[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.

                          ____________________