Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] mentions that he would have voted if it went through the due process. He did not vote for the Clean Water Act that passed out of our committee. That is a true process. If my colleagues realize what is occurring here, if we accept this amendment today, any reform that we seek to have in the wetlands for this Nation will not occur. If we cut off the money, it will occur. It gives us the leverage that is necessary. Why do I believe so strongly in wetlands reform? My State is about 90 percent wetlands, according to Bill Riley and George Bush; yes, another administration, and implemented by the EPA today, and their tactics and their regulations are destroying my State and the ability of my people to progress and be economically sound. Two cases: Nome, AK, my daughter is in Alaska today, was built by mining. It is a mining community. It has always been. We have an Eskimo lady up there that the ground is seeping away underneath her house. Her house. An elderly lady that cannot fill the ground under her house because the EPA says it is wetlands. That is our Government in action. It is the most illogical group of individuals I have ever seen. They have told me we cannot build a school on the side of a mountain for the children of Juneau, because it has been declared wetlands. This is pure nonsense. Mr. Chairman, the Stokes-Boehlert amendment today would continue those programs, because they finance those programs. If you want true reform as we pass through this House, we should, in fact turn down this amendment overwhelmingly. We have followed the process. We have done the process correctly for this House. We, in fact, are doing what is right for this House. We must not let another body stop the progress we have made. We must use this for leverage. We must say, There will be no longer unrealistic application of wetlands as seen through the eyes of the EPA. A sound ``no'' vote is so important for this body today, I think, for very truly if we do not vote no, we have set back the intent of this House concerning the reform of wetlands. Mr. Chairman, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the Boehlert-Stokes amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2(b) of House Resolution 197, I offer amendments.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion to recommit, and it never ceases to amaze me the beautiful rhetoric that occurs on this floor and the emotionalism that happens with very little, what do I say, validity or honesty in it. I suggest respectfully they ought to tell the truth. This is nothing more than the Secretary is already doing. The Secretary has asked for this. The Secretary has asked for this; in fact, I have a letter from Mr. Armstrong----

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. No; no.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I apologize if they take it from that. The fact is Mr. Armstrong says, in fact, he needs this.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Absolutely. What concerns me, we heard there were no hearings. There were hearings on this side of the aisle in 1994 under the committee on which the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] was chairman at that time. I can tell you there is a difference in the makeup of the Congress today, but I want to get back, this is not Democrat and Republican, as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] will tell you, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] will tell you, other people who have spoken, including myself. This is whether we are going to retain any type of domestic oil production in those areas that are very questionable in development. So I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion offered by the gentleman from California to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time; just sit down; reclaiming my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Referring to the Secretary, if I may--reclaiming my time----

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I say respectfully this is my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest respectfully the idea I heard the word ``gouge'' at the pump, that the oil companies are gouging people at the pump; if we do not accept the gentleman's motion to recommit, they will be further gouged. That is not true. You know that. If there is any gouging at the pump, it is by this Congress, by other government agencies taxing these people that are using that gas. That is the high price of gasoline at the pump. Let us not kid ourselves. That is where the high price comes for every consumer. If you do not believe it, go down the list and see the amount of money you are paying for gasoline. Today it is probably less than 1951 for the gas itself. It is all the other money this Congress raises and every other government raises. That is what it is. Let us not use the term ``gouge,'' that this is going to happen. Again, may I stress this is an action on behalf of the administration, your President, your Secretary of the Interior. It is rare that I embrace Secretary Babbitt; I mean that does not happen. In this case, Mr. Babbitt has asked for it. The President has asked for it. It is very similar to what we have done and other countries have done, Canada, Norway, Great Britain. May I stress one of the things that bothers me the most, the people talking for this motion to recommit have never ever supported any type of domestic oil production of any type, and may I suggest respectfully we never have, I have never done this, I have been here 24 years, I have never seen anyone that has been speaking supporting domestic oil production. We have lost 400,000 jobs or more in this field, and we have sent our technology over to China, we have sent it to Colombia, we have sent it to Venezuela, we have sent it to Russia. I would feel a lot better if I thought for a moment they were sincere in this idea the taxpayers are getting ripped off. The taxpayers are not getting ripped off. The CBO report says specifically this is budget neutral. In fact, what we will do, we will be raising money for the taxpayer because there will be areas where we will be drilling. I also heard it is already happening. If you read it very carefully, what we are suggesting here, the Secretary can grant the so-called holiday, I call it incentive, in areas that are not profitable or will not be open, that have already been leased, or those areas that would be very difficult to develop a further stage in deep water. Those who may be listening on the TV station in their offices, let me suggest one thing: If you want drilling off the coast of California, if you want drilling off the coast of Florida and Oregon and Washington and Maine and Massachusetts, North Carolina, if you want drilling there, then you go for the gentleman's motion to instruct conferees, because that is what will happen. This is an incentive to try to get our remaining oil, domestic industry, further off, further into the Gulf of Mexico, and if it is profitable, it gives us the oil we should have. So I am going to suggest the motion to instruct, if you really want drilling off your shores, which I have heard that no one wants, then you vote for the gentleman's motion to instruct the conferees. If you want to give the incentives that the administration wants, the Secretary of the Interior wants, those people are the ones that [[Page H 7585]] suggested this, then I suggest that you vote against that motion and you vote with the committee and do not instruct.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I can only urge my colleagues again, as I mentioned before, let us leave the conferees work with the conferees. This is a Senate provision, not a House provision. I have said all the arguments, that this, in fact, was suggested, it was supported, it was promoted by Secretary Babbitt, Mr. Armstrong, President Clinton, and is also not a ripoff to the taxpayers. This, in fact, would increase moneys to the Treasury of the United States and mean that it will make us less dependent on those fossil fuels we are importing today. Again the biggest ripoff to the taxpayers today is that oil we are buying from the sheiks, and that oil we are buying from the Qadhafis, and that oil is we are buying from the Saddam Husseins. That is a ripoff because the policy of those that were speaking in the well in the previous years that have driven our domestic industry off our shores overseas and not hiring our American workers. We have lost those jobs. We have got to try to get them back. We will have further legislation to bring more workers back to our shores. We will start developing our oil onshore, as it should be developed onshore, and we will have development in the gulf if we pass the amendment that was promoted by the Senate, or at least discussed by the Senate. But to have us reinstructed, or be instructed, by this motion by the gentleman from California is wrong for this Nation, it is wrong for the taxpayer, it is wrong for this conference chairman, it is wrong for this Congress to do. So, Mr. Speaker, at this time I urge a large ``no'' vote on this motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am terribly surprised the gentleman from Florida would speak as he just spoke. There is no loss to taxpayers. CBO says this. I agree with him, President Clinton, and Secretary Babbitt, as I mentioned before, but these are not true facts as far as loss of money. This is budget neutral. It also probably will increase moneys as we go forth and create new jobs. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], a great leader and fine Congressman, one of the new cardinals in the U.S. Congress.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 197, I call up the Senate bill (S. 395) to authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power Administration, and to authorize the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, hope of all hopes, and wishes of all wishes, I do oppose the amendment. The administration adamantly opposes the amendment. The administration has said they support the committee substitute. We have worked with them. It gives the President the flexibility he wants. Very frankly why should Congress mandate a bureaucratic delay? If the President, and that is what were saying, finds that this is an appropriate thing, why hold his hand for 5 months when he does not want it? That is like asking a girlfriend out on a date when she does not want to hold your hand. You are not going to get anywhere. Let's face up to it. I suggest respectfully the amendment is very frankly not supported by anyone I know other than the gentleman from Connecticut. I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to oppose the amendment at this time. I do compliment the gentleman from Washington in his efforts, because he has brought this to our attention, and more so than California, because they do not have oil fields in other areas, of the need for a constant supply of oil, I can just about guarantee everybody in this room, because it is not just BP that has ownership of this oil. ARCO ships all of its oil to the west coast. That is where it has occurred. The Exxon areas, part is shipped to the west coast. The only people really right now who will have any oil available will be BP. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to accept the gentleman's amendment at this time, and we will be discussing the trigger date and conference, and seeing if there is a possibility we can further define that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, is the price of gasoline the factor? What kicks it in as far as getting the royalty oil? Does anybody know, because it is not clear in the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.