[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3602-H3608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADDRESSING THE NATION'S ENERGY NEEDS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the time that I
have that I have been most graciously given to begin to talk about our
Nation's energy needs and the national energy policy that has been put
forth by the new administration, by President Bush, and the information
contained in the National Energy Policy Development Group's report on
national energy policy.
I want to commend the administration for taking the leadership on
what is a real challenging issue, and that is, providing energy for
America's needs. Being from California, they are urgent
[[Page H3603]]
needs now and also for the energy needs in the Nation for the future.
It is a daunting task and one that needs to make up for a lot of lost
time because there has not been a lot of focus on our Nation's energy
needs in the last 8 years. So although it may not be popular at times,
I want to commend the President for the excellent job that he is doing
by tackling such difficult issues.
Why do we need an energy policy? If I may take just a few minutes to
outline, it is because America faces its most serious energy shortage
since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. Our fundamental imbalance of
supply and demand has led to this crisis. Our future energy needs far
outstrip present levels of production. Right now, United States energy
needs are 56 percent dependent on other countries supplying that need.
With that need growing at an ever-increasing rate, we become far more
dependent on rogue nations that do not have the best interests of the
United States at heart and in many, many ways leave ourselves very
vulnerable. I think that it is high time that this policy has been
sought after, and I applaud the President for taking steps in this
direction.
Last winter, heating bills for many families in the United States
tripled. Average natural gas heating costs in the Midwest rose by 73
percent last winter. New Englanders' heating bills jumped by about 27
percent. Millions of Americans are dealing with rolling blackouts,
including myself, and brownouts and grayouts and threatening their
homes, businesses, families and their own personal safety. Low-income
Americans and seniors have been the hardest hit. While energy costs
typically represent only about 4 percent of a middle-class household
budget, last winter costs for average low-income households were about
14 percent of the household budget.
Drivers across America are paying higher and higher gasoline prices.
In 2000, fuel prices on average rose 30 to 40 cents per gallon from a
year earlier. This summer in some parts of the Nation, gasoline prices
may skyrocket to about $3 a gallon. High fuel costs also are destroying
many, many jobs. For example, trucking company bankruptcies are at an
all-time high. Farm production costs are spiking sharply because of
higher energy prices while farm income remains low. Surging natural gas
prices have increased the prices of fertilizer by 90 percent since
1998.
I can read a lot of the talking points on this about a national
energy policy, but I think I can speak from the heart being from
California and dealing with our energy crisis and the blackouts that we
have. Many, many people say that California is an example of how not to
deregulate and because of that they face rolling blackouts. Gratefully
and thank God there was no direct loss of life attributed to the
blackouts that we have had so far, but there is no guarantee that we
will not face them in the future. In California's energy problems, it
was as much mismanagement of the issue from the State level as it was
an energy crisis that hit this year; but had there been good
management, California would have hit sooner or later because of the
dramatic increase in energy needs in California and the lack of
California's ability to meet those needs through increased power
generation.
{time} 2045
There has not been a new generation plant in California in the last
10 years.
So many, many people buried their heads in the sand thinking that the
increased population was not going to have an effect on the
infrastructure of California, when indeed, of course, it did, and it
caught up with us in the form of these blackouts.
So I do commend the President for his desire to want to piece this
thing together and diversify our energy base so that we are not so
reliant on natural gas.
I have with me today a dear friend. My mom was born in his district
in Arizona. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is here also to
speak on the President's national energy policy, and I would like to
yield him some time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Radanovich), for scheduling this hour to discuss the
challenges at hand, and whether one resides in Mariposa County,
California, or Maricopa County, Arizona, or Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, or Mecklenburg County, Virginia, for that matter, from coast
to coast and beyond, in our 50 States we are confronting a serious
challenge. We need a comprehensive policy, the type drafted by this
administration, because we have reached a point where we must realize
that this challenge is multifaceted.
We cannot conserve our way out of it. We cannot drill our way out of
it. Instead, we need a calm, confident reassessment of where we are
headed.
Mr. Speaker, as I stand here in the well of the United States House
of Representatives and I look just behind me here to this podium, I am
acutely aware that 40 years ago Jack Kennedy stood there and challenged
this Congress and challenged this Nation to put a man on the moon and
bring him safely back to Earth before the decade of the 1960s was
completed. We were able to do that; a triumph of technology, yes, but a
triumph of will and the human spirit. It will take that type of
commitment. Just as we brought together the best minds and the most
innovative companies to put a man on the moon, so, too, we need a
national, organized effort, a strategic and financial partnership
between business and government to solve the energy problems.
Am I talking about a State plan, excessive regulation program? Of
course not. We need to find a reasonable, rational way to put the best
minds in this country to work on this program, to take what is valuable
from business, to take the strategic planning that should be part and
parcel of our constitutional Republic and form a good partnership to
solve the energy challenges we face.
Quite simply stated, we need less dependence on foreign oil and more
attention to developing our own energy supply.
My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), summed
it up. It is worth noting and amplifying. Early in the 1990s, the oil
and gas needed by the United States, the majority of that oil and gas
was produced within the borders of the United States. Some 60 percent
was produced here in this United States. Foreign suppliers accounted
for a distinct minority, some 40 percent. Sadly now, at the dawn of a
new century, with almost a decade devoid of any energy policy, with
almost a decade of the sweet by and by and we will take our risks and
we will not worry about this, the situation is completely reversed. We
now depend on foreign sources for almost 60 percent of our oil and gas.
Simply stated, a reasonable, rational environmentally sensitive policy
of exploring for more American energy is something that forms the
foundation of what we need to guarantee an uninterrupted supply of
energy when we need it.
It goes beyond that, as important as those products are, because when
one thinks of the challenge of energy, when one thinks of what my
colleague pointed out, we are talking ultimately not only about the
process of exploring and ultimately consuming energy, but there is an
impact to the pocketbook. The most immediate effect we think about and
associate with across the country is the price at the pump.
We need to have a situation where we are no longer dependent on the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, otherwise known as OPEC.
Here is one of the ironies at the outset of the 21st century: Saddam
Hussein's Iraq, a nation which threatened the stability of its
neighbors, attempted to invade and occupy another oil-producing state,
Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a country in the early days of this
administration where American war planes carried out a raid in part to
try and disrupt the fiberoptic sophisticated air defense systems now
being installed, here is the irony, Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of
a cohesive, coherent energy policy, we now import more oil from Iraq
than we did prior to the Persian Gulf War.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to take the example of the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and put an environmental approach
to it, because I am in the Congress continually amazed about the
hypocrisy of the extreme environmentalist movement in this Nation. I
really believe that the current style of
[[Page H3604]]
environmentalism in the United States will end when one cannot get
water out of a faucet or one cannot get light out of a light switch.
People tend in the United States to be very environmental everywhere
else but their own backyard, and when emergencies hit like this, there
is a change in perception about what we ought to be doing. It is that
not-in-my-backyard approach, I think, that has led to a lot of this
Nation's energy crises. It has been at the local levels of government,
all across the country, but it has also been fueled a lot by the
extreme environmental movement that basically puts the environment over
human life, and the priorities thereof.
The reason why I wanted to bring that up, when the gentleman was
mentioning this is, does the gentleman think that the environmental
policies that regulate oil exploration in Iraq are much more stringent
in the United States? I do not think so. Yet the United States uses 25
percent of the world's energy and only has 2 percent of the resources,
and I do not know what the number is of that 2 percent that is locked
up, but I guarantee it is a very, very high percentage.
We are such hypocrites in this country because we demand to use so
much energy, and yet we refuse to use our own resources, where if we
did that, energy demand would be much more environmentally responsible
than in a Third World country.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RADANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add to that point that in
Russia, and I was recently in Russia, their pipelines that transport
the oil, they actually use it for oil transportation as much as trucks,
but they spill the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez-type spill every week
just in transporting their oil.
Here we are, we could help them through aid programs trying to get
these pipelines improved, which would help the environment but also our
energy supply, and the gentleman said we have the best, the strictest
environmental regulations in the country, and yet our environmental
policies, our radical environmental policies, want to continuously pick
on America.
It is interesting that in 1976, in Louisiana, that is when the last
oil refinery was built in the United States of America in 1976. I bet
the gentleman was cranking up his eight-track player by the time they
opened that one up. In fact, the gentleman's eight-track player was
probably already getting dated. The gentleman's slide rule was gone,
and he was not driving his Ford Maverick anymore. That is how long ago
we are talking about.
Now, unfortunately, radical environmental politics, now there are
8,000 environmental groups in the country. They generate something like
$3.5 billion a year in terms of checks and revenues to them. The Sierra
Club out in the great State of California pays something like $57,000 a
month just on rent in San Francisco. That is how big we are talking
about. So we approach so many of these things emotionally to how can I
best sell my membership rather than what are we going to do to have a
good, balanced approach.
Our great friend Kelly Ann Fitzpatrick talks about a poll that says
if the people in America are polled, 87 percent say they want clean
air. Her question is, who in the heck are the other 13 percent? What is
going on here?
We want a balance. We want clean air, clean water. We want energy-
efficient cars. That is a given. It is extremely important.
At this point America is not ready to throw in the keys to their
internal combustion engines and say, okay, we are all going to start
riding bicycles. So as long as we have cars, let us keep the supply up
for gasoline.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think of the distinction
here. It seems that to the cynic so much of what transpires politically
is theatrical. We heard in the preceding hour, and I was especially
struck by our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) on
another matter, just dealing with disinformation and demonization
rather than solutions. It seems to me especially on this topic, which
touches every American, perhaps we should pledge ourselves not to an
extremist environmentalism, but to an enlightened environmentalism; not
to a radical environmentalism, but a rational environmentalism; not to
the environmentalism of the elite, but to the environmentalism of the
enlightened.
Our President has made sense of this because he says, Mr. Speaker,
that one has to cease looking at this as an either/or. It is not, well,
we will have a clean environment, or we will burn fossil fuels. It is
not, we will have clean air, or we will commit to motor vehicles.
Indeed, there is an enlightened approach that uses the latest
scientific data for clean-burning energy; for environmentally-sound
exploration. Though it may not be commensurate with the theatrical
politics of demonization and disinformation that drives some of the eco
campaigns my colleague talks about, it is what we should do because it
is the right thing to do, to provide for our economy, but at the same
time protect our precious environment.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the President
for just the very reason that the gentleman just mentioned, because he
is taking a leadership role on this issue. The polls came out the other
day in the front page of the New York Times that he is slipping now
down to 53 percent. Whether one agrees with that or not, I can see
where a President like this has the leadership and the desire to want
to improve America, to upset a few people and ruffle a few feathers
just to make things different for our country and better. I think that
is what real leadership is, and that is why I want to applaud the
President for doing that.
The person who spoke recently was the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston), a wonderful representative of that State.
We are joined now by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson),
and I would yield to her at this point.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Radanovich) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of having supper tonight with two
friends from Roswell, New Mexico, who are in the oil and gas business.
They are second- and third-generation members of their families who are
in the oil and gas business. I represent the State of New Mexico, which
is one of the country's providers of oil and gas and uranium and coal.
We provide the fuel that lights the lights across this country.
I think all of us understand that we have an energy problem in this
country. It is toughest in the West, but it affects us all, whether it
is the price of gasoline at the pumps or the rising price of the things
that we buy in our stores that take energy to make.
I think there is a growing consensus in this country that we need a
plan. We have not had an energy policy in this country for almost 20
years. We are more dependent on foreign oil today than we were at the
height of the energy crisis. Fifty-five percent of the oil we consume
in this country is imported from abroad, mostly from the Middle East,
from OPEC. The sixth largest source of supply for oil in this country
is now Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Most Americans do not know that, know how
dependent we are for our energy security on countries abroad.
California also got itself into a real tough spot over the last
decade. Their growing, robust economy required about 10,000 more
megawatts of power, but they only built 800 megawatts of supply.
{time} 2100
Only my mother can have it both ways. You have to be able to have the
supply of energy to use.
Now, I do not think there are any quick fixes that are going to solve
the energy problems in this country. I think we need a balanced, long-
term approach that conserves the energy we have, and also gives us more
supply; that will give us the stability in prices we all want and the
energy that we need.
I think that this is much too important to do anything but the right
thing. I am very pleased to join my colleagues here tonight to talk a
little bit about it.
I spent Sunday afternoon in the East Mountains that are right up
against the city of Albuquerque. One of the
[[Page H3605]]
reasons that my family and I love being New Mexicans is we love the
great outdoors. We love taking our children there. We love the beauty
of the land in New Mexico. I know my colleagues would disagree, but I
happen to live in one of the richest energy States in the Nation, but I
also live in the most beautiful State in the Nation.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentlewoman would yield, you have gone too far
now.
Mrs. WILSON. My colleagues, I know my colleagues would disagree, but
I think you understand my feeling for the place, and also my knowledge
that this is not an either/or question; that if we are smart about it,
we can provide the energy that we need to live life the way we want to
live it, without damaging the country that we love. I think that is the
kind of policy we want to promote, which means we start with
conservation.
One of the things I thought was real interesting about the
President's energy plan was some of the data that was in it. In fact,
we do not take credit for how far we have come in the last 20 years in
energy efficiency.
This top line in this chart shows energy use at constant energy per
dollar of gross domestic product, for how much we are producing in this
country. We have gotten so much more efficient since 1972, which is the
baseline year. We are using less energy per dollar of GDP.
Now, part of that is we have a more information-based economy and so
forth, but we are much more energy efficient now. A refrigerator, we
had to buy a new one recently, thank goodness my husband was at home to
get one, and the refrigerator we bought uses one-third less energy than
the one that we bought in 1972 that it replaced.
Our cars are more efficient and hold the promise of being even more
efficient with hybrid vehicles, which will not restrict our power and
our range of those vehicles. So we do wonderful things. We have made
tremendous progress with conservation.
But we cannot conserve our way out of an energy problem, any more
than I can feed my family just with the leftovers. You have to have the
supply too. So we need to increase and diversify our supply of energy
and give a balanced mix of energy.
One of the things I am concerned about is the growing reliance on
natural gas. I know that a lot of folks do not know that about half of
our power plants in this country actually use coal, and we are making
progress on clean coal technologies. But most of the power plants on
the horizon are going to use natural gas; and within 20 years, we are
going to be so reliant on natural gas that we are going to have to be
importing natural gas as well. Yet we only have one port in this
country that can take liquefied natural gas, which gets to the third
problem we have.
We have to work on conservation, we have to increase and diversify
our supply, but we do not have the infrastructure in this country that
is reliable and safe and gets things they need to have in order to have
a strong energy policy. We do not have the transmission grids that we
need. We do not have the pipelines that are safe enough and plentiful
enough.
We have not built a refinery in 20 years in America. Our refineries
are working at 97 percent capacity, which means if you have a fire or
safety shutdown at a gasoline refinery, you immediately create a
shortage of supply. We only have one port that can accept liquefied
natural gas.
So we must address conservation; increasing supply, with responsible
development of domestic supply; the infrastructure needs of this
country; and, finally, we have to do some government reform. It should
not be possible that the Department of Interior, the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of State, can make unilateral decisions
that affect our energy security without having to take our energy needs
into account, and the way our government is set up today they can do
that. That is not right, and we need to change it.
I look forward to working with my colleagues this summer on a
comprehensive energy bill that is long-term to address some of these
problems.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentlewoman would yield, I think that you have
really hit a great point. I do not want to say anything bad about the
great State of California, where my mother lived and my sister lived
and lots of my friends do, but I have to take on a little bit your
Governor on politics, because here is a State that has grown
economically, done real well, demand for electricity has gone up, and
he will not increase the supply; would not permit some of the things
that Mrs. Wilson has talked about that increase supply, the
infrastructure.
If my hometown, Savannah, Georgia, grew, and it has been growing. As
it grows we have added new schools, we have added new hospitals, we
have built new roads, we have built new bridges. In fact, the State of
Georgia has had about an 18 percent growth. California, I know, has had
unprecedented growth. Yet as Governor Davis would do those things, he
would not add on any power plants.
Now, I have to ask, common sense would say if you are going to have
growth in population, certainly you have to have growth in the supply
of energy. For the Governor of California to come East looking for
energy, when he needs to be sitting back in Sacramento signing bills
and legislation that streamlines and simplifies regulation, it is
ridiculous. He is being negligent.
The Governor, I understand, is going now on David Letterman. Okay,
let us be real serious about our energy policy. Going on David
Letterman. It is time to put the politics aside and get back to
Sacramento and do your legislation.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Being the gentleman from California, if I may, if the
gentleman would yield, I think the gentleman is right on the mark. But
there was a separate issue in California that brought, I think, the
energy crisis in the United States to the fore.
What the problem was in California was really a crisis in leadership
in an improper reaction to a flawed deregulation bill that was passed
in 1995. We began to see signs of that with this ``deregulation'' plan,
that froze the rates at which utilities could charge consumers but put
100 percent of the energy that they were able to purchase on the spot
market, which fluctuated from day to day. That is half a deregulation
bill, that is not a full one. If you do not go all the way with
deregulation, you do not have deregulation. It caused problems
beginning in May of last year.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, does Governor Gray Davis
of California think he is going to get new energy ideas from David
Letterman, or is he just making a charade out of this?
Mr. RADANOVICH. I will say again that the problem in California was a
crisis of leadership, and I think blurred objectives; one being a
blurred objective, one objective being staying in office and getting
reelected, and the other being providing for the needs of California.
Mr. KINGSTON. Has not Governor Davis received over $1 million from
utility companies?
Mr. RADANOVICH. The very ones he vilified, many times they have not
been able to speak to him unless it was at his own fund raisers. This
is the way the whole thing worked out.
But the problem could have been solved a year ago, and I will make
this point: if the Governor would have allowed for a modest retail rate
increase by the utilities of, say, 25 percent, it would have driven
down future prices; and he could have encouraged the utilities to get
into long-term contracts where the wholesale price was below the retail
price. We would never have been in this situation.
It was his delay in imposing a modest increase of 25 percent that, by
the time he had to impose it, grew to 48 percent, and on top of that,
diverting his energies to State bio-energy, the transmission lines. I
give him credit, he was working for ways to get the utilities
creditworthy, but his decision was delayed and delayed for political
expediency and the fear of doing something wrong that might hurt
politically. That was the crisis in California.
Mr. HAYWORTH. If my friend from California would yield, because this
points up the real challenge afoot. If just one-tenth of the energy
that is being utilized to engage in name-calling or to go on late night
television, and I do not know, do stupid gubernatorial tricks or
whatever is going to be required, if that were utilized to help solve
the problem, that is the
[[Page H3606]]
measure of a man or woman in public office. Not posturing and preening
for the cameras and issuing attack memos and spin, but working to solve
the problem.
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask my colleague from California, I heard
other reports where temporary energy stations could have been placed
into commission on an emergency basis, where some regulations had been
streamlined, but what I find amazing is that, apparently, Mr. Speaker,
the Governor of California said if the folks employed there do not
belong to a union, why, then it was not worth opening the power plant.
Now, Mr. Speaker, whatever your feeling on the right to work or
collective bargaining, it seems to me the collective need for energy
outweighs the political chits called in by the union bosses.
Let me address, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California. Are those
reports true? Did the Governor say he would not allow these temporary
plants to come on line, these regulations to be streamlined, unless the
folks were union employees at the controls?
Mr. RADANOVICH. I have no doubt that that happened during the time
from a year ago beginning last May to now. I think the real crime has
been the hesitancy to provide leadership on the issue. Because of that,
it led to a situation that could have cost the State maybe $2 billion
to one that has cost the State of California $50 billion and has eaten
up about a $12 billion surplus that we had last year. It really was a
hesitancy to act, and an allegiance to labor and the environment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask the gentleman, why is it that the Governor
of California has enough time to come on major comedian shows like
David Letterman and come out in Washington for Democratic fund raisers
and come back East to raise cane about George Bush, but he does not
have the time to stay at home and solve the problem? Is the problem not
better solved in California, rather than blaming it on George Bush, who
just unpacked his bags when the crisis began?
Mr. RADANOVICH. The solution to California's problem was within the
leadership of California, in the State legislature and the Governor's
office. It was clear that that is where this problem was going to be
called.
After a series of mistakes, refusing to impose modest rate increases,
gallivanting off, getting the State involved in energy purchasing,
buying energy for seven times more than what the utilities were able to
receive for that energy, led this thing into such a precarious position
that the Governor could not afford then to solve the crisis, frankly,
because, if he did, he then would be answering questions like what the
heck did you do with our $12 billion surplus? So, unfortunately, the
politics do not allow for the solution in California. Just know for a
fact that there is no solution to this paying four to seven times more
for the energy in California than what is being gathered up by the
utilities.
The reason that that is happening is because it is not politically
expedient to solve the problem in California. There is too much need to
vilify the President, there is too much need to vilify Members of
Congress, those of us on the Committee on Commerce, because then the
issue becomes why did you wait so long to solve this, when it could
have cost far less in money and in damage to the State?
Mrs. WILSON. If the gentleman would yield, I am a New Mexican. I have
never met Gray Davis, I would not know him if he walked in the room,
but I do know people want us to get down to solutions and stop the
blame game and get some things done.
I think that this House over the next 6 weeks has got a strategy for
dealing with the energy problem that really stresses four things, and
they are the four important things for a long-term balanced approach to
America's energy needs. Those include things like conservation,
increasing supply, fixing our infrastructure and government reform.
When we talk about conservation, there are so many things that we can
do. Sandia National Laboratory is in my district in New Mexico and has
done some of the leading-edge research on energy conservation in areas
that most folks do not think about.
About 40 percent of the electricity used in America is used to put
the lights on. Yet we have made so few innovations in lighting in
America, to reduce the use of energy in lighting.
{time} 2115
Super conductivity. That is kind of a long word, but what it really
means is that when electricity goes down the wires, whether it is the
transmission wires that take electricity from New Mexico to Southern
California, or even just the wiring in this building that keeps the
lights on, we lose electrons as it is getting to where you want it to
do the job.
In fact, one of the executives with a public service company in New
Mexico told me that because California is so big and New Mexico is
really kind of small in comparison as far as number of people, we
actually lose more electricity. Of the amount that we send to
California, we could light up the entire State of New Mexico for a
year, just because of the loss in transmission. Well, if we could save
that energy through superconducting materials, in other words,
materials that do not lose those electrons along the way that heat up
the wires in our walls or along the transmission grid, we can use that
energy to actually do work and not waste it.
Mr. Speaker, we have wonderful plans for next-generation power plants
that will conserve electricity and will make power plants much more
efficient as they turn the raw materials, whether that is neutrons or
nuclear materials or coal or natural gas, and turn that into
electricity; and when we make those more efficient, we use less of that
natural gas and less of that coal in order to make the electricity to
light our homes. But we also have to increase supply.
I want to say something here about nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is
one of the safest forms of energy. It has some of the fewest emissions
of any kind of energy that we have, and it is time to take nuclear
energy out of the ``too-hard column'' where it has languished for
almost 20 years. We are going to have a hydro-licensing bill, and it
will come out of the Committee on Commerce, I hope within the next
month.
Hydropower is one of the cleanest powers we have, and yet there are
dams in this country that have existed for 200 years and they are under
State control. What most folks do not know is that as soon as you put a
turbine on a dam, it comes under Federal regulators, not State law; and
it is a nightmare because it takes almost 10 years to get that turbine
licensed to provide power and, in the process, you can be ordered to
breach your dam. So why would anyone in their right mind take the risk
of putting a turbine on an existing dam that has been there for
hundreds of years? And as a result, we have clean, safe energy that is
going over spillways and dams in this country because we cannot get our
licensing right for hydropower.
There are wonderful things we can do with clean coal technology, with
natural gas, where we have natural gas on nonpark public lands that we
cannot get access to because the Bureau of Land Management is no longer
focused on how we steward our resources, but how to keep people off the
land that we enjoy in the West.
So there are things that we will do in this House to lead the way, to
stop the blame game, to give ourselves a long-term policy on energy, to
conserve, to increase supply, to fix our infrastructure, and to reform
our government. I am very glad that this House is focusing on those
things and not on politics.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, continuing to
defend California, it was an issue of supply I think that is at the
heart of California's energy problems; but the way out of the energy
crisis in California now is to, number one, get the governor out of the
energy purchasing business; and, number two, work over time to get
those utilities creditworthy again so that they can begin to get back
into the energy purchasing business, and then get them off the spot
market as much as possible. Really, that is the way out of California's
energy crisis, in addition to aggressively working on new power supply
in the State.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
[[Page H3607]]
Those of us who hail from the West and in the western power grid, 11
States, including the gentlewoman from New Mexico and the great State
of Arizona, along with our friends in California, understand that the
implications of this are far, far-reaching, so there is more than a
casual concern when it comes to flipping the light switch.
But listening to my colleague from New Mexico, I think it is
important to amplify what has transpired. When she talked about clean-
burning sources of energy, I could not help but think about the Palo
Verde nuclear plant outside of Phoenix that has worked well and without
incident for well on 2 decades, now serving and providing power for the
Nation's sixth largest city. Even as we look across the ocean to
Europe, while it is true that in Germany, there has been now a
hostility, the hostility of the radical environmental movement to step
away from nuclear power, we see that Germany's neighbor France
has relied on nuclear power for the better part of 3 decades. If the
French are able to do so, with safety measures intact, it would seem
that American ingenuity, American technology and the ability to
streamline regulation, to bring on line new technologies, should
prevail.
I listened to the gentlewoman from New Mexico talking about the role
of the Committee on Commerce, not to become prideful of different
committee jurisdictions, but as the first Arizonan to serve on the
House Committee on Ways and Means, the committee charged with tax
policy, I think I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that as
we take a look at conservation and the promotion of new technologies,
there is a role to be played in tax policy.
I have sponsored a bill that again champions residential use of solar
power. The fact is, when that first came online, now almost 30 years
ago, another broadcaster who had gone into public office, the late Jack
Williams, Governor of Arizona, at that time there was this promise of
nuclear energy, but the technology had not caught up with the vision.
Now, we have made changes, to the point where residentially, for
heating water, for cooling our homes, we have the opportunity to look
to the sun, and solar power and solar energy on a residential basis.
Just as so many Americans have their own garden in the backyard, we can
look to a sound alternative form of energy with technological
advancements and, in the long run, not only save on power bills, but
save on taxation too.
Mr. Speaker, we should look to those types of commonsense policies.
We should never forget that the term ``conservative'' and
``conservation'' share the same root, the same notion, that we preserve
in a commonsense fashion and, in so doing, free up other sources for
those who need them. That is something we need to remember.
Conservation plays a key role; not the only role, but an important part
to play, just as we look at tax policy and new exploration and
streamlining regulation.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I wanted to
touch base with what he is saying in terms of nuclear energy and what
the gentlewoman from New Mexico was saying. In France, 76 percent of
the homes and buildings are powered by nuclear energy; in Belgium, 56
percent; in America, most people do not know this, it is 20 to 25
percent already, and it is safe.
I represent Kings Bay Naval Base and all the subs down there are
nuclear submarines; yet ironically, people in that county will say,
well, I am against nuclear energy; it might be dangerous. So you have
more nuclear power plants in your county than most of the States in the
entire country.
But nuclear energy is safe. It is low cost, it has fewer disruptions
of power. One out of every five homes in America are powered by a
nuclear plant. It is the second single-largest source of energy
already, and it provides almost 70 percent of all emission-free energy.
This is something that we cannot ignore. There are 103 operational
nuclear power plants in America today, and over 3,000 shipments of
nuclear fuel that were spent were moved safely in the last 40 years.
So when we talk about nuclear energy, people need to understand that
this is not some bold new frontier that we are talking about. I always
hear people say, well, what about Three Mile Island? Mr. Speaker, there
were no people killed at Three Mile Island. That does happen with other
sources of energy; but the thing is, that was over 2 decades ago.
Again, going back to the days of the 8-track tape player, technology
has moved. I think in terms of just the cellular telephones, my first
cellular telephone was the size of a brick, it weighed about the same
amount and could hardly transmit a message past a couple of oak trees.
Technology has moved on. Technology has moved on in nuclear power. I
think that we are just fooling ourselves by not being a little more
bold and aggressive about it. Again, 76 percent of the houses and
buildings in France are nuclear powered.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is
interesting, on this issue of conservation, on Saturday afternoon I was
on the west side of Albuquerque visiting a housing development that is
full of first-time homes and the builder, Jerry Wade of Artistic Homes,
specializes in energy-efficient houses and they build it into the
house. I met a family there who were buying their first home. They were
moving from a rental house, and one of the reasons they were moving is
because their electricity bill had gotten so high. They were paying
$160 a month for their electric bill. In the new home, which was
larger, but the payment they were going to make, in a home that cost
$110,000, and it was a really nice home, but Jerry Wade guarantees
their electric bill will be no more than $20 a month, because they
build the energy efficiency in.
One of the things that I hope to do in our conservation bill that we
are going to be working on here is to make it possible for those
savings to be taken into account when people apply for their mortgages,
for their federally supported home mortgage loans, so that we can take
into account that the electricity bill is going to be lower. The neat
thing about what I saw on Saturday was, we are not talking here about
something that costs more, we are talking about something that costs
less, and that can be done in homes for first-time buyers, not just
people who can put on solar panels on their homes.
Talking about where we are going with solar, it used to be that we
thought about solar and, gosh, it takes 10 or 15 years to get back the
cost of the solar panels. We are on the verge of innovations and
technology that will be just as cheap to put on solar shingles on our
houses as it is to put on tar paper shingles on our houses. The
difference is we hook it up to the meter, and we can actually sell
power back to the power company, if we live in a sunny place like my
colleague from Arizona and I are privileged to do. We have solar-
powered homes, and it does not power the electricity, but it helps
preheat the water, it helps keep our electricity bills lower, it helps
keep the gas bill lower by preheating the house and heating a bed of
rocks under the House. We can do those kinds of things, and it is going
to be in the very near future just as inexpensive to do that as it is
to build a home the conventional way, and we should build those
incentives in to the conservation bill we hope to pass here in the
House.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, it has been very
interesting to spend this hour, not engaged in disinformation or
demonization, but looking for reasonable, rational solutions at the
outset.
When the gentleman from California claimed this hour of time, I
reminisced about the fact that 4 decades ago, President John F. Kennedy
stood at the podium behind us and challenged us to go to the Moon. We
harnessed not only a triumph of will and exploration, but a triumph of
applying science to a national vision to deal with that challenge.
Certainly this challenge cannot be as formidable. Certainly this
Nation, with the best minds at the fore, working together with sound
policies that streamline regulation, to make it reasonable that look
for environmentally sensitive ways to explore for new energy options,
that do the research to bring online the innovative new sources of
energy and that realize that our destiny is within our grasp in terms
of energy self-sufficiency. Certainly that can be the watchword, the
vision for us. Certainly that is what the administration offers in its
energy plan.
[[Page H3608]]
The challenge for us, Mr. Speaker, is to abandon the theater of
politics where some have been so tempted to engage in name-calling and
political posturing, to truly represent the American people to find
sound solutions, to reject the environmentalism of the extremists and
embrace the conservation and environmentalism of the enlightened. That
is our challenge. I believe we are poised to meet that challenge, just
as we put a man on the Moon in the 1960s.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend from Arizona. I
want also to state my admiration for this President for taking on this
job. I do not envy him. I mean, I was born and raised right next to
Yosemite National Park.
{time} 2130
Mr. Speaker, I go up and I feel in many ways closer to God in the
high country at 9,000 feet. I go to Yosemite, and I hug boulders, and I
love them, and I love the environment.
This country has the reputation of holding the environment so sacred.
It is wonderful, especially the States we represent and the beauty that
comes from those States, those are treasures that we always want to
cherish. But we also have people who have needs, who need water, who
need electricity.
I am not willing to say that myself or my wife or my child have more
of a right towards those needs than anybody else does. Everybody has a
right to equal access to this infrastructure in this country, and so we
have these resources, the desire to want to be environmentally
responsible and, yet, the need to use energy and water and
infrastructures.
So it is not an easy job, I think, but I want to applaud the
President for taking this on, because it is not a real popular thing.
It not something that will shoot him up in the polls for a while, but
it will be something that he is providing leadership for in this
country and that we so desperately need.
Mr. Speaker, before I wrap up this hour, I will yield to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Radanovich) for inviting me down to join him here this
evening. I think if there is one thing that I will take away from this
is that it is time to end the blame game, and to pull together and to
lead as a Nation and to give this country real answers to the energy
problems that we face.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues to that
end, and I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico
for her comments.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and
I just want to say that I do believe we can work together for good,
sound science of modern technology, of solutions, and we can get there.
We can improve our infrastructure for energy to get the power to the
places that it is needed. We can promote conservation, a balanced
environment. We can simplify government regulations so that we can make
some progress.
I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and we will
continue in this Congress and continue to fund research and development
on alternative and renewable energy sources.
Mr. Speaker, I am very excited that Honda has on the drawing board
right now a hybrid car that will get 75 miles a gallon. I am excited
about these fuel cell cars that are out there that have these perpetual
batteries. I believe that our government has a role in funding such
research, such general research, and we are going to continue to do
that.
Mr. Speaker, I also applaud the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth)
and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for your boldness in
speaking out on nuclear energy, because I think it is something that
Americans need to be comfortable with the dialogue.
Finally, I want to say that I think that we should continue to
explore alternative uses and evaluate our own domestic resources to see
what we can do to become more energy-independent and not risk our
national security on the whims of Middle East dictators and kings and
despots.
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) for inviting
me to be here tonight and look forward to working with the gentleman
and the rest of the Congress on some very positive solutions.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Just one note in closing, Mr. Speaker. Very soon we
will move past the rhetoric, and we will have to roll up our sleeves
and make it happen. The administration has put out a plan.
I cannot help but think about the holiday we are about to celebrate
and observe, the independence of this country. A new biography of our
second President John Adams has been written. In the final year of his
life and the final days, a committee of men from his home State of
Massachusetts went to visit the second President, at that time his son
was President of the United States, and they asked John Adams, Mr.
President, would you like to propose a toast to the country you helped
to found? And he stood up there, stiff-legged, still the strong voice,
and he offered two words: ``Independence forever.'' They said, Mr.
President, do you want to add anything else to that? And he said, no,
not a word, that suffices.
Indeed, not only in the tradition of this constitutional Republic,
but for the future of a sound energy policy with an enlightened
environmentalism, let that again be our cry: Independence forever.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New
Mexico and gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Georgia for
participating in this special order.
____________________