Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you. It is always an honor to come before the House and the 30-Something Working Group, running some 5 or 6 years strong now, coming to the floor on behalf of the American people with fact not fiction. We know that in this day and time it is easy to be misled. And I don't know if it is something that someone means to do or doesn't mean to do, but it happens sometimes. We take great pride in not only having footnotes for what we do and what we say, but making sure that we have the facts to back up what we are sharing with the Members.

Every 30-Something Working Group we start off by sharing with the Members what is happening in Iraq. As of today, July 16, 2008, by 10 a.m., total casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom is 4,121; total number wounded in action returned to duty, 16,901; and total number wounded in action not returning to duty is 3,508.

I think it is very important that we continue to pay close attention to that issue of what is happening right now in Iraq and what is happening in many of the American families that we cherish and celebrate and honor that are military families that are having to worry about their loved ones in harm's way. We have to keep that at the forefront.

As you know, over the past 2 weeks Members have been coming to the floor speaking on the issue of energy. I am happy to not only report but continue to say it wasn't until this Democratic Congress when it was elected, Mr. Speaker, and Members, to lead on behalf of the American people that once upon a time in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress, we talked about if given the opportunity to lead what we would do.

It is one thing in politics to talk about if you give me a chance, this is what I will do. I will go to Washington, DC, and make this or that happen. It is a good thing because we have actually moved in that direction.

I couldn't help but hear my colleagues who I have a great deal of respect for, but I may disagree with from time to time. I can tell you in light of me disagreeing with them, I am just so happy that I do have fact on my side and on the side of the American people because we have been trying to move this Congress and we have done so with the American people's help in electing a Democratic majority Congress.

But we have not been able to overcome the executive branch which is the Bush White House. I think it is also important for us to understand that this whole issue of how we got to $4.30-something gas was not engineered by anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle. I think the policies, the energy policies that were set forth by the Bush administration, the 2001 meeting which took place in Vice President Cheney's part of the White House, the working group on energy, the 108th Congress and the 109th Congress who worked very hard to, and the Congress before that, the Republican-led Congresses which worked hard to follow this policy that the Bush administration set out to please oil companies that has led us into the prices that we are paying here today.

I have to lay that out, Mr. Speaker, to get to what Democrats have done. I am going to do that very quickly because I think I am on the side of solutions versus argument. But for the Members to understand what the solutions should be and the direction that we should be running in at a very fast pace or run or sprint is one of fact and not fiction.

You would have a number of Members in this Congress believe and the American people believe that with two

oil men in the White House we would have some sort of solution as it relates to this issue of oil, but that is not the case.

As we continue to deal with this issue of oil only, because it seems like that is what the Republican side is talking about, it seems to be a part of the problem and not the solution.

If you want to resolve something, you have to start looking at doing things differently. You can't do the same thing expecting different results. When you look at oil and you look at the number of those who have given their life in Iraq, and the reason why Iraq is so important to this country is based on energy. If we had action when the Bush administration took over the executive branch and when the Republicans had the opportunity to lead, well, it was already there according to economists and others, but if they would have had the courage to stand up against Big Oil and say no, we know what you want, but the studies have shown we need to start looking toward alternative fuel, we need to start being innovative and deal with cafe standards and make sure that our vehicles get more mileage. We have to incentivize through tax incentives Detroit and other auto-making parts of America, that we want vehicles that run on less fuel. But no, that was not the argument. That was not what the Republican majority pushed towards. They kept pushing towards this kind of cake and ice cream experience with the oil industry.

I have nothing against the oil industry. Some neighborhoods they may say I am not mad at the oil industry, but I think it is important to note that the only way they could have gotten away with what they have gotten away with is with the help of individuals that were in those Congresses previous to this Congress, the Democratic-led Congress. The only way they got what they are celebrating now is because there is two oil men in the White House. It is well-documented. It is not just me saying that. Anyone can go on the Internet and get this information because that's where their history has been.

I have a couple of charts here: 8 years of Bush, two oil men in the White House, $4 a gallon gas. I mean, I just leave it up to your imagination. I am just one Member of Congress that has a theory, not a theory, but following fact.

What are some of the great ideas on the other side? Well, let's drill in the Arctic wildlife refuge. Let's do that. I think that's important. Yes, let's drill. That was last Congress' argument. Some have said this Congress has a solution. I am not talking fiction, I am talking fact.

That would only bring about 1.8 cents per gallon savings in 2025. Now that's 2025. That's not talking about right now, Members. That's not talking about how families are trying to figure out how they are going to, when they are looking at their vehicles and knowing they are no longer going to be able to afford to take their kids to extracurricular activities, in some cases not even being able to take them to school, in some cases having to walk to make it to religious events, whichever their religion may be, because they can't afford fuel.

Some have had to turn off certain things like cable television or had to do away with certain activities that their children were involved in or philanthropic contributions, at their own level, but it was just $10 or $50 a month to make the world better. They had to cut back on that, put it in the tank.

But this is what the Republicans were talking about and Democrats fought them back. I talked about the 2001 meeting that took place in the White House. It is well documented, well documented.

I can tell you, when I come back to the floor, I am going to bring my chart out that I used to bring, actually the letter that talked about, and the news report, from the Washington Post, it talked about the meeting that took place in 2001.

I know this is hard to see for many of the Members, but in 2002, that meeting started to pay off for Big Oil. Meanwhile, our Republican colleagues, who were in the majority, just stood idly by, and turned the other cheek. There was no problem with oil. There was no problem.

The alternative, why do we have to deal with that when we have oil? Why do we have to deal with that when we have over 143 troops that are in Iraq that's protecting the Iraqi oil, and we have our Commander in Chief holding the hand of the Saudi Arabian king. We have those relationships.

Meanwhile, our constituents, Members, people here in America are not celebrating what these oil companies are celebrating. Again, I have nothing against oil companies, they are doing what they do in a capital society, but they are only allowed to do this because of the Republican past Congress. Remember, I want to make sure the Members know. I'm coming to what we did in this Congress and what role you played in that solution towards bringing gas prices down, or, what I may add, energy prices.

In 2000, the record-breaking profits of some $30 billion; 2003, again, breaking records, $59 billion; 2004, $82 billion for the oil companies and profits; 2005, $109 billion in profits; 2006, $118 billion. It's, again, climbing, and in 2007, $23.3 billion in profits for oil companies based on the Republican-led energy initiatives.

Now they are in the minority, they are now saying, well, we can't get what we want on the table. They have already voted to drill in not only environmentally sensitive places, but places that the oil companies have not even started to drill in yet. We just gave out a whole bunch of leases to the oil companies. They are not even using 80-some odd percent of those leases that have been allowed, they have been allowed to drill. They haven't done it.

So it's almost like having a full plate of food. Imagine you at home, okay, and sitting around the table, Big Oil with food just falling off all ends of the plate, something real heavy like a big steak or something, and mashed potatoes and beans, you know, rolling all over the table, saying we need more. That's what they are saying as it relates to more leases, more drilling. We need more. Okay.

Imagine the individual that's going there to fill the tank with very little on their plate, because they can't afford to put food on their plate because they are too busy paying what we are looking at in these record-breaking profits for these oil companies, with very little on their plate, if anything at all. When you start talking about more drilling, more drilling, you know, it doesn't add up because you have talked about some of these issues.

Let me just mention something here. I am so glad that I got this because I asked for it. I couldn't happen but see the President yesterday quoted in his press conference. We started talking about issues as it relates to oil, I mean, drilling. The President says a lot, so it's kind of hard to try to deal with what he is saying. But he said that, in so many words, and I will go ahead, because it's a lot of words here that he used to describe one thing, in his remarks, he said that drilling will not deal with the oil prices tomorrow. It won't give us the relief that we're looking for.

That's what the President said yesterday on his press conference. Now you can go on pretty much to cnn.com, any other Web site that would have the transcript, but basically we pull these remarks from the transcript. I want to make sure that we get a chart so that people can see it, and we may want to put it on our Web site.

Now, on the Democratic side, we have talked about a number of initiatives. Our comprehensive strategy has been about not only incentivizing wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and American-grown biofuels, but also promote energy, like I mentioned, energy efficiency, efficient cars, buildings. The greening of the Capitol is already under way and has happened. Actually, I wrote a piece this month in the Capital File Magazine talking about what we are doing here in the Capitol to green the Capitol and save our environment and lead by example.

The Speaker is leading that in a very special way, making homes and appliances more energy efficient, boosting American innovation and research, reward conservation, expedite responsible American drilling and also telling Big Oil to use it or lose it. Basically, when you are looking at all the leases that are out there, all the opportunities that Big Oil has right now, but, better yet, it's almost like what we

call the Potomac two-step, because I think that's what the Republican side is doing and the White House is doing.

They are saying drill, drill, drill, because, guess what, that's what's been putting gas in their tank, I think, politically, because the oil companies believe that they are our friends.

The Democrats, they are the problem, because we are talking about alternative fuel. We are talking about conserving. We are talking about investing in the Midwest versus the Middle East. So we are disrupting, when I say we, the American people who voted for this new Congress that we celebrate now, voted for this fact-not-fiction Congress, voted for this new-direction Congress, they voted for change. Republicans are still here singing a song that these oil companies have put on a sheet and started talking about we need to drill to create jobs.

Well, guess what, why haven't they done it with all of the leases that are out there right now and all of the jobs that need to be created. If Big Oil, based on the profits that they have made, can turn this whole economy around and take us out of this recession that some speak of, just with the snap of their fingers, but, guess what, there is something that we call stockholders. They want their money.

They want those dollars to be placed. They don't want to employ people. That will have something to do with my bottom line. So when folks start coming to the floor and start talking about oh, we drill $2 gas, I look forward to that. But we are going to get there doing the same thing, doing the same thing expecting different results.

It's almost like going to the refrigerator, pulling out a carton of milk and saying oh, wow, it's spoiled, put it back in, maybe it will be fresh tomorrow. That doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to keep doing the same thing.

Now, let me just mention here what we have done, and this is, as I understand, on the Speaker's Web site, www.speaker.gov. I think this is important because this is in the Congressional Record and also Congressional Action. Now law because of what the Democrats have done here. The farm bill which is an historic investment in affordable biofuel and also beefed up oversight on market manipulation. House bill 2419. The President's veto was overridden.

Now this is the President. You would think, you out there paying this gas, you are paying this big-time deal for gas. We are trying to find some competition for Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries saying, guess what, we're not going to have to hold your hand walking down some park, our Commander in Chief. We're not going to have to go to war in the Middle East because we have to protect the oil so that we can continue to run our vehicles. We're going to come up with our own bill. We're going to come up with our own way of building energy in a clean way.

And to those that believe in shipping jobs overseas, we're going to create green jobs while we're at it. We are going to make sure that Americans have jobs from those that just have a GED or no high school diploma at all, to those that are architects and have postgraduate studies and who have gone on to do so many things in our society, everyone gets to work in a green society. That's what we are creating, and that's what that farm bill moved, but we had to override the President on May 21, 2008, with a vote of 316-108, and the Democrats moved in that direction.

I think it's important that everyone understand what's taking place here, because when folks come to the floor and talk about they have the answer, many of these individuals have not even voted for the bills that would do exactly what they are talking about doing. This is fact. That's not fiction. Thanks to the Members, we did override with some Republican support. But if it wasn't for the Democratic leadership, this would have never, never happened.

The veto threat, Renewable Energy and Jobs Act, H.R. 6049, passed on May 21. The Democrats, we voted 263-160. I think it's important that everyone understands that that vote came about with 228 Democrats voting in the affirmative versus 35 Republicans voting in the affirmative with 159 Republicans voting against it.

Another veto threat, which is Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act holding OPEC, which is, you know, the oil companies accountable for price fixing, H.R. 6074, again. We have the President that has put out a veto threat. That bill passed the House on May 20, this year, 324 voting in the affirmative, 84 Republicans voting against it, now law. This is the legislation that we put forth, never would have been law if we wouldn't have put it forth. When I say we, I'm saying the Democrats here in Congress.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act, H.R. 6022. I think it's important that you look at this. It passed May 13, 2008, some 385-25. I think it's important that we look at the fact that all Democrats voted for it, 223 voting, Republicans voted in the affirmative, 162-25. That issue, that's now law.

Repeal subsidies to profit-rich big oil companies, invest in renewable energy and fuel efficiency, H.R. 5351, passed February 27. It passed by a 236 vote, 182 voting against the legislation. 219 Democrats voted in the affirmative, 8 voted against. The Republicans, 17 voted for, 174 voted against. You have got to think about that, you have got to think about the whole issue, and that has been threatened by the President that he is going to veto it.

Now, we start talking about the profits that we use, because the real issue is that we need money to come up with alternative fuel. But, again, when it comes down to standing up to Big Oil, cricket sounds on the other side. You know, all bold when it's talking about what Democrats won't let us do. That's interesting, because I have been in Congress under Republican leadership for 4 years, and I have only been in Congress for a year and some change under the Democratic leadership and I can't believe some of the arguments that are coming out on the other side about what they can't do when they've had all of these years to do it.

The American people, I am not talking about Democrats, I am talking about Republicans. I am talking about independents. I am taking about first-time voters, and say, guess what, if you are going to do what you do for Big Oil, then we're going to find somebody else to represent us, and they did.

And the numbers within the double digits on the Republican side are now watching me here on the floor, talking to the Members, Mr. Speaker, because they made the wrong decisions because they followed leadership. We're going to talk about that in a minute right after this chart. They followed their Republican leadership that led them into a hole, and that hole is right in the La-Z-Boy at home, checking this fact-not fiction piece that I'm giving here on the floor. When you look at that vote, that's telling in itself.

Now law. Energy independence law and market manipulation banned and new vehicle mileage standards: H.R. 6. It was passed on December 18 of 2007. 314 votes. The Democrats voted in the affirmative. 100 voted against, Republicans. 219 Democrats voted in the affirmative. Only 4 Democrats voted against it. Republicans were 95 voting in the affirmative and 96 voting against it. That's now law. It never would have been if it weren't for a Democratic-led Congress bringing about that kind of justice on behalf of the American people.

The America Competes Act with energy, research and the development of clean energy and technologies: H.R. 2272. It passed into law--it is now law--on August 2, 2007. 369 Democrats voted in the affirmative. There was an overall vote of 369 to 57 Republicans who voted against it.

Veto threat. Crack down on gas price gouging. Like my pastor would say, I'm going to read that again. Crack down on gas price gouging: H.R. 1252. It passed on May 23 of 2007 with 284 voting in the affirmative and 141 voting against it. On the Democrat side, 228 voting in the affirmative, 1 Democrat voting against it. On the Republican side, 56 Republicans voting for it, 140 against it.

That's part of the solution there. I think that's something we need to look at and something that the President has said that he's going to veto.

Veto threat, holding OPEC accountable, oil price fixing, again, that's standing up to Big Oil. That's standing up to the Middle East, saying we're no longer going to let you lead us by the

nose. We're going to take responsibility for our own energy. It passed May 22, 2007 with 345 voting in the affirmative and 72 voting against. The President has said that he's going to veto it.

Now, when we start talking about who's doing what and who's not, you may see these pieces of paper here, but basically, we just covered up the names of the Republican leadership because that's just a personal policy of mine, Mr. Speaker. I just don't want to, you know, ``out'' these individuals because, I think, the record speaks for itself, but I'm still making the point, and they know who they are.

This is the Republican leadership from top to bottom, and I think that it's important that everyone pays attention to this. As to some of the legislation that I read off, these very individuals voted against it, and I think that's the reason we see the kind of discourse from the other side of the aisle in talking about the old direction versus the new direction. They will throw some new direction stuff in there, knowing that, you know, they really don't mean it. You know, we had the opportunity to do it, but we didn't do it, but we're going to criticize the other side and say they haven't done it.

We have done it. It is the body of several pieces of legislation that have not only become law but that are in the process of becoming law if there were a President in the White House who would allow it to become law.

You remember that old bill on Capitol Hill. This goes down to the majority leader. This goes all the way down to the whip and to the Republican Conference Chair. We have the policy Chairs and all. If you will look at when it came down to OPEC price fixing, the two top leaders on the Republican side voted against that legislation. The No. 5 leadership, No. 6 and No. 7 voted against it.

When you look at the price-gouging legislation that we passed, when we were looking for that leadership of coming together in a bipartisan way, the top Republican leader voted against it. The whip voted against it. The third in charge voted against it. The fifth in charge voted against it. The sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth voted against it and on down the line. This is not fiction. This is fact, okay? This is the Congressional Record.

Renewable energy. The first man voted against it over on the Republican side and the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth, all the way down. Now, if I'm wrong, somebody come and tell me I'm wrong. I don't think so. This is in the Congressional Record.

Energy security. The top voted against it. If you jump down, No. 4 voted against it as well as No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, and No. 8.

So, when folks come to the floor and start talking about ``we have a plan'' and ``we know the answer,'' show me the beef, like that Wendy's commercial used to go. You know, it used to say, ``Now show me the beef.'' I want to know where it is. I don't see it.

I've just come to the floor just to share a little bit because I'm glad that my constituents in the 17th Congressional District from South Florida federalized me to come here to provide this kind of representation and to be able to shed light on the action that has taken place. It's not over yet. We don't have everything that we need to be able to do the things that we need to do on behalf of our constituents because we still have some rules over in the other body across the hall, and we still have the issue in the White House as it relates to the two architects, if I could put it that way, of our energy plan now, who are defending that plan to the end. They have talked about they're not going to do some of the things that we feel should be done now, things that a number of people have said that would help.

We talked about a number of issues as they relate to our passage of legislation, but one thing I left out on that chart that I think we need to share with the Members tonight is the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act, which is called the DRILL Act. It mandates annual lease sales in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve. It also has more oil than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the oil can be brought to the market more quickly.

It requires the Bush administration to facilitate the competition of oil pipeline infrastructure in the Reserve and to facilitate the construction of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline, and it bans the export of Alaskan oil outside of the U.S.

It also incorporates the ``use it or lose it'' legislation. I can tell you that it is compelling oil companies to start drilling on the 68 million acres of undeveloped Federal oil reserves which they are currently warehousing or they are losing the ability to obtain the new leases. I think that it's important that we deal with those issues sooner rather than later.

Before I get into another part of my talk, here is my good friend, Representative Arcuri, from the great State of New York. We have been to a number of places together. We've been to Iraq, and we've also been on some other defense-related visits. I'm so glad that he's here to share a little bit about this issue of energy.

No problem. Anytime you're ready, Mr. Arcuri. I'm no longer 30, but I'm part of the ``Something'' part. So you're always welcome in the 30-Something Working Group. And I want to thank you for bringing those facts to the floor. I think it's important the more Members we get from different parts of the country sharing what they know, what their constituents share with them when they go back home, I think it's important for the Members to hear that. The diversity of ideas makes this body great.

We do have some great ideas coming from the other side of the aisle, too, but it's important that we don't do an us-against-them kind of atmosphere. I believe in bipartisanship. We've had more bipartisanship votes on major pieces of legislation in the 110th Congress than we have had in the previous Congresses. I think that's what the American people are looking for, Mr. Speaker, and I think that's what the Members would like to have.

But in a time of crisis, the last thing that we need to do is to have the kind of dragging down of efforts that we're trying to carry out, of saying, Well, the Democrats won't allow us to do this; they will not allow us to do that. If it's a body of a piece of legislation, just because one of your Members doesn't need that legislation doesn't mean that it's bad legislation.

We're in the majority just like the Republicans were in the majority once upon a time. And we're leading on behalf of the American people. A number of the votes that we've taken on energy, we celebrate a number of Republican votes being with us on those votes. That's the reason some of them become law. That's the reason why we are able to override the President.

So we cannot defend the actions of the President when he's wrong, and I commend some of my colleagues on the other side of being a part of that, but there are a number in double digits, and sometimes, you know, into the hundreds that defend the President to protect the White House. We're not up here to protect the White House. If it's a Democrat or Republican there, we weren't sent up here to say, ``Oh, we're here to protect the White House.'' We're here to protect the American people. So I think that's important.

I want to mention a few things of what we've done as Democrats.

I'm going to read, Mr. Speaker, from the 2008 letter on July 8 that the Speaker sent the President about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which we call the SPR, signed bipartisan legislation into law that I talked about earlier to urge the President to release some of the oil, that refined fuel, from the Strategic Oil Reserve. Now this is not the first time. This is not something that the Speaker said, Oh, let's just do this because of the first time that we would have ever done it in the country. That's not the case. Desert Shield, Desert Storm drawdown by George W. Bush I, withdraw from the Strategic Oil Reserve on January 17, 1991. That brought gas prices down.

Also, we started looking at President Bill Clinton in 2000, released 30 million barrels from the Strategic Oil Reserve, and I will talk about what it did to gas prices. It happened then.

And in 2005, this President, President Bush, after Hurricane Katrina drew down, offered some 30 million gallons out of there which brought prices down. I think that it's important that everyone understands that.

The President can make a decision that can bring gas prices down now. Will it be forever? No, it will not be forever. Is the Reserve at 97 percent full? Yes, it is. Authorities said that it should be at 85 percent. But we're at 97 percent.

What's happening right now, probably not to the Members of this Chamber because we're paid beyond what the average Americans would be paid, over some $160,000, and a lot of our travel is per diem travel as we move around our districts, reimbursement for gas. The Members here are probably not affected. But for those individuals who don't have per diem reimbursement, for those individuals who know what it means to punch in every day and punch out every day, for those individuals that are trying to make it from point A to point B, who have a family member with a health care crisis and have to make the decision whether you're going to make that hour-long trip or not based on the price of gas, being able to release fuel from the Strategic Oil Reserve would be the right thing to do.

What happens? We're talking fact, not fiction. Using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it brings down prices of oil. In 1991, did I mention earlier? It brought it down 33.4 percent. In 2000, it brought it down 18.7 percent. In 2005, it brought it down 9.1 percent. And it

would even bring it down even more if we were to do it now.

I say all of that, Mr. Speaker and Members, that as we start looking at alternative fuel, as we start looking at what Big Oil should be doing versus trying to say this is the last day of school, let's get more leases and push this kind of drill thing as though that's the answer--because if that was the answer, we wouldn't be at over $4 a gallon that individuals are paying for gas. If you are fortune enough to have a Pontiac Grand Prix, it costs $62.74 for you to fill it up, leave alone someone that may have a Honda Accord. An Accord, it costs $68.26. If you happen to have a Chevy Impala, lucky enough to have one, $62.73 and $2,798 a year.

A Chevy Suburban, many small businesses have to be able to move around big loads. You have $124 at the pump, some $4,391 that one may spend a year. A Ford Escape costs $60.88 to be able to fill up, and many small businesses have Ford F10 trucks that cost $113.83 to be able to fill that up.

I think that's important. For those individuals who are paying through the nose right here, right now understand what it means.

I'm going to close with this. A lot of air travel. A lot of people want to take trips this summer. Cannot take those trips, cannot reunite with family, cannot go on that business trip that they needed to go on to be able to keep that small business going because of the prices of flying on airlines right now, leave alone trying to take something with you. You get to the airport, now that's $35, sometimes $50, sometimes $100 to carry a bag on the plane to check it, to get on the plane.

You better get some water because if you're trying to get water on the plane, that's $5, leave alone a bag of mixed nuts or some sort of potato chips. They even sell them now, I mean it's almost like $10 a pack, okay. Leave alone the price of the ticket.

And what we find out from the chairman of Transportation, if we were to go into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it would be a $10 drop in the price per barrel of oil as a result. It would save $420 million per year for Northwest Airlines. You got folks getting laid off because folks walking around here talking about drilling only and not talking about some of the things we could do now to be able to save this economy.

It would bring about also a $840 million saving per year to United Airlines, a $900 million savings for American Airlines, another airline that's laid off thousands of people.

So when we look at this, we're looking at what we're paying because of the inaction of the White House. All we can do is put pressure on the White House. We ask our friends on the other side to join us on that. Some have. We're asking for more to do so. We're asking for the American people to not only work in a way of moving in a more greener way, but we also want to incentivize you in doing that.

Mr. Speaker, with that, it's always a great honor to come before the House. I'm glad that Mr. Arcuri joined me for a short while tonight, and we want to thank not only the Democratic leadership but all the Members of Congress that are about the solution as it relates to these gas prices, as it relates to moving in the direction, a new direction we look at in alternative energy; and it will be a brighter day not only for this country but also as it relates to the whole military issue that I will talk about the next time we come to the floor. I'm talking about what the military spends, which is the largest consumer of energy and which may save fuel on the face of the earth when it comes down to one entity.

With that, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that I'm able to be here today with my friend, Mr. Shimkus, and I think that he has some travel plans, so I'm going to immediately yield to him. And I can't wait to hear what he's got to say.

That's about as simple as it gets, isn't it?

If I could just interrupt, claim back my time for just 1 minute in the fact that they want us to use alternative fuels. They want to go to alternative fuels and we do to. We think that is something that we need to be developing.

But this, what you're talking about the, the Outer Continental Shelf, the U.S. coal, the shale oil, those are things that we know we have. And the funny part about what they want us to do about using alternative fuels, there was section 526, if you'll remember, in a defense bill that said that the U.S. government could not use alternative fuels. So, you know, which is it? Do they want us to or not?

And so, you know, that's where we're caught, and that's what a lot of people, I think, to my friend in America, don't understand that we're getting a lot of conflicting things from the majority side right now.

A good-paying job.

And to my friend, reclaiming my time for just a moment. That is the reason that I came up with the petition because there were so many people that were signing petitions on the Internet, drill here, drill now, lower prices, other locations, that I knew we will never get to have a straight up or down vote on the drilling, onshore, offshore and adding refineries. And so that's the reason I wanted to come up with the petition.

And I appreciate the gentleman making the point. This is the only way the American people will ever know how their congressman feels is by his or her signing this petition, because they will have no chance to have that simple of a vote.

And what this petition says, I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans. And you know, some things may be too simple for some of these legislators to understand. They keep wanting to make it complicated. It's not complicated, because to sign that pledge and they know that they're never going to get to vote on it. I think it would at least let their constituents know that they have some feeling for them when those people ride up to the gas pump and feel that pain at the pump.

And can I read one comment?

This was from Greenpeace. They say, Let's end fossil fuel use. For decades, we have relied on oil, coal, and gas to meet our ever- increasing energy needs. And now we are facing the consequences for our actions in global warming.

You know, 85 percent of our energy consumption today is supplied by fossil fuels. This is the base of the majority party, and this is what is driving our energy policy in Congress today. And I think what the gentleman has gone through, especially with the coal and the shale to oil to liquid, just reiterates the Democrats' position almost precisely what Greenpeace stated on their Web site.

Have a safe trip.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this, and sorry, but he had to take a little trip.

And I want to go back, first of all, and just talk about the petition for a minute and the fact that I had been contacted by several of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, asking me if I had gone on to some of these web pages and signed the petition that said, one said, drill here, drill now, pay less. There were some others. I don't know the particular names. And then I was in a service station/grocery store that had a petition laying on the counter where you paid. It said, Sign this if you want to lower gas prices.

And so what I found is that the American people were doing everything that they could, Mr. Speaker, to let us know, Members of Congress, the people who are sworn to take action to help our constituents, the people were telling us. But there was no way for them to know how we felt about reducing the price of gas because under the new majority, we will never have an opportunity to vote on these things because they know if they brought it to the floor that it would pass and it would hurt their base, the radical environmentalists.

So I tried to come up with something as simple as possible because I believe in simplicity and people can understand the simplicity.

So I came up with my own petition, Mr. Speaker. And this petition was for the 435 Members that have the ability to vote in this House and then the delegates from some of the other territories. And it says, American energy solutions for lower gas prices. Bring onshore oil on line, bring deep water oil on line, and bring new refineries on line.

A lot of people might not realize with the refinery part of it that we haven't built a refinery in this country since 1978, 30 years since we built a refinery. A lot of people would be amazed to know that we import from Canada, Great Britain, Norway, a number of other OPEC nations, 6.9 billion gallons of refined gasoline into this country every year, about the same amount of diesel fuel because we cannot even refine what crude oil that we've got.

So I have made these boards up. I have had them up now, today is Friday, and we have had them up 4 days this week and 1 day last week. And it is so simple that it is confusing a lot of people on this floor. It says, House of Representatives energy petition. I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you understand that. I understand that. But some people must not understand it because we've only had 170 people sign it. And so if this bill comes to the floor, which I don't think-- and by the way, the Speaker said today that she's bringing four energy bills next week, and I'm going to talk about them in a minute and give you some kind of idea how they're going to help.

But this is real simple, it just says that whoever is representing you will vote to increase our U.S. oil production. Because see, we shouldn't be in a position--because to me, we're the greatest Nation in the world. And Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't put the leader of the free world, the President of this country, in a position to where Mr. Schumer from the Senate or Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, is asking him to go hat-in-hand to countries that are basically our enemies and asking them to increase their oil production to use their natural resources for our benefit.

Now, somebody is not thinking clearly. We don't need to put our President in that position. We don't need to be asking anybody anything when in this country in shale oil in the western States we have 1.5 trillion barrels. That's more than Saudi Arabia has. And so why in the world do we want to be in this position?

So I came up with a petition. Right now we have 170 people that have signed the petition. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give the American people an opportunity, and I know I can't talk to them, but if I could talk to them, if I could address them, I would tell them for real energy solutions that they would want to go to www.house.gov/westmoreland and see if their Congressman has signed this petition.

And when you call them, you might get some dancing, some shuffling around. There is no dancing, there is no shuffling. It's one sentence. One sentence: I will vote to increase U.S. oil production and lower gas prices for Americans. I will be quiet about the petition for a minute. Here is the address.

I will say one thing about one individual that signed this. And his name is Neil Abercrombie, and he's from the great State of Hawaii. Neil is the only Democrat that has signed the petition. He's the only Democrat that has signed the petition. And he knows that at some point in time, we have got to start. And he knows that the party line that, you know, there's 68 million acres out there that's been leased, and that's true, but there's 2.5 trillion acres that could be leased, Mr. Speaker. But this Congress has passed bans that says you can't. The President has said he's willing to take off the executive order if Congress would move to take off our order. We're not going to move on that.

So I want to congratulate Neil and all of the people that he represents for him having the courage. And he's given some of the greatest speeches on the floor of this House that I've heard in my 16 years of legislative experience, not just in here but in the State of Georgia. So Neil, my hat's off to you and you should be congratulated.

I want to talk about for just a couple of minutes, I know I have got several of my colleagues here to join me, but I wanted to talk for a minute about what the Democrats have done so far in the 110th Congress. Because see, back in April, and if you will remember the gentleman, Mr. Shimkus, had a thing up about when the Democrats took over this Congress in 2006, that oil was about $56 a barrel. What happened was when they were running for office, Speaker Pelosi said back in April of 2006, Democrats have a commonsense plan for lowering the skyrocketing price of gasoline.

Now, keep in mind that the skyrocketing price at the time was about $2.26 a gallon. Man. Did you ever think you would long for the days when gas was $2.26 a gallon?

Anyway, we have yet to see that secret plan. They have brought out some plans, but I don't think they've really brought out the secret plan yet.

I want to quote a little bit here from the Democrats. They passed a price gouging prevention, and you can see right here. Here is the Democrats' philosophy on lowering the gas prices: Sue OPEC. That's gone a long ways. Launch the seventh investigation into price gougers. The seventh investigation. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people want us to get out of the committee hearing, the investigation mode, and get into the action mode. We're in the fetal position mode right now.

Launch the fourth investigation into speculators, $20 billion in new taxes on oil producers. Mr. Speaker, that took an economic genius to figure out that raising taxes $20 billion on a producer or a manufacturer is going to lower the price to the consumer.

Halt oil shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would save a nickel a gallon. So their price, it brings it down from $4.08 to $4.03.

But I want to read you some of the quotes.

This was the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, H.R. 1252, that the Democrats in this body passed on May 23, 2007. May 23, 2007, was when this was passed. ``This bill has been around for over a year. So let's stop the excuses. American people don't want arguments about that process. They want relief at the pump, and that's what we're doing today. Lookit, today Members of the House have a very simple choice. Vote to stand up with consumers, your constituents, who are paying record gasoline prices, nationwide average, record prices, or vote to protect big oil companies' enormous profits.''

That was Representative Bart Stupak on May 23, 2007.

When this was passed, oil was $65.77. As you saw earlier, it's $136- and-change now. At the time this was passed, the national average was $3.22 a gallon. It is now $4.08 a gallon. So you see the price gouging does not work, Mr. Speaker.

Another comment: ``Mr. Speaker, again, the American consumers need us to act, they want us to act, they demand that we do act. Now is the time.'' Congressman Bobby Rush on May 23, 2007. I think that action was just a charade because it has not helped the price of our gas.

And so while we look at these things, we've got to understand that the things that the Democrats are wanting to do does not do it.

Now, let's look over here at what my petition does or at least asks to do on the Republican side. Bring onshore oil online, ANWR, shale, anywhere from 70 cents to $1.60 a gallon; bring deepwater oil online, OCS, 90 cents to $2.50 a gallon; bring new refineries online, 15 cents to 45 cents. That would bring it down probably to about $2.10 a gallon. These are actions. These others are charades.

And so I think the American people, Mr. Speaker, are tired of the charades. But let me just identify one more charade that we've had, and Mr. Speaker, that was when we had H.R. 6022, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008. This was passed on May 13, 2008, and you can see, halt oil shipments to the strategic petroleum, a nickel. So this is the bill.

Here was the quote from Chairman Dingell: ``While there is no guarantee that putting this oil onto the market rather than into the SPR will lower

prices, even such a modest step could potentially prick the speculative bubble now characterizing oil markets.''

Mr. Chairman, it didn't prick anything because evidently it made them mad because it has gone up. But let me tell you what will prick that speculative market. What will prick it is when we vote to put a drill bit in the ground, and just by us voting to put the drill bit in the ground, the speculation will stop.

Representative Peter Welch, the lead sponsor, said this: ``When we have reduced oil going into the SPR in the past it has proven to actually have a direct and immediate impact on lowering the price of gas at the pump from 5 cents to 25 cents a gallon.

``And basically the question for us is whether or not, even as we have to proceed with long-term debates about our future energy policy, is this Congress going to be willing to take a short-term step that has the potential to bring down energy prices.''

Congressman Welch, there was not a lot of potential there because prices have gone up.

Representative Nick Lampson from Texas, somebody that should know about drilling and the benefits that drilling would do to bring down the price of energy: ``This bill provides a quick first step, maybe not much, but at least it's an action on the part of our Congress.

``Suspending the SPR will put an additional 70,000 barrels of oil on the market each day. It could help reduce prices at a critical time for us in our country.''

It has not reduced the price at all.

Representative Jason Altmire: ``This Congress has to act. And we are going to act today. And we are going to save the American people a quarter on the gallon.''

So, when you go into the service station to fill up tomorrow or the next day or tonight, ask them if they've heard that we have passed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008, because I can promise you your gas will not be 25 cents a gallon less than what it was on the day we passed this.

I'd now like to recognize my friend from North Carolina, the battering ram as some people call her in here, but she's one of the most fierce legislators that I've ever met in my career, and the congresswoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Ms. Foxx, after these bills come to the floor next week, or if we ever do get a chance to see them, we're going to have to bring back the old truth squad to make sure that the American people, Mr. Speaker, get the truth.

It's now my honor to yield to a friend of mine that came in shortly after I did to Congress, and if I could name anybody in this Congress a taxpayers's friend, I would have to name John Campbell. And so I yield to him.

Fifty-four cents a gallon.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. And I'm going to go back down front and play a little musical chairs here.

Thank you, sir.

You know, I want to just show the American people: We're not going to immediately drill ourselves out of the spot, Mr. Speaker. But in 1995, the Congress passed drilling in ANWR. President Clinton vetoed it. Had he not vetoed it in 1995 we would be getting one million barrels of oil today out of ANWR.

So is this an immediate relief? No. It's immediate relief from, I think, the speculation and the amount of escrowing. But this is an all- of-the-above issue. We've got to start drilling. We've got to start doing alternative fuels. We've got to build refineries. We've got to be doing onshore and offshore drilling. We've got to do coal-to-liquid. There are a lot of things we have to do and not just lay here in a fetal position.

But this is what really burns me up when I think about being dependent on foreign oil. This is a picture of Mr. Chavez from Venezuela and Mr. Castro from Cuba. In a recent interview on al Jazeera, Chavez called for developing nations to unite against U.S. political and economic policies. ``What We Can Do Regarding the Imperialistic Power of the United States.'' ``We have no choice but to unite,'' he said. ``Venezuela's energy alliances with nations such as Cuba, which receives cheap oil and are an example of how we use oil in our war against neo liberalism,'' he said. If you saw it on TV this morning, you saw where he threatened the European nations with no more Venezuelan oil because they passed an immigration law that he didn't like. This guy is not our friend. The bottom, on March 15, 2005, Washington Post; or as he put it on another occasion, ``We have invaded the United States with our oil.''

Now, I'm fixing to show you something, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know if you can see it or not, but maybe you'll get a look at it. But Mr. Speaker, I'm going to show you something that's really going to burn you up. This is a copy of the check that American families and businesses write to Mr. Chavez. Every day, 365 days a year, we write him a check for $170,250,000. Mr. Speaker, that's a crime. We could be writing those checks to American men and women with the jobs that we would create if we would use our own natural resources for our own benefit.

So Mr. Speaker, I've got 5 minutes to close. And I want to put up this address, because this address, Mr. Speaker, is for real energy solutions. It's a simple address, www.house.gov/westmoreland. And you can go to that address, Mr. Speaker--and I hope you will go tonight, Mr. Speaker--and see the names on there that have signed the petition, the commonsense petition, a petition that just says ``I will vote to increase oil production to lower the price of gas for Americans.'' That's as simple as you can get, Mr. Speaker. We had 32,000 hits on this Web site either last night or the night before last. Americans want to know where their Congressman represent.

And Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying this: So many politicians today that the American people hear on TV are talking about change. And I don't know if it's the kind of change that we're thinking about because, as an American citizen, the change that I hope that Congress or that elected officials would have, Mr. Speaker, is a change that they would be honest, that they would be honest with what they tell the American people and not come to Washington and write a bunch of legislation that's very confusing about what it really means.

And I read your excerpts today, Mr. Speaker, that read what some of your colleagues had said about the legislation that they passed and what it was going to do for fuel prices. And some of that legislation was over a year ago, and it has just continued, gas is at $4.08 a gallon. But Mr. Speaker, if I could talk to the American people, I would tell them this: that there will never really be any change in this country, Mr. Speaker, until the people that get up every morning that are citizens of this land, that look in the mirror, and if that person, Mr. Speaker, that they see in the mirror will not change, then we're not going to change.

And so sometimes it takes effort, Mr. Speaker, from the men and women out there that watch us and listen to us and abide by the laws that we make to take things into their own hands and to let us know how they feel. Over a million people have signed a petition, ``Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.'' We're hearing from them. We need to hear from you.

Mr. Speaker, if I could talk to the American people, I would tell them, your Congressman and your Senator need to hear from you. You need to know if they're willing to vote to increase the production of oil in this country from our own natural resources, be less dependent on foreign oil and foreign resources, and lower the price of American gas. And you can find out if your Congressman is on that petition or not by going to house.gov/westmoreland.

You're going to hear all kind of arguments of why they didn't sign it or haven't signed it, but Mr. Speaker, those arguments are so simple that the argument doesn't even hold up.

So Mr. Speaker, with that, I'm going to yield the well and yield my time here, and just thank you for your patience in listening to the truth that's been brought to you. And thank my friends that have come down tonight, my colleagues that have come down to help me, Mr. Speaker, try to explain to the American people that we're serious about bringing them some relief at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and recognize myself for such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the beginning that I speak for myself, I don't necessarily speak for the House Republican leadership. I have asked if we had a minority position on the bill, and as of 30 minutes ago we did not. So I am speaking for myself as the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, the Energy and Commerce Committee.

And let me say at the beginning that I think it is good to have a piece of energy legislation on the floor at this point in time. I think the American people are fed up with high gasoline prices, they're fed up with increasing imports, they're fed up with rising food prices that are caused, at least in part, by higher energy prices. So I think it's a good thing that we are beginning to debate energy legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives. I think it is a good thing that the chairman of the committee with primary jurisdiction, my good friend, John Dingell, is leading that debate on the majority side.

Having said that, I don't think it's a good thing that we bring a bill on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the floor with no process at all. Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Boucher and I have spoken informally in the last 2 weeks about doing something on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And I am very open to having a full vetting of the issue of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

I am fully supportive of the underlying policy in this bill, which is to suspend taking shipments into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when oil prices are at record levels. I am not supportive of doing that in a way that there is absolutely no input from the minority side. We've had no legislative hearing, no committee hearing, no markup, no nothing. We were notified late yesterday afternoon that the bill would be on the floor this morning, and as far as I can tell the bill wasn't printed until some time this morning. So one reason I'm opposed to the bill is because of process.

Now I want to talk about the substance of the bill. Again, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created in the 1970s in response to a coordinated Arab Oil Embargo against the United States of America when shipments of oil were suspended by the OPEC cartel for political reasons. We created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And my guess is, although I wasn't in Congress at that time, that John Dingell, who was a member of the committee--I don't believe he was chairman in the seventies--probably had a very positive influence on creating the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It was a good idea then and it's a good idea now. So that's a good thing.

Now, we have been filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve since the late seventies. Most of the oil was put in under President Reagan's tenure from 1980 to 1988, but even since then we have continued to fill the Reserve. There have been little appropriated funds appropriated to fill it, and in the last 5 or 6 years most of the increase has been by taking what this bill would suspend, which is the royalty-in-kind oil, and putting that into the Reserve. Royalty-in-kind oil is oil that, instead of the oil companies that produce on Federal lands and the Federal OCS, instead of giving money to the Federal Government and to the taxpayer, they give royalty-in-kind oil. And that right now is about 62,000 barrels a day. So it is not a bad idea to suspend taking the royalty-in-kind oil.

Where I have a policy difference with this bill is that the bill is either silent or ambiguous on what happens to the royalties that continue to accrue. The fact that you're not taking oil doesn't mean that the Federal Government doesn't have a royalty that should be paid.

So one of the questions I would have is, do we receive the money, which 62,000 barrels of oil at $120 a barrel is, over the life of this bill, over a billion dollars. What happens to that billion dollars? Does it just go to the general revenue? Does it just go to the general treasury?

If I were drafting the bill, I would direct that some of that royalty, in terms of cash, go into a LIHEAP fund for low-income heating and cooling assistance. I would direct that some of the funds go into a reserve to buy oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when oil falls below the target price in this bill, which I believe is $75 a barrel. I would direct that some of the funds go to an alternative energy fund. Those are things that we would have discussed in committee. Those were the things that we would have had amendments on. And those are the things that we're not allowed to do because this bill is being considered under suspension.

As Chairman Dingell has pointed out, the fact that we're not going to take royalty-in-kind oil and put it in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is probably not going to affect the price much on the world market. I think we would have as much impact on prices, if that's our goal, if all the Members on both sides of the aisle went out on the steps of the Capitol and we all clapped our hands three times and said, ``Down prices. Down prices. Down prices.'' That would probably have as much impact as passing this bill. It would be a lot more fun, too. We would all get a little exercise. And it would be a pretty good photo op, the united Congress, you know, dictating that oil prices go down. But it would have about the same impact that this bill does.

So, Mr. Speaker, again, I don't quarrel with the fact that we are directing to suspend shipments of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We need to do a lot more than that, however, if we really want to bring oil prices down. And even in doing something on the SPR, I think we should go through committee, we should have a legislative hearing, we should have a markup, and we should really rethink the strategy of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

In the 1970s, the oil markets and the U.S. economy were significantly different than they are today. And the size of the Reserve, the uses of the Reserve are at least subject to a real debate today. And what we're getting is a bill that apparently was drafted in Majority Leader Hoyer's office late last night or early this morning that several Members have put their names on. And we're on a suspension calendar that we have no ability to amend it or do anything about it except vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' so I'm going to encourage Members to vote ``no.'' If we were somehow to get 146 ``no'' votes, then we could have the debate and have the markup process that I've asked about and we could come back next week sometime and do it the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6022, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008. I am opposed to this bill for two reasons: process and substance.

First, let's talk about process: I found out that this bill was going to be on the floor today less than 24 hours ago. I am the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over energy in general and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, in particular. While there has been a lot of talk and press recently about the SPR, it has not been the subject of any committee briefings, hearings, or markups at all. I am not even aware of any discussions about this SPR bill at the staff level, except for Chairman Dingell's staff notifying my staff yesterday afternoon that this bill would be on the suspension calendar today.

And now we are on the suspension calendar, where we get an up or down vote, with no chance for any amendments. It seems that, once again, the majority leadership of the House is shamelessly dictating the legislative process of the House in a way that demeans the jurisdiction of the Energy & Commerce Committee in order to make us vote on a bill before Memorial Day so the Democrats can send out press releases about how they are addressing the Pelosi Premium.

Which leads me to my second point--the substance of this bill. When it comes to dealing with high energy prices, there are two groups in Congress. Those who want to say they are doing something, and those who want to do something. Today's bill is for those who want to say they are doing something.

This bill tells the President, as long as oil prices stay above $75 a barrel, to quit filling the SPR for the rest of calendar year 2008, but do it in a way that does not affect current contracts. So, if this bill is signed into law, the real world effect will be to prevent about 11.4 million barrels of oil from going into the SPR between August 1 and December 31 of this year--or about 76 thousand barrels a day for the rest of the year.

Will this help with gas prices? We could probably have more effect on lowering gas prices if we stood on the steps of the Capitol and clapped our hands three times and shouted, ``Lower, lower, lower.'' It certainly won't do anything for prices for Memorial Day weekend because it will not start having any effect until August 1st. If the Majority wanted to have an immediate effect, they should have considered a provision to direct the Department of Energy to sell the SPR oil it is currently receiving into the open market.

The title of this bill also indicates that it somehow protects consumers, but I cannot find anything in the bill that actually does that. The bill says to quit filling the SPR which would happen in August, but the bill is silent about a number of things: What happens to the Royalty-in-Kind oil that the Departments of Interior and Energy are currently getting? Do these departments sell it? Do the lessees sell it and give the proceeds to the Departments? I assume the lessees still owe the government the royalty payments, so I assume any cash would go into the general treasury. How does this help protect consumers?

A better way to protect consumers, or at least help consumers by offsetting the current record energy prices would have been to do something useful with the revenue generated with the SPR oil. Perhaps we could have dedicated a portion of it to low income heating assistance. Or perhaps we could have dedicated a portion of it to developing alternative energy sources. Or, we even could have reserved a portion of it to start replenishing the SPR again sometime in the future when oil prices are not at $125 a barrel.

But, since we had no process for this bill, we will never know what could have been. We're faced with an up or down vote, with no chance to discuss the policy of either this bill, or the policy of the SPR generally.

I, for one, am in favor of having a policy discussion on the entire Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I think the circumstances of today's energy markets are much different than they were when we created the SPR, and therefore I think it would be a good idea to have a policy debate about the future of the SPR. Ultimately I may end up wanting to continue to have a billion barrel SPR, but I think the policy discussion would be a good thing to have. Unfortunately, the process for this bill does not foster such a debate.

So where does this leave those of who want to not just say we're doing something about energy costs, but actually want to do something?

In 1985 we produced 9 million barrels of oil per day and imported another 3 million per day. Since 1995 we've cut our domestic production in half and tripled our imports. Why? Because we continue to lock up our domestic resources, particularly in Alaska and in the OCS.

Two of the most unstable foreign sources of oil today are Nigeria and Venezuela. That instability is a big factor in high oil prices because of the risk of supply cut-off. ANWR alone could be replacing all our imports from Venezuela or all our imports from Nigeria and only use a few thousand acres of a vast tundra.

Better legislation comes from the deliberative process, a process that's inclusive. No sooner will this bill become law than people will be either calling for its repeal or wondering why we bothered at all. But that was true of the 2007 no-energy bill, as well.

Let's go back to Committee and do the job we are capable of doing with SPR. Let it do some good for somebody. And let's let Congress turn to the real energy issue facing this country, domestic production.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if it's possible, I'd like to enter into a dialogue with any of the three sponsors of the bill. Mr. Markey is on the floor. Mr. Lampson is on the floor. Mr. Welch is on the floor. I'd like to ask them some questions if one of them would like to try to respond on my time. I'm not going to use their time. So Mr. Markey, Mr. Welch or Mr. Lampson. I just want to ask some questions about the bill to the main sponsors.

My question, Mr. Speaker, and this is on my time, if either of those three gentlemen would like to respond. I'm not trying to be cute. I'm way too old to be cute.

The bill is silent on whether or not the money that is the equivalent cash of the royalty in kind to oil is what's done with it. So my first question I would like one of the sponsors to answer is, instead of getting 62,000 barrels of oil a day, if this bill becomes law, does the general treasury get the equivalent of 62,000 barrels of oil times whatever the market price of oil that day is, which right now is over $120 a barrel? Is that revenue generated, and does it come to the Federal treasury, or do the oil companies keep it? That's my first question.

I would be happy to yield to my good friend from Massachusetts.

It goes back to the general Treasury. All right.

And my next question is the bill's effective date is upon termination of the contract. I think it goes into effect on July 31 and it runs through December 31 of 2008; is that correct?

What happens after December 31, 2008?

My next question is, if this bill were to become law, does the Secretary of Energy or the Secretary of the Interior have any discretion about accepting royalty in kind to oil or the cash equivalent, or is it a flat suspension with no exceptions?

I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for those answers.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to recognize Mr. Shimkus, a member of the committee.

But before I do that, I just want the record to show that the last day that I was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the price of gasoline in my district was $2 a gallon.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for 3 minutes, a member of the committee.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield myself 1 minute.

I want to just comment on what I think is the goal of the legislation, and that would be to lower prices for the American consumer. At least I think that is what I think the goal is.

Having said that, 62,000 barrels a day in an 85-million-barrel-a-day oil market is about one twelve hundredth of 1 percent. So if you assume that oil markets are linear, the additional 62,000 barrels on an 85- million-barrel-per-day oil market is going to lower the price perhaps two cents. Maybe.

Again, if we just go outside and clap our hands, we would probably have a 2 percent chance of lowering the price of oil by two cents a barrel. Just by clapping our hands. So I don't think this bill does anything except show the American people that we want to do something, but we still don't know exactly what it is we can do that makes any sense.

And I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

I would like to ask the speaker who just spoke if he can show me the economic study by Goldman Sachs that says that suspending shipments is going to lower prices 25 cents a gallon. It won't even lower prices a penny a barrel. Is there a study?

I believe that there is no study. And I guarantee you, this just won't lower prices 25 cents.

I would be happy to yield to my good friend from Texas.

I sure hope so.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds just to respond to my good friend, Mr. Lampson.

I do not oppose suspension of oil shipments into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But to say that that, by itself, is going to lower prices 25 cents a gallon in an 85-million-barrel-a-day oil market is ludicrous.

I sure hope that there is additional legislation besides this feel- good legislation. I hope it is bipartisan. I hope it is substantive. And I hope it has a supply component to it.

I want to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Congressman from the great State of Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is remaining in the debate?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

To the extent we have an historical record on what this would do, on April 25, 2006, President Bush announced suspension of 67,000-barrels- a-day acquisition for the SPR for the summer driving season. The day before he made that announcement, the price of oil was $70.19. The day he made the announcement, it fell to $67.43 per barrel. And the day after he made the announcement, it went back up to $71.71 per barrel, which was a net increase of 62 cents a barrel. So to say that this is going to lower the price based on the historical record would be inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I am going to yield myself 1 minute.

I want my friends on the majority side to listen, because at the end of this, I am going to ask for a unanimous consent request. And this is language that we have shared with the majority staff.

I am going to offer a unanimous consent request that at the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

Section 3. Use of Funds.

The Secretary of the Interior shall transfer to the Secretary of Energy an amount equal to the value of the petroleum that would have been deposited in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve from royalty-in-kind payments but for the suspension required under section 2(a)(1). Such amount shall be available for obligation by the Secretary of Energy without further appropriation as follows:

(1) 50 percent shall be retained for future acquisition of petroleum products for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during any period when the price of oil is less than $75 per barrel.

(2) 25 percent shall be transferred to the Secretary of Health and Human Services as an additional amount for use in carrying out the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981.

(3) 25 percent shall be available for use by the Secretary of Energy to carry out alternative energy projects the Secretary is authorized by law to carry out.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that this be added to the bill. And if it is, I will vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, it's a unanimous consent request, and the body can work its will by unanimous consent at any time.

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking that we withdraw the bill. I am just asking unanimous consent to add this to the bill, and we shared the language with the majority staff.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate once more, I am not opposed to the generic policy of suspending shipments in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I am opposed to doing it with no input from the minority and absolutely no process and no alternatives made in order to amend the specific language, which we just tried to do, which wasn't allowed.

I do hope that this is the start of a serious effort to look at our strategic energy policy for this country. But for this bill, I would ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Connecticut has to leave, but before he does leave the floor, I congratulate and commend him on this bill. He has put a huge amount of effort into this issue over the years. This bill reflects that effort. His leadership in this matter will make a huge difference in getting this bill enacted. I thank him for that leadership and thank him for this bill.

Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today is going to combat credit card abuses that have been hurting American consumers for far too long. With all the economic hardship facing Americans today, from falling home prices to rising gasoline and food costs, it is more important than ever for Congress to act now to stop credit card abuses and protect American families from unfair credit card practices.

Credit card companies regularly use a host of unfair practices. They hike the interest rates of cardholders who pay on time and comply with their credit card agreements. They impose interest rates as high as 32 percent. They charge interest for debt that was paid on time. They apply higher interest rates retroactively to existing credit card debt. They pile on excessive fees and then have the gall to charge interest on those fees. They apply consumer payments first to the debt with the least expensive interest rate, saving the higher interest rate debt to be paid off last. And they engage in a number of other unfair practices that are burying American consumers in a mountain of debt. It is long past time to enact legislation to protect American consumers.

The bill we are introducing today will not only help protect consumers, but it will also help ensure that credit card companies willing to do the right thing are not put at a competitive disadvantage by companies continuing unfair practices.

Some argue that Congress does not need to ban unfair credit card practices. They contend that improved disclosure alone will empower consumers to seek out better deals. Sunlight can be a powerful disinfectant, but credit cards have become such complex financial products that even improved disclosure will not be enough to curb the abuses. Some practices are so confusing that consumers cannot easily understand them. Additionally, better disclosure does not always lead to greater market competition, especially when essentially an entire industry is using and benefiting from practices that unfairly hurt consumers.

Credit card issuers like to say they are engaged in a risky business, lending unsecured debt to millions of consumers. But it is clear they have learned to price credit card products in ways that produce enormous profit. For the last decade, credit card issuers have maintained their position as the most profitable sector in the consumer lending field and reported consistently higher rates of return than commercial banks.

In 2006, Americans used 700 million credit cards to buy about $2 trillion in goods and services. The average American family now has five credit cards. Credit cards are being used to pay for groceries, mortgage payments, and even taxes, and they are saddling U.S. consumers, from college students to seniors, with a mountain of debt. The latest figures show that U.S. credit card debt is now approaching $1 trillion. These consumers are routinely being subjected to unfair practices that squeeze them for ever more money, sinking them further into debt.

While the remaining legislative days in this Congress are dwindling, there is still time to enact strong credit card reform legislation. Too many American families are being hurt by too many unfair credit card practices to delay action any longer.

I commend Senator Dodd for tackling credit card reform. I look forward to Congress taking the steps needed this session to ban unfair practices that are causing so much pain and financial damage to American families today.

Credit card abuse is a topic, as Senator Dodd mentioned, with which I have been deeply involved over the past several years through a number of investigations in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. We held two subcommittee hearings in 2007, and based on our investigative hearings, I introduced legislation called the Stop Unfair Practices in Credit Cards Act, S. 1395, to ban the outrageous credit card abuses that were documented in the hearings. I was pleased that Senators McCaskill, Leahy, Durbin, Bingaman, Cantwell, Whitehouse, Kohl, Brown, Stevens, and Sanders, our Presiding Officer, joined as cosponsors.

This new bill, the Dodd-Levin bill introduced today, as Senator Dodd mentioned, incorporates almost all the provisions of S. 1395, and it adds other important protections as well. It is the strongest credit card bill yet in Congress.

I would like to add to the record more detailing of the provisions of this bill, along with an overview of some of the most prevalent abuses that we uncovered and some of the stories that American consumers shared with us during the course of the inquiries carried out by my Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

With regard to excessive fees, the first case history we examined illustrates the fact that major credit card issuers today impose a host of fees on their cardholders, including late fees and over-the-limit fees that are not only substantial in themselves but can contribute to years of debt for families unable to immediately pay them.

Wesley Wannemacher of Lima, OH, testified at our March 2007 hearing. In 2001 and 2002, Mr. Wannemacher used a new credit card to pay for expenses mostly related to his wedding. He charged a total of about $3,200, which exceeded the card's credit limit by $200. He spent the next 6 years trying to pay off the debt, averaging payments of about $1,000 per year. As of February 2007, he had paid about $6,300 on his $3,200 debt, but his billing statement showed he still owed $4,400.

How is it possible that a man pays $6,300 on a $3,200 credit card debt, but still owes $4,400? Here is how. On top of the $3,200 debt, Mr. Wannemacher was charged by the credit card issuer about $4,900 in interest, $1,100 in late fees, and $1,500 in over-the-limit fees. He was hit 47 times with over-limit fees, even though he went over the limit only three times and exceeded the limit by only $200. Altogether, these fees and the interest charges added up to $7,500, which, on top of the original $3,200 credit card debt, produced total charges to him of $10,700.

In other words, the interest charges and fees more than tripled the original $3,200 credit card debt, despite payments by the cardholder averaging $1,000 per year. Unfair? Clearly, I think, but our investigation has shown that sky-high interest charges and fees are not uncommon in the credit card industry. While the Wannemacher account happened to be at Chase, penalty interest rates and fees are also employed by other major credit card issuers.

The week before the March hearing, Chase decided to forgive the remaining

debt on the Wannemacher account, and while that was great news for the Wannemacher family, that decision doesn't begin to resolve the problem of excessive credit card fees and sky-high interest rates that trap too many hard-working families in a downward spiral of debt.

These high fees are made worse by the industry-wide practice of including all fees in a consumer's outstanding balance so that they incur interest charges. It is one thing for a bank to charge interest on funds lent to a consumer; charging interest on penalty fees goes too far.

Another galling practice featured in our March hearing involves the fact that credit card debt that is paid on time routinely accrues interest charges, and credit card bills that are paid on time and in full are routinely inflated with what I call ``trailing interest.'' Every single credit card issuer contacted by the Subcommittee engaged in both of these unfair practices which squeeze additional interest charges from responsible cardholders.

Here is how it works. Suppose a consumer who usually pays his account in full, and owes no money on December 1, makes a lot of purchases in December, and gets a January 1 credit card bill for $5,020. That bill is due January 15. Suppose the consumer pays that bill on time, but pays $5,000 instead of the full amount owed. What do you think the consumer owes on the next bill?

If you thought the bill would be the $20 past due plus interest on the $20, you would be wrong. In fact, under industry practice today, the bill would likely be twice as much. That is because the consumer would have to pay interest, not just on the $20 that wasn't paid on time, but also on the $5,000 that was paid on time. In other words, the consumer would have to pay interest on the entire $5,020 from the first day of the new billing month, January 1, until the day the bill was paid on January 15, compounded daily. So much for a grace period. In addition, the consumer would have to pay the $20 past due, plus interest on the $20 from January 15 to January 31, again compounded daily. In this example, using an interest rate of 17.99 percent, which is the interest rate charged to Mr. Wannamacher, the $20 debt would, in one month, rack up $35 in interest charges and balloon into a debt of $55.21.

You might ask--hold on--why does the consumer have to pay any interest at all on the $5,000 that was paid on time? Why does anyone have to pay interest on the portion of a debt that was paid by the date specified in the bill--in other words, on time? The answer is, because that is how the credit card industry has operated for years, and they have gotten away with it.

There is more. One might think that once the consumer gets gouged in February, paying $55.21 on a $20 debt, and pays that bill on time and in full, without making any new purchases, that would be the end of it. But you would be wrong again. It's not over.

Even though, on February 15, the consumer paid the February bill in full and on time--all $55.21--the next bill has an additional interest charge on it, for what we call ``trailing interest.'' In this case, the trailing interest is the interest that accumulated on the $55.21 from February 1 to 15, which is time period from the day when the bill was sent to the day when it was paid. The total is 38 cents. While some issuers will waive trailing interest if the next month's bill is less than $1, if a consumer makes a new purchase, a common industry practice is to fold the 38 cents into the end-of-month bill reflecting the new purchase.

Now 38 cents isn't much in the big scheme of things. That may be why many consumers don't notice these types of extra interest charges or try to fight them. Even if someone had questions about the amount of interest on a bill, most consumers would be hard pressed to understand how the amount was calculated, much less whether it was incorrect. But by nickel and diming tens of millions of consumer accounts, credit card issuers reap large profits.

I think it is indefensible to make consumers pay interest on debt which they pay on time. It is also just plain wrong to charge trailing interest when a bill is paid on time and in full.

My subcommittee's second hearing focused on another set of unfair credit card practices involving unfair interest rate increases. Cardholders who had years-long records of paying their credit card bills on time, staying below their credit limits, and paying at least the minimum amount due, were nevertheless socked with substantial interest rate increases. Some saw their credit card interest rates double or even triple. At the hearing, three consumers described this experience.

Janet Hard of Freeland, MI, had accrued over $8,000 in debt on her Discover card. Although she made payments on time and paid at least the minimum due for over 2 years, Discover increased her interest rate from 18 percent to 24 percent in 2006. At the same time, Discover applied the 24 percent rate retroactively to her existing credit card debt, increasing her minimum payments and increasing the amount that went to finance charges instead of the principal debt. The result was that, despite making steady payments totaling $2,400 in 12 months and keeping her purchases to less than $100 during that same year, Janet Hard's credit card debt went down by only $350. Sky-high interest charges, inexplicably increased and unfairly applied, ate up most of her payments.

Millard Glasshof of Milwaukee, WI, a retired senior citizen on a fixed income, incurred a debt of about $5,000 on his Chase credit card, closed the account, and faithfully paid down his debt with a regular monthly payment of $119 for years. In December 2006, Chase increased his interest rate from 15 percent to 17 percent, and in February 2007, hiked it again to 27 percent. Retroactive application of the 27 percent rate to Mr. Glasshof's existing debt meant that, out of his $119 payment, about $114 went to pay finance charges and only $5 went to reducing his principal debt. Despite his making payments totaling $1,300 over 12 months, Mr. Glasshof found that, due to high interest rates and excessive fees, his credit card debt did not go down at all. Later, after the Subcommittee asked about his account, Chase suddenly lowered the interest rate to 6 percent. That meant, over a one year period, Chase had applied four different interest rates to his closed credit card account: 15 percent, 17 percent, 27 percent, and 6 percent, which shows how arbitrary those rates are.

Then there is Bonnie Rushing of Naples, FL. For years, she had paid her Bank of America credit card on time, providing at least the minimum amount specified on her bills. Despite her record of on-time payments, in 2007, Bank of America nearly tripled her interest rate from 8 to 23 percent. The bank said that it took this sudden action because Ms. Rushing's FICO credit score had dropped. When we looked into why it had dropped, it was apparently because she had opened Macy's and J.Jill credit cards to get discounts on purchases. Despite paying both bills on time, the automated FICO system had lowered her credit rating, and Bank of America had followed suit by raising her interest rate by a factor of three. Ms. Rushing closed her account and complained to the Florida attorney general, my subcommittee, and her card sponsor, the American Automobile Association. Bank of America eventually restored the 8 percent rate on her closed account.

In addition to these three consumers who testified at the hearing, the subcommittee presented case histories for five other consumers who experienced substantial interest rate increases despite complying with their credit card agreements.

I would also like to note that, in each of these cases, the credit card issuer told our subcommittee that the cardholder had been given a chance to opt out of the increased interest rate by closing their account and paying off their debt at the prior rate. But each of these cardholders denied receiving an opt-out notice, and when several tried to close their account and pay their debt at the prior rate, they were told they had missed the opt-out deadline and had no choice but to pay the higher rate. Our subcommittee examined copies of the opt-out notices and found that some were filled with legal jargon, were hard to understand, and contained procedures that were hard to follow. When we asked the major credit card issuers what percentage of persons offered an opt-out actually took it, they told the Subcommittee that 90 percent did not opt out of the higher interest

rate--a percentage that is contrary to all logic and strong evidence that current opt-out procedures do not work.

The case histories presented at our hearings illustrate only a small portion of the abusive credit card practices going on today. Since early 2007, the subcommittee has received letters and e-mails from thousands of credit card cardholders describing unfair credit card practices and asking for help to stop them, more complaints than I have received in any investigation I have conducted in more than 25 years in Congress. The complaints stretch across all income levels, all ages, and all areas of the country.

The bottom line is that these abuses have gone on for too long. In fact, these practices have been around for so many years that they have, in many cases, become the industry norm, and our investigation has shown that many of the practices are too entrenched, too profitable, and too immune to consumer pressure for the companies to change them on their own.

Mr. President, in summary, this is what our bill contains:

No interest on debt paid on time.

The bill prohibits interest charges on any portion of credit card debt which the credit card holder paid on time during the grace period.

The bill prohibits credit card issuers from increasing interest rates on cardholders who are in good standing for reasons unrelated to the cardholder's behavior with respect to that card.

The bill requires increased interest rates to apply only to future debt and not to debt incurred prior to the increase.

The bill prohibits the charging of interest on credit card transaction fees, such as late fees and over-the-limit fees.

The bill prohibits the charging of repeated over-the-limit fees for a single instance of exceeding a credit card limit.

The bill requires payments to be applied first to the credit card balance with the highest rate of interest and to minimize finance charges.

The bill requires the credit card issuers must offer consumers the option of operating under a fixed credit card limit that cannot be exceeded.

The bill prohibits charging a fee to allow a credit card holder to make a payment on credit card debt, whether that payment is by mail, telephone, electronic transfer, or otherwise. Believe it or not, many credit card companies actually charge you a fee to make your payment.

The bill contains some of the following provisions as well:

It requires issuers to lower penalty rates that have been imposed on a cardholder after 6 months if the cardholder commits no further violations.

The bill gives each Federal banking agency the authority to prescribe regulations governing unfair or deceptive practices by banks and savings and loan institutions.

The bill requires issuers to provide individual consumer account information and disclose the total period of time and interest it will take to pay off the credit card balance if only minimum monthly payments are made.

And, as the Senator from Connecticut said, the bill contains a number of protections for young consumers from credit card solicitations.

Again, I commend Senator Dodd for taking the leadership on this issue. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, his leadership will make a huge difference. It gives us a real chance of passing reform legislation relative to credit card abuses this session of the Congress.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule which is a cynical attempt to cover political Members of this body who have chosen to elevate partisanship and politics above a real energy solution for American consumers and this economy.

Let me start by answering my good friend regarding the issues that he brought up and the things that he said.

First of all, the bottom line is that there could be 10 million acres or 20 or 50 million acres that could be, quote, ``given to or leased'' by oil companies. They don't want to drill every bit of acreage they have; they only want to drill where the oil is. Dry holes are not good for anybody.

Secondly, when you look at what the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is all about, it is there to protect this country. We should view that ANWR is also a strategic petroleum reserve here for the United States. There are 19 million acres in ANWR. Oil companies aren't after all 19 million acres, they are only after 2,000, just 2,000. That's where the oil is.

And perhaps number three, the gentleman needs to understand this, that energy companies are there to be in the business of providing energy. They are not there for any other reason. They are there to help the American consumer, to support our economy, and to

make sure that America is the greatest Nation on the face of this earth.

I am proud that we have the largest economy in this world and we use energy to make us more successful. We should not apologize or say it is a mistake that America utilizes energy. We simply need to make sure that what we are doing is having a comprehensive, across-the-board view, and not allowing drilling here in America and offshore is a national security issue. That's the side of the story that my friend did not tell this morning. That's why this bill is something we should oppose.

For the last 5 months, everyday consumers and our national economy have been suffering because of this Democrat majority's stubborn and mind-boggling unwillingness to increase the supply of domestically produced oil to reduce prices at the pump. And for over a year and a half, Republicans have been unified in a commonsense approach and a comprehensive approach to bringing down the price of gasoline for consumers, only to have that plan ignored by the new Democrat majority in favor of agenda that prioritizes scapegoats over solutions.

Rather than taking this opportunity to work in a constructive, bipartisan way to address the real domestic energy supply issues, they have let sky-high energy prices stand and continue for consumers.

Today, we are being asked outside of regular order and with no opportunity for Members to offer their own good ideas to bring down the price of gasoline, and we are spending only 40 minutes to debate a fig- leaf piece of legislation that releases 3\1/2\ days' worth of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The gentleman is correct, when there is more oil supply that is available, the price does go down. The gentleman is correct, there have been previous orders by the President to reduce the supply that is in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve directly for consumers. But 3 days' worth is all we are talking about. That is not a long-term fix. We need a strategic petroleum reserve that is called ANWR to make America competitive.

So rather than doing something that would be long term, all they are trying to do is something that would be a political, short-term fix.

Madam Speaker, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is intended to deal with natural disasters and national security crises, not preventable, man-made political disasters like the short supply of energy that we have today in America because of the Democrat Party no-energy strategy.

The world understands it. As a matter of fact, I was out on the west side of the Capitol just yesterday as Republicans were talking about our ability to go drill here in America and offshore. And whole loads, bus loads of Democrat staffers and others are out front saying, No drill, shame on the Republican Party. My gosh, I do understand that that is the policy of the new Democrat majority. We're working their plan. That's why gasoline is at $4 a gallon. We simply disagree in the Republican Party.

However, there is one small bright spot associated with this legislation, and it is by bringing it to the House floor today, the Democrat leadership is finally admitting there is a supply-side component to addressing America's energy concerns. My colleague was very plain and forward when he said: When we dump oil into the marketplace, the price goes down. Unfortunately, seriousness of purpose in dealing with the problem has not accompanied this long-overdue revelation--which is why we are here debating this do-nothing cover vote today instead of real solutions to our problems.

Yesterday I joined my Republican colleagues when we proposed a smart, innovative and comprehensive approach to addressing our Nation's energy independence solution, a problem whose guiding philosophy can be summed up by one simple principle, use less and find more.

Rather than just releasing over a weekend's worth of energy and calling it a day, like the Democrat proposal does, the Republican plan is to increase the supply of American-made energy in an environmentally sound way. This is what Republicans are pushing on the floor of the House of Representatives yet again today.

We believe our deep-water oil resources, ocean resources, could provide an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day as well as 76 trillion cubic square feet of natural gas. These are proven reserves. We should open the Arctic coastal plain, which could provide an additional 1 million barrels of oil a day. We should allow development of our Nation's shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, and we would increase the supply of gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that hinders the construction of new refineries.

To improve energy conservation and efficiency, our legislation will provide tax incentives for businesses and families to purchase more efficient vehicles. It will provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency. To promote alternative and renewable energy technologies, this legislation will spur the technology of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the section 526 prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promotion of coal-to-liquids technology.

We will establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain. We will extend permanently the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, and we will eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production.

Speaker Pelosi and this new Democrat majority have the power to bring these already-developed commonsense solutions up for a vote at any time. Trust me, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here to help. But what we want is real solutions. We want to drill now to save America.

Speaker Pelosi should choose to be with Republicans in a bipartisan answer, but, instead, this Speaker is choosing to ignore the American public in favor of a radical environmentalist agenda. I will be giving every Member of this body the opportunity to show where they really stand on energy independence during the vote on the rule's previous question. I encourage every single Member who agrees with me that this country needs to increase its supply of safe and reliable American energy to force this Democrat leadership to finally act by rejecting the cynical rule and the meaningless underlying legislation so that this House and the American people will be prepared for real legislation that will have a real effect at the pump.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, you know, I would love to cut a deal with the gentleman right now and say Republicans would be completely for this bill if you would do something for more than the 3 days' supply if we would really approach the emergency that the American people are talking about, and let's do something long term. We have already had President Clinton 12 years ago sign the pen that said we are not going to go after ANWR. We would have had that online now.

Why do we assume that in 5 or 6 or 7 years we are not going to need this energy? We are going to need the energy.

This new Democrat majority, to a Member, is withholding from the American people the opportunity to get prices down now. To say that we would raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 3 days' worth of gasoline is laughable. It's laughable because the American people understand that what this new Democrat majority is all about is having the energy prices stay where they are. They see that the Democrat plan evidently is working, the Democrat plan to squeeze American interests out and to send the money overseas.

We have seen that now for 18 months. That's the Democrat majority's plan. They want to keep building Dubai. They want to keep giving the money to countries who do war against the United States and don't hold us in favor. They want the money and the business to be done overseas. They want the jobs to go overseas. That's really where this new Democrat majority is.

If it were the Republican Party and reversed, it would be about all the special interests that we're trying to give. But in this case, it is about the American consumer that sees that their prices are at a high level simply to make sure that this Democrat majority sends the money overseas because they really don't like the energy companies here in America. That's anti-American.

Madam Speaker, the Republican Party has great alternatives that are on the table today. We want a long-term comprehensive fix for energy, and we will continue to tell the American people, just as we are here telling our colleagues here today, that we recognize who has the capacity and the ability to bring a bill to the floor today to answer the problem. The problem is the lack of resources of supply in the gasoline marketplace, and it's extending also to high fuel prices that will be paid in the Northeast this winter, and it is the new Democrat majority that is responsible for that. This is their plan. They're getting what they wanted, and we will keep building Dubais and keep sending our money overseas as long as we cut off American jobs and American energy companies.

I think it's a bad thing for policy for this country. That's why the Republican Party has an alternative. I wish that it would be heard today on the board to where we could vote for it.

Madam Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, let me agree with the gentleman. Psychology does have a lot to do with this. That's why Republicans, instead of trying to fall victim for a 3-day fix or for a long-term fix--so let's get into the psychology for just a second.

How about if somebody brought legislation to the floor that said, you know what? I think we ought to open up American deep-water oil resources, ocean resources, because we do understand there are war games that bipartisan Members of this House go attend to where we do understand that if international shipping where oil was concerned, if there was a bad mistake or a problem, that we would be in trouble.

So why don't we, as just a good idea, let's open up America's deep water ocean resources, which could provide an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day, but it doesn't end there, and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Why don't we also bring to the table, let's open up the Arctic Coastal Plain, which could provide an additional 1 million barrels of oil a day. But there is more.

How about allowing the development of America's shale oil resources for an additional 2.5 million barrels a day?

So instead of having just a 3-day fix and arguing all these new issues that we bring up would take 10 to 20 years to bring to the consumer, not true. It can be done tomorrow. We could decide, and we should have decided 12 years ago. We should have decided last year. We should decide that today, what we want to do is to make available the resources of this country in the event, in the future, there really is a big problem.

So the Republican Party is here on the floor today with real live answers to real live problems that are happening every day.

And so once again, we will give this new Democrat majority credit. The energy prices are the way that the Democrat Party wants them to be. They do want prices to be high. They do not want a supply unless it is paid for by the government. And they are not for a long-term solution because it would mean that we would be using those big oil companies resources.

My gosh. We are going to hold the American consumer hostage. We are going to hold people in the Northeast who use and need this oil this winter hostage, when, in fact, when it is 100 degrees outside, we are saying, do this now; let's prepare. Let's be prepared for the future.

And instead, this new Democrat majority argues, time in and time out, not going to drill, not going to put any more supply in, and prices will simply continue to rise.

Madam Speaker, somebody will have to face up to the day of reckoning, and that day of reckoning is going to be when American consumers, in the dead of winter, are not only paying high prices at the pump, but also high prices to heat their home.

We are trying to do something today. We have been trying to do something for 18 months, and this new Democrat majority refuses, refuses to see the facts of the case.

We reserve the balance of our time.

We reserve our time.

You know, it's great to hear about this private meeting that took place in the year 2000, and to now learn about all the attributes of the meeting.

I would speculate, since I am sure the gentleman did, that ANWR would have been in that list of things that the President of the United States would have wanted, the consumers want, that ANWR would have been on there, that every place that we would drill economically, and ecologically, in a sound way, that that would have been on the table too. That is exactly probably what the President had in mind and probably what the energy companies had in mind.

Let's put American resources, jobs and national security to the advantage of the American people, instead of the plan to send all this money overseas to build Dubai. That is a mistake.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany .

Madam Speaker, could I please find out how much time is left on both sides.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I believe I heard the gentleman say he has no additional speakers; is that correct?

Madam Speaker, we will reserve our time.

Just so the gentleman from Massachusetts has an opportunity to call my bluff, I'll take him up on it. I'll take him up on it.

We do believe there is something immediately that can be done, and we've been asking for this for years and years and years because the fact of the matter is, as we've already heard, there is a lot of psychology. The gentleman from the State of Washington talked about psychology just a few speakers ago. Well, here is the psychology. If you bring your own oil to the table, the other side sees what you're willing to do and their oil's worthless because they cannot hold you hostage.

So what the Republican Party does want to talk about today is today, tomorrow, Labor Day, and moving forward. And that's why we're talking about bringing 3 million barrels of oil per day, 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 1 million barrels of oil from the Arctic coastal plane, and 2.5 million barrels a day from the shale that's in this country. Darn right we want to talk about today.

But the fact of the matter is that we've been talking about this for years, and now they make it seem like the debate just started today. The debate did not start today. The debate started back when President Clinton was in office. We asked for and passed a bill at that time, and the President said, ``No. You cannot have ANWR.''

And now we get to today and they act like, ``Well, it just started. But Republicans don't want to talk about today.'' Darn right we want to talk about today. We want to talk about what has been talked about, that is the psychological effort as well as a today's efforts; and that's why the Republican Party is here yet another day.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time remains on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman from Vermont is through with his speakers and wishes to close.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to rising energy costs.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for the additional consideration of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act.

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.