[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2006-H2012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE ENERGY CRISIS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about 
what is fast becoming one of the largest problems our country faces, 
and that is the energy crisis. It is not just a California problem. It 
has spread certainly to the Northwest, where I am from, but also 
throughout the country, as we see prices for all sorts of energy 
consumption, from gas at the pump to electricity in the home, go up 
considerably.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very good that the President has focused a 
large number of resources on deciding what to do about this problem. He 
has put together a task force and the Vice President is taking the 
leadership role on that. I think this is a problem that we need to 
focus on.
  I am not as excited about the initial reports from the Vice President 
and the President about the direction they need to go in, but I feel, 
and so does the new Democratic coalition, which I rise tonight in part 
to represent, that it is a good first step and we can get there on the 
policy.
  But where should we go? The Vice President's approach and some of his 
initial remarks were, first of all, that we are going to need to build 
a power plant a week for the next 20 years, and that conservation, 
while a personal virtue, is not an energy policy.
  The vision that is laid out from those initial statements is that we 
are going to be building a lot of power plants and power plants that 
are focused on existing fuel sources, fossil fuel, oil, natural gas, 
coal, and we are simply going to try to burn and drill our way out of 
the problem.
  Is this a good solution to our energy crisis? I would argue, and my 
fellow new Democrats also argue, that this is not the best solution. 
There are a lot of damaging side effects to taking that approach, and 
what is more, there is a better option, a better approach. Building a 
power plant every week for the

[[Page H2007]]

next 20 years is going to be an incredibly costly endeavor, costly in 
terms of money and costly in terms of the impact that it has on our 
environment.
  When you are drilling for oil all over the place, you have a tendency 
to damage the environment and have an impact. When you burn that oil, 
when you burn those fossil fuels, you have a very damaging impact on 
the quality of our air and on the overall quality of our environment. 
This is not the best direction to go in.
  One final reason why I do not think it is the best direction to go 
in, it has been a constant focus on our dependency on foreign sources 
for our energy. In fact, ironically, that is one of the arguments that 
the administration gives for drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife 
Reserve and the Gulf of Mexico and a variety of different places for 
oil domestically: to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
  Drilling for more oil is not going to reduce our dependency on 
foreign energy sources. As long as we have a fossil fuel base system, 
as long as we are dependent on oil, we are going to be dependent on 
foreign sources for that oil, because you could drill the entire 
country and you would not come up with as much oil as they have in the 
Middle East and Russia and in a variety of other places that we are 
dependent on.
  The only way to reduce our foreign dependency on energy is to come up 
with new sources of that energy, and that is what we and the new 
Democrats are talking about doing.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear; we need more generation. Some of that 
generation will have to be traditional natural gas, coal-burning, 
fossil fuel-generating plants. We understand that we cannot simply 
tomorrow shift to new sources of energy and get off of this, but we 
would like to be able to do so as soon as possible, for all of the 
reasons that I stated.
  What are the possibilities here? Is it simply a matter of generating 
a megawatt here, a megawatt there? It is much better than that. The 
possibilities of what we can accomplish in terms of shifting our focus 
and energy dependency away from fossil fuels towards greater 
conservation and new technologies is far greater than I feel most 
people realize.
  Even before we get into the new sources of energy discussion, even 
focusing on conservation, the thing the Vice President said was a 
personal virtue but not an energy policy, if we were to improve in 
homes and businesses the way we consume energy, electricity, natural 
gas, a variety of different things, improve conservation, we could save 
an unbelievable amount of energy.
  A recent survey on conservation just cited a couple of things that we 
could do: tuning up residential air-conditioning, tuning up commercial 
buildings, more efficient air-conditioning systems in those commercial 
buildings, and more efficient commercial lighting. All of those things 
combined could save sufficient megawatts to save us well over 100 of 
those new power plants that the Vice President has proposed that we 
needed.

  If we could then move on to new technologies, solar, wind, fuel cell 
technology, biomass, a variety of different programs that are out 
there, we could save even more. By a very conservative estimate, we 
could cut in half the number of new power plants that we need; maybe 
more if we went out and spent the money and experimented and found out 
what we could do.
  This is a much better, more balanced approach. It is better for the 
environment. It is better for domestic security, so that we are not 
dependent on those foreign sources of energy, and it will build us a 
long-term sustainable energy policy, instead of thinking that we could 
simply drill our way out of it by depending on fossil fuels.
  We need this balanced approach. What I sincerely hope that the 
President and the Vice President do is engage Congress to work on this, 
to balance out this approach and come up with a sustainable long-term 
policy.
  A lot of people will say on a number of these subjects that I talked 
about, whether it is wind, solar, fuel cell, increased conservation, it 
is just not cost effective. It does not work. In other words, it is too 
expensive right now to generate wind power, and you do not really get 
that much.
  Conservation will not really save you that much because you have to 
spend a lot of money to get there. We do not have the technology to 
accomplish this.
  I would like to draw an analogy to another topic that we have been 
debating here recently in Congress, and that is the national missile 
defense system. The President has also recently come out and said we 
need to build a national missile defense system, basically a system 
where we could protect at least some portion of the United States, 
actually, I think it is all of the United States, by being able to 
shoot down one or two rogue ICBMs if they are fired at the U.S.
  We will not find a scientist in this country right now who says that 
currently that can work at this moment. You will find some who say it 
will never work. You will find some others who think we can work our 
way out of it, but the bottom line is the President is saying that 
whatever you think about this policy, that it is so important to this 
country that we be able to protect ourselves from a rogue missile or 
ICBM coming from a rogue nation, that we should spend the money and 
find out.
  Figure it out. He is willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars 
to come up with this solution. Like I said, I am not speaking against 
that policy. He may well be right. That may be such an important policy 
to do that, but transfer that to energy. Why not spend at least a 
fraction of that developing some of these new technologies?
  If we can figure out in the President's estimation how to hit a 
bullet with a bullet, with the national missile defense system, by 
spending enough money, why can we not figure out how to conserve energy 
better and develop new sources of energy so that we are not relying on 
the fossil fuel system we have right now?
  The answer is that we can. We can develop those technologies, wean 
our dependence on fossil fuels and better use conservation so we have a 
cleaner future in addition to ones that generate the energy that we 
need.
  We need to take this balanced approach. It is not enough to simply 
say, coal, natural gas, oil, that is all we have, that is all that 
works, let us move on and not change, not look at conservation, not 
look at alternatives. We need to strike that balanced approach.
  I have some colleagues here who are going to participate in the 
debate as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, the energy issue is clearly an issue that 
is on everyone's mind right now. I just this past week invited a 
number, a cross section of individuals, to attend a meeting where we 
would discuss what was the appropriate role for the Federal Government 
with respect to energy policy.
  I had people who represented investor-run utilities. I had municipal 
utilities at the meeting, rural electric cooperative participants. We 
had large industrial consumers. We had low-income energy advocates. We 
had people from the State Regulatory Commission in Utah as well.
  I can tell my colleagues that if we need any other indication that 
this is a significant issue, everyone who we invited came to this 
meeting. It was a fascinating discussion, and what we talked about was 
the notion of a balanced approach, a balanced approach that 
incorporates a number of different solutions to what is an energy 
problem.
  Admittedly, this meeting tended to focus more on the electrical side 
of the equation than on the oil and the gasoline side, so my comments 
are going to focus more on that as well. But I would suggest that as we 
look at this energy issue, we really need to sequence time periods in 
which we are talking about what can we do, what can we do to put 
ourselves in a better position. In the short term, our options are 
rather limited.
  Clearly we have a supply and demand imbalance, and in the short term, 
you are not going to be building any new power plants very quickly. In 
the short term, the best available option we have right now is to 
increase energy efficiency.
  I want to make sure that people understand. As I say, energy 
efficiency, that is a notion where it is not like you have to give up 
something; it is not like you have to turn the thermostat

[[Page H2008]]

down to 60 degrees and put on five different sweaters. Efficiency means 
we can have the same comfort level but using less energy to get there.
  The technologies are there and, quite frankly, in the short term, 
which I describe for the next 2 years in the western United States, 
energy efficiency gains are one of the best tools we have to try to 
mitigate a very difficult circumstance that we are in in terms of that 
supply and demand dynamic.
  Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the midterm, which is the 2-year time 
frame to, let us say, the 30-year time frame. Energy efficiency is 
still going to be part of the equation, but there are more factors that 
can be added to the equation. This is where we can pursue new sources 
of supply.
  We are going to have to create additional sources of electric supply. 
We should probably take a balanced approach that incorporates a number 
of technologies, that is going to be part of the equation.
  If we look at the 25-30 years and beyond, that is what I call the 
real long-term perspective, we need to make a concerted effort, a 
concerted effort on research and development for technology to provide 
some solutions; solutions in terms of creating energy more efficiently, 
solutions in terms of using energy more efficiently and solutions in 
terms of creating energy from new sources that are not a significant 
part of our energy supply today.
  That is why as a Member of the Committee on Science, I am very 
concerned about the DOE budget numbers proposed by the administration 
that show cuts in research and development spending for energy 
efficiency programs and for energy supply, research and development as 
well. I am very concerned about that, because I think in the long term, 
it is good public policy for us to encourage development of good 
research and technology in this regard.
  I mentioned this energy forum and I mentioned all of these people who 
came and attended this forum. The fact is we talked about a whole bunch 
of policy areas where the Federal Government should or should not have 
a role.
  I just want to focus on one of those issues that we discussed as a 
group that I thought was very interesting and something that Members of 
Congress should keep in mind, and that is the sense that we have gotten 
into the situation we are in now partly due to the fact that we just 
had a lack of a predictable public policy.
  I used to work in the energy business. I developed cogeneration 
facilities in the independent power business, and I can tell my 
colleagues that by the time we got to about 1990, it became very 
difficult to make rational decisions about investing in new power 
plants because there was so much uncertainty about what the market was 
going to be.
  Congress was moving towards passage of something called the Energy 
Policy Act, which deregulated the whole cell side of our electric 
industry. But they said, you know what, it is up to the States to 
figure out what to do on the retail side. Right then we had a bit of a 
dysfunctional market where wholesale prices were deregulated and 
working in one marketplace and retail were working in a different 
situation.
  This is a complicated issue. Admittedly, it is hard to implement 
policy quickly, but we had a series of actions over the years since the 
Energy Policy Act was passed, FERC Order 888, FERC Order 889, FERC 
Order 2000. We are still trying to resolve what to do with our electric 
transmission systems in terms of regional transmission organizations.

                              {time}  2015

  We need to resolve those issues because decisions about investing in 
infrastructure, investing in new supply are difficult to make in the 
face of uncertainty. So I would suggest that, as a rule, we should try 
to develop unified predictable policies.
  The same applies in terms of dealing with regulatory rules for 
environmental permitting. Everyone in this meeting that I had in Salt 
Lake City last week indicated that they are concerned about following 
the rules. They want to follow the rules. No one suggested rolling back 
environmental regulations. But they all expressed a desire that we know 
what the rules are and that there is a process to work through an 
appropriate permitting activity.
  We have got to make sure, again, that we create that unified 
predictable policy environment where people can make rational 
decisions. I think that is an important goal for us as Members of 
Congress. I think that is an important part of developing the balanced 
energy policy that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) has been 
discussing.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up on a 
couple of points that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) made.
  First of all, in the investments in alternative energy and 
conservation programs, the cut in the President's proposed budget is 36 
percent from what was already a fairly meager amount. It was $373 
million last year. It goes down to $237 million in the President's 
budget. On something that is so important, we can certainly make a 
better investment and move, hopefully, forward towards finding some of 
these new technologies and finding that balanced approach.
  The second thing is I think it is critical to point out that this is 
not a one-sided problem, either on the conservation, new technology 
side. We do have a problem in locating plants. We did a bad job over 
the course of the last 10 years in preparing for what somebody should 
have seen coming, which was the offset of supply and demand that we 
currently are experiencing.
  Part of that problem is what the gentleman said, not knowing what the 
rules are. It is not a matter of we want to be able to build whatever 
power plant we want wherever, we just want to know what the rules are 
so that people can make an intelligent investment decision to build the 
plant where we want them to build it in the manner in which we want 
them to build it.
  There are a variety of different things we can do in that side of the 
technology, too. I mean, the way we have the system set up now, it 
costs more money to bring new plants online in terms of the sort of 
pollution credits that one has to buy, basically buying the right to 
pollute, but at the same time one is generating energy. That is the way 
we do it.
  But the newer plants are more efficient and more environmentally 
sensitive. The older plants that are not do not have to buy those 
credits, or at least they do not have to buy as much and pay as much. 
So.
  There is a whole lot of things we can look at, both on the generation 
of typical fossil fuels and conservation and new technology. It is a 
balanced approach that we really need to take to make this work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Etheridge) who is going to give us some further perspective on the 
issue.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I appreciate him pulling together this special order tonight to 
talk about an issue I think is very important. It is going to have such 
a significant impact in this country on so many areas of our economy. I 
do not think we even realize today what a tremendous impact it will 
have if it continues.
  We talk about the problems in California as if they are isolated, and 
the gentleman touched on them earlier. The issue of providing for 
encouraging people to save energy is critically important. One of the 
pieces, as we are seeing tremendous escalation in cost, is we are going 
to see a tremendous wealth transfer in this country as it relates to 
those who have very little, who are trying to make it to those who have 
considerably amount.
  I want to talk a little bit for a few minutes about the ever-
increasing cost of energy, because certainly we need a long-term 
policy. Certainly we need to do all those things. But energy is a lot 
like eating. One can talk about it in the long run, but we eat in the 
short run. We stay cool. We get in our cars. We need energy in the 
short term.
  As I travel through my district now over the last several months, I 
continue to hear complaints from constituents there about how energy 
prices are rising and there is no end in sight. Even when they go up 
and they come down, they do not come back down anywhere near where the 
last level was, hoping people are comfortable, knowing they are going 
up again. As I talk to my distributors and retailers, they say it is 
not us. So I ask, where is it?

[[Page H2009]]

  I hear from the farmers in my district. I have heard them talk about 
the high price of propane and natural gas prices are driving up the 
cost associated with farming. That is not just true in North Carolina, 
it is true all over this country.
  Many people here may not be aware of how farmers use propane. 
Certainly in North Carolina, they use it to dry the crops, whether it 
be peanuts or tobacco or corn or whatever it may be. But it is also 
used to run irrigation systems. It is used for heating purposes; 
because in the rural areas, propane is the gas of choice. They do not 
have pipelines.
  The farmers in North Carolina use it to heat their barns in the 
summer to cure products; and they use it when they have animals, for 
pigs or chickens or turkeys or whatever they may be. It is a part of 
their production process as well as running the irrigation system.
  They also use it in the homes and they have seen those prices 
virtually double when they spiked up this winter and they have not come 
back to the level they were last year.
  The natural gas price rise also has an impact on fertilizers that are 
used in the farming. We will not see that until next year. Mr. Speaker, 
natural gas is used as a feedstock for ammonia, which is used for 
anhydrous ammonia that goes on the corn in the Midwest and all the 
products grown in this country. We are going to see it at the grocery 
store. And if the prices do not rise for the farmers, they are going 
broke.
  Many of my colleagues may not know that natural gas accounts for 
about 90 percent of the cost of producing fertilizer. That is a 
substantial amount of the cost. With the doubling of the price of 
natural gas from last year, farmers are facing prices of anhydrous 
ammonia doubling this year. Double.
  Now, that is going to have a significant price on the cost of 
product. They are already having a difficult time making a living; and 
these additional costs associated with other energy costs for their 
diesel fuel, for the gasoline and other things they use on the farm, 
and the low commodity prices are going to drive more farmers out of 
business.
  The increase in energy price is also imposing a real economic 
hardship on thousands of urban citizens in my State, especially seniors 
on fixed income. They need that energy in the short run, and this cost 
is driving it up. Families on limited and fixed income face enough 
challenges without these unexpected increases that are associated with 
the necessities that they need.
  Let me just share two examples that were in the paper recently. 
Because of the high cost of natural gas, Gloria Williams, a single 
mother in southeast Raleigh, who goes to school during the day to 
improve her lot in life and works at a Target store in the evening to 
sustain and support her family, did not even turn on the gas last 
winter in her home. She could not afford it. So she used wood or any 
other alternative fuel she could get just to keep it warm and get 
through the winter.
  Another person in Garner by the name of Fred Joyner, a retired logger 
who has a disability payment, he said his bill was usually $75 a month, 
and it doubled. He said, ``it digs deep that bill, but you gotta stay 
warm. It's like eating.'' One has got to pay the bill. He said, I do 
without other things.
  No family in America should be required to do this so that just a 
very few could put more on the bottom line.
  Gasoline prices are creeping up, Mr. Speaker, and some are jumping. 
My district does not enjoy much of the benefits of an extensive and 
expansive public transportation system. The only public system we have 
of any extent is the one that transports our children to and from 
school. One needs to understand that those prices are going up at a 
rapid rate, and that is going to affect the public till for those who 
are paying for it.
  The State is facing an $850 million shortfall in their budget. My 
constituents are car people. That is how they get back and forth to 
work. Heck, the interstate outside Raleigh just got HOV lanes about a 
year ago. When gas goes up, they feel it in their pocketbooks. Their 
daily commutes to and from work or trips to the beach or the mountains 
when they used to make them, they will be cut back. There is no end in 
sight.
  According to a recent report issued by the Department of Energy 
Information Administration, they have forecast the prices to continue 
to increase. Last year, natural gas wellhead prices averaged $3.62 per 
thousand cubic feet. For this year, EIA predicts the average wellhead 
price will be almost 50 percent above that. There is a reason for that. 
It is hard to believe that the wellhead prices have escalated at this 
level.
  The price of propane is heavily tied to natural gas, as propane is a 
natural byproduct of natural gas. When propane prices rise and spike 
like they did last winter, they do not come back down to their previous 
level. We have already seen that.

  As EIA is predicting natural gas prices, it is also predicting 
foreseeable higher propane prices extending out for the next 20 months. 
I would like to know why it is keeping increasing, and we have not 
heard anyone talk about how we get it down.
  Last year, there was a lot of grumbling over gas prices. They were 
high, but not high enough to dissuade Americans from taking vacations. 
That may happen this year.
  When the Energy Department testified last Wednesday, they said that 
EIA forecast that the average retail price for gasoline over the summer 
would range from $1.50 to $1.65 a gallon. That compares with $1.53 last 
year at the highest level.
  Yesterday, I read in The Washington Post that the range had already 
expanded to a $1.75, and that is 5 percent above last year's record 
highest prices. I have even heard the prediction for some of the energy 
analysts that the price in this country might even reach $3. I raise 
the question, how do you know it is going to be $3?
  Folks were quite patient last summer, but I do not know if Americans 
are willing to put up with the gas pries as they continue to get 
higher. If gas prices run up to $3, the American people will want to 
know why it happened. So far, they have not liked the explanations that 
they have been hearing, that price increases are simply an example of 
the market at work.
  I ask the question: What market? Is the market working when the 
Federal Trade Commission approves of a merger between two of the 
largest oil companies as is expected in June between Texaco and 
Chevron? Will consumers think that removing one more competitor from 
the field will help lower gas prices? I do not think so.
  I have been brought up to believe that competition is good, that it 
helps keep prices down. I believe more people would agree with me if 
they think it through. When one cuts the number of companies fighting 
over customers, how will that price go down. The American people are 
going to want answers to these questions. But they may not feel we have 
reached a crisis proportion concerning energy, but it may be coming.
  Now I know some people do not want to characterize our energy 
predicament as a crisis. That word gets people worried. It can upset 
the stock market, and I understand that. But I do believe the situation 
is urgent and, as a result, demands an urgent and prompt response from 
the Bush administration.
  I think the American people deserve the same level of urgency, the 
same sense of urgency from President Bush that Governor Bush 
demonstrated to oil producers when they were hurting by the drop in oil 
prices in 1999. I urge the administration to demonstrate its 
understanding of the urgency of this situation by developing an energy 
policy that does not tell Americans they have to wait a few years 
before any relief will be found to higher energy prices.
  I thank the gentleman from Washington for this opportunity to 
participate in this special order this evening because this is an issue 
that is important, not only to my constituents in North Carolina, but 
as the gentleman has indicated, to all Americans.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen), from my home State. As Washingtonians, we know 
this is not just a California problem. It is certainly not even just a 
West Coast problem.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith) for yielding to me.

[[Page H2010]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk a little bit about the energy 
crisis in the West, how it is affecting families and businesses in my 
home district, the second district of Washington State and what I and 
other new Democrats are doing to try to provide a balanced 
comprehensive long-term solution.

                              {time}  2030

  In many ways we are facing ``The Perfect Storm'' of energy. The 
energy crisis in Washington State is the result of a number of factors 
happening, seemingly impossibly, at the same time: a failed 
deregulation plan in California, an inefficient supply of energy, 
congested transmission pathways, inaction by the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to ensure just and reasonable rates in the 
Pacific Northwest, and, ironically, for the Pacific Northwest, the lack 
of rain.
  Many people refer to this crisis as just a California crisis, but 
clearly this has not been the case in my district. It is a Washington 
State energy crisis, an Oregon crisis, Idaho, Montana. Definitely the 
Northwest and soon to be a national crisis. And the impact of this 
crisis is being felt all across my district through decreased economic 
growth, job loss, and unbelievably high energy bills for working 
families and senior citizens.
  Across my district consumers and businesses are currently 
experiencing utility price increases of 35 percent. And as the summer 
and fall arrive, we will see those rates jump another 40 to 100 
percent. At the State level, increased energy costs threaten over 
100,000 jobs statewide and over a quarter million jobs region-wide. 
Clearly, this crisis is immediate, intense, and far reaching.
  High energy costs will decimate industry and working families in my 
district. In March of this year, Georgia Pacific, a pulp mill that had 
been employing hundreds of workers in Bellingham, Washington, since 
1926, shut its pulp factory for good due to high energy prices, costing 
400 working-wage families in Bellingham, Washington, their jobs.
  Not only has the city lost revenue and workers lost jobs, but local 
restaurants have lost business. The port has lost shipping revenue, and 
the suppliers who supplied materials to GP for years have now lost 
their top customer, costing thousands of dollars in lost revenues. The 
plant closure alone will cost the city of Bellingham $235,000 a month 
in tax revenues and cost the economy in Whatcom County at least $100 
million a year.
  Recently, Intalco, an aluminum company, announced if its energy costs 
are not reasonable by October, they too will have to close their plant, 
and that is another 930 jobs threatened in my district.
  I have with me just a box of about a thousand letters I have received 
from employees, family members, relatives, and friends of those 
employees at Intalco. Clearly this energy crisis is having a huge 
impact. One constituent wrote, ``I'm an employee at Alcoa/Intalco Works 
in Ferndale and as it looks like right now, my job will vaporize due to 
the forces beyond my or my company's control; namely, the exorbitant 
price of power our plant must have to survive. It is a situation that 
may require me and my family moving from Washington permanently. We 
don't want to do this, but we have to make a living too. Please come to 
our aid.''
  Another woman from Ferndale wrote, ``My husband has worked at 
Intalco/Alcoa in Ferndale, Washington, for 22 years. We have three 
daughters. One will be in college for 2 years, the two others to 
follow. Don't let one year of drought destroy the aluminum industry. 
Give them time to come up with solutions.''
  Another woman in Bellingham pleaded, ``I would like to know what I 
can tell my 10-year-old when she asks me what we're going to do when 
Intalco shuts down. I have worked there for 5 years now, and it has 
been a good job for my family. But, with the shutdown of this plant, 
I'll be out of work. And with GP also shut down, there are two less 
places that will pay a wage you can raise a family on.''
  In Sedro Woolley one person wrote, ``My husband Brent works for 
Intalco. He is scared he will lose his job due to the energy crisis. We 
are having to give our power, as well as conserve, just to lose our 
jobs and turn our community into a ghost town. The situation is real, 
as you well know, and our children see the concern we have for our 
community and the people around us. Time is running out.''
  Small businesses are suffering as well. One business owner wrote, ``I 
have lived in Whatcom County all of my life. I have owned a home and 
business for over 20 years, and about one-third of all my customers are 
in the aluminum or steel industries. Losing any or all of them will 
have a dramatic impact on my business. Ravaging a prosperous and 
important community like ours is a terrible and destructive solution 
for the short-term goal of meeting energy demand.''
  Our Nation is badly in need of a national energy policy that is 
balanced, that is comprehensive, that is visionary, that answers the 
call that we are hearing from people in my district and people all over 
this country. The crisis I have commented on tonight in the West 
threatens to spread throughout this country, and this summer will bring 
higher utility bills and gasoline prices for far too many Americans.
  Much of what has been offered so far by the administration is, 
unfortunately, short on vision and offers no truly long-term solutions 
to the energy problem. The Vice President recently noted that 
conservation is simply a virtue and the only real solution is to 
continue with fossil fuels and consuming them at an unprecedented pace. 
In fact, he continued to argue, in order to keep up with the demand, we 
need to build a power plant a week for the next 20 years.
  I would say only an approach that includes both short- and long-term 
solutions will truly ensure the energy independence our Nation is 
calling for and must have. Many of my Democratic colleagues and I 
believe we do not have to choose between growing our economy and 
protecting our environment. We can do both. In fact, a growing economy 
is dependent upon a cleaner, reliable energy source for generations to 
come.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) and others have been 
talking about a new Democrat approach to our national energy policy; 
and our approach will expand and diversify our energy supply, providing 
a balanced vision that does more than simply find and consume fossil 
fuels. I recognize a comprehensive energy policy requires a combination 
of traditional fossil fuels and natural gas, but it also requires 
expanding wind and solar power viability that will not only make for a 
cleaner energy supply but will also stabilize prices and ensure 
reliability.
  In the short-term we can harness the power of technology and 
modernize our regulations to make existing fossil fuel sources of power 
cleaner and more efficient. I feel this requires an important incentive 
for the installation of cogeneration and other technologies and a drive 
to ensure we continue to utilize these new technologies in years to 
come.
  As we seek to expand and diversify our energy supply, we must upgrade 
our transmission system to ensure that the creation of new forms of 
energy can be transferred efficiently. We must encourage private and 
public efforts to greatly increase the investment in building and 
improving existing transmission lines and pipelines, while ensuring an 
expansion of infrastructure is both safe and efficient.
  Conservation and efficiency programs will ensure that our limited 
supply of fossil fuels last longer. It makes little sense to embrace an 
energy plan based almost exclusively on a finite resource without also 
aggressively encouraging the conservation of those resources. And I 
believe conservation should not just be a personal virtue, it must be 
our national priority. Empowering consumers to make energy-wise 
decisions has to be a key component to a fully-functioning energy 
market.
  As we seek to develop new forms of environmentally responsible forms 
of new generation, again we must improve the efficiency of these new 
forms of generation. I believe this includes public-private sector 
partnerships to improve extraction methods and encourage cleaner, more 
efficient generation. This approach must also include an aggressive 
focus to increase the supply of renewable energy as a component of our 
national energy portfolio.

[[Page H2011]]

  We must have a substantial increase in funding for research and 
development into these programs which will encourage energy efficiency 
and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass, incremental 
hydropower, and geothermal. We must also work to provide realistic 
market incentives to develop and use renewable energy at the 
residential, commercial, and at the national level.
  We must push for high-efficiency standards, whether it is for 
vehicles, buildings, homes, or appliances. Improving efficiency will 
require mechanisms to encourage Federal, State, and local governments 
to use and purchase alternative fuel vehicles and make all government 
buildings energy efficient. We must also provide market incentives, 
low-interest loans and grants to make capital improvements to increase 
energy efficiency and encourage the manufacture and purchase of fuel 
efficient vehicles.

  And to be specific on one point, we must reauthorize and strengthen 
the Renewable Energy Production Incentive program as soon as possible, 
which will help bring an incentive to renewable energy in this country.
  Finally, we must ensure that no group is left behind by the current 
crisis, including seniors and low income. I commend the administration 
for their budget increases in LIHEAP and State weatherization funding, 
which are key components for empowering local efforts to deal with the 
effects of this crisis adequately. However, programs within other 
Federal agencies, like the public housing operating fund with Housing 
and Urban Development, must be increased to help our local housing 
authorities to keep rents down for low-income families.
  In closing, I believe very simply that new Democrats understand that 
a comprehensive energy plan for the future is critical to our Nation's 
long-term prosperity. The livelihood of families in my district, in 
Washington State, and across the country depend upon it. And I want to 
thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for the opportunity to 
speak on this tonight, and I yield back to him.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I thank the gentleman very much.
  We also have, for a Midwest perspective, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Kind). As has been mentioned frequently, but I do not think can be 
mentioned often enough, this is a national problem that we need to step 
up to. It will have a profound effect on our economy if we do not 
figure out some way to provide affordable energy sources to our Nation 
for a long time to come, which will be a big challenge.
  I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington State for 
yielding to me and also for organizing this Special Order tonight. I 
want to commend the gentleman and also our colleague, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Larsen), for the initiative and the leadership you 
have taken within the new Democratic coalition forming a comprehensive 
long-term energy task force, which is a work in progress but 
nevertheless long overdue as far as this institution is concerned and, 
obviously, the American people.
  But in a lot of ways this is not really a new conversation that is 
being started amongst many of us, but rather a continuation of a 
conversation we have been having for quite some time but, quite 
frankly, have not received any attention or any work on because of the 
plentiful cheap energy sources that the country has been enjoying for 
many, many years. In fact, I think, in a lot of ways, former President 
Jimmy Carter was before his time. He was criticized and even laughed at 
at times when he was walking around the White House with a sweater on 
preaching the values of energy conservation. Of course, that happened 
during the OPEC crisis. But as soon as the crisis abated and oil became 
cheap again and OPEC start opening up their supply lines, any talk 
about conservation or energy efficiency went out the window, and we 
have not had much progress administration after administration.
  I think the previous administration, the Clinton administration, 
deserves much more credit than they have received in regard to the 
energy budgets they submitted time and time again on Capitol Hill. But 
again it was received with laughter, saying that it was too green, 
unnecessary and drastic proposals, when actually what they were asking 
to do was trying to fund and create some incentives to explore 
alternative and renewable energy sources in the country, realizing that 
that has got to be a part of any long-term energy policy.

  But I think we all realized that nothing significant was going to be 
accomplished on this front until ultimately the American people felt 
the pain, and we have seen that now in the recent year. We have the 
crisis on the West Coast, whether it is California and the rolling 
blackouts, but even the Pacific Northwest, where you two gentlemen are 
confronting with the low water and the reduced hydroelectric supply 
that the Northwest relies upon for their energy needs. But this is true 
from State to State. And if truth be known, even a State like 
Wisconsin, which is the State I represent, is on the margin as far as 
delivering the energy capacity and the need that the people back home 
require. We could be a whisker away from having our own energy crisis 
because of transmission problems and some of tin fracture problems that 
have developed in the State of Wisconsin.
  I am glad the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) brought a few of 
the letters from constituents and how they are feeling the pain, 
because I think all of us right now in our respective offices are 
getting a lot of phone calls and a lot of letters. Back home I can 
point to many family farmers that are on the margin already because of 
low commodity and milk prices that are getting pinched and many forced 
out of the business because of the spike in energy costs right now.
  But this is true for small business owners; we are seeing the impact 
on school budgets and the energy needs our schools have. It is true for 
families on fixed incomes, large and small businesses alike. This has a 
universal effect throughout the country. It is not just a regional 
problem, but one that will require a national solution. It is going to 
require bipartisan cooperation and some creative thinking in this body 
and throughout the country to come up with a long-term sustainable 
comprehensive energy policy.
  All of us are anxious to see where the Bush and Cheney administration 
goes with their report. I think some of the preliminary indications are 
a little disheartening, the fact that they are concentrating so much 
and focused so much on the exploration and production of more fossil 
fuels. I do not think having greater dependence and reliance on fossil 
fuels is a sustainable or a sensible long-term energy policy: A, fossil 
fuels are in finite supply to begin with; but, B, there is a plethora 
of scientific evidence and the scientific community has rallied around 
the evidence that exists pointing to global warming and the greenhouse 
effect, which has been spurred by the increase in consumption and the 
burning of fossil fuels. So naturally, you would not think that any 
long-term energy policy would require an increased reliance on fossil 
fuel consumption.

                              {time}  2045

  I hope that is not the report that they produce next week, but I was 
also disheartened by Vice President Cheney's discussion about the role 
of conservation in this country. He does not think it should be part of 
the long-term solution. That was surprising given the fact that 
corporate America has been investing hundreds of millions of dollars to 
upgrade their machines and tools that they are using, trying to invest 
in the latest technology, whether it is heat exchanges or cooling 
equipment, things which are reducing energy costs and increasing worker 
productivity.
  I think the Vice President should talk with corporate America about 
the role of conservation, because they see the need and they are taking 
affirmative action.
  The work product that we have been involved with so far is long-
sighted, and it is reasonable. I am talking about the benefits of 
increased energy efficiency, a new generation of energy resources that 
will look at the possibility and the potential of renewable and 
alternative energy sources.
  I am also talking about the need to upgrade our energy infrastructure 
in this country so it is efficient and cleaner and it is safer in 
whatever region that we are talking about.

[[Page H2012]]

  The role of conservation I think many people just intuitively 
understand and get; otherwise why do we have so many Americans 
participating in recycling programs, for instance? But also the greater 
need for industry cooperation and collaboration. These answers are not 
going to be just found in the public sector by elected representatives, 
but it requires an integral public and private partnership to pull this 
off.
  The United States of America has 4 percent of the world's population, 
but we are consuming over 25 percent of the fossil fuels produced in 
the world. We are increasing our energy consumption 20 percent every 5 
years in this country. If we do not have a long-term solution with 
multiple pieces to find the right answers, that obviously is not going 
to be a sustainable energy policy.
  I am ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources on the Committee on Resources. We have been holding hearings 
in regards to energy policy and fossil fuels and the role of fossil 
fuels. Last week we had a very good hearing on the potential of 
geothermal power in this country; a tremendous potential, especially on 
the West Coast in Nevada and California. California already is 
consuming roughly 10 percent of their energy from geothermal power.
  Other countries are taking a lot of action, a lot of proactive steps. 
Even a country as small as Kenya is making a major infrastructure 
investment in geothermal power for their long-term energy needs. It is 
projected right now in Kenya, over 25 percent of their energy will come 
from geothermal sources within the next 15 years. This is true whether 
you talk about South America, some of the countries in Asia, except for 
the United States.
  I submit that one of the reasons for that is because we have become 
complacent and take for granted the cheap energy sources, mainly fossil 
fuels, which have perpetuated the industry without enough investment 
and forward-thinking with alternatives and renewables.
  Wind power, to give you another example, it was a short period ago 
where it was costing anywhere from 20 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour 
with wind that is being generated. Today that is down to about 2 to 3 
cents, a tremendous increase in efficiency in bringing it into market 
competition.
  The same is true for solar and biomass opportunities. The research 
and development on fuel cells is tremendously exciting. We are starting 
to see prototype automobiles being developed by these companies at the 
forefront of fuel cell development. It is already powering our space 
shuttle on the missions up there. There is no reason why we cannot 
implement this at home, in our appliances and our machines that we are 
using to produce goods.
  All of this needs to be a part of the equation. I do not think anyone 
standing alone is going to be the answer. Needless to say, we have our 
work cut out for us in this body, the current administration, the 
private sector, and the American people. By working together, I think 
we do have the ingenuity to come up with something that is going to be 
sustainable for future generations.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Smith) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) as we move 
forward in the new Democratic Coalition trying to put together this 
comprehensive piece, something that makes sense from region to region 
and is national in scope. Certainly there is enough interest being 
generated by our folks back home. They are looking for some long-term 
answers to this energy crisis that they see.
  Hopefully by working together, and again in a bipartisan fashion, we 
will be able to come up with a plan that is needed in the future, given 
our current consumption levels, but also given the incredible potential 
that exists with technological breakthroughs and the research and 
development that is already ongoing. I thank the gentleman from 
Washington for organizing this special order tonight. I am sure that 
this will not be the last of our conversations on this topic.

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues 
for doing an excellent job of talking about the problem and where we 
need to go in terms of finding solutions. This is a great opportunity 
for this Congress and this President to work together in a bipartisan 
way. The President has talked a great deal about wanting to change the 
tone in Washington and work in a different way. There is some 
frustration, particularly amongst moderate Democrats like myself, that 
that has been more rhetorical at this point than actual, but there is 
still plenty of time. We are a little over 100 days into this, and 
there are some very important policies that are yet to be fleshed out.
  The President, by taking a focus on energy, could make a huge 
difference by bringing people in. I think if there is any issue out 
there that should be bipartisan, it is certainly energy. It is critical 
to everything that we do, as was outlined by my colleagues quite well.
  But I think the critical element in all of this is understanding both 
the cost of taking the approach that says fossil fuels are the only way 
to get us out of this, and also the rich field of opportunities to go a 
different route. Just think about it.
  Building a power plant a week for the next 20 years to burn more 
fossil fuels, the impact of that cannot be underestimated; the sheer 
cost of doing it, the damage to the environment of both building the 
plants and also of the consumption of those fossil fuels. That is not 
to say, as all of my colleagues have done a great job of saying, that 
this should not be a critical part of it. We are going to have to use 
fossil fuels and build power plants; but we should look at the cost and 
difficulties in doing that and understand that an alternative is 
preferable, and then look at the alternatives and say, you know, it is 
not an impossible dream.
  There are alternative technologies out there right now that are 
working. There are ways to conserve energy in a way that will save us 
dramatically, and that is with what has been a relatively meager 
investment in those technologies and conservation techniques. Think of 
what we could do if we actually committed ourselves to solving that 
problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth the investment and worth the time 
and energy on our part to do that and come up with the alternatives and 
build a brighter future that is not as dependent on the constant fossil 
fuel cycle that we are going through and make us so dependent on 
foreign nations for the future of our country.
  I thank the new Democrat Coalition in putting this special order 
together, and I look forward to working with them as well as everyone 
else in the Congress and the administration and throughout this country 
to come up with an energy policy which will sustain us for the future.

                          ____________________