[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.

____________________