[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 25, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5736-H5741]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4899, LOWERING GASOLINE PRICES TO 
FUEL AN AMERICA THAT WORKS ACT OF 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
     H.R. 4923, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES 
            APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 641 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 641

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4899) to lower gasoline prices for the 
     American family by increasing domestic onshore and offshore 
     energy exploration and production, to streamline and improve 
     onshore and offshore energy permitting and administration, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 113-50. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  (a) At any time after adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 4923) making appropriations for energy and water 
     development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2015, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived.
        (b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
       (1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in 
     paragraph (2), shall be

[[Page H5737]]

     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to 
     amendment except as provided in paragraph (2);
       (2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate; and
       (3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read.
       (c) When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from June 
     27, 2014, through July 7, 2014--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  It shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing 
     for adjournment during the month of July.
       Sec. 6.  The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time 
     before 5 p.m. on Thursday, July 3, 2014, file privileged 
     reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2015.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Utah 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and 
extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a 
structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4899, the Lowering 
Gasoline Prices to Fuel An America That Works Act of 2014. It makes 10 
amendments in order--four Republican and six Democrat--and the rule 
provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources.
  The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4923, the Energy 
and Water Appropriations Act of 2015, under a modified open rule and 
provides for other technical and clerical purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act is a bipartisan measure that provides for the 
essential funding of several Federal agencies during the next fiscal 
year, including the Department of Energy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
and the Bureau of Reclamation.
  This measure would also fund important Federal science research in 
the fields of energy, high-performance computing systems, and next-
generation energy sources. It is appropriate that this measure 
providing for the Nation's energy needs also be included with this 
rule.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House 
today and speak in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, 
H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works 
Act of 2014.
  American families, Mr. Speaker, are hurting. Every time you pull up 
to the gas pump, you have to wonder whether there will ever be any 
relief to the family budget for these ever-increasing gasoline prices.
  It means simply--whether you support or like the guy or not--that 
before President Obama took office in 2009, the average national price 
for a gallon of unleaded regular gas was under $2 a gallon. Today, it 
has nearly doubled to around $4 a gallon. And the prices keep rising 
almost every day.
  This administration touts its growth in energy production, not 
recognizing that that production increase has all come on private and 
State-owned property. If we are to have sustained growth of our 
economy, if we are not having peaks and valleys, if we are not having 
boom and bust, it is important that the resources that we have in great 
abundance that are on Federal lands also be included so there can be a 
sustained growth to our economy.
  Unfortunately, since President Obama took office, total Federal oil 
production has dropped 6 percent, total Federal national gas production 
has dropped an astounding 28 percent, and, at the same time, offshore 
oil production is down 15 percent and offshore gas production is down 
47 percent.
  Unfortunately, 87 percent of all the area that is allowed offshore of 
acreage of potential development is currently off limits to oil and 
natural gas production.
  We have policies that are really harming our progress forward, and 
they need to be changed. This act that will be put before us, if we 
pass this rule, does indeed do that.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentleman, my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I join my good friends on the Energy and Water 
Committee, Representatives Lowey and Kaptur, in applauding the 
chairman's concerted effort to compose H.R. 4923 in an inclusive 
manner.

                              {time}  1245

  I appreciate the bipartisan nature of the bill and am supportive of 
many of the provisions contained within it. However, I am not without 
my concerns. All of these phrases that my friends on the other side of 
the aisle bandy about--``increase over this,'' ``funding above last 
year's levels''--sound great, but as always, we need to see what is 
lurking in the shadows.
  For example, H.R. 4923 is completely uninspired when it comes to 
renewable energy. Its approach, in my view, is a myopic one--one that, 
if we follow it too far, leaves us trying to play catch-up with our 
competitors, like the Chinese and many other countries, that have 
turned their attention to renewable energy. As China continues its now 
decade-long trend of increasing investment in its renewable energy 
sector--a footnote here: it invested $56 billion just last year--we 
take the truly uninspired step of cutting funding for renewable energy 
by 6.4 percent.
  I am aware of the studies that conclude that our Nation will be able 
to meet 97 percent of its energy needs through domestic production by 
2035, and I consider that to be great. This Nation has spent $2.3 
trillion on importing foreign oil since 2003. This is a serious 
national security vulnerability, and I think we can all agree that 
lessening this dependence is a desirable goal.
  I also know that, for many in this day of Twitter and Facebook and 
Instagram, 2035 seems like a long way off. Those of us in this Chamber 
do not have the luxury of thinking that way. We have a responsibility 
to look past 2035, and we have a responsibility to leave our children 
and grandchildren with an energy portfolio that will keep them in good 
stead for the years after 2035. We abdicate this responsibility when we 
underfund research and development in the renewable energy sector. We 
abdicate this responsibility when we skew applied energy programs at 
the Department of Energy too heavily toward nuclear energy and fossil 
fuels. An increased investment in renewable energy makes good economic 
sense; it makes good environmental sense; and it makes good national 
security sense. The time to make this investment is now.
  We need to be careful even where we see funding increases. Though 
these funding increases may seem impressive and prudent, we need to be 
reminded that all that glitters is not gold. They merely mask a 
continuation of the status quo for my friends from across the

[[Page H5738]]

aisle. They would have you believe they are increasing funding for 
environmental protection while reducing spending on defense, but alas, 
in my view, this is an illusion. In reality, this bill represents 
business as usual for the Republican Party--slashing funding for 
research in renewable resources while doling out more handouts to dirty 
energy and environmental polluters. It seems like every other week we 
are voting to drill off our shores, in our parks, or on Federal lands.
  To that end, H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an 
America That Works Act of 2014--we are the greatest naming people in 
the world here in Congress--is just a greatest hits record, rehashing 
two measures the House has already voted on, one of which itself was 
already cobbled together from a number of separate bills. Like all 
greatest hits albums, it, too, is stuck in the past. Those past 
attempts rightly died in the Senate, and there is no reason to expect a 
different result this time around. Yet here we are again, tossing 
legislation into the void while our country's very real problems 
fester.
  My friends across the aisle have no ideas, evidently, for energy 
independence and security beyond more drilling. They would rather score 
political points than propose real solutions. I am sure they will go 
home to their districts next week for one of the biggest driving 
weekends of the year. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I commented 
that the oil industry manipulates us. Every year in the summer, prices 
go up on gasoline, and I just don't think that is coincidental when gas 
prices historically tend to be high. Yet they are going to point to 
these votes as evidence that they tried to lower gasoline prices. While 
it may make for a good feel-good story, that is all it is. Putting more 
oil out there won't move prices. Domestic production is already at a 
25-year high in this country, up 60 percent since 2008. Imports are at 
29-year lows.
  Despite my friend's claims, onshore oil production from Federal lands 
has gone up 30 percent since 2008. I can never pass up an opportunity 
to say that I will continue to resist offshore drilling off the coast 
of Florida beyond the accommodations that have already been made by 
this body. Yet gas prices remain unchanged. The U.S. holds only 2 
percent of the world's oil reserves. Even tripling current offshore 
drilling capabilities by the year 2030 would lower gasoline prices only 
5 cents per gallon more than if we would continue at the rate we are 
going; or if we would increase oil production all the way to 50 
percent--which is more than drilling in the Arctic, increasing public 
lands and offshore drilling, and the pipelines would provide--prices 
would decrease by only 10 percent at most.
  Oil is priced on the global market, which is far more complicated 
than my friends let on. Record demand for fossil fuels in this country 
and in places like India and China and Singapore and Japan have far 
more impact on the price of gasoline than anything my friends here hope 
to do. The liquid natural gas export bill the House passed yesterday 
shows they understand the nature of the market. They just choose to 
ignore it whenever it is convenient.
  My friends across the aisle have no plans for addressing the demand 
for the kinds of policies that actually could help reduce energy costs, 
like increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage of 
our cars, and developing renewable energy resources. I was visited by 
one of our college presidents, John Kelly, who is new at Florida 
Atlantic University. He visited with me today, and that university has 
a new grant dealing with currents, which may very well at some point 
add to our understanding with reference to renewable energy resources. 
So it won't be the American people who benefit from more drilling. It 
will be the bottom lines of the companies that own the wells. 
Hardworking Americans will be left to bear the risk.
  This ``drill everywhere, all the time'' plan isn't a serious energy 
strategy; it is a cash grab by the fossil fuel industry. It is not a 
path to energy independence and security; it is a road to environmental 
and economic collapse. This isn't a game. The threat is real, Mr. 
Speaker. We haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in 
response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. Let me repeat that. We 
haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the 
BP Deepwater Horizon spill. A footnote here: BP has not paid for all of 
the damage that they did in that area, and I defy anybody to show me 
how it is that they did. I ask anybody who is getting ready to eat 
seafood that comes out of that bay to look at the damage that was done 
and at the continuing sediment that continues to rise from that area 
that was polluted.
  What happens to all of those Floridians whose livelihoods depend upon 
our oceans and beaches?
  If you want to know, ask the oyster people what happens. Ask the 
shrimpers who go out into the gulf what their product looks like 
nowadays, including the deformed product that they are seeing from this 
awful disaster.

  Florida's GDP from its living resources, which includes fishing, 
hatcheries, aquaculture, seafood processing, and seafood markets, is 
worth nearly $300 million. Additionally, the State's GDP from ocean-
based tourism and recreation is nearly $16.5 billion. On top of that, 
Florida generates millions of dollars in commercial fishing, including 
shrimp, mackerel, blue crab, swordfish, and stone crabs, which we are 
finding are diminishing in numbers. We have 350,000 jobs in tourism and 
recreation and nearly 120,000 direct jobs in recreational and 
commercial fishing.
  But you can't eat contaminated fish, and who wants to spend one's 
hard-earned dollars and vacation time lounging on a beach that is 
covered in tar balls?
  When I lifted up on Monday in the US Air plane and looked down at the 
shore of Florida, I saw what amounts to about a mile-long oil slick. I 
saw people walking, and I knew that, in a matter of time, they would be 
walking on tar balls.
  How bad does the next spill have to be?
  Climate change is not even pending anymore. It is here, and its 
effects are conspicuous. Downtown Miami, for example, floods whenever 
it rains, and so does Hollywood, Florida, and areas that I live around. 
People can't get to work, businesses can't open, and historic droughts 
have now ravaged the West, and my friends say that there is nothing to 
concern ourselves about as it pertains to climate change.
  The Risky Business report just released by President George W. Bush's 
former Treasury Secretary--Henry Paulson--and Mayor Bloomberg and Tom 
Steyer and other former Cabinet officers, lawmakers, corporate leaders, 
and scientists says climate change could cost the country billions of 
dollars over the next two decades.
  This bill fully ignores the reality of the world we live in, but I do 
want to say one thing.
  In yesterday's Rules Committee, my friend who is managing this rule, 
Mr. Bishop from Utah, did make to me a compelling argument regarding 
education in the State of Utah and the fact that, on some of the 
Federal lands in Utah, if they had an opportunity to do further oil 
exploration, it could have an impact on Utah's economy. I think that, 
in many respects, a lot of that is reasonable. I am hopeful that at 
some point some of his views in that regard will prevail, but I hope, 
for the most part, that his overall views do not prevail.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), my good 
friend.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  H.R. 4899 is yet another example of the majority's backward energy 
policy that doubles down on dirty fossil fuels instead of investing in 
a clean energy future. The bill also specifically targets my 
congressional district, requiring new oil drilling leases off the 
central coast of California.

                              {time}  1300

  This is the fourth time in as many years that the House leadership 
has tried to override the will of my constituents and California voters 
who overwhelmingly oppose new offshore drilling.

[[Page H5739]]

  Even if drilling in these waters could start tomorrow, it would 
certainly have no impact on gas prices.
  Why is that? Because the low-quality oil off the central coast of 
California can't be used to make gasoline. It is used to make asphalt.
  While I certainly support investing more in our Nation's roads and 
bridges, this is certainly not the way to do it, so I find it 
incredibly disingenuous for my colleagues to pretend that this bill 
would lower gas prices for consumers when, in reality, it is just 
another big giveaway to Big Oil.
  I also oppose this rule because it blocks consideration of two 
important amendments that I had filed. One of those amendments simply 
required a study on the environmental impacts of offshore fracking.
  We depend on our oceans for such varied needs and values that the 
least we can do is understand how they are impacted by these offshore 
activities. Our constituents sent us here to get things done, not to 
stifle debate, but this rule won't even allow us to discuss this 
important issue.
  The rule also blocks a vote on my amendment to protect the central 
coast from additional offshore drilling.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mrs. CAPPS. This amendment is identical to one which was made in 
order to be considered on the floor last year, when the House last 
considered this redundant legislation.
  Perhaps the majority believes it is a waste of time to consider 
something that has already been voted upon. I only wish they would 
apply this logic to bills that they bring to the floor because, if they 
did, we wouldn't be here wasting our time with a bill the House already 
voted on last year.
  Stapling two old bills together doesn't make it a new idea. H.R. 4899 
is still a bad idea, and it is still a waste of time.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to oppose the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous 
question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426, 
the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2013, Representative Tim Bishop's 
bill, to end the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies given to the 
largest, most profitable oil companies each year.
  To discuss our proposal, I am pleased, at this time, to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my good friend.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  I rise to urge defeat of the previous question to allow consideration 
of my legislation, the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act, which would finally 
end middle class subsidies to big oil companies.
  For too long, this Congress has perpetuated corporate welfare, saying 
job creators need incentives to continue growing this country, but last 
year, the largest oil companies reported a bottom-line profit of $93 
billion--let me say that again, $93 billion--and yet, this Republican-
led Congress continues to lavish subsidies and tax breaks on these 
highly-profitable companies.
  We can not overlook that cuts to good programs continue during this 
second year of sequestration and, as we face the ever-present 
imperative to cut the deficit, Congress should rethink preferential 
treatment for Big Oil that burdens millions of hardworking Americans 
and small businesses which foot the bill for these subsidies.
  For instance, we can save $9.2 billion over 10 years by repealing the 
outdated section 199 tax break, which designates oil production as a 
manufacturing activity, and gives Big Oil a 6 percent deduction from 
their income. This could be much better spent on real efforts to create 
jobs, increase revenue, and support local economies.
  We could direct that funding towards infrastructure construction or 
education or keep it in the energy sector, to further incentivize 
renewable energy technology development, rather than perpetuate our 
reliance on fossil fuels.
  These are real job creation efforts that Congress has supported in 
the past and are still needed to ignite economic growth; or we could 
use the savings from the bill to help fill the immediate need to pay 
for the shortfall in the highway trust fund, which will run out of 
money only weeks from now.
  This means the House could leave this week without a solution to this 
impending crisis threatening to freeze construction projects and lay 
off workers, further imperiling our Nation's economic recovery.
  There is no shortage of solutions Congress needs to reach this year, 
and many of them have steep price tags. By supporting the previous 
question, my colleagues can use a source of funds that oil companies 
won't miss to offset our to-do list.
  With no signs from the majority about whether the House will ever 
move to consider tax reform, it remains unclear, when--if ever--the 
opportunity will arise again to reform the Tax Code, so that it 
reflects the needs and aspirations of working families and small 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in better 
prioritizing taxpayers' funds by defeating the previous question.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise at this time and 
ask if you would learn from my colleague if he is ready to close. I 
have no further speakers, and I am prepared at this time to close.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The gentleman has only from me yet to hear.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that these bills 
just leave us spinning our wheels, while we could be making actual 
progress in helping hardworking Americans all across this Nation.
  It is outrageous that 3 million Americans have lost their emergency 
unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013. I might add 
that we learned yesterday that 300,000 of that 3 million are American 
veterans.
  We have also had, along with the expiration of tax extender 
provisions that help individuals that have expired, they help families 
and small businesses invest.
  Republicans and Democrats should be working together to move our 
Nation forward on comprehensive immigration reform, and I might add 
that I agree with everybody that says that the border needs to be 
secure, and one good way to do that is to do comprehensive immigration 
reform and tax reform.
  We need to raise the minimum wage in this country, and we need to 
protect voting rights and secure equal pay.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before I will urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no,'' I just want to make it very clear that the 
measures that we are considering today have already been voted on by 
the House and did not go further to become law. The likelihood of this 
measure reaching that same fate is very strong.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question.
  Vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am an old history teacher, and one of the things I have always 
claimed for my students is you should actually try to look to the past, 
to see how you can plan for the future.
  When Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, this 
country was faced with the crisis of double-digit inflation, double-
digit unemployment, and double-digit interest rates; and as President, 
after so many years of a Congress that tried to have the policy of 
spending ourselves into economic growth that failed, his issue was: 
Which of those do you attack first?
  I think it is interesting to realize--to grab hold of each of those 
issues, his first action was to increase the supply of affordable 
energy. That became the basis of growing an economy in which he could 
then attack each of those problems of unemployment and inflation and 
interest rates which were plaguing this country.
  We have to realize now that a strong foundation of affordable energy 
is extremely significant, from whatever source, but especially from 
what will be workable now.

[[Page H5740]]

  High gasoline prices--and the price that is increasing in every form 
of energy we have today--hurts the middle class, and it especially 
hurts the working poor, many of whom have to decide, every time they go 
to the pump, whether they are going to put food on the table or fill up 
the minivan.
  We have to deal with something. Now, in my area of the west where we 
live and the part of the country where the distances between 
communities are extremely large, as opposed to back here in the east, 
where everything is so lumped closely together, the increase in fuel 
costs hits home with a real inflicting pain.
  I am sorry. The policies of the past that we had that made the desert 
bloom are being reversed by the policies of the present. Whether you 
are at the pump realizing the pain that is inflicted or whether your 
concern is what kind of energy cost it will take when you go into the 
room and flip on the light or you decide to cook food, we have to 
realize these are real problems facing middle America, as well as the 
working poor of America.
  We can either come up with policies that move us forward, or we can 
implement policies that allow us to freeze in the dark, and so far, we 
have done a good job on the latter and not the first.
  Republicans in the House of Representatives have passed several bills 
over the past few years--and this year as well--aimed at increasing 
U.S. domestic fuel production, only to have those bills sidelined in 
the deliberative body on the other side of this building.
  It reminds me of a great quote, when Thomas Brackett Reed, the old 
Speaker of the House, went over to the Senate to watch them in debate 
and came back and announced to the body:

       Thank heavens we are not a deliberative body.

  There are problems that we have that can be solved. We have those 
places, too, and I appreciate the fact the gentleman from Florida did 
mention that China and others are putting money into alternative energy 
programs.
  They are also going around the world and gobbling up whatever kinds 
of oil and coal resources they can get their hands on, to support and 
sustain a growing economy over there, while our administration is 
taking the United States in the opposite direction by self-inflicted 
artificial limits, policies that have actually hurt our economy, killed 
high-paying jobs, and increased the cost of consumer goods for all, 
including the middle class.
  There are reasons why, Mr. Speaker, in the last 6 years, our economy 
is simply limping along, and we should learn the lessons of the past to 
recognize what we can do from that. Our economic malaise can be 
attributed to a lack of attention to a commonsense energy program on 
Federal lands.
  So what would this bill, H.R. 4899, actually do? It would establish 
and demand a new 5-year plan for the leases of those areas, with the 
concept of going after where the resources actually are. We can talk 
about all the lands that are leased, but it is totally unimportant if 
there are no resources there.
  Have a plan that focuses on where the resources are. Produce a 
revenue-sharing plan with the coastal States. Come up with three 
distinct agencies which would replace the new structure that has been 
put upon since the oil spill and make them actually functioning. That 
is the problem.
  I agree with some of the things you have said. We haven't done much 
in reform, but we have done a whole lot in regulatory reform on the 
administrative level, and I agree with you, that that hasn't worked as 
well.
  To establish a policy that the NPR-A is for the purpose of providing 
oil as a resource to the United States and to establish some kind of 
Internet-based auctions for these programs--look, we are not talking 
about taking over everything and drilling everywhere.
  This Federal Government owns somewhere around 400 to 450 million 
acres of land. Of that, 350, roughly, are already in a conservation 
status that can never be touched.
  There are 50 million acres, at the most, that have development 
potential, and those are the areas in which policies of this 
administration are strangling the ability to move them forward.
  I will--because I hadn't planned on it, so I don't have my wonderful 
charts here. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida talking about 
education because I want to finish off with that in just one second.
  I appreciate his sentiment that, some day, my position can prevail, 
but unless we change the overall Federal position, I can't get that 
moving forward, and that is why it becomes extremely important.
  We are not just talking about gas at the pump and the cost of 
electricity and the cost of cooking your food. There are also those 
tradeoff effects which specifically deal with education.
  If one looks at a map of the States, there is overwhelming control by 
the Federal Government of ownership of the land, the public land States 
of the Midwest and the west coast, and you look at the States which 
have the hardest time increasing their funding for public education.
  It is an amazing correlation between the two, which means that, over 
the past 20 years, those who do not live in public land States, those 
areas east of Denver, which average about 4 percent of their States 
being controlled by the Federal Government, have grown their 
educational funding by 68 percent.

                              {time}  1315

  Those of us who average over 50 percent of our land controlled by the 
Federal Government in these public lands States have grown our 
education budget by 35 percent.
  It is simply a matter that my State cannot improve its education 
funding alone unless we are allowed to develop some of the resources we 
have in huge abundance but are tied up in the policies of the Federal 
Government.
  So, yes, it is true. We are growing petroleum activities in this 
country. We are growing our exploration. We are growing what we are 
developing, what we are exporting. But it is all coming from private 
lands and State lands that are not part of the West. And if you want to 
keep that growth on a continuous basis and not have spikes, then you 
have to go after the resources that we have on the public lands.
  And if you were allowed to do that, not only would we get royalties 
coming back in from those resources, but it would spin off all sorts of 
jobs that would then generate the income tax we need and the sales tax 
revenue and the royalties to replace the fact that we are not getting 
property tax from lands that are controlled by the Federal Government 
and were promised to us a long time ago when we became States.
  This bill provides a plan on how to do this. This bill is something 
that is desperately needed if we are going to move forward. If enacted 
into law, it would encourage greater oil and gas development on Federal 
onshore and offshore lands with a plan of how you actually accomplish 
it and how you do it. And it may actually give my kids a chance at a 
fairer shot for an education, because they desperately need it, and the 
status quo is not providing it. And that has to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I would only urge Members to support this rule. It is a 
fair rule. It is a good rule. And then I would hope, afterwards, they 
would support the underlying bills which provide for our Nation's 
critical energy needs and would help promote jobs at the same time, as 
well as funding for my schools in Utah.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An amendment to H. Res. 641 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1426) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow 
     the deduction for income attributable to domestic production 
     activities with respect to oil and gas activities of major 
     integrated oil companies. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on

[[Page H5741]]

     the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1426.

        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 Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority 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.''
       The Republican majority may 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 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In 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 Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time 
and 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 will be postponed.

                          ____________________