[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 9, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6326-H6332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE 30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Richardson). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is always an honor to come 
before the House and address the Members.
  I can tell you that today, in this great country of ours, we have a 
lot going on. There is a lot of news on the Presidential race. There 
are a lot of issues that are facing our Nation with Iran testing 
missiles. And there are a number of issues that American families are 
also facing.
  We're going to talk a little bit tonight about energy. We're going to 
talk about the Iraq factor. We're going to talk about the things that 
American families are going through right now. And I think it's very, 
very important because many people feel that there are issues that are 
not being addressed here in Washington, DC as it relates to the 
executive branch. And I think that it's important that we share with 
the Members that we have a number of issues that this Democratic-led 
House has put forth on behalf of the American people in a leadership 
role.
  As you know, in the 30-Something Working Group, we always start our 
hour off--and I'm joined tonight by my very good friend, Mr. Jason 
Altmire, and also Mr. Ryan, Tim Ryan, on this 30-Something Working 
Group. And you know we come to the floor, Madam Speaker, to actually 
speak in what you may say the arena of fact versus fiction. We know 
that sometimes we get a little excited and we may not have the 
necessary footnotes we need to back up the information that we are 
providing, but tonight we did come to the floor to share with the 
American people fact, not fiction.
  I think that, when we start to reflect, Madam Speaker, on a number of 
issues that are facing Americans, we have to look at the everlasting 
issue of fuel costs, for someone to fill up their car, for someone to 
do something that we may call very common, being able to put gas in 
their car to be able to take their children to school, to be able to 
make it to their jobs. And I think that as we look at this issue we 
need to know who is on the side of the American people. When I say 
``we,'' I'm saying Members of Congress.
  I'm hoping that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my 
Republican colleagues who have joined us on a number of major pieces of 
legislation that we passed out of this Congress that has gone to the 
President, I want to applaud those Members for being a part of this 
great democracy and this great leadership that we have here in the 
House, to be able to bring about the paradigm shift of bipartisanship. 
We have not seen bipartisanship in the 109th Congress, 108th Congress. 
I can attest to that because I was here for those two Congresses. The 
110th Congress has brought about bipartisanship on major pieces of 
legislation that I will talk about a little further later on, but I 
just want to mention a few things.
  Madam Speaker, I always start off by giving what is going on in Iraq. 
The $8.5 billion war that's taking place right now in Iraq, some over 
$230-something million a day war. And I had the opportunity, Madam 
Speaker--and I don't want to digress--to speak to some first responders 
from New Jersey. They are from New Jersey, and Representative Rush Holt 
asked me to speak to his first responders. As you know, Madam Speaker, 
I was, once upon a time, a first responder as a Florida Highway Patrol 
trooper. And we talked about funding, and they were talking about the 
grants. And there was a grant here for, you know, $50 million or a 
grant there for equipment for fire fighters and State troopers and 
sheriffs, $70 million.
  But when I started talking to them about the $230 plus million a day 
that's being spent in Iraq, you should have seen their eyes opening 
wide. We all believe in making sure that we give our men and women what 
they need in Iraq; and we do that, this Congress has done it. But I 
think that when you start looking at the policy, when you start looking 
at how this administration has not put the Iraqi Government's feet to 
the fire to let them know that we have homefront security and hometown 
security needs to be addressed, they will never see the kinds of 
dollars that we're spending there.
  I also want to share the numbers with you. The total deaths in Iraq 
is 4,117 as of July 9; total number of wounded and returned to duty is 
16,866; and the total number of wounded not returning to duty is 
13,483. I think we have to look at that in perspective.
  I want to yield to my good friend, Mr. Altmire, at this time as we 
talk a little bit about a number of issues that

[[Page H6327]]

are facing the American people. Like I said, we're going to talk about 
fuel, we're going to talk about dining room table issues. So we're 
going to bounce around a little bit tonight, Madam Speaker and Members. 
And hopefully we will be able to share with the Members exactly what 
they need to know versus what some on the other side may not want to 
hear, because we're going to need this bipartisanship to push it 
through, to send the President a message that the American people have 
to be heard.
  With that, I yield to my friend, Mr. Altmire.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  And on the subject of Iraq, before we move on to some other things, I 
did want to discuss a little bit the fact that the Iraqi Government 
this week announced that they support the creation of a formal 
timeline, a date certain at which the American involvement in Iraq 
would wind to a close.
  And I think that that's a monumental moment in what we're facing in 
Iraq because we have, for years now, going on 6 years, been engaged in 
this conflict in Iraq. And the military men and women, the brave 
service men and women who serve us over there throughout this conflict 
have done their job, they have done everything that has been asked of 
them. We could not ask any more from the men and women, they have done 
what they were called to do. And that's something that every American 
can see in the results on the ground. And now, thankfully, the Iraqi 
Government themselves have recognized that that is the case by 
announcing their intention to ask the United States for a formal date 
certain at which point we would wrap up our involvement.

                              {time}  2100

  So I find that to be good news. Moving forward, we need to go to the 
Iraqi Government and say, look, this is your country and we cannot 
continue to hold your hand and run your affairs for you. It's time for 
you to step up and administer your own government, administer the 
affairs of state, and take the reins of power. And I think that by the 
statements that we heard today, the Iraqi people and the politicians in 
Baghdad have seen the light on that issue, and I feel like we are 
moving towards resolution and agreement that it is time to wrap up our 
involvement in Iraq.
  And I would yield to my friend from Ohio if he wants to continue on 
that, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate that. And it is time to wrap it up. 
And I think as we were home over the July 4th break and as we were 
meeting with our constituents and going to parades and getting out and 
about and reconnecting with our district, one of the issues we heard, 
obviously, is gas but also just the squeeze that families are feeling 
now. And one of the reasons we need to get Iraq wrapped up and get our 
troops back home is because it is costing us $12 billion a month in 
Iraq. And if we continue to go down this road with supplementals of 
$180 billion and continuing to go down that road, those are investments 
that we can't make here in the United States.
  And I think a lot of people would say, Mr. Meek, that we have got to 
make investments back here in the United States of America so that we 
can build roads and bridges here in the United States as opposed to 
roads and bridges in Iraq. And that's one of the key issues here.
  I know the gentleman from Connecticut wants to say a few words. But I 
think it's important for us to realize there is a direct connection 
between what we are doing in Iraq and what we are unable to do because 
of the budget.
  One of the issues that we're talking about too is what has happened 
to our budget here in the United States. And just a few short years ago 
in 2000, January of 2001, we had a $5.6 trillion surplus, and after 
President Bush got sworn in up until today, we have a $3.2 trillion 
deficit. That's an $8.8 trillion swing, and that is part of the reason 
we have a weak dollar, and that is part of the reason that oil is so 
expensive. So we've got to get our house in order here.
  So we talk about the war in Iraq and about how we need to finish it 
and honor our troops and support our veterans and make sure we have 
health care and whatnot, but we have got to balance the budget here in 
the United States and make those investments here, put people to work 
here in the United States building roads, bridges, infrastructure, 
water lines, sewer lines, septic tanks, broadband.
  I yield to my friend from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank my friend from Ohio. And I think 
it's important to point out that a lot has changed here in the last 
1\1/2\ years. I mean the numbers that you show are pretty startling, 
moving from about $5.6 trillion on the plus side to now $3.2 trillion 
in deficit. And the fact is that we got a mandate when the Democrats 
were elected to control this House and to control it by a slimmer 
margin in the Senate. We had a mandate to get our fiscal ship in order. 
The days of not paying for anything had to end for a number of reasons, 
not the least of which is the reason that you're talking about, the 
fact that the amount of money that we are borrowing from foreign banks 
has contributed to the devaluing of the dollar. And that means 
everything that we import into this country becomes more expensive, not 
the least of which are the millions of barrels of oil that come into 
this country.
  So what do we do about it? Well, we did something. We passed a rule 
in this House that is a rule that most families and every business out 
there lives by every day. We said, listen, when legislation comes 
before this House that spends money, we're not going to pass it unless 
in that legislation we account for how we're going to pay for it. When 
a piece of legislation that comes before this House wants to cut 
somebody's taxes, we're not going to pass it unless within that piece 
of legislation we account for how we're going to pay for that tax cut. 
And we call it the ``pay-as-you-go'' rule, which is how my family grew 
up, how most American families live their lives. They don't spend money 
that they don't have. And it's so ridiculously simple that it's mind 
blowing to a certain extent that it took a change in leadership in the 
this House to actually put that into practice, but it has changed 
things. We're starting to get that deficit that you talk about, Mr. 
Ryan, under control.
  Now, it means that this Congress can't spend money as wildly as it 
did under the Republicans. It means that we have got to be a little bit 
more careful about whom we give tax cuts to and make sure that when we 
do it, we give it to the right people. But in the end it makes for a 
better policy and it starts to get that fiscal mess that you talk about 
under control.
  And there are so many ripple effects of that good policy, Mr. Ryan 
and Mr. Meek, that's not just about making sure that we don't pass 
along the costs of this deficit to our kids and our grandkids and their 
kids. This is also about restoring some balance of trade so that we are 
not basically asking the rest of the world to pay for our debts, and in 
the end, do something about the dollar that as much as anything else is 
responsible for the high prices we're paying at the pump, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman would yield, if you think about 
the amount of money that we have spent in Iraq, that we are going to go 
and fix the Middle East and make it different and the money that it 
costs, almost $1 trillion that we have spent there already and the 
projection of $3 trillion when you start talking about taking care of 
all the vets that are going to come back with traumatic brain injury, 
amputees. When you factor that cost in, Joe Stiglitz, the Nobel winning 
economist, says $3 trillion it's going to cost.
  And I think it's important for the American people to realize that if 
we had made different decisions early on in this decade that those 
billions and billions and billions of dollars could have been invested 
into alternative energy sources, could have been invested into loan 
guarantees for nuclear plants, could have been invested in coal to 
liquid or whatever. Pick your issue.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman. This is exactly what we need to 
talk about tonight. You have the chart there. The gentleman has the 
chart talking about turning a projected 10-year surplus--when President 
Bush put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office, the 
projected surplus over the next 10 years was $5.5 trillion.

[[Page H6328]]

  Now we're in a presidential election year. Mr. Meek referenced it 
earlier. Let's think back 8 years. Vice President Gore was running 
against then Governor Bush. What was the debate about? The debate was 
about what are we going to do with this enormous surplus? That was the 
whole thing. Remember Vice President Gore had his lockbox idea. Are we 
going to shore up Social Security? Are we going to pay down the debt? 
And with that $5.6 trillion surplus, we could have nearly paid off the 
entire Federal debt by now, 8 years later. We would have it almost 
completely paid off. Instead, because of the decisions that have been 
made by this administration and previous Congresses, we have a $10 
trillion debt. So instead of having it paid off, it's at its highest 
level in history, nearly $10 trillion.
  We could have, as the gentleman suggests, invested in alternative 
energies and research and development on alternative sources of energy. 
We didn't do that. We could have done any number of things with a 
projected $5.5 trillion surplus.
  Well, instead, because of the economic policies of this 
administration, we have not had that $5.5 trillion to the good; we've 
had $3.5 trillion in debt. And I would suggest, and we have talked 
about this before, if you had said to any economist in America, no 
matter what their political persuasion, in the beginning of this 
administration, what would it take over the next 8 years for us to have 
a $9 trillion swing in the projected surplus to the deficit that we 
would then encounter? What would it take? What type of economic 
policies would we have to put forward? Any economist you asked would 
have said, well, that's impossible. You can't possibly mismanage the 
economy to such an extent that that would be the result, a $9 trillion 
swing. Well, unfortunately, this administration and the previous 
Congresses did the impossible, and we are faced with the situation that 
we are.
  Now, pay-as-you-go budget scoring, as Mr. Murphy talked about, is not 
the only answer, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. And 
it was President Bush's father, President George H. W. Bush, in 1990 
that came to the agreement with Congress to put in place the pay-as-
you-go budget scoring that led to the record surpluses of the 1990s 
following the all-time record deficits to that point of the 1980s.
  So this Congress has taken a step to put our fiscal house in order. 
We can't dig ourselves out overnight. But all of this has led to the 
decrease in the value of the dollar. And the decrease in the value of 
the dollar, anyone would agree, is one of the major factors involved in 
the price of gas today, the price of petroleum in the worldwide market. 
And we're going to talk about that tonight.
  I yield to my friend from Florida (Mr. Meek).
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much.
  Florida is front and center in the solution on the Republican side of 
the whole oil crisis issue. And we started talking about deficit 
spending. We started talking about what is happening to the American 
family, and I think that it's very important.
  I heard you, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Altmire, say something earlier about 
the folks in Iraq taking the responsibility. They are now calling for a 
timeline. It's interesting that the administration is not calling for a 
timeline.
  And I think it's important, Madam Speaker, when we look at $8.5 
billion a month, that's not anything to look away from. That's a lot of 
money. And I can tell you that there's a number of folks that would 
like to see that kind of money invested here in the United States.
  Let me just mention one thing. The Speaker a few days ago wrote a 
letter to the President. Two months ago she asked for oil to be taken 
out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that we have here. This letter 
is, I believe, on speaker.gov, which is on Speaker  Nancy Pelosi's Web 
site. It asks the President to dip into the oil reserves, that we have 
over 90 days of reserve that's in these oil reserves.
  This has been done before. This is not what you may call a new idea. 
This is not a radical idea. It's been done by not only the first 
President Bush, his father, but also by President Clinton and by this 
President during Katrina.
  I just want to take a couple of excerpts from this letter. It says: 
``Two months ago, after initially opposing our proposal to suspend the 
government's purchase of high-priced oil from the Strategic Oil 
Reserve, you signed the bipartisan legislation into law.''
  A couple of paragraphs down, it talks about the fact that oil was $30 
per barrel when his administration took office and now has hit $150 per 
barrel. And I think it's important for us to look at the $1.47 average 
when he came into office and the $4.11 per gallon.
  In 1990, 1991 Desert Shield, Desert Storm, when George H. W. Bush the 
first drew down from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on January 17, 
1991, it actually bought oil prices down per barrel $8. In 2000, in the 
face of high energy prices, the oil prices, President Clinton signed an 
executive order authorizing a withdrawal of 30 million barrels that 
were released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that actually 
brought the price per barrel down from $30.94 to $20.38, which is a 37 
percent decrease. And this is backed up by the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming of April 24, 2008.
  Then we look at Hurricane Katrina. President Bush has done this 
before. Hurricane Katrina in 2005, because the Gulf States were hit, 
the administration offered 30 million gallons from the Strategic Oil 
Reserve that actually brought down the price per barrel by $5.
  Why do I mention what has happened in the past, which should happen 
here in the present? The real issue is it's 97 percent full at this 
particular time, well beyond the International Energy Program as it 
relates to the 90-day reserve stock that should be there. When the 
President makes a decision, in 13 days, you will see oil prices go 
down. Why is this important, Madam Speaker and Members? This is very 
important because the American people are having to make a choice. If 
they're going to drive to work or they're going to drive their children 
to school, especially in rural America and even in urban America, they 
are having to make those decisions.

                              {time}  2115

  There were families that had to make the decision if they were going 
to see their family members or go to the family reunion this last July 
4th, which is one of the most celebrated holidays in our country, which 
is our independence. They could not make that decision to drive because 
of the price of oil. We have companies that are laying off workers as 
we stand here today because of the issue of oil per barrel.
  I talked to Chairman Oberstar. We took the opportunity to do it. Mr. 
Ryan and I were in a meeting today. Chairman Oberstar stated the 
following, the chairman of the Transportation Committee: A $10 drop in 
the price per barrel of oil will result in a savings of $420 million 
per year to Northwest Airlines. It also would mean a savings of $840 
million for United Airlines. It would also mean a savings of $900 
million per year for American Airlines.
  What does that mean? That means that the American people will not be 
nickel-and-dimed as we are now as they travel throughout this country.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to make the point that I was there with 
you, talking to the chairman of the Transportation Committee, and the 
point is it's not just airline fares, it's not just reducing from $4 a 
gallon down because of the millions of gallons that we could just take 
out of the oil reserve that is just sitting here in our country, and 
there are several of them. Just take the oil out.
  Everyone's talking about drilling. Take the oil out of where it is 
right now. Just turn the spigot on. Just turn that spigot on and let 
that oil flow.
  My point is that when you do this, it's going to have an effect 
because the airline companies are laying people off, just today in 
Toledo, and all over the country.
  So this is about making sure that we have jobs in the country. 
Airline pilots, machinists. The whole nine yards. So I wanted to put a 
little texture into that argument, a little context in that argument, 
support it even more to talk about jobs here in American.

[[Page H6329]]

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, there's nothing wrong with texture or 
context.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield back.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, sir. I think it's important as we 
look at this, Madam Speaker, and we say small businesses are the 
backbone of our economy. I mean, we are just hearing about the big 
players here; the airlines, those that are publicly trade. What about 
the small business of 25 to 100 people? Do you think they are laying 
off people? They are laying off people because they can't afford it.
  I am not a Member of Congress with a conspiracy theory, but I can't 
help but pay attention to this board here. So many Americans appreciate 
the fact when Saddam Hussein's statue was taken down and we are going 
to liberate the Iraqi people and all, but there are some other people 
who had some other interests and some other things in mind. A few 
companies are making record profit, just breaking records as it relates 
to profits.
  Meanwhile, back at the ranch or back at the dining room table, folks 
are having to park their vehicles because they can no longer afford to 
be able to pay for the necessity of being able to use their own 
vehicle. I mean the cost of living in the United States has gone up in 
some households some $200 to $300.
  What we do here, Mr. Murphy, we are here to represent the American 
people. So we have to make sure that we do exactly just that.
  Here's another chart. I had some of my friends come to the floor on 
the other side of the aisle saying, You know what we need to do? Great 
idea. Let's drill more. Let's make sure that we have more opportunities 
for oil companies to find the kind of energy that we need. That is that 
old school kind of Beta thinking, VHS thinking. Just the other day I 
was with my wife, looking around. We had to find something to turn it 
to DVD or whatever the case may be.
  If you want to think in the old sense of things, you can. But here 
are the facts. Acres leased, and this is in the millions, 9.5 million 
acres that have been leased. When you look at the acres that are 
producing, 23.7. So what we have here is a full plate that the oil 
industry has to look for oil or whatever the case may be. They are not 
even taking advantage of the leases that have already been given. But, 
better yet, they want more.
  Now, what the Speaker is talking about and the Democrats are talking 
about, let's go in, let's bring this price down. Let's let the oil 
cartels know that we mean business. And we also responded as it relates 
to legislation looking at alternative fuel.
  The last point that I want to make and then I'm going to turn it over 
to my good friend here. Let's talk about what is happening out there.
  If you're lucky enough to have a 2008 Pontiac Grand Prix, the cost to 
fill that up is $62.73. That is every time it ends up on E. The annual 
cost is $2,927. If you're lucky enough to have a Honda Accord, the cost 
to fill that up is $58.26. Annual cost, $2,565. Not even talking about 
what you have to do as relates to preventive maintenance.
  If you have an opportunity to have a 2008--all these numbers I am 
talking about here, like I said, Madam Speaker, we don't talk fiction, 
we don't embellish numbers, we don't leave any like gray area out there 
for folks to say, Well, maybe he might have meant that, or maybe the 
30-Something, maybe they were making another point. We want to make 
sure that you're able to go on fueleconomy.gov and you can get these 
numbers that I am stating right here on the floor right now, right 
here.
  If you're lucky enough to have a 2008 Chevy Impala, $62.73; $2,798. 
Chevy Suburban. Many small businesses use these vehicles. A 2008, $124, 
and $4,391 to fill it up per year. We are not even talking about 
preventive maintenance.
  Ford Escape, $60.88; $2,927. You also have your Ford Escape Hybrid, 
which is $55.35; $2,096 that is being spent, plus you get your $3,000 
tax credit when you get this hybrid.
  Let's just talk about what is happening in rural America, in many 
places in rural America, and small businesses. Ford F-10 pickup truck, 
$113.83. That is to fill it up; $4,391. It goes on and on with this Web 
site. This is based on the national average, which is $4.10.
  This is what is happening right now. They don't want to hear what the 
Republican side is talking about, Madam Speaker, as it relates to if we 
were to give more leases and we were to start drilling off the coast of 
Florida that we have never considered--well, we never really considered 
before. We wanted to do it, but we couldn't do it. But now folks are in 
a crisis now. Here's our solution.
  Well, that is not a good solution because you have all of these 
leases that are out there. It's almost like the oil companies, back in 
2001 when they had this great meeting in Dick Cheney's office and 
started talking about how we are going to deal with energy policy, came 
up with this situation.
  We have seen oil and the price of gas go from $1-something to now 
$4.10. It seems to work. The Bush administration is there. I think it's 
kind of like the last call for you know what to say that, Hey, let's 
get these leases while we can because we have Democrats here in the 
Congress that is talking about alternative fuel, that is talking about 
bringing the gas prices down now, not later, and have a real strategy 
as it relates to dealing with these oil cartels with penalties and 
allowing our regulation agencies here to regulate these folks from 
price gouging the American people.
  Who's standing in the middle of the door? When they say stand in the 
schoolhouse door, who's standing there? The administration is standing 
there, saying that it's not just and it's not fair.
  I have got a problem with that. I don't think my constituents sent me 
here to Congress to sit idly by and watch this happen. I am so glad, my 
colleagues here, that we have acted on this. I am not so happy that the 
President has not acted on it. I am not so happy that there's not 
outrage as it relates to his inaction for not dealing with these 
issues.
  So Members can come to the floor and start talking about fiction and 
carrying on and embellishing. I'm not saying that. I am just saying 
some folks can come and start painting big pictures with broad brush or 
whatever the case may be. But I think it's important that we bring 
these issues to the forefront.
  I don't have a problem with the oil companies that are on this chart 
here. I am not upset with them. They are just taking advantage of the 
situation that they have. Use it or lose it. They are taking advantage 
of it. We are going to ride this thing as long as we can ride it. I 
tell you, the American people have a say, and come this November, 
there's going to be a different day.
  Last point. I am just going to make a last point and have a seat. I 
am going to let my colleagues share a little bit with us.
  I remember in the day when Mr. Ryan and I, some two Congresses ago, 
used to say, If we have the opportunity to lead, that we will lead in a 
way that the American people would like for us to lead, not as 
Democrats would like for us to lead, not as independents, or not as 
Republicans, but as the American people would like for us to lead; how 
future generations would like for us to lead as relates to dealing with 
global warming, as it relates to investing in the Midwest versus the 
Middle East so that we can create green jobs. To put the American 
people to work, not other folks to work. And we have responded to that 
call.
  In politics, you don't see that. You don't see people. The Speaker 
said what we are going to do. We are doing it. The President is not 
doing it. The Vice President is not doing it. I can tell you right now, 
we need this paradigm shift to happen now.
  We said that there will be Members of this House that will be 
watching us here on this floor at home, not because they are retired, 
not because they thought someone else needed a chance to lead, but 
because the American people no longer tolerate it. That actually 
happened.
  So I think come this November, the American people are going to rise 
up and they are going to say, Listen, I did not send you to Washington, 
D.C. to represent the special interests and to represent big oil to 
make record profits. I sent to you Washington, D.C. to make life better 
for me and my children.

[[Page H6330]]

  So I want to thank my colleagues here for allowing me to make that 
point. I know that we have some other things to share as relates to 
this subject, so I will yield to my good friend from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank you, Mr. Meek. I appreciate the 
point.
  You talked about record profits. Let's talk about some meat on the 
bones here. A 311 percent increase in profits for the oil industry from 
2002 to 2007. It may just be a coincidence that that time about 
correlates with the moment that they started sitting in those secret 
meetings, Mr. Meek, in Vice President Cheney's office to negotiate this 
new energy policy into the Bush administration. But I don't think it's 
a coincidence.
  I think you can directly correlate the moment at which the oil 
companies started seeing this 311 percent increase in profits begin 
with the moment at which they were let in the door to start writing 
America's energy policy. Because that is what happened.
  We put two oil men in the White House, in President and the Vice 
President seat, and we got, as a result of it, the highest gas prices 
in the history of this Nation, a 300 percent increase in the profits to 
their friends in the oil industry, and families having to make 
decisions about whether they feed their kids or whether they fill up 
their gas tank to get to work the next day.
  That is not coincidence. That is not chance. That is the result of 
putting two people in charge of this administration that made their 
fortune in the oil industry and who have friends that they have allowed 
into the room to write the very legislation that has led to the 
situation that we are in today. It's not just conjecture.
  Let's take a look just in the last year and a half at what we have 
been doing here and who's been standing in the way. This is probably 
not readable to the Speaker and to our colleagues here, but can you get 
the picture here.
  The Renewable Energy and Jobs Act that we passed just a few months 
ago, investing millions of dollars into renewal energy that would 
actually compete with the oil industry, would make us energy 
independent, as we talk about all the time. Veto threat in the 
President of the United States. The Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act 
that held OPEC and the oil companies accountable for price fixing; for 
getting together and trying to decide what the price of oil should be. 
The President once again threatens to veto it.
  Commonsense legislation. Repealing the subsidies, the tax subsidies 
that that energy bill that the oil industry wrote, repealing those tax 
subsidies and instead, this just seems like common sense, turning those 
subsidies that the Republicans and the President were giving to the oil 
industry, instead give them to consumers and small businesses and 
people who want to invest in things and energy technology in their 
homes to get them off of oil. Another veto threat from the President.
  Cracking down on price gouging. Fifty-six Republicans joining us on 
that bill. Veto threat from the President. Again, a second bill, this 
time with 125 Republicans supporting the measure.

                              {time}  2130

  This measure was to go after the OPEC countries and oil cartels for 
price fixing. Another veto threat by the President. Over and over 
again.
  This Congress in the last year-and-a-half has been doing what we were 
sent here to do, represent and stick up for all of those middle-class 
families out there that are getting it stuck to them at the pumps. The 
way we say that we can do that best is to go right at the people who 
are getting rich off of these exorbitant oil prices, those oil 
companies. And every time that we have done it, virtually every time we 
have done it, we have had a President standing in the way. It 
continues.
  We just find out the other day, Mr. Meek, that this administration 
has been helping the oil companies negotiate no-bid contracts to get 
their newly found oil out of the fields in Iraq.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Say it ain't so.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. It is so, Mr. Meek. It is so. Because this 
is just going to go on and on and on. So long as we continue to have 
the same people in charge of the White House and the administration's 
energy policy, we are going to continue to see these record profits for 
the oil industry and see a neglect on behalf of the administration to 
come to this Congress and work with the Democrats who are trying to 
turn this whole thing around.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You know, Mr. Ryan, the real issue here is 
executive power, okay? We live in this democracy, but we have executive 
power as it relates to being able to deal with these issues. And I am 
so glad you are reading off the list of not only the Congressional 
Record, but congressional action on doing what we said we would do.
  We had a plan, Six in 06. We have done all of that. We talked about 
the issue that is facing America, the American people, as it relates to 
energy costs. When I read off those airline issues, I am not talking 
about profits for those airlines. I am talking about the fact when you 
go to book a flight now, to even check a bag, you have to not only 
spend the money that you spent on booking the flight, but then now you 
have to pay sometimes $15, $30, $100 per bag. The next thing you know, 
they are going to have a little card swipe on the restroom in the 
bathroom. I am not trying to sensationalize anything. That is just 
where we are now. A little bag of peanuts you used to get on the plane, 
folks are saying that is now $5.50. You want something to drink?
  So when you look at these issues, these are real issues. It is 
something, Madam Speaker, we have to deal with. It is not only dealing 
with the American families, but it is also dealing with American 
business, the backbone, small business, the backbone of our economy. 
When we start dealing with our economy, we have to really look at these 
issues for what they are worth. I am hoping we can get more of our 
colleagues from the Republican side to join us.
  Mr. Ryan, I know you have something to add to this.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think it is important. Here is the history. Not 
just the short-term history, kind of what the gentleman from 
Connecticut Mr. Murphy just went over, but that long history. We have 
been since we got in trying to push legislation on every single issue 
that is going to help middle-class families in the United States of 
America.
  We raised the minimum wage for the first time since 1997. The new 
increase will go here in just a few more weeks. On July 24th there will 
be another minimum wage increase for those people earning the minimum 
wage. Some people have two minimum wage jobs, who will get another $28 
a week, which isn't a lot, but with high gas prices it is a lot more 
than what would have happened if the Democrats were not here.
  If you look at the investments we made in biofuels already through 
the farm bill and the alternative energy that Mr. Murphy already 
mentioned, some economists are saying this is keeping gas down 50 cents 
a gallon more now because of the biofuel blends that are coming in.
  If you look at what just happened last week when you would take your 
kid or a student was going to try to take out a loan to go to school, 
and the interest rate was 6 percent instead of 6.8 percent, that is 
because the Democrats are in Congress and pushed that bill. That did 
not happen when the Republicans were in charge here.
  Madam Speaker, we did that. Democrats did that. So when you are 
talking about who is on the side of the person going to the pump at $4 
gas, it is the Democrats. We are against the oil companies. We are 
against President Bush. And if you look at the last 8 years, who would 
you rather have fixing the problem? President Bush and Dick Cheney and 
the oil companies, or the Democrats, who increased the minimum wage, 
invested in alternative energy, and made the kind of commitments on 
student loans and education that we have made. There is a clear 
difference here.
  And here is all the land that the oil companies have to drill on: 102 
percent of Colorado, 130 percent of Kansas, twice the size of Illinois, 
2\1/2\ times the State of Ohio. Go drill. Go drill now. You have the 
leases. You have picked out the land yourself. Go and drill it. But, 
no, you want to go up to ANWR and drill, a small little piece. All we 
are saying is you have the leases. We are talking about 20 years down 
the

[[Page H6331]]

line. Even if you started drilling here in ANWR or anywhere else, 20 
years. Speaker Pelosi is saying, take it out of the oil reserve that we 
have right now, and the President is saying no.
  So do you want to get oil into the market now, Madam Speaker, or not? 
It is pretty clear. There are people in our communities that are 
hurting, and we have a short-term plan and a medium plan and a long-
range plan that is being fought tooth and nail by the oil companies.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. It is completely consistent though, 
because when the Bush administration came into office and they wanted 
an energy policy, they knew who to turn to, right? They went for 
answers to their friends in the oil industry. So, today, when people 
are hurting at the pumps and they are looking for answers, who does the 
Bush administration and who do the Republicans look to for answers? 
They ask their friends in the oil industry. And guess what their answer 
is? The way out of this is to give us access to the tiny little chunk 
of territory that we haven't gotten yet. It is going to take 20 years 
to get anything out of it, but our answer to your immediate problem is 
to give us access to territory that will get a tiny additional bit of 
oil in 20 years from now. And people bought it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And save 5 cents a gallon. This is about people 
that sent us down here to make mature, responsible decisions, not the 
issue de jour, what is going to rattle will public. We have got a 
responsibility.
  We only have a couple of percent of the whole reserves in the world, 
and we consume 25 percent of the daily energy in the world. And for us 
to come here and say if we just drill, which we are saying, go ahead 
and drill. That is fine. Drill now. Here is all the places, 6 million 
acres you have. Go ahead and do what you have to do and make your 
money. But we are going in another direction, because we are not going 
to rely on imported oil from the Middle East to solve this problem. We 
are going to rely on the Midwest and the ingenuity in the country.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, as we close we are going to do this 
little lightning round here. We are going to yield back and move from 
there. So we will just kind of roll around in rotation.
  Mr. Altmire has been standing by here very patiently. It is very 
interesting. I guess it is just the Pittsburgh spirit.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman. I was going to comment on the 
fact that there is a slogan that you see rolling around these halls, 
and it is ``drill here, drill now.'' You hear it everywhere we go, 
drill hear, drill now.
  Well, how could we accomplish that goal? Because the Democrats want 
to drill here and they want to drill now. The way we drill here and the 
way we drill now is by using the 6 million acres that are already 
leased and permitted and available for drilling. We need to be doing 
that now. They are ready to go.
  Now, there is exploration that needs to take place, I understand 
that. But the territory that has not been leased and permitted is 10 
years away before the first drop of oil comes out, and it is 20 years, 
20 years, before it is fully on line at peak capacity. That is not 
drilling now. So I would suggest to those who want to pursue that 
policy, maybe they ought to change their slogan. Just to be more 
accurate, it should be ``drill here, drill in 10 years or 20 years,'' 
because that is what they are talking about.
  What we are talking about is using the land, the territory, the parts 
of the Outer Continental Shelf, 75 percent of which is leased and 
permitted, allowed to drill, and they are not drilling. The oil 
companies who have the land leased and ready to go on the Outer 
Continental Shelf are using a quarter of it, 25 percent.
  So you will hear people say, well, there is no oil there. Well, that 
is factually incorrect. Eighty percent of the known oil in the Outer 
Continental Shelf is located in areas where the oil companies are 
already allowed to drill. It is already leased. It is already 
permitted. It is already ready to go. Go to it. Drill here, drill now. 
That is what we are talking about. Have at it. We want you to do that, 
big oil. Do it.
  Now, if you want to talk about drilling here in 10 years and drilling 
here in 20 years, that is a different ball game, and we can have that 
discussion after they have used the land and territory already 
available.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. One of the provisions for taking this right out of 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and pumping it into the market is it 
stays in the United States market. What they are drilling now, wherever 
they are drilling, doesn't necessarily mean the oil they are taking out 
is staying here in the United States, all of it. So there are a lot of 
issues here that we need to deal with.
  But, Mr. Meek, I just want to get nostalgic for 30 seconds with you, 
if I could, before we close up. I remember four or five years ago when 
the whole 30-Something Group started and we started on the issue of 
Social Security privatization accounts. Congressman Meek and I started 
coming down here on that issue. Then-Minority Leader Pelosi asked us to 
come down here, and we got into the nuts and bolts of the privatization 
accounts. And it was 60-40 people in our generation were for it, until 
we got into the nuts and bolts.
  We began to explain night in and night out on this floor, and 
throughout the country Members would go home and started to talk about 
Social Security privatization, putting this social insurance program in 
jeopardy, and we ended up killing the President's privatization account 
scheme that he was going to set up.
  What I am saying to Members here is if we just continue to get the 
facts out on this, that there is oil, 80 percent of the known reserves, 
the oil companies have the permits to drill it, we passed legislation 
that says use the permit or lose it so we can get people in there who 
want to drill, and we just keep talking about that, and what we are 
going to do with taking the oil that is already there in the reserve 
and put it into the market, there is no doubt that our plan in the 
short-term is better and we have already made the investments in the 
long term that I know will be better.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank you, Mr. Ryan. You referenced that 
short-term plan, and I think we would be remiss if we didn't talk a 
little bit about what is maybe our best tool between now and when this 
session wraps up to actually get some short-term relief to people. 
Because as much as we know the oil companies are a lot of the reason, 
the majority of the reason behind the problems that we face today, we 
have got to acknowledge where the price of a barrel of oil is set.
  The price of a barrel of oil is not set in the boardroom of Exxon or 
Chevron or BP. It is not set at the gas station that you and I go to 
fill up at. It is set on this place called the commodities market, the 
other place that has done very, very well over the past several years, 
the traders on Wall Street who have been coming away with millions, if 
not billions, off of these increased prices that we see.
  So if you really want some short-term relief, if you don't want to 
wait 10 years until you could get a drop of oil out of newly-leased 
territory, then let's actually go and pass some legislation to affect 
the very place that the price of oil is being set, and that is on the 
commodities market.
  We have seen an explosion of almost 20-fold in the amount of money 
that is being invested in the oil commodities market. And, guess what? 
Most of that money is being invested betting in only one direction, 
that the price goes up. And guess what else? When you bet that the 
price goes up, that is what it does. It goes up.

                              {time}  2145

  Money chases money. Long bets increase the price of a barrel of oil. 
So we have got some pretty simple solutions in front of us that we are 
going to be putting forward in front of this House in the next few 
weeks.
  Let's limit the amount of people who can go onto Wall Street with the 
millions that they have made and force the price of gasoline, the price 
of a barrel of oil artificially beyond what it really costs. Because I 
do not believe that the price of a gallon of gas is really $4.20. That 
is not what supply and demand would have it at. That is what the 
commodity traders on Wall Street would have us believe.
  So if you really want to get short-term relief, then just as on the 
issues that we were talking about before, you have got to take on the 
oil industry,

[[Page H6332]]

you have got to take on Wall Street, you have got to take on the 
commodity traders.
  And this place just I have seen it in the last few weeks, Mr. Meek, 
has all of a sudden started to crawl with those lobbyists that 
represent the folks that are making all this money off of oil trading. 
They are going to try to shut this down. They are going to do their 
best to go to their friends here in Congress and in the administration 
and try to shut down our efforts to reform the commodity market.
  And this isn't a simple thing to explain to our constituents, it is 
not a simple thing for people to explain to us. But if you really want 
to talk about what is responsible, what venue can be affected 
immediately in terms of bringing down this price, you have got to go 
after Wall Street, you have got to go after the place where we can get 
the most obvious and quickest price relief. And it is not going to be 
easy, because those folks there have just as many interests and 
lobbyists as do the oil companies here. But, Mr. Meek, we didn't get 
sent here to represent the lobbyists, we didn't get sent here to 
represent the special interests. We took over this House, we took 
control of this House because we are supposed to stick up for the 
people who are paying those prices.
  And we are all singing the same tune. In the long run, we have got to 
get off of oil. We have got to find something else to run this country 
on, Mr. Meek, Mr. Altmire, and Mr. Ryan. But in the short run, let's go 
to the place where it counts and where it can be changed and affected 
the most, and that is the commodities market. And I hope that we are 
going to do something here. I hope that we are going to get some 
bipartisan consensus to be able to work on that solution in the next 
few weeks.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, I want to thank you for sharing with 
the Members how we can improve and how the administration can improve 
as it relates to policing what is going on right now.
  We passed legislation putting teeth in the Federal Trade Commission 
to be able to go after these price gougers, to be able to find out 
where there is fat and waste. This Bush administration will not get the 
award for being able to stomp out waste and fat within the Federal 
Government. The executive branch means a lot to accountability as it 
relates to what we are trying to seek out here in Congress.
  I want to thank you, Mr. Murphy, and I want to thank Mr. Altmire and 
Mr. Ryan for coming down here, this 30-Something Working Group hour 
tonight.
  Madam Speaker, we come to the floor to not only bring about 
bipartisanship, but also challenge our colleagues in being a part of 
the solution versus standing idly by and holding on to party loyalty or 
whatever the case may be. Because we did not talk about the kind of 
changes that you can believe in or the kind of change if you give us 
the opportunity, or the Six in '06 plan on behalf of just Democrats, on 
behalf of Independents and Republicans, but on behalf of the American 
and those yet unborn. So we are batting pretty good as it relates to 
the accountability of what the people want and what is good for this 
country. And I can tell you, there is no greater honor, there is no 
greater honor than serving here in this Congress and being about the 
solution.
  We can talk about solution and we can take action on solution here. 
But if we have an administration that is treating it as though it is 
the last day of school or the last days of school, and I don't 
necessarily have to respond; we have oil companies that have a plate of 
leases that are out like this high and putting pressure on the Congress 
and on other entities to say, hey, let's start drilling off the coast 
of Florida. Well, why? Well, we want to bring gas prices down. When? 
Oh, maybe 10 or 15 years. But we just want it. We know we have 
thousands and thousands upon thousands of leases that are yet undrilled 
upon, unresearched or what have you, but we want more. It sounds like 
the oil companies are saying: We want to keep this good thing going for 
us.
  Well, the American people are now asking for a bailout as it relates 
to the price of gas at the pump. I am asking the Bush administration 
and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to be just as 
excited about helping bail out the American people as though they were 
and have been excited about bailing out industry, special interests 
when they get into trouble. Why doesn't somebody save Ms. Johnson or 
Ms. Cravis, or Mr. Jackson who has an F-10 pickup truck and running a 
small business. Let's help them.
  So that is what we are trying to do here and that is what we are 
advocating here on the floor. It is going to take more than a willing 
House and a willing Senate to bring about the kind of change that will 
affect the bottom line of the American people that are facing these 
prices right now. We need the administration to be able to stand up on 
behalf of the American people. And, guess what, we can't wait until 
January for that to happen.
  So we thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to thank the members 
that came down to the floor tonight of the 30-Something Working Group. 
It is always an honor to address the House of Representatives.
  We yield back the balance of our time.

                          ____________________