Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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.

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

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

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

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have how much time?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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. BARTON of Texas. 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. BARTON of Texas. 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.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thirty minutes total, 15 minutes each side.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I guess that's a start. So we have an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening, at Nationals Stadium, we had the 47th Annual Congressional Baseball Game. The true winners of the game were the Washington Literacy Council and the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Washington, D.C. area. In terms of the score on the field, in the most thrilling game that I have been associated with in the last 21 years that I have played, coached or managed, in the bottom of the seventh with the bases loaded and one out and the Democrats leading 10-9, Connie Mack hit a dart back to the pitcher, Mr. Baca, who threw home for a force out making two outs. And then unfortunately for my friends on the Democratic side, the catcher overthrew the first baseman allowing two runs to score, the winning run by the speedy Adam Putnam of Florida for a thrilling 11-10 victory. Our MVP on the Republican side was Kevin Brady of The Woodlands, Texas. The class of 1996, which includes Kevin Brady, MVP; Kenny Hulshof, who was our first baseman, Chip Pickering; the third baseman; Jeff Flake, center fielder; Virgil Goode, right fielder; Tom Davis, one of our tricaptains; Pete Sessions, our third-base coach; and Sam Graves who was a pinch runner and hitter, those players in the 12 years that they have played in the game have an 11-1 record, which I think is amazing. I want to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi for attending the game, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer for attending the game, and I want to thank my good friend, Mike Doyle, for his excellent job of managing. It can truly be said that this year, the Democrats had victory in their grasp and took pity on us and allowed us to win one more time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thank you. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that with our retirements, I am now open, assuming I am the manager, I would love to have some new blood. If there are some Democrats who didn't get playing time, if you want to switch parties, we are open for business. And to Tom Cole at the NRCC, please, please recruit us some new flat bellies.