[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 90 (Friday, June 25, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5074-H5083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4614, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 694 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 694
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4614) making appropriations for energy and
water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2005, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived except as follows: beginning with ``Provided'' on page
2, line 23, through page 3, line 5; sections 105, 106, 107,
108, 109, 110, and 311; beginning with ``Provided'' on page
39, line 23, through page 40, line 4; and section 502. Where
points of order are waived against part of a paragraph,
points of order against a provision in another part of such
paragraph may be made only against such provision and not
against the entire paragraph. During consideration of the
bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
The resolution before the House today provides for consideration of
the 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill under an open
rule that provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and
under the rules of the House, the bill shall be considered for
amendment by paragraph. The rule waives points of order against
provisions in the bill as amended for failure to comply with clause 2
of rule XXI except as specified in the resolution.
It authorizes the chairman to accord priority in recognition to
Members who have been preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record, and finally it provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the rule for H.R. 4614, the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2005. This
legislation provides for a total of $28 billion in new discretionary
spending authority for the civil U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Department of Interior, the Department of Energy and several associated
Independent Agencies.
I would like to thank my friend, the chairman, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hobson), for his leadership and vision in crafting this
legislation and for striking a good balance between existing prudent
fiscal restraint and funding our Nation's energy and water development
priorities.
This bill increases funding for our Nation's energy and water
priorities at $734.5 million above 2004 levels, and $49.6 million above
the President's budget request, while ensuring that this money is spent
wisely on programs that also reflect the needs and the core missions
that its agencies find within their mission statements.
This legislation adequately funds the Corps of Engineers and
concentrates its resources on helping to fulfill its traditional
missions such as flood control, shoreline protection, navigation and
[[Page H5075]]
safety on our Nation's waterways. Over the last few years, the Corps
has been given an increased workload to complete with an inadequate
budget. This bill focuses on protecting our critical infrastructure and
completing outstanding projects while prioritizing our Nation's
infrastructure needs in a thoughtful and efficient way.
It provides funding needed to maintain, operate, and rehabilitate the
Bureau of Reclamation projects throughout the western United States and
protects the Federal investment in western water infrastructure. It
also ensures that renewable energy programs are funded at $343 million,
$1 million above the fiscal year 2004 amounts.
Under this legislation, the Department of Energy receives a total of
$22.48 billion, an increase of $511 million over fiscal year 2004. As
with the Corps, this legislation tasks the Department of Energy with
beginning to prepare its 5-year budget plans, first for individual
programs and then an integrated plan for the entire Department. This
plan must include business plans for each of the DOE laboratories, so
that Congress and the Department can understand the mission and
resource needs of each laboratory to ensure that they can use their
funding that is provided more efficiently.
Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration is $9
billion, an increase of $372 million over fiscal year 2004 and a
decrease of $22 million from the budget request. The United States has
in place a strategic plan to realign and modernize our nuclear arsenal,
however, much of the DOE weapons complex is still sized to support a
Cold War stockpile. The funding included in this bill will help NNSA to
review its weapons complex in relation to the security needs, budget
constraints and this new stockpiling plan while still providing
adequate funding for its ongoing operations and needs.
Finally, this bill provides $202 million for several independent
agencies, including the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta
Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its Inspector
General, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and the Office of
Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of this legislative product, created by
our Committee on Appropriations with input from many Members. It will
help to fund our Nation's energy and water development needs.
I would also like to personally commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson) for his hard work and vision in crafting this legislation. And
I would also like to thank the chairman for his inclusion of level
funding, that was important to this Member, for the Dallas Floodway
Extension Project which is a cornerstone in Dallas, Texas, for our
Trinity River Corridor Project.
This project will help Dallas to mitigate flood risks in over 12,500
structures in Dallas' central business district and includes some 792
acres of land that are currently in a 100-year flood plain.
I support this project and this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do
the same by supporting the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0915
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill, and I congratulate the chairman and the ranking
member and the subcommittee Chair and the ranking member for their hard
work and diligence in bringing this appropriations bill to the floor in
a timely fashion.
Specifically, this bill provides a total of $27.9 billion for the
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Interior Department's
Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy and a handful of
independent agencies including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I am especially pleased that this bill soundly rejects the
administration's continuing efforts to dramatically reduce funding for
the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Army Corps of
Engineers was actually $460 million less than the Corps received in
fiscal year 2004 and $578 million below what it received in fiscal year
2003. This is tantamount to a systematic attempt to cripple the Civil
Works program.
As a Member with mainly inland waterways in my district, I value and
appreciate the extraordinary work the Corps performs on behalf of the
cities and towns we represent. In this bill, the committee has wisely
given both the specific guidance and the sufficient resources the Corps
needs to address the projects it is presently charged with completing.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud the committee for plainly
exposing the administration's funding scheme for the proposed nuclear
waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This project is riddled
with scientific uncertainty and threatens millions of Americans, both
in Nevada and in communities along the transportation routes.
Notwithstanding the many health and safety concerns that should stop
the Yucca Mountain project from going forward, OMB's attempt to use a
budget gimmick to leverage $749 million of the administration's $880
million request is a cynical and shameless attempt to cook the books on
the total budget deficit. By refusing to loosen the purse strings on
funding for the Yucca Mountain project, this appropriation bill rightly
tells the administration to go sell stupid somewhere else.
I also want to commend the chairman and the committee for its actions
on nuclear weapons development. The bill strips out funding for the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapons, also known as ``bunker
busters.'' I share the chairman's frustration that the Energy
Department seems to be totally ignoring the restrictions Congress has
placed on this research.
The bill also eliminates funding for the Advanced Concepts program to
develop a new generation of nuclear weapons and zeros out the funding
for siting a new Modern Pit Facility to manufacture new triggers for
nuclear weapons.
In addition, the bill does not provide funds to move test readiness
at the Nevada test facility up from 24 months to 18 months. Mr.
Speaker, instead, the bill has placed emphasis on the consolidation of
bomb material for greater safety and security and on the disassembly of
surplus nuclear weapons.
On these matters, I believe the bill reflects realistic national
security and budget priorities, and I commend the chairman and ranking
member for their leadership.
Mr. Speaker, while I support this bill on the whole, I feel compelled
to express my disappointment in the funding levels for renewable energy
technologies. Just 2 weeks ago senior officials from the United States
and 153 other nations met at a conference in Bonn, Germany, where they
unanimously endorsed a communique committing to a substantial increase
``with a sense of urgency'' in the percentage of renewable sources to
meet global energy needs.
Reportedly, the delegates of the conference did not set specific
targets or timetables as a concession in order to get President Bush's
administration on board. The President has said he favors the invisible
hand of the free market over government regulation.
Sadly, this appropriations bill does not reflect the sense of urgency
which is needed in increased funding for renewable energy sources. I
can tell you that my constituents in Massachusetts, who are paying on
average $2.10 per gallon at the pump, do not have much faith that ``the
invisible hand'' of the free market is going to show up any time soon
and drive gas prices down either.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation cannot afford to wait any longer. We cannot
afford to continue underfunding renewable energy and efficiency
programs while our dependence on foreign sources of oil grows and our
natural gas shortage worsens. We need to move with all deliberate speed
to significantly increase funding for renewable sources of energy.
I have start-up fuel cell companies and established photovoltaic
manufacturers in my district like Mechanology,
[[Page H5076]]
Protonex, Cell Tech Power and Evergreen Solar that are doing remarkable
things, but they are struggling to compete with other countries who are
leaving us behind in the race to a new energy economy because they
cannot get the Federal funding support they need to continue research
and development. And the invisible hand of the free market economy is
not helping them out either.
Meanwhile, we spend our time here passing ill-conceived energy bills
for a second time that grant $23 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to
the oil and gas industry. Surely, if we can do that, then we can do
better in funding our renewable energy technologies.
Mr. Speaker, the appropriators have done their job, and while I would
like to see a more comprehensive bill, I believe that the appropriators
have done their job well.
Let me be the first to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson)
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for
their work.
With that being said, my main regret is that the Republican
leadership decided not to make in order the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
The Eshoo-Lofgren amendment is simple. It would require that the
Federal Emergency Regulatory Commission order refunds whenever sellers
of electricity charge rates that are not just and reasonable. This will
require FERC to order refunds stemming from the market manipulation
that occurred in California and the Pacific Northwest in 2000 and 2001.
It would also require FERC to disclose documents and evidence that it
has obtained in its investigation of Enron in manipulation of the
western energy market; and it would require FERC to allow States to
fully participate in FERC proceedings and negotiations on market
manipulation.
At the end of this debate, I will offer a motion to defeat the
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) will offer their amendment to the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. This is an important
proconsumer amendment, and it deserves to be considered today.
Mr. Speaker, when is enough enough? It is sad that the Republican
leadership feels compelled to continue to protect the Enrons of the
world. It is time that we hold these companies accountable, and the
Eshoo-Lofgren amendment is the right prescription for this ailment.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we engaged in a colossal waste of time as the
leadership of this House forced the Members of this House to spend an
entire day to debate a bill and amendments that were defeated by
substantial margins; and yet the leadership of this House is unable to
allow us to have the opportunity to debate an amendment that will
actually make a real difference in the lives of the people of this
country. We can do much better than this, and I will urge my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to quote my colleague who said that this is a
good bill. It is a good bill and it does deserve to be passed. It also
is a bill that does not need to address what is known as the Eshoo
amendment, because it has already been addressed. It has been addressed
in the H.R. 6 conference report and H.R. 4503 that was passed last week
by the House and is pending in the Senate; and that will provide the
authority to FERC to ensure that the proper elements are taken care of
as it relates to serious allegations that have been raised, especially
in California.
I do thank the gentleman for his support of the bill. I believe he
has qualified it appropriately, and I do, too, give thanks to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for the work he has done.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to notify the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) that at this time I do not have any speakers as a result
of the adequacy of the bill that has taken care of many requests on
this side; and so I would like to inform the gentleman that I would
allow him to go ahead and consume the time that is necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo).
(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), who has been a wonderful supporter of our effort that has
been stretched out over 4 years.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the underlying bill. It is an
excellent one, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and
the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for
their bipartisan leadership of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development. But I rise to urge the defeat of the previous question on
the rule, because the rule does not provide a waiver for the amendments
to address market manipulation and require the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to take action to refund consumers' dollars that
were manipulated.
I testified before the Committee on Rules yesterday that this
amendment be made in order, but the request was denied.
I think the word ``denial'' pretty well sums up the response of
Congressional Republicans and the FERC to the western energy crimes. In
2000 and 2001, FERC essentially allowed energy producers to game and
corrupt the western energy market, and consumers were gouged billions
of dollars. In March 2001, Congressional Democrats wrote to the
President for help and we are still waiting for the reply.
In 2002, Democratic Members of the California delegation asked six
times for a Congressional investigation and hearings on market
manipulation. It never happened. In 2003, we tried to address the
refunds issue with amendments to the Energy Policy Act. Nothing
happened.
Over 4 years we have tried everything we could to help consumers in
the Pacific Northwest and California. This work is summarized in a
five-page document which, Mr. Speaker, I include for the record.
The House must consider this amendment today because we are running
out of opportunities to right the wrongs which created the crimes
itself. This amendment will first amend the Federal Power Act by
changing the rules for refunds effective dates under Section 206.
Currently, these rules allow refunds after a complaint has been filed.
This amendment will allow refunds for all overcharges regardless of
when a complaint has been filed. This change will require FERC to order
refunds for the gouging that occurred in the West and elsewhere in the
Nation in 2000 and 2001.
Two, it requires FERC to open new investigations, if necessary, to
award refunds to western consumers.
Three, it requires the FERC to step in to order refunds whenever
manipulation occurs in the future in any State in our country.
Four, it requires the FERC to allow California to participate in
heretofore secret negotiations between FERC and power producers who
were thought to have engaged in market manipulation. And lastly, it
requires the FERC to make public all documents that it is holding
related to the manipulation of the western energy market in 2000 and
2001.
{time} 0930
And let there be no doubt, there were wrongs. The Enron tapes which
CBS broadcast earlier this month make it all too clear that companies
were manipulating the market. They bragged about stealing money from
``those poor grandmothers in California.''
Some of the language was so profane that by congressional action it
was deemed it could not be broadcast. The language was shocking and the
facts in the transcripts chilling. They are part of a litany of
evidence of widespread market manipulation.
There are smoking gun memos in which Enron admitted how they gamed
the market. They had names for each one of their undertakings. We have
transcripts of employees of Reliant Energy describing how they gamed
the market; and with that striking evidence, FERC chose to negotiate a
settlement in this case for pennies on the
[[Page H5077]]
dollar without allowing California to participate.
We have reams of evidence discovered by the State of California. We
have the Justice Department's indictments and plea agreements with many
energy traders and producers. Even the FERC found ``significant market
manipulation.'' But, despite the evidence, the FERC has been reluctant
to order refunds to compensate consumers even though it has the
obligation to protect energy consumers of our country.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 4 long years since the crisis began.
Consumers have been waiting for relief. We think they deserve it and
they should have it. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question and allow this amendment to come to the floor.
Congressional Activity To Address the Energy Crisis--Chronology
Highlights
2000
June 14, 2000--First blackout of the electricity crisis and
first blackout in California since World War II.
August 2, 2000--San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E)
files a complaint under Rule 206 under the Federal Power Act
against western power suppliers, alleging that market prices
are ``unjust and unreasonable.'' Calls on the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to impose price limits.
November 1, 2000--FERC reports that wholesale electricity
prices have been and have the potential to continue to be
``unjust and unreasonable.''
2001
January 19, 2001--25 members of the California delegation
write to FERC to urge it to address the high price of
electricity in California.
January 20, 2001--Representatives Duncan Hunter and Anna G.
Eshoo introduce H.R. 238 to amend the Department of Energy
Authorization Act to authorize the Secretary of Energy to
impose interim limitations on the cost of electric energy to
protect consumers from unjust and unreasonable prices in the
electric energy market. A bipartisan group of thirty-two
Western Members cosponsor the bill. Senate companion (S. 26)
introduced by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer on
January 22, 2001.
January 30, 2001--Representative Bob Filner introduces H.R.
268, the California Electricity Consumers Relief Act, that
requires FERC to order refunds retroactive to the beginning
of the crisis on June 1, 2000.
March 2, 2001--Representatives Hunter and Eshoo write to
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin and
House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Joe Barton
to call for a hearing on the Western energy crisis and H.R.
238.
March 6, 2001--House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
holds hearing--Congressional Perspectives on Electricity
Markets in California and the West and National Energy
Policy.
March 20 and 22, 2001--House Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality holds hearing--``Electricity Markets: California.''
March 22, 2001--House Democrats write to President Bush to
urge him to fill FERC vacancies, to call on FERC to
investigate and mitigate high electricity prices in
California, and to replace FERC Chair Curtis Hebert. No reply
is received from the President.
March 23, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy
and Commerce Committee respond to the majority's request for
comments on proposed legislation to ``fix'' problems in the
Western energy market. Members note the omission of any
provision to address the excessively high cost of
electricity. No formal reply is received.
March 30, 2001--Democratic Members from California,
Washington, and Oregon write to President Bush to urge him to
address the high cost of wholesale electricity and
``investigate recent allegations of overcharges'' in the
Western energy market. No substantive reply is received from
the President.
April 4, 2001--H.R. 1468 is introduced with the support of
30 California Democrats. The bill requires the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to impose cost-of-service pricing in
the Western electricity market and to order the refund of
overcharges.
April 10, 2001--U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham
writes to Members of Congress to update them on the
Administration's efforts to address the energy crisis. The
Secretary discounts the crisis as ``a supply crisis'' and
states the Administration's opposition to price mitigation.
April 16, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy
and Commerce Committee write to FERC Commissioner Linda K.
Breathitt to urge her to support cost-of-service pricing in
the West.
April 26, 2001--FERC issues an order establishing a price
mitigation plan during stage 1, 2, and 3 power emergencies.
The order sets the mitigated price on the most inefficient,
polluting generator in the State. Generators can exceed the
mitigated price if they justify their costs.
May 1 and 3, 2001--House Energy and Air Quality
Subcommittee holds hearing on H.R. 1647, The Electricity
Emergency Act of 2001--a bill with the purported purpose of
solving the energy crisis by increasing the supply of
electricity. Among other proposals, the bill calls for the
suspension of federal environmental laws that might diminish
energy production. California Governor Gray Davis and the
California Energy Commission and Air Resources Board report
that environmental protection laws are not an impediment to
energy production. The bill does not address runaway prices.
May 1, 2001--Members of the California Republican
Delegation meet with Vice President Dick Cheney on the energy
crisis. California Democrats are not invited.
May 3, 2001--California Democratic Congressional Delegation
Chair Sam Farr writes Vice President Cheney criticizing him
for excluding California Democrats from his May 1, 2001
meeting with California Republicans. Rep. Farr requests a
meeting with the Vice President.
May 4, 2001--44 Democratic Members of Congress write to
Secretary Abraham to use his authority to address price
gouging in the West. Reply reiterating the Administration's
opposition to ``price caps'' mailed July 2, 2001.
May 17, 2001--Vice President Cheney and the National Energy
Policy Development Group (NEPDG) submit their recommendations
to President Bush. The recommendations do not include
anything to address runaway prices in the West. About the
Western energy crisis, the NEPDG writes, ``Though weather
conditions and design flaws in California's electricity
restructuring plan contributed, the California electricity
crisis is at heart a supply crisis'' (National Energy Policy,
page 1-3). The report blames California for not building
enough generating plants, ``there are no short-term solutions
to long-term neglect.''
May 25, 2001--84 Democratic Members of the House write
President Bush to request that he back a price mitigation
amendment to H.R. 1647 based on H.R. 1468. No reply is
received from the President.
May 25, 2001--Ten respected economists, including Alfred
Kahn, architect of deregulation in the airline industry,
write to President Bush and the Congressional leadership to
express support for cost-of-service based rates for
electricity in the western market.
June 2, 2001--Rep. Eshoo delivers the Democratic response
to the President's weekly radio address on the energy crisis.
June 7, 2001--21 Western Democrats write to FERC Chairman
Curtis Hebert to request the opportunity to testify before
the Commission in a public meeting.
June 12, 2001--California Democratic Congressional
Delegation meets with Vice President Cheney about the energy
crisis. Vice President promises no intervention to alleviate
high prices.
June 13, 2001--29 members of the California Democratic
Congressional Delegation write to Vice President Cheney
following a CNN report that the White House and Congressional
Republicans funded an advertising campaign to oppose price
mitigation in the West.
June 19, 2001--FERC expands its April 26th order to cover
the entire West during all hours of operation, requires all
generators to make their power available, and continues to
base the mitigated price on the least efficient generator.
FERC determines that refunds are owed and orders
administrative hearings to determine the amount.
June 19, 2001--Members of the California and Western
delegations testify before the House Rules Committee in
support of amendments to H.R. 2246, the Fiscal Year 2001
Supplemental Appropriations bill. The amendments would
require FERC to impose cost-of-service pricing in the West
and order electricity generators to pay refunds of rates that
are ``unjust and unreasonable.'' The Rules Committee, chaired
by California Republican David Dreier, refuses to allow the
consideration of these amendments.
June 20, 2001--Representative Nancy Pelosi attempts to
bring a cost-of-service amendment to H.R. 2246 to the floor.
Republicans block it on a procedural objection.
June 20, 2001--Governor Gray Davis, with many Members of
the California Congressional Delegation in attendance,
testifies before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
about FERC's activities in the Western energy market.
June 30, 2001--California Democratic Congressional
Delegation writes to FERC Chairman Curtis Hebert about 32
important California-related cases that were pending before
the Commission for an extended period of time. Reply dated
August 28, 2001.
July 17 and 18, 2001--House Energy and Commerce Committee
holds markup of the Committee Print, Energy Advancement and
Conservation Act. Committee defeats two amendments offered by
the California Democrats on the Committee to impose cost-of-
service pricing and require the refund of overcharges.
August 1, 2001--Floor consideration of H.R. 4, Securing
America's Future Energy. House defeats Rep. Waxman's cost-of-
service pricing amendment by 157-274. The Rules Committee
refuses to make in order an amendment offered by
Representatives Eshoo and Harman to require refunds of
overcharges.
October 29, 2001--Rep. Eshoo testifies before a FERC
technical conference on behalf of the California Democratic
Congressional Delegation. Requests that the Commission's
price mitigation plan remain in force until the market has
stabilized. Asks the Commission to act quickly in ordering
refunds.
November 27, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy
and Commerce Committee write to Energy and Air Quality
Subcommittee Chairman Barton to urge him to address the
problem of market power in energy markets within draft
electricity restructuring legislation. No reply is received.
[[Page H5078]]
2002
February 14, 2002--Members of the California Delegation
write to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin
to urge him to investigate and hold hearings on the business
conduct and pricing practices of Enron during the Western
energy crisis.
May 8, 2002--The California Democratic Congressional
Delegation and 4 Northwestern Democrats write Chairman
Tauzin, urging him to open an investigation and to hold
hearings on market manipulation in the Western energy market
after FERC posts internal Enron memos detailing how the
company artificially inflated prices. Memos indicate that
other companies adopted the same practices that Enron did.
May 9, 2002--The Securities and Exchange Commission
announces investigation into the ``round-trip'' trades
between Dynegy, an energy marketer that sold into the
California market, and CMS Energy of Dearborn, Michigan.
May 15-16, 2002--Senate Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce,
& Tourism Subcommittee holds hearing on Enron memos entitled,
``Examining Enron: Developments Regarding Electricity Price
Manipulation in California.'' Rep. Eshoo and Harman attend.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee holds a
similar hearing.
June 5, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and
Commerce Committee lead 75 House Members, including Minority
Leader Gephardt, in a letter to House Speaker Hastert and
Energy and Commerce Chairman Tauzin to ask for an
investigation of energy suppliers.
June 5, 2002--31 California Democrats write to FERC
Chairman Patrick Wood to urge him to extend FERC's price
mitigation plan for the West beyond September 30, 2002 when
it is due to expire.
June 18, 2002--The General Accounting office issues a
report that exposes weaknesses in FERC's ability to regulate
energy markets. The report says, ``FERC is not adequately
performing the oversight that is needed to ensure that the
price produced by [energy] markets are just and reasonable
and therefore, it is not fulfilling its regulatory mandate.''
June 19, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and
Commerce Committee write to Chairman Tauzin again to urge a
hearing and investigations, noting that the GAO report
indicates that FERC is not up to doing the job on its own.
June 20, 2002--Congress Daily AM reports, ``House
Republicans agreed [June 19, 2002] to hold a hearing to
examine whether trading firms such as Enron Corp., may have
illegally manipulated electricity prices in the West.'' The
article continued, ``The hearing would serve as a spring
board for a broader inquiry into price manipulation and
FERC's ability to oversee the Market [Energy and Commerce
Committee Chairman] Tauzin said.''
July 25, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and
Commerce Committee write to Chairman Tauzin again to urge a
hearing and investigations, noting that he has not fulfilled
his public promise a month earlier to hold hearings and
investigate energy transactions in the West. The letter notes
that this work should be completed before Chairman moves
ahead with the consideration of electricity provisions in the
House-Senate Conference Committee on H.R. 4, the
comprehensive energy bill. Finally, the letter asks for
access to documents that Committee obtained from FERC. The
documents had been compiled by FERC as a part of an
investigation that it initiated following inquiries from U.S.
Senators.
July 26, 2002--Chairman Tauzin responds to the Western
Representatives May 8, 2002 letter with a recitation of the
Committee's previous work on the Western energy crisis in
2001. The Chairman notes that he requested and received the
documents he received from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), which were being reviewed by majority and
minority staffs. However, he does not explain why the
Committee has not held a hearing since the Enron ``smoking
gun'' memos were made public. The Chairman does not respond
to the request for access to the FERC documents.
August 21, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy
and Commerce Committee respond to Chairman Tauzin's letter,
and again ask for a serious, independent investigation of the
Western Energy market. The letter reiterates the request for
access to FERC documents obtained by the Committee.
2003
January 9, 2003--The California Democratic Congressional
Delegation writes to the Chairman of the Federal Regulatory
Energy Commission (FERC) Patrick Wood, III, to reject the
findings of Administrative Law Judge Bruce Birchman (Refund
Case EL00-95-045) because he recommended that energy
generators who supplied power to California during the 2000-
2001 energy crisis owe far less than the $8.9 billion that
California is seeking.
March 3, 2003--The California parties (including the
Governor and the Attorney General of California, the
California Public Utilities Commission, and the state's major
independently-owned utilities) present to the Commission more
than 1,000 pages of evidence of widespread market power abuse
and market manipulation. The California parties had to go to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to force the Commission to
allow them to discover and present this evidence.
March 26, 2003--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) released a detailed report on the California Energy
crisis, concluding that there was widespread manipulation in
the California energy market. However, FERC did not propose
increasing refunds substantially to reflect the gaming that
took place. In particular, FERC continued to insist that the
State of California could not receive refunds on the short-
term electricity purchases it made to keep the lights on.
April 2, 2003--During the Energy and Commerce Committee
markup of the Energy Policy Act (H.R. 6) Rep. Eshoo offers an
amendment to increase the refunds for California consumers by
$5 billion. The amendment simply required the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to refund all ``unjust and
unreasonable'' charges the State of California incurred for
the short-term energy purchases it made to keep the lights on
during the California energy crisis in 2001. The amendment
failed on a vote of 21 to 30 in the Energy and Commerce
Committee. Rep. Eshoo, supported by the California Democratic
Congressional Delegation, attempts to bring the amendment to
the floor for consideration several days later but not one
California Republican would support the amendment and it
wasn't considered.
September 25, 2003--31 Members of the California Democratic
Congressional Delegation write to FERC Chairman Wood
reiterating previous concerns that FERC is having a poor
record in defending the interests of California consumers,
lacks an effective price mitigation plan, refuses to order
the renegotiation of unjust and unreasonable long-term
contracts, and has thus far short-changed consumers in the
refund proceedings.
2004
May 6, 2004--An amicus brief is filed at the 9th Circuit
Court regarding FERC and California energy refunds signed by
37 parties: California's 2 Senators, 33 House California
Democrats, State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, and
State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. The brief supports the
California parties' lawsuit that FERC follow the Court's
order to use the existing Remedy Proceeding--a forum subject
to judicial review--to collect evidence of energy market
manipulation, rather than non-public investigatory
proceedings that shut CA consumers out of the process.
June 2, 2004--CBS News broadcasts tapes unearthed by
Snohomish Public Utility District which capture Enron traders
bragging in profane terms about their effort to manipulate
the Western Energy Market.
June 14, 2004--All 33 California House Democrats write to
FERC to request that it address the issues raised by the
Enron tapes.
June 15, 2004--The House defeats motion to recommit H.R.
4305, the Energy Policy Act of 2004, 192-230 (Roll Call Vote
240). The motion would have added language to the bill that
will enable California consumers to receive equitable
refunds.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the sad tale of our energy rip-off in the
western United States is really before us today. We started out
reacting in a bipartisan way, but, in reviewing the history, I note
that after House Republicans met with the Vice President on May 1,
2001, that bipartisan effort did stall.
We have tried for 4 years to get results. In June, 2001, the
California delegation asked for amendments to H.R. 2246; and the
Committee on Rules refused to allow those amendments which would
provide a refund for unjust and unreasonable rates.
In July, 2001, amendments were offered in the markup in the Committee
on Energy and Commerce; and Republicans refused to allow the
requirement of refunds in overcharges.
In August of 2001, the Committee on Rules refused to make in order an
amendment to require refunds of overcharges.
In June of 2002, the GAO report indicated that the FERC was really
not doing the job, but Congress and the administration did nothing
about it.
In April, 2003, the effort was made again through H.R. 6 to refund
all unjust and unreasonable charges, but, again, we were blocked in
that effort.
Finally, in May, 2004, Californians, including the attorney general,
the chief law enforcement officer of the State of California, filed a
lawsuit to try and get the law followed.
Now, what is the problem here? We had energy manipulation. We had a
theft. California was a crime victim. When there was a fire, they were
quoted as saying, ``burn, baby, burn, that is a beautiful thing,'' the
trader said about the massive fire; and they also said he is just F-ing
California, meaning he steals money from California to the tune of
about a million.
Mr. Speaker, we need to do something about this. Yesterday, we asked
that the Eshoo amendment be made in order so we could get the refunds
and relief that citizens in the West are due.
[[Page H5079]]
It was mentioned at the time that because this litigation has been
filed that somehow it would be improper to proceed with Congress'
action. That is simply not the case.
Earlier this week, I was in the Committee on the Judiciary. I have
been a member of the Committee on the Judiciary for 9\1/2\ years. We
were marking up enhanced penalties for terrorism crimes, and the issue
was raised, these new penalties are going to be imposed on individuals
whose prosecutions are under way. We got a lengthy letter from the
Justice Department pointing out that there was no problem in terms of
ex post facto issues and that we could proceed.
I am mindful, when the World War II Memorial was threatened because
of its time frame because of a lawsuit filed by NEPA, the House of
Representatives acted and simply removed the World War II Memorial from
NEPA coverage. I voted for that because I wanted to get the memorial
approved.
Earlier this year, there was an arcane issue between interns and
residents employed by medical schools and hospitals on whether or not
that was an employment or an educational issue, and it was in court
over an antitrust case. We voted actually to define that relationship
as an educational relationship, ending the litigation. I voted for that
because I thought it was appropriate for Congress to step in and
protect medical education in America.
It can never be correct that Congress is excused from doing its job
because someone filed a lawsuit. If that were the case, all we would
need to do to paralyze the House of Representatives and the Senate
would be to have people file lawsuits.
I would like to say this, that for those who are refusing to act
still, now in our fourth year who are through their actions, whether
intended or not, covering up and protecting the wrong-doers at Enron
and others, I feel a kinship with that story told to me in law school:
It is like the guy who kills his parents and then throws himself on the
mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
Let us act on the Eshoo amendment and get relief for California.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the vice chairman of the subcommittee.
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) and state what a great Member of Congress the gentleman is.
I want to come this morning, after a long year, and thank the staff.
Kevin Cook, the majority staff and the minority staff have worked
diligently and have created a very balanced product. There are a few
things that are not as high as we would like and are not funded as much
as we would like, but overall it is excellent work.
Over the last year and a half, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Hobson) has been all over the country familiarizing himself with our
varied missions, both in the Corps of Engineers and the Department of
Energy. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member,
is a thoughtful and diligent member who has made enormous
contributions; and this is possibly the best bipartisan work we will
see through the appropriations process this year.
The things I want to point to during the debate to bring the rule up
and pass this bill with tremendous bipartisan support today are, first
and foremost, frankly, in the wake of September 11, the enhanced
security at our nuclear weapons facilities that is manifested in this
bill. This is the result of a chairman who went out and looked at these
facilities, many times in a very classified setting, but came back and
really dug in to get to the bottom of what needs to be done and
accelerate those improvements as much as possible in this bill. I want
to thank him because I represent one of those facilities, and we are
going to be much more secure in the months and years ahead because of
the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
Secondly, I was with the Secretary of Energy yesterday; and we were
touting how this bill even ramps up the administration's commitment to
science and research, supercomputing, fusion energy, the next
breakthroughs that will lead to a productive society in future years in
this bill. The Congress is even doing more than the administration. The
administration is doing more than last year. We are making great
breakthroughs. This is the seed corn of a productive American society,
and this Congress is responding through this committee's work.
I am excited. We really do have a team of leadership on the
subcommittee that gets it, and we need it. We have nanoscale research
now at a level we have never had. This subcommittee is honoring that.
Another great initiative of this administration is we have all of
these nuclear weapons facilities from the Cold War legacy. We have been
maintaining them at billions and billions of dollars of annual cost. We
should clean them up quicker. It is called accelerated cleanup. It is a
Bush-Abraham initiative. This Congress is fully funding accelerated
cleanup all across the country. Spend more money early so we do not
have to spend all that money later.
Accelerated cleanup is honored in this committee's work; and I am
very grateful, again representing one of those sites where for a number
of years we were just stirring the money around in a pot every year and
asking for more. We were spending money to stir it, instead of cleaning
it up.
Mr. Speaker, important water projects, infrastructure investment are
in this bill. It is very balanced between energy and water. Sometimes
the Senate goes more towards energy investments and takes away water
money, sometimes the House has more water, less energy. This committee
has balanced the approach from the very start, which is what we need.
For instance, in the Tennessee Valley, we have this river system with
a number of dams and locks, but we have one lock with bad concrete
growth problems. The Corps of Engineers has said for a number of years
it needs to be replaced, but it is a $300 million ticket. This bill
starts the process of replacing the Chickamauga lock on the Tennessee
River.
The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) from the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and the Environment, our chairman, he wrote a bill to
replace this lock; and we passed the bill. The President signed the
bill into law. This committee puts the money in to start the process.
We need to get it rolling and clean it up.
Now, what does this bill not have? This bill does not have everything
we need to keep the nuclear energy program in this country robust and
growing which has been flat for a number of years because of the long-
term waste issue. That is the Yucca Mountain piece. We do not have the
money. We are going to keep fighting. We believe that nuclear is a
safe, clean alternative to fossil emissions. If Members want clean air,
we need nuclear power.
Other countries get it. Other countries which are more
environmentally sensitive, from time to time, than America are in the
nuclear business because they see it as clean green energy. We need
that, but we have to work out this long-term storage issue. That is
Yucca Mountain. We fully funded it last year. The chairman knows that
we have to have this, but we do not have the money. But we are not
giving up. This is the beginning of the process with the Senate, with
the budgeteers and all of the people who would have imposed caps on it.
This is a great bill with bipartisan support.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I said at the beginning. We have no
problem with this bill. We congratulate the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the
ranking member, for a job well done. We are just frustrated the
Committee on Rules, when it comes to amendments of substance, continues
to shut us out. That is what we are upset about today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the late 1990s, California, whose energy
markets dominate the effect up and down the West Coast, adopted a
competitive market for electric generation. Under Federal law, if a
State adopts that competitive model, it gives up the right to regulate
wholesale energy
[[Page H5080]]
prices and transfers that responsibility to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. In late 2000 and early 2001, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, FERC, slept during an artificial crisis during
the winter; and over $9 billion was stolen.
Why do I emphasize winter? Westerners will understand this. We had
enough electric generation capacity to power our air conditioners in
the summer, but somehow there was not enough electricity for the much
lower demand to keep the lights on in the winter. Why? We were told
that there was a shortage because plants were ``closed for
maintenance.''
Here is the chart that illustrates what happened. The blue indicates
the noncrisis previous year as to the number of plants and the amount
of electricity not generated thereby due to maintenance. The yellow
shows the crisis, closed for maintenance.
Now the transcripts are out. Not just Enron but Reliant and other
Presidentially protected corporate criminals were closing the plants in
order to create an artificial shortage.
Now the transcripts that are most famous are obscene. They include
the now-famous quote that says, Gramma Millie, she wants her F-ing
money back for all the money you jammed up her orifice for $250 a
megawatt hour. That is thought to be the most obscene quote, but truly
the most obscene, and there are dozens like this quote, is when an
Enron trader turns to the plant manager and says, ``just go ahead and
shut it down.'' Closed for maintenance, artificial shortage, $9 billion
stolen.
The responsibility for this, the greatest economic crime in our
history, is not just for the thieves but those who protect them.
Whose side are Members on? Reliant and Enron and the others who shut
plants down to create an artificial shortage? Or on the side of Gramma
Millie and other western consumers? Members define themselves and
define their party with their vote on the previous question.
Reliant is relying on the other side to protect them; and the other
side may indeed enjoy a hollow victory today as they shut down debate
and prevent us from even discussing an amendment to require FERC to let
the western States see the documents, to require FERC to look at the
fraud that occurred before a complaint was filed. They can win that
hollow victory today, but 45 million westerners, including the voters
of three swing States, are watching. The other side of the aisle cannot
hide from them, and Gramma Millie's revenge is less than 5 months away.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Members should avoid engaging
in personality toward the President, even by innuendo.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule but only
the rule, because I certainly support the underlying legislation. I do
not support the rule because it does nothing to help Californians who
have been bilked out of at least a billion dollars by Enron. It is
unbelievable to me that the California members on the Committee on
Rules would not make this issue that is so important to California part
of today's debate.
During the 2001 energy crisis, Californians begged the President for
relief, but the President did nothing. Each week, $50 million was
drained from the pockets of Californians by Texas-based energy
producers. The President actually called this supply and demand.
Californians, however, called it highway robbery. As it turns out,
while this was happening, Enron traders were laughing about sticking it
to Gramma Millie in California.
It has taken a small utility in Washington State to do what this
administration has refused to do: Bring to light the callous
manipulation that harmed millions of Californians and West Coasters.
Enron fleeced more than $1.1 billion from consumers while literally
laughing all of the way to the bank. And even with the evidence brought
out by the Enron tapes, the leadership of this House once again leaves
millions of California consumers in the dark. I guess they want to hide
what they have done to help Enron behind closed doors, much like the
Bush administration has been working in the shadows with its energy
plan for the Nation. Maybe they will not be happy until they have
turned out the lights on all Americans. This bill does nothing to help
California and the other western States get their retribution.
{time} 0945
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, like those Members who rose before me, I
support the underlying bill. It is a vital investment in our country.
But I do object to the rule because it is long past time to begin to
rectify this massive theft that went on.
Every day, today every Oregonian, every residential ratepayer, every
business will pay, on average, 42 percent more for the electrons
purchased from the same plants transmitted over the same electric lines
as 4 years ago. Just one thing happened in between. That is the Bush
administration, the Bush FERC and Kenny Boy Enron Lay, the President's
previous largest single contributor until this year.
The Snohomish utility found that on 473 of 537 days, Enron
manipulated the market. How can the Bush FERC say that is just and
reasonable and not require that those illegal contracts achieved
through market manipulation be voided? We do not know because they will
not release the documents. They do not want people to know how involved
Enron was in setting the national energy policy.
In the year before the Bush administration released their energy
policy, Enron officials met with members of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and their staff on 272 occasions during one work
year. That means on every day there was an Enron official in the FERC
offices. Were they also in Vice President Cheney's office? We do not
know because he is fighting release of those records. We need these
illegal contracts to be voided, and we need all of the documentation
released about this massive market manipulation.
This is continuing to cast a pall over the economy of the Pacific
Northwest. We have some of the worst unemployment in the country over
the last few years, and a good part is because billions of dollars have
been illegally extracted from our ratepayers by the Texas-based Enron
company with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission appointed by
President Bush standing by complicit, compliant and silent.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close
with one speaker at the very end.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule on behalf
of ratepayers in the West who depended on the Eshoo amendment being
made in order.
Time and time again, members of the California, Oregon and Washington
delegations have attempted to get this House to focus on the damage
caused in the western electricity crisis a few years back. We have been
trying to get the House to do something to return the money stolen from
my constituents and millions of others. The electricity market
manipulation that went on was shameful. It was surpassed, perhaps, only
by the actions or rather inaction of the FERC and this Congress.
Literally billions of dollars were stolen from consumers and
taxpayers by pirate firms like Enron. Recently, we were all treated to
a front-row seat to the carnage demonstrated in tapes of Enron traders
figuring out how best to create shortages, to drive up prices, and rip
off consumers. It was sickening. But, in reality, there was nothing new
in those tapes. It was just more evidence of what I and many in our
delegation have been requesting for over 3 years. Enron and other power
companies were shutting down power plants, diverting electricity, and
engaging in illegal actions in order to drive up electricity prices.
The amendment brought before the Rules Committee by the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo) would be a great step in bringing some
justice here. It would open up all the records at FERC on these cases
of price fixing and market manipulation. It would force FERC to let
States participate in the settlement negotiations, and it
[[Page H5081]]
would make some key changes in the Power Act to enable full refunds to
these western States.
The Committee on Rules should have made it in order and the House
should have adopted it, but that would be breaking the practice of this
House and this administration in doing nothing in response to one of
the great hijackings in American history. It is disgraceful. I urge my
colleagues to vote against this unfair rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I, like others, rise in support of the bill. I
think the authors of this bill, particularly the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), have done
a great job, but this is the only bill we have before Congress which
allows us to have a debate on FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
It would be a better bill if we put an amendment in there, but the
Committee on Rules has not allowed that amendment, and that is wrong.
It is really wrong because this is the only place where we can address
that issue. The administration should address it. They have been
silent. They sit by and allow FERC to continue to do nothing.
FERC is a regulatory agency. This is where the consumers can go to
get some protection. That is the only agency in the Federal Government
that can do anything about it; and when they do not act, we have
nowhere to turn.
This is an agency that ought to have money withheld from it until it
answers the questions. That is something that we do in the legislative
process all the time. And since the administration has failed to hold
them accountable, Congress should. We are asleep at the switch. When
that switch was asleep at FERC, a regulatory agency, they allowed all
of these companies to just screw California.
Mr. Speaker, it took $9 billion of taxpayer money to pay these bills.
This is absolutely absurd. It is more than absurd. It is obscene, it is
criminal and it ought to stop now. The Eshoo amendment should be
debated. It is a shame on the Committee on Rules that they did not make
it in order.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to call for a no vote on the previous
question so this body can consider and vote on the Eshoo amendment.
We all remember the horror stories of the energy crisis in California
in 2000 and 2001. Virtually overnight, energy prices went through the
roof, causing a fiscal crisis and chaos due to energy shortages. Energy
became prohibitively expensive. Electricity that had cost under $50 the
previous year was suddenly costing over $1,000, and some days peaked
above that.
Energy disruptions brought enormous disruption to the everyday lives
of the people of that State. There were rolling brownouts that shut
down traffic signals and crowded intersections, endangering those stuck
in the gridlock. Even some hospitals suffered temporary power loss with
little or no notice. To add insult to injury, we found out months later
that this so-called energy crisis was a fraud on the part of the
companies that sold the energy. They created a fake shortage and jacked
up energy prices.
Mr. Speaker, we need to do something to make sure that this never
happens again. The Eshoo amendment is a step in that direction. It
deserves consideration in this House. A no vote on the previous
question will not stop the House from taking up the energy and water
appropriations bill, which is a good bill. However, a yes vote will
prevent the House from considering the Eshoo amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what we did yesterday on the House
floor, but it was a complete waste of time. Overwhelmingly, the bill
considered yesterday and all the amendments were rejected. We have an
opportunity today to actually debate something meaningful that will
make a difference in people's lives.
I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join
with us in voting no on the previous question. My colleagues on the
other side of the aisle say they are outraged by Enron and Enron-style
companies that ripped off the consumers in California. If they are
truly outraged, then they should put their action where their rhetoric
is: Vote no on the previous question and allow us to have a meaningful
debate that will make a real difference in the lives of the people of
this country and allow us to vote on the Eshoo amendment. I urge my
colleagues to vote no on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the Eshoo
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules, to close this great debate and this opportunity we have had
to talk about energy and water.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I thank him for the management of this rule. Thanks to the
manager of the rule, he has allowed me to patiently listen to the
statements that have been made by my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle about this legislation. And so I sat patiently and listened
to my very distinguished California colleagues, all very good friends
of mine, and I would like to say, as we have agreed in a bipartisan
way, a very good bill. This is a bill that is focused on the energy and
water needs that exist for this country, and they are priorities in
many ways, ranging from ensuring the kind of growth that we need to
national security issues and research, which are very important.
{time} 1000
So I believe that we are going to, based on the work of the gentleman
from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the full committee chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the ranking minority member of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and the
vice chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Wamp) who spoke earlier, we are going to be able to move ahead with a
very, very good piece of legislation.
But over the last few minutes, Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to
a great deal of talk about my State of California. I would like to take
just a few moments to talk about exactly where we are and the challenge
that we have faced.
We know that we have a horribly, horribly serious situation when it
comes to ripping off the energy consumers of California and the West.
We all have demonstrated how extraordinarily distraught we have been,
when we saw and heard the transcript of those executives who were
talking about taking advantage of our constituents, the consumers out
there. That is one of the reasons that we joined in wanting to do
everything that we possibly can to ensure that we get to the bottom of
this issue, address this issue, and resolve it in behalf of the
consumers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill is being considered under an open
amendment process. It is an open rule, meaning that any Member will
have an opportunity to stand up and offer a germane amendment. There
was bipartisan agreement among Democrats and Republicans, the gentleman
from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the ranking minority member, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), to move ahead with a rule that
would allow for protection of the legislation itself and an open
amendment process. That is why the request which has just been made by
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, somehow saying that we
are unfair, we are denying an opportunity; we are simply complying with
the Rules of the House and the bipartisan request that was made of the
Committee on Rules.
I heard a statement, and I am the lone Californian on the Committee
on Rules and I happen to have the honor of chairing the committee, but
a statement that I somehow denied the opportunity for the consideration
of the Eshoo amendment. That is not the case at all, Mr. Speaker. I
want to say that, under this open amendment process, we
[[Page H5082]]
are going to be able to have a chance to bring about a successful
resolution of this.
Now, we all know that a couple of things have happened. In the Ninth
Circuit Court in California, this case is under consideration. We have
this process under way, and we know that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission is scrupulously looking through those transcripts and the
other concerns are there, and we are on track towards seeing
reimbursement for our consumers, which is the right thing to do.
The second thing is, we in the House passed H.R. 6 just this past
week. It is pending in the Senate. That legislation goes a long way
towards addressing the concerns which we share and are a very high
priority to us. They are designed to improve the operation of
electricity markets by providing for an electronic system to increase
transparency in electricity markets, something that we are all very
interested in. It prohibits filings of false information and round trip
or wash trading. It dramatically increases criminal and civil
penalties, limits and expands penalty provisions to cover all
violations of the Federal Power Act. It moves the refund effective date
up to the complaint, so the refund effective date will be when the
complaint was launched; and it extends the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's refund authority to cover sales by otherwise
nonjurisdictional utilities in certain markets. That is legislation
that we passed right here in a bipartisan way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close in saying that we do plan to
address this issue under the Rules of the House by accepting the Eshoo
amendment. The Eshoo amendment is going to be offered under an open
amendment process, and I have discussed with the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Hobson) the issue of this great, great problem that we have of
horrible abuse that has taken place in California and the West.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
Will the gentleman concede that the amendment that is going to be
accepted by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and we appreciate the
great leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), is not the
same amendment that the Committee on Rules did not allow to come to the
floor this morning?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could simply reclaim my time, and in
reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that the amendment,
of course, is not identical to the one that is, in fact, in violation
of the Rules of the House. With the bipartisan request that was made of
the Committee on Rules, we are having an open amendment process, and
that means, as my friend, the gentlewoman knows very well, that any
amendment that is germane and falls within the Rules of the House will
be in order.
The Eshoo amendment gets right at the problem that we are trying to
address here, and we all know that we have pending, we have pending the
important case that is before the Ninth Circuit Court, as well as the
successful passage of H.R. 6. The Eshoo language, which is going to be
accepted, gets at the root of the problem and underscores our
bipartisan concern for this issue.
So, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I very much want us to bring about a
successful conclusion to what has been a very tragic time for our
consumers. Contrary to what I have heard from the other side of the
aisle, there is, in fact, bipartisan concern, and we will take a back
seat to no one when it comes to standing up for our constituents
against any powerful interest.
So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of the rule; and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The amendment previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 694--Rule on H.R. 4614 The Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Bill for FY2005
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if offered by Representative Eshoo of
California or a designee. The amendment is not subject to
amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for
a division of the question in the committee of the whole or
in the House.''
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Amendment to H.R. 4614, as Reported
Offered by Ms. Eshoo
Page 29, after line 13, insert the following:
The Congress finds that--
(1) incontrovertible evidence has come to light that
certain sellers of wholesale electricity, including Enron,
manipulated energy markets in order to overcharge electricity
consumers in the Western United States;
(2) these overcharges have adversely affected state
economies, families, small business, and other consumers;
(3) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has failed to
expose this wrongdoing in a timely manner and has failed to
take effective action to make consumers whole, and has
undercut the ability of States and other parties to pursue
relief by withholding critical documents and disaggregating
claims into dozens of small proceedings; and
(4) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should fully
disclose evidence in its possession, fully involve States,
and ensure that refunds are ordered for any time period in
which market manipulation occurred.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall publicly
disclose all documents and evidence obtained in the following
proceedings: Western Energy Markets: Enron Investigation
(Docket No. PA02-2), the California Refund case (Docket No.
EL00-95), the Anomalous Bidding Investigation (Docket No.
IN03-10), the Physical Withholding Investigation, and the
Gaming Investigation (Dockets EL03-157 et al, EL03-180 et
al).
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall allow States
affected by market manipulation, acting through their public
utility commissions, to fully participate in settlement
negotiations regarding disgorgement of profits. The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission shall consolidate the various
refund and disgorgement matters related to activity in the
Western markets since May 2000 into a single proceeding in
order to facilitate effective participation by states and
other parties. No settlement shall be adopted by the
Commission if it is opposed by any state whose public utility
customers have an economic interest in the results of the
settlement.
Section 206(b) of the Federal Power Act is amended as
follows:
(1) By amending the first sentence to read as follows: ``In
any proceeding under this section, the refund effective date
shall be the date of the filing of a complaint or the date of
the Commission motion initiating the proceeding, except that
in the case of a complaint with regard to market-based rates,
the Commission shall establish such earlier refund effective
date as is necessary to provide a refund of any rate or
charge that is not just and reasonable, as determined by the
Commission. To the extent necessary to achieve the purposes
of this section, the Commission shall initiate new
proceedings, including investigations, and issue appropriate
refunds.''.
(2) By striking the second and third sentences.
(3) By striking out ``the refund effective date or by'' and
``, whichever is earlier,'' in the fifth sentence.
(4) In the seventh sentence by striking ``through a date
fifteen months after such refund effective date'' and insert
``and prior to the conclusion of the proceeding'' and by
striking the proviso.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman will state it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry to the point
of addressing what our distinguished chairman said. Is it not
appropriate under the Rules of the House that the Committee on Rules
could have made the Eshoo amendment, as submitted to the Committee on
Rules last night, in order for debate on this floor today, with
waivers?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee on Rules may propose special
orders of business to the House.
Ms. PELOSI. So if I may just clarify, then it would have been
possible and not outside the regular order for the Committee on Rules
to have put the Eshoo amendment, as presented in the Committee on
Rules, with the waiver.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not speculate about actions
in the Committee on Rules.
The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
[[Page H5083]]
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on adoption of the
resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209,
nays 182, not voting 42, as follows:
[Roll No. 320]
YEAS--209
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--182
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--42
Ackerman
Barton (TX)
Bereuter
Berman
Carson (IN)
Clay
Collins
Cox
Cubin
Cummings
Deutsch
Dunn
Engel
Ford
Gephardt
Goode
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hinojosa
Issa
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Lipinski
Mollohan
Norwood
Oberstar
Peterson (PA)
Platts
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Slaughter
Stark
Tauzin
Vitter
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Young (AK)
{time} 1029
Mr. Cooper and Mr. Berry changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, if I had been present for rollcall vote No.
320, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained
this morning. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall
320.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________