Gas Price Relief for Consumers 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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to

revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1433 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 6899, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. The resolution provides 3 hours of debate on the bill, controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, American families and businesses from every city, town and village across our districts are struggling with the skyrocketing gas prices and ever-increasing energy costs, which have obviously gone over into the cost of food and every other commodity that we use. The American people are calling out for relief, which is why we have this comprehensive energy package before us today.

In considering this legislation, we must ask ourselves: How did our great Nation get into this terrible place concerning energy in the first place? Eight years ago, two oilmen took the reins of America's energy policy, and they never looked back. They held secret, closed door meetings with Big Oil and energy companies at a tremendous cost to the American people. And the Republican Congress supported them every step of the way. To this day, we do not know about the secret meetings that the Vice President held.

Just this past summer, the American people struggled through an excessive speculation crisis when oil prices jumped over $150 a barrel. Of course, when the Democrats threatened to rein in speculators, they pulled over $39 billion out of the futures market. We must address speculation before we leave this session. Because now, the oil prices are hovering over $90 a barrel, and we cannot let that go uncared for.

Just last week, we saw the havoc that the Bush-Cheney energy policies have wreaked when the Interior Department's Inspector General reported that administration employees at the Minerals Management Service, who were supposed to be regulating oil royalties, were literally accepting improper gifts and engaging in unethical conduct, such as having sex at parties, using drugs with persons, employees of the oil companies. They were literally, Mr. Speaker, in bed with each other.

My colleagues across the aisle say they want to change the energy policy, but their record certainly proves differently. The very same Republicans voted ``no'' to the first new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years that would have saved $1,000 in fuel costs per car per year. They said ``no'' to recouping the royalties that the oil companies failed to pay to taxpayers. They said ``no'' to curbing excessive speculation in the energy futures markets, and ``no'' to requiring the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of Federal land that they already control nationwide, and the list goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, if the other party has its way in energy, we will have more of the same Bush-Cheney energy policy written by and for the oil companies. They would help Big Oil to get more public land owned by every American, more American oil, more taxpayer dollars, and continuing record profits while American families and businesses get stuck paying record prices at the pump and heating prices.

Mr. Speaker, today this comprehensive bill presents the administration and its allies in Congress with a clear choice on energy. Either side with the American taxpayer, side with the people who sent you here to vote and vote for this, or side with the Big Oil companies who have had the largest profits in the history of mankind and certainly do not need more tax breaks from the American public.

Now, there are significant differences between the Bush administration's policy that got us into this mess and the plan before us today. This package is an energy package for a 21st century policy that will help Americans to reclaim a clean energy future.

And the choice is very clear, as I said before, which side are you on? The bill addresses America's energy crisis in both the short term and the long term.

By releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we will immediately lower prices at the pump for American families struggling with high gas costs. And we will replace the oil at the reserve as the gas prices stabilize.

Meanwhile, by investing billions of dollars over the long term in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and mass transportation, we will harness innovation and create good-paying American jobs while strengthening our energy security.

By expanding the access to offshore oil reserves and encouraging responsible drilling, the bill promotes more exploration and will lead to increased domestic energy production.

By promoting energy efficiency and conservation in buildings, through upgraded building codes and incentives for energy-efficient construction, the bill would lead to reduced energy use and lower utility prices.

In light of the Inspector General report from the Interior Department showing that the Minerals Management Service employees were accepting gifts from the oil companies and engaging in unethical conduct, this bill would subject the MMS employees to a higher ethical standard and make it a Federal offense for oil companies to provide them with gifts of any kind.

At the same time, by providing more funding for home heating assistance, we ensure that seniors and other vulnerable populations do not have to choose between food and heating oil.

Under this bill, we would enact our first national renewable electricity standard. The power companies would be required to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, reducing the air pollution from power plants and helping address the threat of global warming.

As Americans use more public transportation in the face of high gas prices, this bill will help the transit agencies deal with the added costs of increased ridership by providing $1.7 billion in grants.

And at the same time, with the record-breaking oil company profits, it requires the oil companies to pay their fair share by repealing the tax subsidies they do not need and by requiring that the Federal Government collect the oil royalties due to the American people. That's one of the reasons why reform at the committee is so important.

This comprehensive energy legislation is the result of a serious compromise on the part of this Congress to bring down prices now and to invest in a clean renewable future. It will provide America with the American-owned energy policy that this administration has failed to deliver in the last 8 years.

Mr. Speaker, there are precious few moments in each of our lives where we have a chance to do something that profoundly affects not only our own lives but the lives of future generations.

Today, we do have a choice. Do we want to continue on the same dangerous energy policies of the past or do we want to invest in a clean energy future that will help to ease consumer costs in the short term while putting the Nation on a path to a clean energy future that will create a stronger and safer America?

Our energy choices will not only affect Americans who are suffering at the pump but profoundly affect the future of life on this planet.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford more of the same when it comes to this administration's energy policy.

We are all proud Americans, but it is time we start acting like Americans once again. Our great Nation is known around the world for dreaming big and for reaching those dreams. When President Kennedy set a goal to put a man on the Moon in 10 years, America got to work and did it. It is time to set big goals and work diligently to achieve them, and that's exactly what this bill does.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make history by supporting this comprehensive bill that sets the country back on track to a clean energy future and finally begins to break our dangerous addiction to oil which we have been promising to break for at least the last 30 years. The world deserves nothing less.

[From the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, July 30, 2008]

The GOP Energy Plan: None of the Above

Republicans may talk a good game, but their actions speak

louder than words. Republicans have voted against the

critical solutions that must be part of a comprehensive

New Direction for Energy Independence. They voted against

renewable energy and conservation, responsible domestic oil

production, short-term measures to bring down prices now and

punish those who are manipulating the oil market, and new

requirements that oil companies pay their fair share.

Instead of working on behalf of American families and

businesses, the House Republicans ``all of the above'' energy

plan simply rehashes failed ideas on domestic drilling or

proposes ideas that Republicans have repeatedly blocked in

the past. Their all-out legislative battle in recent years to

protect the record profits of oil companies earning record

profits has earned them the moniker ``Grand Oil Party.''

Americans paying $4 a gallon thanks to an energy policy

literally written by the oil industry cannot afford this the

GOP's ``none of the above'' energy plan.

The Republican leadership's ``none of the above'' record:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use it, or Price Renewable NOPEC price Public Energy

Free our oil Drill act lose it gouging energy fixing transit security -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Boehner, Republican Leader......... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Roy Blunt, Republican Whip.............. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ............ Adam Putnam, Conference Chairman........ NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO ............ Thaddeus McCotter, Policy Committee NO NO NO ............ NO ............ ............ NO Chairman............................... Kay Granger, Conference Vice-Chair...... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO John Carter, Conference Secretary....... NO NO NO NO ............ NO NO NO Tom Cole, Chairman, National Republican NO NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO Congressional Committee................ Eric Cantor, Chief Deputy Whip.......... NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO NO David Dreier, Rules Committee Ranking NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO ............ Republican.............................

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Castor.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the Chair of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Green.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

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

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have one further speaker, and then I will close.

May I inquire if my colleague has more speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Committees on Natural Resources and Transportation, Mr. DeFazio.

Let me give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this whole debate boils down to one issue today: whose side are you on? Which side are you on, the side of the persons who sent you here, your constituents and the businesses that you represent, or are you on the side of the oil companies? I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1433 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Strike all after the resolved clause and add the following:

That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the

House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6899) to advance the

national security interests of the United States by reducing

its dependency on oil through renewable and clean,

alternative fuel technologies while building a bridge to the

future through expanded access to Federal oil and natural gas

resources, revising the relationship between the oil and gas

industry and the consumers who own those resources and

deserve a fair return from the development of publicly owned

oil and gas, ending tax subsidies for large oil and gas

companies, and facilitating energy efficiencies in the

building, housing, and transportation sectors, and for other

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of

rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of

order against provisions of the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final

passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of

debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural

Resources; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute

consisting of the text of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act,

as introduced, if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio

or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention

of any point of order or demand for division of the question,

shall be considered as read, and shall be separately

debatable for 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the

proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it's painfully obvious to the American people that the price of gasoline is going up. This week the national average price per gallon of gas hit $3.77; that's up 63 cents from the same period last year. At every fill-up, American families are reminded that driving anywhere is going to cost them more than ever.

Higher gas prices cause a real drain on family finances, and if they remain high, they could serve as a drag on our economy. In fact, I believe they do serve as a drag on our economy.

Rising gas prices and subsequent congressional interest are not a new phenomenon. It seems that every year Congress conducts a new investigation of the oil industry. By my estimation, in this House, House committees have held no less than 20 hearings, and that's on the gas prices. In the House Judiciary Committee, alone, we've held two hearings just this year, and there's another one scheduled for this Thursday. Those hearings were last year, one more scheduled for this Thursday.

Despite all of this, all this oversight, the price at the pump continues to rise. As the Federal Trade Commission has reported, though, changes in world oil prices have explained 85 percent of the changes in the price of gasoline in the U.S. The price of gas at the pump closely tracks the price of a barrel of oil in the world market.

Further, the FTC has repeatedly found that there is no broad-based collusion to fix prices or engage in price gouging in the retail sale of gasoline.

Another factor impacting the price at the pump has been the decline of the dollar. While the cost of oil has gone up worldwide, its impact has been felt more in the United States because of the lower value of the dollar, vis-a-vis other countries. For example, while the price of West Texas intermediate crude, in dollars, has increased almost 109 percent since January of 2007, that would be the beginning of the 110th Congress, Mr. Speaker, it has only increased 78\1/2\ percent if it's calculated in euros or 84 percent in yen. ``Only'' seems like an interesting phrase to put in there. But a 109 percent increase in dollars, 78\1/2\ percent in euros or 84 percent in yen.

So what can Congress do to reduce fuel prices? It can expand the domestic supply of energy. Yet time and again, the Democratic leadership has rejected opportunities to increase that supply and bring gas prices down.

What has the majority brought to a vote?

Well, this is the second time in this Congress that we're considering NOPEC. Everyone knows that the world oil price is dictated mainly by the quantity of oil that the organization of petroleum exporting countries is willing to supply and, of course, in relation to the demand for that oil.

Most would argue that the presence of this cartel, controlled in large part by totalitarian or hostile regimes, is not helpful. The question is, though, what could or should Congress do about it? NOPEC is one possible solution to this problem, but because of the Act of State doctrine and the concept of sovereign immunity, Americans are precluded from suing the cartel that controls a good portion of the world's oil supply. This bill would change that or at least attempt to.

However, there is no certainty that enabling the Attorney General to sue OPEC for an antitrust violation will result in lower gas prices for Americans. Given the instability that such a suit might create in the world oil market, this legislation would be long on psychic compensation, but short on actual returns to America's pocketbook.

I'm concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill. Moreover, this particular bill has no consideration, has had no consideration in the House Judiciary Committee. In addition to the NOPEC provision which the House considered last year, it also creates a task force at the Department of Justice to study the anticompetitive aspects of the oil and gas markets. Yet the Federal Trade Commission has studied this area repeatedly and found no widespread collusion.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is administratively burdensome on the Department of Justice and at best is duplicative of efforts that already take place at the FTC.

I recognize this bill will likely pass the House again today, but I urge the majority to quit with the cheap theatrics and easy votes. This Congress

should be considering legislation to actually expand oil supply such as drilling in ANWR. We're not seeing a vote on drilling in ANWR in this Congress, in this 110th Congress, or drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, where I happen to know there are 406 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. But, rather, these bills are brought up that might prompt OPEC countries to turn off their supply of oil to the U.S. or to squeeze it down.

That's my opening statement and my view on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

I have no further speakers, and Mr. Speaker, I'd yield myself so much time as I may consume.

I would remind Mr. Speaker and remind the body, the substance of this bill and what it really does; that is, it outlaws OPEC. It outlaws the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and it removes the sovereign immunity for these countries and establishes a task force in the Department of Justice, and then, additionally to that, it produces a GAO study to study mergers. That's how I go through and read the bill, those three things I think we should keep that in mind on what the bill does.

What it doesn't do, this bill doesn't outlaw the congressional cartel that has blocked our energy production in this country. I take us back to the 109th Congress when we had almost all Republicans that were ready and did come to this floor and voted to drill in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which by the way you'd be hard-pressed to find wildlife up there, and I've been there to look.

But we had almost all Republicans that voted for it. A small group of them joined together with the Democrats and blocked drilling in ANWR. That was the 109th Congress. That's when we were pushing to put more oil on the market, more energy on the market, instead of this effort, the 110th Congress, this Pelosi Congress, to take energy off the market.

The same kind of situation prevails with drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. Well, within that definition of the Outer Continental Shelf, with the exception of borders between us and Cuba, the Chinese are drilling for natural gas at 45 miles off of Key West. And we aren't willing to go out and drill the Outer Continental Shelf, either off Florida or off of California, as Mr. Lewis talked about in his presentation.

Instead, we're here sending a message to the rest of the world that we want to set up the scenario so the Department of Justice can step into this and file a suit against sovereign countries that are conducting business.

Now, I don't know how someone on the other side can be for unions collectively bargaining and against OPEC collectively bargaining, but that is one of the ways to define this.

Another thing that's going on is an attempt to suspend, maybe, logic, but attempt to suspend the law of supply and demand. We rail away against high gas prices. We've heard that over here. I'm opposed to high gas prices, but I'm for putting more energy on the market, more Btus into every form of energy that comes in, but instead, we intimidate and send a message.

Even if this bill gets vetoed, which I believe it will, we're sending a message over to the OPEC countries that we want to litigate. Rather than develop our own oil supplies, we want to litigate? What does that say to them? If you're sitting on a board of directors of a corporation, you get that kind of message, you make a decision about what to do with the capital.

Now, if you're an OPEC country, you're going to be making a decision on what to do with your oil. If the United States Congress says we're going to sue you, OPEC countries, what are those countries going to do? They've got about three alternatives. They can hurry up and hustle up and put more oil supply out there, which is what I think the majority hopes they will do. Or they can say, wait a minute, I'm going to hold this the way it is because we've got a good business plan here; I'm offended but I'm not changing anything. Or they might just decide a little bit out of spite to turn the spigot down a little bit to say we'll show you.

Now, the gentleman from Virginia said the President went over to the OPEC countries with hat in hand, and he did, and I'm sorry to see that. I'm sorry to see the President of the United States ask and get the response that he got, but that's driven because we have not opened up the energy supplies that we have in this country. We haven't moved ourselves towards energy independence. Instead, we're paying the Pelosi premium on gasoline.

And the gentleman from Wisconsin, when he spoke of $65 a barrel oil and the last time this bill came up and $3 gas, and today, by his numbers, and it moves pretty quickly, $125 a barrel for oil and $4 gas, and I wondered about this level of outrage then versus now. And so I just did a little math. At what percentage of the price of gasoline then, the last time an OPEC bill was here on this floor, what percentage of that was wrapped up in the cost of crude oil, oil at $65 a barrel and $3 gas? If you take a gallon of crude oil, the cost of a gallon of crude oil was 52 percent of the cost of that gallon of gas. $1.55 a gallon was the cost of the crude oil. Today, the cost per gallon of crude oil, according to the gentleman from Wisconsin's numbers, which I don't dispute, is $2.98 a gallon just to buy the crude oil. That relates out to 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is tied up in the cost of the crude oil, if you rate it accordingly.

We're getting a better bargain now in relation to the cost of crude oil than we were then. It's a higher percentage of the overhead of our refineries and distributing companies. They are doing, I think, a good job of getting it here, but the oil markets are high. They are high because of the cheap dollar. They're high because we have sent the wrong message out there, and speculators are taking advantage of this. This sends another wrong message out there.

So if you're an OPEC country, what do you do? You can, as I said, provide the same or less oil on the market. One thing you might do is maybe pull some investments out of the United States to send another message, don't be trying to intimidate us from Congress; let us do some business. Or another thing that happens is that it erodes, Mr. Speaker, our relationship with those Middle Eastern countries. Those countries that are our allies, those countries that are our friends, those countries that we need strategically in that part of the world, and they need us, this makes it harder for us to work together strategically.

So everything in this Pelosi Congress has taken energy from the market. Instead, now we have legislation that outlaws cartels and would set it up so the Department of Justice could eventually bring suit and presumably freeze the assets ultimately of the countries that are invested here in the United States of America.

Because of the cartel in Congress, this cartel that says if it is green, it's good; if it's energy, it's bad; a cartel of people in this Congress that believe that the cost of energy going up is a good thing because people will burn less gas; if they burn less gas, then somehow it saves the planet, you've convinced me. You've convinced me that a significant element of the Democrat Caucus really doesn't care about high energy prices except the higher the prices go, the less gas will be bought and burned and there will be less carbon emissions into the atmosphere. That's the wrong priority.

We need more energy on the market, not less. We've got to grow the size of the energy pie. That pie chart that shows the 360-degree circle, that's got the slices that are gas, diesel fuel, ethanol, biodiesel, solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, all of those, and one slice of the pie for conservation as well, Mr. Speaker, all of those things is what we need to do. More energy on the market, not less, not litigation.

We need to have a vote on ANWR, and I'd challenge the majority to produce that vote so the American people can understand where they stand.

I oppose this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from New York, the Chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, for many months the liberal leaders that control this House have blocked, dodged, and refused to allow a vote on legislation to produce more American-made energy.

Democrat leaders have been absolute in their opposition to lifting the ban on drilling offshore, and they have repeatedly and adamantly refused any action on such legislation to help lower gas prices that are hurting people at the pump.

And yet today, Mr. Speaker, after these many months and years of stamping their feet and yelling ``no,'' are we now to believe that these same liberal Democrats, standing before us today with a salesman smile on their face, are we to believe them that they are now declaring that this is a pro-drilling bill?

Mr. Speaker, the American people are not fools. They won't be taken in by this sham of a bill that will actually lock down Americans' ocean oil reserves.

There are two phrases that come to mind, Mr. Speaker, about this bill. The first is ``grasping at straws,'' which is defined as trying to find reasons to be hopeful about a bad situation. The second phrase is ``fig leaf,'' which means something you use to try to hide an embarrassing fact or problem. Mr. Speaker, with this bill, Democrats are grasping at straw fig leaves.

There's an election coming up, and Democrats are desperately in search of political cover, political cover for their long record of opposing drilling and producing more American-made energy.

This straw fig leaf bill was written in secret. There were no public hearings on this bill. The first copy of it was made public at 9:45 p.m. last night, barely 12 hours ago, and it's 290 pages long.

The Democrat-controlled Rules Committee blocked every single Member of this House from being able to offer their ideas for improving this bill. No amendments were allowed to the bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, Democrats are simply playing a political game. Everybody knows this bill will never pass Congress and become law, but don't take my word for it. Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said this bill is ``dead on arrival in the Senate.'' And when you examine the details of this bill, it certainly deserves to be dead, Mr. Speaker.

It permanently locks up vast amounts of America's oil and gas reserves, including more than 10 billion, with a B, 10 billion barrels of oil on Alaska's remote North Slope. It leaves 88 percent of America's offshore energy resources locked up. It increases taxes by billions of dollars, taxes which will land squarely on the shoulders of American consumers. And it permanently bans drilling within 50 miles of American shores.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why is this fact important? It's important because, according to the Interior Department, of the nearly 10 billion, again B, barrels of oil believed to be offshore in California, only 5 percent is beyond the 50-mile barrier.

Mr. Speaker, what this simply means is that this bill permanently bans drilling on 95 percent of the oil believed to be off the coast of California.

As if a permanent ban on drilling in the first 50 miles offshore were not enough, drilling between 50 and 100 miles out would also be effectively banned. By refusing to allow States to share in revenue generated by offshore drilling, this bill guarantees that drilling offshore will never be permitted by the States.

Right now, States along the Gulf of Mexico are paid a share of the oil produced in those waters. Under this bill, royalty sharing won't be allowed. As a result, States would have no incentive to allow any drilling whatsoever. In fact, I would submit they would have a disincentive. Why would a State allow someone to come into their back yard and pay them no share of the profits that would be made by the offshore drilling? It is the equivalent of the government opening a Starbuck's or a McDonald's franchise in your garage or family home but paying you nothing,

even to alleviate the cost of dealing with the impacts of that business.

And consider this, Mr. Speaker, if this is truly a drilling bill, why is there no outcry from the radical environmental special interests? Mr. Speaker, it's because they know that drilling will never happen under this plan. Those who are opposed to drilling can vote for this bill secure in the knowledge that drilling will never actually happen under this sham bill.

Mr. Speaker, my district in central Washington is the home of Grand Coulee Dam and vast amounts of hydropower. It is the home of the only nuclear plant in the Pacific Northwest. It is home to the vast majority of wind farms in Washington State. And it is home to the Pacific Northwest National Lab, a leader in renewable energy research.

Those who call central Washington home believe in an all-of-the-above plan that lowers energy prices. That means promoting alternative energy sources like wind and solar power, recognizing a need for more nuclear power, protecting our valuable hydropower dams, and also allowing drilling offshore in Alaska and on other Federal lands. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, does not address those issues.

The Democrat plan just means billions of dollars in higher taxes, more government mandates that will increase costs for everyone, and a permanent ban on most of our offshore resources.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people deserve a vote on legislation that truly expands alternative energy sources and lifts the ban on offshore drilling and in Alaska. They deserve a vote on H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, but the liberal leaders of this Congress have blocked a fair yes-or-no vote on this bill for months. They blocked a fair yes-or-no vote, Mr. Speaker, because I believe they know if it were on the floor, it would likely pass.

Mr. Speaker, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi control the Democrat Party here in this Congress. They oppose drilling. They have fought and blocked it for years. Every time drilling has come up they've said ``no, no, no.'' And this bill is just more of the same because it says no drilling in Alaska, no to truly lifting the offshore drilling ban, no to opening up oil shale in the western United States, no to hydropower as a renewable energy source, no to non-carbon emitting nuclear power, no to building new refineries here in America, and no to clean coal and coal-to-liquid technology. The only thing that the Democrat bill says yes to are tax increases, permanent bans on drilling, and continued high prices.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my opening remarks, I want to shine the light on an area of this bill that has not gotten much attention, partly because no one had a copy to read this bill before 9:45 last night.

Of serious concern are the costly new mandates included in the national Renewable Energy Standard that this bill creates. The most likely and certain result of this is to increase the power bills of almost every American family and business that it affects. That's right, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat bill isn't going to lower gas prices, but it will increase power bills.

The most egregious of it all is that this new mandate is slanted and biased by saying solar and wind power are renewable under the standard, but that hydropower isn't. This discrimination against hydropower is absolutely ridiculous. Hydropower is the most abundant source of renewable energy in our country. Hydropower is renewable, clean, non- emitting, non-polluting, and a reliable energy source.

Mr. Speaker, those are the facts.

And consider this; if capturing the sun shining and the wind blowing is renewable energy, then so is water running downhill, which is precisely what hydro is all about. But believe it or not, it is not renewable by definition under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, when Democrats--who just days ago were proudly declaring their career-long opposition to oil drilling--are suddenly preaching the merits of this self-proclaimed drilling bill, you know, it's really hard not to laugh, except for the fact that families, workers, farmers, schools and small businesses are struggling under the high cost of gasoline, and really this Democrat Congress is doing nothing to help.

Instead of real solutions to real problems of high gas and energy prices that Americans are facing, this Democrat Congress has chosen to look after themselves in writing this bill. What do I mean by that? This bill will do nothing, nothing but give Democrats a talking point and a 30-second television commercial where they can smile and claim that they are supporting drilling for American oil.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule and this sham bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Republican whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis of California.

(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton of Texas.

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

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a Member of this body who has been absolutely steadfast on the proposition of expanding our energy supply, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire if my friend, the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, has any other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Speaker, I have two additional individuals, and then I am prepared to yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, a Member who served here previously and who was very active on this issue, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

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

Mr. Speaker, my plea to those Democrats who proclaim their support for more drilling and making America more energy independent, I urge you to vote ``no'' against this sham bill by voting ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

Mr. Speaker, once again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question because that means we will have a vote on both their bill and our bill.

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

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for his leadership, and I appreciate greatly the leadership of Dr. Kagen of Wisconsin for this enormously thoughtful legislation for it is focused, if you will, on moving the ball forward for suffering constituents, whether they're in Wisconsin, Virginia, Texas. Even oil- and gas-producing States such as Texas are facing the crisis of oil shortages, gasoline high prices and difficulties for working men and women.

Why is this thoughtful? I serve on the Antitrust Task Force on the House Judiciary Committee, and we're looking at broad-based issues, domestic and international, on how prices are being either constrained or expanded by the idea of maintaining price controls.

And so OPEC itself, being with many of its members who are part of the WTO, certainly can be subjected to the question that is raised by this legislation.

The bill authorizes the Attorney General to establish a Department of Justice petroleum industry antitrust task force, very thoughtful and forward-thinking. This task force has the responsibility to develop, coordinate and facilitate the implementation of the investigative and enforcement policies of the Department of Justice related to the petroleum industry.

We must do something, and this is a complement to the very important work that the Democrats did moving forward very important energy legislation that deals with alternatives, that really spoke to Mom and Pop, that spoke to the truck drivers.

And I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move this legislation forward to address the question of whether OPEC is manipulating prices. Certainly, it can be a better approach on what happened over the last couple of days when we know that one of the

OPEC members simply said I'll give you a few pennies on the market by offering up an extra couple of barrels of oil.

This is a reasoned perspective, and so I would reach out to the administration to work with us. The energy bill is languishing. Why? Because we hear that the administration will, in fact, veto it.

There are some ideas that I think are important. Those of us on the gulf region have supported a safe, environmental process of exploring in the gulf. Some of us do believe that there can be a moratorium on gasoline taxes if it comes from someplace other than the Highway Trust Fund.

Dr. Kagen's bill is meaningful; it is forthright. It says what it wants to do, and it gives the procedures for doing so with an important task force that questions OPEC and its ability to manipulate prices. It is answering the question of those Americans who are in need of relief, those truck drivers who are in need of relief, and I ask my colleagues to support again this very thoughtful legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6074, the ``Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008.'' I support this bill.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Sherman Act to make oil- producing and exporting cartels illegal and for other purposes. The bill makes it illegal for any foreign state or instrumentality to act collectively or in combination with any foreign state, to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product. It also makes it illegal to set or maintain the price of oil or natural gas, or petroleum product or otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for such products.

The bill authorizes the Attorney General to establish in the Department of Justice a Petroleum Industry Antitrust Task Force. This Task Force has the responsibility to develop, coordinate, and facilitate the implementation of the investigative and enforcement policies of the Department of Justice related to the petroleum industry.

The bill authorizes the Task Force to provide an annual report to Congress describing the investigatory and enforcement efforts. The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study evaluating the effects of mergers addressed in merger consent decrees on competition within 1 year of enactment of this bill.

This bill is an important effort to address the oil crisis faced by the United States. Americans are in desperate need of relief. Increasingly, as the economy spirals into a recession, Americans must choose between food, energy, and gas. This crisis is of national and international importance.

Oil prices have not been regulated since the Reagan Administration; however, the market situation since 2004 has yielded little excess capacity. Because OPEC determines the supply of oil vis-a-vis demand, it plays a significant role in the determination of the price of oil in the world market. Whereas OPEC is comprised of approximately 13 countries, it has 75 percent of the world's oil reserves, which affords it considerable control over the global market. OPEC produces 40 percent of the world's oil needs with approximately 30 million barrels of oil per day. The rest of the oil refineries in the world are producing at full capacity. Given their large oil reserves, OPEC countries have considerable capacity, which if utilized could ameliorate the current oil crises.

The weakening value of the dollar, political uncertainty and unrest in places such as Nigeria, Venezuela, India, and China exacerbate the problem. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, member countries of OPEC, have the capability of producing more oil. In addition, another OPEC member country, Iraq, has the capability of producing more oil. Despite this excess capacity, the OECD countries and other major oil importers such as Japan and the EU, are paying higher prices for oil. Worse still is the plight faced by the developing world. While the developed world is facing high oil prices, the developing world is facing even higher prices with the weakening value of the dollar. Food prices all over the world are rising and instability is growing. Something must be done and this bill is a first step.

In Houston, Texas, retail gas prices are above $3.60 a gallon and will likely continue to rise this summer. Many analysts see prices peaking closer to $4 a gallon. Gas prices are rising on concerns about supplies and demand. Analysts say refiners have cut back on gasoline production because of low profit margins; the rising price of crude means it costs them more to refine gas.

Demand for gasoline is expected to fall by 85,000 barrels a day this summer compared to last because of high prices and the weak economy. This would be the first summertime decline in gasoline demand since 1991. To date, however, falling demand has failed to deflate surging gas prices, which are putting more pressure on consumers. Consumers are already suffering from higher food prices, falling home values, and a tight job market.

This important bill seeks to address the oil crisis from a domestic standpoint. It is an important first step. While the bill amends the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal, I believe more can be done, and I work to ensure that all Americans will benefit from affordable oil and gas prices.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.