Peter Visclosky: “Mr. Chairman, as I indicated on the remarks on the rule earlier, we find ourselves with an amendment that I do support…”

“Mr. Chairman, as I indicated on the remarks on the rule earlier, we find ourselves with an amendment that I do support that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) has offered. But I would want to remind Members of the history of this House in legislative action over the last several weeks. First of all, we had an amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to the Interior bill about a week ago. His proposal was essentially to fund the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve that the gentleman would seek authorization for in his legislation. The amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) was defeated by two votes in this body literally a week ago. Additionally, this body has essentially already passed through the authorization process the amendment that the gentleman has already put forth, so we are for a second time now stating a proposition that to date the majority in the other body has refused to act on. I would further point out that in full committee, when the energy and water bill was considered during the past week, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), in trying to break this logjam, whether it be in this body or in the other body, offered an amendment for a 1-year extension of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was essentially unanimously agreed to by the committee.”