[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2265-H2271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have had the first hour discussing
issues that relate to energy and the current situation. Some would
label it a crisis. I must say that I listened to my esteemed colleagues
from the other side of the aisle, but I guess I would take a slightly
different tact in terms of the situation we face and the opportunities
for improving it.
Having a dependable supply of energy and using it wisely is clearly
critical for a livable community. But the current controversy
surrounding energy ought to be an example where we can come together
and make a difference, where this Congress and this administration can
give thoughtful consideration to the impact that energy decisions can
have on the livability of our communities and develop a more rational
approach to energy utilization.
Now, unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle, the
President, his chief spokesperson, and most recently, Vice President
Cheney are setting up a false policy conflict for the American public.
This has nothing to do with cutting back on the American quality of
life, throwing vast numbers of people out of work.
They would like us to believe that somehow being more thoughtful
about the use of energy and the Federal Government's role in promoting
a better approach is somehow an assault on the American way of life.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
America works best when we give people choices so that they can
determine what works best for them. What choice do our friends in
California have today paying far more for energy using far less when
energy supplies are actually in pretty strong condition? We are going
to hear from one of my colleagues tonight from California discussing
that situation in greater length.
A country that disregards the value of conservation, that ignores
fuel efficiency for automobiles, that seeks to maximize production at
the expense of
[[Page H2266]]
environmental quality is not protecting the American way of life, nor
is it doing American families or business any favors.
With all due respect to the Vice President, he got it exactly wrong.
Energy conservation is not just a matter of personal virtue. But even
if it was, there is nothing wrong with formulating energy policy that
recognizes the importance of this virtue.
{time} 2030
Energy conservation should be the foundation of our national policy,
not belittled by our national leaders.
Now, luckily, the Vice President and the President have been backing
away from that for the last couple of days, and maybe we are going to
get some positive recommendations from them; but the fact remains that
it is the only way we will provide significant amounts of additional
energy in the near term, not the proposal to go nuclear, not the
proposal to build a power plant a week.
Energy conservation is an approach that has already been proven to be
effective and has received, when we get a chance to deal with it here
on the floor of this Chamber, broad bipartisan support. All the hotly
debated talk about drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is not going
to alleviate problems facing the consumers now. Indeed, the
administration has proposed cutting the budget for energy conservation.
We need a set of policies that actually encourages it.
Tonight we are going to discuss some of these elements, because there
are simple, energy-efficient conservation methods that we can be taking
today. In my State of Oregon, like 10 other States, there is a bottle
bill. Aluminum-can recycling saves 95 percent of the energy needed to
make aluminum from bauxite oil. Energy savings in 1993 alone was enough
to light up a city the size of Pittsburgh for 6 years.
Now, let me bring this down to a more tangible example. The energy
saved from recycling one aluminum can will operate a home computer for
3 hours. Energy saved from recycling one glass bottle will operate a
100 watt light bulb for 4 hours. Recycling seven soup cans saves enough
energy to operate a 60 watt bulb for 26 hours.
There was talk from the other side of the aisle about somehow taking
cars away from the American public. That is ludicrous. That is not the
issue. We are talking about extending fuel-efficiency standards so that
the 40 percent of oil that is used by cars and light trucks goes
further. Switching from driving an average new car to a 13-mile-per-
gallon SUV for 1 year is the equivalent of leaving your refrigerator
door open for 6 years. And it has been discussed at great length. The
notion of just improving the fuel standards for SUVs three miles per
gallon will more than offset the amount of energy that we could hope to
extract from the wildlife refuge, which the American public does not
want us to invade; and it will get that energy to us quicker.
We are going to discuss this evening issues that relate to energy
conservation with building standards. If we simply change the color of
a roof to a light color, it will reflect the heat rays and lower home
temperatures by as much as 5 degrees.
We have issues that we are going to be discussing this evening in
terms of dealing with higher standards for energy-guzzling appliances.
Rather than rolling back the standards that would improve these
efficiencies that are improved by the last administration, we ought to
maintain them.
We have, today, an opportunity to move forward and make a difference.
And, sadly, it is my friends on the other side of the aisle and the
Republican administration that are out of step with the American
public. In Monday's poll in USA Today, an overwhelming majority of
Americans favored conservation over drilling in the ANWR or moving in
other directions. The American public understands that that will make a
huge difference.
Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I could, to turn to my colleague from
California, who has had some firsthand experience in the impacts that
this has. We are going to have a spirited discussion. We have a number
of colleagues, but I would like to turn the first 3 or 4 minutes of our
discussion over to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who can
talk a little bit about the perspective of what we are facing in the
State of California and what we ought to be doing to help this country.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon, who has
a distinguished record on trying to move our policies toward livable
communities and sustainable approaches to energy and to the quality of
life.
I am from California, and that is ground zero for a crisis. But
rather than focus on the long term, because the gentleman has, I think,
illuminated that rather well, I want to focus on the short term.
We are told that what California is suffering now is somehow our own
fault; that energy companies wanted to build power plants in our State,
were desperate, knew how profitable it would be, and we just would not
let them because we are so concerned about the environment. Nothing
could be a bigger lie.
First, private industry did not particularly want to build power
plants in California because they did not think they would make big
money. When they bought the plants, they bought them for rather modest
prices. And if they were desperate to build new ones, they certainly
would have paid a premium for old ones. They were not trying to build
new ones, and they did not pay very much for the old ones. They did not
realize, until they lucked into it, that energy would be tight enough
in California so that they could gouge the California consumer; that
what looked like a modest investment in a State that could produce
enough electricity to meet its needs would turn into a gold mine of
gouging not because of actual shortages but because of a new concept in
electric power called ``closed for maintenance.''
We have seen in each of the last 8 months double or triple the amount
of capacity ``closed for maintenance'' than in that same month 12 years
ago. Closed for maintenance means closed to maintain an ungodly price
for each kilowatt.
And so just to prove that there was not some intense desire to build
power plants in California somehow stopped by these environmental
extremists we are tagged with, reflect on the fact that California is
not by itself an energy market. Each of the adjoining States,
particularly Nevada and Arizona, are part of that energy market. And so
if there is a plant built in Arizona or Nevada, those plants can sell
into California. The electrons really do not know when they are coming
to a State boundary.
So if industry was desperate to build power plants to supply
California, they could have built them in California, Arizona, Nevada,
or Oregon. They chose not to, until quite recently. What they chose to
do instead was to operate the old power plants, close a few for
maintenance, and make a fortune on each kilowatt.
In 1999, we paid $7 billion for our electricity in California. The
next year, the year 2000, we actually used less electricity at peak
times, and they charged us $32.5 billion. This year we will not use
more electricity; but we will be paying 50, 60, or perhaps even $70
billion for the same electrons that we were paying $7 billion for just
a couple years ago.
The answer to this crisis is here in Washington. Now, we are told
that California should not expect a bailout. I do not want one penny
from any of the States represented here. There are some programs to
help out a few people in California, and those are wonderful programs;
but we do not need a single penny. All we need is to regulate on a fair
basis, with generous profits for the power plants in California.
Now, we are told that California should solve the problem ourselves.
Why are we not self-reliant? We are bound and gagged with Federal rope
spun out of the White House. Federal law prevents us from regulating
the price of electricity from these plants. And so we can almost hear
the muffled laughter from the White House as Federal law ties us up,
the White House prevents this Congress from untying us, and they can
laugh at California and say It's all your fault.
A White House that cared about fairness would reinstitute the same
policies that we have had in the electric industry for over 100 years
and that built this country, and for at least a couple of years more
have rates based on
[[Page H2267]]
costs, with fair profit to those generating electricity in the West.
Until that happens, we will have an artificial crisis, transferring
billions and tens of billions in wealth from all the people of
California to a few megacorporations, which just happen to be based in
Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's forceful explanation
this evening, and he is one who has been a tireless advocate for trying
to shine a spotlight on the situation in California. I really
appreciate his focusing on what has happened to a State over the last
couple of years that is actually using less energy, that is working on
conservation, and is paying a terrible price, multiple, multiple times
what they paid just 2 years ago.
The gentleman's tireless advocacy is extraordinarily useful in
helping us understand this situation.
Mr. SHERMAN. If I can have just a couple of seconds, I would like to
point out that per capita California uses less electricity than any
State except Rhode Island. And in a couple of months, we will be number
one in minimizing our use of electricity among all 50 States. This rape
of California is not justified.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
I would now, if I could, turn to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone), who has been a tireless champion on this floor dealing with
issues of the environment generally and I know has a special interest
in areas that affect energy conservation, the use of energy; and I
yield to him at this time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Oregon. I
said last night when we had some of our Democratic colleagues doing a
Special Order on energy that we would continue to make the point every
night if necessary, and I want to thank my colleague from Oregon for
continuing that tonight.
We know that tomorrow President Bush is expected to unveil his energy
package. We have gotten some indication, even though he has this secret
task force with Vice President Cheney, and they do not really tell us,
they do not reveal what they are doing, they do it behind closed doors;
but we have had some indication of what they are going to suggest
tomorrow. From all indications, the Bush-Cheney energy plan that has
been developed in secret is basically pro-drilling, pro-nuclear, anti-
consumer, and as the gentleman from Oregon has so well mentioned, anti-
environment.
I have had a number of my constituents say to me, well, why is Bush
so anti-environment? Why is the President this way? Why is he leaving
the issue of what kind of an energy policy we should have primarily to
the oil companies and the oil interests? And the answer is that he and
the Vice President are captive. They are the oil companies. They are
the oil interests. They are the special interests.
We know that big oil gave $3.2 million to the Bush campaign and $25.6
million to Republicans overall; and other sectors of the energy
industry have been similarly generous. Apparently, tomorrow is payback
time to the energy industry, and I am afraid that consumers and the
environment are going to suffer for it.
I do not say that because I am trying to be cute. As the gentleman
knows and he mentioned, and the gentleman is the champion of the
livable communities issue, which is so important in my home State of
New Jersey as it is in Oregon and around the country, people care about
the environment. People do not want drilling at the expense of the
environment.
{time} 2045
But what we are getting is drilling in ANWR, in the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge. Further, the Bush administration seems to have decided to move
forward with offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico, even
rejecting an appeal from the President's brother, who is the Governor
of Florida. President Bush has suggested drilling for oil in national
monuments. He told that to the Denver Post.
We are getting the oil and gas companies running the show. He wants
to drill, build new plants. Not that we should not, but I do not know
that we need as many as he is suggesting. He does not seem to want to
do anything about what my colleague from California and his
constituents face, the problems they face right now. He has rejected,
as the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) knows, the idea of any
wholesale price caps which, from what I can see, are the best way to
address the near-term problem in California and western States.
He said that he does not want to do anything about OPEC. He is not
going to ask them to increase production. He said it is not good policy
to ask. He says that he does not want to use the SPR, the strategic
petroleum reserve, to control prices. He does not seem to have any
concern about the immediate problem of gasoline prices.
Mr. Speaker, we are at $1.72 in my district now, but I understand in
California we are over $2. I would not be surprised to see $2.50 or $3
a gallon in the next few weeks.
The Democrats unveiled through our energy task force on Monday their
proposal. Lo and behold, the Democrats not only want to deal with long-
term energy efficiency and provide tax credits for people who buy a car
or a home that provide for energy or fuel efficiency, but we want to
put an end to the price gouging. We are saying, go to OPEC and demand
that they increase production so that prices come down. Use the SPR as
President Clinton and the previous President, the father, did before
President Clinton. Instruct the Department of Justice to investigate to
ensure that illegal price-fixing does not occur, and have FERC impose
wholesale price caps so we do not continue to have the blackouts.
Mr. Speaker, we passed this tax reconciliation bill and this tax cut,
which I opposed and most Democrats opposed. President Bush is saying,
we will give you a tax refund and you can take that tax refund and pay
the higher prices for gasoline at the pump. Well, I have never heard
anything so ridiculous in my life. Now I am going to feed the oil
industry with my tax refund, which is probably going to be very limited
if I am middle income. But I am supposed to take that and give it to
the oil companies so they can continue to make huge profits and
continue to pay the Bush-Cheney campaign expenses. Hopefully, someday
everybody will wake up and realize what an outrage this is.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments;
and I was particularly struck by something that the gentleman said at
the outset, because the gentleman was here in Congress when there was a
big uproar because the First Lady had a secret committee examining
health care costs and ways to bring it down.
My recollection is that people on the other side of the aisle were
outraged that there would be these discussions about a public policy
issue and not be open to the public. And it seems to me that you make
an extremely valid point that all these discussions now have been in
secret, with a very limited cross-section of people excluding the broad
range of interests, and now it is going to be inflicted upon us. It
seems to me a certain amount of inconsistency.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, then-Candidate Bush
said at the time when heating oil prices were soaring in my State, he
said, ``What I think the President ought to do is get on the phone with
the OPEC cartel and say, we expect you to open your spigots.''
Now he says that he does not want to talk to the cartel. I think
Secretary Abraham was saying that it was sort of degrading to the
United States to have to go to OPEC and ask them to open the spigots.
He might feel degraded, but my constituents would like him to go to the
OPEC countries, some of whom we have saved their very existence, and
ask them to open their spigots.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I turn to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee), my colleague from the Seattle area who has been an
advocate and concerned citizen dealing with these issues. We have had a
tremendous impact in the State of Washington, and I know the gentleman
has been a leader here in bringing people from the West and the West
Coast to deal with these impacts.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman would like to make a few
comments from his unique perspective. Maybe California thinks that they
are
[[Page H2268]]
ground zero, but there are those of us who feel we are getting a few of
the after-shocks.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. I would like to pick up on the gentleman from New
Jersey's comment about this really ludicrous idea put forward by the
President that his tax cut bill is a solution to the gouging of prices
that we face in California, both for gasoline and electricity.
First, the idea of giving people their tax money back so they can
give it to the energy and oil companies, that strikes me as so
inefficient. Why does he not have the courage of his convictions and
simply ask the American taxpayer to send the money directly from the
Federal Treasury to the oil companies? As the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone) pointed out, a portion of that money to the oil companies
will go to the Republican Party, so you can send a portion of the
surplus to the Republican Party and the bulk to the energy companies.
The second thing to point out is as working Californians are paying
$2.10 for regular gasoline, as they are paying double and triple the
electric bills, if you say a single mother in California with a couple
of kids, an income of $20,000, how much money does she get out of this
tax cut? Zero. So she still pays the $2.10 a gallon. She still pays
double or triple the electric bill, and she gets nothing from the tax
cut.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I was
in a town hall meeting the other day, and I had a constituent that sort
of suggested that it would have been simpler just to cut out the
middleman of giving us any tax break at all when it goes right to the
oil companies. He said it reminded him of a money laundering scheme. I
do not think that is too far off the mark.
Mr. Speaker, I have a message for the rest of the United States, and
that is it is not just California. And it is coming to you in your
neighborhood, because it is in Oregon and it is in Washington now. It
may have started in California, but right now in the State of
Washington, we are suffering potentially 43,000 people losing their
jobs, Mr. Speaker, as a result of these oil companies and generating
companies increasing their prices, not twice, not 5 times, not 10
times, but on the wholesale spot market for electricity right now in
the State of Washington, these companies have increased their price
1,000 percent, 2,000 percent, without spending another dime to generate
one single electron. These are windfall profits that people are
enjoying right now at our expense. Forty-three thousand families out of
work because these folks have a callous indifference to the economy of
Washington, Oregon, California and, soon, whatever State you are in.
This is coming to you because they have figured out a way to game this
system starting in the West.
Mr. Speaker, what we Democrats have proposed is a short-term
solution. We need a long-term solution, but we have to have some short-
term solution to this. Unfortunately, the President, what has he
decided to do? What has his message been to America? Go fish. You are
on your own. We do not have any short-term solution. We are not going
to do anything.
Mr. Speaker, we have suggested a couple of things. Number one, that
he call FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and he ask them
to impose a 2-year cost-based pricing system for wholesale prices for
the western grid of the United States. We are asking a simple thing:
that the companies for the next 2 years get their costs and a
reasonable degree of profit, and pick the highest degree of profit, it
will still be half of what they are charging today.
When they have increased their prices 1,000 percent; like if you
bought a car for $30,000, it now costs you $300,000 to $600,000, if
Detroit did the business the way that the generators are doing right
now.
We are asking for a time-out on this ludicrous explosion of prices.
People have said, will this not decrease the supply of electricity?
Hogwash. If anything, it will increase it. These companies have figured
out how to reduce supply and drive the price up. Fully one-third of all
of the generating capacity in California in the last 4 months has been
turned off, and they have driven these prices sky high.
Mr. Speaker, we have asked the administration for simple relief. They
have refused it, and they give us no simple relief.
I want to say that there is good news in the long term and short term
when it comes to conservation and efficiency. We should be optimistic.
There are plenty of causes for this country to be as optimistic as we
were when we decided to go to the Moon, and there were naysayers then
too about new technology. But there is just as good news for us from a
technological basis for wind, solar, new transmission, fuel cells, as
there was for new technologies which took us to the Moon.
For example, in Seattle right now, there is a company called
MagnaDrive. MagnaDrive is manufacturing a coupling device based upon,
as you can guess, magnetism, which basically has two plates which act
as a coupling for electric motors. This device can save 30 to 40
percent of the electricity to drive an electric motor. It is just
starting to develop a market. We need to recognize technologies like
MagnaDrive and recognize their potential. That is the good news.
The bad news is that some of these technologies are being developed
not in America, because we have not given them the incentives for the
development of these. For example, hybrid cars, electric gasoline-
powered cars. The one on the road right now is from Japan. Why should
America give up this market to the Japanese manufacturers? Why should
we give up this potential development of jobs to those manufacturers?
Mr. Speaker, I think this Nation ought to be confident enough in our
technological ability to say we are going to lead the Nation in new car
technology. Yet in that very specific field, the President's budget has
gone backwards. We ought to lead the Nation in efficiency and
conservation. If we stand up to Mr. Cheney's shortsighted statement
that conservation is just a personal ethic but does not have anything
to do with sound economic policy, he is dead wrong. Efficiency is a
personal virtue, and it is an economic virtue, and it is a job-growth
strategy that this country ought to use.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I am proud that the Democratic Party has
come up with a comprehensive plan to combine conservation and short-
term price mitigation. It is a short-term solution and a long-term
solution, and I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer)
bringing us here tonight.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we also have been joined by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who has had lots of practical
experience from a State that has dealt in the past with energy
problems. I know that from leadership as the Senate president of the
great State of Connecticut, he has had a chance to navigate these rocky
shoals before, and I am honored that the gentleman joins us for this
discussion.
{time} 2100
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman and also recognize
that the current Speaker also hails from the great State of Connecticut
and is doing an outstanding job.
I want to applaud the gentleman from Oregon for his leadership in
every aspect here in the Congress as relates to our environment most
notably, as was pointed out by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone), in the area of livable communities but also in recognizing
the need to make sure that a core component of any energy plan has got
to be conservation, that overall the number of examples that he put
forward, if followed, should serve as the cornerstone to any policy
moving forward.
I also join with my colleagues from California and the Northwest as
well and not only sympathize but empathize with the problems that they
currently face and understand that today it may be California but
tomorrow it could be Connecticut. And so as a Nation, we must pull
together and make sure that we are enacting sound public policy.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of fingers that could
be pointed and a lot of blame that could be distributed, but for a
number of years, several different White Houses and Congresses have not
addressed this issue the way that it should be tackled. I believe that
first and foremost and
[[Page H2269]]
piggybacking on the comments of the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee), that we need to lay out a strategy that has an end goal.
I suggest that we start that end goal by saying we will be
independent of foreign oil resources within a 10-year period and that
we should instruct the Department of Energy to devise a strategic plan
that will take us there. The process of attaining that goal is much
like establishing putting a man on the Moon as the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) was alluding to.
When you establish a goal for yourself and then set out to achieve
that goal, you can accomplish great things. It seems to me pretty clear
that along with conservation, along with renewable resources and
assorted other policies that we must pursue, we must above all else
have a specific goal. When you consider that in 1999 the cost of
importing oil from abroad was $60 billion and now that is estimated to
be something closer to $100 billion in cost, that money could be better
spent at developing alternative energy sources. Specifically, I feel
that the energy systems of the future and most notably fuel cells hold
the key to provide us with both the power and efficiency we need to get
60 to 80 miles per gallon out of an SUV and also the by-product of
which is vapor that is clean.
This kind of environmentally sound policy, this kind of energy
alternative is exactly the kind of can-do spirit that took us to the
Moon. And what got us to the Moon frankly were spacecraft that were
powered by fuel cells. If we can go to the Moon and go on to Mars,
certainly we can get to and from work. Later this month, I hope to
bring an SUV to the Capitol and encourage everyone to drive that
automobile powered by fuel cells to see its efficiency, to see how this
actually works and the cutting edge technology, which in combination
with conservation is the path for us to go down.
I applaud my Democratic colleagues for the initiative they took in
the press conference the other day. These are the concerns that the
American people long for us to address. We need bipartisan cooperation.
We do not need committees that meet in secret. We need to have an open,
public forum and dialogue to produce the best possible results, with a
common goal and common mission to make us no longer energy dependent
and make us much more energy efficient with a conservation ethic that
places us in a position where we can provide the kind of energy and
means that the people we are sworn to serve richly deserve.
I thank the gentleman again so much for his leadership in this area
and I look forward as always to working with him on his agenda of
livable communities and the great, great job that he has done in terms
of bringing conservation to the forefront here in the United States
Congress.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman sharing his insights and
his kind words.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. I wanted to briefly point out that although the comments
I made earlier were primarily with regard to the President's proposal,
President Bush and Vice President Cheney's proposals and what they are
likely to come up with tomorrow from their task force in terms of a
policy to address energy issues, that it is also true that for the last
6 years since the Republicans have been in the majority in this
Congress, that they have conveniently forgotten, or failed really, to
address what has now become an energy crisis.
And each year from 1995 on when President Clinton and the
congressional Democrats tried to present commonsense, balanced, both
immediate and long-term solutions to the energy problems that existed
then and were continuing to build, the Republicans blocked those
efforts in the Congress every step of the way. If I could just mention
a few, I think the most egregious was in 1999, I remember, I was here,
when the Republican leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) joined 36 other Republicans to
introduce a bill that would have eliminated the Department of Energy
altogether and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
As I mentioned, President Bush still says that he does not want to
tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but they would have abolished it
completely. In the same year, the Republicans rejected an Energy
Department proposal to buy 10 million barrels of oil when crude prices
were only $10 a barrel that would have allowed us to build up the SPR.
So they wanted to abolish it. They did not want to fill it. In
addition to that, every year in those 6 years the President and
congressional Democrats would propose budget initiatives that would
help with energy efficiency and renewables. But between fiscal year
1996 and fiscal year 2001 the Republicans underfunded energy efficiency
and renewable energy programs by $1.4 billion below what President
Clinton and congressional Democrats' funding requests were at the time.
We have seen essentially no effort to address conservation, no effort
to address energy efficiency, alternative fuels, the list goes on. Next
week in the Committee on Commerce which I sit on, we are going to have
a full committee markup on a bill that is being brought by the
congressional leadership in the Committee on Commerce, the Republican
leadership in the Committee on Commerce called the Electricity
Emergency Relief Act. This is sponsored by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Power. This bill, I mean, needless to say, is fundamentally flawed. It
is not going to address the problems in California; and I just wanted
to point out, this is from my colleague the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman), who is a leading member, a more senior member of the
Committee on Commerce, he cited four major flaws with the bill. Keep in
mind this is the Republican answer to the California energy crisis.
First, it fails to address runaway wholesale electricity prices. The
efforts by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) of the Committee
on Commerce, then in the subcommittee, next week in the full committee,
to impose some sort of cap as the Democrats would like to see on
wholesale electricity prices is not included in the bill. The bill, the
Republican bill, also interferes with California's actions to address
the electricity crisis. It increases the State's dependence on the spot
market. It inhibits the State's ability to acquire and operate
transmission lines in California. It conflicts with California's
innovative demand reduction programs. So it is actually hurting the
State, making it difficult for the State to actually do what the State
wants to do to improve the electricity situation.
It also, and I note that my colleague from Oregon has repeatedly
noted the effort to break down environmental laws, this bill creates
loopholes in the Nation's environmental laws. It opens up every
national park and wilderness area to the construction of new power
lines. It allows States to waive environmental requirements applicable
to hydro-power projects. It authorizes extensive waivers of the Clean
Air Act requirements for electricity generation. And lastly, of course,
the bill fails to adequately address conservation.
I know that my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer),
has repeatedly said how there has to be a conservation component in our
energy policy. The Democrats have that. The Republicans do not. This
bill does nothing to improve it. Tomorrow we are going to hear about
the Bush-Cheney report and how great that is going to be. Next week we
are going to hear about the Barton bill and how great that is going to
be to solve the California problem. Neither one solves any of those
problems. Unfortunately we continue to have Republican inaction.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. SHERMAN. The Vice President made some remarks recently that have
become rather famous. He said conservation might be a personal virtue
but it was not the basis, not a sufficient basis, for a national energy
policy. I think we can only respond that degrading the environment and
maximizing energy company prices might be good cash generation
politics, but it is not the basis, not the sufficient basis, for a
comprehensive energy policy.
I want to talk a little bit about how California is being hurt
because we do not have rate regulation on the wholesale generation of
electricity. Technically what is being called for is not
[[Page H2270]]
price caps but technically what we are asking for is temporary cost-
based price regulation, basically the same system that existed in this
country for electric utilities, privately owned electric utilities for
100 years, when America went from a rural society to the world's only
superpower.
Now, these lack of price regulations are responsible and will
increasingly be responsible for blackouts in California. We are told by
some economic theorists, oh, if you could just increase the price of
electricity, Californians would conserve and you would not need
blackouts. These folks have not been schooled in the school of hard
knocks that we are experiencing in California. You see, no matter how
much Californians conserve, the owners, the robber barons, can still
suppress supply even more so that they can charge huge amounts for each
kilowatt while not having to pay for the fuel to generate very many
kilowatts. So the absence of regulation reduces supply.
Higher prices will not reduce demand. As I pointed out earlier,
California is now second, we are about to be first, in terms of energy
conservation, electric energy conservation among all 50 States. And
there is a real spirit in California to conserve electricity wherever
we possibly can. Conservation is what we are doing already. Limits on
wholesale prices will eliminate the incentive that these companies have
to suppress production, to close their plants for maintenance, and will
instead ensure that they generate electricity because they know they
can only get a fair profit on each kilowatt that they generate.
Second, we are about to see prices paid by California consumers be
roughly double what they are used to. Double what they paid just a year
ago. But that does not fully convey to Californians the degree of this
rip-off. You see, the electrons flowing to each California home, about
two-thirds of them, are coming at a fair price. One-third are not
coming at double a fair price, or triple a fair price. No, these
unregulated producers are charging 6 or 10 times a fair price on
average, and at peak times, or at times of particularly acute
engineered shortages, they are charging 50 and 100 times a fair price
per kilowatt. So if you are getting an electric bill that is only
double what is fair, do not think that these few megacompanies are only
earning double what is fair. They are earning 10 times what is fair.
The solution is in the White House. But I think the headline is
clear: ``President to California, Drop Dead.'' There is one possible
California response and it comes not from the California Democrats. We
have already responded. The onus is on California Republicans and
Republicans from the other western States. Four have had the courage to
tell the White House that destroying our State is not acceptable and
they have cosponsored the bill sponsored by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), a Republican from San Diego County, to provide
these cost-based price regulations. We need every Republican from the
western States to cosponsor that bill. And if they do not do it this
month, they are going to face their constituents next month and the
month after. But it has to go beyond that because President Bush will
simply veto a bill. He will veto a bill that requires fair prices in
California.
{time} 2115
He would veto a bill that prevents a justified transfer of $50
billion from the people of California to a few megacorporations, most
of them based in Texas.
The only way to prevent that veto is to get every Republican from the
western states, starting with those in California, to come down to this
floor and announce that they will not support any Presidential
initiative, that they will vote ``present'' and not ``yes'' on every
one of those Republican proposals, until we save our State.
I am calling on my colleagues from California, put your constituents
above your contributors; put your State above your party. Come down to
this floor tomorrow and say you are going to vote against every
proposal. You do not have to vote against it. Just vote ``present'' on
every proposal until the President signs the legislation we need to
save California.
If you think that maybe we in California do not deserve any Federal
legislation, then, for God's sake, let us pass a bill that gives
California the right to regulate the wholesale price of electricity
generated at plants located in California. If you do not believe the
Federal Government should play a role, at least untie our hands. We
need at least that, and we need California Republicans to stand up for
our State.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman. Clearly he has identified a critical area where 12 percent
of our Nation's population is facing something that surely we are all
going to have to contend with.
What have we discussed here at this point this evening? Well, first
and foremost, we have established that conservation may be a virtue. I
think it is, but it certainly is an important part of an energy policy
for this country, and we are arguing it ought to be part of the
foundation. Without the conservation that was inspired in the mid-1970s
and, sadly, to a certain extent rolled back during the Reagan years,
without that energy conservation, the use in the United States of
energy in the year 2000, if we had kept on the same line, would have
been 40 percent higher and Americans would have spent $260 billion more
for energy. Conservation works.
But we have just barely scratched the surface of the potential for
achieving more savings. If we had one of the popular SUVs that had an
average of 40 miles per gallon over the next decade, it would save the
equivalent of 50 billion barrels of oil, 15 times more than would be
reclaimed from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, if that is where you want to
go.
We have been dealing with the facts surrounding the energy situation.
We have heard about what the situation is in the State of California.
We are in fact now building, and any reader of The Wall Street Journal
this last week has learned that we are moving ahead without a Federal
initiative, to build more generating capacity. More is on line; markets
are in fact responding.
We have heard this myth somehow that people, for example, in
California, or the ``radical environmentalists,'' were at fault for not
building up refining capacity in this country and talk about how there
has not been a lot of new refineries built.
Well, the reason there have not been new refineries built is because
the industry has been going through consolidation. We have more
refinery capacity today, fewer refineries. And if you look at what the
petroleum giants are doing, they are shedding refinery capacity because
it is not profitable enough.
What measures up to the hundreds of percent or thousands of percent
rate of return that can be extracted from some of the situations that
we have had described on the floor today? It is not somehow the fault
of the environmentalists, it is market forces that are at work.
We understand, and I have heard twice now the Vice President
extolling the virtues of going back to nuclear energy. Interesting. I
come from a State that shut down a nuclear plant. The private company
that owned it shut it down earlier than its license would have required
because it was not profitable.
It is true that over 20 percent of the generation currently comes
from nuclear power, but there has not been a new nuclear power plant
ordered in the United States in over 23 years. And it was not just in
my State that they shut it down. The gentleman from New Jersey can
testify that there was the same situation occurring there and in Maine,
Illinois, and Connecticut, where people were backing away from nuclear
energy.
We still do not have a safe place to store nuclear waste in this
country. We have been tied in knots over that. Yet some want to go
ahead and deal with more.
The assertion somehow that nuclear energy is the salvation, the
silver bullet, that it does not provide pollution, well, excuse me.
First of all, nuclear waste continues for a quarter of a million years
or longer. Nuclear waste, when you are dealing with it, is not just
nuclear energy; it is the very warm water that is generated. It
pollutes the waterways.
The process of enriching uranium uses a substantial amount of
electricity in and of itself that produces
[[Page H2271]]
many of the same sort of traditional fossil fuel air pollutants.
Nuclear energy is not a silver bullet.
We have heard some arguing that somehow the environmentalists have
locked up all the land. We cannot have access. Wait a minute. Right now
the oil and gas industry has access to huge tracts of BLM lands. Only
3.5 percent of the BLM land in Colorado is off limits to exploration;
only 2 percent in Montana; only 2.5 percent in Wyoming; 4 percent in
New Mexico. It simply is not true that there is not access.
It is interesting watching the little struggle between the
President's brother and the people in California and Alaska who are
concerned about off-shore drilling, but there is still over 60 percent
of the Nation's undiscovered economically recoverable oil and 80
percent of the economically recoverable gas that is located in areas
that are accessible. There are opportunities for further exploration.
It is the private sector that to this point has chosen not to take
advantage of them.
I guess I will conclude my remarks before turning to the gentleman
from New Jersey to wrap it up to just make one other point, that there
are many opportunities now for low-income people to be able to reduce
their energy costs over time.
We have talked about the lunacy of having a massive tax cut that is
not going to benefit the vast majority of low- and moderate-income
people, but somehow they are going to take this tax cut and pay it for
higher energy costs. But if for a moment we can spend upwards of $2
trillion over the next 11 years, is it not possible that Congress and
this administration could design programs to help very low- and
moderate-income people pay some of the higher costs through rebates or
direct tax credits that go back to them, so they can afford to be more
energy efficient, lower their electrical costs today, not tomorrow or
20 years from now, lower those costs today, save them money today, and
have additional savings that will accrue to the broader community
because we will not have to build an energy plant a week?
It seems to me that this is a simple, commonsense approach; that if
we could get it to the floor, I am convinced an overwhelming majority
of Republicans and Democrats would agree with the American public to
put conservation, wise use, invest in American technology, do that
first before we move ahead with things that simply they are opposed to.
I think it makes good sense, and I hope that this Congress will listen
to what we are being told by the American public.
With that, I will turn to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
for the last word in our special order this evening.
Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman. I do not mean to take the last
word, but I just wanted to comment on what the gentleman said, because
I think what he pointed out is that the Democrats' energy policy is a
well-rounded, commonsense approach.
We are saying that we want more production in those areas that are
available to be done; to drill for oil, to drill for natural gas, in an
environmentally sensitive way. It can be done. We are for more
production. We are saying we want conservation. We want the use of more
renewables. We want more energy efficiency. We have tax credits for
energy efficiency, if you buy a car or do something to your home that
is more energy efficient.
We basically are very well rounded in our approach in terms of the
types of fossil fuels that could be used, and I for the life of me do
not understand why we have to take this Bush-Cheney approach that just
says drill, drill, drill, and nothing else. Even in our Democratic
proposal, we have a supplement to the LIHEAP program for low-income
individuals, because we recognize that they are going to need
additional help.
If you think about what the Democrats have put forward, more
production, more energy efficiency, more use of renewables, trying to
provide direct payments to low-income individuals so they can pay for
their rising costs, all these things are in there.
But we want this energy policy to be well rounded. We do not want it
to just be limited to something that the oil companies want, which is
to drill and drill and drill. There is no way that you can possibly
look at what the Democrats have in mind and then look at what the
President is proposing. The President's proposal is nothing more than a
payback to the special interests, to the oil industry. We have seen
that.
I know tomorrow it is going to be unveiled. We heard a lot about it,
but I am waiting to see what happens, because, as the gentleman says,
we want to be bipartisan, and we are hoping that maybe he will
incorporate tomorrow some of the conservation and other things that we
are talking about tonight. I doubt he will, but I hope he does, because
I would like to see a responsible energy policy passed. I just do not
see that coming from the White House so far.
With that, I thank my colleague for all he has done and continues to
do on these issues.
____________________