[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11816-11817]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      RESPONSIBILITY OF HIGH GAS PRICES FALLS WITH THE WHITE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, many Americans are becoming very upset about 
the great and tremendous rise in gas prices around the country, and 
certainly they should be upset about this. Let me just point out a few 
things though.

[[Page 11817]]

  The price of gas could be and should be much, much lower than it is; 
but in 1995, the President vetoed legislation passed by this Congress 
that would have allowed oil production in less than 3,000 acres of the 
19.8 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  I represent a big part of the great Smoky Mountains National Park, 
which is by far the most heavily visited national park in the country. 
Ten million visitors come there each year, and they think it is huge 
and beautiful, and it is. It is only about 600,000 acres in size.
  This Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 35 times the size of the 
Great Smokey Mountains, 19.8 million acres. Of that 19.8 million acres, 
1.5 million acres is a flat brown tundra without a tree or bush or 
anything growing on it. It is called the coastal plain of Alaska.
  The U.S. Geologic Survey says, if we drill for oil on less than 3,000 
acres of that 1.5 million acre coastal plain, that there is potentially 
16 billion barrels of oil there, which is 30 years of Saudi oil, yet 
the President vetoed that even though it can be done in an 
environmentally safe way.
  We started years ago drilling for oil at Prudhoe Bay. The 
environmental extremists opposed that at that time saying it would wipe 
out the caribou herd. There were about 6,000 caribou at that time. Now 
there is over 20,000. It has been a great thing for this country.
  We are far too dependent on foreign oil. Over half of our oil has to 
come from foreign countries now. Yet the President vetoed this which 
would have allowed us to get potentially 16 billion barrels of oil. In 
addition to that, he signed an order putting 80 percent of that 
Continental Shelf off limits for oil exploration and drilling. That is 
billions more barrels.
  The price of gasoline could be much, much lower. If the American 
people like high gas prices, they should write the White House and 
thank them, because that is where the responsibility or that is where 
the fault lies for the high gas prices that we have in this country 
today.
  I know there are some people who want higher prices. I know some of 
the environmental extremists want the gas price to go to $3 or $4 a 
gallon because then people would drive less and there would be less 
pollution. Some people really believe that would be a good thing.
  But I can tell my colleagues it would put the final nail in the 
coffin of the small towns and rural areas if we let these gas pries go 
to those kinds of levels.
  Some people say, well, that is what they are paying over in Europe. 
But the Europeans and all the others pay the same oil prices that we 
do, they just add all kinds of taxes.
  So we should drill and explore for much more oil in this country, try 
and become much less dependent on foreign oil, and we could easily 
bring down the price of gas in this country. But this administration 
will not do it because they are too controlled by these environmental 
extremists who almost always are real wealthy people, so they are not 
hurt by high gas prices as much as the poor and lower income and the 
working people of this country.


                Supreme Court Decision On School Prayer

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, let me mention one other unrelated thing 
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) got into, and that is 
the Supreme Court decision on school prayer that was issued a couple of 
days ago.
  In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Zorach v. Clauson said 
there is ``no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for 
government to be hostile to religion and throw its weight against 
efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.''
  I remember, about 3 years ago, William Raspberry, the great columnist 
for the Washington Post, wrote a column, and he asked a question. He 
said, ``Is it not just possible that antireligious bias masquerading as 
religious neutrality has cost us far more than we have been willing to 
admit?''

                              {time}  2200

  And that is a good question, tonight, Mr. Speaker. Is it not just 
possible that anti-religious bias, masquerading as religious 
neutrality, has cost us far more than we have been willing to 
acknowledge?
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) pointed out this Congress 
opens every session with prayer, and yet we will not allow this to be 
done at school events. There was a very poor decision by the Supreme 
Court a couple of days ago, and I think our Founding Fathers would be 
shocked if they knew the extent to which people are going to in this 
country to keep people from saying voluntary prayers.

                          ____________________