[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11782-11788]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          THE ENERGY SHORTAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to devote my comments 
to a focus on energy and the energy shortage that we have. On one hand 
I think in some areas we have an energy crisis, on the other hand I 
think at times we really have an energy problem. In either case, 
whether an energy crisis or an energy problem, the fact is we need to 
apply an ingredient called common sense.
  There is a lot of areas of common sense. We can find a lot of common 
sense, like conservation. Issues like conservation, when applied to 
energy, can be done without a lot of pain. It does not affect our life-
style. In fact, it is a contribution to our country's energy woes, so 
to speak. So I will visit a little about conservation this evening.
  I also want to address where we are, what kind of problem we are 
facing in future generations. I think it is incumbent upon us, as 
leaders, to exercise some leadership not for today, which obviously we 
have to do, but for the future. Our questions about energy should not 
be questions about energy today exclusively, but should in fact include 
questions about energy for tomorrow. Of course issues like conservation 
and issues like alternative power, solar and other types, wind power, 
et cetera, are a part of our leadership obligations to help address or 
at least help prepare some answers for future generations on their 
energy problems.
  I thought it would be very good this evening to take a look at what 
common sense does for us. For example, hydropower. Hydropower does not 
use coal. Hydropower does not use electricity. It generates 
electricity. Hydropower does not require natural gas. Hydropower does 
not require fuel. The fuel that generates hydropower is the natural 
flow of water. So we are going to talk a little about hydropower. We 
are going to talk about why hydropower is important for our 
environment.
  In our mad rush to supply energy, regardless of the source, we always 
have to consider what is the impact to the environment and how can we 
mitigate the environment. In some cases, not just mitigate the 
environment, and in fact mitigation of the environment may be old news, 
the new news for the environment may mean that we have to enhance the 
environment, a step higher than mitigation of the environment. But I 
want to stress here this evening that mitigation or enhancement of the 
environment is not an exclusive set of its own. In other words, we can 
have the environment, and we can have power production regardless of 
the source. In fact, through utilization of common sense, we can have 
protection of an environment and production of energy resources that 
every one of my colleagues in this room and every one of their 
constituents is dependent upon.
  Something a little interesting happened the other day. I like to 
mountain bike. I like to ride bikes, though I am just learning. My 
wife, Lori, Carey and Bruce are trying to get me educated on riding 
these bikes in a little more sophisticated form, but I saw someone the 
other day on a mountain bike and we were talking and this individual 
said to me, he says, You know, mining is so terrible and the energy 
companies are so terrible, look what they are doing. So I said, You 
know what, that bike you have got, that bike you paid $3,000 or $4,000 
for, has titanium in it. It is interesting to me you criticize on one 
side but you take advantage on the other.
  My reason for using this example this evening is to tell my 
colleagues that I think this mountain biker can have a titanium bike 
because I think we can have production of the metals and production of 
the energy we need while maintaining a balance with the environment. If 
we do not think, and if that individual does not think, we can, then 
that individual should give up his titanium mountain bike. I think we 
can, and I think common sense will allow us.
  Of course, the most basic thing that common sense can do for us is 
conservation.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. Speaker, I have addressed my colleagues any number of times about 
conservation, things that do not impact one's life; for example, making 
sure that your ceiling fan is going in a clockwise motion so it draws 
the cool air up to the ceiling. If it is going counterclockwise, it 
defeats your purpose.
  We talked about the fact and I recommend to people across this 
country, take out your owner's manual on your car and take a look at 
the people who designed that car, who test drove that car, who 
manufactured that car, who sold that car; take a look at how often they 
say you should change the oil on that car, and then take a look at a 
quick lube recommendation, and I am not referring specifically to any 
quick lube. They will tell you change your oil every 3,000 miles. Guess 
what the manufacturer, the engineer, the salesman of that car, the 
owner's manual of that car will tell you? You do not need to change it 
every 3,000 miles. You can change it every 6,000 miles, and they will 
warranty the car. They will still warranty the car for 3 years or 
24,000 miles.
  It is not painless to turn off the lights in your house when you 
leave. In fact, in Europe in many of the hotels, you actually have to 
have a card. When you go into your hotel room, you take a card, there 
is a slot, and before you can turn your lights on, you slide in the 
card. What happens, when you leave, as you pull the card out, all of 
the lights go off in your hotel room. Now you can program it in such a 
way that if for security purposes you needed a light on, it would leave 
that single light on or a couple of lights, but it helps you remember 
to turn them off.
  These are common-sense approaches on conservation. The good news is 
conservation can be employed by all of us without a lot of pain in our 
life-style. The bad news is conservation is not the answer. 
Conservation is a part of the answer. Imagine that we are putting a 
model together. Conservation is about 10 percent of that model. Maybe 
we can push it to 20 percent of that model.
  Alternative energy, exercising leadership in the future will allow us 
to go from 2 or 3 percent of alternative energy to making that a bigger 
part of our model. But in the meantime, we have to go to what we have 
been doing, and that is we have got to continue to explore for oil-
based resources. There is no other way around it. You can have all kind 
of pie-in-the-sky wishes. You can have all kinds of people lecture from 
a podium like this to you saying alternative energy is the answer. It 
is not the answer. Conservation is the answer. It is not the answer. It 
is a part of the answer.
  Alternative energy is a very important part of the answer. Take a 
look. If you took all of the alternative energy known to mankind today 
throughout

[[Page 11783]]

the world, and you put that energy exclusively for the use of the 
citizens of the United States of America, it would supply 3 percent of 
our needs. Three percent. That is assuming you take all of the 
alternative energy from around the world. We need to increase that 
percentage; but it is not the total answer. It is part of the answer.
  Conservation, look at what happened in California. In California the 
people conserve not because Governor Gray Davis, who is trying to play 
like a guardian angel in this situation, and he is not, nor are some 
Republicans, but frankly the leader of California is trying to come 
across as the leader to take the people of California out of this 
crisis. In my opinion, he largely led them in there.
  The fact is they are not conserving in California because of their 
Governor, it is because prices went up. It is the same thing with my 
wife and I. My wife and I have really been conserving on energy. Why? 
Not because Gray Davis out of California is having a problem. It is not 
because I read some government program that said you ought to conserve, 
it is because of the fact that my gas bill doubled, and that has a way 
of forcing conservation.
  Off the subject for a moment, that is one of the problems with price 
caps. When you go out to the consumer and say, no matter how much of 
this energy you use, no matter what time of day you use it, whether it 
is during peak usage or off-peak hours, it does not matter, you are 
going to pay the same price regardless, do you know what that does? It 
encourages use and discourages conservation.
  What encourages more conservation than any other factor in the last 6 
months? Price. The market. Supply and demand.
  What has happened in California, and by the way, when you talk about 
California, let me point out a couple of things. I am not one of those 
people that thinks that California should die on the vine. I do not 
think we should walk away from California. California is a State, and 
we are the United States. But that does not mean we should not say to 
California, hey, you are going to have to pull yourself up by your 
bootstraps. You are going to have to employ self-help. Part of the way 
you are going to have to help yourself is to be honest, elected 
officials, and go to your consumers and say this is the true cost of 
energy. Do not shield it and pretend that it does not exist by 
subsidizing it with State dollars.
  The Governor is subsidizing your electrical costs. You are not paying 
the true costs. Does that mean you will never have to? Do not kid 
yourself. Soon it will come back to bite you. Right now California is 
spending billions and billions and billions of dollars by selling bonds 
and raising money to pay this. They are keeping the prices capped to a 
large extent. In the short run it sounds great, and in the short run it 
is a political recipe for success. They think you are the greatest guy 
in town.
  In the long run, trying to artificially alter the market, in the long 
run it has been proved since the days of Adam Smith when he wrote the 
book The Wealth of Nations, every time the government has stepped in on 
rent control, on gas control, on energy control, energy price caps, it 
always backfires. It has never worked. It has never worked in the 
history of the country.
  Let us go back to California. Now, remember, California, especially 
the Governor of California, and I am not trying to be particularly 
terse up here, but I have heard the Governor time and time and time 
again blame everybody but the people of California, blame everybody 
except the leadership of California. It is because of Congress. It is 
the utility companies. Ironically, the Governor of California wants to 
run for President someday, so he blames the power companies in the 
State of Texas. It is those villains down there in Texas.
  You know what, California, we have 50 States. We have 50 States. One 
State is in your predicament. Why? Because California leads this 
country in the philosophy of do not build it in my backyard. California 
leads this Nation in the philosophy, no, we do not want natural gas 
transmission lines. Do not talk about electrical transmission lines in 
our State, or generation facilities in our State.
  California, you are too important to this Nation for you to take 
those positions. California is the sixth most powerful economy of the 
world. If California was a country of its own, it would be the sixth 
most powerful economic country in the world, much more powerful from an 
economic point of view than the country of France.
  We need, whether you like California or not, and I happen to like it, 
we need California. We need them healthy, and I want them to come out 
of this energy crisis; but let us not come out of here with some 
artificial wave of the magic wand and think everything is right. We 
have to sit down and put everything on the table. We have to come up 
with an energy policy.
  Why do I mention energy policy? Do you know why? Because in the State 
of California, they had an energy policy, kind of partial deregulation. 
Their energy policy was sell the generation plants, tell the consumers 
they will not have any increase in the prices; no matter how much they 
use the energy, no matter how short the supply, the price stays the 
same.
  California decided not to buy long-term contracts on the electrical 
market, but instead to buy on the spot market, which means you go out 
tomorrow and you say, what is the price? I will buy it. If the price 
goes up, you are stuck on Wednesday. If the price goes down, you 
benefit on Thursday. If the price goes up, you are stuck on Friday. 
That is what California decided to do. They decided to roll the dice.
  Well, the consequences of that are that California got itself into 
this energy crunch. Can we get California out of it? The answer is, 
yes, of course. Do we have an obligation to help California? In my 
opinion, yes, of course.
  But California has got to pitch in. I want California to be 
successful, but California has got to help us on conservation, and 
kudos to the people of California. In the last month, I saw a number 
the other day where the California people have conserved a 10 percent 
increase in conservation. That is a significant number. That is a big 
help. That shows us and the rest of the Nation that the citizens of 
California are taking this energy crisis seriously, and they are taking 
a look at this so-called energy policy that they have. They realize, 
most citizens of California, that it needs to be amended, but amended 
in such a way that your energy policy works for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, my focus here this evening is as much for future 
generations as it is for this generation. So California needs an energy 
policy that is realistic in price, that is realistic in alternative 
energy, that is realistic in conservation, but it is also realistic in 
exploration and allowing electrical transmission lines and allowing 
generation plants to be built.
  At the national level can we stand up proudly and talk about the 
energy policy we have coming out of Washington, D.C.? There is no 
energy policy. There is none. For 8 years under the previous 
administration, we had no energy policy. This President, and I commend 
the President and I commend the Vice President, Vice President Cheney, 
President Bush, they have made some tough statements. They said we have 
to put everything on the table. It does not mean that it stays on the 
table. But ANWR, and of course the publicity that you have seen about 
Alaska is so negative, I cannot imagine how they can get enough votes 
out of here. But controversial or not, the President's energy policy 
said let us put it on the table. Let us put together an energy policy 
because we owe it to the future generation and our own generation and 
our colleagues like the State of California to come up with an energy 
policy that is going to work.
  And that is why I am speaking tonight, because I think all of us, 
putting our minds together, we have the greatest mind in the world in 
this country, we can resolve this. It is not really the kind of crisis 
that some people say. Sure, we have rolling blackouts, and sure it is a 
crisis for an individual like a senior citizen who loses his air 
conditioning or a farmer whose fans go off for his chickens or turkeys. 
It is the

[[Page 11784]]

warning sign. It is a shot over our bow. It is saying to us when 
Washington, D.C. is the leader of this country, you have an obligation, 
Washington, colleagues, we have an obligation to put together an energy 
policy.
  The first thing we have to consider when we put together an energy 
policy is we have to make sure we do not buy into this pie in the sky 
that conservation alone is going to do it. Conservation will not. It 
will not do it alone. It is a part, it is a very important part, of our 
solution. Alternative energy will not do it alone. It is a part.

                              {time}  1930

  Do not buy this pie in the sky that we can walk right out of this 
without drilling another well for oil; without drilling another well 
for gas; without putting another electrical transmission line in place; 
without putting a natural gas transmission line in place; we can go 
ahead and get ourselves out of this and protect future generations, and 
I will repeat, and protect future generations by simply adopting 
alternative energy.
  Hopefully, in 50 years or 20 years or less we will have that 
available; but today, for our leadership today, we need to look at what 
tools are there. Conservation is a part. Alternative energy is a part. 
Exploration is a part. Hydropower, which we are going to talk about in 
more depth in a few minutes, is an important part. We can put these 
parts together on a model, put it there, stick it here, put it 
together; and it is an energy policy. It is in that energy policy that 
we can take our leadership roles. It is that energy policy that we can 
employ in this country so that not one State ends up in the kind of 
situation that the State of California is in. Because our country is 
much too strong a country to allow even one State like California or 
any State to get into the kind of crunch they are in.
  But, like I said, California. I am a big fan of California. I love 
California. But I want you to know, it is like talking to your son or 
your daughter, tough love, you have got to help us out. There has got 
to be a little self-help involved here.
  Let us look at the fundamental thing that we need to take into 
consideration as we begin to construct this model of energy policy. Let 
us take a look at growth in U.S. energy consumption. Obviously, we know 
that growth in consumption is outpacing production. This is the energy 
production, 1990 to 2000, so this is a 10-year growth rate, the green 
line. That is the projected. That was the production. This red line is 
energy consumption. Take a look at how this line, look at the angle of 
it versus the angle of our production, energy production. In this 
country, by the way. In this country.
  So my colleagues say, Scott, that's fine, you've got production here, 
you've got energy consumption there, this country would be in collapse. 
You're not meeting your demand. You've got too big a gap, this huge 
margin. How do you meet that gap? I will tell you how. We meet that gap 
because we are becoming by the day more and more and more dependent on 
foreign oil. In other words, the leaders like Saddam Hussein, the 
leaders in different countries throughout this world who are not 
necessarily friendly to the United States, they will bargain with the 
United States with money, green; but they are not necessarily our 
friend. They can shut off the tap anytime they want to. We are becoming 
more and more dependent.
  As long as this blue space continues to grow in width, it means we 
are becoming more dependent, not on alternative energy as we should, 
not on consumption as we should, but on foreign oil as we should not. 
If we could apply to this line energy consumption and we could put in 
some serious conservation, and by conservation I do not mean you cannot 
drive your car anymore. I do not mean that you have to walk to the 
grocery store, that you cannot have a mountain bike that is not made of 
titanium, or you cannot have a boat made for you so you can river raft 
on the river or a lawn mower, these different things, refrigeration in 
your house and so on. I am not saying you have to shut that off, 
although if you have an extra refrigerator, by the way, in your garage, 
empty it. More likely than not you are not even using it. You could 
save yourselves $17 a month. That is just a little conservation hint 
there.
  So we can lower consumption. But the fact is this: we can with 
conservation lower this a little. The demand will continue, but we can 
lower consumption through conservation there. Alternative energy helps 
us. It does not lower consumption, but it gives us a different method, 
a different angle of consumption. Those are answers, but they do not 
come anywhere close to filling the gap, which means we become more and 
more on a daily basis dependent upon foreign oil. That is not good 
energy policy.
  Now, let us take a look at power plant generation. There seems to be 
a phobia out there that we are not building generation facilities 
anywhere in this country, that we have completely ignored electrical 
generation facilities. That is not true. Remember that primarily the 
problem that exists today is in the State of California. One State. 
There are reasons that that specific State got into trouble versus the 
other 49 States.
  There are problems up in the Northwest. That is not because of a 
failure of planning or a failure of leadership. It is because they are 
having a drought. The Columbia River is way short on water. They do 
depend on hydropower up there. But in fact when you take a look at what 
we have coming online, believe it or not, last year we had 158 
generation plants come online. Obviously, they came online in most of 
the States except for the State of California, which did not have them 
in California. They were not building generation. But we are throughout 
the rest of the country.
  So I wanted to point out, last year 158 new power units were 
completed nationwide, or three plants a week. Three generation 
facilities a week last year came online. Construction this year is 
slated to set a record for new power generation. A March report by the 
firm Energy Ventures Analysis found that power units already in 
operation or under construction will add 51,805 megawatts in 2001, 
enough to power half the homes in the Nation. In fact what this 
suggests is we may very well in certain areas of this country within 
the next 12 to 18 months actually have an electrical glut, an energy 
glut. Can you imagine, after what we have been through the last 3 
months that actually we would go into a glut-type situation? That is 
possible.
  Let us go on. Utilities and generators have announced plans for 
equally ambitious additions for 2002 through 2004. According to the 
filings, the electricity industry expects to build 1,453 new power 
units during that 4-year period of time, taking time off for weekends. 
So if you take weekends off, that amounts to one new plant a day for 5 
years running. Not all of these may ultimately be built, but the point 
is this: we are now building generation plants; we will have the 
generation plants that are necessary for us to meet electrical demand. 
This is not oil consumption. This is electrical demand.
  But there is another factor to this. You may have a lot of power 
plants in the State of Texas, but you have got to have the ability to 
share that power, move that power among transmission lines. So you 
cannot just build an electrical generation facility. You have got to be 
able to put in transmission lines to distribute that to the areas where 
the demand is high and the supply is low. But I think there is pretty 
good news in the future, especially for future generations, as far as 
our capability to generate electricity. I think even California, that 
the market, once you get to the market, the less you try and 
artificially manipulate the market, the more market common sense comes 
into play.
  What do I mean? If a town closes its own hamburger shop, the only 
hamburger shop in the town, and there is a demand for hamburgers, what 
tends to happen? You not only have it replaced by one hamburger 
operation, you end up with two or three hamburger operations. It is the 
same thing here. If you do not artificially toy with the market, I 
think we are going to have adequate supply. But that means that we have 
to

[[Page 11785]]

have capability to put that supply where the demand is. That means, 
Governor of California, you have got to build transmission lines in 
your State. Frankly, every other State has got to do the same, because 
we are not in California's situation today. Forty-nine States are not. 
Forty-nine States in my opinion did more appropriate planning. The 
reason that we are not in that crisis is because we planned for today.
  But the big question is: Have we planned for tomorrow? Every State 
should pay attention. Let us learn from the painful lessons that 
California has suffered. Let us take a look at what our own energy 
demands are. What can we do for conservation? What can we do for 
electrical generation? Where can we put transmission lines? Where can 
we put natural gas transmission lines? Those are the questions that an 
energy policy brings up.
  Earlier I mentioned to you that the predominant problem was right 
here in the State of California. And of course we have explained why. 
California has tried to artificially toy with the market. They tried 
partial deregulation. They did not do full deregulation. They put on 
price caps promising the consumers that for at least a 3-year period of 
time, no matter how much energy they used, no matter what time of the 
day they used it, no matter where the generation or transmission was, 
the price would not go up.
  California continued to toy with the market. California continued to 
manipulate in an artificial fashion the market. That is why California 
is one of 50 States that now has that problem. The rest of the States 
are not problem-free. I mentioned earlier the Pacific Northwest, the 
Columbia River. They are very dependent on hydropower. Texas actually 
has an ample supply of energy, in part I think because of what their 
previous Governor and their current Governor, Rick Perry, has 
instituted; but we do not have the transmission lines that we should 
have to move it out of Texas to other parts of the country. I think 
that will be answered within the near future.
  In the mid-Atlantic, most of these States have planned very well for 
the energy problems that they have got. You have got an isolated 
problem in New York City, although New York City has not hesitated. As 
soon as the Mayor of New York realized, Mayor Giuliani, that there were 
problems with electrical supply, they not only tried to slow down 
demand through conservation but they also figured out slowing down 
demand through conservation is not the only answer, it is a part of the 
answer; the other part is we have got to put in some temporary 
generation facilities to get us through the summer until we can put our 
energy policy in place. That is what New York has done. It appears that 
New York is going to have much less of a problem getting through this 
summer than everyone originally anticipated.
  As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of different alternatives 
that can provide energy that I think utilize the factor of common 
sense. There are a lot of things if we slow down enough to assess what 
kind of situation we are in and how we want to go out of it, i.e., an 
energy policy which this President, frankly, has decided to put 
forward, despite the criticism, despite the controversy, it has brought 
up the debate onto this House floor, which is going to be healthy for 
all of our constituents. The issue here is, What are some good, 
commonsense ways of producing the energy that we need? One of them, of 
course, is hydropower.
  Let us talk about hydropower for a moment. Hydropower electricity. 
Conservation combined with common sense. Conservation combined with 
common sense, the two C's. Worldwide about 20 percent of all 
electricity is generated by hydropower. In our country it provides 
about 10 percent of our power. We are the second largest producer of 
hydropower. Canada is the first.
  Now, keep in mind that every time you talk about hydropower, or you 
talk about new hydropower, you are going to have the radical 
environmentalists, the ones who in many cases are very hypocritical, 
hypocrites. They come to work; they drive up to the meeting to protest 
hydropower. They go home and use their lights. They have all kinds of 
recreational vehicles, whether it is a mountain bike, a motorcycle or 
whatever. They are very dependent on the energy market, and they are 
dependent on hydropower. Yet it is the radical environmentalists that 
are not using common sense. It is the commonsense environmentalists 
that are helping develop and deploy an energy policy that will work for 
this country.
  Let us move and talk for a moment about hydropower. I know my 
colleagues have an understanding of hydropower; but to some of them out 
here, they are in areas where they are not dependent on hydropower. Out 
in the West we are very dependent on hydropower. In fact, Lake Powell 
provides a great deal of hydropower. Ironically, the national Sierra 
Club, the radical environmental policy of that club, not all Sierra 
Club members, but the radical policy of the national Sierra Club is to 
tear down Lake Powell. That is not a commonsense approach.
  Let us take a look at how a hydroelectric dam works. You have the 
dam. Here is your dam that has to be built. Behind the dam obviously 
you end up with a reservoir. That reservoir does a number of things. 
Environmentally, while some of the radical environmentalists will tell 
you that all it does is damage the environment, in fact at Lake Powell, 
it has provided lots of water and habitat for species. It has become 
very important. It is one of the major recreational areas, if not the 
major recreational facility, in the entire west of the United States. 
We talk about being able to bring family and unite families. You go 
down to Lake Powell. That is the family recreation spot of the West.

                              {time}  1945

  So you get a lot of benefit out of the reservoir. What you do with 
the reservoir, you drop the water through the reservoir. It turns the 
turbine and this is your generator. The turbine goes up to your 
generator and produces electricity. Hydropower plants capture the 
energy of falling water. It is the fall of the water, the creation of 
that energy. It is that that generates the electricity. We do not have 
to use natural gas here. We do not have to use coal. We do not have to 
use gasoline or oil. It is a part of nature. We are able to take water, 
drop it at a steep enough angle; and that water, the power, the energy 
of that water, generates that electricity.
  It supplies 10 percent of the needs of this country. Imagine what we 
could do if we could have smart, environmentally sensitive hydropower 
plants and reduce our dependence on oil coming out of the ground. We 
could do a lot with hydropower. Hydropower is probably the cleanest 
energy of which we use a major component. In other words, natural gas 
generators, obviously we are using natural gas. Coal generation, we 
know that we have an impact there but hydropower has a lot of positive 
attributes. So my point in bringing up hydropower is I wanted to talk 
about how we can use hydropower in a commonsense approach and not hurt 
the environment, mitigate the impact to the environment.
  Hydropower is clean. When you use hydropower, it prevents the burning 
of 22 billion gallons of oil. Listen to this. The hydropower in our 
country, which provides 10 percent of the power of our country, because 
we use the energy off the drop of that water it saves us from having to 
burn 22 billion gallons of oil, or 120 million tons of coal each year. 
Imagine that. Because we have been able to capture the energy from the 
drop in that water, we do not burn 120 million tons of coal. Think of 
that. You want to talk about cleanliness for the environment. We save 
and do not burn 22 billion gallons of oil.
  So the next time you have a radical environmentalist come up to you 
and talk to you about how evil hydropower is, say, wait a minute. If we 
did not have the hydropower but we continue to have the need for the 
electricity, how would you meet that need?
  Now, sure, conservation helps; and, sure, some alternative solar 
helps some. Wind, it helps but not much.

[[Page 11786]]

How do you meet that margin, Mr. Radical Environmentalist? Why do you 
want to do go back to burning 22 billion gallons of oil? Do you want to 
go to 120 million tons of coal?
  Hydropower has a lot of positive benefits. It does not produce 
greenhouse gases or other higher pollution. Hydropower leaves behind no 
waste. Reservoirs formed by the hydropower projects in Wisconsin, for 
example, have expanded water-based recreation resources; and they 
support diverse, healthy, and productive fisheries. In fact, there are 
some catch rates for game fish like walleye and smallmouth bass are 
substantially higher on hydropower reservoirs than natural lakes. It 
comes back to the point that I am trying to make. We have renewable 
energy and it is utilized with common sense.
  Hydropower is the leading source of renewable energy. It provides 
more than 97 percent of all electricity generated by renewable 
resources.
  Now, what are the other resources? The other sources include 
geothermal, wind, and biomass and solar is in there, too, but that only 
counts for 3 percent. The 97 percent of our renewable resources, in 
other words we can drop that water and drop that water, 97 percent of 
it in this country is hydropower.
  I will very quickly just show you an illustration of hydropower. Take 
a look at that hydropower. The next time a radical environmentalist 
comes up to you and says, Hi, we should not have a dam, we should not 
use hydropower, that it is evil for some reason. And you say well, what 
is the alternative? Well, the alternative is let us rely on the other 
renewable energy. That is it, that is what they are telling you. They 
are telling you that instead you can drop this hydropower and replace 
it with this little tiny sliver.
  Now there is no doubt, as Vice President Cheney has said on 
occasions, numerous occasions, and the President has said, we need to 
expand this if we can, this red slice of the pie make it bigger and 
bigger, come up with other alternative energy but today it is not 
realistic and tomorrow it is not going to be realistic, but maybe for 
future generations we can put it on the right track and it can become 
more realistic.
  I thought this was very interesting, and I wanted to point it out to 
my colleagues. This is the average power production expense per 
kilowatt hour. That is how you measure electricity, per kilowatt hour. 
Here is fossil fuel steam, generating steam. In other words, you burn 
coal, you create steam and the steam drives the turbine. Right there, 
those are the costs.
  Now the green represents the amount of fuel you have to consume. How 
much coal? Remember that 127 million tons of coal? How much fuel do you 
have to use? That is maintenance to keep the turbine, to oil it, to 
make sure it is running correctly and in operation, your operational 
expenses. For fossil-fueled steam, there is operation, there is 
maintenance, and there is the cost of fuel. For nuclear, the 
operational expense, because of the safeguards they have to deploy, are 
extensive in nuclear. Here is maintenance and right there is the cost 
of fuel, nuclear fuel.
  Now remember that we should not say that any of these are not 
efficient. We are going to need a combination of all of these in 
combination with conservation, in combination with solar and so on.
  Look at hydroelectric. Hydroelectric has operation. It has 
maintenance, but there is no fuel expense with hydroelectric 
generation. Why? As I have said earlier, the fuel for hydroelectric 
generation is the result of the energy that is created with the drop of 
the water. That is what this chart shows you. Here is the gas turbine. 
Look how much energy it takes, how much fuel it takes to turn that gas 
turbine to create that generation of electricity.
  That is why hydropower is important. That is why when you hear 
comments by people that say take it out, dams are terrible, keep in 
mind that dams do a number of things. One, they provide recreation. 
Two, they provide fisheries. Three, they provide flood control. Four, 
in the West, as you know, in the West it is arid. Out where I live, we 
get all the water we could possibly use for about 5 weeks. It is called 
spring runoff from the mountains.
  I live at the highest elevation in the country. My district is the 
Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Now, for 6 weeks we have all the water we 
can use. Unfortunately, most of the time it comes when we are not using 
it. So what do we have to do? We have to store it. For 6 weeks we are 
okay, but we have to get through all of those other weeks in the year. 
We have to go through 46 or whatever other weeks are left we have to go 
through those weeks, and we have to have storage. So the dams provide 
storage. So if you are going to go ahead and provide storage and you 
are going to provide recreation and you are going to provide flood 
control and you are going to provide fisheries, why not generate 
electricity? Why not use hydropower to the extent that we can?
  That is not speaking to the elimination of nuclear. In fact, most of 
France is generated, their electricity is nuclear. It is not to say we 
should not use natural gas. It is not to say we should not use the coal 
generated or oil generated, but it is to say that when combined with 
conservation, when combined with alternative energy, this commonsense 
approach of putting hydropower is a major factor of generation in this 
country of electricity in this country, is something we simply cannot 
ignore and we should not ignore it.
  Let common sense dominate every other approach we are using in here.
  Time allows me to bring up another chart here. Let us talk about it, 
the primary purpose or benefit of all U.S. dams. So this chart takes a 
look at all the dams in the United States and figures out in a pie 
chart exactly what is that dam utilized for. Remember, I told you that 
you will often hear the radical side of environmentalism, the radical 
side, not the commonsense approach, not the approach most of us use, 
but the radical approach will say no dam is a good dam.
  For example, the national Sierra Club, the radical environmentalist 
leadership of that group that exists are the ones who want to take down 
Lake Powell, have never in their organization's history supported a dam 
storage project. Well, can you find out very many situations where 
never is always the answer? Never have hydropower? Never have 
conservation? Of course not.
  There is a balance in there. Somewhere there is a balance. Take a 
look at what the balance does. Irrigation, 11 percent. Do not discount 
what irrigation means. In the West, as I told you, most of our water 
comes in a very short period of time. We do not have heavy rainfall. In 
fact, it was not until I left the mountains and came out here to 
Washington, my home is in the mountains but this is my work station, I 
could not believe the rains you guys get back here.
  It is incredible, but back there we have to store it. And a lot of 
what you ate today is a result of somewhere water being stored so the 
crops can be irrigated.
  Recreation 35 percent. Most of my colleagues here, somewhere during 
their year they will enjoy recreation provided as a result of storage 
of water, in some sport, whether it is sitting on a houseboat, whether 
it is fishing, et cetera, et cetera.
  Stocked farm ponds, very important, again storage of water. Flood 
control. Now, in the West that is huge. Anywhere it is huge. Flood 
control, take a look at what happened, the devastation of floods before 
we were able to control floods, before we were able to get a hand on 
water and control it.
  Public water supply, 12 percent. Now when you buy on, when somebody 
comes to your door and they do this all the time, some of the radical 
environmentalist approach is to come to your door with a petition and 
they ask for a contribution, by the way. It is usually a money raising 
racket but they will come to your door and they will say, hey, help us 
stop the terrible oppression of the environment, because they want to 
build a hydroelectric. What your response should be is, first of all, I 
care about the environment. I want that environment protected.
  On the other hand, we are enjoying lights and our municipality needs

[[Page 11787]]

water. When you are at your home, we kind of take for granted, 
especially when you live in a city, anywhere really but I guess in a 
city you kind of take for granted you turn on the water in the city you 
better have the water running.
  The city supplies the water. It comes out of city hall. It is clean. 
It tastes good and it is there whenever we want it. Know what? The way 
the cities, most cities in this country, are able to provide that is 
because they have stored it somewhere, because it does not rain equally 
every day. It does not rain necessarily when you need it. So you have 
to store it.
  So when people ask you to sign a petition and want to lead you down 
the path of the London Bridge for sale in the U.S. by telling you that 
there is no need for dams or hydropower, step back, use common sense 
and say, in some cases a dam may not be right and in all cases that it 
is right, the environment must be mitigated or enhanced. It cannot be 
ignored. In the past, I would be the first to admit that in some cases 
it was ignored, and we have paid for that and paid for that. We cannot 
allow it ever to happen again, but somewhere in the middle there is 
common sense. Somewhere in the middle this energy warning that we are 
getting in California, it is more of a crisis than it is anywhere else 
in the country. Let us listen to the message that is being sent to us 
and that is we, as mature leaders, we have an inherent obligation, it 
is inherent and it is an obligation, it is a fiduciary responsibility 
to provide for the future generations and to exercise leadership for 
today. The way we do that is we take a look at the energy package as a 
whole. We put everything on the table. We put conservation on the 
table. We put energy exploration on the table. We put alternative 
energy on the table. We put the environment on the table. You know 
what? Common minds with a little sense can put together common sense, 
and that is how we are going to be able to do this.
  As I said, and I want to reiterate a couple of very important points, 
I have a chart here on conservation, I have a couple of charts on 
conservation, I said earlier in my comments this evening I complimented 
the people of California. Now I have been harsh on the people of 
California, particularly the elected leadership of the State of 
California, because frankly they are trying to make believe that there 
is an easy way out of this. Well, it is too good to be true. If it 
sounds too good to be true, it is. So I have been critical to the 
leadership. I have been critical of price caps, which are great on a 
short-term basis. I am sure that the Governor of California will 
continue to lift his numbers up in the polls because artificially he is 
telling people no pain in the short run. He will not be there in the 
long run when the pain begins to develop.

                              {time}  2000

  The fact is, and what is important here that I want to compliment, is 
that the people in California have in the last 30 to 40 days, not as a 
result of their Governor, not as a result of their elected leadership, 
but as a result of the market, have begun conservation more seriously 
than they have in many, many years. And the rest of us, taking a look 
at California's pain that they have suffered, have decided too maybe we 
ought to conserve.
  Look, I am the first one to tell you, I am the first one to step 
forward and tell you last year at this time, when natural gas was 
plentiful, when electricity was plentiful, I ran the air conditioning 
probably cooler than I needed it. I probably had it running when I ran 
out to the grocery store. I probably did not check to see what 
direction my fan was running to make sure it was cooling the house 
instead of defeating the purpose.
  But you know what? I saw what happened in California. I have an 
obligation. All of us have an obligation, and we can do it without a 
lot of pain to help conserve.
  But while we conserve, and again I compliment those people of 
California who have done that, and throughout the rest of the Nation, 
do not kid yourself. I remember once when I was young, my father told 
me, my father and mother both sat us all down, they are wonderful 
people, both are alive and well in Glenwood Springs, they sat us down 
and said to us, The last person you ever want to fool is yourself. 
Don't fool yourself. Don't pretend that what is happening is not 
happening. Figure out what is happening and figure out how you are 
going to adapt to it.
  That is exactly my point here this evening. Let us figure out what is 
going on. We know we have an energy shortage, but do not buy into the 
pie in the sky that we can resolve it all through conservation, because 
we cannot. Do not buy the pie in the sky that we can do it all through 
alternative energy, at least today. We cannot. Do not buy that all we 
need to do is build and build and build power plants and put oil wells 
wherever they want to put them, because that is not common sense.
  That does not work, to destroy our environment like that; and I do 
not know anybody that is seriously proposing anything like that. But 
what we have to do is meet in the middle. We have to use a combination 
of conservation. As I said earlier, we have to use a combination of 
conservation, alternative energy, exploration and transmission. We have 
got to be able to move the power that we produce from the supply point 
to the demand point all at the same time.
  When we deal with demand, conservation helps lower demand. 
Alternative energy helps answer demand, like hydropower. That is why I 
focused this evening on hydropower. There is an energy production 
facility that does not use fuel. It does not need coal, it does not 
need natural gas, it does not need oil-generated steam to produce 
electricity. Hydropower produces it without fuel.
  Now, that does not mean every river or every location is good for a 
dam. Obviously, as I said earlier, and I want to stress it again, 
because there is misinterpretation that is often taken advantage of 
when you speak like this, hydropower and the environment can go hand in 
hand, and there will be times where the protection in the environment 
overrides the need of hydropower in a particular location. But it is 
just as crazy to say that the environment will always prevent 
hydropower as it is to say that the environment should never be a 
consideration and hydropower should go wherever we want to put 
hydropower.
  Again, coming back to the theme of my remarks this evening, in the 
middle, as I think our President and Vice President have attempted to 
say, in the middle we need to have an energy policy; and in the middle 
of America, meaning the people, not the geographical location, but the 
middle of common sense, we as a people can figure out how to provide, 
without a dramatic change in our life styles, because I do not think it 
is necessary, we can provide the energy needs on one hand for the 
people, the demands that they have, while at the same time protecting 
and enhancing our environment, while at the same time reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  That is not a dream, but it can only be accomplished if we have an 
energy policy; and we have not had one in the last administration, 8 
years. We had plenty of gas; we had plenty of oil and plenty of 
transmission. We did not plan for the future.
  We should have been planning then, but we have got to plan today. And 
despite all the criticism and all the controversy that is being heaped 
on the President and the Vice President, primarily, by the way, by the 
Democratic operatives, not by the conservative Democrats on this House 
floor, but by the Democrat operatives, by the people who are more 
focused on the election of the next President than they are on the 
needs of this Nation, those are the people that are really developing 
the criticism and manipulating it and marketing it in such a way that 
some people can be convinced we should not have an energy policy that 
involves any type of electrical generation, any type of exploration. 
They simply are not aware of what I have tried to emphasize this 
evening, and that is it will always demand a combination, a combination 
of protection in the environment, combined with exploration, combined 
with alternative energy, combined with conservation.

[[Page 11788]]

  So, in summary, Mr. Speaker, I intend to continue to come to you, to 
urge that we as a body come up with commonsense solutions. It may sound 
repetitive, but I have got to drill it in and drill it in. We all need 
to drill it into each other.
  This country demands and deserves that its leaders provide an energy 
policy. We should follow the direction of the President and the Vice 
President in trying to put one together. It does not have to be his, 
but at least we ought to have this debate that we are having tonight.

                          ____________________