatibility, or (e) low SPR 
     compatibility. An engineering analysis was then used to 
     determine the maximum volume of SPR crude the refinery can 
     process and the extent the refinery will be forced to reduce 
     refinery runs.
       In 2005, of the Nation's 149 refineries, 44 refineries were 
     identified as having compatibility issues with using SPR 
     crudes. Thirty three of these refineries were classed as 
     ``high compatibility'', where the use of SPR crude would not 
     substantially impact their refining operations. Eleven of 
     the refineries were classed as ``low compatibility,'' 
     where the capability to substitute SPR crude for heavy oil 
     imports was limited. These 11 refineries are all located 
     in PADD III on the Gulf Coast and predominantly import 
     crude from Mexico and Venezuela. If all of this oil were 
     disrupted, these 11 refineries would need to reduce U.S. 
     refining runs by approxImately 508 MBbl/D (3.3 percent of 
     U.S. refining). Gasoline production would not be affected, 
     but the production of distillate fuels (jet and diesel) 
     would be reduced.


            c. compatibility with u.s. needs in a disruption

       From a world oil market perspective, the study evaluates 
     the compatibility of SPR crudes with respect to U.S. crude 
     shortages resulting from five major supply disruptions which 
     have the potential of occurring within the next 10 years. The 
     disruption scenarios were: a Persian Gulf oil disruption, a 
     Saudi Arabia oil disruption, a Nigerian oil disruption, a 
     Venezuela oil disruption, and a hurricane disruption of the 
     domestic Gulf of Mexico oil production.
       The results show that the SPR crudes are fully capable of 
     satisfying U.S. refiner demands under four of the five 
     disruption scenarios. The only disruption case where the SPR 
     was not fully capable of mitigating the crude loss due to 
     incompatibility issues was the Venezuela oil disruption. Even 
     in this case, the SPR sour crude is effective as a blending 
     stock and will reduce the potential shortfall of U.S. heavy 
     oil runs from 2,200 MBbl/D to 450 MBbl/D.
       The reduced refiner run of 450 MBbl/D will not impact the 
     production of motor gasoline in the United States, but it 
     will reduce the production of jet fuel, diesel fuel, 
     kerosene, residual fuels, and other heavier refined products.


                             d. conclusions

       In general, the crudes currently stored in the SPR are 
     compatible and desirable for the majority of the U.S. 
     refineries and are well suited to mitigate most supply 
     disruptions. There are, however, eleven PADD III refineries 
     which have been specifically configured for processing heavy 
     crude largely from Latin America that would be impacted in 
     the event of a disruption of foreign crude supplies. However, 
     they would still be able to process a limited quantity of SPR 
     crude and maintain their full production of gasoline.
       To address the compatibility issues of the eleven heavy 
     crude refiners and provide full protection for the Nation for 
     all disruption scenarios, the SPR would need for 
     approximately 10 percent of its inventory to be heavy oil. 
     With consideration being given to a larger Reserve and 
     additional storage sites, it may be desirable, and physically 
     viable to store lower gravity crude than what is currently 
     stored in the 700 million barrel Reserve.
       GAO stated DOE may have underestimated this amount in 
     recent testimony.

                            I. Introduction

       The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is the largest 
     government owned stockpile of crude oil in the world. Since 
     the SPR was authorized in 1975, the reserve has grown to 681 
     million barrels (MMBbls) by the end of 2004.
       The crude is stored in salt caverns at four storage sites 
     along the Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast. The sites are known 
     as West Hackberry, Bryan Mound, Big Hill, and Bayou Choctaw.
       The SPR is connected to U.S. refineries by pipeline and by 
     waterway. Refineries along the Gulf of Mexico are connected 
     to the SPR by local pipelines. Refineries in Chicago and 
     other mid-continent areas are connected to the SPR by 
     interstate pipelines. Refineries along the Atlantic Coast and 
     West Coast can be supplied with SPR oil using tankers that 
     load oil through Gulf of Mexico marine terminals. The SPR 
     distribution system has been carefully developed to serve the 
     needs of the Nation in the event of a foreign crude oil 
     supply disruption.
       Crude has been acquired from 25 countries over the past 30 
     years. The quality of the stored oil is classified as light. 
     This crude quality has been and it remains adequate to 
     support most foreseeable supply disruptions. In recent years, 
     however, refineries in the

[[Page H7089]]

     U.S. have imported increasing quantities of heavy crude 
     largely from Venezuela and Mexico. The trend toward heavier 
     oil imports raises a question about how well the current 
     light oil in storage will mitigate future heavy oil supply 
     disruptions.
       This study was undertaken to assess the compatibility of 
     SPR crude with respect to the current and future crude 
     requirements of U.S. refineries. The objective of the study 
     is two-fold:
       Assess the capabilities and physical limitations of U.S. 
     refineries to substitute and refine SPR crude in place of 
     foreign crude supplies, and
       Assess the capability of the SPR to meet U.S. refinery 
     needs in the event of a supply disruption.
       To accomplish these objectives, a methodology was developed 
     to identify U.S. refineries with crude compatibility issues. 
     Refinery data were systematically evaluated to determine the 
     refineries that could not fully use SPR crude because of 
     crude quality differences. These refineries would need to 
     reduce crude input into the refinery and this would reduce 
     the amount of jet fuel and diesel fuel that would be 
     available during the disruption.
       The compatibility assessment results were incorporated 
     mathematically into models that simulate the world petroleum 
     market. Five disruption scenarios were identified as having a 
     high probability of occurring at least once over the next 
     decade. The scenarios were selected to evaluate the 
     SPR response capabilities in both volume and in the 
     capability to provide compatible crude.
       Chapter II summarizes key information about the volume and 
     quality of oil currently stored by the SPR and how that oil 
     compares with the oil currently imported by U.S. refiners. 
     Limits on the capability to substitute SPR crude in an 
     emergency are addressed.
       Chapter III is a comprehensive assessment of the 
     compatibility of SPR crude with U.S. refineries. The 
     assessment addresses the physical limitations of the 
     refineries, the maximum volume of SPR crude that could be 
     utilized, and the extent the refineries would need to reduce 
     runs due to compatibility issues.
       Chapter IV summarizes the results of five disruption 
     scenarios. The capability of the SPR to meet refinery demands 
     under emergency conditions is presented and discussed.
       Chapter V addresses the issue of future storage of heavy 
     oil and the need and rationale to provide a heavy oil 
     component to meet a future heavy oil disruption.
       Chapter VI presents the overall conclusions and 
     recommendations from the study.
       Appendix A contains the analysis results for each of the 
     149 refineries in the U.S. that processed oil in 2004. The 
     compatibility of each refinery is presented and the 
     individual results summarized by region.
       Appendix B discusses the two models used in the disruption 
     analysis. One model establishes the optimal drawdown from the 
     SPR in response to a supply disruption. The second simulates 
     the world petroleum market and estimates the impact of the 
     disruption on the flow of petroleum around the world.
       Appendix C is a world map that displays the impact of each 
     supply disruption on the worldwide flow of petroleum. Data 
     that support the analysis are also presented.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time 
remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schiff). The gentleman from Texas has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 7 minutes 
remaining
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I ask unanimous consent for 
10 additional minutes equally divided between the majority and 
minority? That would give me enough time to take the three remaining 
speakers that I have. It would be 5 minutes for the majority and 5 
additional minutes for the minority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. BARROW. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I returned to this 
House after 16 years because I believed that this was a forum for 
dealing with the problems facing the American people. That's why I come 
to the this floor so disappointed.
  If I were to go to a doctor suffering from cancer and the doctor were 
to give me only aspirin, I would say that he would be guilty of medical 
malpractice. What we have here on the floor of the House is leadership 
malpractice. The American people understand we're suffering from not 
enough supply. And so what is the answer we get here today? We're going 
to open up the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And they say the 
reason this works is it's worked three times in the past. But examine 
how it has worked in the past.
  In each and every instance, we had a temporary disruption of supply. 
We were able to affect that because we had a temporary infusion of 
supply. What we have here today is a long-term issue of lack of supply. 
And the Speaker said and other Members on the other side of the aisle 
said, Well, look. We shouldn't be begging foreign countries to give us 
more oil.
  No. What we're requiring the American people to do is to beg the 
Congress to allow us to produce more American oil. And why should the 
leadership of this House refuse to allow us to have American workers 
using American ingenuity, American creativity to produce more American 
energy?
  This is the hoax on this floor. To say that somehow taking this out 
of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is going to give you any long-term 
benefit is nothing more than a hoax. A couple of cents for a couple of 
days. It also takes away our ability to respond to temporary 
disruptions in the future, which is the reason this was put in in the 
first place.
  Why should we be afraid of Americans producing American oil? Free 
America. Let Americans produce American oil. Let's get rid of this 
leadership malpractice we see on the floor today.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes 
to the distinguished coauthor of this legislation, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. How did we get here? It's very simple. President Bush and 
Dick Cheney were elected 8 years ago. They put together a secret energy 
plan. Two oilmen now in the White House. And here is the simple 
mathematics. Two oilmen plus two terms in office equals $4 a gallon for 
gasoline for every American consumer across the country. Very simple 
mathematics.
  The Democratic energy plan, on the other hand, is very simple. Right 
now deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Put the fear of the Lord 
into speculators, into OPEC, into the oil industry. The price will 
plummet. It did in 1991 when President Bush's father used it; it did in 
2000 when President Clinton used it; it did when President Bush himself 
used it after Hurricane Katrina. This is a huge emergency for families 
as they look at their pocketbooks. They're being tipped upside down. 
The President should use it.
  And for the Democrats, after the Republicans controlled Congress for 
12 years, in 2007 the Democrats took over. We increased the fuel 
economy standard for the vehicles which we have to drive, the 
appliance-efficiency standards, the lighting standards, new biofuels 
policy. We backed out with that bill that passed in December of 2007, 
the Democratic bill, 4.1 million barrels of oil per day over the next 
10 to 20 years.
  Right now we spend $387 million a day to send American troops over 
into the Middle East, and we have to purchase 2.1 million barrels a day 
from the Persian Gulf. Our bill in December that President Bush signed 
backs out that oil.
  But the Republicans had 12 years of control of this Congress to do 
something about it. They did not. Now they say we need a renewable 
electricity center so electricity is generated from renewables. The 
Republicans are saying no.
  Vote ``yes'' on this bill. This is the solution the consumers need 
before Labor Day.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership 
on this issue. Indeed, he understands how the people of our great 
Nation, and certainly of my district of Tennessee, are suffering with 
the increase in the price at the pump that they have seen since January 
of 2007. In my district of Tennessee, this has changed. So I have come 
to the floor today to oppose this bill because it is the wrong bill at 
the wrong time.
  And one of the things that we have come to realize, and I think it's 
been a painful realization for many people, is they have watched the 
Democrat leadership of this House. They have seen that the Democrat 
majority is not wanting to take the action that is necessary to address 
the issue, whether we're talking about short term for immediate relief, 
mid-range so that we

[[Page H7090]]

can address what is coming next, and then long term so that little 
children, like my new grandson who is 2 months old, will have a 
consistent steady and dependable energy supply.
  Indeed, releasing a portion of the SPR is the wrong move now. 
Americans are wanting to see American solutions and American 
exploration take place to address this issue.
  Congress has the ability to do that, and we continue to be blocked 
from taking the necessary actions by the liberal leadership that is 
choosing to not take the actions necessary to address this.
  Our Nation is being placed at risk. Not only our energy security, but 
our national security is placed at risk by the actions of a kick-the-
can Congress who wants to just finish it out, get away for an August 
recess, and not address the issue at hand. At $4 a gallon, the price at 
the pump, indeed it is time for us to take action.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, before proposing accommodation to my friend 
from Texas, I would like to confirm the amount of time that we have 
left. It's my understanding we have 5 minutes remaining; is that 
correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, what I propose to do is reserve the balance 
of our time and at the same time ask unanimous consent that my friend 
from Texas may be allowed to control 3 minutes of our remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
will control 3 additional minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Georgia 
prepared to close?
  Mr. BARROW. We have no further speakers on our side. I would reserve 
the balance of our time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I have one unanimous consent request, and then 
I'm prepared to close.
  I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
for a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, though 
I also support drilling.
  I rise in support of H.R. 6578, the Consumer Energy Supply Act, which 
would release 70 million barrels of light, sweet crude oil currently 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and replace it with the same 
amount of heavy crude oil within 6 months. That is approximately 10 
percent of the 701 million barrels currently in the reserve.
  As our demand for oil increases, it is important the SPR reflects our 
refining capacity. Forty percent of our refining capacity is heavy 
crude oil, and 60 percent is light crude.
  This legislation allows us to better manage the SPR by making sure we 
are saving some heavy crude oil.
  This measure, however, does not replace our need to develop a 
comprehensive energy plan. We must increase conservation and energy 
efficiency--increasing the fuel economy of cars, minivans, SUVs and 
light trucks and improve the efficiency of appliances; build a market 
for renewable energy--solar, wind, geothermal, biomass; increase our 
domestic supply of oil, natural gas and nuclear power and reduce 
speculation in the oil futures market.
  The Consumer Energy Supply Act will improve the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve and, in fact, make it more strategic, ensuring we have the type 
of crude that better reflects our refining capacity. I urge a yes vote 
on H.R. 6578.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have how much time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia for 
yielding 3 minutes of his time. I sincerely appreciate it.
  I want to point out some of the fallacies in the debate as quickly as 
I can.
  The first fallacy is that nothing that we do in terms of developing 
domestic energy supplies in the United States is going to take effect 
for 10 years. That's poppycock. We can convert coal to liquids within 
the next 2 years. We can be drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, if 
it's allowed, within the next year. We can be doing major pilot 
projects on our shale oil resources within the next year. We can be 
drilling in parts of Federal lands that are currently snafued because 
of Federal permitting within the next year. Those are all things that 
can be done very quickly.
  Even up in ANWR, it's not going to take 10 years if we give the green 
light to drill and develop ANWR. It will definitely take more than 2 to 
3 years, but you could have production in ANWR, I'm told, within 5 
years.
  The thing that we have got to do in this country if we're going to 
bring energy prices down and keep them down is change the fundamental 
difference between supply and demand in the world oil market. You have 
got 85 million barrels of oil we're using worldwide, and we've got 
approximately 86 million barrels of oil that's available. That less 
than 1 percent supply margin is what brings these high prices.
  A gimmick like we have today where we take some oil out of the SPR 
for 60 days and then hopefully put it in within the next 6 years is not 
going to change that fundamental. If it has a temporary supply price 
decrease, that's a positive. I'll admit that.

                              {time}  1415

  But if it has, it's only temporary because you are not changing the 
fundamental supply-demand equation on the world oil market.
  So what Republicans are saying is, let's have a strategic plan. 
Perhaps releasing some oil from the SPR is part of that plan, perhaps. 
That's what hearings are about. That's what a regular order process in 
the committee system would be about. So we're not saying that we never 
want to release any oil from the SPR, but we are saying it ought to be 
a part of a strategic plan, and part of that strategic plan has got to 
be to develop domestic American energy resources.
  And Speaker Pelosi, for some reason, is adamantly afraid of that kind 
of a bill coming to the floor. I don't care if it's a Gene Green bill, 
a John Dingell bill, a Rick Boucher bill, a Steny Hoyer bill; but let a 
bill come up that's got some real domestic energy supply in it and have 
an honest debate, and let's see where the votes are. Let's don't have 
an energy gimmick of the week.
  That's what this is. It's the latest energy gimmick of the week, and 
if it has a positive effect--and I say that as an if--it will be 
temporary because if you take 70 million barrels--and oh, by the way, I 
want to give a hint to my friends on the majority side who drafted the 
bill. You've got a drafting error in the bill. It won't do what you 
think it will do, but I will let you find it. If it were to become law, 
which it won't, but if it were, it won't put 70 million barrels of oil 
on the market. So you find the mistake. You developed it in the 
midnight. You find the mistake.
  With that, vote ``no'' on the bill, and let's bring a rational, long-
term, strategic plan to the floor in the next 2 weeks.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In the course of this debate, from time to time it has seemed as 
though folks were talking about this as if this was draw-down 
authority, as if this was just a pure draw-down from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. I think it's important to emphasize this is not a 
draw-down proposal.
  This legislation proposes a swap. It proposes a swap for that which 
is best saved for tomorrow in exchange for that which is best used 
today. We propose to put in the ground what we should save for 
tomorrow, and put back into the system what we're getting out of the 
ground now which is best used today. We should use today what's best 
for today and save for tomorrow what's best for tomorrow.
  Also, much has been made, or rather, little has been made of the fact 
that this is just 3\1/2\ days of national consumption being added into 
the supply system. Only 1 percent of national consumption is being 
talked about here.
  When Mark Twain was born, he was the 100th person born in the town of 
Hannibal, Missouri. He said, you know, when I was born, I increased the 
population of my town by 1 percent. That's more than most folks can say 
in this world.
  Well, by this legislation, we can increase the supply of oil and what 
we've refined into gas in this country by 1 percent, and that's more 
than we can say about most of the pieces of legislation that we get to 
vote on from time to time.

[[Page H7091]]

  Also, it's important to recognize that this 3\1/2\ days, this extra 1 
percent, is a far greater percent of the thing on which the world price 
rests. The world price rests on the very thin margin between daily 
worldwide production and daily worldwide consumption. What is that 
margin? That margin is a mere 1 million barrels a day. So we're talking 
about putting into the system 70 times the world's daily float, the 
difference between daily production and daily consumption.
  That is a very significant factor. It is not only a decent percentage 
of what we consume; it's a very significant factor of that very thin 
margin that contributes the most to the runaway cost of gas and oil in 
the world today.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague from Texas for 
his conduct and debate.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill for two 
reasons.
  First, because it would provide for a quick increase in the supply of 
petroleum in our consumer market and so could reduce the likelihood of 
further short-term increases in the price of gasoline and other refined 
products.
  And, second, because it will do this in a way that is both cost-
effective and protective of our national-security interests.
  Under the bill, the Energy Department, DOE, within 30 days would 
begin selling light grade oil now stored in the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. At least 20 million barrels would be offered for sale within 
30 days after sales begin, and sales would continue for 6 months or 
until 70 million barrels have been sold, whichever comes first.
  But the draw-down would not be permanent because the bill would 
require the Energy Department to acquire, through purchase, using money 
from the sales, or exchange, heavy grade petroleum for storage in the 
strategic reserve, to replace the light-grade petroleum that would be 
sold.
  Right now, slightly more than 700 million barrels of oil are stored 
in the strategic reserve--so the amount to be sold under the bill would 
be only about 10 percent of the amount on hand.
  And, importantly, the bill specifies that the amount of oil stored in 
the strategic reserve could not drop below 90 percent of the amount 
stored when the bill is enacted. The most recent data I have seen 
indicate that the reserve is currently filled nearly to capacity, so 
the bill will not cause a significant reduction in the amount stored.
  Also, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, says that it would 
be a good idea to increase the extent to which we store heavy oil in 
the reserve. In testimony earlier this year, Frank Rusco, GAO's acting 
director for natural resources and environment, said that ``to decrease 
the cost of filling the reserve and improve its efficiency . . . DOE 
should include at least 10 percent heavy crude oils in the SPR . . . 
Having heavy crude oil in the SPR would also make the SPR more 
compatible with many U.S. refineries, helping these refineries run more 
efficiently in the event that a supply disruption triggers use of the 
SPR.''
  So, this bill not only is compatible with the national-security 
purposes of the SPR, it can actually assist in achieving them.
  But, Mr. Speaker, while I think this bill deserves support, I also 
think we should recognize that it is not a ``silver bullet'' for the 
factors that have led to the current high price of oil and products 
such as gasoline that are made from oil.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, CRS, it 
is not easy to predict exactly how adding 70 million barrels of easily 
refined oil from the strategic reserve would affect the market.
  CRS's most recent report does point out that ``prices might decline 
after additional refined product entered the market,'' but the same 
report also notes that oil from the strategic reserve (SPR) ``is not 
sold at below-market prices. Bids on SPR oil are accepted only if the 
bids are deemed fair to the U.S. government. If the announcement itself 
that the SPR is going to be tapped does not prompt or contribute to a 
softening of prices, there may be limited interest on the part of the 
oil industry in bidding on SPR supply.''
  This underlines the need for a more comprehensive approach to energy 
issues that combines short-term steps with other changes that will take 
effect in a longer time frame.
  For example, I think we should reduce the tariff--that is, the tax--
on imported ethanol, so that it will again be a safeguard against 
subsidizing foreign blenders rather than a trade barrier against 
imports of this fuel that can add to our supplies and thus further 
reduce the pressure on prices. I have introduced a bill (H.R. 6234, the 
Imported Ethanol Facilitation Act) that would do just that.
  In addition, I am open to increasing the extent to which Federal 
lands on the outer continental shelf can be subject to exploration for 
and development of energy resources, and I support adding a stronger 
due-diligence requirement to promote more rapid exploration and 
development on existing leases on those lands and onshore as well.
  We also need to continue to work to reduce the potential for 
artificial increases in prices through improper speculation or other 
market-distorting activities.
  And we need to keep pushing for continued aggressive development of 
alternative sources of energy--especially renewable sources--to reduce 
our dependence on petroleum as well as for greater efficiencies in the 
way we use energy, so that we can do more with the same or reduced 
amounts.
  In other words, this bill is not all that is required for a better 
energy policy. But I think it does have the potential to assist 
consumers in the short run, without harming the national-security 
purposes served by maintaining our strategic petroleum reserve. So, I 
will vote for it and encourage all our colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, all of us are aware of the soaring cost of 
gasoline and the impact it is having on the people we represent. Our 
constituents want to know what we're doing to provide relief at the 
pump.
  Over the initial opposition of the White House, the Congress has 
already passed legislation to suspend further oil purchases for the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve this year, freeing up 70,000 gallons of oil 
a day for use by consumers. Further action is needed to help the 
economy and help consumers.
  The bill before the House today takes the next step. It requires the 
Energy Department to release 70 million barrels of light, sweet crude 
oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in exchange for the same 
amount of heavier grade crude oil. Light, sweet crude oil contains less 
sulfur and is the easiest oil to refine into gasoline. Under this 
legislation, the Secretary of Energy would be directed to deploy 70 
million barrels of light crude oil over the next six months. Passage of 
this bill would also be a shot across the bow of the speculators who 
have been driving up the cost of oil. More than any other action the 
Federal Government could take, this proposal has the greatest potential 
to reduce gasoline prices in the near term.
  I know that some of my colleagues will object to the use of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve for this purpose. They will protest that 
the Reserve is for use in emergencies. Like a broken record, they will 
repeat their call to open up the entire Outer Continental Shelf to oil 
drilling. I do not agree. Rising oil and gasoline prices are causing 
serious damage to our Nation's economy. We have before us the means to 
mitigate some of that damage and do so immediately.
  Vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf are already open to 
drilling. Less than 2 years ago, and with my support, Congress voted to 
open up an additional 8.3 million acres for offshore exploration and 
drilling. All told, the oil companies are using only 10.5 million of 
the 44 million offshore acres that have already been leased to them. In 
any case, according to the Bush Administration's own Energy Information 
Administration, even if we repealed the offshore ban today, oil and gas 
production would not begin there until 2017 at the earliest; further, 
lifting the remaining offshore drilling restrictions and I quote from 
the EIA analysis ``would not have a significant impact on domestic 
crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.''
  We cannot wait until 2030. The need for relief at the pump is 
immediate. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
legislation before the House.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation.
  The proposal before us today would require the President to release 
small amounts of sweet, light crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. That oil would be replaced by heavy crude, at a later date and 
at a lower price.
  In the face of record high oil prices, this is a common sense step 
for a number of reasons.
  First, earlier releases from the SPR, by each of the last three 
Presidents, brought down oil prices by between 9 percent and 33 percent 
within weeks. There is no reason to believe that we won't see a similar 
result today. Putting more oil on the market is a sure way to reduce 
prices.
  Second, we have the SPR in place for national emergencies. The damage 
that these high oil prices are doing to individual consumers and to our 
economy as a whole certainly qualifies as such an emergency. In 
addition, the SPR is already at a record 97 percent of capacity and 
this legislation requires that it not drop below 90 percent.
  Third, releasing oil from the SPR is one of the few steps that we can 
take to actually affect prices immediately. President Bush and his 
supporters continue to call for opening our entire coast to new 
drilling and to begin exploring in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. 
But this failed ``drill-only'' strategy would have zero effect on oil 
prices today and is what has

[[Page H7092]]

gotten us into this mess in the first place. It would simply be one 
more gift for a favored special interest of this Administration, the 
oil and gas industry.
  Democrats have a better plan. We are working on legislation to crack 
down on what appears to be rampant speculation that may be driving up 
prices by as much as 20 percent, according to some experts. In 
addition, we have voted to force oil and gas companies to drill on the 
lands they have leased or lose access to them and to speed up 
construction of a natural gas pipeline in Alaska. If enacted, that 
legislation would help increase supply in the medium term.
  For the long term, we have enacted expansion of many energy 
efficiency measures, such as the first increase in auto efficiency 
standards in 32 years, that will help us use less energy across our 
economy. And we are moving forward with greater incentives to encourage 
the use of alternative and renewable resources. We must continue to 
build on these measures so we can begin a much-needed transition away 
from an economy based on fossil fuels.
  But these measures, as critically important as they are, will take 
time. In the meantime we have to move to help consumers today. And that 
is what this legislation would do.
  Madam Speaker, high gas prices are hurting the American people and 
crippling our economy.
  While we have seen the price of oil drop by some $20 a barrel in the 
last week or two, it is still at ridiculously high levels and prices at 
the pump are still way over $4 a gallon in my district and many others.
  And while my constituents across the South and Central Coast are 
finding it hard to afford to go to the grocery store, take their kids 
to soccer and even get to work, the big oil companies are once again 
reporting record profits.
  This is an absolute disgrace and this Congress is moving to put an 
end to that situation with this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this common sense bill to help 
American consumers.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
6578, the Consumer Energy Supply Act, which would require a 70 million 
barrel exchange of light oil from the SPR in exchange for heavier crude 
at a later date. I introduced similar legislation in May 2008 to 
exchange 50 million barrels of light crude oil.
  I believe, it is critically important to use the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, SPR, to address our national energy crisis. The SPR was 
created to protect the United States from oil supply disruptions and is 
now more than 97 percent full, its highest level ever. Unfortunately, 
the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration announced on 
July 23, 2008 that non SPR crude oil stocks are down more than 55 
million barrels from a year ago and distillate stocks are only a few 
million barrels above last year's levels.
  As I travel around Connecticut's Second Congressional District and 
meet with my constituents, I hear from families, school administrators 
and businesses about their concerns with high energy prices. While 
gasoline prices continue to hover above $4 per gallon in eastern 
Connecticut, residents and heating oil dealers are also concerned about 
the price and supply of heating oil this year.
  At an April 2008 hearing before the House Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming, Melanie Kenderdine, with MIT and 
formerly of the Energy Department, testified that an exchange of 50 
million barrels of light crude from the SPR ``could be expected to 
temporarily drive down oil prices without appreciably reducing the 
insurance value of the SPR in the near term.''
  In 2000, when heating oil stocks were low, the Administration 
undertook an exchange of 30 million barrels of oil from the SPR and the 
impact on prices was immediate. All of the oil was refined, despite 
worries about refining capacity, and crude oil prices dropped almost 20 
percent. In addition, there were sufficient heating oil supplies that 
winter.
  We need more oil on the market now to bring down the price of crude 
oil and gasoline and before the cold New England winter sets in. That 
is why I introduced my legislation and why I recognize that even more 
oil is needed on the market than my bill required. I urge my colleagues 
to support H.R. 6578.
  Mr. BARROW. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 6578, as amended.
  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. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 268, 
nays 157, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 527]

                               YEAS--268

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fossella
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--157

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)

[[Page H7093]]


     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bishop (UT)
     Boswell
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cubin
     Hinojosa
     Hulshof
     Jones (OH)
     LaHood
     Ortiz
     Rush


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes 
remaining to vote.

                              {time}  1444

  Messrs. SHUSTER, SAXTON and DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WHITFIELD of Kentucky and Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 527, I inadvertently 
missed this vote. I was delayed getting to the floor. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________