[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9651-9657]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               GAS PRICE RELIEF FOR CONSUMERS ACT OF 2008

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 6074) to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-
producing and exporting cartels illegal and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6074

       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 ``Gas Price Relief for 
     Consumers Act of 2008''.

                   TITLE I--AMENDMENT TO SHERMAN ACT

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``No Oil Producing and 
     Exporting Cartels Act of 2008'' or ``NOPEC''.

     SEC. 102. SHERMAN ACT.

       The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     after section 7 the following:
       ``Sec. 7A. (a) It shall be illegal and a violation of this 
     Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality or agent of 
     any foreign state, to act collectively or in combination with 
     any other foreign state, any instrumentality or agent of any 
     other foreign state, or any other person, whether by cartel 
     or any other association or form of cooperation or joint 
     action--
       ``(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil, 
     natural gas, or any other petroleum product;
       ``(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or 
     any petroleum product; or
       ``(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade 
     for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;
     when such action, combination, or collective action has a 
     direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the 
     market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, 
     or other petroleum product in the United States.
       ``(b) A foreign state engaged in conduct in violation of 
     subsection (a) shall not be immune under the doctrine of 
     sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction or judgments of the 
     courts of the United States in any action brought to enforce 
     this section.
       ``(c) No court of the United States shall decline, based on 
     the act of state doctrine, to make a determination on the 
     merits in an action brought under this section.
       ``(d) The Attorney General of the United States may bring 
     an action to enforce this section in any district court of 
     the United States as provided under the antitrust laws.''.

     SEC. 103. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

       Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6) by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (7) by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) in which the action is brought under section 7A of 
     the Sherman Act.''.

    TITLE II--CREATION OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY 
                          ANTITRUST TASK FORCE

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PETROLEUM 
                   INDUSTRY ANTITRUST TASK FORCE.

       (a) Establishment of Task Force.--The Attorney General 
     shall establish in the Department of Justice a Petroleum 
     Industry Antitrust Task Force (in this title referred to as 
     the ``Task Force'').
       (b) Responsibilities of Task Force.--The Task Force shall 
     have the responsibility for--
       (1) developing, coordinating, and facilitating the 
     implementation of the investigative and enforcement policies 
     of the Department of Justice related to petroleum industry 
     antitrust issues under Federal law,
       (2) consulting with, and requesting assistance from, other 
     Federal entities as may be appropriate, and
       (3) preparing and submitting to the Congress an annual 
     report that--
       (A) describes all investigatory and enforcement efforts of 
     the Department of Justice related to petroleum industry 
     antitrust issues, and
       (B) addresses the issues described in subsection (c).
       (c) Issues To Be Examined by Task Force.--The Task Force 
     shall examine all issues related to the application of 
     Federal antitrust laws to the market for petroleum and 
     petroleum products, including the following:
       (1) The existence and effects of any price gouging in sales 
     of gasoline.
       (2) The existence and effects of any international oil 
     cartels.
       (3) The existence and effects of any collusive behavior in 
     controlling or restricting petroleum refinery capacity.
       (4) The existence and effects of any anticompetitive price 
     discrimination by petroleum refiners or other wholesalers of 
     gasoline to retail sellers of gasoline.
       (5) The existence and effects of any unilateral actions, by 
     refiners or other wholesalers of petroleum products, in the 
     nature of withholding supply or otherwise refusing to sell 
     petroleum products in order to inflate the price of such 
     products above competitive levels.
       (6) The existence and effects of any anticompetitive 
     manipulation in futures markets or other trading exchanges 
     relating to petroleum or petroleum products.
       (7) The existence and effects of any other anticompetitive 
     market manipulation activities involving petroleum or 
     petroleum products.
       (8) Any other anticompetitive behavior that impacts the 
     price or supply of petroleum or petroleum products.
       (9) The advisability of revising the merger guidelines to 
     appropriately take into account particular aspects of the 
     petroleum and petroleum products marketplace.

[[Page 9652]]

       (10) The advisability of amending the antitrust laws in 
     light of any competitive problems in the petroleum and 
     petroleum products marketplace described in paragraphs (1)-
     (8) that cannot currently be effectively addressed under such 
     laws.
       (d) Director of Task Force.--The Attorney General shall 
     appoint a director to head the Task Force.
       (e) Initial Report.--The 1st report required by subsection 
     (b)(2) shall be submitted to the Congress not later than 
     December 31, 2008.

        TITLE III--STUDY BY THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

     SEC. 301. STUDY BY THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study evaluating the effects of 
     mergers addressed in covered merger consent decrees on 
     competition in the markets involved, including the 
     effectiveness of divestitures required under those consent 
     decrees in preserving competition in those markets.
       (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a 
     report to Congress and the Department of Justice regarding 
     the findings of the study conducted under subsection (b).
       (c) Attorney General Consideration.--Upon receipt of the 
     report described in subsection (b), the Attorney General 
     shall refer the report to the Task Force established under 
     section 201, which shall consider whether any further 
     enforcement action is warranted to protect or restore 
     competition in any market affected by a transaction to which 
     any covered merger consent decree relates.
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``covered merger 
     consent decree'' means a consent decree entered in the 10-
     year period ending on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     in an enforcement action brought under section 7 of the 
     Clayton Act against a person engaged in the business of 
     exploring for, producing, refining, processing, storing, 
     distributing, or marketing petroleum or petroleum products.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members 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 Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen the price of oil skyrocket, from about $50 
a barrel only a year ago, to nearly $128 a barrel as of last week. The 
retail price of gasoline has likewise jumped and is now in the range of 
$4 a gallon. Americans are finding it increasingly more difficult to 
fill up their gas tank in the family car.
  A number of factors undoubtedly contribute to this dire situation. 
Some might cite the war in Iraq which the President has waged for 5 
years, which has both diverted trillions of dollars from more 
productive uses in our economy and, at the same time, contributed to 
the weakening of the dollar against other currencies.
  Others will say that we should be devoting more resources to 
alternative fuels. But let's not overlook the elephant in the room. We 
have a dysfunctional marketplace for oil. We depend on a few large oil 
refining companies to supply gasoline. They have become even fewer and 
even larger as a result of a wave of mergers over the last decade or 
so. What's more, at the center of it all is an international oil 
cartel, OPEC.
  The Gas Price Relief For Customers Act of 2008, introduced by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) addresses that marketplace 
dysfunction in three important ways.
  First, it clears away the dubious legal doctrines that have been 
twisted to prevent us from holding the OPEC cartel accountable under 
antitrust laws. It will now be clear that price fixing violates 
antitrust laws just as much when committed by OPEC as it does by other 
cartels.
  Just last week, President Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia, hat in hand, 
to ask King Abdullah to relax just a little OPEC cartel's choke hold on 
the world oil marketplace. King Abdullah said no, he would not.
  OPEC's concerted manipulation of world oil marketplaces calls for 
more than begging for help. It calls for full antitrust enforcement. 
Our antitrust laws are international in their reach, and over the years 
they've been used effectively against numerous cartels around the world 
to vindicate the rights of American consumers to receive the benefits 
of honest competition. There is no excuse for giving the most notorious 
cartel a free pass.
  Second, the bill requires the Justice Department to establish a task 
force to better ensure that it is effectively monitoring all parts of 
the petroleum and petroleum products marketplace for anticompetitive 
practices that artificially restrict supply or inflate prices, such as, 
for example, the illegal manipulation of investments in the futures 
market.
  Third, the bill requires GAO to take a retrospective look at oil 
industry mergers that were allowed to take place over the past decade 
to assess to what extent the resulting increase in market concentration 
has contributed to the high gas prices Americans are now paying at the 
pump. This will help inform Congress and the antitrust enforcers as to 
what needs to be done to better ensure a competitive gasoline 
marketplace going forward.
  These three important steps we can take now to better ensure, to 
better secure lower market prices for gasoline that the honest 
competition will bring about for all Americans.
  I would, again, like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. Kagen 
for bringing this bill before us to the House.
  I urge my colleagues to support it and reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it's painfully obvious to the American people that the 
price of gasoline is going up. This week the national average price per 
gallon of gas hit $3.77; that's up 63 cents from the same period last 
year. At every fill-up, American families are reminded that driving 
anywhere is going to cost them more than ever.
  Higher gas prices cause a real drain on family finances, and if they 
remain high, they could serve as a drag on our economy. In fact, I 
believe they do serve as a drag on our economy.
  Rising gas prices and subsequent congressional interest are not a new 
phenomenon. It seems that every year Congress conducts a new 
investigation of the oil industry. By my estimation, in this House, 
House committees have held no less than 20 hearings, and that's on the 
gas prices. In the House Judiciary Committee, alone, we've held two 
hearings just this year, and there's another one scheduled for this 
Thursday. Those hearings were last year, one more scheduled for this 
Thursday.
  Despite all of this, all this oversight, the price at the pump 
continues to rise. As the Federal Trade Commission has reported, 
though, changes in world oil prices have explained 85 percent of the 
changes in the price of gasoline in the U.S. The price of gas at the 
pump closely tracks the price of a barrel of oil in the world market.
  Further, the FTC has repeatedly found that there is no broad-based 
collusion to fix prices or engage in price gouging in the retail sale 
of gasoline.
  Another factor impacting the price at the pump has been the decline 
of the dollar. While the cost of oil has gone up worldwide, its impact 
has been felt more in the United States because of the lower value of 
the dollar, vis-a-vis other countries. For example, while the price of 
West Texas intermediate crude, in dollars, has increased almost 109 
percent since January of 2007, that would be the beginning of the 110th 
Congress, Mr. Speaker, it has only increased 78\1/2\ percent if it's 
calculated in euros or 84 percent in yen. ``Only'' seems like an 
interesting phrase to put in there. But a 109 percent increase in 
dollars, 78\1/2\ percent in euros or 84 percent in yen.
  So what can Congress do to reduce fuel prices? It can expand the 
domestic

[[Page 9653]]

supply of energy. Yet time and again, the Democratic leadership has 
rejected opportunities to increase that supply and bring gas prices 
down.
  What has the majority brought to a vote?
  Well, this is the second time in this Congress that we're considering 
NOPEC. Everyone knows that the world oil price is dictated mainly by 
the quantity of oil that the organization of petroleum exporting 
countries is willing to supply and, of course, in relation to the 
demand for that oil.
  Most would argue that the presence of this cartel, controlled in 
large part by totalitarian or hostile regimes, is not helpful. The 
question is, though, what could or should Congress do about it? NOPEC 
is one possible solution to this problem, but because of the Act of 
State doctrine and the concept of sovereign immunity, Americans are 
precluded from suing the cartel that controls a good portion of the 
world's oil supply. This bill would change that or at least attempt to.
  However, there is no certainty that enabling the Attorney General to 
sue OPEC for an antitrust violation will result in lower gas prices for 
Americans. Given the instability that such a suit might create in the 
world oil market, this legislation would be long on psychic 
compensation, but short on actual returns to America's pocketbook.
  I'm concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill. 
Moreover, this particular bill has no consideration, has had no 
consideration in the House Judiciary Committee. In addition to the 
NOPEC provision which the House considered last year, it also creates a 
task force at the Department of Justice to study the anticompetitive 
aspects of the oil and gas markets. Yet the Federal Trade Commission 
has studied this area repeatedly and found no widespread collusion.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is administratively 
burdensome on the Department of Justice and at best is duplicative of 
efforts that already take place at the FTC.
  I recognize this bill will likely pass the House again today, but I 
urge the majority to quit with the cheap theatrics and easy votes. This 
Congress should be considering legislation to actually expand oil 
supply such as drilling in ANWR. We're not seeing a vote on drilling in 
ANWR in this Congress, in this 110th Congress, or drilling in the Outer 
Continental Shelf, where I happen to know there are 406 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas. But, rather, these bills are brought up that might 
prompt OPEC countries to turn off their supply of oil to the U.S. or to 
squeeze it down.
  That's my opening statement and my view on this bill.
  I would reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished author of this bill, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues for bringing 
attention to this important aspect of our economy. As everyone 
understands, the cost of oil and the cost of energy is hamstringing and 
pulling down every one in our economy. Northeast Wisconsin, much like 
the State of Iowa, is very similar to many places in the country. It's 
highly rural, and in large part in Wisconsin we've got the northern 
forest lands and farm lands.
  Our way of life, like the rest of America, depends upon oil as a 
primary source of energy. Our way of life depends on affordable energy 
for our industries, such as agriculture, manufacturing of paper, of 
ships, and many other essentials.
  Why all of this insight into northeast Wisconsin? Well, much like 
your friends and your families and your coworkers, my friends in 
Wisconsin are wondering how much longer they will be able to continue 
to farm, to drive to work, to transport their goods, to run their 
trucks at today's impossible gas prices. And what about our senior 
citizens who are struggling to live on fixed incomes? We owe them and 
everyone in the Nation to respond to the oil energy crisis that we face 
together.
  Now, there are many causes for the increased price of gasoline, and 
Congress cannot address all of them. But the one thing Congress can do 
is to make certain that the price paid by our constituents for gasoline 
is not the result of anti-competitive practices and that the Department 
of Justice will devote necessary resources to address this issue.
  In May of 2007, Congress passed H.R. 2264, the No Oil Producing and 
Exporting Cartels Act, otherwise known as NOPEC. This was by a vote of 
345-72. And at that time, we were outraged, outraged that the price of 
crude oil was $65 a barrel and at that time, $3 for every gallon of 
gasoline. Now, compare that to today in May of 2008 when crude oil is 
over $125 a barrel and $4 at the pump. By passing NOPEC, the House 
agreed it was time to give U.S. authorities the ability to prosecute 
anti-competitive conduct committed by international cartels that 
restricts supply and drives up prices.
  OPEC, the world's most well-known oil cartel, accounts for more than 
two-thirds of global oil production, and OPEC's oil exports represent 
65 percent of the oil traded internationally.
  What NOPEC did was to remove the immunity of sovereign states, and 
appropriately so. However, the conduct of OPEC and its members has been 
beyond the reach of Federal prosecutors. NOPEC addressed this legal 
barrier for prosecution by removing their sovereign immunity and 
bringing the conduct of international oil cartels within the reach of 
United States antitrust laws.
  This bill I submit today, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 
2008, builds on NOPEC by doing three things: first, it incorporates the 
NOPEC provisions as passed last year; secondly, the bill authorizes the 
creation of the Department of Justice Petroleum Industry Antitrust Task 
Force. Among its responsibilities, the task force will examine such 
issues as the existence and effects of price gouging in the sale of 
gasoline, anticompetitive price discrimination by petroleum refineries, 
unilateral actions to withhold supply in order to inflate prices, and 
manipulation of the futures markets; and third, the bill provides for a 
GAO study as to the effect of prior mergers on competition and order 
divestitures in the petroleum industry.
  Recent data reveal that at the same time oil supplies were going up 
and U.S. demand was going down, the oil prices continued to rise due, 
as some have suggested, to speculators in the oil and gas marketplace.
  Well, like many others, I believe it's time to shed some light into 
the dark regions of the speculated oil markets, and this bill will do 
just that by allowing the Department of Justice, the GAO, and Congress 
to do its work to guarantee that oil prices reflect supply-and-demand 
economic rules instead of the wild and speculative and, perhaps, 
illegal activities of some.
  Until we finally have an energy policy other than drill and burn, 
this bill will begin to set things right for the American people. 
Although this bill will not end the pain at the pump for us this month, 
it will deliver the information and the insight we need to construct a 
meaningful energy policy aimed at beginning to become an energy 
independent nation once again.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the minority 
whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think we've already passed this bill in this Congress 345-76 or 
something like that. And I'm not surprised we're seeing it again. We're 
not seeing answers to the energy problems we face. Gas prices reached 
another high yet today. $3.79 a gallon is the average in the country. 
American families and small businesses are paying $1.46 per gallon more 
today than they were paying when Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker.
  In 2006, the minority leader at that time, Nancy Pelosi, said, 
Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas 
prices. Well, for weeks now Republicans have been asking what that 
commonsense plan was, and we've given up on that; and so we

[[Page 9654]]

will begin in the next new days going ahead and rolling out our plans 
as to what we think we could do to do something about these prices.
  This bill was not an answer last year. It is not an answer this year. 
NOPEC is no answer. NOPEC is no policy. NOPEC actually means more 
dependence. Why we would want to continue to head down the road of more 
dependence on oil from outside the United States is amazing to me.
  Ninety-one percent of all Americans commute to work using an 
automobile. And the increase in gasoline costs for the 3.3 million 
Americans who drive at least 50 miles each day to work has increased by 
$1,200 since this Congress began its work 16 months ago.
  I had a roundtable in my district last week with people, a lot of 
whom probably at the table I was at, the average was a drive of about 
45 or 50 miles; and if you're working at a job that pays by the hour 
and you're driving 45 or 50 miles a day, you really don't have a 
choice. Where I live and where many of our Members live, there is no 
mass transit, there is no bus, there is no alternative other than to 
get there in your own car or to ride with somebody else.
  And so you're now either paying an extra $100 a month just to get to 
work or you're somehow sharing that $100 with the person you figured 
out how to ride with. The average American drives about 15,000 miles 
per year, and that means the average Americans are now paying almost 
$700 more for gasoline than they were when this new majority took over.
  The upcoming Memorial Day weekend is really known as the traditional 
start of the summer driving season. It's only 4 days away, and 9 out of 
10 trips made during that summer travel season are made in an 
automobile, 9 out of 10 family vacations occur in an automobile; and 
we're setting record prices every day. In fact, this is the twelfth 
consecutive day for an all-time record gas price increase. Last week 
was the ninth consecutive week for an all-time gas price increase 
record. And we have NOPEC back on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time we got bills on the floor that did the things 
that need to be done to get the country heading in the right direction. 
Republicans have sponsored those bills, Democrats have sponsored those 
bills. But where are they? They don't have a hearing in the Energy 
Committee, they don't have a place on the floor, and gas prices 
continue to go up.
  We need to do things that promote clean and reliable power 
generation. We need to do things that improve expanding American energy 
production. We need greater energy efficiency, greater conservation, 
and in the short term, we could do things like we finally did last week 
on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and like we've urged this Congress 
to do which is to abandon the 18\1/2\ cent Federal gas tax for the 
summer driving months and at least have that kind of impact on the 
driving public as we take another hundred days to try to find a real 
solution. We are not going to find the solutions by repeating work we 
did last year.
  Americans are tired of these gas prices going up. This Congress 
should do something about it. It can't do something about it without 
energy bills on the floor that do more than study a problem that we all 
know only makes the dependence on foreign countries worse.
  Let's reduce dependence, let's encourage research, and let's do what 
we can to get America moving again with energy policies that make sense 
for American families and American workers.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself very briefly such 
time as I may consume just to reference a report.
  A comment was made about committee hearings. The report that I am 
referencing references the committee hearings and committee 
considerations and committee votes on the bill in the last year. It's 
essentially the same bill. The report is report number 110-160. It's an 
11-page report that outlines what we did in terms of committee 
consideration.
  I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
  Mr. Speaker, we just heard an argument made for that we shouldn't do 
another study, that we shouldn't look into the darkness of these oil-
speculative marketplaces, that we shouldn't do anything but continue 
more of the same, more and more of the same.
  Well, let me offer, Mr. Speaker, some numbers. The first number is 7. 
For 7 years, we have not had an energy policy. We have had an energy 
policy that was designed behind closed doors. The next number is 300, 
300-percent increase in the cost of gasoline at the pump. The people in 
Wisconsin, the people across America need a positive change in their 
energy policy, and that we can do some time this fall.
  The other number I would offer is 200. It's a 200 percent increase in 
fuel oil prices. Now, if you're living in northern Wisconsin and you 
are using fuel oil to heat your home and you are on a fixed income, 
this is pain not just at the pump but also at home. And I want to bring 
attention to the fact that we are bringing about that change, but we 
can't do it without studying and getting the facts; and this bill will 
offer that opportunity.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me this time.
  I must say that I came to the floor with great expectancy that we 
were discussing something that would actually provide gas price relief. 
Instead, we have another study that reviews the question of cartels and 
their impact upon prices of gasoline or oil in the United States 
presuming that unilaterally America, one way or another, can control 
what other countries do in terms of their partnerships known as 
cartels.
  I must say that it's very clear that there are any number of avenues 
that can be followed, that should have been followed formerly that can 
affect the availability of crude oil in the United States. We have a 
huge, huge domestic supply.
  In my own State, California, you have heard a bit today about a thing 
called the Pelosi premium. Frankly I'm not excited much about the 
Pelosi premium. The fact that the gentlelady from San Francisco is now 
the Speaker of the House is significant to California, but her 
district, just like mine, must be suffering as much as everybody with 
the price per gallon of gasoline at the pump. So together, we've got to 
try in California to find policy and program that will bring about 
change.
  For example, for a long time for appropriate reasons we've been very 
sensitive about offshore drilling in California because of our 
beautiful Pacific Coast. We also now know that there are technologies 
developed and available beyond the site line that could cause us to at 
least take a look at how we tap that crude oil far off of our coast as 
a potential alternative supply. Without supply to meet the demand, 
America is not going to have independence from the Middle East.
  Look to the south. The gulf region has tremendous potential in terms 
of future crude development. Could we not have developed policies that 
are foreign policies dealing with Latin countries to help them 
technologically better tap those sources so in spite of what goes on in 
Florida or in Texas or otherwise near the gulf, we could be reaching 
out in ways to allow that crude oil to become available here in our 
domestic supply and thereby put pressure on OPEC.

                              {time}  1545

  The technology that is developing relative to what we do with shale 
has tremendous potential in terms of tapping our reserves. We know that 
takes time but it also takes priority.
  Instead of phony cartel bills, where are the bills that bring forward 
those policy changes and add to the research, as well as the specific 
funding for technology to reach into those reserves?

[[Page 9655]]

  My friends on the floor have talked about the fact that it would take 
10 years for us to effectively tap resources in Alaska, but for 10 
years, those same people have been resisting our tapping into those 
resources. If we'd begun 10 years ago, that crude oil would be online 
right this moment, putting pressure on the process to allow us to meet 
our demand more effectively here at home rather than depending upon 
those overseas.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it's time we got onto the policies in both bodies 
that make sense for America, and I appreciate the time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume just to point out that this isn't the only thing that we're 
trying to do. This is just one of the things that we're trying to do 
about excessive gas prices.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) such time as she may consume.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia for his leadership, and I appreciate greatly the leadership of 
Dr. Kagen of Wisconsin for this enormously thoughtful legislation for 
it is focused, if you will, on moving the ball forward for suffering 
constituents, whether they're in Wisconsin, Virginia, Texas. Even oil- 
and gas-producing States such as Texas are facing the crisis of oil 
shortages, gasoline high prices and difficulties for working men and 
women.
  Why is this thoughtful? I serve on the Antitrust Task Force on the 
House Judiciary Committee, and we're looking at broad-based issues, 
domestic and international, on how prices are being either constrained 
or expanded by the idea of maintaining price controls.
  And so OPEC itself, being with many of its members who are part of 
the WTO, certainly can be subjected to the question that is raised by 
this legislation.
  The bill authorizes the Attorney General to establish a Department of 
Justice petroleum industry antitrust task force, very thoughtful and 
forward-thinking. This task force has the responsibility to develop, 
coordinate and facilitate the implementation of the investigative and 
enforcement policies of the Department of Justice related to the 
petroleum industry.
  We must do something, and this is a complement to the very important 
work that the Democrats did moving forward very important energy 
legislation that deals with alternatives, that really spoke to Mom and 
Pop, that spoke to the truck drivers.
  And I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move this 
legislation forward to address the question of whether OPEC is 
manipulating prices. Certainly, it can be a better approach on what 
happened over the last couple of days when we know that one of the OPEC 
members simply said I'll give you a few pennies on the market by 
offering up an extra couple of barrels of oil.
  This is a reasoned perspective, and so I would reach out to the 
administration to work with us. The energy bill is languishing. Why? 
Because we hear that the administration will, in fact, veto it.
  There are some ideas that I think are important. Those of us on the 
gulf region have supported a safe, environmental process of exploring 
in the gulf. Some of us do believe that there can be a moratorium on 
gasoline taxes if it comes from someplace other than the Highway Trust 
Fund.
  Dr. Kagen's bill is meaningful; it is forthright. It says what it 
wants to do, and it gives the procedures for doing so with an important 
task force that questions OPEC and its ability to manipulate prices. It 
is answering the question of those Americans who are in need of relief, 
those truck drivers who are in need of relief, and I ask my colleagues 
to support again this very thoughtful legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6074, the ``Gas Price 
Relief for Consumers Act of 2008.'' I support this bill.
  The purpose of this bill is to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-
producing and exporting cartels illegal and for other purposes. The 
bill makes it illegal for any foreign state or instrumentality to act 
collectively or in combination with any foreign state, to limit the 
production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum 
product. It also makes it illegal to set or maintain the price of oil 
or natural gas, or petroleum product or otherwise take any action in 
restraint of trade for such products.
  The bill authorizes the Attorney General to establish in the 
Department of Justice a Petroleum Industry Antitrust Task Force. This 
Task Force has the responsibility to develop, coordinate, and 
facilitate the implementation of the investigative and enforcement 
policies of the Department of Justice related to the petroleum 
industry.
  The bill authorizes the Task Force to provide an annual report to 
Congress describing the investigatory and enforcement efforts. The bill 
also requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study 
evaluating the effects of mergers addressed in merger consent decrees 
on competition within 1 year of enactment of this bill.
  This bill is an important effort to address the oil crisis faced by 
the United States. Americans are in desperate need of relief. 
Increasingly, as the economy spirals into a recession, Americans must 
choose between food, energy, and gas. This crisis is of national and 
international importance.
  Oil prices have not been regulated since the Reagan Administration; 
however, the market situation since 2004 has yielded little excess 
capacity. Because OPEC determines the supply of oil vis-a-vis demand, 
it plays a significant role in the determination of the price of oil in 
the world market. Whereas OPEC is comprised of approximately 13 
countries, it has 75 percent of the world's oil reserves, which affords 
it considerable control over the global market. OPEC produces 40 
percent of the world's oil needs with approximately 30 million barrels 
of oil per day. The rest of the oil refineries in the world are 
producing at full capacity. Given their large oil reserves, OPEC 
countries have considerable capacity, which if utilized could 
ameliorate the current oil crises.
  The weakening value of the dollar, political uncertainty and unrest 
in places such as Nigeria, Venezuela, India, and China exacerbate the 
problem. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, member countries of OPEC, have the 
capability of producing more oil. In addition, another OPEC member 
country, Iraq, has the capability of producing more oil. Despite this 
excess capacity, the OECD countries and other major oil importers such 
as Japan and the EU, are paying higher prices for oil. Worse still is 
the plight faced by the developing world. While the developed world is 
facing high oil prices, the developing world is facing even higher 
prices with the weakening value of the dollar. Food prices all over the 
world are rising and instability is growing. Something must be done and 
this bill is a first step.
  In Houston, Texas, retail gas prices are above $3.60 a gallon and 
will likely continue to rise this summer. Many analysts see prices 
peaking closer to $4 a gallon. Gas prices are rising on concerns about 
supplies and demand. Analysts say refiners have cut back on gasoline 
production because of low profit margins; the rising price of crude 
means it costs them more to refine gas.
  Demand for gasoline is expected to fall by 85,000 barrels a day this 
summer compared to last because of high prices and the weak economy. 
This would be the first summertime decline in gasoline demand since 
1991. To date, however, falling demand has failed to deflate surging 
gas prices, which are putting more pressure on consumers. Consumers are 
already suffering from higher food prices, falling home values, and a 
tight job market.
  This important bill seeks to address the oil crisis from a domestic 
standpoint. It is an important first step. While the bill amends the 
Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal, I 
believe more can be done, and I work to ensure that all Americans will 
benefit from affordable oil and gas prices.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa has 7 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 6\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I have no further speakers, and Mr. Speaker, I'd 
yield myself so much time as I may consume.
  I would remind Mr. Speaker and remind the body, the substance of this 
bill and what it really does; that is, it outlaws OPEC. It outlaws the 
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and it removes the 
sovereign immunity for these countries and establishes a task force in 
the Department of Justice, and then, additionally to that, it produces 
a GAO study to study

[[Page 9656]]

mergers. That's how I go through and read the bill, those three things 
I think we should keep that in mind on what the bill does.
  What it doesn't do, this bill doesn't outlaw the congressional cartel 
that has blocked our energy production in this country. I take us back 
to the 109th Congress when we had almost all Republicans that were 
ready and did come to this floor and voted to drill in ANWR, the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, which by the way you'd be hard-pressed to 
find wildlife up there, and I've been there to look.
  But we had almost all Republicans that voted for it. A small group of 
them joined together with the Democrats and blocked drilling in ANWR. 
That was the 109th Congress. That's when we were pushing to put more 
oil on the market, more energy on the market, instead of this effort, 
the 110th Congress, this Pelosi Congress, to take energy off the 
market.
  The same kind of situation prevails with drilling in the Outer 
Continental Shelf. Well, within that definition of the Outer 
Continental Shelf, with the exception of borders between us and Cuba, 
the Chinese are drilling for natural gas at 45 miles off of Key West. 
And we aren't willing to go out and drill the Outer Continental Shelf, 
either off Florida or off of California, as Mr. Lewis talked about in 
his presentation.
  Instead, we're here sending a message to the rest of the world that 
we want to set up the scenario so the Department of Justice can step 
into this and file a suit against sovereign countries that are 
conducting business.
  Now, I don't know how someone on the other side can be for unions 
collectively bargaining and against OPEC collectively bargaining, but 
that is one of the ways to define this.
  Another thing that's going on is an attempt to suspend, maybe, logic, 
but attempt to suspend the law of supply and demand. We rail away 
against high gas prices. We've heard that over here. I'm opposed to 
high gas prices, but I'm for putting more energy on the market, more 
Btus into every form of energy that comes in, but instead, we 
intimidate and send a message.
  Even if this bill gets vetoed, which I believe it will, we're sending 
a message over to the OPEC countries that we want to litigate. Rather 
than develop our own oil supplies, we want to litigate? What does that 
say to them? If you're sitting on a board of directors of a 
corporation, you get that kind of message, you make a decision about 
what to do with the capital.
  Now, if you're an OPEC country, you're going to be making a decision 
on what to do with your oil. If the United States Congress says we're 
going to sue you, OPEC countries, what are those countries going to do? 
They've got about three alternatives. They can hurry up and hustle up 
and put more oil supply out there, which is what I think the majority 
hopes they will do. Or they can say, wait a minute, I'm going to hold 
this the way it is because we've got a good business plan here; I'm 
offended but I'm not changing anything. Or they might just decide a 
little bit out of spite to turn the spigot down a little bit to say 
we'll show you.
  Now, the gentleman from Virginia said the President went over to the 
OPEC countries with hat in hand, and he did, and I'm sorry to see that. 
I'm sorry to see the President of the United States ask and get the 
response that he got, but that's driven because we have not opened up 
the energy supplies that we have in this country. We haven't moved 
ourselves towards energy independence. Instead, we're paying the Pelosi 
premium on gasoline.
  And the gentleman from Wisconsin, when he spoke of $65 a barrel oil 
and the last time this bill came up and $3 gas, and today, by his 
numbers, and it moves pretty quickly, $125 a barrel for oil and $4 gas, 
and I wondered about this level of outrage then versus now. And so I 
just did a little math. At what percentage of the price of gasoline 
then, the last time an OPEC bill was here on this floor, what 
percentage of that was wrapped up in the cost of crude oil, oil at $65 
a barrel and $3 gas? If you take a gallon of crude oil, the cost of a 
gallon of crude oil was 52 percent of the cost of that gallon of gas. 
$1.55 a gallon was the cost of the crude oil. Today, the cost per 
gallon of crude oil, according to the gentleman from Wisconsin's 
numbers, which I don't dispute, is $2.98 a gallon just to buy the crude 
oil. That relates out to 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline 
is tied up in the cost of the crude oil, if you rate it accordingly.
  We're getting a better bargain now in relation to the cost of crude 
oil than we were then. It's a higher percentage of the overhead of our 
refineries and distributing companies. They are doing, I think, a good 
job of getting it here, but the oil markets are high. They are high 
because of the cheap dollar. They're high because we have sent the 
wrong message out there, and speculators are taking advantage of this. 
This sends another wrong message out there.
  So if you're an OPEC country, what do you do? You can, as I said, 
provide the same or less oil on the market. One thing you might do is 
maybe pull some investments out of the United States to send another 
message, don't be trying to intimidate us from Congress; let us do some 
business. Or another thing that happens is that it erodes, Mr. Speaker, 
our relationship with those Middle Eastern countries. Those countries 
that are our allies, those countries that are our friends, those 
countries that we need strategically in that part of the world, and 
they need us, this makes it harder for us to work together 
strategically.
  So everything in this Pelosi Congress has taken energy from the 
market. Instead, now we have legislation that outlaws cartels and would 
set it up so the Department of Justice could eventually bring suit and 
presumably freeze the assets ultimately of the countries that are 
invested here in the United States of America.
  Because of the cartel in Congress, this cartel that says if it is 
green, it's good; if it's energy, it's bad; a cartel of people in this 
Congress that believe that the cost of energy going up is a good thing 
because people will burn less gas; if they burn less gas, then somehow 
it saves the planet, you've convinced me. You've convinced me that a 
significant element of the Democrat Caucus really doesn't care about 
high energy prices except the higher the prices go, the less gas will 
be bought and burned and there will be less carbon emissions into the 
atmosphere. That's the wrong priority.
  We need more energy on the market, not less. We've got to grow the 
size of the energy pie. That pie chart that shows the 360-degree 
circle, that's got the slices that are gas, diesel fuel, ethanol, 
biodiesel, solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, all of those, and 
one slice of the pie for conservation as well, Mr. Speaker, all of 
those things is what we need to do. More energy on the market, not 
less, not litigation.
  We need to have a vote on ANWR, and I'd challenge the majority to 
produce that vote so the American people can understand where they 
stand.
  I oppose this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume just to finally conclude by reminding you, Mr. Speaker, that 
this bill will just simply make sure that our antitrust laws apply to 
this oil cartel, just like they apply to every other industry. It is 
just one element in a strategy to try to get gas prices under control.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we will support this bill, just as much as we did 
a virtually identical bill last May 22 when 345 of our colleagues voted 
in favor, only 72 opposed, an overwhelming majority. Even the 
Republicans supported the bill last year. It's rollcall 398.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in strong support 
of H.R. 6074. Today gas prices are higher than they have ever been at 
any time in our Nation's history. These prices are causing a ripple 
effect that is causing the price to rise for even the basic necessities 
of life for Americans, such as food and electricity. And in States like 
my home State of North Carolina, where people must travel farther 
distances to go to work, church, and the grocery store, these prices 
are making it harder to make ends meet.
  This legislation will end the practice of oil producing countries, 
most notably the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

[[Page 9657]]

(OPEC), from intentionally suppressing production capabilities to 
ensure higher profits. This legislation closes a loophole that prevents 
the U.S. Department of Justice from being able to sue these countries 
under anti-trust violations. H.R. 6074 will also establish a Justice 
Department task force that will carefully examine these countries for 
collusion, gouging, trade manipulation, and other unfair practices. 
This task force will be required to report their findings annually to 
the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, for too long these countries have come to rely on a 
strong U.S. market to sell their product. Today, we are sending the 
message that they will now have to play by the rules.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6074.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 6074.
  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. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________