[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 82 (Tuesday, June 15, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3968-H3973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4513, RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT
SITING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2004, AND H.R. 4529, ARTIC COSTAL PLAIN
SURFACE MINING IMPROVMENT ACT OF 2004
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 672 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 672
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
4513) to provide that in preparing an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement required under
section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
with respect to any action authorizing a renewable energy
project, no Federal agency is required to identify
alternative project locations or actions other than the
proposed action and the
[[Page H3969]]
no action alternative, and for other purposes. The bill shall
be considered as read for amendment. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 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 minority member of
the Committee on Resources; (2) the amendment printed in part
A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, if offered by Representative Pombo of California
or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention
of any point of order or demand for division of the question,
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4529) to
provide for exploration, development, and production of oil
and gas resources on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska, to
resolve outstanding issues relating to the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, to benefit the coal
miners of America, and for other purposes. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate on the bill, with 50 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Resources and 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment
in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if
offered by Representative Pombo of California or his
designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for ten minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
{time} 1045
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 672 is a modified, closed
rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 4513, the Renewable Energy
Project Siting Improvement Act of 2004; and H.R. 4529, the Arctic
Coastal Plain and Surface Mining Improvement Act of 2004.
For consideration of H.R. 4513, the rule provides 1 hour of general
debate and makes in order the manager's amendment printed in part A of
the Committee on Rules report. The rule provides one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
For consideration of H.R. 4529, the rule provides 1 hour of general
debate and makes in order the substitute amendment printed in part B of
the Committee on Rules report. The rule also provides one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, energy diversity is vital to our economy and our
national security. We must continue to explore affordable and
sustainable power supplies. Whether we look to wind, solar, biomass, or
geothermal energy, we ought to have a straightforward method for
granting project approval to future energy activities.
H.R. 4513 streamlines the process by which environmentally
responsible renewable energy projects are considered and approved by
Federal agencies holding jurisdiction over the project. The current
system of environmental review does not allow for an expedited process
in approving or disapproving a submitted project. By simplifying the
review procedures, we can improve protection for the environment by
directing our efforts to the most reasonable projects.
Since renewable energy projects are largely ``place-based,''
occurring in the area where the resources are found, the only decision
needed is whether to authorize or not authorize the proposal. The
agency should reply simply on the merits and the environmental effects
of the proposal.
The provisions of H.R. 4513 also succeed in protecting capital
investments by reducing the regulatory risk of doing business. The
restructured system of approval will encourage the commitment to
capital, to alternative energy sources without fear of extensive
litigation, requiring commonsense analysis; modification through
mitigation; and, if mitigation is not good enough, denial of the
permit.
Mr. Speaker, just as important as meeting our energy needs with
affordable, reliable, secure, and sustainable power supplies, the
underlying bill also creates jobs for Americans, from highly skilled
labor to a stimulation of local construction and manufacturing jobs. In
general, wind power creates 2.77 jobs for every megawatt produced;
solar panels create 7.24 jobs per megawatt; and geothermal energy
projects create 5.67 jobs per megawatt.
The commonsense changes in the underlying bill are good for our
economy, while being good for our environment.
Mr. Speaker, the second bill brought for consideration under this
rule is H.R. 4529, the Arctic Coastal Plain and Surface Mining
Improvement Act of 2004. The bill establishes a competitive oil and gas
leasing program for exploration, development, and production of oil and
natural gas resources on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge.
This area is the largest unexplored, potentially productive on-shore
basin in the United States. And the development of the coastal plain
could significantly reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign
resources. In fact, it is estimated that we could produce between 1
million and 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, the equivalent of 1
million to 1.3 million barrels of oil we currently import daily from
Saudi Arabia.
Under H.R. 4529, additional requirements are established to ensure
that oil and natural gas activities do not have significant adverse
effects on wildlife and the environment. It ensures that the best
commercially available technology is utilized to achieve these
environmental protections.
Furthermore, not only is there a limit of 2,000 acres surface
disturbance, but the Secretary of the Interior may also designate up to
45,000 acres on the coastal plain as protected for unique or sensitive
areas. These environmental controls would be the strongest ever adopted
into Federal law and would not interfere with any existing State or
Federal regulations.
Exploration and future development of the coastal plain also
generates jobs. Based on potential sales by oil and gas producers and
field surface companies, estimates show that the possible job creation
is in the tens of thousands.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to conservation and development of
alternative energies, any comprehensive and sensible energy plan must
include increased domestic production to reduce our reliance on foreign
oil. The House recognized that fact when we passed an energy conference
report with strong bipartisan support of 246 to 180.
The case for increasing domestic production is compelling. In 2004,
the United States relied on foreign imports for 62 percent of its crude
oil needs; and according to the Energy Information Administration, that
will increase to 70 percent by the year 2025. Even during the oil
embargo and subsequent energy crisis in 1973, imports accounted for
only 35 percent of the U.S. crude oil.
Since 2001, consumers have seen the average price of a gallon of
gasoline increase by 52 percent and home heating oil by 33 percent. The
price of a barrel of oil increased by 74 percent during that time, from
just over $23 a barrel in 2001 to more than $40 a barrel today. To ease
that dependency in just the past 3 years, we have twice approved
legislation allowing for the development of the coastal plain. It is
time to finally move forward to reduce our Nation's foreign dependency
and explore our oil and gas production on the coastal plain.
H.R. 4529 also reauthorizes the Abandoned Mine Claims Program, the
AML, for an additional 15 years. This bill continues the industry's
commitment to the remediation of abandoned mines which protects
communities all across this Nation. Unused mines can sometimes appear
to be adventurous places, especially for children. Yet they are
actually extremely dangerous and cause too many needless deaths each
year. The reclamation of these mines is essential to keep the
communities around unused sites as safe as possible.
[[Page H3970]]
H.R. 4529 additionally resolves the historic State share reclamation
funding issue by providing for reimbursement of funds owed to States.
Another key component of the legislation provides for the permanent
solvency of the Combined Benefits Fund, which provides health care
benefits for retired miners and their dependents. This will be achieved
with a Federal share of money received from future oil production on
the coastal plain, providing long-term solvency for the Combined
Benefits Fund and future health care premiums of those coal miners
currently being funded by the so-called ``reachback'' companies.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Resources, in consultation with the
Committee on Ways and Means, has worked on these commonsense and fair
reforms for some time, and I would like to commend both the chairmen
and the ranking members of these committees for their tireless support
of so many issues surrounding our Nation's energy resources and ask my
colleagues to support the underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Reynolds), my friend, for yielding me this time, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule
and the two underlying resolutions. Let me say that one more time: the
two underlying resolutions.
It is double-coupon day here in the House of Representatives. In two
separate instances today, Republicans are forcing the House to consider
two bills under one rule. Adding insult to injury, every rule we will
consider today is closed, and none of the underlying bills have been
considered in substantive part by the respective committees of
jurisdiction.
With the exception of two manager's amendments, this rule allows for
zero amendments to either bill. Zero amendments for the people's House
to consider. Zero amendments to improve two bills that incorporate in
the main only the ideas of their two sponsors without the input of
anyone else.
The majority has skirted the legislative process, shut Members out,
and stifled debate before it even begins. All this so it can pass a few
politically driven bills that do nothing to address escalating gasoline
costs and have zero chance of becoming law. Even the chairman of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton), said last night in the Committee on Rules that he thought
bringing these bills to the floor prior to committee consideration was
shortsighted.
Just last week, Congress heard calls from the American public to set
aside its differences and work in a bipartisan fashion. How short
Republican memories are.
The rule we are considering at this moment is almost oxymoronic. On
one hand, the rule provides for consideration of a bill addressing
renewable resources. On the other hand, the same rule provides for
consideration of another bill that authorizes drilling for nonrenewable
resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the country's
most pristine areas. Republican policies just do not make any sense.
While I certainly commend the majority for finally jumping on the
renewable resource band wagon, their approach toward energy policy
greatly misses the mark.
Each energy-related bill this body is considering today focuses on
increasing production, while doing nothing to curb consumption. These
bills abandon our responsibility to protect the environment, and they
lay the groundwork for the construction of a new wave of refineries and
energy plants in low-income and historically underserved areas, without
protecting the health and well-being of the residents of these
communities.
The Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act and the U.S.
Refinery Revitalization Act, which will be considered under the next
rule, unjustly streamline the Federal authorization process for new
refineries by targeting low-income and high unemployment areas for new
sites.
I offered an amendment to the U.S. Refinery Act last night in the
Committee on Rules that would have required the Secretary of Energy to
just consider any adverse effect that the siting of a new refinery
would have on the community in which the site would be located. It also
required a 90-day public comment period to ensure that those living
near a future refinery site be given an opportunity to voice their
concerns.
Mr. Speaker, we all know the effects that Superfund sites have had on
underserved communities. We have all heard the stories of cancer, birth
defects, prolonged illnesses, and death caused by contamination at
these sites.
{time} 1100
Today, this body is laying the foundation for a new wave of Superfund
sites and all of their downfalls. My amendment was fair and responsible
to those who will be most affected by a new site. But as they so often
do, the majority denied the House from considering a common sense
amendment. In this case, Democrats are only secondary victims. The real
victims are those who could soon find themselves living next to a new
refinery which the Federal Government encouraged an energy corporation
to build. Moreover, under this scenario, Congress is not taking the
necessary steps to consider the health needs of those living in that
community.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a responsibility to the American people to
develop and implement a responsible and long-term energy plan.
Democrats agree with Republicans on this. However, Democrats also
believe that all of us, from both sides of the aisle, need to be
involved in the discussion. Our long-term energy plan must focus on
reducing consumption instead of increasing production. America's energy
woes will continue until we change America's mindset. Mass transit,
hybrid automobiles, increasing CAFE standards, and significant
involvement in renewable resources are the only way we will accomplish
this.
I was saying to staff working with me that 40 years ago I ran for the
State legislature in Florida, and what I was advocating at that time
was not rocket science. Forty years ago I talked about us having mass
transit and using solar energy and using wind and renewable resources.
Forty years since I now am in the House of Representatives and what we
were still doing is talking rather than acting on the consumption side
trying to reduce same. None of the underlying pieces of legislation
address any of these issues and the process in which they are being
brought to the floor is downright reckless, and we continue this policy
which began a few weeks back of bringing up separate bills under the
same rule. Any bill, any bill that blocks Members of the House of
Representatives, the people's House, from offering an amendment is
closed. And Republicans have made it clear that debate on the House
floor is not open for business. I think that that is a mistake on their
behalf and I hearken back to my friends in the majority and how it was
that they railed against Democrats in another era for closed rules.
That is all you could hear on talk radio, closed rules.
Well, I can tell the American public that all you are getting from
this Republican majority are closed rules, which shuts out debate not
only of Democrats but Republicans. This is the people's House and
closed rules do not give the people their voice.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying pieces of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
covered a lot of ground in his opening remarks, and I think with the
basis of the four bills that we were considering we need to review a
few things to set the record clearly straight.
First, the gentleman and I agree. There should be an energy policy.
This House had ample debate on an energy policy. The other body had
ample debate on an energy policy. And then we came together as we sent
our conferees with the other body's conferees and we came together with
a hammered agreement between the two bodies. The House passed that
agreement and the House bills were met with the Democratic minority's
obstructionism in the other body. And if we would have had a
comprehensive energy policy in 2001, we would not have some of the
problems we have here today.
[[Page H3971]]
The average price of a gallon of gasoline has increased by 52
percent, from $1.34 a gallon in 2001 to $2.05 today. U.S. imports of
oil have increased by more than 10 percent. The price of a barrel of
oil increased by 74 percent from just over $23 a barrel in 2001 to more
than $40 a barrel today, all while the Senate obstructionism on the
Democratic side held up an ample debate of the conference committee
report.
The cost of home heating oil, which has a real impact to the
Northeast where I come from, has increased by more than 33 percent
since 2001. The cost of natural gas to heat America's homes has
increased by 92 percent. The U.S. has sent more than $300 billion to
foreign nations for oil. This amounts to a massive export in American
jobs, national security and our economic growth and vitality.
The Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has recently testified
that energy prices are the single greatest threat to job creation and
to the continued growth of an otherwise burgeoning economy. And so if
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) agrees with me that we should
have an energy policy then it would have been nice to see a conference
report just passed by the other body and we would have law today.
But now when we look at four pieces of legislation established under
two rules, I will remind my colleagues that while the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) was discussing his amendments, it was for
another rule that will come behind there. It was not on the rule that
we are now considering in the debate before us. As a matter of fact, in
addition to the two manager's amendments which the rule provides for,
there was only one other amendment and it was offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), and I wanted to find why in my view
as a member of the Committee on Rules it was not made in order. And so
again in the legislation before us there was only one other amendment
that came before the Committee on Rules other than the two manager's
amendments, the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Kanjorski). And what
it did in the amendment, instead of paying the combined benefits fund
through the Federal share of money received from future oil production
on the coastal plain, the Kanjorski amendment would provide tax credits
to the States to bond the issue.
This approach would amount to an estimated $20 billion in bonds,
which scores at about $7 billion. In contrast, the approach used in the
underlying bill costs only an estimated $2 to $3 billion, which is not
only a substantial decrease in the cost to the Federal Government but
it is paid for.
As we look at the debate that this body has had on energy policy on
the ANWR issue, the full Committee on Resources had a hearing in March
of 2003. There was a full committee markup on the overall energy
package, including ANWR. The House then approved the energy bill with
ANWR in it in April of 2003 and the previous House vote on ANWR was in
2001.
When we look at the AML issue, which is included in the rule today,
H.R. 313, the Coal Accountability and Retired Employee Act of the 21st
Century, was introduced by the ranking member of the Committee on
Resources and is a major component to this ANWR/AML bill.
On October 1, 2003 the full Committee on Resources considered that
bill. No amendments were offered and the bill was favorably reported to
the House by unanimous consent. H.R. 3796, the Abandoned Land Mines
Reclamation Reform Act of 2004, and H.R. 3778, the Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Program Extension and Reform Act of 2004, were both subject
to a Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing on March 30,
2004. Portions of each of these bills are included in the text of this
ANWR/AML bill.
Finally, on the renewable energy portion that is in this rule, not to
be debated in the next rule, the H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act, discusses the NEPA in that it reduces the number of
alternatives that the decision maker has to choose from, and our
program of renewables bill draws upon the very same concept.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that in the two bills before us there has
been an ample debate by this body on times before. There have been
hearings. And in addition we had an ample Committee on Rules forum
yesterday where hearings were held and rules were sent to the floor of
these two pieces of legislation which are for consideration today as we
have outlined, 4513 and 4529, of which there was only one amendment,
which was a far more expensive plan than what is before us in the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me discuss in calm reflection my colleague from New
York's comments.
Firstly, he and I were at the Committee on Rules hearing last night
and my recollection of the two distinguished chairs, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), was
that they said that these matters as they are brought up on the
substantive agenda did not go through regular order insofar as the
committees of jurisdiction.
They did in fact say that the issues in both of these measures had
been discussed. As a matter of fact, in the gentleman from California's
(Mr. Pombo) case, he said that they had been discussed numerous times,
and I would imagine some of the issues that the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton) would agree as well. But regular order is what we are
talking about here and the committee process was not observed as it
pertains to these measures.
What I urge my friend who I serve proudly with on the Committee on
Rules is to pay attention to the comments of the chair of the Committee
on Rules in another era. What he said was if a rule is not open it is
closed and it is just that simple. So I do not understand why we keep
playing games of disingenuousness in trying to suggest to the American
public that these measures that are coming up are giving every Member
of the House of Representatives an opportunity to discuss them and that
regular order proceeds.
Additionally, my friend spoke of the other body in terms that I
probably could have pointed out to him that it is one thing to say that
there is obstruction in the other body, but the last time I looked the
majority leader was a Republican and the executive branch of government
is in the hands of the Republicans and the House of Representatives is
in the hands of the Republicans. So when we talk about obstructionism,
I do not think Democrats can be faulted for Republicans not being able
to get their measures past their bodies.
But now what are we doing here? Let me tell you what we are doing,
and no lesser authority than our good friend, the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) in speaking to reporters, he is quoted as saying, and the
backdrop for this is the U.S. House of Representatives may vote today
to send oil drills into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is not expecting any backup from the
Senate. Young said he viewed the idea as serious but not likely to
succeed. The Senate is not going to take it up, so what are we doing
here? Are we doing something political or are we doing something to
bring down oil prices? Are we doing something political or are we doing
something to give the American public the impression that we are doing
something about renewable energy? Are we doing something political or
are we really going to go after solar and wind resources? Are we doing
something political or are we really going to advance hybrid
automobiles in this country?
It is funny to me how my former fiscal conservative friends are now
decrying our state of this Nation as they run these deficits up and as
gas prices go through the roof, and we were here talking about
projections for additional instructions to give us an opportunity to
produce more energy rather than to learn how to consume less and use
modern technology in doing so.
This rule is closed and I urge Members to vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Chair intended, before the
remarks of the gentleman from Florida just completed, to admonish
Members
[[Page H3972]]
to avoid improper references to the Senate, as by characterizing its
actions as obstructive.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The way the Chair phrased it, I did bring it
up, and we were talking about statements that were made by my friend
from New York; am I correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair referred to statements made prior
to the comments by the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I listen to my colleague talking about regular order and
then I do not know, as he has quoted my chairman of the Committee on
Rules on, it is either a closed rule or an open rule, but I know the
chairman when I was a new member 6 years ago took great pains to guide
me on the fact that there is open rules, there is modified rules, there
is modified open rules, modified closed rules, structured rules, closed
rules; and he began to teach how each one becomes effective and
appropriate in doing its duties for the Committee on Rules. But as I
listen to my colleague here talk about whether this is political or
whether it is governmental, I look and say, great debate in 2003 on
energy policy and most people saying that they agreed that there was
not an energy policy in the Clinton administration or the Bush 41
administration, and that this President asked the Congress to move
forward and establish an energy policy in America.
{time} 1115
We had the hearings. We had the debate in the House and the other
body had their debate, and as I said earlier in my remarks, we approved
conferees to go work with the other body's conference, to have the
conferees come together if they could, and they did. We negotiated.
This body did not get all they wanted. The other body did not get all
that they wanted, a true compromise; and we passed the conference
report in this body in a bipartisan fashion.
The other body, they were in a situation where because of the unusual
rules that might be foreign to us that exist in the other body, they
have got to have 60 votes to stop the debate on an energy policy that
was agreed to by a conference of this body and the other body, they
could not come up with two extra votes. If my colleagues look, it was a
pretty partisan decision.
The reality is as we come down to it is the other body has not done
its work.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair must caution the gentleman against making improper
references to the Senate. Any characterization of the Senate is out of
order.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, point of order, I just would like to be
able to explain in this debate to my colleagues how we might say that
it has not been on the floor because they cannot get it there. I am
looking for any direction there could be because it just plain has not
been voted on by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's factual descriptions are
fine, but characterizations should be avoided.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York yield to
the gentleman from Texas for that purpose?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I would yield.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, is it
inappropriate to state a bald fact about what the other body is doing
or not doing?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman restate his question?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Under the rules of the House, is it
inappropriate or without our bounds for a Member of this body, the
House of Representatives, to state a plain fact about what the other
body is or is not doing? Is that out of the bounds for the rules of
this body?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A factual description of a Senate action of
record is permitted.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Is permitted. I thank the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York may proceed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in the body of that conference,
were Democrats permitted in that conference?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Were they what?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Were Democrats permitted to attend the
conference that the gentleman continues to say was reported out, House
Democrats?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, to be quite frank, I know many in my
district do not really understand this body and the other body. So I am
trying to follow the spirit of the law. I do not know if I can answer
the gentleman's question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule; but
before I speak in favor of the rule, I would like to answer my good
friend from Florida's question.
Conference members of the other body, who are members of the minority
party in the other body, not only attended the conference on the
comprehensive energy report; several of them signed the conference
report for the comprehensive energy bill that was not debated on the
other body's floor because of a cloture rule in the other body that
required 60 votes to close off debate.
I want to rise in support of the pending rule for the two resource
bills that, hopefully, will come up later today if the rule passes; and
I want to specifically speak about the second bill that would allow for
drilling in ANWR.
Back in 1995 during the reconciliation process, the House and Senate
agreed to put in a provision that would allow drilling in ANWR. That
was back in 1995. If President Clinton had not vetoed that bill, the
mid-case estimate is that we would be producing from ANWR today between
1 million and 1\1/2\ million barrels of oil per day. It is estimated
that there are over 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. What that would
do for gasoline prices is debatable in terms of the specific amount,
but it is not debatable that gasoline prices would be lower and, in all
probability, significantly lower.
So I would hope that when this bill comes up for a vote on final
passage that a bipartisan coalition in the House will once again vote
to allow, with adequate environmental protections, drilling in ANWR.
That is the largest oil field in the world that we know of that
currently no drilling is allowed; and with gasoline prices at $2 a
barrel, it is time to allow some drilling.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume merely for the purpose of pointing out to the chairman and
my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), that House
Democrats were not permitted to be involved in the conference, House
Democrats, not the other body.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The one thing we should look at is, I am told that from time to time
the minority Members of the other body have not gone to conferences. So
I am not sure that other than watching that happen, there is anything
we can do about it, whether they participate or they do not.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I do not want to belabor this. What part of House Democrats does my
colleague not understand?
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The two bills before us make sense on U.S. energy policy. They make
sense for our economy, and they make sense for our environment.
[[Page H3973]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________