Consumer Energy Supply Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6578) to provide for the sale of light grade petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and its replacement with heavy grade petroleum, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, gas prices are outrageous and we need to act. Families are hurting and are looking to us to do anything and everything that can help.

There's no silver bullet, but there sure are things we can be doing better. One way is to make better use of our energy feedstocks, use what we ought to use today and save what we need to save for tomorrow.

The goal of this bill, H.R. 6578, the Consumer Energy Supply Act, is simple: to increase the supply of oil in the United States that can be refined into gas. The bill will direct the Department of Energy to release 70 million barrels of light sweet crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The bill requires the sale or exchange of light sweet crude to begin 15 days after enactment and to be completed within 6 months. Under the bill the revenue from the release will go into the SPR petroleum account to purchase more oil so the SPR will end up with more oil than it started out with. The bill will make sure that the SPR level will not fall below 90 percent of the current level during the exchange.

Now, the type of oil that will be released from the SPR is light sweet crude, which is the easiest and the cheapest to turn into gas.

And the oil that will replace the light oil will be heavy sour crude which happens to be the oil that is best suited to be refined into diesel.

What we need more of in this country is the highest and best use of all of our energy feedstocks. And this bill takes the oil that we pump back into the ground to save for later and puts that oil to its highest and best use right now and replaces that oil with oil whose highest and best use is to be held in reserve for a true national emergency.

This bill makes it easier and cheaper to get this fuel to the market right now while making sure we aren't putting our future needs at risk. We need to use today what is good for today and save for tomorrow what is good for tomorrow. Because our refineries need more oil they can refine quickly to get gas and diesel on the market, this bill gives it to them. Adding heavy sour crude to the SPR in its place will make sure that the SPR will be more effective if a real emergency arises. That is because the heavy oil we will be swapping for light oil can be refined to the diesel fuel needed to power our trucks, our trains and our military needs in times of a true emergency.

In April this year, the acting director for natural resources of the Government Accountability Office, Frank Rusco, gave Congress a detailed report to modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and improve its flexibility and effectiveness. The Department of Energy has completed a study in 2005 which produced similar conclusions. This legislation will ensure that the SPR is more reflective of our Nation's modern refining capacity and that its strategic capabilities are better used while providing more oil available for refining right here in the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit these two documents for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will ease market tensions. It will help unlock some of the value in the SPR without negatively affecting the overall capacity or our strategic reserve policy. A release from the SPR will also help reduce the effects of market speculation on oil prices by sending the message that Congress is prepared to defend American families and businesses from these corrosive prices. That is what this bill will do. That is why it is a good idea for us to pass it. And that is why I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

[From the United States Government Accountability Office]

Testimony Before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global

Warming, House of Representatives

Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Improving the Cost Effectiveness of

Filling the Reserve

(Statement of Frank Rusco, Acting Director Natural Resources and

Environment)

Why GAO Did This Study

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was created in 1975

to help protect the U.S. economy from oil supply disruptions

and currently holds about 700 million barrels of crude oil.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of

Energy (DOE) to increase the SPR storage capacity from 727

million barrels to 1 billion barrels, which it plans to

accomplish by 2018. Since 1999, oil for the SPR has generally

been obtained through the royalty-in-kind program, whereby

the government receives oil instead of cash for payment of

royalties on leases of federal property. The Department of

Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) collects the

royalty oil and transfers it to DOE, which then trades it for

oil suitable for the SPR.

As DOE begins to expand the SPR, past experiences can help

inform future efforts to fill the reserve in the most cost-

effective manner. In that context, GAO's testimony today will

focus on: (1) Factors GAO recommends DOE consider when

filling the SPR, and (2) the cost-effectiveness of using oil

received through the royalty-in-kind program to fill the SPR.

To address these issues, GAO relied on its 2006 report on

the SPR, as well as its ongoing review of the royalty-in-kind

program, where GAO interviewed officials at both DOE and MMS,

and reviewed DOE's SPR policies and procedures. DOE provided

comments on a draft of this testimony, which we incorporated

where appropriate.

What GAO Found

To decrease the cost of filling the reserve and improve its

efficiency, GAO recommended in previous work that DOE should

include at least 10 percent heavy crude oil in the SPR. If

DOE bought 100 million barrels of heavy crude oil during its

expansion of the SPR it could save over $1 billion in nominal

terms, assuming a price differential of $12 between the price

of light crude oil and the lower price of heavy crude oil,

the average differential over the last five years. Having

heavy crude oil in the SPR would also make the SPR more

compatible with many U.S. refineries, helping these

refineries run more efficiently in the event that a supply

disruption triggers use of the SPR. DOE indicated that, due

to the planned SPR expansion, determinations of the amount of

heavy oil to include in the SPR should wait until it prepares

a new study of U.S. Gulf Coast refining requirements. In

addition, we recommended

that DOE consider acquiring a steady dollar value--rather

than a steady volume--of oil over time when filling the SPR.

This ``dollar-cost-averaging'' approach would allow DOE to

acquire more oil when prices are low and less when prices are

high. GAO found that if DOE had used this purchasing approach

between October 2001 through August 2005, it could have saved

approximately $590 million, or over 10 percent, in fill

costs. GAO's simulations indicate that DOE could save money

using this approach for future SPR fills, regardless of

whether oil prices are trending up or down as long as there

is price volatility. GAO also recommends that DOE consider

giving companies participating in the royalty-in-kind program

additional flexibility to defer oil deliveries in exchange

for providing additional barrels of oil. DOE has granted

limited deferrals in the past, and expanding their use could

further decrease SPR fill costs. While DOE indicated that its

November 2006 rule on SPR acquisition procedures addressed

our recommendations, this rule does not specifically address

how to implement a dollar-cost-averaging strategy.

Purchasing oil to fill the SPR--as DOE did until 1994--is

likely to be more cost-effective than exchanging oil from the

royalty-in-kind program for other oil to fill the SPR. The

latter method adds administrative complexity to the task of

filling the SPR, increasing the potential for waste and

inefficiency. A January 2008 DOE Inspector General report

found that DOE is unable to ensure that it receives all of

the royalty oil that MMS provides. In addition, we found that

DOE's method for evaluating bids has been more robust for

cash purchases than royalty-in-kind exchanges, increasing the

likelihood that cash purchases are more cost-effective. For

example, in April 2007, DOE solicited two different types of

bids--one to purchase oil for the SPR in cash and one to

exchange royalty oil for other oil to fill the SPR. DOE

rejected offers to purchase oil when the spot price was about

$69 per barrel, yet in the same month, DOE exchanged royalty-

in-kind oil for other oil to put in the SPR at about the same

price. Because the government would have otherwise sold this

royalty-in-kind oil, DOE committed the government to pay,

through forgone revenues to the U.S. Treasury, roughly the

same price per barrel that DOE concluded was too high to

purchase directly.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

We are pleased to be here today to participate in the

Committee's hearing on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

Congress authorized the SPR in 1975 to protect the nation

from oil supply disruptions following the Arab oil embargo of

1973 and 1974 that led to sharp increases in oil prices. The

federal government owns the SPR, and the Department of Energy

(DOE) operates it. The SPR currently has the capacity to

store up to 727 million barrels of crude oil in salt caverns

in Texas and Louisiana. As of April 21, 2008, current

inventory of the SPR stood at 701.3 million barrels of oil,

which is roughly equivalent to 58 days of net oil imports.

DOE made direct purchases of crude oil until 1994, when

purchases were suspended due to the federal budget deficit,

and in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 approximately 28 million

barrels of oil were sold to reduce the deficit. Since DOE

resumed filling the SPR in 1999, it has obtained oil from the

Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service

(MMS) ``royalty-in-kind'' program. Through this program, the

MMS receives oil instead of cash for payments of royalties

from companies that lease federal property for oil and gas

development. MMS contracts for some of this royalty oil to be

delivered to designated oil terminal locations or ``market

centers'' where DOE takes possession. Because the royalty oil

often does not meet SPR quality specifications, and because

the market centers can be distant from SPR storage sites, DOE

generally awards contracts to exchange royalty oil at the

market center for SPR-quality oil delivered to SPR

facilities. Obtaining oil for the SPR through the royalty-in-

kind program avoids the need for Congress to make outlays to

finance oil purchases, but the foregone revenues associated

with using royalty-in-kind oil to trade for SPR oil imply an

equivalent loss of revenue because MMS would otherwise sell

the oil and deposit the revenues with the U.S. Treasury.

Interior estimates that the forgone revenue attributable to

using the royalty-in-kind program to fill the SPR were $4.6

billion from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2007.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed DOE to increase the

SPR storage capacity to 1 billion barrels and to fill it ``as

expeditiously as practicable without incurring excessive cost

or appreciably affecting the price of petroleum products to

consumers.'' It required DOE to select sites to expand the

SPR's storage capacity within 1 year of enactment, by August

2006. On February 14, 2007, Secretary of Energy William

Bodman designated three sites for the expansion, including a

160 million barrel facility in Richton, Mississippi, an 80

million barrel expansion of a facility in Big Hill, Texas,

and a 33 million barrel expansion of a facility in Bayou

Choctaw, Louisiana. In its June 2007 SPR plan, DOE

anticipated these expansions would begin in fiscal year 2008

and be complete in 2018. DOE also indicated that it would

prefer to continue using the royalty-in-kind program to fill

the additional storage capacity. DOE estimates the capital

cost for the SPR expansion at approximately $3.67 billion,

and estimates the cost of operating and maintaining the

expanded portion of the SPR at $35 to $40 million per year.

As DOE begins to expand the SPR, past experiences may help

inform future efforts to fill the SPR in the most cost-

effective manner. In that context, our testimony today will

focus on: (1) Factors we recommend DOE consider when filling

the SPR, and (2) the cost-effectiveness of using oil received

through the royalty-in-kind program to fill the SPR.

To address these issues, we are summarizing work from our

August 2006 report on the SPR and our ongoing review of the

royalty-in-kind program. For our August 2006 report, we

contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to convene a

group of 13 industry, academic, governmental, and

nongovernmental experts to collect opinions on the impacts of

past SPR fill and use and on recommendations for the future.

We also reviewed records and reports from DOE and the

International Energy Agency. In addition, for our ongoing

review of the royalty-in-kind program for this committee and

others, we identified and reviewed applicable laws and

documentation on DOE policies and procedures for evaluating

SPR purchase and exchange bids, and interviewed officials at

both Interior and DOE. We have also drawn upon previous GAO

reports on the royalty-in- kind program. We conducted our

work on this testimony from January to April 2008 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards. Those standards require that we plan and

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for

our findings and conclusions based on our audit

objectives.

In summary

To fill the SPR in a more cost-effective manner, we

recommended in previous work that DOE include in the SPR at

least 10 percent heavy crude oils, which are more compatible

with many U.S. refiners and generally cheaper to acquire than

the lighter oils that comprise the SPR's volume. DOE

indicated that, due to the planned SPR expansion, such

determinations should wait until it prepares a new study of

U.S. Gulf Coast heavy sour crude refining requirements. In

addition, we recommended that DOE consider acquiring a steady

dollar value of oil over time and allowing oil companies more

flexibility to defer delivery of royalty-in-kind exchanges to

the SPR when prices are likely to decline in return for

additional deliveries in the future. In updating us on the

status of this recommendation, DOE indicated that its

November 8, 2006, rule on SPR acquisition procedures

addressed our recommendations; however, this rule does not

specifically address both how to implement a dollar-cost-

averaging strategy and how to provide industry with more

deferral flexibility. In subsequent comment, DOE noted that

the November 8, 2006, acquisition procedures do not address

dollar-cost-averaging, but they do address flexibility of

purchasing and scheduling in volatile markets.

Filling the SPR with oil purchased in cash is likely to be

more cost-effective than filling the SPR through the royalty-

in-kind program for several reasons. For example, the

royalty-in-kind program adds a layer of administrative

complexity to the task of filling the SPR, increasing the

potential for waste or inefficiency. Moreover, DOE has

evaluated the cost of cash purchases more thoroughly than

exchanges, increasing the * * *

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

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would like for us instead to proceed with the speakers that we have identified, and we will address this later on as circumstances warrant at the end of the debate time that is allotted.

So I do object at this time with the understanding that I will be glad to consider such a request at the appropriate time at the end of the time allotted for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I do need to object, and I would be happy to consider such a request at the end of the time allotted for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Just a quick question, was it 15 minutes that Mr. Barton was asking about?

We will consent to 15 minutes, but equally divided at the present time, 7\1/2\ minutes for each side.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to the author of this legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to the distinguished coauthor of this legislation, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, before proposing accommodation to my friend from Texas, I would like to confirm the amount of time that we have left. It's my understanding we have 5 minutes remaining; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, what I propose to do is reserve the balance of our time and at the same time ask unanimous consent that my friend from Texas may be allowed to control 3 minutes of our remaining time.

We have no further speakers on our side. I would reserve the balance of our time.

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

In the course of this debate, from time to time it has seemed as though folks were talking about this as if this was draw-down authority, as if this was just a pure draw-down from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I think it's important to emphasize this is not a draw-down proposal.

This legislation proposes a swap. It proposes a swap for that which is best saved for tomorrow in exchange for that which is best used today. We propose to put in the ground what we should save for tomorrow, and put back into the system what we're getting out of the ground now which is best used today. We should use today what's best for today and save for tomorrow what's best for tomorrow.

Also, much has been made, or rather, little has been made of the fact that this is just 3\1/2\ days of national consumption being added into the supply system. Only 1 percent of national consumption is being talked about here.

When Mark Twain was born, he was the 100th person born in the town of Hannibal, Missouri. He said, you know, when I was born, I increased the population of my town by 1 percent. That's more than most folks can say in this world.

Well, by this legislation, we can increase the supply of oil and what we've refined into gas in this country by 1 percent, and that's more than we can say about most of the pieces of legislation that we get to vote on from time to time.

Also, it's important to recognize that this 3\1/2\ days, this extra 1 percent, is a far greater percent of the thing on which the world price rests. The world price rests on the very thin margin between daily worldwide production and daily worldwide consumption. What is that margin? That margin is a mere 1 million barrels a day. So we're talking about putting into the system 70 times the world's daily float, the difference between daily production and daily consumption.

That is a very significant factor. It is not only a decent percentage of what we consume; it's a very significant factor of that very thin margin that contributes the most to the runaway cost of gas and oil in the world today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague from Texas for his conduct and debate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We reserve the balance of our time.

We reserve our time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, we will reserve our time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of our time.

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

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

I will just make a couple of points in response to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Barton). One, I look forward to working with the gentleman in modernizing and working to overhaul the SPR. It is certainly in need of improved management. And I might also mention that a version of this bill was introduced back in May. And we also have been working on it to make it as bipartisan a bill as we could possibly make it since November. So there has been a great deal of effort to try to make sure that we've heard everyone's concerns and to try to address them.

And one of the points that the gentleman made about imports and where our heavy oil would come from to replace this, we purchase 14 percent, or 70,000 barrels, from Canada per month. Also the Gulf of Mexico has a significant amount of heavy crude that we also would be purchasing to put into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And I might make the point that the refineries have made significant and actually great advances in technology. And they refine heavy crude just as easily as they refine light crude today.

So, Mr. Speaker, today we consider this legislation that I believe is an important step for our Nation's future energy security. It will make the Strategic Petroleum Reserve more compatible with modern U.S. refineries and thus more effective. Improving the SPR's flexibility will maximize its utility. Shoring up our Nation's energy reserves is just one piece of this energy supply puzzle which also includes increased domestic drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf as well as research and development for alternatives.

I would like to address national security concerns that have been mentioned. The day that we went to war with Iraq, the SPR contained only 624 million barrels of oil. Today we have more oil in the SPR than we have ever had. And this bill ensures levels will not fall below 90 percent of the current level. In 2006, President Bush declared the SPR is sufficiently large to guard against any major supply disruption with only 688 million barrels. Today it's more than 700 million barrels. Most

importantly, this change will strengthen the SPR and enable refiners to operate at full capacity during any potential supply disruption.

When Congress created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1975 following the Arab oil embargo to protect the Nation from any future oil supply disruptions, refiners largely processed only light and medium crude. Advances in technology over the years have led to the ability to efficiently process heavy oil as it has become a larger part of the market. In fact, 40 percent of the oil accepted last year by refiners was heavier than the oil contained in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. With refiners planning to expand by 800,000 barrels worth of mostly heavy oil capacity in just the next few years, I believe it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the Nation's oil reserves match refining capacity.

The GAO stated if forced to rely on SPR oil, about half of the refiners subject to potential supply disruptions would experience an additional 5 percent or 735,000 barrels a day reduction in production, further exacerbating any supply issues. This exchange will ensure that the SPR will provide maximum protection for the Nation's energy supplies.

This will further strengthen our energy supply against potential disruptions because the exchange will raise funds that will be deposited in the SPR account that will allow the SPR to increase the total inventory level without the need for additional appropriations, further strengthening our energy supply against potential disruptions.

Thank you, Mr. Barrow, for yielding me the time.

You know, advances in technology over the years have led to the ability to efficiently process heavy oil as it has become a larger part of the market. In fact, 40 percent of oil accepted last year by refineries was heavier than the oil contained in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's a critical point in my opinion.

Earlier we put into the Record the GAO report, and I would like to submit for the Record the report that was mentioned within the GAO report that came from the Department of Energy and read just one paragraph from it:

``To address the compatibility issues of the 11 heavy crude refiners and provide full protection for the Nation for all disruption scenarios, the SPR would need for approximately 10 percent of its inventory to be heavy oil. With consideration being given to a larger Reserve and additional storage sites, it may be desirable, and physically viable to store lower gravity crude than what is currently stored in the 700 million barrel Reserve.''

The GAO stated that the Department of Energy may have underestimated this amount in recent testimony. All the more reason why we should be looking at how we can find a solution to this problem, use an opportunity that is available to us.

That's exactly what I started out to do in November. When I approached many of my colleagues at this House, this is something that we should not be down here using partisan rhetoric over, pointing the finger at one side not doing something the other side should be doing. We understand this is a small part of the problem that we're going to be facing. It is only one thing that needs to be addressed. But it is one part, and it can make a difference.

And who cares if it's 1 percent or 3 percent or 5 percent or 10 percent? If the American people see the people from this House trying to do something that will make a difference in their lives, help with the pain at the pump, isn't it worth the effort? That's what we set out to do. That's all we set out to do. And there is no reason in the world why this legislation should not be made law of the land.

Executive Summary

Over the past two decades, many refiners in the United

States (U.S.) have expanded and ramped their refineries to

process higher sulfur, lower gravity crudes to increase their

refining economics and profitability. As a result, overall

U.S. crude oil imports have been consistently moving from the

higher quality crudes toward the lower quality crudes.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) inventory consists of

high quality oils that have been previously determined to be

the best crudes to address oil supply disruptions. However,

the industry's trend toward the use of lower quality crudes

has raised the question about how well the current SPR crude

inventory can meet refiner needs.

This study provides a comprehensive assessment of the

compatibility of the crudes stored in the SPR with respect to

U.S. refining capabilities and likely disruption demands.

Specifically, the study addresses SPR crude compatibility

from two aspects (1) the compatibility and physical

limitations of U.S. refiners to substitute and refine SPR

crude in place of their usual foreign crude supplies, and (2)

the capability of the SPR to meet the Nation's refinery needs

in the event of potential supply disruptions.

a. spr inventory

As of December 31, 2004, the SPR had a total inventory of

681 million barrels (MMBbls) in storage at its four

underground storage sites along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf

Coast.

The SPR storage sites maintain only two crude type

segregations. One is a sweet crude having a sulfur content of

less than 0.5 percent and an API gravity ranging between

35 deg. and 37 deg., and the other is a sour crude having a

sulfur content of approximately 1.4 percent and an API

gravity ranging between 30 deg. and 34 deg.. The SPR's mix of

sweet and sour crudes is roughly 45 percent sweet and 55

percent sour.

compatibility with u.s. refiner processing capabilities

In 2004, the U.S. had 149 operating refineries which

processed an average of 15.3 million barrels of crude oil per

day (MMBbl/D). Of this total, 7.0 MMBbl/D came from U.S.

domestic oilfields or Canada, and are considered secure crude

supplies. The remainder, 8.3 MMBbl/D, was foreign imports

(exclusive of Canadian), for which SPR crude would be

considered a replacement in the event of an import

disruption.

A two step approach was used to evaluate the compatibility

of each of the 149 refineries with respect to SPR crudes. A

screening analysis was then used to classify refiners as (a)

not SPR connected, (b) domestic/Canadian only, (c) fully SPR

compatible, (d) high SPR compatibility, or (e) low SPR

compatibility. An engineering analysis was then used to

determine the maximum volume of SPR crude the refinery can

process and the extent the refinery will be forced to reduce

refinery runs.

In 2005, of the Nation's 149 refineries, 44 refineries were

identified as having compatibility issues with using SPR

crudes. Thirty three of these refineries were classed as

``high compatibility'', where the use of SPR crude would not

substantially impact their refining operations. Eleven of

the refineries were classed as ``low compatibility,''

where the capability to substitute SPR crude for heavy oil

imports was limited. These 11 refineries are all located

in PADD III on the Gulf Coast and predominantly import

crude from Mexico and Venezuela. If all of this oil were

disrupted, these 11 refineries would need to reduce U.S.

refining runs by approxImately 508 MBbl/D (3.3 percent of

U.S. refining). Gasoline production would not be affected,

but the production of distillate fuels (jet and diesel)

would be reduced.

c. compatibility with u.s. needs in a disruption

From a world oil market perspective, the study evaluates

the compatibility of SPR crudes with respect to U.S. crude

shortages resulting from five major supply disruptions which

have the potential of occurring within the next 10 years. The

disruption scenarios were: a Persian Gulf oil disruption, a

Saudi Arabia oil disruption, a Nigerian oil disruption, a

Venezuela oil disruption, and a hurricane disruption of the

domestic Gulf of Mexico oil production.

The results show that the SPR crudes are fully capable of

satisfying U.S. refiner demands under four of the five

disruption scenarios. The only disruption case where the SPR

was not fully capable of mitigating the crude loss due to

incompatibility issues was the Venezuela oil disruption. Even

in this case, the SPR sour crude is effective as a blending

stock and will reduce the potential shortfall of U.S. heavy

oil runs from 2,200 MBbl/D to 450 MBbl/D.

The reduced refiner run of 450 MBbl/D will not impact the

production of motor gasoline in the United States, but it

will reduce the production of jet fuel, diesel fuel,

kerosene, residual fuels, and other heavier refined products.

d. conclusions

In general, the crudes currently stored in the SPR are

compatible and desirable for the majority of the U.S.

refineries and are well suited to mitigate most supply

disruptions. There are, however, eleven PADD III refineries

which have been specifically configured for processing heavy

crude largely from Latin America that would be impacted in

the event of a disruption of foreign crude supplies. However,

they would still be able to process a limited quantity of SPR

crude and maintain their full production of gasoline.

To address the compatibility issues of the eleven heavy

crude refiners and provide full protection for the Nation for

all disruption scenarios, the SPR would need for

approximately 10 percent of its inventory to be heavy oil.

With consideration being given to a larger Reserve and

additional storage sites, it may be desirable, and physically

viable to store lower gravity crude than what is currently

stored in the 700 million barrel Reserve.

GAO stated DOE may have underestimated this amount in

recent testimony.

I. Introduction

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is the largest

government owned stockpile of crude oil in the world. Since

the SPR was authorized in 1975, the reserve has grown to 681

million barrels (MMBbls) by the end of 2004.

The crude is stored in salt caverns at four storage sites

along the Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast. The sites are known

as West Hackberry, Bryan Mound, Big Hill, and Bayou Choctaw.

The SPR is connected to U.S. refineries by pipeline and by

waterway. Refineries along the Gulf of Mexico are connected

to the SPR by local pipelines. Refineries in Chicago and

other mid-continent areas are connected to the SPR by

interstate pipelines. Refineries along the Atlantic Coast and

West Coast can be supplied with SPR oil using tankers that

load oil through Gulf of Mexico marine terminals. The SPR

distribution system has been carefully developed to serve the

needs of the Nation in the event of a foreign crude oil

supply disruption.

Crude has been acquired from 25 countries over the past 30

years. The quality of the stored oil is classified as light.

This crude quality has been and it remains adequate to

support most foreseeable supply disruptions. In recent years,

however, refineries in the

U.S. have imported increasing quantities of heavy crude

largely from Venezuela and Mexico. The trend toward heavier

oil imports raises a question about how well the current

light oil in storage will mitigate future heavy oil supply

disruptions.

This study was undertaken to assess the compatibility of

SPR crude with respect to the current and future crude

requirements of U.S. refineries. The objective of the study

is two-fold:

Assess the capabilities and physical limitations of U.S.

refineries to substitute and refine SPR crude in place of

foreign crude supplies, and

Assess the capability of the SPR to meet U.S. refinery

needs in the event of a supply disruption.

To accomplish these objectives, a methodology was developed

to identify U.S. refineries with crude compatibility issues.

Refinery data were systematically evaluated to determine the

refineries that could not fully use SPR crude because of

crude quality differences. These refineries would need to

reduce crude input into the refinery and this would reduce

the amount of jet fuel and diesel fuel that would be

available during the disruption.

The compatibility assessment results were incorporated

mathematically into models that simulate the world petroleum

market. Five disruption scenarios were identified as having a

high probability of occurring at least once over the next

decade. The scenarios were selected to evaluate the

SPR response capabilities in both volume and in the

capability to provide compatible crude.

Chapter II summarizes key information about the volume and

quality of oil currently stored by the SPR and how that oil

compares with the oil currently imported by U.S. refiners.

Limits on the capability to substitute SPR crude in an

emergency are addressed.

Chapter III is a comprehensive assessment of the

compatibility of SPR crude with U.S. refineries. The

assessment addresses the physical limitations of the

refineries, the maximum volume of SPR crude that could be

utilized, and the extent the refineries would need to reduce

runs due to compatibility issues.

Chapter IV summarizes the results of five disruption

scenarios. The capability of the SPR to meet refinery demands

under emergency conditions is presented and discussed.

Chapter V addresses the issue of future storage of heavy

oil and the need and rationale to provide a heavy oil

component to meet a future heavy oil disruption.

Chapter VI presents the overall conclusions and

recommendations from the study.

Appendix A contains the analysis results for each of the

149 refineries in the U.S. that processed oil in 2004. The

compatibility of each refinery is presented and the

individual results summarized by region.

Appendix B discusses the two models used in the disruption

analysis. One model establishes the optimal drawdown from the

SPR in response to a supply disruption. The second simulates

the world petroleum market and estimates the impact of the

disruption on the flow of petroleum around the world.

Appendix C is a world map that displays the impact of each

supply disruption on the worldwide flow of petroleum. Data

that support the analysis are also presented.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 minutes of debate on this bill for debate purposes only, equally divided between the majority and the minority. So, the minority would get 15 extra minutes, and the majority would get 15 extra minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this piece of legislation. I want to start by the simple statement that the House of Representatives, which is the body closest to the people of the United States, is considering a bill that wasn't written apparently until this morning. There hasn't been a committee hearing on the issue. There hasn't been a committee markup or a subcommittee markup. We could not even get the text from the committee of jurisdiction's majority counsel last

evening at approximately 7:30 because they didn't have it. Apparently, the text that was prepared in the middle of the night was changed some time early this morning at the request of unidentified parties.

In an economy where we're paying some of the highest gasoline prices in the world, and certainly the highest gasoline prices the United States has ever paid in terms of absolute dollars, where our truckers are paying $5 for diesel and our airlines are hemorrhaging cash because of their fuel costs, we are now bringing to the floor a piece of legislation that nobody has really seen or vetted.

I think that is absolutely unacceptable, terrible public policy and a travesty on the process of the House of Representatives. I can't object more strongly to the process that even the majority counsel on the committee of jurisdiction didn't have the text last evening. So on process grounds alone, we ought to reject this legislation.

Now let's talk about the policy. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established in 1975 as a consequence of the Arab oil embargo by OPEC against the United States of America where there was a conscience effort to prevent oil supplies from coming to this country. President Ford signed the SPR Act into law in December of 1975. It authorized 1 billion barrels of oil to be put into a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And that oil was only to be used in the event of a severe supply interruption that would result in severe economic harm to this country as a result of a Presidential declaration of emergency. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as established, was not intended to be used in a manipulative way to control or affect prices.

Now we haven't had any hearings, we haven't had a law that has changed the use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. What we have before us is a piece of legislation that was put together by unknown parties. I could give some pretty good guesses about who some of those parties are. But officially I don't know who they are. It's on the floor. It allows 70 million barrels of oil to be released from the reserve. But not just any 70 million barrels. It allows the sweet light crude, which is the best oil in the reserve, to be released with apparently the intent to lower prices.

Now, the problem on policy grounds with this particular SPR release is that it also requires that that oil has to be replaced beginning no later than 6 months and within 5 years with heavy crude, which is some of the worst oil in the world. Do you know who has the heavy crude available today? Saudi Arabia. So we're going to sell oil, the light sweet crude, out of the reserve--right now, up to 70 million barrels-- and we're going to replace it theoretically over time with heavy crude that is not nearly as easy to refine and not nearly as amenable to the various product differentials as the sweet light crude is, and the only place to get it is Saudi Arabia, which is, as we know, in the Middle East, one of the most unstable regions of the world.

So what we are really doing, apparently, is helping out our Saudi friends to make sure that the crude oil that they can't sell on the world market right now because it's too heavy and there's not a market, we will buy it and put it in the reserve, and we will use up the best oil in our reserve for some short-term price fix here in the U.S. market.

Well, what kind of a price impact will we get, Mr. Speaker? We have got a supply-demand problem in the world oil markets. We are using about 85 million barrels a day. And there is only about 85 to 86 million barrels a day of production available on the world market. If you put up to 2 to 3 million barrels a day of this oil on the market and sustain it, you probably will have a temporary price decrease. If you can get the supply-demand equation up to a 2 or 3 percent differential, I would say that oil prices will come down temporarily. But since we're only selling 70 million barrels, if we sold 3 million barrels, you can pump about 4 million barrels a day out of the reserve. So let's say we pumped it out at maximum. That would give us about 17 days of oil. So for 17 days, you might see a price decline. But on the 18th day, when there is no more oil to come out of the reserve, what is going to happen? You have not created new supply in the world. The price is going to shoot back up. Speculators are going to step back in, and the reserve is going to be 70 million barrels less.

I mean if this isn't a cynical political ploy to hopefully lower oil prices for the next 2 months before the election, then I have never seen one. We ought to vote against this. If you want to have a real debate on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, if you really want to change the purpose for which it was intended, let's go through the committee system. Let's hold hearings. Let's have a give and take. Maybe we can come up with a way to use the SPR somewhat differently than what it was intended to be used. But unless you're willing to change the current Federal law on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, bringing up this piece of legislation is just a political sham to, A, maybe show the country that something is being done; B, help the Saudi oil ministry who can't sell their heavy crude on the market today; and, C, maybe get the price down for the next couple of months to help our majority friends in the upcoming election.

I can't more strongly emphasize that we ought to vote against it on not only procedural grounds but also on policy grounds. The SPR was intended to be a buffer if we have a severe supply interruption that would harm the U.S. economy in a significant way. We don't have that today. We have high energy prices in America and high gasoline prices in America because we are not producing energy in America that we could produce.

Let's bring an OCS drilling bill, an ANWR bill, a shale bill and a coal-to-liquids bill. Bring those bills to the floor, Mr. Speaker, and actually show the world that America will develop its own energy resources. If we do that, you're going to see the speculators get out of the market. And you're going to see that as the supply goes up and we hold demand constant, then you're going to see the price go down. And that will be permanent and productive for the American economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our distinguished whip, I would again like to ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 minutes evenly divided between the majority and the minority for debate purposes only on this pending legislation.

May I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished whip from the Show-Me State of Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, once again I am going to ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 minutes for debate purposes only, equally divided between the majority and minority. I still have at least six speakers.

Thirty minutes total, 15 minutes each side.

I guess that's a start. So we have an additional 15 minutes.

Well, we are increasing the supply of time. I will take 15 minutes right now.

I thank my colleague from Georgia for his courtesy.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, from the great State of Texas, the MVP Republican of last week's thrilling 11-10 baseball victory, Mr. Brady.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to recognize myself for 2 minutes.

I want to respond to what my good friend from Illinois just said. He is absolutely right that in July of 2005 we put an Energy Policy Act on the floor of this body. I would like to point out that that was a conference report that every relevant committee in the House of Representatives had had hearings and open markups on; we had a full conference with the Senate that was open, that the ranking member on the Democratic side at the time which was in the minority, Mr. Dingell, signed the conference report. The ranking member in the Senate, Mr. Bingaman of New Mexico voted for the conference report.

And I said on the House floor when that conference report passed that it was an excellent bill for stationary energy, but it was not an excellent bill on mobility energy because we did not have in that report to drill in ANWR. We did not have in that bill to drill and explore in the Outer Continental Shelf, for the simple reason we didn't have the votes, primarily in the other body, to put those things in the bill.

But the conference report that was voted on was bipartisan, it went through the regular process, it was not done the night before or the morning of and put on the floor under a suspension rule. And where it was, what was in the bill was good and is working today.

But I said on the floor at the time, you can go back and look at it in the Congressional Record, on mobility energy, it was not as good as I think it should have been because simply we didn't have the votes.

Today, the American people support drilling in ANWR. Today, the American people want to drill in the OCS, or at least explore what is in there, and we can't get those bills to the floor, Mr. Speaker.

So I would ask that, at some point in time, after these political shams are concluded, we put some of those bills on the floor and see where the votes are. I think there is a bipartisan majority for those bills right now on the floor of this House.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Terry of Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes equally divided between the majority and minority? That would give me enough time to take the three remaining speakers that I have. It would be 5 minutes for the majority and 5 additional minutes for the minority.

I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Georgia prepared to close?

I have one unanimous consent request, and then I'm prepared to close.

I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have how much time?

I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

First, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia for yielding 3 minutes of his time. I sincerely appreciate it.

I want to point out some of the fallacies in the debate as quickly as I can.

The first fallacy is that nothing that we do in terms of developing domestic energy supplies in the United States is going to take effect for 10 years. That's poppycock. We can convert coal to liquids within the next 2 years. We can be drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, if it's allowed, within the next year. We can be doing major pilot projects on our shale oil resources within the next year. We can be drilling in parts of Federal lands that are currently snafued because of Federal permitting within the next year. Those are all things that can be done very quickly.

Even up in ANWR, it's not going to take 10 years if we give the green light to drill and develop ANWR. It will definitely take more than 2 to 3 years, but you could have production in ANWR, I'm told, within 5 years.

The thing that we have got to do in this country if we're going to bring energy prices down and keep them down is change the fundamental difference between supply and demand in the world oil market. You have got 85 million barrels of oil we're using worldwide, and we've got approximately 86 million barrels of oil that's available. That less than 1 percent supply margin is what brings these high prices.

A gimmick like we have today where we take some oil out of the SPR for 60 days and then hopefully put it in within the next 6 years is not going to change that fundamental. If it has a temporary supply price decrease, that's a positive. I'll admit that.

But if it has, it's only temporary because you are not changing the fundamental supply-demand equation on the world oil market.

So what Republicans are saying is, let's have a strategic plan. Perhaps releasing some oil from the SPR is part of that plan, perhaps. That's what hearings are about. That's what a regular order process in the committee system would be about. So we're not saying that we never want to release any oil from the SPR, but we are saying it ought to be a part of a strategic plan, and part of that strategic plan has got to be to develop domestic American energy resources.

And Speaker Pelosi, for some reason, is adamantly afraid of that kind of a bill coming to the floor. I don't care if it's a Gene Green bill, a John Dingell bill, a Rick Boucher bill, a Steny Hoyer bill; but let a bill come up that's got some real domestic energy supply in it and have an honest debate, and let's see where the votes are. Let's don't have an energy gimmick of the week.

That's what this is. It's the latest energy gimmick of the week, and if it has a positive effect--and I say that as an if--it will be temporary because if you take 70 million barrels--and oh, by the way, I want to give a hint to my friends on the majority side who drafted the bill. You've got a drafting error in the bill. It won't do what you think it will do, but I will let you find it. If it were to become law, which it won't, but if it were, it won't put 70 million barrels of oil on the market. So you find the mistake. You developed it in the midnight. You find the mistake.

With that, vote ``no'' on the bill, and let's bring a rational, long- term, strategic plan to the floor in the next 2 weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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?