Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee vented their fury over high gasoline prices at executives of the nation’s five largest oil companies on Wednesday, grilling the oilmen over their multimillion-dollar pay packages and warning them that Congress was intent on taking action that could include a new tax on so-called windfall profits. Such showdowns between lawmakers and oil titans have become a familiar routine on Capitol Hill. But with gas prices nearing $ 4 a gallon, and lawmakers headed home for a weeklong Memorial Day recess where they expect to get an earful from angry constituents, there is added urgency for Congress to appear active.
But while momentum is building for several measures, including a bill that would allow the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to be sued in American courts under antitrust laws, there is little sign that any of the proposals would do much, if anything, to lower prices quickly. And the oil executives warned that government intervention might only make things worse. Instead, they called on Congress to allow more drilling and exploration for domestic oil.
The increasing urgency to seem aggressive about gasoline prices was apparent on Tuesday when the House voted by an overwhelming 324 to 84 to approve the bill, commonly referred to as NOPEC, which classifies OPEC as a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Senate Democrats have included that measure as part of a package of legislation intended to address the high price of gasoline, along with the tax on windfall profits and a measure to tamp down speculation in the oil futures market that many lawmakers think is contributing to the run-up in prices.
At the Judiciary Committee hearing, Democratic senators struggled to have the executives explain how oil prices had risen so high. The senators expressed doubt that basic laws of supply and demand were at work and suggested instead a more sinister combination of monopolistic behavior by oil-producing countries, speculation in the futures markets and sheer corporate greed.
On Monday, President Bush signed a bill temporarily suspending the purchase of crude oil for the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Mr. Bush had initially opposed such action but relented after the House and Senate approved the bill by wide margins. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and a p supporter of Senator Baraek Obama’s presidential bid, made a particularly pointed attack, in which he seemed to warn the oil executives that they would soon no longer have such a good friend in the White House. He also suggested that Mr. Bush should be doing more to press the oil companies to help lower prices at the pump, while acknowledging that it would be difficult to pass a windfall profits tax while Mr. Bush was still in office.
From the text we can learn that the bill allowing OPEC to be sued under antitrust laws（）
A. handicaps more drilling and exploration for domestic oil
B. is a kind of government intervention that only makes things worse
C. turns out to be less influential to decrease oil price rapidly
D. is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act
参考答案：C
解析：
[考点] 事实细节
此题考查对文章中相关细节的理解。问题问的是允许诉讼欧佩克的法案起到了什么作用，根据题干信息“bill allowing OPEC to be sued”，我们可以定位至第二段首句，在该句中我们得知该法案是政府采取的几个措施之一，虽然这些措施的势头正在形成，但即使有迅速降低油价的作用，作用也不大(there is little sign that any of the proposals would do much，if anything，to lower prices quickly)，而C选项正是对这个长难句的概括，因此正确。
[干扰项分析] A选项所涉及的内容并非作者评价，而是石油公司对国会提出的建议。B选项所述的是石油公司表示抗议时对政府发出的警告的内容。D选项是上下两段不相关内容的简单拼凑，从下文可知，该法案认定欧佩克违反了谢尔曼反托拉斯法，而不是该法案违法。