Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I reserve my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas. First of all, there is common agreement here. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this. People are suffering. They cannot afford spending more than $4 a gallon for gas, and folks in my part of the country, the cold weather region, are living with enormous anxiety about how they're going to pay $5 a gallon for home heating fuel. So the problem that we face is real and it is urgent. I disagree with one of the authors of the energy policy that got us here, and that is the former senator from Texas, Phil Gramm, who is advising their Presidential candidate. And he recently announced that we really don't have a problem. He said, ``You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession.'' And he's saying that America is a nation of whiners. You know what, people have a right to complain about an energy policy where they can't afford to fill up their gas tank. They're living in enormous anxiety when the fuel truck shows up to heat their home, and they have to make decisions between food and fuel, between medicine that they need and the fuel that's required to keep their home warm. This is about rejecting the energy policy that has failed us and has brought us here. You know, my friend from Texas made a statement that I agree with. He said the oil companies should be our friends. That is right. Oil companies have been very good at what they do--exploring for oil, finding oil, refining oil, producing oil, and getting it to the market. But the policies that we've had in place since President Bush became the leader of this country have enriched the oil companies. But the oil companies, in turn, with over $500 billion in profits, have not reinvested that money into either producing where they can or moving to an alternative energy policy. You know, one of the folks raised the question as to whether or not this is a ``fig leaf'' bill, whether there's rhetoric in this bill because we're talking about 20 million new acres that has a proven capacity of at least 10 billion barrels of oil. Is it a question of Congress not making lands available for drilling onshore and offshore when we know already there are 68 million acres onshore and offshore available, and this bill makes it clear we want to make 20 million acres more available? Is it a question of lands where there is oil available being denied access? Or is it a failure on the part of the oil companies to invest? You know, ExxonMobil, in one quarter, made about $40 billion in profit; for 1 year, $40 billion in profit. Did they put that profit into new drilling technology, into exploiting some of the leases that they have, into getting oil out of the ground and into the market? No. They spent $32 billion buying back their own stock. Basically what you're seeing is that the oil companies that have been doing extraordinarily well under this energy policy that's got us to this crisis have not been reinvesting their money, but they've put their capital on strike. They've been buying back shares and maintaining the value of their stock at the expense of exploiting the oil fields that they have immediate access to. Well, I want to go through some of the arguments that my friend from Texas made. He accused the Democratic Congress of a mind-boggling refusal to increase production. That's just flat out wrong. You've got the 68 million acres where the oil companies right now have the legal right to go in and drill, and they haven't done it. That's not an act of Congress, that's a corporate decision made by the major oil companies. Second, he said that the energy companies don't go there because they are ``dry holes.'' That's just flat out wrong. I mentioned earlier I actually do think the energy companies are good at what they do. They don't waste their money or their stockholder money. And when they decide to spend their money on purchasing a lease, it's because they've come to their own independent conclusion that it's worth that investment, that there is oil in the ground or under the sea. So those oil companies have access to it. Why don't they drill? And also, why aren't there drills available, the drilling rigs for offshore drilling and drilling rigs on land? There's two reasons: one, the oil companies are doing great sitting on these leases; the longer that they wait, the more they make. If they bought a lease when oil was at $30 a barrel and then it goes to $75 a barrel and up to $130 or $140 a barrel, that's money in the bank. The longer they wait, the more they make. A second reason is, they aren't willing to risk the profits in increasing production. As long as there is a shortage of supply, the price stays up. And their profits are exploding as we speak. So there is an enormous amount of responsibility that we have and expect from the oil companies.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Res. 1350 provides that it shall be in order on the legislative day of Thursday, July 17, 2008, for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to a measure concerning the domestic production of oil and natural gas. The energy crisis that we face is real. It requires immediate attention and short and long-term action. As a Nation, we have in our reserves less than 2 percent of the proven oil and gas reserves in the world. But with 4 percent of the population, we consume nearly 25 percent of the world's oil. That's not sustainable over the long term. We must take this opportunity now to provide relief immediately to people paying over $4 at the pump, $5 for home heating oil, and we need a commitment to a new energy future focused on creating clear and clean domestic alternatives. Under suspension of the House rules, this body will take up later the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands bill. The bill promotes the responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas on the 20 million acres that make up the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. That would provide an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil, a higher estimate than the consensus estimate of oil that is available in ANWR. The DRILL Act, as it is called, will increase oil production and do it sooner than other alternative proposals. It will facilitate also the construction of existing pipelines within 5 miles of where they already are located. So its environmental footprint will be minimal, and engineering challenges also minimal. This will help move oil and natural gas to the market. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1350 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona, a leader in solar energy, alternative energy, Congresswoman Giffords.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to refer people to the photograph that was just on display when the gentleman from Oregon was speaking. It showed the President of the United States hand in hand with King Abdullah as they were about to go into a meeting to discuss oil. And the President of the United States had a mission, and it was to ask the leader of another country, not particularly a friendly country to us, to solve our problem by increasing production of oil in Saudi Arabia in order to get us out of the jamb we are in here in America. The question that we face in this country is whether or not we are going to address in the manner of a confident country, of an ingenious country, of a country willing to take on its own problems, the challenge of changing our energy future. The President's approach, as was described by Mr. DeFazio from Oregon, is to drill yesterday, to drill today, to drill tomorrow, and to drill forever. And the news is in. Oil is not in infinite supply. And if we need any better authority about the limitations of oil, think about Mr. T. Boone Pickens who made a very successful career as a Texas oilman, and he points out the obvious: if you have 87 million barrels of oil consumed today, you have production at 86 million, the proven reserves are limited, the capacity to actually get more out of the ground is somewhat limited, it can be expanded but not at infinite levels, it is time to begin yesterday to plan an alternative energy strategy. Mr. Speaker, a self-confident country does not put its head in the sand and ignore the problems that it faces; it challenges them. It accepts the burden of responsibility. It has the confidence that we have the people, the talent, and the political will to make that transition to an alternative energy economy. The American people have that figured out. They know if we are going to create jobs and strengthen our economy, we have to know that green jobs are good jobs and that taking on the challenge of filling up the gas tank in a way that uses alternative energy and creates jobs is the pathway to the future. So this debate is really a fork in the road. It is between two very clear choices. The oilmen in the White House, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, believe that the fuel of the future is oil. They think that we can drill our way out of the situation we are in. Americans, I believe, have come to the conclusion that is wrong and will fail and that the pathway to the future is alternative energy.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The oil companies have made $125 billion. Record profits again this year. How are they spending that money? Are they investing in refineries, are they investing it in renewable energy, are they investing in drilling rigs or offshore facilities to drill in those areas? No. They are buying back their stock. The oil companies, energy producers, should be part of the solution, and they should be using the technical ability that they have, the extraordinary skills that they have and the extraordinary profits that they have to help us find a way to an energy independent future, and it's not happening. We know that, bottom line, everything we can do short-term, we can do, but the idea that we can do instantly something is a stretch. But what we can do, we should do. On speculation, we are considering legislation now, and as we speak, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson, is conducting 3 days of hearings to try to squeeze the speculator instead of having the speculators squeeze us; on not filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and topping it off. I am demanding of the oil companies that they start producing oil in those 68 million acres where they actually have leases and the right to be producing that oil. They could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil a day. Do you know what we produce domestically right now? Five million barrels of oil a day. It could lead to a doubling of the production. So the fact is there are things that can be done that we are promoting that they be done aggressively. We are insisting that the oil companies be accountable to use and produce on the leases that they have, yet they refuse to do it. And we have been consistently and aggressively moving for a new energy policy that is going to create green jobs, that is going to give us much greater independence in foreign affairs, and is going to help us clean up our environment. A confident nation is one that faces directly the problems that it has. And when it comes to the question of energy, what symbolized for me the energy policy that this country has had was a front page picture of the President of the United States, hand-in-hand with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as they were about to go into a meeting. In the custom of the Arab States, they walked into that holding hands. The purpose of that meeting was for the President of the United States, the greatest country on Earth, to implore the King to increase production of oil. You know what? A confident nation, a nation that takes on the challenge of solving its own problems, does not go hat in hand to others and ask them, who are not our friends, incidentally, to solve our problems. We take that challenge on ourselves. We take it on because it's our responsibility. We also take it on because we know that in the doing of it, we are going to create jobs, clean our environment, and give us much more latitude in foreign policy. So this debate on energy, misplaced as it is in this matter of electronic records and restoring the responsibility of Congress to the American people to conduct oversight and to preserve a historical record, important as that is, the argument on energy, the question of energy is the profound question that this country faces economically for the next generation, and the challenge will be whether we are willing to face that squarely and take it upon ourselves to solve our problems, or we are going to continue to be dependent on oil companies that have not played on behalf of the American people and on foreign countries that are not our friends; Venezuela, Middle East States, Russia. We have to take on this challenge ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I will just close by saying, going back to this bill, that it's an extraordinarily important bill, not just so that we can preserve records, but that we in Congress can restore confidence to the American people that we are a cop on the beat. This bill makes significant and long overdue changes to document retention systems that were outdated and inefficient. The vast amount of government business that is currently conducted over e-mail requires that we update the law regulating record retention. Government e-mails should not be deleted or destroyed, as they are as important in revealing to the public and historians as paper documents, and we all know that. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1318 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart Of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2208) to provide for a standby loan program for certain coal-to-liquid projects. All points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Science and Technology; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by Representative Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.) The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. So what do we have? We have a situation where the oil companies are not drilling where they can, and we are saying to them, Drill where you can. We also have a situation where the oil companies, the longer they wait, the more they make. If you're sitting on leases and oil in the ground, under the sea was $35 a barrel when you bid that lease, then it went to $75, then it went to $100, and now it's $140 a barrel, you're making money just having that in the bank. So the oil companies, the longer they wait, the more they make. We know that oil company profits are exploding.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1318 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5811, the Electronic Message Preservation Act. The resolution, as you know, provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule makes no amendments in order because no amendments were submitted for consideration. H.R. 5811 is an important bill introduced by Chairman Waxman that modernizes the requirements of the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act to ensure that vital government records are preserved for historical posterity. The Electronic Message Preservation Act will make certain that we retain important Presidential records by directing the Archivist to establish standards for the capture, management, and preservation of White House and Federal agency e-mails. The Archivist of the U.S. will set new standards for tracking Federal e-mail records and annually will certify whether the records management controls put in place by the President meet those standards and comply with the act. The bill will protect American history so that we will not lose important records in an antiquated record system that exists now, but it will also guide and enforce document retention policies within the executive branch. The bill is very necessary. Through its investigations, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee discovered that in one instance the current White House had lost hundreds of days of e-mail, and in other instances allowed numerous White House officials, including Senior Advisor Karl Rove, to use Republican National Committee e-mail accounts for government business--improper, obviously. E-mails sent by White House officials over these RNC accounts related to official government business, and potentially hundreds of thousands of these e-mails have been destroyed. In addition, the White House did grossly mismanage its own e-mail records and ignored concerns that were raised not by Congress, but by the National Archives, about the way it was storing e-mails. Further, the current print-and-file record retention systems are both unreliable and not in step with modern advances in technology. For example, when President Bush came into office, the White House had an automated system in place for archiving e-mails, but in 2002, the White House decided to abandon this archiving system and replace it with an ad hoc manual system, doing so in an electronic age. White House officials were warned by the technical staff of their own White House staff and by National Archives that this ad hoc manual system for managing e-mails presented an obvious threat and serious threat of losing records. And the White House's own technical expert said the system was, to use the word of that expert, ``primitive'' and carried a high risk that ``data would be lost.'' Yet, despite these warnings, the White House has still not put into place a reliable, up-to-date system for preserving e-mails. This bill will change that. It will require the Archivist to establish specific standards for the management and preservation of electronic messages, including the capability to retrieve messages through electronic searches. These standards will help prevent a situation like what is happening under this administration. H.R. 5811 directs e-mail records to be stored electronically and removes ambiguity in the current law that was established before we even had e- mail. The bill and the manager's amendment were approved by voice vote in the committee because it is timely and it's necessary. I urge the passage and a ``yes'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1318 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I'm going to approach the podium to use some charts. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about the preservation of electronic records. The debate has turned into a discussion of our energy policy. And there are two reasons why we would be discussing energy instead of the substance of the actual bill. One is that our friends on the other side don't have anything to say about the importance of the preservation of electronic records. Two is they want to use the opportunity of floor time to make a case, their case, about energy. I intend to respond to both of those issues. First of all, I want to go back to what this legislation is about. It's about the preservation of the historical record for the American people. It's also about the preservation of the records of the administration so that in the future when any Congress wants to hold any President accountable, there will be documentation of what has happened in that administration. It is extraordinarily important that this Congress restore its constitutional function of insisting on accountability for the American people. We have three branches of government, and one of them has been asleep for the 6 years going into the year 2006, and that was Congress, the legislative representative of the people of this country, who demand and are entitled to accountability. If you do not have the preservation of the records of their government--these are not records belonging to the President. They're not records that belong to the executive branch. It's not for them to decide ``yes'' or ``no'' that we will preserve these records. This is a right of the American people. It's their property. And what this electronic records preservation does is say that you cannot use the paper system that doesn't work in an electronic age in effect to conceal from the American people what you did. It is overdue. And to take this debate and inject into it another topic, as important as energy is, is to trivialize the fundamentally important responsibility that this Congress has to the American people to restore oversight and accountability. This government has make enormous mistakes and justified them by concealing information from the American people. What do you need to know more than what happened in the pathway to the war in Iraq? If the truth had been out there for the American people and for many in this body to know what the President knew and when the President knew it, what the administration knew and when they knew it, we would not be in this catastrophe for the American people called the war in Iraq. So this legislation that says that e-mail records are going to be restored and retained electronically is of profound constitutional importance to the continuation of Congress in its role as the overseer and protector of the American record and the American taxpayer. So on its merits, this legislation should be considered as of absolute vital importance to the people of this country. And we have heard no objections, and, indeed, this legislation was passed by voice vote. Now, since the issue was raised, since the debate on this profoundly important question of constitutional oversight has been hijacked to turn it into an energy debate where it really doesn't belong, I am nevertheless going to respond to the arguments. You start by this proposition. Implicit in many of the arguments that my friends on the other side made was that those of us on the Democratic side somehow don't understand the pain that the American consumer is experiencing with these record high gas prices. I have got to just speak about Vermont. What I hear about from Vermonters is fear. I've never heard this. And gas prices are tough. They are trying to figure out how to get from here to there and pay for it. They've got cars that they don't get great mileage. They are doubling up. They are doing what they can. But, bottom line, the thing they are terrified about and they have real anxiety is how are they going to heat their homes next year. We have to heat our homes there. And, folks, when they see that gas delivery truck show up, and last year it was like $2.50 a gallon, it's going to be $5 a gallon next year, and these families don't have the money to pay $1,000, $1,500, $2,000 to fill up a tank. They don't know what they're going to do. And we are going to see Vermonters who are doubling up. Generations are going to be living together because they don't know how they are going to pay that bill. So, believe me, there's not a single Member in this House, Republican or Democrat, who doesn't profoundly understand the impact that this is having on everyday people, on our small businesses, on our economy. So we can go back and forth with the accusations and we can go back and forth with the slogans, or we can acknowledge the obvious. The obvious is we have to do everything that we can in the short term to try to bring relief at the pump, to try to bring pressure off the small business and the consumer. Anything in the short-term that we can do, we should do, and we should do it together. But we also have to move to a long-term energy policy that no longer allows oil to have an iron grip on our future. That is what Americans know. Short-term, what are some of the things we can do? We have done them. We stopped filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It will reduce demand by 70,000 to 90,000 barrels a day. Second, we are considering legislation for the oil companies to use the leases they have, or lose them. There's this debate about bringing production online. Obviously, supply is an issue here. In the world, we pump about 86 billion barrels a day. We consume about 87 billion barrels a day. But the fact is that the slogans that I am hearing about just opening up other offshore areas in ANWR totally ignores the current reality, and that is that the oil companies, that are very good at what they do, have leases, existing leases that they pay good money on, on 68 million acres of land. That land, their leases, their leases exceed by 2\1/2\ times the area of the State of Ohio, the Minority Leader Boehner's district; 2 times the State of Illinois; 2\1/2\ times the size of Pennsylvania. These are leases on Federal lands, onshore and offshore. What are the oil companies doing? Not much. They are producing oil on a fraction of the leaseholds that they have.