[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1733-H1737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is 
recognized for the remaining time until midnight.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to address the 
House once again. The 30-something Working Group, we come to the floor 
to share with the American people some of the issues that are going on 
here in the Capitol dome, and hopefully bring about solutions that they 
can all feel good about, and hopefully we can work in a bipartisan way.
  We want to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have 
this hour on the floor: The Democratic Leader, Ms. Nancy Pelosi; and 
Mr. Hoyer, our Democratic whip; and also our Democratic caucus chair 
Mr. Clyburn; and also the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus Mr. 
Larson.
  We have been on break for about 2 weeks. It seems like the American 
people have taken a deep breath to really take a step back and look at 
the way this government is being operated. It is almost self-
explanatory.
  I am so glad Ms. Wasserman Schultz from the State of Florida is here. 
We served together as public policymakers for more than a decade, and I 
think it is important that we look at this time in the history of our 
country, at how our government is functioning at this particular time, 
and we point out how it can be different. I think it is important that 
we continue to hammer on that.
  With that, I would like to welcome my good friend here tonight as we 
are going to hold down this 30-something special hour. We know that Mr. 
Ryan is not going to be with us tonight, and I do not believe Mr. 
Delahunt is going to be with us tonight.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I, too, want to express my 
thanks to the Democratic leader and the Democratic whip.
  Wow, the 2 weeks we had at home, I am sure that you experienced just 
like I did, I went home and heard an earful from folks in my district 
who just really are at the end of their rope. They are fed up. They are 
sick and tired of being sick and tired. I think one woman said it best. 
She has just reached the end of her last nerve, whether it is the 
culture of corruption and the daily revelation that comes out of this 
capital with either an indictment or an accusation or an ethical cloud 
or an example of cronyism, or just one more example of the incompetence 
that has really permeated government as led by the Republican 
leadership.
  People are sick of it. They really are. They are sick of the gas 
prices. They are sick of the issues coming up again repeatedly and not 
being dealt with and not being addressed and their concerns not being 
addressed until it becomes such an immense political issue that the 
Republican leadership realizes it is unavoidable. They are over it, and 
I can understand why they are over it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I just want to share with the 
gentlewoman that it is sad because we have had an opportunity to come 
to this floor and talk about the issues that are facing this country 
and that will face this country based on the legislation that the 
Republican majority has pushed through that the Bush White House 
wanted, that the majority in the Senate wanted that happened to be 
Republican. We talked about these things. We stood out as Democrats on 
the floor to try to come up with alternative fuels. We tried to get 
questions answered as it relates to the war in Iraq.
  Now we have eight, nine, and if we continue to count, it will be in 
double digits, not just individuals within the military, but we are 
talking about generals, flag officers saying on behalf of their country 
we have to make a change.
  Tonight, Madam Speaker, just like when we last year and the year 
before that talked about the K Street Project, which was a project, and 
I am so glad we are joined by Mr. Delahunt. I take back my words. I did 
not think you were going to be with us tonight. As usual, you came 
through.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. This was a test.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We talked about the K Street Project and special 
influence here in this House of Representatives. We talked about how 
certain lobbyists could not go into certain offices of Members of the 
majority. This came out of the mouths of Members if they were not a 
part of this activity. And then later after a lobbyist admitted, and, 
hey, you do not even have to call a jury, we do not have to call a 
trial. He admits, I admit I am wrong, I was a part of this operation 
here in Washington, DC. It was encouraged by Members of Congress. Then 
all of a sudden the majority comes out and says, we denounce this. It 
is wrong. It will no longer be tolerated on Capitol Hill.
  It sounds like what we are hearing now. We are hearing the President 
respond to, Mr. President, can you talk about the oil prices?
  The President says, America is addicted to oil.
  We have to chuckle about it because it is so in the face of the 
American people.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is insulting. In January, the three of us, 
along with our colleagues, sat in this Chamber and listened to the 
President deliver the State of the Union and the line he had in the 
State of the Union about America's addiction to oil and that we needed 
to end it. You know, it is insulting. It is insulting on so many 
levels.
  Number one, it is insulting that just last year, and I have made this 
reference before. I have only been here 14 months now, and in the last 
14 months just while I was here, we have voted on two different energy 
bills that gave away the store to the energy companies, to the oil 
companies.
  So it was just so obnoxious when in the President's State of the 
Union he is talking about us, the United States, needing to end, 
Americans needing to end our addiction to oil. Where have his proposals 
been? Where has his agenda been? Suddenly today or yesterday he comes 
up with his five points that we need to move on to address the energy 
crisis that we are in? I mean, give me a break.
  The American people understand when their leaders are genuine and 
when they are scrambling because politically they know there is no 
other choice.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I was listening to the President today, 
and I thought it was interesting that for the first time that I can 
remember, this President indicated that maybe it was time to take away 
those tax breaks for big oil. I mean, that is just a desperate response 
to falling polling numbers, because those tax breaks and

[[Page H1734]]

subsidies for big oil, Madam Speaker, were the product of his energy 
policy combined with the rubber-stamp Republican Congress that has run 
this country for the last 6 years.

                              {time}  2320

  Whose policy is it, Madam Speaker? It is not a Democratic policy that 
is responsible for a gallon of gas going from $1.45 on January 20, 
2001, to $2.91 today.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This is something that I think the Members who 
are hearing us should really be able to see while we are talking about 
it. And following, I mean, the comparison on the heels of what we have 
just been talking about with two pieces of Republican-led energy 
legislation giving away the store last year to the oil companies, 
forgiving taxes, allowing for drilling rights tax free, with taxes 
being forgiven. In the time that President Bush has been in office, 
when he took office January 20 of 2001, gas prices, Americans paid 
$1.45 a gallon. Now, fast forward to today, and we now pay an average 
price of $2.91 a gallon. Now, in 5 years, a little more than 5 years.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I know, Mr. Delahunt and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
that the American people see this and say wait a minute, they must have 
a typo on this. It is like $3.06 last I saw. But this is on average. I 
just want to make sure because, Madam Speaker, I think it is important. 
I am glad you are spelling this out, and I am glad you have this chart 
because we want to make sure the Republican majority knows exactly what 
their policies have brought on the American people, Democrat and 
Republican. I'm sorry, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is okay. So people understand what we are 
talking about, those two bills last year cost taxpayers more than $12 
billion, with a B, billion dollars in giveaways to big oil companies. 
That was in the legislation where essentially taxes they were required 
to pay they did not have to pay because those pieces of legislation 
forgave those taxes
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentlewoman would just yield for a minute.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important to review that for every year 
that this House of Representatives has been controlled by the 
Republican majority, during the summer months, from April 1 to 
September 30, the price of gasoline has dramatically escalated.
  Mr. Meek, in 2002, if you went to your local gas station, you paid 
$1.39. The majority, in 2002, in this House of Representatives, Madam 
Speaker, was Republican.
  In 2003, Madam Speaker, the majority in this House was Republican. 
And if you examine that chart, there was about another 20 cent plus-up 
for a gallon of gas.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, can I ask you a question?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In the evolution of gas prices that you have 
on that chart, 2002, $1.39; 2003, $1.57; and $1.90 in 2004; $2.37 in 
2005; and now an average of $2.91 in 2006, in between that time, 
because I have not been in Congress all those years, and you have, have 
the Republicans who have controlled Congress all of this time, and 
President Bush who has been President all of this time, have they put 
forward any proposals to fund, significantly fund, alternative energy 
sources? Has there been anything that has been initiated by the 
Republican leadership here, by this White House maybe that I didn't see 
since I was still in the State legislature to fend this off, to make it 
less likely that the situation we are in now we wouldn't find ourselves 
in? Because the President did say in his remarks and commentary in the 
last several days about what control he did or didn't have over gas 
prices, that he really wasn't able to control market forces. I mean, I 
heard him say that.
  Well, no, he probably can't control market forces, but there are 
certainly things that they could have put forward. But I haven't seen 
it. Did they?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, they did, but it didn't help. What they did is 
they put forth a welfare program for Big Oil. I mean, that is truly 
what they did.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What do you mean by a welfare program for Big 
Oil?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, how about $16 billion worth of subsidies for Big 
Oil? And this, of course, this is not for poor folk, because the big 
oil companies, Madam Speaker, they are doing remarkably well in this 
country. They are showing profits that only can be described as 
embarrassing in a free enterprise system.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Should we illuminate that a little bit?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to my friend.
  MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Some people might be concerned about our 
commentary here and you referring to profits as being obscene, because, 
obviously, in a capitalistic society we understand and think profit is 
a good thing. So I think it is important that people understand what we 
mean. While giving away the store, while giving away $12 billion in tax 
breaks.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Sixteen billion all together.
  MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sixteen billion all together. Forgive me.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Subsidies and tax breaks. Let's just call it welfare 
for Big Oil.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right, the oil welfare that we have given 
away.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. That is the oil welfare program.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My experience with tax breaks as a State 
legislator and now a Member of Congress is that you generally give 
those kinds of breaks to help a business get back on its feet, thrive, 
to maybe bridge them through a difficult time. In 2002, the oil 
companies made a combined profit of $34 billion. In 2003 it was $59 
billion.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Could I interrupt for a minute?
  MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Could I ask my friend from Florida just to repeat that. 
$34 billion, and that was all of the major oil companies?
  MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Would you, for the sake of our conversation here, would 
you identify them, if you can read them from the chart?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. As you can see, BP, Chevron, Shell, 
Conoco, and Exxon-Mobil.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. So the five of them, Madam Speaker, in the year 2002?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, 2002.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. In the year 2002 had a combined profit of $34 billion. 
And then, of course, that was just the beginning.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That was only the tip of the iceberg, because 
if you continue down the road, and remember, I just got here, and so we 
will get to 2005 in a minute. But it was 2005 that the $16 billion was 
granted that we have been talking about. But you go to 2003: $59 
billion in profits. Also the same oil companies.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. So, in one year, you are telling me that it almost 
doubled, or did it?
  MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Not quite, not quite doubled. No. About a 
third more in profits.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Then you go to 2004, and we are at $84 billion 
in profits.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. $84 billion.
  MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. $84 billion.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. In 2 years. I guess that is productivity.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Not bad if you can do it. And then you go to 
2005. In a year where we passed two major energy bills that gave away 
$16 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil companies, they 
made, last year, $113 billion; and one of those companies made more 
money in one quarter than any company in U.S. history.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And that company is?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That was Exxon-Mobil.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And my memory is that Exxon-Mobil, for the year, had a 
profit of $39 billion, that one company.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. More than all of the companies combined 
profited in 2002.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Three years ago. Now, that is why I use the word 
``obscene,'' because something is wrong with our free market system.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And we don't begrudge profit.

[[Page H1735]]

  Mr. DELAHUNT. I encourage profit. Clearly profit is important. And it 
is what made this country unique in terms of our ability to have a high 
standard of living. But this is not free market. This is not free 
market. This is something different. This is either price gouging or 
some sort of market.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This is doing what the Republican leadership 
is allowing them to do.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. DELAHUNT. This is oligopoly or a tendency towards monopoly, and 
this House has done nothing, Madam Speaker. There has not been any 
antitrust hearing as far as the oil companies are concerned, Madam 
Speaker. We have not had any hearings at all in the committee of 
jurisdiction, which is the Judiciary Committee, that would shed some 
light on why in 3 years they went from $34 billion to $113 billion. And 
we wonder why, Madam Speaker, we wonder why the American people are 
losing confidence in the House of Representatives, the people's House.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can I ask you a question, Mr. Delahunt, again 
because you have more direct experience with this than I do? My 
understanding is that the oil companies, they do not own the areas of 
the gulf and the other places that they drill for oil. The Federal 
Government sells them essentially, through payment of taxes, the rights 
to drill; that these are essentially public lands, whether they are in 
the Gulf of Mexico or wherever they are drilling, I mean whether it is 
Texas or any portion. I do not believe any of the area is private land, 
any of the significant area. So when we forgive the oil companies 
taxes, we are basically giving away the ownership rights to a private 
company that the government owns and just saying, here, take our oil 
stores for free. Is that right?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, there is such a thing as royalty payments, but in 
this administration there is a rule that has created a situation where 
even though the dollar value, as we can see from these various charts, 
has exploded in terms of revenue to the oil companies, the royalty 
payments that they make, Madam Speaker, have declined by $7 billion. 
And this is the energy policy of the Bush administration and the Bush 
Republican Congress. And yet we hear on this floor complaints about the 
Democratic proposals.
  You cannot run against Washington, Madam Speaker, when you are 
Washington. You just cannot do it. You cannot argue with yourself. This 
is your mess. This energy policy, you own it, Madam Speaker. The 
leadership in this House, the leadership in this Republican Senate, and 
the leadership of the Bush administration own this reality today, which 
is over the past 3 years big oil profits have more than tripled. And we 
here in this Congress, in collusion with that White House, have 
provided welfare to Big Oil on top of that.
  That is truly, Mr. Meek, obscene.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Mr. Delahunt and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I 
just have been quiet for about maybe 8 or 10 minutes, which is not 
common when we are having this kind of discussion.
  Madam Speaker, like I said before we went on break, it is not even 
fair. I mean, you would think that someone would wake up 1 day, 
especially the minority party would wake up, and say, wow, if we had a 
tool box that dealt with a war that is not being managed appropriately; 
an energy crisis within the country; containers as it relates to coming 
into this country going unchecked; families that are not able to 
provide health care, and neither are small businesses able to provide 
health care; States that are suing the Federal Government, Leave No 
Child Behind legislation, Democratic and Republican Governors are suing 
the Federal Government because of a lack of funding to the Federal 
Government's own initiative; that environmentally we have a number of 
issues going on on top of a natural disaster where the response and 
recovery were not managed well; CIA leaks at the White House; Members 
of this body in question of ethical violations and a culture of 
corruption and cronyism under the Capitol Dome. And better yet, Madam 
Speaker, the reason why we do not have a Democratic Member serving as 
Speaker or serving as the majority leader is the fact that we are in 
the minority. But the only good thing about that whole thing that I 
pointed out, because as an American it turns my stomach that that is 
even the environment in the United States of America as we speak, 
partisanship has nothing to do with my being an American and my 
responsibility as a Member of Congress.
  So, Mr. Delahunt and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, maybe for the next 4 
minutes let us just talk about if Democrats were in control of this 
House and hopefully in control of the Senate to be able to say no to 
the administration when they want to put the country in this posture. 
Democrats, Independents, Republicans, what have you are all concerned 
about what is going on. The polling has indicated that.
  Now, I just want to take out this document that we have held up 
several times, our innovation agenda. Wow, here is a plan. The 
Democrats' energy plan. Here is a plan. I want to say this to my 
Republican colleagues because they have the audacity to come down to 
the floor saying, They do not have any solutions; so how can they 
criticize our inability to carry out the energy policy?
  Well, here is the solution right here. It has been on our Web site, 
and I encourage everyone to go to www.housedemocrats.gov and pull up 
the innovation agenda. We did not just put it on there before we came 
to the floor. It has been there for months. Months. They are talking 
about it. We want to do it.
  Energy independence in 10 years. Energy independence in 10 years, to 
change the investment from counting on the Middle East and counting on 
the Midwest. Ethanol, making sure that we promote petroleum-based ideas 
of rapidly expanding the production of synthetic bio-based fuels. It is 
right there. It is just an investment.
  But what is stopping the Republican majority from taking our plan, as 
I am going to point out here as we talk about price gouging, and 
running with it? Well, Ms. Wasserman Schultz just had the chart up with 
all the oil companies. It has to be the relationship with the oil 
companies. The American people, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, 
are paying through the nose as we speak. Some folks are putting a 
quarter of gas in their tank because they cannot afford it. These are 
the constituents, unfortunately, of individuals of power and influence 
in Washington, D.C. I did not get a vote from any of these companies. 
Maybe the folks that work for the companies say maybe I want to vote on 
behalf of education and good representation in Washington, but they did 
not say, hey, you know, these are my constituents, and I am going to 
stand in the way and make sure that they have what they need.
  Let me just talk fact, not fiction here, because I think it is 
important. Oil companies, record profits. Record profits. Folks want to 
talk about Wal-Mart? Goodness gracious, these oil companies make Wal-
Mart look like a five and dime store.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. In my day that was called penny candy.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me just say this, Mr. Delahunt. Folks want 
to go knocking companies and start talking about who is making what, 
and folks are upset about it. And there are some folks out there. But 
the bottom line is, like you said, ``profits'' is not a bad word, and 
we believe in profits. It is the American way, and capitalism rules. 
And I am the first one in line when it comes down to that, and I am not 
faulting those oil companies. I am not mad at Exxon Mobil or any of 
those oil companies that are out there. I am upset with the Members 
that are allowing them to get away with literally a crime of ripping 
dollars out of everyday working Americans' pockets and then the 
majority leadership in both Chambers having the audacity to send a 
letter over to the White House, saying, ``We would like for you to 
investigate this issue of price gouging,'' when they set the playing 
field for it to happen.

                              {time}  2340

  They set the playing field for it to happen.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield for 15 seconds.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You can have 20, if you want it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you for your generosity. What we are

[[Page H1736]]

saying, I want to underscore what we are saying when we say we are not 
opposed to profit, because that profit we had up there a minute ago, if 
it happened and the oil companies were being asked to pay their fair 
share, if they were paying the royalties and the taxes that they are 
supposed to be under the law to the Federal Government for the rights 
to drill, you know what? You can't begrudge them the profits, because 
that is the free market system.
  But they are not. They are being given these oil rights for free, for 
no remuneration or very little remuneration whatsoever. And they don't 
need it. They are not struggling. Far from it. The people who are 
struggling now are Americans who need to go to work, who need to get 
their kids to school.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But stop for a minute and just see what the values are. 
We hear a lot about values. Here we are providing a wealthy program for 
big oil, and at the same time we are not adequately funding the so-
called LIHEAP program, which provides assistance to low-income 
families, working families, so that they can get through the winter, so 
that they are not forced to make a decision between having food on the 
table and staying warm.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, given that I am from Florida and 
have a particular sensitivity to not using much heat, can you explain 
what the LIHEAP program is?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. The LIHEAP program has been around for some time now, 
and it has been a program that was introduced in a Democratic Congress, 
supported by Democratic presidents and adequately funded. Today, only 
20 percent of those who are eligible based on income, who would qualify 
if the funding were available, only 20 percent of those receive that 
assistance.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What does LIHEAP do for folks?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. It gives them basically a discount on the purchase of 
their energy for heating their homes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It gives them a break on their bill.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. You said it better than I did. It gives them a break on 
their bill, and it is administered through community action programs. 
And, we don't fund it adequately. I think that the total is a little 
over $2 billion annually. Now, stop and think: $2 billion for hundreds 
of thousands, millions, actually, of families that would qualify in 
this country for some help to stay warm so they didn't have to make 
that choice between eating or freezing. Yet, we are giving $16 billion 
in subsidies to major oil.
  This is Alice in Wonderland, Madam Speaker. Up is down and down is 
up. How does the majority justify this? How do you justify that in 
moral terms, Madam Speaker?
  This is more than just public policy. I would suggest to you that 
doing that amounts to a violation of our moral code and moral 
responsibility as leaders in this country. That is what it is.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, can I just describe the 
difference between the Alice in Wonderland-like policy that is made 
here, where down is up and down is up, and reality? At the end of Alice 
in Wonderland, Alice woke up and it was a dream and she could go back 
to what reality really was for her.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But this is a nightmare.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is right, that the Republican leadership 
won't let Americans wake up from.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Can I reclaim my time from the 20 seconds?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That was a long 20 seconds.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. But that was good information. Talking about the 
program a little further, we have a Stupak bill, which is a Democratic 
bill here in this House, that is going to give relief to consumers, 
small businesses and farmers and provide relief from skyrocketing 
heating home costs that they are taking on right now. It is the Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and basically it comes from the 
fines which I am going to go into now, Mr. Delahunt, of what the 
Republican majority blocked, Madam Speaker. And guess what? That is not 
what Kendrick Meek is saying, that is not what Bill Delahunt was saying 
or Debbie Wasserman Schultz has said in the past or even Mr. Ryan in 
his absence has said in the past. This is the Congressional Record.
  Republicans voted against imposing tough criminal penalties on price 
gouging companies and also tough civil fines up to $3 million in price 
gouging as it relates to protecting consumers. This is CQ vote number 
500, H.R. 3402, taken September 28, 2005. The motion was rejected on a 
195 to 226 vote. Republicans voted against this overwhelmingly, 
Democrats voted for it. 194 Democrats voted for it and I believe 226 
Republicans voted against it.
  Another vote, CQ vote, this is all stuff Members can look up, vote 
number 517, H.R. 3893, taken October 7, 2005. Again, Republicans voted 
overwhelmingly against this measure from being placed into legislation 
on price gouging, 199 to 222. The majority prevailed again.
  I think it is important for us to understand, Madam Speaker, that 
time after time again, and I know we have another example, Republicans 
killed the amendment. Which one did I not share? Those are the two that 
were there. But they are continuing to kill these amendments.
  So, Madam Speaker, it is kind of mind-boggling when we look up, open 
the local hometown paper, whatever it may be, it could be the one in 
Florida where I represent or it can be right here in the Beltway, to 
read that Republican leaders are thinking about going after folks as it 
relates to price gouging.
  Now, I am just going to give the Republican majority a little. They 
will say okay, that is not true. We did do something.
  What they did was nothing. I am not a black man with a conspiracy 
theory, but I am here to tell you that I am concerned, especially when 
I see headlines, the Washington Post, November 16, 2005, that says 
``Document says oil chief met with the Vice President of the United 
States on his task force.'' So how in the world can folks sit down with 
the very people that are making record profits? This was put in motion 
long ago, and now folks are acting like they don't know what is going 
on.
  You know why they are acting like they don't know what is going on? 
Because the American people are pulling their car and saying you know 
something, Mr. Congressman, madam Congresswoman, you said you were 
there to protect me. You are not doing a good job, because I can't even 
put gas in my tank to take my children to school, I can't even make it 
to work. We are trying to car pool. Even that is becoming a little 
difficult. And you have folks, they don't have enough money. Some of 
these pumps in some communities won't even allow them to pump all of 
the gas they need to pump to fill their tank.
  Hello? We have also gas stations here in Washington, D.C. that are 
out of gas, and South Florida. Maybe those small businesses, 
independent businesses within these oil companies, can't even afford 
the gas.
  And we are going to find out. You know what is going to happen again? 
We are going to find in this time, and let me just say, Johnny Carson 
used to have the envelope he would put to his head.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Carnack the Magnificent.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. He would say something like ``high prices, 
backroom deals.'' He would open the envelope and later we would see oh, 
wow, and they made record profits while this was going on.

                              {time}  2350

  I am going to go ahead and crystal-ball this thing, because that is 
what is going to happen, and folks are going to say, well, we really 
need to do something about it.
  If I was in the Republican majority right now, that is very 
hypothetical, I must add, I would be concerned. If I am home in the bed 
right now, Madam Speaker, and I was a Member of the majority, I would 
sit up in my bed and say, you know, maybe, just maybe, we need to go 
see the wizard, get some courage, get some leadership, and say, you 
know something, enough is enough, because I am going to be in the 
minority, not because of the fact that folks did such a great job as it 
relates to raising money, because you know we cannot raise more money 
than the other side, not the fact that, you know, our ties are better 
or our dresses, you

[[Page H1737]]

know, the dresses that the female Members on this side wear are better.
  But I think it is important, Madam Speaker, that we look at the 
facts. It is not fair. It is not fair to the American people, and it is 
not even fair if I was on the Republican majority side, we tell the 
Republican majority, come out and defend the selling of America. All of 
these countries here are owning a part of America. I do not care if you 
are a diehard Republican, and that you are the chair of the local 
Republican committee, you have to have a problem with this.
  You tell your Members, explain this to me. Why are we selling America 
away? Why are we giving tax breaks we cannot afford? We are we allowing 
the oil companies to do this? Why? Why? Why? Do not tell me to vote 
Republican because we are Republicans and that we always did it, and 
that my mama did it, and that my grandmother did it, and that my great-
great-grandmother did it. We cannot do it because of that. We have to 
do it because we salute one flag. People have died for us to have this 
opportunity.
  I am so happy that we come to this floor, Madam Speaker, every day, 
because history will reflect that there were Members in this body in 
the minority fighting with what they had, with a nub, fighting night 
after night, day after day, filing amendments, failing on this floor, 
arm-twisting happening on the other side, and we prevailed because I am 
going to tell you, the American people are sick and tired of it, and 
change is going to happen, and it is going to happen for the better.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just want to ask you another question. As we 
went through last year and we debated those energy bills, and I 
remember when they went through the committees and then actually came, 
at least one of them did not even go to committee, it just came to the 
floor. And it came out on this Chamber. One of those bills was yet 
another example of the red lights changing to green lights, and the 
board being held open. I think the energy bill that I am referring to, 
I know the board was held open for at least 40 minutes, until the 
Republican leadership got the vote that they wanted.
  Now, we have asked repeatedly, where is the outrage? Where was the 
outrage then when Republicans, rank-and-file Republicans, who not only 
needed some courage, but could have gotten some advice from the 
Scarecrow and the Tin Man then, too, for some heart and some brains, 
but where was the outrage? And what did that mean?
  Essentially what did it mean when they had the opportunity, when they 
put their no vote up on the board, yet the leadership came to them on 
the floor, wrenched their arm behind their back, and what did they do? 
They were rubber-stamp Republicans yet again. Rubber-stamp Republicans.
  And I just, time after time I have noticed that that is really the 
best way to describe the vast majority of Members of the Republican 
Caucus, because they have the opportunity to have some courage, they do 
not have any. What do they have? They have the ability to just say, uh-
huh, sure, I will do it exactly the way you want it, Mr. Republican 
Leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The real issue here is the fact that, Madam 
Speaker, I am done with trying to beg the majority to lead. I am just 
done. I mean, there is nothing more that we can say. They have had 
their opportunity. They have their opportunity now. They are still not 
moving as a majority. We have said what we would do as Democrats.
  The bottom line is Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about the rubber 
stamp. It is now so big, Mr. President, whatever we can do, whatever 
you need us to do, we are with you. Just, that is it. Done. What else 
do you want us to do? And that is just where it is. And we are going to 
make this as obvious as possible.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is really interesting to note for the 
record, Madam Speaker, that the relationship between this rubber-stamp 
Congress and this White House is so close that in the 6 years of this 
Presidency, he has never had to veto a single piece of legislation that 
came from the United States Congress. Not once, Madam Speaker, not 
once.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Say it is not so, Mr. Delahunt.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. It is so. Tragically it is so.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. He has never been forced to veto any 
legislation or sent anything that they were afraid he would not like. 
And I want to know, where are our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, where is their line? Where is the line that we know we all have, 
that says, you know, this far and no farther? I just cannot do it. They 
do not have that line.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I tell you what is happening. Because we are 
talking about oil, and we are talking about home heating oil, and we 
are talking about staying warm. We are talking about heat. And the heat 
is coming, because, you know, we are going to hear a lot of hot air, 
but the American people are putting the feet to fire of those who have 
not supported a public policy regarding energy that makes sense for all 
Americans, not just Exxon Mobil that last year made $32 billion, and, 
by the way, whose CEO who is now retired, is earning a pension, Madam 
Speaker, of $150,000.
  I hope you heard that, Madam Speaker, $150,000. Now, you might say 
that is not much money. Well, it is a lot of money when you get 
$150,0000 every single day of the year. It is a pension that is 
evaluated.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Wait. Wait. Did I hear you? Did I hear you 
correctly? Did you say a hundred and what a day?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. One hundred fifty thousand dollars. Not every 10 years. 
Not every 5 years. Not every year. Not every month. But every single 
day as long as he lives, $150,000. The pension package, according to 
newspaper reports, Madam Speaker, was $600 million. That is for one 
person. For one person.
  This is a moral issue. This is a moral issue. There are people that 
are having difficulty, they are working hard, but they are having 
difficulty making it, and yet there is a CEO who runs a corporation 
that earns $39 billion in a single year. And he has a pension of $600 
million that provides him with $150,000 a day. Is that right, or is 
that wrong?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In our final minute or so, I can tell you that 
what I learned from my constituents when I went back home is that they 
know that together America can do better. It does not have to be this 
way. We do not have to keep going. And through our efforts and the 
efforts of our other Democratic colleagues, our 30-something Working 
Group will continue to take the floor each night.
  I yield to my colleague from Florida to close us out. We do have a 
Website.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, thank you. With Mr. Ryan's absence here 
tonight, I keep saying that because I want him to read the 
Congressional Record and let him know that I did note that he was not 
here.
  Housedemocrats.gov/30something. Members can go on there.
  With that, Madam Speaker, we would like to thank the Democratic 
leadership for allowing us to have this hour.

                          ____________________