[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4910-H4911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESPONSIBILITY OF HIGH GAS PRICES FALLS WITH THE WHITE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, many Americans are becoming very upset about
the great and tremendous rise in gas prices around the country, and
certainly they should be upset about this. Let me just point out a few
things though.
The price of gas could be and should be much, much lower than it is;
but in 1995, the President vetoed legislation passed by this Congress
that would have allowed oil production in less than 3,000 acres of the
19.8 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
I represent a big part of the great Smoky Mountains National Park,
which is by far the most heavily visited national park in the country.
Ten million visitors come there each year, and they think it is huge
and beautiful, and it is. It is only about 600,000 acres in size.
This Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 35 times the size of the
Great Smokey Mountains, 19.8 million acres. Of that 19.8 million acres,
1.5 million acres is a flat brown tundra without a tree or bush or
anything growing on it. It is called the coastal plain of Alaska.
The U.S. Geologic Survey says, if we drill for oil on less than 3,000
acres of that 1.5 million acre coastal plain, that there is potentially
16 billion barrels of oil there, which is 30 years of Saudi oil, yet
the President vetoed that even though it can be done in an
environmentally safe way.
We started years ago drilling for oil at Prudhoe Bay. The
environmental extremists opposed that at that time saying it would wipe
out the caribou herd. There were about 6,000 caribou at that time. Now
there is over 20,000. It has been a great thing for this country.
We are far too dependent on foreign oil. Over half of our oil has to
come from foreign countries now. Yet the President vetoed this which
would have allowed us to get potentially 16 billion
[[Page H4911]]
barrels of oil. In addition to that, he signed an order putting 80
percent of that Continental Shelf off limits for oil exploration and
drilling. That is billions more barrels.
The price of gasoline could be much, much lower. If the American
people like high gas prices, they should write the White House and
thank them, because that is where the responsibility or that is where
the fault lies for the high gas prices that we have in this country
today.
I know there are some people who want higher prices. I know some of
the environmental extremists want the gas price to go to $3 or $4 a
gallon because then people would drive less and there would be less
pollution. Some people really believe that would be a good thing.
But I can tell my colleagues it would put the final nail in the
coffin of the small towns and rural areas if we let these gas pries go
to those kinds of levels.
Some people say, well, that is what they are paying over in Europe.
But the Europeans and all the others pay the same oil prices that we
do, they just add all kinds of taxes.
So we should drill and explore for much more oil in this country, try
and become much less dependent on foreign oil, and we could easily
bring down the price of gas in this country. But this administration
will not do it because they are too controlled by these environmental
extremists who almost always are real wealthy people, so they are not
hurt by high gas prices as much as the poor and lower income and the
working people of this country.
Supreme Court Decision On School Prayer
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, let me mention one other unrelated thing
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) got into, and that is
the Supreme Court decision on school prayer that was issued a couple of
days ago.
In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Zorach v. Clauson said
there is ``no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for
government to be hostile to religion and throw its weight against
efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.''
I remember, about 3 years ago, William Raspberry, the great columnist
for the Washington Post, wrote a column, and he asked a question. He
said, ``Is it not just possible that antireligious bias masquerading as
religious neutrality has cost us far more than we have been willing to
admit?''
{time} 2200
And that is a good question, tonight, Mr. Speaker. Is it not just
possible that anti-religious bias, masquerading as religious
neutrality, has cost us far more than we have been willing to
acknowledge?
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) pointed out this Congress
opens every session with prayer, and yet we will not allow this to be
done at school events. There was a very poor decision by the Supreme
Court a couple of days ago, and I think our Founding Fathers would be
shocked if they knew the extent to which people are going to in this
country to keep people from saying voluntary prayers.
____________________