[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8092-8097]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     ENERGY CRISIS AND FUEL PRICES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Graves). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in my district in New Jersey, the average 
price for unleaded gasoline is $1.72 this month. The Energy Information 
Administration report shows that the average price in New Jersey was 
$1.14 at this time last year. This is a 50 percent increase in one 
year, yet I assure my colleagues that New Jersey is not seeing the 
worst of the gasoline price increases. Prices in many parts of 
California are well over $2, and price fluctuations in the Midwest have 
been dramatic.
  But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the energy crisis 
and the increase in gasoline prices, President Bush's answer has been, 
and he delivered this just last Friday, he said, ``The best way to make 
sure that people are able to deal with high energy prices is to cut 
taxes, is to give people more of their own money so they can meet the 
bills, so they can meet the high energy prices.''
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that we just heard today that tomorrow 
President Bush's tax cut bill, the reconciliation bill, is going to 
come to the floor. But I assure my colleagues that that is not the 
answer to gasoline prices.
  He is talking about a tax cut so that Americans can go out and pay 
the $2 to $3 per gallon price of gasoline. But let us look at this. The 
President proposes that Congress act quickly to pass the tax cut so the 
Federal Government can refund American families a modest tax refund so 
they can in turn put gasoline in their vehicle.
  Well, he is not proposing a solution. He is just again displaying a 
lack of leadership and his alliance essentially with the oil and 
petroleum industry. What he is proposing with his tax cut is just 
another way to assist the industry, his friends.
  The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that, if one looks at the 
message that President Bush is delivering today and one compares it to 
the one he delivered when he was a candidate last year, in January 
2000, when heating oil prices were soaring in key campaign States and 
spot prices were $27 per barrel, then Candidate Bush said, ``What I 
think the President ought to do is he ought to get on the phone to 
OPEC, the cartel, and say we expect you to open your spigots.''
  Well, why is President Bush changing his position. Even today, Vice 
President Cheney was out saying he does not support increases in OPEC 
oil production. The Secretary Abraham was quoted a couple weeks ago 
saying that he was not going to give into or lower himself, I think the 
word was, to talk to OPEC about oil production because that would 
somehow lower his quality, his status as Energy Secretary.
  President Bush has also said he will not release any oil from the 
SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Both the Clinton administration 
and the first President Bush, his father, George W.'s father, 
successfully released oil from the SPR, from the reserve, to calm 
energy markets.
  In fact, President Bush's decision not to take action, I think, is 
essentially unilateral disarmament in talks with oil producing 
countries. We know last year President Clinton was very effective, I 
thought, in using the SPR as a tool, if you will, to try to bring 
prices down.
  The other thing that President Bush has talked about as a long-term 
solution, of course, is to build more refining capacity. But I think he 
misses the point because it does not help the consumer today. The 
interesting thing about Bush's policy and Cheney's policy is that they 
are not talking about the problem that Americans face today. We have 
blackouts. We have oil prices, gasoline prices rising dramatically. 
American motorists are spending too much on gasoline. They want a 
solution now.
  The President talked refineries, but he did not talk about the effect 
of refinery consolidation. While the number of refineries has 
decreased, the refinery capacity has increased. Part of the problem 
that we witness today is this consolidation, is the size of the 
refinery has increased. Any problem in the refinery, like a fire, for 
example, that affects production has a greater impact on supply and 
price.
  I just wanted to mention I have a number of speakers tonight who are 
joining me, my colleagues on the

[[Page 8093]]

Democratic side. I do not want to take up much more time before I start 
yielding to them, but I did want to talk a little bit before I finish 
the introduction here to our special order that we have tonight to 
mention mergers in the oil industry, because I also think that that is 
something that needs to be investigated and looked at, and it is not 
being looked at by this administration.
  Recent company mergers include a $7.49 billion deal in which Tosco 
recently agreed to be purchased by Philips Petroleum, and Valero will 
acquire Ultramar Diamond Shamrock for $3.91 billion.
  In a letter I recently sent along with the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Barrett), we requested that the administration, specifically the 
Department of Energy and the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, 
carefully review these mergers to assure that they do not unfairly 
disadvantage independent marketers.
  While mergers like BP and Amoco or Exxon and Mobile may be good for 
business, I am concerned about the impact on consumers. Exxon-Mobile 
this year reported $5 billion in record profits over the last year. 
Valero alone had a 2,272 percent increase in profits from 1999.
  There are real solutions, and Democrats have the real solutions. But 
those solutions are not found in President Bush's energy plan.
  Let me just mention a couple of things that we can do. First, we need 
to review the effect that mergers have on the price of gasoline. 
Second, I strongly believe that we need to find innovative ways to 
reduce demand. Conservation and energy efficiency are vital components 
of reducing prices of gasoline at the pump, and these ideas must be 
part of our Nation's energy use strategy.
  But, unfortunately, President Bush does not really think about this. 
Last week, he announced that he would abandon the 2004 goal set to 
develop a five-person vehicle that would get 80 miles per gallon. The 
Federal Government has spent $1.4 billion on this initiative, and last 
year the National Academy of Scientists called the program an 
outstanding effort. But now this program aimed at reducing the future 
demand on gasoline has been put on hold.
  American demand for gasoline is 8.6 million barrels per day. Sport 
utility vehicles, pickups and minivans account for 43 percent of the 
vehicles on the road today, up from 30 percent in 1990. Because of this 
increase, the current fuel efficiency in the U.S. has dropped to its 
lowest level since 1980.
  Today the standard for passenger cars is 27.5 miles per gallon, and 
for light trucks it is 20.4 miles per gallon. This standard has not 
changed since 1990. We need to address fuel consumption and create 21st 
century solutions to meet our 21st century users.
  I know that a number of my colleagues have been taking the lead on 
this, particularly some of the newer Members. I know that the energy 
crisis has been particularly bad in California.
  I yield first to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), one of 
my colleagues.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) bringing this to our attention, and it 
gives me an opportunity to speak particularly about the situation in 
San Diego.
  San Diego families and businesses have been devastated with soaring 
energy prices since last July, and so now we are faced with rising 
gasoline prices. Here, too, San Diego was first with the most, not the 
distinction that we would necessarily like. Prices are almost always 10 
percent higher than neighboring Los Angeles. With these prices soaring 
across the county, San Diego is still at the head of the parade.
  Much attention has been focused on issues of supply and demand, and 
these are important. But there are other predatory practices that crank 
up the price at the pump.
  In August of 1998, as chair of the California Assembly Consumer 
Protection Committee, I held hearings on the causes of high gasoline 
prices and why they are so particularly affected in my community of San 
Diego. We learned a lot during these hearings. We learned about mini-
marketing techniques that control the supply. We learned that there are 
practices where companies sell the same gasoline to different outlets 
at different prices and discriminate against some communities.
  These practices now are being challenged in the Wholesale Motor Fuel 
Fairness and Competition Restoration Act that is being authored by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), and I am very happy to be a 
cosponsor of that. There are several things that this legislation will 
do, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in working with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) on them.
  One, they require that petroleum producers reveal their pricing 
structure. It seems like a sensible thing to do that will be helpful to 
consumers to know.
  Two, it would make it illegal for companies to discriminate on price 
regardless of who is purchasing it.
  Third, it will mandate that the Federal Trade Commission study the 
relationships between ownership of gas stations and the high price of 
motor fuel. I think all of these elements of this legislation are 
needed and will make it more difficult for oil companies to practice 
what we consider price zoning, redlining, and discriminatory wholesale 
pricing.
  It is only right that consumers know how rebates, refunds, and 
discounts to dealers affect the prices that they pay at the pump. I 
think we now have an opportunity and we now should shine the spotlight 
on how gas is priced so we can then return to competitive pump prices.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for 
bringing these issues to our attention.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis), and mention, which I am sure some people 
already know, that certainly the Democrats today, our Democratic 
leadership, announced an energy policy program under the auspices of 
the House Democratic Caucus, our energy task force.
  There are a number of provisions in there that I think are very good. 
But one of them specifically says with regard to price gouging that we 
would instruct the Justice Department to aggressively investigate 
energy pricing to assure that illegal price fixing does not occur and 
to give thorough antitrust reviews to any proposals to further 
consolidate energy companies.
  I know that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our leader, 
was out there with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) in San 
Diego, with some of our other colleagues from California, Southern 
California. We have been basically saying that we have got to look at 
this problem overall. Price gouging and gasoline prices are an 
important part of this.
  We still do not have the President's or the Cheney proposal. That is 
supposed to come out Thursday. But so far every indication that we have 
got from President Bush and Vice President Cheney is that they simply 
do not want to do anything about gasoline prices. It is just not their 
problem. I cannot imagine that, with all the problems that one faces in 
California with regard to blackouts and the overall energy crisis, that 
anybody is happy to hear that we are going to not address gas price 
problem.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is really adding insult to 
injury, I think, out in the West. When we have seen the energy prices 
going up 900 percent, people want to know where that is coming from.
  I think, when it comes to gasoline prices as well, I know in the San 
Diego community, we have looked to our neighbors. We do not have to 
travel that far. I took trips every Sunday when I used to visit my dad 
actually in Orange County, and we knew where to fill up because 
gasoline prices were about 35 cents less.

                              {time}  1930

  Now we are seeing high prices throughout the State, but we still have 
some communities that seem to be affected more than others.
  Mr. PALLONE. And in New Jersey we have the phenomenon whereas after 
Memorial Day, and I represent the

[[Page 8094]]

shore area, everybody is going to be paying these higher prices when 
they have to travel to the shore or to the beaches. I know some might 
say that people do not have to go on a vacation; but obviously, that is 
not the answer. I just cannot believe that the President and the Vice 
President simply do not see this as a problem and think that somehow a 
tax cut is going to help that.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for being here. I know she has been 
taking her leadership in her home State on this issue. Thanks.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I now wish to yield time to my colleague 
from Arkansas.
  Mr. ROSS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
to me.
  Currently, Arkansas residents pay on average $1.69 per gallon of mid-
grade gasoline. Thousands of my constituents depend on their cars to 
get to and from their jobs or on tractors or equipment to tend to their 
farms each and every day. I live in a very rural district, and they 
simply cannot afford the drastic increase in gas prices that they are 
being forced to pay.
  With the summer season expected to be as hot as last year, we will 
probably have in Arkansas a drought for the fourth year in a row, and I 
anticipate that we are headed for a repeat of last year's overheated 
oil prices, the highest since 1990. In fact, we have already seen 
indications that the price is growing steadily.
  A recent national survey shows that the price of gasoline has 
skyrocketed 17 cents in the last 4 weeks alone, bringing the national 
average to $1.82 a gallon. These prices are unjustified, and our 
response to bring these prices down must be immediate. I call on the 
President and the administration to tell OPEC to increase their levels 
of oil production, which they cut as recently as March by a million 
barrels a day. It is wrong that a handful of foreign countries can get 
together and have a lot to do with dictating the price of gasoline at 
the pumps in south Arkansas.
  Our reliance on foreign oil has been steadily increasing. We must 
concentrate on increasing our domestic energy supplies and 
strengthening our energy infrastructure, and we must guard consumers 
against potential price gouging by the big oil companies.
  Now, the President, as recent as late last week, said that we needed 
a tax cut to pay for gasoline. Now, Mr. President, I have a problem 
with my constituents paying $2 or $3 a gallon for gasoline. Yes, Mr. 
President, we need a tax cut. We need a tax cut for working families to 
help them make ends meet, to help them pay for child care and, yes, to 
help them send a child to college. We do not need a tax cut to pay for 
gas. We need to bring the prices of gas back down.
  America's economic prosperity and national security have come to 
depend on the availability of reliable, affordable energy. We need a 
balanced, long-term energy policy, not one built for the past, as the 
administration is putting forth. We need a proactive energy policy for 
the future, one that helps consumers by increasing energy production 
while reducing energy demand; one that stresses the importance of 
conservation, building more energy-efficient products and developing 
more renewable and alternative fuel sources, the kind that can create 
new markets for our struggling farm families in south Arkansas.
  The production, generation, and distribution aspects must all be done 
with greater efficiency. Research and development in new energy 
technologies that increase conservation in all areas are imperative. In 
addition, we need to expand other energy sources, such as wind, solar 
and hydroelectric. Renewable energy sources may not be an immediate 
answer to our energy crisis, but they are certainly important for the 
long term as fossil fuel sources continue to diminish. These emerging 
technologies will need Federal support if we are to finally achieve 
energy independence.
  We must look at all available options to solve this complicated 
crisis. But whatever we do, we must guarantee that drivers in south 
Arkansas and all across America will pay less when they fill up.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas. It is 
really almost incredible to think that the President and the Vice 
President do not understand what needs to be done now to address the 
problem with the gasoline prices.
  I was just looking at some of the statements that were made here. 
This is from Vice President Cheney, May 11, I guess just a week ago, in 
USA Today. He said, ``There's not much we can do in the short-term.'' 
And he goes on to talk about everything they are going to come out 
with, theoretically this Thursday, is long term. Then it says that they 
apparently have been warning Republicans on Capitol Hill that the 
energy policy to be released will do little to help with gas prices or 
California blackouts this summer.
  To me, it is incredible to think that they are not looking to at 
least talk to OPEC and say, look, do something here. These are 
countries where I think we have a lot of clout and the ability to 
influence their policy because they depend on us for so many things. 
The same thing with the SPR. I cannot believe there was so much 
discussion last session about the SPR and the ability to use that as a 
sort of a hammer to force prices down and to force more production of 
OPEC, and yet so far they are not willing to do it.
  The gentleman obviously has the same problem leading up to Memorial 
Day and the summer in Arkansas that we have in New Jersey, and I just 
know that a few more weeks of these price increases, and it is already 
almost the number one issue on people's minds, but I do not know how we 
are going to be able to go back from Congress and say Washington is not 
doing anything about it. It is just incredible.
  I want to thank the gentleman for participating and we are obviously 
going to be doing a lot more of this. Thanks.
  Next, Mr. Speaker, we have, from my neighboring State of New York, 
and I imagine he has the same phenomenon with people leaving to go to 
Long Island for the start of Memorial Day weekend, the gentleman from 
New York.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time and his 
important leadership on this very vital issue.
  Mr. Speaker, last week gas prices on Long Island rose 9 cents per 
gallon in the span of a single week, and this year alone OPEC has cut 
its production twice already. I think it is absolutely outrageous that 
the same countries that we defend time after time are gouging Americans 
at the pump.
  Now, last summer, then Governor Bush said that when he was President, 
if gas prices increased, he would simply get OPEC on the phone and tell 
them to turn on the spigot. Well, Mr. President, it is time to make 
that call. We cannot wait any longer. And when OPEC reconvenes again in 
June, they have to know that we will no longer tolerate this price-
fixing cartel behavior that is punishing Americans at the pump.
  At the same time, however, while we are talking a tough line towards 
OPEC, we have to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I have been 
working with some of my colleagues to draft a Tax and Energy Cost 
Relief Act that will provide working families with tax credits and 
deductions that will help them purchase energy-efficient equipment and 
technologies. Now, that is going to reduce taxes, it is going to spur 
the economy by encouraging people to go and purchase new energy-
efficient products, it is going to improve our environment, and it is 
going to reduce our long-term dependence on foreign oil.
  Taking a hard line with OPEC and expanding tax incentives is the 
smart way to reduce the price of gas while providing relief to working 
families and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. It is time for a 
coherent, effective, comprehensive policy to get gas prices down; and I 
look forward to

[[Page 8095]]

working with the gentleman from New Jersey to reach that goal.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York. I know 
we are both in the New York metropolitan area, so we share the same 
concerns and we hear the same complaints from our constituents.
  I just wanted to mention, if I could, that the Democrats' energy 
policy paper was released today, wherein our leader, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who 
is the chairman of the caucus and also the chairman of the task force 
that put this together, talked about two major tax credits along the 
lines of what the gentleman just discussed; and I wanted to mention 
them briefly, if I could.
  There is this best energy savings tax credit, which is basically a 
consumer tax credit for up to $4,000 provided for new homes, in other 
words, a $4,000 credit for purchase of a new home based on the energy 
efficiency of the new home. And then similarly with regard to home 
improvements, 20 percent of the cost up to $2,000 based on the measures 
taken by the consumer. And there is a separate one for vehicles that an 
individual could get a credit up to $4,000 based on fuel savings or 
other performance standards when they purchase a car or a light truck 
or SUV equipped with these new fuel saving technologies.
  And then for businesses, the Democratic proposal has what they call a 
SAVE incentive, structure and vehicle efficiency tax incentive; and 
this provides up to a 30 percent investment tax credit for business 
investment in renewable energy generation and allows businesses to take 
a deduction for increasing energy efficiency.
  These are the kinds of conservation measures linked to new technology 
that we need, and I know that is what the gentleman was talking about. 
And I think the great part of what the Democrats put forward today in 
our energy proposal is that it deals with the high price of gasoline, 
which is an immediate concern; it deals with conservation; it deals 
with efforts to use tax credits and deductions for conservation; and, 
at the same time, it has measures to increase energy production.
  So we are looking at this universally, in a sort of a well-rounded 
way, whereas all we get from the Bush-Cheney administration is just 
pump; let us pump more oil, let us pump more, and that is going to 
solve all our problems. But that is not going to solve our problems, 
particularly in the short term.
  Mr. ISRAEL. If the gentleman will yield, about 2 weeks ago, five 
Federal laboratories issued a report that said if we can encourage 
weatherization and encourage energy-efficient technologies and energy-
efficient consumer products, we will not have to build the 1,300 power 
plants that the administration is proposing; that we would not have to 
drill the Arctic reserve that the administration is proposing; we would 
not have to degrade our environment. And those are the kinds of 
technologies and efficiencies that we ought to be pursuing.
  Now, these were not Democratic Federal laboratories or Republican 
Federal laboratories; they were Federal laboratories that have been 
looking at this, and we need to heed their advice.
  Mr. PALLONE. The amazing thing that I find is that even my own 
utilities, during Earth Day myself and my other Democratic colleagues 
in the House did a bus tour around the State, and one of the places we 
went, I think it was in the district of the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne), was a generating facility in Linden, which was building a 
new plant that would reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions by 30 
percent.
  Here are these utilities, and this is the business community, telling 
us that they can address carbon dioxide emissions effectively at the 
same time that the Bush administration tells us they do not want to 
regulate it. So the President is just not being realistic about what 
can be done. He is sort of living in the past, in my opinion; and it is 
very unfortunate.
  I want to thank the gentleman.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, next is my colleague on the Committee on 
Commerce who has been involved in these energy issues for a long time, 
and I know that our committee has taken up some legislation, but so far 
the Republicans have not really been helping us very much in terms of 
addressing the California situation. I yield to my colleague from Ohio.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone), and I would like to take a few moments to talk about my 
district in southern Ohio, because as I have heard my colleagues 
discuss gas prices in their districts, I was thinking gas prices are so 
much higher in my poor, rural district.
  But first, I would like to say some things about the President and 
his justification for this tax cut, 43 percent of which will be going 
to the richest 1 percent of the people in our country. Last summer 
during the campaign he said we needed this large tax cut simply because 
we had a huge surplus, and this surplus, rather than being spent on 
government programs, should be returned to the taxpayer. That was the 
justification a year or so ago.
  Then just 2 or 3 months ago, he was justifying this huge tax break, 
most of which is going to the very wealthy, by saying our economy is 
entering a period of slump and perhaps moving into a recession, so we 
need a tax break to generate activity within our economy and keep us 
from going into a recession. Lo and behold a couple of days ago I was 
flabbergasted to hear the President say we need a tax cut so people can 
spend it on gasoline so that my friends in the oil industry can reap 
the benefits of the tax cut, basically. It is just beyond belief that 
we would have such shallow, superficial thinking going on when the 
Nation is facing a very serious problem.
  My colleague said he thinks this concern about gas prices may be near 
the top of people's concerns. I can tell my colleagues after having 
gone home to southern Ohio for the last several weekends, in my 
district it is the primary concern. I can go nowhere in my district 
without meeting people who are saying to me, Congressman, what can you 
do about these gasoline prices?
  I can tell you this weekend the cheapest gasoline I could find in 
southern Ohio was nearly $1.86 per gallon. That was for the cheapest 
grade, and the premium was over $2 a gallon.
  Mr. Speaker, another thing that troubles me, these prices fluctuate 
overnight. Especially as we move toward the weekend, this happens 
regularly. As we are moving toward the weekend on Thursday night or 
Friday morning, prices may escalate 10 or 15 cents or more overnight. 
This happens weekend after weekend.
  Now, the American people are fairly wise, and they know when they are 
being taken advantage of. I believe that there is a quiet but growing 
anger throughout this country. Those of us in political office who are 
supposed to be representatives of the people are going to pay a heavy 
price if we do not deal with this issue. The American people are being 
gouged. They are being charged unfair prices, and they feel hopeless 
and helpless; and they are looking to Washington for some relief.
  Mr. Speaker, to have the President say there is nothing we can do, to 
have the Vice President say there is nothing we can do is not 
acceptable. We must do something. I have been trying to search for 
solutions. I think we should even consider the possibility of a 
windfall profit tax to be levied on these companies that are gouging 
the American public.
  Last summer in the early summer, myself and the two Senators from 
Ohio, Senator Voinovich and Senator DeWine, both Republican Senators, 
met with the Federal Trade Commission. We were concerned at that time 
with what was happening with escalating gasoline prices, and we asked 
them to look into the situation and try to determine if something 
illegal was happening, if collusion was occurring between the oil 
companies.
  Finally, after several months of looking at this, they came out with 
a report. The report stated that it was not

[[Page 8096]]

possible for them to establish indications of collusion which would be 
illegal, but that there was some strong indication that some of these 
companies were purposefully withholding supplies in an effort to drive 
up prices.
  Now, I want to say a word about supply. I do not like the fact that 
OPEC has cut back on supplies. The fact is we used our national 
resources, we put our sons and daughters in danger to protect Kuwait 
and to keep that part of the world relatively free of the threat of 
Saddam Hussein. We are supposed to be friendly with Mexico. It troubles 
me that these companies that use our support and use our protection and 
use our resources, when they find themselves in need would be so 
terribly insensitive to the situation facing this country that they 
would cut back on supplies.
  But it troubles me even more, Mr. Speaker, that our President is 
unwilling to expect something out of these OPEC nations that we as a 
Nation have a right to suspect. It troubles me that he will not urge 
and insist that they increase their production. Having said that, I 
suspect that the problem is not a supply problem right now in the 
immediate future, but the problem is a pricing problem. I do not see 
any stations running out of gasoline or lines of people waiting to get 
gasoline. We can buy as much gasoline in southern Ohio as we are 
willing to pay for. The problem is that we are simply being charged too 
much.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe there will be a price to pay, regardless of 
whether or not we are Democrats or Republicans, or from what part of 
the country we come. If we do not do something to give relief to the 
American public, the American public has every right to seek 
retribution against us at the polls. The American people are patient 
and tolerant, and I think they are wise; but they also get tired, and 
there is a line beyond which we must not cross. We owe them protection.
  I urge the President, I urge the leadership of this House to assume 
the responsibility that we rightfully have as representatives of the 
people and think of the various ways in which we can take action to 
bring some immediate relief this spring, this summer to the American 
people.
  I wanted to share those thoughts with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, 
because I know that the American people are paying attention to what we 
are doing up here, and I think they are also paying attention to what 
we are not doing up here. I urge all of my colleagues to address all of 
these issues.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
what he said. He mentioned two things that I want to elaborate on. 
First, about the Bush administration's inaction on the price of 
gasoline.
  Mr. Speaker, I often find myself quoting the Vice President because 
he seems to be the one who speaks more often on this issue, maybe on 
most issues, but certainly on this issue. Reading something from 
Reuters today where Vice President Mr. Cheney said, ``Record high U.S. 
gasoline prices cannot be blamed on the global price of crude.'' In an 
interview with Reuters, Cheney also said, ``Jawboning OPEC to increase 
production and reduce the price of crude would have market 
consequences.'' I do not know what he means by that. He says that if 
the United States talked OPEC nations into increasing production, thus 
dropping the price of crude, the end result could be a slowing in 
investment by oil companies.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the oil companies are 
recording record profits. The oil companies are getting the profits 
which they ought to be using to invest in new technologies and in new 
resources. We ought not to feel sorry for the oil companies. They are 
doing very well. But I tell you who I feel sorry for. I have got 
residents in my district who drive one way 85 or 95 miles to work so 
that they can have a job to support their families. They do that day in 
and day out, and some of them year in and year out. They are going to 
the pumps, and they are paying $1.86 up to $2 per gallon to put 
gasoline in their tanks simply so they can go to work and earn a 
living. We have got a responsibility to do something about that. It 
just really, really troubles me.
  When someone runs for the Presidency, they assume responsibility. The 
President has a responsibility to the American people to provide 
leadership and to protect them from being gouged by the oil industry. 
That is his responsibility. If he did not want to accept that 
responsibility, he ought not to have sought the Presidency. There is a 
burden that comes with an office. We share it here in this House, but 
the President and the Vice President share it as well. They have got a 
responsibility to step up to the plate to say what is happening is 
wrong and to take steps to make sure that the American people are 
protected.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we can overestimate the anger of the 
American people on this issue, and it is going to grow as we enter into 
the summer months and gasoline goes from $1.86 to $2 and beyond. That 
is when we are going to see the strong feelings of the American people 
directed toward us. That is one of the reasons to act. The real reason 
we should act is because it is the right think to do for our 
constituents. But even if we did not care about the well-being of our 
constituents, if our only unworthy motive was our political survival, 
we ought to care.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the President and the Vice President and the 
leaders of this House are listening to this debate because the American 
people are expecting action.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with what the gentleman 
said. I was looking at this last statement which I read where the Vice 
President said if the U.S. talked OPEC nations into increasing 
production, thus dropping the price of crude, the end result could be a 
slowing in investment by oil companies. It is almost as if he is saying 
that it is a good thing that the prices are going up because that gives 
them more money to invest, which is incredible.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I think his actions indicate that he is happy with 
the high prices. To say that the answer to the high prices is just for 
the American citizen to get a tax break so he can then take that tax 
break, use it to pay these high prices so that the oil companies will 
get their profits, that is very troubling to me.
  Mr. PALLONE. I agree. It is incredible to think about the reasoning 
that goes behind it.
  The second thing which was mentioned is the profits that the 
companies are getting. There is a chart here that I have that says that 
while consumers face spiking energy prices, many oil, gas and power 
companies post record profits. For example, Exxon-Mobil reaped nearly 
$18 billion in profits last year, up more than 120 percent over the 
previous year.
  This has a chart, and I will just give a few of them. It has Exxon-
Mobil profits, increased from 1999 124 percent; British Petroleum-Amoco 
increased 54 percent; Chevron increase in profits over the year, 151 
percent; Hess, which is in New Jersey, increase of 234 percent; Texaco, 
an increase of 116 percent. It is just incredible to see how much money 
they have been making.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Their profits are enormous. The supplies are there; 
otherwise we would not be able to go to the pump and buy the gasoline. 
I know of nowhere in this country where there seems to be a shortage of 
gasoline at this time. There is all of the gas that we want to buy if 
we are willing and able to pay for it. How much profit is enough? How 
much profit is it going to take to encourage the oil industry to 
innovate and to do those things that they need to do to bring more 
supplies to market?
  Mr. Speaker, if I felt that there was a true shortage of supply, then 
there may be some reasonable expectation that prices would escalate. 
But what we have now is apparently a sufficient supply; but ever-
increasing costs and ever-increasing profits; and we have got a 
President and a Vice President who seems to think that is okay. That is 
very troubling.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong what we say 
necessarily, but I want to mention again that the Democrats came out 
today

[[Page 8097]]

with an energy policy and principles. Obviously, we did this a couple 
of days before we hear the final report that is going to come out from 
the Vice President which will express the President's position. I am 
very proud of what we did today because it basically addresses each of 
the issues that I think that the public is concerned about, both short 
term and long term.
  If I can just review it and then we can finish our Special Order. 
First of all, it specifically deals with the problem of prices going up 
now, first of all, by asking that the President put pressure on OPEC to 
increase production and lower prices and to use the SPR, the strategic 
petroleum reserve, and to investigate the price gouging by the biggest 
companies.

                              {time}  2000

  Then it has with regard to energy efficiency, what I mentioned, these 
best tax credits for both consumers and businesses to improve energy 
efficiency, to use renewables; and then we also have emergency funding 
to help low- and fixed-income families meet the rising cost of home 
heating and cooling bills, basically supplemental to the LIHEAP program 
which helps people with their energy bills. We have the price caps 
imposed on wholesale electricity prices in the West, which I think is 
necessary. That is something that we are going to be addressing in our 
committee next week when we get the energy bill that comes up. We also 
have strong provisions to protect the environment. We are saying that 
you can increase production, but you have to do it in a way that 
protects the environment.
  One of the things I would note is that during the 8 years of the 
Clinton administration, there actually was a significant increase in 
production; but they were not drilling in ANWR and other sensitive 
areas. What we are really doing, I think, is investing in the future. 
We are trying to come up with ways to encourage conservation, do things 
more efficiently, increase production but at the same time address this 
real problem that exists now both with the energy crisis where you have 
blackouts, electricity blackouts, as well as with the high price of 
gasoline. All those things have to be looked at as the gentleman 
pointed out. I want to thank him, and I want to thank the rest of my 
colleagues for joining me this evening.

                          ____________________