K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. You would think it would. Uncertainties about tax policies. How is a particular investment taxed and treated under our code over an extended period of time or changes in that policy contribute to a reduction in the private investment in these various sources. Other government initiatives, like things like the government picking winners and losers in a particular area as opposed to looking to the market to do that, to give incentives to the markets to create the most efficient kinds of policies that are in place. But, nevertheless, anything that comes in front of this body that retards or discourages or puts in question the private investment into all domestic sources of energy, I think we have to challenge those, and respectfully. And the fourth lens I would look at is what does this do to the consumers. At the end of the day, you and I and the people who pay the light bills when we turn the switch on, who buy the gasoline at the pump have to pay those costs. And if we do things as a part of these policy initiatives that come forward over the next couple of weeks that arbitrarily and capriciously increase costs to consumers, then we need to challenge those. There has to be a pay the fiddler at some point in time. I mean, we have to pay for whatever sources of energy that we've had. We've enjoyed low gasoline prices for a long, long time, and we're coming to the end of those lower prices just because crude oil and natural gas are finite resources. You've already mentioned the increase in demand from around the world that we're in competition with those. And it's not likely that we'll see a significant decrease in the price of gasoline. On the one hand, high gasoline prices help us to look at doing things a different way. They help make other alternatives more viable for the consumer, because at the end of the day, the consumer across this country has to be willing to pay the cost for whatever it is you're talking about. You can't subsidize. You can't use government programs to overcome lack of a consumer participation. So any of these now policies that cause cost to consumers to go up arbitrarily and too quickly I think we have to challenge. Let me make one final point that you talked about, and that is converting either coal or nuclear plants to natural gas fired plants. Natural gas does not transport across oceans well. We've got to liquefy it. We've got to put it into tankers. We've got to have facilities for regasification and all those kinds things, and so importing natural gas is very difficult in comparison to how easy it is to import crude oil. So as we increase on natural gas, our local domestic cost for natural gas will go up. They're already the highest cost for natural gas in the world and because we are relying on it so much. The other point is that if all 38 nuclear permits that are currently in some form of approval are approved and those plants are built in the next 20 years, nuclear power will still represent only 20 percent of our demand. So if we're going to have nuclear that's going to actually help lessen the load on natural gas, then we've got to have a nuclear plant increase from where just the current system, the current new plants and new facilities and existing plants are in process. So as we look at these policies that come at us over the next couple of weeks, let's use common sense. Let's look at things that can be rolled out in a scope that makes sense. It's one thing to be able to do something on a very tiny, microscopic scale. But unless you can convert that into a significant portion of the demand or the supply of energy, whether it's electricity or gasoline or other sorts, other forms of energy that we use day in and day out, then you're barking up a tree and you're not helping the circumstance. So we've got some work to do, being in the minority, over the next couple of weeks to help point out the areas where we think these policies that are coming forward fail the American consumer.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words. There's a movie out called ``Groundhog Day'' in which the same thing happens over and over for a particularly long period of time. We've had this debate once recently. We're having it again today, and I understand the leadership on the other side intends to have these conversations once a week for the next 4 weeks. I don't anticipate that much different information will be said. I have the profoundest respect for the chairman of the committee and the man whose name is on this resolution, but I'm going to have to oppose it. Much of what gets said here today, Mr. Speaker, is doublespeak. It's doublespeak to talk about the failure to get benchmark progress on the civilian scene, on the political scene in Iraq, and yet to strip $2 billion out of the State Department's funding request, part of the CR, to strip another $500 million out of the 2008 appropriations request, money that would go to do the nation-building part, the provincial reconstruction team part in Iraq, and then to call it a failure. That's doublespeak in a classic sense. It's doublespeak, Mr. Speaker, to talk about how wonderful our troops are, and they are. They are magnificent, and even more magnificent are the families who support them and let them do what they do. And then to turn around and say that the implementation of this policy has failed, but somehow they've not failed as a result of that; I think that's doublespeak as well. It's also doublespeak to say the current policy says we're going to have a report in 60 days from David Petraeus, the right man at the right spot to give us that report, and then vote on a resolution that says 120 days we're going to start getting out, when we'll have the better information in September, in 60 days. That's doublespeak. It's disingenuous, I believe, to do it that way. The majority has the ability to get out of Iraq today. And all of the talk about failure, all of the talk about the lost lives, all of the talk about the costs, by extending this another 120 days, as they intend to do, leaves additional lives at risk. And somehow to me, that just seems to be at counter purposes of what the conversation is. I encourage my colleagues to vote this resolution down.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Bill McGavran for his 30 years of service as a neurosurgeon in Midland, Texas. Thousands of citizens in West Texas owe Dr. McGavran a debt of gratitude for his tireless work. Nearly every night for 25 years Dr. McGavran served as the on-call neurosurgeon in the ER, saving countless lives. Dr. McGavran's commitment to helping others reaches beyond Texas. He has shared his skills with colleagues and patients half a world away in impoverished communities in South America. Prior to his residency, he served in the United States Navy off the coast of Vietnam and Japan. Dr. McGavran is also an active member of the Midland community as deacon of the First Presbyterian Church and member of the symphony and chorale board of directors. He is devoted husband to Gloria McGavran and father of two daughters, Catherine and Melissa. The 11th District of Texas owes great thanks to Dr. McGavran for his exemplary service to the community and his patients, and I am proud to represent him in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, most credible estimates of future energy supplies for this country indicate that, by 2025, we will still be importing millions of barrels of crude oil and refined products every single day. That scenario is not positive for America. We should begin today looking at policies that decrease our dependence on foreign crude oil, policies that increase domestic production of crude oil, policies that increase the private investment in domestic production of all energy sources, including crude oil and natural gas, policies which will help stabilize prices to consumers both for gasoline and electricity. Any policy that we look at that does the opposite, that increases our dependence on foreign crude oil, reduces domestic production, reduces private investment in sources of energy, and arbitrarily increases prices to consumers must be challenged and opposed. These are important. They do not wear party jerseys. They are simply the right answer for America. It is our job to get those policies in place.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, as a parent, there is no greater pride than the pride felt watching your children grow from being infants to being responsible adults. Suzanne and I are blessed to have four grown children who have grown into wonderful, responsible adults, and, in the case of three of them, seeing them become terrific parents themselves. While I would like to brag about all four of our children, today's event dictates that I am limited to bragging on the young man who just delivered the morning's opening prayer. That young man is our son, Erin, who is associate pastor at South Main Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. He is a graduate of Baylor University with a fine arts degree and a graduate of Truitt Seminary at Baylor University with a master of divinity degree. More importantly, he is a man of deep faith in Jesus Christ as his personal savior. He is also the husband of Carmen Brassfield Conaway and father to daughter Alexandra and son Samuel. In addition to being a wonderful son, husband and father, Erin is also a gifted writer and pastor. Our family was recently blessed when Erin performed the memorial services for my dad, his grandfather. Suzanne and I are always proud of your accomplishments, but today we are particularly proud of seeing you opening this session of Congress and look forward to your bright future. We love you.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the next couple of hours, and certainly most of all day tomorrow, Member after Member on our side will come down here to these microphones and attempt to reduce spending in this appropriations bill. My amendment would fix a problem that they will have should they be successful in any of their amendments. Under our existing rules, the existing processes under which we work, the budget is passed and is allocated among the various programs under what we call a 302(b) allocation. Each of these subcommittees bring their bills down here in a total amount to be spent. As I have mentioned, Member after Member will come down here to attempt to convince a majority of us to reduce the spending that is included in the bill. Should they be successful, it's not likely but should they be successful in reducing that spending the little known secret, unknown outside the Beltway, is that the actual total amount of spending under the 302(b) allocation will not change, no matter what we do here on this floor. It stays where it is. And so what my amendment would do, it would be to take those successful attempts to reduce spending and would funnel those dollars against the deficit that this country will continue to experience in 2008. If you look at the budget that was passed by the Democrats, the budget shows a deficit for this year. So should we be successful on any of these bills, my amendment would allow the savings to go against the deficit and in future years should we have a surplus, it would actually allow the surplus to increase. So it's a pretty straightforward concept. Most folks back home understand when they save money in certain areas on spending, they have that money available to spend somewhere else, to put in savings, to reduce debt, to do all the kinds of things, but under our arcane system here, that money simply stays with the committee and through some process in conference gets spent again should we be successful. I understand there's a point of order that lies against this. I do not intend to push it, and I will withdraw my amendment, but I seek to point this out one more time to anyone who might be listening at this early hour in Hawaii or late here on the east coast. I would also like to get acknowledgment that I'm getting my amendment out of the way tonight as opposed to tomorrow when the heavy lifting on the spending cuts will occur. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I represent West Texas, which is the home of significant energy production. Tomorrow the Democrats will roll out their new energy policy. As we evaluate these proposals, it is our job to challenge them. If these new proposals cost more American jobs than they create, let's challenge them. If these new proposals unnecessarily increase costs to American consumers, let's challenge those. If these new proposals make us more dependent on foreign sources of natural gas and crude oil than we currently are, let's challenge those. If these proposals really result in less energy for America, let's challenge those. America's bright energy future lies not in new taxes and mandates, but in commonsense solutions.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment, and I am glad to speak on this. I come from Odessa, Texas, an oil and gas province that produces an incredible amount of our country's natural gas and crude oil, and I make no apologies for that. My colleagues from Florida come from Florida and they defend their beaches, and they make no apologies for that, as they should not. But let me talk about a couple of things I have heard on the floor this afternoon. One of them was the effect of time to market. In other words, if we drill today, it will take 6, 7, 8, 9 years in order to get that production to our gas pumps. The moratorium that we are talking about, Mr. Chairman, is dated 1998, 9 years ago. Had we been drilling since then, then that production would have, in fact, come to market and would be available to reduce our demand for that product. We have also heard criticism on this floor this afternoon about oil company profits. They have been roundly criticized from both sides of the aisle in some instances, many times from the other side of the aisle. And the criticisms seem to be that those nasty, vicious, terrible oil companies are going to take those profits and drill, take those profits and try to produce additional crude oil and additional natural gas, as if somehow that is a negative in the way we do things. That is kind of the free market process. If I make money doing something, then I should be taking those profits and putting them back into the ground to produce additional crude oil and natural gas. We have also heard comments about the offshore facilities, the production facilities, drilling facilities, and what terrible things they are and the terrible things they do to the environment, on the shorelines and everything else. And that may or may not be true. But what I have not heard is the equal passion for the production facilities that take natural gas into those States. In other words, where is the passion against the gas pipelines, the roads, the infrastructure that takes that natural gas that is produced in Texas, produced in Louisiana, and puts it into your State? Where is that passion for all of that terrible infrastructure that benefits you? We have also heard an appeal to conservation. Well, okay. If those States who do not want this drilling off their shores would begin to commit today to eliminate their use of natural gas, just simply say, okay, if we are not going to drill off our shores, then we are not going to use it either. Let's see the passion for your commitment to conservation. We have also heard conversations about the importance of the tourism industry in Florida, and I don't doubt that. An incredible impact on that part of the world, a beneficial impact. How about those hotels that run their air conditioning programs off of natural gas? Where does that natural gas come from? Well, it comes from somewhere else. And what we are saying with the gentleman's amendment is that that vast bureaucracy that runs this process of leasing and coming to conclusions that it can be done safely would be unleashed. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of my colleague's amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard an awful lot of debate already about both of these sections. My amendment is straightforward and simple. It will strike section 104 and section 105 from this bill. What the effect of that would be is to unleash the Interior Department's bureaucracy to begin running the leasing program that is provided throughout this legislation that is not related to what is being conducted today. This bureaucracy would make sure that the environment is protected and that these drilling operations are conducted in ways that will protect the military training lanes; and that these operations will be conducted in accordance with all of the vast array of regulations and rules that we have in place to protect the environment and protect the coastlines and produce this energy in a proper way. Reference was earlier made about the oil spill in Alaska, and I would remind my colleagues that was the Exxon Valdez, a ship that ran aground that caused that oil spill and not directly related to the drilling and production phase of finding that crude oil. As I said earlier, these operations can be conducted through environmentally sound methods. There is a significant amount of oil and gas to be found. I would prefer a 20 percent increase in anything, so to denigrate a 20 percent increase or 20 percent opportunity, I think, is misplaced in our arguments. Cuba and the Chinese governments, along with other folks, are going to be drilling within 45 miles of Florida. That is not necessarily an excuse for us to also drill, but it is in recognition that the risk associated to the folks in Florida with not drilling are out of our control, and if we can control the drilling within 45 miles in ways that are appropriate, then we ought to do that.

Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. CONAWAY. Section 104 and section 105, I don't know that it does the Great Lakes. But Puget Sound, I think we would be able to drill there. It would remove the moratorium that is in place now that prevents drilling in those areas, but I don't know that the Great Lakes is included.

Mr. CONAWAY. I can include the Great Lakes if that will get you over the hump to agree to it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, this moratorium has been in place for a long, long time, and the gentlewoman from California went through a litany of opportunities, and she has taken a different look at it. We have a growing continued dependence on foreign crude oil. So the old adage about the definition of insanity of doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get a different result might apply in this instance. This amendment would simply allow the Interior Department and its vast array of scientists and bureaucrats and technicians and others who look at this information day in and day out, who know the ins and out of it, to decide how the development of this resource should occur. They will protect the environment. They will protect the military lanes and make sure that all of our codes and rules and regulations are applied to these efforts throughout the time frame that this is conducted. I trust them to do it and do it correctly. I urge adoption of this amendment to set a new track to provide additional natural gas and crude oil resources, domestic production for our country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, currently, small community water systems across America are being forced to increase rates to meet clean water regulations, and some of my constituents pay almost 800 percent more for their water than their urban counterparts. While the rules may be well-intentioned and promote public health, we must do a better job of addressing the restraint of small systems and their communities to raise the capital and afford water treatment technology. If we don't, rural, middle-income families will be forced to leave community water systems in favor of water sources they can afford, namely, unregulated shallow groundwater wells and dirt tanks, and that will not advance the cause of clean, safe water for everyone. I have proposed to take a symbolic $2 from the Office of Ground and Drinking Water, the office which oversees these water regulations, and direct the symbolic funds to two offices which may assist rural water systems comply with these unfunded mandates. First, the EPA is currently working on revising the Small Drinking Water System Variance Affordability Methodology, which, once completed, will redefine the EPA's definition of ``affordable'' to more accurately reflect the world in which rural America lives. My amendment would return $1 to the Office of Ground and Drinking Water to facilitate and urge the completion of this urgent report. Once completed, this report should help communities utilize the existing routes to afford more cost-effective technology. Second, I would have chosen to redirect $1 to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which was established in the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 to highlight the shortfall in funds faced by small community water systems. Although loans are not an ideal way to support unfunded mandates on small water systems, I have been unable to find any other relevant program to build these funds. I would like to encourage the creation of a significant grant program for Small Community Water Systems using existing funds. I would like this fund to be modeled on the USDA Rural Utility Services and the Clean Water Hardship Grants program. There is an urgent need for some funding, as the Rural Utilities Service currently has a backlog of $3.3 billion worth of program applications, and the EPA estimates that over the next 20 years small water systems will need $34 billion to continue to meet EPA mandates. To begin the discussion and move us in the direction of clean, safe and affordable rural drinking water, I have recently introduced H.R. 2141, the Small Community Options for Regulatory Equity Act. This bill would further assist rural communities in complying with the cost of clean water regulations by allowing not-for-profit water systems serving less than 10,000 people to request exemptions from the national drinking water standards that are too costly for them to implement. This would return decision-making power to our local communities who are best suited to understand their needs and resources and ensure that rural communities could provide clean enough water without forcing their citizens to completely unregulated water sources.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I will be willing to withdraw the amendment, but would first ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with Mr. Dicks on the subject. Mr. Chairman, I am sure you agree that all people deserve access to affordable drinking water and families in rural communities should not be required to spend thousands of additional dollars each year to comply with unfunded mandates from the EPA.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This drilling will be conducted in an environmentally sound method. Any time you have got an industrial operation going on, you have got some risks, but these risks have been understood for years and years and years; and this industry is so much better today at drilling and producing crude oil and natural gas than they have ever been. And, quite frankly, they will get better tomorrow than they are today, and they will be better the day after tomorrow than they are today as well. It is inconsistent to say on the one hand that it is a national security interest for this country to be dependent on foreign sources of crude oil and natural gas, and I agree with that. The inconsistency comes, though, when we say let's do whatever we can to limit domestic production of crude oil and natural gas. That position is inconsistent with each other, and I would argue with my colleagues that they should examine that inconsistency. The time to market again has been mentioned again, as it was earlier. In 1998, when this moratorium was put in place 9 years ago, today all of that production that would have started in 1998 and 1999 when the price was low would be available to this country to use in hotels for air conditioning, in all of the multiple uses that the natural gas is used for. So I urge my colleagues to agree with the Peterson amendment and vote for it.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to be mercifully brief. My amendment would simply do this: Our rules and the way we function here would prevent all of the hard work that goes on in attempting to reduce spending. All of the efforts on behalf of many of my colleagues to actually trim things out of this spending plan really, they labored in vain. Because the mechanics of the system are that should we prevail in any of these votes later on tonight or tomorrow to actually reduce spending, then that money stays within the 302(b) category and is reallocated at some other point in the future and does not really reduce spending. I understand this is a futile effort and the point of order will be sustained, so I don't intend to push it further than this, simply to use this time to bring my colleagues' attention to a failure in our system to in effect protect us from ourselves. I have a standalone bill that would mechanically allow that any reductions in the spending that occur as a result of the hard work here in this Chamber on this bill that would go against the deficit to reduce the deficit, or should we ever get back into a surplus circumstance, would actually increase that surplus. So, Mr. Chairman, I bring this to the attention of my colleagues. I do not intend to push it to a vote. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.