Long Path Trail Study Act of 2008

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to thank Chairman Dingell for his leadership on energy issues and for assisting in bringing this legislation to the floor for consideration by the full House.

I want to address a couple of observations by my friend from Texas. Number one, the revenues that would be generated from drilling on Federal lands

would go into the Treasury. And there are many uses and debates that can be had about whether that money ultimately should go into alternative energy, whether it should go into LIHEAP, and those will all be had in due course as part of other legislation.

The question that we have before us today is whether or not taking a small step that in the past has been taken by this President Bush, by his father, by President Clinton, that when it has been taken 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.

All of us know, we're going home every weekend and we're hearing from our constituents. It doesn't matter what district we're in, it doesn't matter what part of the country we're from, folks are really feeling burdened by these ever-escalating home energy heating bills and the cost of filling up their pick-up truck and their car. 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, this Congress is going to be willing to take a short-term step that has the potential to bring down energy prices.

You know, we could go out and clap, but I actually think this would be more effective. History tells us that, in fact, when we've used this Strategic Petroleum Reserve as an asset belonging to the American people and suspended purchases--and incidentally, this Strategic Petroleum Reserve is nearly full, we're talking about topping it off, it's very expensive to do so now with $126 per barrel oil--that when we've done it in the past, it has actually reduced that pump price. And just two examples of what it would mean in my small State of Vermont. I talked to a trucker from Barre, Vermont; they've got a company and drive a lot. It would put $300,000 on his bottom line if the price of gas went down 25 cents. A school district in a rural area, it would be $30,000 off their bottom line if we could get the price down 25 cents.

No one here is suggesting that this is an answer to our energy situation. What we are suggesting--and, really, recommendations on a bipartisan basis--is that the tool that's within our reach we should use and do all we can on a short-term basis even as we debate long-term energy policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, just in response, as a clarification for my friend from Texas, my understanding of the bill is we will continue to accept and will honor contracts during that 45-day period for royalty in kind.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield another 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

I recognize the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we can't amend the bill at this stage, and that this is a question for the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not having had an opportunity to review this, only hearing the recitation of it from my friend from Texas, not having any awareness as to whether this has been scored by the CBO, as has the underlying bill, I am not prepared to give unanimous consent to the gentleman's offer and would object at this time.

A point of inquiry. The ruling of the Chair is that that proposed amendment was not in order?

I am not making a request for unanimous consent.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

Mr. Speaker, I want to answer a few questions that were raised by my friend from Texas. First of all, the question is how, when it's such a small amount of oil, 70,000 barrels a day, can suspending purchases have an impact on the price?

There are two things, number one, history has shown that when the Federal Government, on behalf of the consumers of this country and the small businesses, have used this Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help alleviate market pressures. It's worked, and the previous speakers have recited how it happened with this President Bush, the prior President Bush and President Clinton. We have history as a guide that says taking this action does work.

Second, the reason it works is that one of the problems we have in the oil market is speculation. There was legislation passed in 2002 by Congress that included a loophole that allowed the deregulation of the energy futures trading market, and there is enormous evidence, that that has allowed hedge funds and arbitrageurs and speculators to impose a premium in the cost of each barrel of oil and in the cost of a gallon of gas.

The fact is, if the Federal Government is showing, particularly on a bipartisan basis, that we are going to use the levers that we have, even in a short-term way, to protect the consumer against the speculator, then that has a chastening impact on speculation and helps bring the price down.

Third, the process. My friend from Texas is the distinguished ranking member of that committee, but this issue about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is well worn. In fact, it's been used before, as I mentioned, so it's not all that complicated. We are doing it only for the period of 2008 in respect to the wishes of the chairman.

The Senate has passed the Reid-Dorgan amendment by 97-1, essentially the

very same proposal that we are considering today. The bottom line is this, will we take the short-term actions that it's within our reach to take that have a proven capacity to help the consumer?

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Thank you very much for yielding.

The money actually goes back to the general Treasury.

That is correct, yes.

Well, at that point we return to operations as they exist today.

It is a flat suspension.

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

This is an historic debate. The history is quite clear. At the point of which President Bush was sworn in as President in January of 2001, as a renowned oil industry veteran, the price of a barrel of oil was $30. Today, as we are now in the eighth year of the President's term of office, it is $126 a barrel, an historic high, nearly a quadrupling of the price of a barrel of oil.

Other interesting facts: On the day that the President was sworn in, again, as President, gas was $1.45 a gallon, the good old days when the Bush administration was sworn into office. Today it has hit a record high of $3.72, on average, for self serve regular. So that is something else that is quite dramatically negative in terms of the impact on American consumers.

Now, here's what has happened over the years with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Back in 1991 President Bush's father actually deployed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the price of a barrel of oil dropped 33 percent. In 2000 President Clinton deployed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the price of a barrel of oil went down 18 percent. In fact, President Bush himself deployed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2005, which led to a 5.6 percent drop in the price of a barrel of oil.

Now, this is an interesting U-turn that the President has taken because what he said in 2006 was----

I thank the gentleman.

What the President said, President Bush said, in April 25, 2006, was, ``I have directed the Department of Energy to defer filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve this summer. So by deferring deposits until the fall, we will leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps.'' The price of a barrel of oil when President Bush said that in 2006: $67 a barrel.

Now here's what the President said as of April 29, just 2 weeks ago, in 2008. He said: ``In this case, I have analyzed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve issue, and I don't think it would affect the price.''

Well, that's a surprising change of economic analysis by the President in just 2 years. And as we debate this out here on the House floor, he seems to find himself in the minority because, in fact, what the President has at his disposal is the ability to be able to do something about this issue.

As consumers get the shakedown at the pump, this Friday President Bush is going to meet with the sheiks in Saudi Arabia to ask for more oil. And while the President sent troops to the Middle East to look for weapons of mass destruction, he's avoiding using a weapon of price reduction here at home. The President has said he does not have a magic wand to wave away high gas prices, but he does carry a big stick. It's called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

I thank the gentleman.

So here is the checklist right now to turn on the spigot of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Obama, yes; Clinton,

yes; McCain, yes; George Bush, no. He's saying ``no'' to the American consumer, ``no'' to the American economy. It is a dangerous economic position for our country to be in.

I thank the gentleman.

So here is where we are. There is something that President Bush can do right now to give relief to consumers at the pump after being shaken upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets as they refill their tank. President Bush said in 2006 that every little bit helps. We know it is not a panacea, but every little bit helps. Today he is saying, I am sorry. I am just going to go over and meet with sheiks in Saudi Arabia and ask them to please give us more oil that we can buy from them.

We should be more aggressive. One, stop filling at 70,000 barrels a day; two, stop drilling 70,000 barrels a day and you will see a huge change on the open market.

Obama says ``yes.'' Clinton says ``yes.'' McCain says ``yes.'' President Bush still says ``no.'' Vote ``yes'' on the Welch resolution to ensure that the American consumer is protected at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this legislation and I urge its approval.

The bill would direct the President to temporarily suspend putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the end of the year, unless before that time the price of oil should drop below $75 per barrel.

This is the quickest step we can take to increase the supply of oil on the open market, and so to bring some relief to consumers suffering from the high price of gasoline and other petroleum products.

Currently, the Federal Government is putting some 70,000 barrels of oil into the strategic reserve each day, even though the reserve is 97 percent full. While there are no guarantees, economists estimate that suspending that action could reduce gas prices by 5 to 24 cents a gallon.

It should not have been necessary for Congress to be considering this legislation. Current law gives the president authority to suspend diversion of oil into the strategic reserve.

That authority has been used in the past, by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, and by the current President Bush, who did so

in 2006. And history shows using that authority can help consumers--in 2000, after such action, the price of oil dropped by one-third, from $30 to $20 per barrel.

That's why last November, with other Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, I sent a letter asking President Bush to again suspend putting oil into the strategic reserve.

Regrettably, the president did not agree to that request, or to a second similar request that many of us made last month. So now Congress must act to require what the president has declined to do on his own.

That is what this bill does and why I support its passage. But I think we should not stop there. There are at least five other steps to reduce the extent to which American consumers are paying the price for our flawed energy policies.

Specifically, we should--

(1) Crack Down on price gouging--Speculators have contributed to oil prices increasing 82 percent in the last year. While these have been regulated markets in the past, more and more new investment tools are outside of regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or any other Federal Government oversight. That's why I am backing a bill (H.R. 594) to give the CFTC oversight over additional energy commodities trading and to establish civil and civil and criminal penalties for price gouging.

(2) Consider Suspension of the tariff on ethanol imports--Suspending the 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol import tariff would mean more ethanol coming into the country, which would increase fuel supplies and lessen the pressure on prices.

(3) Stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry--The Republican Congress passed an energy bill in 2005 that included about $2.6 billion in tax cuts for the oil and gas industry--an industry that has seen record profits in the last few years. I strongly support removing some of the unneeded tax credits for this industry, specifically the tax credit for taxes paid to foreign governments and the deduction for domestic manufacturing activities for major oil and gas producers.

(4) Increase oil and gas drilling in certain areas--I support expanding exploration and development in appropriate areas both onshore and offshore, as long as it is done in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner. I also have proposed legislation (H.R. 3182), with the support of Representative Jeff Flake and other Members from both sides of the aisle, to relax the current embargo that prevents U.S. oil companies from competing to develop oil offshore from Cuba, where companies from other countries are currently drilling.

(5) Push renewable energy alternatives--promote cellulosic ethanol and the Production Tax Credit--Increasing America's use of renewable energy sources will also help address supply in future years by providing a more diverse energy portfolio. Cellulosic ethanol has great potential to not only lower our gas prices, but also our food prices as we move away from corn-based ethanol.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the leadership of both Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton on what is being done and has been done for a long time with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in making sure that it stays strong and effective for us at a time that we do need it and will need it. And I think that if we keep cool heads and look for simple ways that we can reach and try to find commonsense solutions to some of the problems that we face, then we're going to have a good solution to those problems.

And we are taking one step today. That's all. One of hopefully many to try to curb the price of gasoline for the American consumer and invest in alternative energy research to provide for the long-term energy solutions that we're going to need. Many of these things are going to be required for us to get the price of gasoline down to the point where we're going to be comfortable again, and let's hope that we accomplish it.

This bill directs the President to suspend shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the end of the year or until prices drop below $75 a barrel.

High oil prices are straining family budgets at the pump, and we know that they're driving prices up on groceries and other household goods. And families are starting to rethink even summer vacations, and it's going to have a negative impact on so many of our communities that depend on tourism. This ripple effect, well, from the high price of gasoline and diesel, there's going to be a touch to every family, to every industry, to every person, to every business in the United States and even around the globe.

Not realizing the urgency of this situation is naive. Consumers need lower prices now, not later. This bill provides a quick first step, maybe not much, but at least it's an action on the part of our Congress.

When I first introduced similar legislation affecting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve back in January, gas was $3.11 a gallon. Now it's $3.73 a gallon. It has gone up 11 cents in the last week. And if the President turns a blind eye to the needs of the American people, we may see gasoline go to $5, $6, or $7 a gallon.

Consider this: The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been tapped and suspended four times by the last three Presidents.

In 2000, as we have already heard, the prices fell by one-third, and they stayed low. 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 economy.

This action has widespread bipartisan support. It was supported by a near unanimous support by the Senate this morning. I got a letter a few minutes ago from the American Trucking Association saying that the additional $391 million that truckers are having to pay for diesel cannot be handled by them for long.

So I'm pleased that we are taking at least the first step. And I am looking forward to introducing other legislation later this week that's going to provide additional relief to consumers to provide and invest in our energy independence through research and development.

Would the gentleman yield?

I don't know if we have a specific study that can show it, but I can tell you the people that we have been working with over the last several months from places like MIT who have come and asked us to consider this legislation, they are saying that historically we have seen prices drop when actions like this have been taken. If we can try, at least we are doing something that may put it in the right direction. We have additional legislation that is going to be proposed.

And I hope you will join me as a cosponsor of that legislation.