[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8254-8260]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have had the first hour discussing 
issues that relate to energy and the current situation. Some would 
label it a crisis. I must say that I listened to my esteemed colleagues 
from the other side of the aisle, but I guess I would take a slightly 
different tact in terms of the situation we face and the opportunities 
for improving it.
  Having a dependable supply of energy and using it wisely is clearly 
critical for a livable community. But the current controversy 
surrounding energy ought to be an example where we can come together 
and make a difference, where this Congress and this administration can 
give thoughtful consideration to the impact that energy decisions can 
have on the livability of our communities and develop a more rational 
approach to energy utilization.
  Now, unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle, the 
President, his chief spokesperson, and most recently, Vice President 
Cheney are setting up a false policy conflict for the American public. 
This has nothing to

[[Page 8255]]

do with cutting back on the American quality of life, throwing vast 
numbers of people out of work.
  They would like us to believe that somehow being more thoughtful 
about the use of energy and the Federal Government's role in promoting 
a better approach is somehow an assault on the American way of life. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  America works best when we give people choices so that they can 
determine what works best for them. What choice do our friends in 
California have today paying far more for energy using far less when 
energy supplies are actually in pretty strong condition? We are going 
to hear from one of my colleagues tonight from California discussing 
that situation in greater length.
  A country that disregards the value of conservation, that ignores 
fuel efficiency for automobiles, that seeks to maximize production at 
the expense of environmental quality is not protecting the American way 
of life, nor is it doing American families or business any favors.
  With all due respect to the Vice President, he got it exactly wrong. 
Energy conservation is not just a matter of personal virtue. But even 
if it was, there is nothing wrong with formulating energy policy that 
recognizes the importance of this virtue.

                              {time}  2030

  Energy conservation should be the foundation of our national policy, 
not belittled by our national leaders.
  Now, luckily, the Vice President and the President have been backing 
away from that for the last couple of days, and maybe we are going to 
get some positive recommendations from them; but the fact remains that 
it is the only way we will provide significant amounts of additional 
energy in the near term, not the proposal to go nuclear, not the 
proposal to build a power plant a week.
  Energy conservation is an approach that has already been proven to be 
effective and has received, when we get a chance to deal with it here 
on the floor of this Chamber, broad bipartisan support. All the hotly 
debated talk about drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is not going 
to alleviate problems facing the consumers now. Indeed, the 
administration has proposed cutting the budget for energy conservation. 
We need a set of policies that actually encourages it.
  Tonight we are going to discuss some of these elements, because there 
are simple, energy-efficient conservation methods that we can be taking 
today. In my State of Oregon, like 10 other States, there is a bottle 
bill. Aluminum-can recycling saves 95 percent of the energy needed to 
make aluminum from bauxite oil. Energy savings in 1993 alone was enough 
to light up a city the size of Pittsburgh for 6 years.
  Now, let me bring this down to a more tangible example. The energy 
saved from recycling one aluminum can will operate a home computer for 
3 hours. Energy saved from recycling one glass bottle will operate a 
100 watt light bulb for 4 hours. Recycling seven soup cans saves enough 
energy to operate a 60 watt bulb for 26 hours.
  There was talk from the other side of the aisle about somehow taking 
cars away from the American public. That is ludicrous. That is not the 
issue. We are talking about extending fuel-efficiency standards so that 
the 40 percent of oil that is used by cars and light trucks goes 
further. Switching from driving an average new car to a 13-mile-per-
gallon SUV for 1 year is the equivalent of leaving your refrigerator 
door open for 6 years. And it has been discussed at great length. The 
notion of just improving the fuel standards for SUVs three miles per 
gallon will more than offset the amount of energy that we could hope to 
extract from the wildlife refuge, which the American public does not 
want us to invade; and it will get that energy to us quicker.
  We are going to discuss this evening issues that relate to energy 
conservation with building standards. If we simply change the color of 
a roof to a light color, it will reflect the heat rays and lower home 
temperatures by as much as 5 degrees.
  We have issues that we are going to be discussing this evening in 
terms of dealing with higher standards for energy-guzzling appliances. 
Rather than rolling back the standards that would improve these 
efficiencies that are improved by the last administration, we ought to 
maintain them.
  We have, today, an opportunity to move forward and make a difference. 
And, sadly, it is my friends on the other side of the aisle and the 
Republican administration that are out of step with the American 
public. In Monday's poll in USA Today, an overwhelming majority of 
Americans favored conservation over drilling in the ANWR or moving in 
other directions. The American public understands that that will make a 
huge difference.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I could, to turn to my colleague from 
California, who has had some firsthand experience in the impacts that 
this has. We are going to have a spirited discussion. We have a number 
of colleagues, but I would like to turn the first 3 or 4 minutes of our 
discussion over to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who can 
talk a little bit about the perspective of what we are facing in the 
State of California and what we ought to be doing to help this country.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon, who has 
a distinguished record on trying to move our policies toward livable 
communities and sustainable approaches to energy and to the quality of 
life.
  I am from California, and that is ground zero for a crisis. But 
rather than focus on the long term, because the gentleman has, I think, 
illuminated that rather well, I want to focus on the short term.
  We are told that what California is suffering now is somehow our own 
fault; that energy companies wanted to build power plants in our State, 
were desperate, knew how profitable it would be, and we just would not 
let them because we are so concerned about the environment. Nothing 
could be a bigger lie.
  First, private industry did not particularly want to build power 
plants in California because they did not think they would make big 
money. When they bought the plants, they bought them for rather modest 
prices. And if they were desperate to build new ones, they certainly 
would have paid a premium for old ones. They were not trying to build 
new ones, and they did not pay very much for the old ones. They did not 
realize, until they lucked into it, that energy would be tight enough 
in California so that they could gouge the California consumer; that 
what looked like a modest investment in a State that could produce 
enough electricity to meet its needs would turn into a gold mine of 
gouging not because of actual shortages but because of a new concept in 
electric power called ``closed for maintenance.''
  We have seen in each of the last 8 months double or triple the amount 
of capacity ``closed for maintenance'' than in that same month 12 years 
ago. Closed for maintenance means closed to maintain an ungodly price 
for each kilowatt.
  And so just to prove that there was not some intense desire to build 
power plants in California somehow stopped by these environmental 
extremists we are tagged with, reflect on the fact that California is 
not by itself an energy market. Each of the adjoining States, 
particularly Nevada and Arizona, are part of that energy market. And so 
if there is a plant built in Arizona or Nevada, those plants can sell 
into California. The electrons really do not know when they are coming 
to a State boundary.
  So if industry was desperate to build power plants to supply 
California, they could have built them in California, Arizona, Nevada, 
or Oregon. They chose not to, until quite recently. What they chose to 
do instead was to operate the old power plants, close a few for 
maintenance, and make a fortune on each kilowatt.
  In 1999, we paid $7 billion for our electricity in California. The 
next year, the year 2000, we actually used less electricity at peak 
times, and they charged us $32.5 billion. This year we will not use 
more electricity; but we will be

[[Page 8256]]

paying 50, 60, or perhaps even $70 billion for the same electrons that 
we were paying $7 billion for just a couple years ago.
  The answer to this crisis is here in Washington. Now, we are told 
that California should not expect a bailout. I do not want one penny 
from any of the States represented here. There are some programs to 
help out a few people in California, and those are wonderful programs; 
but we do not need a single penny. All we need is to regulate on a fair 
basis, with generous profits for the power plants in California.
  Now, we are told that California should solve the problem ourselves. 
Why are we not self-reliant? We are bound and gagged with Federal rope 
spun out of the White House. Federal law prevents us from regulating 
the price of electricity from these plants. And so we can almost hear 
the muffled laughter from the White House as Federal law ties us up, 
the White House prevents this Congress from untying us, and they can 
laugh at California and say It's all your fault.
  A White House that cared about fairness would reinstitute the same 
policies that we have had in the electric industry for over 100 years 
and that built this country, and for at least a couple of years more 
have rates based on costs, with fair profit to those generating 
electricity in the West. Until that happens, we will have an artificial 
crisis, transferring billions and tens of billions in wealth from all 
the people of California to a few megacorporations, which just happen 
to be based in Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's forceful explanation 
this evening, and he is one who has been a tireless advocate for trying 
to shine a spotlight on the situation in California. I really 
appreciate his focusing on what has happened to a State over the last 
couple of years that is actually using less energy, that is working on 
conservation, and is paying a terrible price, multiple, multiple times 
what they paid just 2 years ago.
  The gentleman's tireless advocacy is extraordinarily useful in 
helping us understand this situation.
  Mr. SHERMAN. If I can have just a couple of seconds, I would like to 
point out that per capita California uses less electricity than any 
State except Rhode Island. And in a couple of months, we will be number 
one in minimizing our use of electricity among all 50 States. This rape 
of California is not justified.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
  I would now, if I could, turn to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone), who has been a tireless champion on this floor dealing with 
issues of the environment generally and I know has a special interest 
in areas that affect energy conservation, the use of energy; and I 
yield to him at this time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Oregon. I 
said last night when we had some of our Democratic colleagues doing a 
Special Order on energy that we would continue to make the point every 
night if necessary, and I want to thank my colleague from Oregon for 
continuing that tonight.
  We know that tomorrow President Bush is expected to unveil his energy 
package. We have gotten some indication, even though he has this secret 
task force with Vice President Cheney, and they do not really tell us, 
they do not reveal what they are doing, they do it behind closed doors; 
but we have had some indication of what they are going to suggest 
tomorrow. From all indications, the Bush-Cheney energy plan that has 
been developed in secret is basically pro-drilling, pro-nuclear, anti-
consumer, and as the gentleman from Oregon has so well mentioned, anti-
environment.
  I have had a number of my constituents say to me, well, why is Bush 
so anti-environment? Why is the President this way? Why is he leaving 
the issue of what kind of an energy policy we should have primarily to 
the oil companies and the oil interests? And the answer is that he and 
the Vice President are captive. They are the oil companies. They are 
the oil interests. They are the special interests.
  We know that big oil gave $3.2 million to the Bush campaign and $25.6 
million to Republicans overall; and other sectors of the energy 
industry have been similarly generous. Apparently, tomorrow is payback 
time to the energy industry, and I am afraid that consumers and the 
environment are going to suffer for it.
  I do not say that because I am trying to be cute. As the gentleman 
knows and he mentioned, and the gentleman is the champion of the 
livable communities issue, which is so important in my home State of 
New Jersey as it is in Oregon and around the country, people care about 
the environment. People do not want drilling at the expense of the 
environment.

                              {time}  2045

  But what we are getting is drilling in ANWR, in the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge. Further, the Bush administration seems to have decided to move 
forward with offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico, even 
rejecting an appeal from the President's brother, who is the Governor 
of Florida. President Bush has suggested drilling for oil in national 
monuments. He told that to the Denver Post.
  We are getting the oil and gas companies running the show. He wants 
to drill, build new plants. Not that we should not, but I do not know 
that we need as many as he is suggesting. He does not seem to want to 
do anything about what my colleague from California and his 
constituents face, the problems they face right now. He has rejected, 
as the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) knows, the idea of any 
wholesale price caps which, from what I can see, are the best way to 
address the near-term problem in California and western States.
  He said that he does not want to do anything about OPEC. He is not 
going to ask them to increase production. He said it is not good policy 
to ask. He says that he does not want to use the SPR, the strategic 
petroleum reserve, to control prices. He does not seem to have any 
concern about the immediate problem of gasoline prices.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at $1.72 in my district now, but I understand in 
California we are over $2. I would not be surprised to see $2.50 or $3 
a gallon in the next few weeks.
  The Democrats unveiled through our energy task force on Monday their 
proposal. Lo and behold, the Democrats not only want to deal with long-
term energy efficiency and provide tax credits for people who buy a car 
or a home that provide for energy or fuel efficiency, but we want to 
put an end to the price gouging. We are saying, go to OPEC and demand 
that they increase production so that prices come down. Use the SPR as 
President Clinton and the previous President, the father, did before 
President Clinton. Instruct the Department of Justice to investigate to 
ensure that illegal price-fixing does not occur, and have FERC impose 
wholesale price caps so we do not continue to have the blackouts.
  Mr. Speaker, we passed this tax reconciliation bill and this tax cut, 
which I opposed and most Democrats opposed. President Bush is saying, 
we will give you a tax refund and you can take that tax refund and pay 
the higher prices for gasoline at the pump. Well, I have never heard 
anything so ridiculous in my life. Now I am going to feed the oil 
industry with my tax refund, which is probably going to be very limited 
if I am middle income. But I am supposed to take that and give it to 
the oil companies so they can continue to make huge profits and 
continue to pay the Bush-Cheney campaign expenses. Hopefully, someday 
everybody will wake up and realize what an outrage this is.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments; 
and I was particularly struck by something that the gentleman said at 
the outset, because the gentleman was here in Congress when there was a 
big uproar because the First Lady had a secret committee examining 
health care costs and ways to bring it down.
  My recollection is that people on the other side of the aisle were 
outraged that there would be these discussions about a public policy 
issue and not be

[[Page 8257]]

open to the public. And it seems to me that you make an extremely valid 
point that all these discussions now have been in secret, with a very 
limited cross-section of people excluding the broad range of interests, 
and now it is going to be inflicted upon us. It seems to me a certain 
amount of inconsistency.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, then-Candidate Bush 
said at the time when heating oil prices were soaring in my State, he 
said, ``What I think the President ought to do is get on the phone with 
the OPEC cartel and say, we expect you to open your spigots.''
  Now he says that he does not want to talk to the cartel. I think 
Secretary Abraham was saying that it was sort of degrading to the 
United States to have to go to OPEC and ask them to open the spigots. 
He might feel degraded, but my constituents would like him to go to the 
OPEC countries, some of whom we have saved their very existence, and 
ask them to open their spigots.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I turn to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee), my colleague from the Seattle area who has been an 
advocate and concerned citizen dealing with these issues. We have had a 
tremendous impact in the State of Washington, and I know the gentleman 
has been a leader here in bringing people from the West and the West 
Coast to deal with these impacts.
  Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman would like to make a few 
comments from his unique perspective. Maybe California thinks that they 
are ground zero, but there are those of us who feel we are getting a 
few of the after-shocks.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. I would like to pick up on the gentleman from New 
Jersey's comment about this really ludicrous idea put forward by the 
President that his tax cut bill is a solution to the gouging of prices 
that we face in California, both for gasoline and electricity.
  First, the idea of giving people their tax money back so they can 
give it to the energy and oil companies, that strikes me as so 
inefficient. Why does he not have the courage of his convictions and 
simply ask the American taxpayer to send the money directly from the 
Federal Treasury to the oil companies? As the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) pointed out, a portion of that money to the oil companies 
will go to the Republican Party, so you can send a portion of the 
surplus to the Republican Party and the bulk to the energy companies.
  The second thing to point out is as working Californians are paying 
$2.10 for regular gasoline, as they are paying double and triple the 
electric bills, if you say a single mother in California with a couple 
of kids, an income of $20,000, how much money does she get out of this 
tax cut? Zero. So she still pays the $2.10 a gallon. She still pays 
double or triple the electric bill, and she gets nothing from the tax 
cut.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I was 
in a town hall meeting the other day, and I had a constituent that sort 
of suggested that it would have been simpler just to cut out the 
middleman of giving us any tax break at all when it goes right to the 
oil companies. He said it reminded him of a money laundering scheme. I 
do not think that is too far off the mark.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a message for the rest of the United States, and 
that is it is not just California. And it is coming to you in your 
neighborhood, because it is in Oregon and it is in Washington now. It 
may have started in California, but right now in the State of 
Washington, we are suffering potentially 43,000 people losing their 
jobs, Mr. Speaker, as a result of these oil companies and generating 
companies increasing their prices, not twice, not 5 times, not 10 
times, but on the wholesale spot market for electricity right now in 
the State of Washington, these companies have increased their price 
1,000 percent, 2,000 percent, without spending another dime to generate 
one single electron. These are windfall profits that people are 
enjoying right now at our expense. Forty-three thousand families out of 
work because these folks have a callous indifference to the economy of 
Washington, Oregon, California and, soon, whatever State you are in. 
This is coming to you because they have figured out a way to game this 
system starting in the West.
  Mr. Speaker, what we Democrats have proposed is a short-term 
solution. We need a long-term solution, but we have to have some short-
term solution to this. Unfortunately, the President, what has he 
decided to do? What has his message been to America? Go fish. You are 
on your own. We do not have any short-term solution. We are not going 
to do anything.
  Mr. Speaker, we have suggested a couple of things. Number one, that 
he call FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and he ask them 
to impose a 2-year cost-based pricing system for wholesale prices for 
the western grid of the United States. We are asking a simple thing: 
that the companies for the next 2 years get their costs and a 
reasonable degree of profit, and pick the highest degree of profit, it 
will still be half of what they are charging today.
  When they have increased their prices 1,000 percent; like if you 
bought a car for $30,000, it now costs you $300,000 to $600,000, if 
Detroit did the business the way that the generators are doing right 
now.
  We are asking for a time-out on this ludicrous explosion of prices. 
People have said, will this not decrease the supply of electricity? 
Hogwash. If anything, it will increase it. These companies have figured 
out how to reduce supply and drive the price up. Fully one-third of all 
of the generating capacity in California in the last 4 months has been 
turned off, and they have driven these prices sky high.
  Mr. Speaker, we have asked the administration for simple relief. They 
have refused it, and they give us no simple relief.
  I want to say that there is good news in the long term and short term 
when it comes to conservation and efficiency. We should be optimistic. 
There are plenty of causes for this country to be as optimistic as we 
were when we decided to go to the Moon, and there were naysayers then 
too about new technology. But there is just as good news for us from a 
technological basis for wind, solar, new transmission, fuel cells, as 
there was for new technologies which took us to the Moon.
  For example, in Seattle right now, there is a company called 
MagnaDrive. MagnaDrive is manufacturing a coupling device based upon, 
as you can guess, magnetism, which basically has two plates which act 
as a coupling for electric motors. This device can save 30 to 40 
percent of the electricity to drive an electric motor. It is just 
starting to develop a market. We need to recognize technologies like 
MagnaDrive and recognize their potential. That is the good news.
  The bad news is that some of these technologies are being developed 
not in America, because we have not given them the incentives for the 
development of these. For example, hybrid cars, electric gasoline-
powered cars. The one on the road right now is from Japan. Why should 
America give up this market to the Japanese manufacturers? Why should 
we give up this potential development of jobs to those manufacturers?
  Mr. Speaker, I think this Nation ought to be confident enough in our 
technological ability to say we are going to lead the Nation in new car 
technology. Yet in that very specific field, the President's budget has 
gone backwards. We ought to lead the Nation in efficiency and 
conservation. If we stand up to Mr. Cheney's shortsighted statement 
that conservation is just a personal ethic but does not have anything 
to do with sound economic policy, he is dead wrong. Efficiency is a 
personal virtue, and it is an economic virtue, and it is a job-growth 
strategy that this country ought to use.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I am proud that the Democratic Party has 
come up with a comprehensive plan to combine conservation and short-
term price mitigation. It is a short-term solution

[[Page 8258]]

and a long-term solution, and I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer) bringing us here tonight.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we also have been joined by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who has had lots of practical 
experience from a State that has dealt in the past with energy 
problems. I know that from leadership as the Senate president of the 
great State of Connecticut, he has had a chance to navigate these rocky 
shoals before, and I am honored that the gentleman joins us for this 
discussion.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman and also recognize 
that the current Speaker also hails from the great State of Connecticut 
and is doing an outstanding job.
  I want to applaud the gentleman from Oregon for his leadership in 
every aspect here in the Congress as relates to our environment most 
notably, as was pointed out by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone), in the area of livable communities but also in recognizing 
the need to make sure that a core component of any energy plan has got 
to be conservation, that overall the number of examples that he put 
forward, if followed, should serve as the cornerstone to any policy 
moving forward.
  I also join with my colleagues from California and the Northwest as 
well and not only sympathize but empathize with the problems that they 
currently face and understand that today it may be California but 
tomorrow it could be Connecticut. And so as a Nation, we must pull 
together and make sure that we are enacting sound public policy.
  The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of fingers that could 
be pointed and a lot of blame that could be distributed, but for a 
number of years, several different White Houses and Congresses have not 
addressed this issue the way that it should be tackled. I believe that 
first and foremost and piggybacking on the comments of the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee), that we need to lay out a strategy that 
has an end goal.
  I suggest that we start that end goal by saying we will be 
independent of foreign oil resources within a 10-year period and that 
we should instruct the Department of Energy to devise a strategic plan 
that will take us there. The process of attaining that goal is much 
like establishing putting a man on the Moon as the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) was alluding to.
  When you establish a goal for yourself and then set out to achieve 
that goal, you can accomplish great things. It seems to me pretty clear 
that along with conservation, along with renewable resources and 
assorted other policies that we must pursue, we must above all else 
have a specific goal. When you consider that in 1999 the cost of 
importing oil from abroad was $60 billion and now that is estimated to 
be something closer to $100 billion in cost, that money could be better 
spent at developing alternative energy sources. Specifically, I feel 
that the energy systems of the future and most notably fuel cells hold 
the key to provide us with both the power and efficiency we need to get 
60 to 80 miles per gallon out of an SUV and also the by-product of 
which is vapor that is clean.
  This kind of environmentally sound policy, this kind of energy 
alternative is exactly the kind of can-do spirit that took us to the 
Moon. And what got us to the Moon frankly were spacecraft that were 
powered by fuel cells. If we can go to the Moon and go on to Mars, 
certainly we can get to and from work. Later this month, I hope to 
bring an SUV to the Capitol and encourage everyone to drive that 
automobile powered by fuel cells to see its efficiency, to see how this 
actually works and the cutting edge technology, which in combination 
with conservation is the path for us to go down.
  I applaud my Democratic colleagues for the initiative they took in 
the press conference the other day. These are the concerns that the 
American people long for us to address. We need bipartisan cooperation. 
We do not need committees that meet in secret. We need to have an open, 
public forum and dialogue to produce the best possible results, with a 
common goal and common mission to make us no longer energy dependent 
and make us much more energy efficient with a conservation ethic that 
places us in a position where we can provide the kind of energy and 
means that the people we are sworn to serve richly deserve.
  I thank the gentleman again so much for his leadership in this area 
and I look forward as always to working with him on his agenda of 
livable communities and the great, great job that he has done in terms 
of bringing conservation to the forefront here in the United States 
Congress.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman sharing his insights and 
his kind words.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. I wanted to briefly point out that although the comments 
I made earlier were primarily with regard to the President's proposal, 
President Bush and Vice President Cheney's proposals and what they are 
likely to come up with tomorrow from their task force in terms of a 
policy to address energy issues, that it is also true that for the last 
6 years since the Republicans have been in the majority in this 
Congress, that they have conveniently forgotten, or failed really, to 
address what has now become an energy crisis.
  And each year from 1995 on when President Clinton and the 
congressional Democrats tried to present commonsense, balanced, both 
immediate and long-term solutions to the energy problems that existed 
then and were continuing to build, the Republicans blocked those 
efforts in the Congress every step of the way. If I could just mention 
a few, I think the most egregious was in 1999, I remember, I was here, 
when the Republican leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) joined 36 other Republicans to 
introduce a bill that would have eliminated the Department of Energy 
altogether and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  As I mentioned, President Bush still says that he does not want to 
tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but they would have abolished it 
completely. In the same year, the Republicans rejected an Energy 
Department proposal to buy 10 million barrels of oil when crude prices 
were only $10 a barrel that would have allowed us to build up the SPR.
  So they wanted to abolish it. They did not want to fill it. In 
addition to that, every year in those 6 years the President and 
congressional Democrats would propose budget initiatives that would 
help with energy efficiency and renewables. But between fiscal year 
1996 and fiscal year 2001 the Republicans underfunded energy efficiency 
and renewable energy programs by $1.4 billion below what President 
Clinton and congressional Democrats' funding requests were at the time.
  We have seen essentially no effort to address conservation, no effort 
to address energy efficiency, alternative fuels, the list goes on. Next 
week in the Committee on Commerce which I sit on, we are going to have 
a full committee markup on a bill that is being brought by the 
congressional leadership in the Committee on Commerce, the Republican 
leadership in the Committee on Commerce called the Electricity 
Emergency Relief Act. This is sponsored by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Power. This bill, I mean, needless to say, is fundamentally flawed. It 
is not going to address the problems in California; and I just wanted 
to point out, this is from my colleague the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman), who is a leading member, a more senior member of the 
Committee on Commerce, he cited four major flaws with the bill. Keep in 
mind this is the Republican answer to the California energy crisis.
  First, it fails to address runaway wholesale electricity prices. The 
efforts by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) of the Committee 
on Commerce, then in the subcommittee, next week in the full committee, 
to impose some sort of cap as the Democrats would like to see on 
wholesale electricity prices is not included in the

[[Page 8259]]

bill. The bill, the Republican bill, also interferes with California's 
actions to address the electricity crisis. It increases the State's 
dependence on the spot market. It inhibits the State's ability to 
acquire and operate transmission lines in California. It conflicts with 
California's innovative demand reduction programs. So it is actually 
hurting the State, making it difficult for the State to actually do 
what the State wants to do to improve the electricity situation.
  It also, and I note that my colleague from Oregon has repeatedly 
noted the effort to break down environmental laws, this bill creates 
loopholes in the Nation's environmental laws. It opens up every 
national park and wilderness area to the construction of new power 
lines. It allows States to waive environmental requirements applicable 
to hydro-power projects. It authorizes extensive waivers of the Clean 
Air Act requirements for electricity generation. And lastly, of course, 
the bill fails to adequately address conservation.
  I know that my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), 
has repeatedly said how there has to be a conservation component in our 
energy policy. The Democrats have that. The Republicans do not. This 
bill does nothing to improve it. Tomorrow we are going to hear about 
the Bush-Cheney report and how great that is going to be. Next week we 
are going to hear about the Barton bill and how great that is going to 
be to solve the California problem. Neither one solves any of those 
problems. Unfortunately we continue to have Republican inaction.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. SHERMAN. The Vice President made some remarks recently that have 
become rather famous. He said conservation might be a personal virtue 
but it was not the basis, not a sufficient basis, for a national energy 
policy. I think we can only respond that degrading the environment and 
maximizing energy company prices might be good cash generation 
politics, but it is not the basis, not the sufficient basis, for a 
comprehensive energy policy.
  I want to talk a little bit about how California is being hurt 
because we do not have rate regulation on the wholesale generation of 
electricity. Technically what is being called for is not price caps but 
technically what we are asking for is temporary cost-based price 
regulation, basically the same system that existed in this country for 
electric utilities, privately owned electric utilities for 100 years, 
when America went from a rural society to the world's only superpower.
  Now, these lack of price regulations are responsible and will 
increasingly be responsible for blackouts in California. We are told by 
some economic theorists, oh, if you could just increase the price of 
electricity, Californians would conserve and you would not need 
blackouts. These folks have not been schooled in the school of hard 
knocks that we are experiencing in California. You see, no matter how 
much Californians conserve, the owners, the robber barons, can still 
suppress supply even more so that they can charge huge amounts for each 
kilowatt while not having to pay for the fuel to generate very many 
kilowatts. So the absence of regulation reduces supply.
  Higher prices will not reduce demand. As I pointed out earlier, 
California is now second, we are about to be first, in terms of energy 
conservation, electric energy conservation among all 50 States. And 
there is a real spirit in California to conserve electricity wherever 
we possibly can. Conservation is what we are doing already. Limits on 
wholesale prices will eliminate the incentive that these companies have 
to suppress production, to close their plants for maintenance, and will 
instead ensure that they generate electricity because they know they 
can only get a fair profit on each kilowatt that they generate.
  Second, we are about to see prices paid by California consumers be 
roughly double what they are used to. Double what they paid just a year 
ago. But that does not fully convey to Californians the degree of this 
rip-off. You see, the electrons flowing to each California home, about 
two-thirds of them, are coming at a fair price. One-third are not 
coming at double a fair price, or triple a fair price. No, these 
unregulated producers are charging 6 or 10 times a fair price on 
average, and at peak times, or at times of particularly acute 
engineered shortages, they are charging 50 and 100 times a fair price 
per kilowatt. So if you are getting an electric bill that is only 
double what is fair, do not think that these few megacompanies are only 
earning double what is fair. They are earning 10 times what is fair.
  The solution is in the White House. But I think the headline is 
clear: ``President to California, Drop Dead.'' There is one possible 
California response and it comes not from the California Democrats. We 
have already responded. The onus is on California Republicans and 
Republicans from the other Western States. Four have had the courage to 
tell the White House that destroying our State is not acceptable and 
they have cosponsored the bill sponsored by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), a Republican from San Diego County, to provide 
these cost-based price regulations. We need every Republican from the 
Western States to cosponsor that bill. And if they do not do it this 
month, they are going to face their constituents next month and the 
month after. But it has to go beyond that because President Bush will 
simply veto a bill. He will veto a bill that requires fair prices in 
California.

                              {time}  2115

  He would veto a bill that prevents a justified transfer of $50 
billion from the people of California to a few megacorporations, most 
of them based in Texas.
  The only way to prevent that veto is to get every Republican from the 
Western States, starting with those in California, to come down to this 
floor and announce that they will not support any Presidential 
initiative, that they will vote ``present'' and not ``yes'' on every 
one of those Republican proposals, until we save our State.
  I am calling on my colleagues from California, put your constituents 
above your contributors; put your State above your party. Come down to 
this floor tomorrow and say you are going to vote against every 
proposal. You do not have to vote against it. Just vote ``present'' on 
every proposal until the President signs the legislation we need to 
save California.
  If you think that maybe we in California do not deserve any Federal 
legislation, then, for God's sake, let us pass a bill that gives 
California the right to regulate the wholesale price of electricity 
generated at plants located in California. If you do not believe the 
Federal Government should play a role, at least untie our hands. We 
need at least that, and we need California Republicans to stand up for 
our State.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman. Clearly he has identified a critical area where 12 percent 
of our Nation's population is facing something that surely we are all 
going to have to contend with.
  What have we discussed here at this point this evening? Well, first 
and foremost, we have established that conservation may be a virtue. I 
think it is, but it certainly is an important part of an energy policy 
for this country, and we are arguing it ought to be part of the 
foundation. Without the conservation that was inspired in the mid-1970s 
and, sadly, to a certain extent rolled back during the Reagan years, 
without that energy conservation, the use in the United States of 
energy in the year 2000, if we had kept on the same line, would have 
been 40 percent higher and Americans would have spent $260 billion more 
for energy. Conservation works.
  But we have just barely scratched the surface of the potential for 
achieving more savings. If we had one of the popular SUVs that had an 
average of 40 miles per gallon over the next decade, it would save the 
equivalent of 50 billion barrels of oil, 15 times more than would be 
reclaimed from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, if that is where you want to 
go.

[[Page 8260]]

  We have been dealing with the facts surrounding the energy situation. 
We have heard about what the situation is in the State of California. 
We are in fact now building, and any reader of The Wall Street Journal 
this last week has learned that we are moving ahead without a Federal 
initiative, to build more generating capacity. More is on line; markets 
are in fact responding.
  We have heard this myth somehow that people, for example, in 
California, or the ``radical environmentalists,'' were at fault for not 
building up refining capacity in this country and talk about how there 
has not been a lot of new refineries built.
  Well, the reason there have not been new refineries built is because 
the industry has been going through consolidation. We have more 
refinery capacity today, fewer refineries. And if you look at what the 
petroleum giants are doing, they are shedding refinery capacity because 
it is not profitable enough.
  What measures up to the hundreds of percent or thousands of percent 
rate of return that can be extracted from some of the situations that 
we have had described on the floor today? It is not somehow the fault 
of the environmentalists, it is market forces that are at work.
  We understand, and I have heard twice now the Vice President 
extolling the virtues of going back to nuclear energy. Interesting. I 
come from a State that shut down a nuclear plant. The private company 
that owned it shut it down earlier than its license would have required 
because it was not profitable.
  It is true that over 20 percent of the generation currently comes 
from nuclear power, but there has not been a new nuclear power plant 
ordered in the United States in over 23 years. And it was not just in 
my State that they shut it down. The gentleman from New Jersey can 
testify that there was the same situation occurring there and in Maine, 
Illinois, and Connecticut, where people were backing away from nuclear 
energy.
  We still do not have a safe place to store nuclear waste in this 
country. We have been tied in knots over that. Yet some want to go 
ahead and deal with more.
  The assertion somehow that nuclear energy is the salvation, the 
silver bullet, that it does not provide pollution, well, excuse me. 
First of all, nuclear waste continues for a quarter of a million years 
or longer. Nuclear waste, when you are dealing with it, is not just 
nuclear energy; it is the very warm water that is generated. It 
pollutes the waterways.
  The process of enriching uranium uses a substantial amount of 
electricity in and of itself that produces many of the same sort of 
traditional fossil fuel air pollutants. Nuclear energy is not a silver 
bullet.
  We have heard some arguing that somehow the environmentalists have 
locked up all the land. We cannot have access. Wait a minute. Right now 
the oil and gas industry has access to huge tracts of BLM lands. Only 
3.5 percent of the BLM land in Colorado is off limits to exploration; 
only 2 percent in Montana; only 2.5 percent in Wyoming; 4 percent in 
New Mexico. It simply is not true that there is not access.
  It is interesting watching the little struggle between the 
President's brother and the people in California and Alaska who are 
concerned about off-shore drilling, but there is still over 60 percent 
of the Nation's undiscovered economically recoverable oil and 80 
percent of the economically recoverable gas that is located in areas 
that are accessible. There are opportunities for further exploration. 
It is the private sector that to this point has chosen not to take 
advantage of them.
  I guess I will conclude my remarks before turning to the gentleman 
from New Jersey to wrap it up to just make one other point, that there 
are many opportunities now for low-income people to be able to reduce 
their energy costs over time.
  We have talked about the lunacy of having a massive tax cut that is 
not going to benefit the vast majority of low- and moderate-income 
people, but somehow they are going to take this tax cut and pay it for 
higher energy costs. But if for a moment we can spend upwards of $2 
trillion over the next 11 years, is it not possible that Congress and 
this administration could design programs to help very low- and 
moderate-income people pay some of the higher costs through rebates or 
direct tax credits that go back to them, so they can afford to be more 
energy efficient, lower their electrical costs today, not tomorrow or 
20 years from now, lower those costs today, save them money today, and 
have additional savings that will accrue to the broader community 
because we will not have to build an energy plant a week?
  It seems to me that this is a simple, commonsense approach; that if 
we could get it to the floor, I am convinced an overwhelming majority 
of Republicans and Democrats would agree with the American public to 
put conservation, wise use, invest in American technology, do that 
first before we move ahead with things that simply they are opposed to. 
I think it makes good sense, and I hope that this Congress will listen 
to what we are being told by the American public.
  With that, I will turn to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
for the last word in our special order this evening.
  Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman. I do not mean to take the last 
word, but I just wanted to comment on what the gentleman said, because 
I think what he pointed out is that the Democrats' energy policy is a 
well-rounded, commonsense approach.
  We are saying that we want more production in those areas that are 
available to be done; to drill for oil, to drill for natural gas, in an 
environmentally sensitive way. It can be done. We are for more 
production. We are saying we want conservation. We want the use of more 
renewables. We want more energy efficiency. We have tax credits for 
energy efficiency, if you buy a car or do something to your home that 
is more energy efficient.
  We basically are very well rounded in our approach in terms of the 
types of fossil fuels that could be used, and I for the life of me do 
not understand why we have to take this Bush-Cheney approach that just 
says drill, drill, drill, and nothing else. Even in our Democratic 
proposal, we have a supplement to the LIHEAP program for low-income 
individuals, because we recognize that they are going to need 
additional help.
  If you think about what the Democrats have put forward, more 
production, more energy efficiency, more use of renewables, trying to 
provide direct payments to low-income individuals so they can pay for 
their rising costs, all these things are in there.
  But we want this energy policy to be well rounded. We do not want it 
to just be limited to something that the oil companies want, which is 
to drill and drill and drill. There is no way that you can possibly 
look at what the Democrats have in mind and then look at what the 
President is proposing. The President's proposal is nothing more than a 
payback to the special interests, to the oil industry. We have seen 
that.
  I know tomorrow it is going to be unveiled. We heard a lot about it, 
but I am waiting to see what happens, because, as the gentleman says, 
we want to be bipartisan, and we are hoping that maybe he will 
incorporate tomorrow some of the conservation and other things that we 
are talking about tonight. I doubt he will, but I hope he does, because 
I would like to see a responsible energy policy passed. I just do not 
see that coming from the White House so far.
  With that, I thank my colleague for all he has done and continues to 
do on these issues.

                          ____________________