[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15306-15311]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you. It is always 
an honor to come before the House and the 30-Something Working Group, 
running some 5 or 6 years strong now, coming to the floor on behalf of 
the American people with fact not fiction. We know that in this day and 
time it is easy to be misled. And I don't know if it is something that 
someone means to do or doesn't mean to do, but it happens sometimes. We 
take great pride in not only having footnotes for what we do and what 
we say, but making sure that we have the facts to back up what we are 
sharing with the Members.
  Every 30-Something Working Group we start off by sharing with the 
Members what is happening in Iraq. As of today, July 16, 2008, by 10 
a.m., total casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom is 4,121; total 
number wounded in action returned to duty, 16,901; and total number 
wounded in action not returning to duty is 3,508.
  I think it is very important that we continue to pay close attention 
to that issue of what is happening right now in Iraq and what is 
happening in many of the American families that we cherish and 
celebrate and honor that are military families that are having to worry 
about their loved ones in harm's way. We have to keep that at the 
forefront.
  As you know, over the past 2 weeks Members have been coming to the 
floor speaking on the issue of energy. I am happy to not only report 
but continue to say it wasn't until this Democratic Congress when it 
was elected, Mr. Speaker, and Members, to lead on behalf of the 
American people that once upon a time in the 108th Congress and 109th 
Congress, we talked about if given the opportunity to lead what we 
would do.
  It is one thing in politics to talk about if you give me a chance, 
this is what I will do. I will go to Washington, DC, and make this or 
that happen. It is a good thing because we have actually moved in that 
direction.
  I couldn't help but hear my colleagues who I have a great deal of 
respect for, but I may disagree with from time to time. I can tell you 
in light of me disagreeing with them, I am just so happy that I do have 
fact on my side and on the side of the American people because we have 
been trying to move this Congress and we have done so with the American 
people's help in electing a Democratic majority Congress.
  But we have not been able to overcome the executive branch which is 
the Bush White House. I think it is also important for us to understand 
that this whole issue of how we got to $4.30-

[[Page 15307]]

something gas was not engineered by anyone on the Democratic side of 
the aisle. I think the policies, the energy policies that were set 
forth by the Bush administration, the 2001 meeting which took place in 
Vice President Cheney's part of the White House, the working group on 
energy, the 108th Congress and the 109th Congress who worked very hard 
to, and the Congress before that, the Republican-led Congresses which 
worked hard to follow this policy that the Bush administration set out 
to please oil companies that has led us into the prices that we are 
paying here today.
  I have to lay that out, Mr. Speaker, to get to what Democrats have 
done. I am going to do that very quickly because I think I am on the 
side of solutions versus argument. But for the Members to understand 
what the solutions should be and the direction that we should be 
running in at a very fast pace or run or sprint is one of fact and not 
fiction.
  You would have a number of Members in this Congress believe and the 
American people believe that with two oil men in the White House we 
would have some sort of solution as it relates to this issue of oil, 
but that is not the case.
  As we continue to deal with this issue of oil only, because it seems 
like that is what the Republican side is talking about, it seems to be 
a part of the problem and not the solution.
  If you want to resolve something, you have to start looking at doing 
things differently. You can't do the same thing expecting different 
results. When you look at oil and you look at the number of those who 
have given their life in Iraq, and the reason why Iraq is so important 
to this country is based on energy. If we had action when the Bush 
administration took over the executive branch and when the Republicans 
had the opportunity to lead, well, it was already there according to 
economists and others, but if they would have had the courage to stand 
up against Big Oil and say no, we know what you want, but the studies 
have shown we need to start looking toward alternative fuel, we need to 
start being innovative and deal with cafe standards and make sure that 
our vehicles get more mileage. We have to incentivize through tax 
incentives Detroit and other auto-making parts of America, that we want 
vehicles that run on less fuel. But no, that was not the argument. That 
was not what the Republican majority pushed towards. They kept pushing 
towards this kind of cake and ice cream experience with the oil 
industry.
  I have nothing against the oil industry. Some neighborhoods they may 
say I am not mad at the oil industry, but I think it is important to 
note that the only way they could have gotten away with what they have 
gotten away with is with the help of individuals that were in those 
Congresses previous to this Congress, the Democratic-led Congress. The 
only way they got what they are celebrating now is because there is two 
oil men in the White House. It is well-documented. It is not just me 
saying that. Anyone can go on the Internet and get this information 
because that's where their history has been.

                              {time}  2145

  I have a couple of charts here: 8 years of Bush, two oil men in the 
White House, $4 a gallon gas. I mean, I just leave it up to your 
imagination. I am just one Member of Congress that has a theory, not a 
theory, but following fact.
  What are some of the great ideas on the other side? Well, let's drill 
in the Arctic wildlife refuge. Let's do that. I think that's important. 
Yes, let's drill. That was last Congress' argument. Some have said this 
Congress has a solution. I am not talking fiction, I am talking fact.
  That would only bring about 1.8 cents per gallon savings in 2025. Now 
that's 2025. That's not talking about right now, Members. That's not 
talking about how families are trying to figure out how they are going 
to, when they are looking at their vehicles and knowing they are no 
longer going to be able to afford to take their kids to extracurricular 
activities, in some cases not even being able to take them to school, 
in some cases having to walk to make it to religious events, whichever 
their religion may be, because they can't afford fuel.
  Some have had to turn off certain things like cable television or had 
to do away with certain activities that their children were involved in 
or philanthropic contributions, at their own level, but it was just $10 
or $50 a month to make the world better. They had to cut back on that, 
put it in the tank.
  But this is what the Republicans were talking about and Democrats 
fought them back. I talked about the 2001 meeting that took place in 
the White House. It is well documented, well documented.
  I can tell you, when I come back to the floor, I am going to bring my 
chart out that I used to bring, actually the letter that talked about, 
and the news report, from the Washington Post, it talked about the 
meeting that took place in 2001.
  I know this is hard to see for many of the Members, but in 2002, that 
meeting started to pay off for Big Oil. Meanwhile, our Republican 
colleagues, who were in the majority, just stood idly by, and turned 
the other cheek. There was no problem with oil. There was no problem.
  The alternative, why do we have to deal with that when we have oil? 
Why do we have to deal with that when we have over 143 troops that are 
in Iraq that's protecting the Iraqi oil, and we have our Commander in 
Chief holding the hand of the Saudi Arabian king. We have those 
relationships.
  Meanwhile, our constituents, Members, people here in America are not 
celebrating what these oil companies are celebrating. Again, I have 
nothing against oil companies, they are doing what they do in a capital 
society, but they are only allowed to do this because of the Republican 
past Congress. Remember, I want to make sure the Members know. I'm 
coming to what we did in this Congress and what role you played in that 
solution towards bringing gas prices down, or, what I may add, energy 
prices.
  In 2000, the record-breaking profits of some $30 billion; 2003, 
again, breaking records, $59 billion; 2004, $82 billion for the oil 
companies and profits; 2005, $109 billion in profits; 2006, $118 
billion. It's, again, climbing, and in 2007, $23.3 billion in profits 
for oil companies based on the Republican-led energy initiatives.
  Now they are in the minority, they are now saying, well, we can't get 
what we want on the table. They have already voted to drill in not only 
environmentally sensitive places, but places that the oil companies 
have not even started to drill in yet. We just gave out a whole bunch 
of leases to the oil companies. They are not even using 80-some odd 
percent of those leases that have been allowed, they have been allowed 
to drill. They haven't done it.
  So it's almost like having a full plate of food. Imagine you at home, 
okay, and sitting around the table, Big Oil with food just falling off 
all ends of the plate, something real heavy like a big steak or 
something, and mashed potatoes and beans, you know, rolling all over 
the table, saying we need more. That's what they are saying as it 
relates to more leases, more drilling. We need more. Okay.
  Imagine the individual that's going there to fill the tank with very 
little on their plate, because they can't afford to put food on their 
plate because they are too busy paying what we are looking at in these 
record-breaking profits for these oil companies, with very little on 
their plate, if anything at all. When you start talking about more 
drilling, more drilling, you know, it doesn't add up because you have 
talked about some of these issues.
  Let me just mention something here. I am so glad that I got this 
because I asked for it. I couldn't happen but see the President 
yesterday quoted in his press conference. We started talking about 
issues as it relates to oil, I mean, drilling. The President says a 
lot, so it's kind of hard to try to deal with what he is saying. But he 
said that, in so many words, and I will go ahead, because it's a lot of 
words here that he used to describe one thing, in his remarks, he said 
that drilling will not

[[Page 15308]]

deal with the oil prices tomorrow. It won't give us the relief that 
we're looking for.
  That's what the President said yesterday on his press conference. Now 
you can go on pretty much to cnn.com, any other Web site that would 
have the transcript, but basically we pull these remarks from the 
transcript. I want to make sure that we get a chart so that people can 
see it, and we may want to put it on our Web site.
  Now, on the Democratic side, we have talked about a number of 
initiatives. Our comprehensive strategy has been about not only 
incentivizing wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and American-grown 
biofuels, but also promote energy, like I mentioned, energy efficiency, 
efficient cars, buildings. The greening of the Capitol is already under 
way and has happened. Actually, I wrote a piece this month in the 
Capital File Magazine talking about what we are doing here in the 
Capitol to green the Capitol and save our environment and lead by 
example.
  The Speaker is leading that in a very special way, making homes and 
appliances more energy efficient, boosting American innovation and 
research, reward conservation, expedite responsible American drilling 
and also telling Big Oil to use it or lose it. Basically, when you are 
looking at all the leases that are out there, all the opportunities 
that Big Oil has right now, but, better yet, it's almost like what we 
call the Potomac two-step, because I think that's what the Republican 
side is doing and the White House is doing.
  They are saying drill, drill, drill, because, guess what, that's 
what's been putting gas in their tank, I think, politically, because 
the oil companies believe that they are our friends.
  The Democrats, they are the problem, because we are talking about 
alternative fuel. We are talking about conserving. We are talking about 
investing in the Midwest versus the Middle East. So we are disrupting, 
when I say we, the American people who voted for this new Congress that 
we celebrate now, voted for this fact-not-fiction Congress, voted for 
this new-direction Congress, they voted for change. Republicans are 
still here singing a song that these oil companies have put on a sheet 
and started talking about we need to drill to create jobs.
  Well, guess what, why haven't they done it with all of the leases 
that are out there right now and all of the jobs that need to be 
created. If Big Oil, based on the profits that they have made, can turn 
this whole economy around and take us out of this recession that some 
speak of, just with the snap of their fingers, but, guess what, there 
is something that we call stockholders. They want their money.
  They want those dollars to be placed. They don't want to employ 
people. That will have something to do with my bottom line. So when 
folks start coming to the floor and start talking about oh, we drill $2 
gas, I look forward to that. But we are going to get there doing the 
same thing, doing the same thing expecting different results.
  It's almost like going to the refrigerator, pulling out a carton of 
milk and saying oh, wow, it's spoiled, put it back in, maybe it will be 
fresh tomorrow. That doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to keep 
doing the same thing.
  Now, let me just mention here what we have done, and this is, as I 
understand, on the Speaker's Web site, www.speaker.gov. I think this is 
important because this is in the Congressional Record and also 
Congressional Action. Now law because of what the Democrats have done 
here. The farm bill which is an historic investment in affordable 
biofuel and also beefed up oversight on market manipulation. House bill 
2419. The President's veto was overridden.
  Now this is the President. You would think, you out there paying this 
gas, you are paying this big-time deal for gas. We are trying to find 
some competition for Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries saying, 
guess what, we're not going to have to hold your hand walking down some 
park, our Commander in Chief. We're not going to have to go to war in 
the Middle East because we have to protect the oil so that we can 
continue to run our vehicles. We're going to come up with our own bill. 
We're going to come up with our own way of building energy in a clean 
way.
  And to those that believe in shipping jobs overseas, we're going to 
create green jobs while we're at it. We are going to make sure that 
Americans have jobs from those that just have a GED or no high school 
diploma at all, to those that are architects and have postgraduate 
studies and who have gone on to do so many things in our society, 
everyone gets to work in a green society. That's what we are creating, 
and that's what that farm bill moved, but we had to override the 
President on May 21, 2008, with a vote of 316-108, and the Democrats 
moved in that direction.
  I think it's important that everyone understand what's taking place 
here, because when folks come to the floor and talk about they have the 
answer, many of these individuals have not even voted for the bills 
that would do exactly what they are talking about doing. This is fact. 
That's not fiction. Thanks to the Members, we did override with some 
Republican support. But if it wasn't for the Democratic leadership, 
this would have never, never happened.
  The veto threat, Renewable Energy and Jobs Act, H.R. 6049, passed on 
May 21. The Democrats, we voted 263-160. I think it's important that 
everyone understands that that vote came about with 228 Democrats 
voting in the affirmative versus 35 Republicans voting in the 
affirmative with 159 Republicans voting against it.
  Another veto threat, which is Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act 
holding OPEC, which is, you know, the oil companies accountable for 
price fixing, H.R. 6074, again. We have the President that has put out 
a veto threat. That bill passed the House on May 20, this year, 324 
voting in the affirmative, 84 Republicans voting against it, now law. 
This is the legislation that we put forth, never would have been law if 
we wouldn't have put it forth. When I say we, I'm saying the Democrats 
here in Congress.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer 
Protection Act, H.R. 6022. I think it's important that you look at 
this. It passed May 13, 2008, some 385-25. I think it's important that 
we look at the fact that all Democrats voted for it, 223 voting, 
Republicans voted in the affirmative, 162-25. That issue, that's now 
law.
  Repeal subsidies to profit-rich big oil companies, invest in 
renewable energy and fuel efficiency, H.R. 5351, passed February 27. It 
passed by a 236 vote, 182 voting against the legislation. 219 Democrats 
voted in the affirmative, 8 voted against. The Republicans, 17 voted 
for, 174 voted against. You have got to think about that, you have got 
to think about the whole issue, and that has been threatened by the 
President that he is going to veto it.
  Now, we start talking about the profits that we use, because the real 
issue is that we need money to come up with alternative fuel. But, 
again, when it comes down to standing up to Big Oil, cricket sounds on 
the other side. You know, all bold when it's talking about what 
Democrats won't let us do. That's interesting, because I have been in 
Congress under Republican leadership for 4 years, and I have only been 
in Congress for a year and some change under the Democratic leadership 
and I can't believe some of the arguments that are coming out on the 
other side about what they can't do when they've had all of these years 
to do it.
  The American people, I am not talking about Democrats, I am talking 
about Republicans. I am talking about independents. I am taking about 
first-time voters, and say, guess what, if you are going to do what you 
do for Big Oil, then we're going to find somebody else to represent us, 
and they did.

                              {time}  2200

  And the numbers within the double digits on the Republican side are 
now watching me here on the floor, talking to the Members, Mr. Speaker, 
because they made the wrong decisions because they followed leadership. 
We're going to talk about that in a minute right after this chart. They 
followed their Republican leadership that led them

[[Page 15309]]

into a hole, and that hole is right in the La-Z-Boy at home, checking 
this fact-not fiction piece that I'm giving here on the floor. When you 
look at that vote, that's telling in itself.
  Now law. Energy independence law and market manipulation banned and 
new vehicle mileage standards: H.R. 6. It was passed on December 18 of 
2007. 314 votes. The Democrats voted in the affirmative. 100 voted 
against, Republicans. 219 Democrats voted in the affirmative. Only 4 
Democrats voted against it. Republicans were 95 voting in the 
affirmative and 96 voting against it. That's now law. It never would 
have been if it weren't for a Democratic-led Congress bringing about 
that kind of justice on behalf of the American people.
  The America Competes Act with energy, research and the development of 
clean energy and technologies: H.R. 2272. It passed into law--it is now 
law--on August 2, 2007. 369 Democrats voted in the affirmative. There 
was an overall vote of 369 to 57 Republicans who voted against it.
  Veto threat. Crack down on gas price gouging. Like my pastor would 
say, I'm going to read that again. Crack down on gas price gouging: 
H.R. 1252. It passed on May 23 of 2007 with 284 voting in the 
affirmative and 141 voting against it. On the Democrat side, 228 voting 
in the affirmative, 1 Democrat voting against it. On the Republican 
side, 56 Republicans voting for it, 140 against it.
  That's part of the solution there. I think that's something we need 
to look at and something that the President has said that he's going to 
veto.
  Veto threat, holding OPEC accountable, oil price fixing, again, 
that's standing up to Big Oil. That's standing up to the Middle East, 
saying we're no longer going to let you lead us by the nose. We're 
going to take responsibility for our own energy. It passed May 22, 2007 
with 345 voting in the affirmative and 72 voting against. The President 
has said that he's going to veto it.
  Now, when we start talking about who's doing what and who's not, you 
may see these pieces of paper here, but basically, we just covered up 
the names of the Republican leadership because that's just a personal 
policy of mine, Mr. Speaker. I just don't want to, you know, ``out'' 
these individuals because, I think, the record speaks for itself, but 
I'm still making the point, and they know who they are.
  This is the Republican leadership from top to bottom, and I think 
that it's important that everyone pays attention to this. As to some of 
the legislation that I read off, these very individuals voted against 
it, and I think that's the reason we see the kind of discourse from the 
other side of the aisle in talking about the old direction versus the 
new direction. They will throw some new direction stuff in there, 
knowing that, you know, they really don't mean it. You know, we had the 
opportunity to do it, but we didn't do it, but we're going to criticize 
the other side and say they haven't done it.
  We have done it. It is the body of several pieces of legislation that 
have not only become law but that are in the process of becoming law if 
there were a President in the White House who would allow it to become 
law.
  You remember that old bill on Capitol Hill. This goes down to the 
majority leader. This goes all the way down to the whip and to the 
Republican Conference Chair. We have the policy Chairs and all. If you 
will look at when it came down to OPEC price fixing, the two top 
leaders on the Republican side voted against that legislation. The No. 
5 leadership, No. 6 and No. 7 voted against it.
  When you look at the price-gouging legislation that we passed, when 
we were looking for that leadership of coming together in a bipartisan 
way, the top Republican leader voted against it. The whip voted against 
it. The third in charge voted against it. The fifth in charge voted 
against it. The sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth voted against it and 
on down the line. This is not fiction. This is fact, okay? This is the 
Congressional Record.
  Renewable energy. The first man voted against it over on the 
Republican side and the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, 
eighth, and ninth, all the way down. Now, if I'm wrong, somebody come 
and tell me I'm wrong. I don't think so. This is in the Congressional 
Record.
  Energy security. The top voted against it. If you jump down, No. 4 
voted against it as well as No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, and No. 8.
  So, when folks come to the floor and start talking about ``we have a 
plan'' and ``we know the answer,'' show me the beef, like that Wendy's 
commercial used to go. You know, it used to say, ``Now show me the 
beef.'' I want to know where it is. I don't see it.
  I've just come to the floor just to share a little bit because I'm 
glad that my constituents in the 17th Congressional District from South 
Florida federalized me to come here to provide this kind of 
representation and to be able to shed light on the action that has 
taken place. It's not over yet. We don't have everything that we need 
to be able to do the things that we need to do on behalf of our 
constituents because we still have some rules over in the other body 
across the hall, and we still have the issue in the White House as it 
relates to the two architects, if I could put it that way, of our 
energy plan now, who are defending that plan to the end. They have 
talked about they're not going to do some of the things that we feel 
should be done now, things that a number of people have said that would 
help.
  We talked about a number of issues as they relate to our passage of 
legislation, but one thing I left out on that chart that I think we 
need to share with the Members tonight is the Drill Responsibly in 
Leased Lands Act, which is called the DRILL Act. It mandates annual 
lease sales in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve. It also has more 
oil than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the oil can be 
brought to the market more quickly.
  It requires the Bush administration to facilitate the competition of 
oil pipeline infrastructure in the Reserve and to facilitate the 
construction of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline, and it bans the 
export of Alaskan oil outside of the U.S.
  It also incorporates the ``use it or lose it'' legislation. I can 
tell you that it is compelling oil companies to start drilling on the 
68 million acres of undeveloped Federal oil reserves which they are 
currently warehousing or they are losing the ability to obtain the new 
leases. I think that it's important that we deal with those issues 
sooner rather than later.
  Before I get into another part of my talk, here is my good friend, 
Representative Arcuri, from the great State of New York. We have been 
to a number of places together. We've been to Iraq, and we've also been 
on some other defense-related visits. I'm so glad that he's here to 
share a little bit about this issue of energy.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend for yielding. Although it has been a 
couple of years since I was 30-something, I appreciate your yielding me 
some time.
  Thank you for being here tonight and for talking about some 
reasonable positions that we're taking with respect to energy in this 
country. It's sad. I've been here for the past couple of hours, 
listening to my colleagues and to my friends from the other side of the 
aisle who were talking about their perception of what Congress is 
doing. It's sad because it's a real revisionist sort of perception 
because they see it from a perspective that, frankly, just isn't the 
case.
  When they say that nothing is being done, frankly, I don't know what 
they're talking about or what they're seeing, because there are a 
number of things being done. They may not be the things that they would 
like to see done, but clearly, a number of steps have been taken, and I 
think they are steps that are practical and smart and wise.
  One of the things that troubles me is that the only thing we hear 
from the other side of the aisle is drill, drill, drill. All they ever 
talk about is drill, and that presumes that we are going to be drilling 
for oil and that we are going to be reliant upon oil. You know, that's 
what put us in the situation we're in now--the reliance upon a finite 
resource that is not going to last forever.

[[Page 15310]]

They want to continue to drill, and it's important.
  I was just reading an article, and it talks about how important it is 
to drill. I support drilling. I think we should drill. There are 68 
million acres that are available to drill on, and we should be drilling 
on them. We should be drilling in Alaska on the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. That's why they call it the ``petroleum reserve,'' because 
there's petroleum there. We can be drilling there. We should be 
drilling there. The oil companies can do it. Why aren't they doing it? 
Well, if their companies are making the biggest profits in the history 
of their business, why would they do anything differently?
  That's why we have backed legislation that says ``use it or lose 
it.'' It's the same thing that we do for the coal companies. If they 
have reserves, if they have leases on the properties, they should very 
well be drilling on them.
  You know, recently, I spoke to a group of teenagers, high school 
students, in an organization called Boys State, in New York State. 
There were about 600 young boys, and I was speaking to them, and I was 
talking to them about how important it will be in the future for energy 
policy to be focused on not just finite resources but on the future.
  It's interesting because, when you talk to young people about the 
future, when you talk to young people about renewables, when you talk 
to young people about geothermal, about wind power, about solar power, 
and about cellulosic ethanol, they get it. It occurred to me that our 
generation got it back in the '70s. When everybody was talking about 
the energy crisis back in the '70s, we got it. We understood exactly 
what needed to be done. Only it wasn't done, and the last generation 
passed the problem on to us. Now it is our responsibility to do 
something, not to pass it on, not to just drill, drill, drill, drill, 
and then in 10 years or in 15 years have our children and our 
grandchildren have to deal with the very same problems that we're 
dealing with today.
  We need to have a responsible, reasonable energy policy. That's the 
difference between what our side of the aisle is developing and what 
the other side of the aisle is developing. They're not developing an 
energy policy. Drill, drill, drill is not an energy policy. You cannot 
drill your way to energy independence. All you can do is become more 
dependent.
  I'm a former D.A., and it's a lot like being addicted to drugs. When 
you see drug dealers, people who are addicted to drugs, all they want 
are more and more drugs. We can not be addicted to oil. We can't just 
constantly look for more and more oil. That is part of the solution, 
but it is only a part of the solution.
  It's also the renewables. It's natural gas. It's geothermal. It is 
cellulosic ethanol. It's biofuels. That is the future. That is what our 
country should be looking at. That's real energy policy. That's the 
futuristic kind of energy policy that I want to pass on to my children 
so that my children don't have to be saddled with the same problems 
that our generation is saddled with. Those are the kinds of things that 
we should be doing, as any good parent would do.
  I heard my colleagues a little earlier talking about natural gas 
reserves. I'm fortunate to represent an area in Upstate New York that 
actually has one of the largest shale deposits of natural gas, the 
Marcellus Shale Deposit, which extends from northern Pennsylvania into 
southern New York and into eastern Ohio.
  There, the Federal Government doesn't control or own any of that 
land. That's privately owned by farmers, by individuals, and we're 
starting to see some oil companies leasing small amounts of that 
property. Well, there's no governmental regulation here. There's no 
difficulty in terms of getting leases. If the energy companies want to 
come out and get the leases, they can do it. It is available to them. 
So, when we hear these arguments that Congress is putting some kinds of 
limitations on the ability of energy companies to drill, that just 
isn't the case. That isn't factual.
  What we need to develop in this country is a real long-term energy 
policy that deals not only with the short term but with the middle term 
and with the long term. There are a couple of other points that I think 
are very important that I would just like to touch on.
  Recently, we passed a piece of legislation that required the 
President to stop buying into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That was 
critically important. Additionally, we need to do a little more. 
Perhaps we need to have the President release some of the petroleum 
that is in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

                              {time}  2215

  You know, it's there for a reason. It's there for an emergency. I 
would say there is an emergency that we're in today. And perhaps that's 
the kind of thing that the President should be looking at now.
  Additionally, in Congress we've taken some intermediate steps like we 
reappropriated the Amtrak bill. That's critical. We've passed 
legislation that provides for rural mass transit. In a time when energy 
prices are high, people are going to rely more upon mass transit.
  That is the kind of strategy that we need, a full-scale energy 
strategy that deals not just with drilling, that deals not just with 
nuclear, that deals not just with renewables, but across the board.
  So I think that is clearly what the Democratic majority is working 
towards. It's working towards trying to move America off our addiction 
to finite resources like gas and oil and move it into something that 
makes more sense for our future, for our children, and for our 
grandchildren.
  I would like to thank the gentleman very much for yielding the time 
to me.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. No problem. Anytime you're ready, Mr. Arcuri. 
I'm no longer 30, but I'm part of the ``Something'' part. So you're 
always welcome in the 30-Something Working Group. And I want to thank 
you for bringing those facts to the floor. I think it's important the 
more Members we get from different parts of the country sharing what 
they know, what their constituents share with them when they go back 
home, I think it's important for the Members to hear that. The 
diversity of ideas makes this body great.
  We do have some great ideas coming from the other side of the aisle, 
too, but it's important that we don't do an us-against-them kind of 
atmosphere. I believe in bipartisanship. We've had more bipartisanship 
votes on major pieces of legislation in the 110th Congress than we have 
had in the previous Congresses. I think that's what the American people 
are looking for, Mr. Speaker, and I think that's what the Members would 
like to have.
  But in a time of crisis, the last thing that we need to do is to have 
the kind of dragging down of efforts that we're trying to carry out, of 
saying, Well, the Democrats won't allow us to do this; they will not 
allow us to do that. If it's a body of a piece of legislation, just 
because one of your Members doesn't need that legislation doesn't mean 
that it's bad legislation.
  We're in the majority just like the Republicans were in the majority 
once upon a time. And we're leading on behalf of the American people. A 
number of the votes that we've taken on energy, we celebrate a number 
of Republican votes being with us on those votes. That's the reason 
some of them become law. That's the reason why we are able to override 
the President.
  So we cannot defend the actions of the President when he's wrong, and 
I commend some of my colleagues on the other side of being a part of 
that, but there are a number in double digits, and sometimes, you know, 
into the hundreds that defend the President to protect the White House. 
We're not up here to protect the White House. If it's a Democrat or 
Republican there, we weren't sent up here to say, ``Oh, we're here to 
protect the White House.'' We're here to protect the American people. 
So I think that's important.
  I want to mention a few things of what we've done as Democrats.

[[Page 15311]]

  I'm going to read, Mr. Speaker, from the 2008 letter on July 8 that 
the Speaker sent the President about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
which we call the SPR, signed bipartisan legislation into law that I 
talked about earlier to urge the President to release some of the oil, 
that refined fuel, from the Strategic Oil Reserve. Now this is not the 
first time. This is not something that the Speaker said, Oh, let's just 
do this because of the first time that we would have ever done it in 
the country. That's not the case. Desert Shield, Desert Storm drawdown 
by George W. Bush I, withdraw from the Strategic Oil Reserve on January 
17, 1991. That brought gas prices down.
  Also, we started looking at President Bill Clinton in 2000, released 
30 million barrels from the Strategic Oil Reserve, and I will talk 
about what it did to gas prices. It happened then.
  And in 2005, this President, President Bush, after Hurricane Katrina 
drew down, offered some 30 million gallons out of there which brought 
prices down. I think that it's important that everyone understands 
that.
  The President can make a decision that can bring gas prices down now. 
Will it be forever? No, it will not be forever. Is the Reserve at 97 
percent full? Yes, it is. Authorities said that it should be at 85 
percent. But we're at 97 percent.
  What's happening right now, probably not to the Members of this 
Chamber because we're paid beyond what the average Americans would be 
paid, over some $160,000, and a lot of our travel is per diem travel as 
we move around our districts, reimbursement for gas. The Members here 
are probably not affected. But for those individuals who don't have per 
diem reimbursement, for those individuals who know what it means to 
punch in every day and punch out every day, for those individuals that 
are trying to make it from point A to point B, who have a family member 
with a health care crisis and have to make the decision whether you're 
going to make that hour-long trip or not based on the price of gas, 
being able to release fuel from the Strategic Oil Reserve would be the 
right thing to do.
  What happens? We're talking fact, not fiction. Using the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, it brings down prices of oil. In 1991, did I mention 
earlier? It brought it down 33.4 percent. In 2000, it brought it down 
18.7 percent. In 2005, it brought it down 9.1 percent. And it would 
even bring it down even more if we were to do it now.
  I say all of that, Mr. Speaker and Members, that as we start looking 
at alternative fuel, as we start looking at what Big Oil should be 
doing versus trying to say this is the last day of school, let's get 
more leases and push this kind of drill thing as though that's the 
answer--because if that was the answer, we wouldn't be at over $4 a 
gallon that individuals are paying for gas. If you are fortune enough 
to have a Pontiac Grand Prix, it costs $62.74 for you to fill it up, 
leave alone someone that may have a Honda Accord. An Accord, it costs 
$68.26. If you happen to have a Chevy Impala, lucky enough to have one, 
$62.73 and $2,798 a year.
  A Chevy Suburban, many small businesses have to be able to move 
around big loads. You have $124 at the pump, some $4,391 that one may 
spend a year. A Ford Escape costs $60.88 to be able to fill up, and 
many small businesses have Ford F10 trucks that cost $113.83 to be able 
to fill that up.
  I think that's important. For those individuals who are paying 
through the nose right here, right now understand what it means.
  I'm going to close with this. A lot of air travel. A lot of people 
want to take trips this summer. Cannot take those trips, cannot reunite 
with family, cannot go on that business trip that they needed to go on 
to be able to keep that small business going because of the prices of 
flying on airlines right now, leave alone trying to take something with 
you. You get to the airport, now that's $35, sometimes $50, sometimes 
$100 to carry a bag on the plane to check it, to get on the plane.
  You better get some water because if you're trying to get water on 
the plane, that's $5, leave alone a bag of mixed nuts or some sort of 
potato chips. They even sell them now, I mean it's almost like $10 a 
pack, okay. Leave alone the price of the ticket.
  And what we find out from the chairman of Transportation, if we were 
to go into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it would be a $10 drop in 
the price per barrel of oil as a result. It would save $420 million per 
year for Northwest Airlines. You got folks getting laid off because 
folks walking around here talking about drilling only and not talking 
about some of the things we could do now to be able to save this 
economy.
  It would bring about also a $840 million saving per year to United 
Airlines, a $900 million savings for American Airlines, another airline 
that's laid off thousands of people.
  So when we look at this, we're looking at what we're paying because 
of the inaction of the White House. All we can do is put pressure on 
the White House. We ask our friends on the other side to join us on 
that. Some have. We're asking for more to do so. We're asking for the 
American people to not only work in a way of moving in a more greener 
way, but we also want to incentivize you in doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, it's always a great honor to come before the 
House. I'm glad that Mr. Arcuri joined me for a short while tonight, 
and we want to thank not only the Democratic leadership but all the 
Members of Congress that are about the solution as it relates to these 
gas prices, as it relates to moving in the direction, a new direction 
we look at in alternative energy; and it will be a brighter day not 
only for this country but also as it relates to the whole military 
issue that I will talk about the next time we come to the floor. I'm 
talking about what the military spends, which is the largest consumer 
of energy and which may save fuel on the face of the earth when it 
comes down to one entity.
  With that, we yield back the balance of our time.

                          ____________________