[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14144-14153]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4614, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 694 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 694

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4614) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2005, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived except as follows: beginning with ``Provided'' on page 
     2, line 23, through page 3, line 5; sections 105, 106, 107, 
     108, 109, 110, and 311; beginning with ``Provided'' on page 
     39, line 23, through page 40, line 4; and section 502. Where 
     points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, 
     points of order against a provision in another part of such 
     paragraph may be made only against such provision and not 
     against the entire paragraph. During consideration of the 
     bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  The resolution before the House today provides for consideration of 
the 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill under an open 
rule that provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and 
under the rules of the House, the bill shall be considered for 
amendment by paragraph. The rule waives points of order against 
provisions in the bill as amended for failure to comply with clause 2 
of rule XXI except as specified in the resolution.
  It authorizes the chairman to accord priority in recognition to 
Members who have been preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record, and finally it provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the rule for H.R. 4614, the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2005. This 
legislation provides for a total of $28 billion in new discretionary 
spending authority for the civil U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Department of Interior, the Department of Energy and several associated 
Independent Agencies.
  I would like to thank my friend, the chairman, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hobson), for his leadership and vision in crafting this 
legislation and for striking a good balance between existing prudent 
fiscal restraint and funding our Nation's energy and water development 
priorities.
  This bill increases funding for our Nation's energy and water 
priorities at $734.5 million above 2004 levels, and $49.6 million above 
the President's budget request, while ensuring that this money is spent 
wisely on programs that also reflect the needs and the core missions 
that its agencies find within their mission statements.
  This legislation adequately funds the Corps of Engineers and 
concentrates its resources on helping to fulfill its traditional 
missions such as flood control, shoreline protection, navigation and 
safety on our Nation's waterways. Over the last few years, the Corps 
has been given an increased workload to complete with an inadequate 
budget. This bill focuses on protecting our critical infrastructure and 
completing outstanding projects while prioritizing our Nation's 
infrastructure needs in a thoughtful and efficient way.
  It provides funding needed to maintain, operate, and rehabilitate the 
Bureau of Reclamation projects throughout the western United States and 
protects the Federal investment in western water infrastructure. It 
also ensures that renewable energy programs are funded at $343 million, 
$1 million above the fiscal year 2004 amounts.
  Under this legislation, the Department of Energy receives a total of 
$22.48 billion, an increase of $511 million over fiscal year 2004. As 
with the Corps, this legislation tasks the Department of Energy with 
beginning to prepare its 5-year budget plans, first for individual 
programs and then an integrated plan for the entire Department. This 
plan must include business plans for each of the DOE laboratories, so 
that Congress and the Department can understand the mission and 
resource needs of each laboratory to ensure that they can use their 
funding that is provided more efficiently.
  Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration is $9 
billion, an increase of $372 million over fiscal year 2004 and a 
decrease of $22 million from the budget request. The United States

[[Page 14145]]

has in place a strategic plan to realign and modernize our nuclear 
arsenal, however, much of the DOE weapons complex is still sized to 
support a Cold War stockpile. The funding included in this bill will 
help NNSA to review its weapons complex in relation to the security 
needs, budget constraints and this new stockpiling plan while still 
providing adequate funding for its ongoing operations and needs.
  Finally, this bill provides $202 million for several independent 
agencies, including the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta 
Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its Inspector 
General, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and the Office of 
Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of this legislative product, created by 
our Committee on Appropriations with input from many Members. It will 
help to fund our Nation's energy and water development needs.
  I would also like to personally commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hobson) for his hard work and vision in crafting this legislation. And 
I would also like to thank the chairman for his inclusion of level 
funding, that was important to this Member, for the Dallas Floodway 
Extension Project which is a cornerstone in Dallas, Texas, for our 
Trinity River Corridor Project.
  This project will help Dallas to mitigate flood risks in over 12,500 
structures in Dallas' central business district and includes some 792 
acres of land that are currently in a 100-year flood plain.
  I support this project and this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same by supporting the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0915

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill, and I congratulate the chairman and the ranking 
member and the subcommittee Chair and the ranking member for their hard 
work and diligence in bringing this appropriations bill to the floor in 
a timely fashion.
  Specifically, this bill provides a total of $27.9 billion for the 
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Interior Department's 
Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy and a handful of 
independent agencies including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  I am especially pleased that this bill soundly rejects the 
administration's continuing efforts to dramatically reduce funding for 
the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The 
administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Army Corps of 
Engineers was actually $460 million less than the Corps received in 
fiscal year 2004 and $578 million below what it received in fiscal year 
2003. This is tantamount to a systematic attempt to cripple the Civil 
Works program.
  As a Member with mainly inland waterways in my district, I value and 
appreciate the extraordinary work the Corps performs on behalf of the 
cities and towns we represent. In this bill, the committee has wisely 
given both the specific guidance and the sufficient resources the Corps 
needs to address the projects it is presently charged with completing.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud the committee for plainly 
exposing the administration's funding scheme for the proposed nuclear 
waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This project is riddled 
with scientific uncertainty and threatens millions of Americans, both 
in Nevada and in communities along the transportation routes. 
Notwithstanding the many health and safety concerns that should stop 
the Yucca Mountain project from going forward, OMB's attempt to use a 
budget gimmick to leverage $749 million of the administration's $880 
million request is a cynical and shameless attempt to cook the books on 
the total budget deficit. By refusing to loosen the purse strings on 
funding for the Yucca Mountain project, this appropriation bill rightly 
tells the administration to go sell stupid somewhere else.
  I also want to commend the chairman and the committee for its actions 
on nuclear weapons development. The bill strips out funding for the 
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapons, also known as ``bunker 
busters.'' I share the chairman's frustration that the Energy 
Department seems to be totally ignoring the restrictions Congress has 
placed on this research.
  The bill also eliminates funding for the Advanced Concepts program to 
develop a new generation of nuclear weapons and zeros out the funding 
for siting a new Modern Pit Facility to manufacture new triggers for 
nuclear weapons.
  In addition, the bill does not provide funds to move test readiness 
at the Nevada test facility up from 24 months to 18 months. Mr. 
Speaker, instead, the bill has placed emphasis on the consolidation of 
bomb material for greater safety and security and on the disassembly of 
surplus nuclear weapons.
  On these matters, I believe the bill reflects realistic national 
security and budget priorities, and I commend the chairman and ranking 
member for their leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support this bill on the whole, I feel compelled 
to express my disappointment in the funding levels for renewable energy 
technologies. Just 2 weeks ago senior officials from the United States 
and 153 other nations met at a conference in Bonn, Germany, where they 
unanimously endorsed a communique committing to a substantial increase 
``with a sense of urgency'' in the percentage of renewable sources to 
meet global energy needs.
  Reportedly, the delegates of the conference did not set specific 
targets or timetables as a concession in order to get President Bush's 
administration on board. The President has said he favors the invisible 
hand of the free market over government regulation.
  Sadly, this appropriations bill does not reflect the sense of urgency 
which is needed in increased funding for renewable energy sources. I 
can tell you that my constituents in Massachusetts, who are paying on 
average $2.10 per gallon at the pump, do not have much faith that ``the 
invisible hand'' of the free market is going to show up any time soon 
and drive gas prices down either.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation cannot afford to wait any longer. We cannot 
afford to continue underfunding renewable energy and efficiency 
programs while our dependence on foreign sources of oil grows and our 
natural gas shortage worsens. We need to move with all deliberate speed 
to significantly increase funding for renewable sources of energy.
  I have start-up fuel cell companies and established photovoltaic 
manufacturers in my district like Mechanology, Protonex, Cell Tech 
Power and Evergreen Solar that are doing remarkable things, but they 
are struggling to compete with other countries who are leaving us 
behind in the race to a new energy economy because they cannot get the 
Federal funding support they need to continue research and development. 
And the invisible hand of the free market economy is not helping them 
out either.
  Meanwhile, we spend our time here passing ill-conceived energy bills 
for a second time that grant $23 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to 
the oil and gas industry. Surely, if we can do that, then we can do 
better in funding our renewable energy technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriators have done their job, and while I would 
like to see a more comprehensive bill, I believe that the appropriators 
have done their job well.
  Let me be the first to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for 
their work.
  With that being said, my main regret is that the Republican 
leadership decided not to make in order the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).

[[Page 14146]]

  The Eshoo-Lofgren amendment is simple. It would require that the 
Federal Emergency Regulatory Commission order refunds whenever sellers 
of electricity charge rates that are not just and reasonable. This will 
require FERC to order refunds stemming from the market manipulation 
that occurred in California and the Pacific Northwest in 2000 and 2001. 
It would also require FERC to disclose documents and evidence that it 
has obtained in its investigation of Enron in manipulation of the 
western energy market; and it would require FERC to allow States to 
fully participate in FERC proceedings and negotiations on market 
manipulation.
  At the end of this debate, I will offer a motion to defeat the 
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) will offer their amendment to the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. This is an important 
proconsumer amendment, and it deserves to be considered today.
  Mr. Speaker, when is enough enough? It is sad that the Republican 
leadership feels compelled to continue to protect the Enrons of the 
world. It is time that we hold these companies accountable, and the 
Eshoo-Lofgren amendment is the right prescription for this ailment.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday we engaged in a colossal waste of time as the 
leadership of this House forced the Members of this House to spend an 
entire day to debate a bill and amendments that were defeated by 
substantial margins; and yet the leadership of this House is unable to 
allow us to have the opportunity to debate an amendment that will 
actually make a real difference in the lives of the people of this 
country. We can do much better than this, and I will urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to quote my colleague who said that this is a 
good bill. It is a good bill and it does deserve to be passed. It also 
is a bill that does not need to address what is known as the Eshoo 
amendment, because it has already been addressed. It has been addressed 
in the H.R. 6 conference report and H.R. 4503 that was passed last week 
by the House and is pending in the Senate; and that will provide the 
authority to FERC to ensure that the proper elements are taken care of 
as it relates to serious allegations that have been raised, especially 
in California.
  I do thank the gentleman for his support of the bill. I believe he 
has qualified it appropriately, and I do, too, give thanks to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for the work he has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to notify the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) that at this time I do not have any speakers as a result 
of the adequacy of the bill that has taken care of many requests on 
this side; and so I would like to inform the gentleman that I would 
allow him to go ahead and consume the time that is necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), who has been a wonderful supporter of our effort that has 
been stretched out over 4 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the underlying bill. It is an 
excellent one, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for 
their bipartisan leadership of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development. But I rise to urge the defeat of the previous question on 
the rule, because the rule does not provide a waiver for the amendments 
to address market manipulation and require the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to take action to refund consumers' dollars that 
were manipulated.
  I testified before the Committee on Rules yesterday that this 
amendment be made in order, but the request was denied.
  I think the word ``denial'' pretty well sums up the response of 
Congressional Republicans and the FERC to the western energy crimes. In 
2000 and 2001, FERC essentially allowed energy producers to game and 
corrupt the western energy market, and consumers were gouged billions 
of dollars. In March 2001, Congressional Democrats wrote to the 
President for help and we are still waiting for the reply.
  In 2002, Democratic Members of the California delegation asked six 
times for a Congressional investigation and hearings on market 
manipulation. It never happened. In 2003, we tried to address the 
refunds issue with amendments to the Energy Policy Act. Nothing 
happened.
  Over 4 years we have tried everything we could to help consumers in 
the Pacific Northwest and California. This work is summarized in a 
five-page document which, Mr. Speaker, I include for the record.
  The House must consider this amendment today because we are running 
out of opportunities to right the wrongs which created the crimes 
itself. This amendment will first amend the Federal Power Act by 
changing the rules for refunds effective dates under Section 206. 
Currently, these rules allow refunds after a complaint has been filed. 
This amendment will allow refunds for all overcharges regardless of 
when a complaint has been filed. This change will require FERC to order 
refunds for the gouging that occurred in the West and elsewhere in the 
Nation in 2000 and 2001.
  Two, it requires FERC to open new investigations, if necessary, to 
award refunds to western consumers.
  Three, it requires the FERC to step in to order refunds whenever 
manipulation occurs in the future in any State in our country.
  Four, it requires the FERC to allow California to participate in 
heretofore secret negotiations between FERC and power producers who 
were thought to have engaged in market manipulation. And lastly, it 
requires the FERC to make public all documents that it is holding 
related to the manipulation of the western energy market in 2000 and 
2001.

                              {time}  0930

  And let there be no doubt, there were wrongs. The Enron tapes which 
CBS broadcast earlier this month make it all too clear that companies 
were manipulating the market. They bragged about stealing money from 
``those poor grandmothers in California.''
  Some of the language was so profane that by congressional action it 
was deemed it could not be broadcast. The language was shocking and the 
facts in the transcripts chilling. They are part of a litany of 
evidence of widespread market manipulation.
  There are smoking gun memos in which Enron admitted how they gamed 
the market. They had names for each one of their undertakings. We have 
transcripts of employees of Reliant Energy describing how they gamed 
the market; and with that striking evidence, FERC chose to negotiate a 
settlement in this case for pennies on the dollar without allowing 
California to participate.
  We have reams of evidence discovered by the State of California. We 
have the Justice Department's indictments and plea agreements with many 
energy traders and producers. Even the FERC found ``significant market 
manipulation.'' But, despite the evidence, the FERC has been reluctant 
to order refunds to compensate consumers even though it has the 
obligation to protect energy consumers of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been 4 long years since the crisis began. 
Consumers have been waiting for relief. We think they deserve it and 
they should have it. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question and allow this amendment to come to the floor.

    Congressional Activity To Address the Energy Crisis--Chronology 
                               Highlights

     2000

       June 14, 2000--First blackout of the electricity crisis and 
     first blackout in California since World War II.
       August 2, 2000--San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) 
     files a complaint under Rule 206 under the Federal Power Act 
     against western power suppliers, alleging

[[Page 14147]]

     that market prices are ``unjust and unreasonable.'' Calls on 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to impose 
     price limits.
       November 1, 2000--FERC reports that wholesale electricity 
     prices have been and have the potential to continue to be 
     ``unjust and unreasonable.''

     2001

       January 19, 2001--25 members of the California delegation 
     write to FERC to urge it to address the high price of 
     electricity in California.
       January 20, 2001--Representatives Duncan Hunter and Anna G. 
     Eshoo introduce H.R. 238 to amend the Department of Energy 
     Authorization Act to authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
     impose interim limitations on the cost of electric energy to 
     protect consumers from unjust and unreasonable prices in the 
     electric energy market. A bipartisan group of thirty-two 
     Western Members cosponsor the bill. Senate companion (S. 26) 
     introduced by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer on 
     January 22, 2001.
       January 30, 2001--Representative Bob Filner introduces H.R. 
     268, the California Electricity Consumers Relief Act, that 
     requires FERC to order refunds retroactive to the beginning 
     of the crisis on June 1, 2000.
       March 2, 2001--Representatives Hunter and Eshoo write to 
     House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin and 
     House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Joe Barton 
     to call for a hearing on the Western energy crisis and H.R. 
     238.
       March 6, 2001--House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 
     holds hearing--Congressional Perspectives on Electricity 
     Markets in California and the West and National Energy 
     Policy.
       March 20 and 22, 2001--House Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
     Quality holds hearing--``Electricity Markets: California.''
       March 22, 2001--House Democrats write to President Bush to 
     urge him to fill FERC vacancies, to call on FERC to 
     investigate and mitigate high electricity prices in 
     California, and to replace FERC Chair Curtis Hebert. No reply 
     is received from the President.
       March 23, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy 
     and Commerce Committee respond to the majority's request for 
     comments on proposed legislation to ``fix'' problems in the 
     Western energy market. Members note the omission of any 
     provision to address the excessively high cost of 
     electricity. No formal reply is received.
       March 30, 2001--Democratic Members from California, 
     Washington, and Oregon write to President Bush to urge him to 
     address the high cost of wholesale electricity and 
     ``investigate recent allegations of overcharges'' in the 
     Western energy market. No substantive reply is received from 
     the President.
       April 4, 2001--H.R. 1468 is introduced with the support of 
     30 California Democrats. The bill requires the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission to impose cost-of-service pricing in 
     the Western electricity market and to order the refund of 
     overcharges.
       April 10, 2001--U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham 
     writes to Members of Congress to update them on the 
     Administration's efforts to address the energy crisis. The 
     Secretary discounts the crisis as ``a supply crisis'' and 
     states the Administration's opposition to price mitigation.
       April 16, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy 
     and Commerce Committee write to FERC Commissioner Linda K. 
     Breathitt to urge her to support cost-of-service pricing in 
     the West.
       April 26, 2001--FERC issues an order establishing a price 
     mitigation plan during stage 1, 2, and 3 power emergencies. 
     The order sets the mitigated price on the most inefficient, 
     polluting generator in the State. Generators can exceed the 
     mitigated price if they justify their costs.
       May 1 and 3, 2001--House Energy and Air Quality 
     Subcommittee holds hearing on H.R. 1647, The Electricity 
     Emergency Act of 2001--a bill with the purported purpose of 
     solving the energy crisis by increasing the supply of 
     electricity. Among other proposals, the bill calls for the 
     suspension of federal environmental laws that might diminish 
     energy production. California Governor Gray Davis and the 
     California Energy Commission and Air Resources Board report 
     that environmental protection laws are not an impediment to 
     energy production. The bill does not address runaway prices.
       May 1, 2001--Members of the California Republican 
     Delegation meet with Vice President Dick Cheney on the energy 
     crisis. California Democrats are not invited.
       May 3, 2001--California Democratic Congressional Delegation 
     Chair Sam Farr writes Vice President Cheney criticizing him 
     for excluding California Democrats from his May 1, 2001 
     meeting with California Republicans. Rep. Farr requests a 
     meeting with the Vice President.
       May 4, 2001--44 Democratic Members of Congress write to 
     Secretary Abraham to use his authority to address price 
     gouging in the West. Reply reiterating the Administration's 
     opposition to ``price caps'' mailed July 2, 2001.
       May 17, 2001--Vice President Cheney and the National Energy 
     Policy Development Group (NEPDG) submit their recommendations 
     to President Bush. The recommendations do not include 
     anything to address runaway prices in the West. About the 
     Western energy crisis, the NEPDG writes, ``Though weather 
     conditions and design flaws in California's electricity 
     restructuring plan contributed, the California electricity 
     crisis is at heart a supply crisis'' (National Energy Policy, 
     page 1-3). The report blames California for not building 
     enough generating plants, ``there are no short-term solutions 
     to long-term neglect.''
       May 25, 2001--84 Democratic Members of the House write 
     President Bush to request that he back a price mitigation 
     amendment to H.R. 1647 based on H.R. 1468. No reply is 
     received from the President.
       May 25, 2001--Ten respected economists, including Alfred 
     Kahn, architect of deregulation in the airline industry, 
     write to President Bush and the Congressional leadership to 
     express support for cost-of-service based rates for 
     electricity in the western market.
       June 2, 2001--Rep. Eshoo delivers the Democratic response 
     to the President's weekly radio address on the energy crisis.
       June 7, 2001--21 Western Democrats write to FERC Chairman 
     Curtis Hebert to request the opportunity to testify before 
     the Commission in a public meeting.
       June 12, 2001--California Democratic Congressional 
     Delegation meets with Vice President Cheney about the energy 
     crisis. Vice President promises no intervention to alleviate 
     high prices.
       June 13, 2001--29 members of the California Democratic 
     Congressional Delegation write to Vice President Cheney 
     following a CNN report that the White House and Congressional 
     Republicans funded an advertising campaign to oppose price 
     mitigation in the West.
       June 19, 2001--FERC expands its April 26th order to cover 
     the entire West during all hours of operation, requires all 
     generators to make their power available, and continues to 
     base the mitigated price on the least efficient generator. 
     FERC determines that refunds are owed and orders 
     administrative hearings to determine the amount.
       June 19, 2001--Members of the California and Western 
     delegations testify before the House Rules Committee in 
     support of amendments to H.R. 2246, the Fiscal Year 2001 
     Supplemental Appropriations bill. The amendments would 
     require FERC to impose cost-of-service pricing in the West 
     and order electricity generators to pay refunds of rates that 
     are ``unjust and unreasonable.'' The Rules Committee, chaired 
     by California Republican David Dreier, refuses to allow the 
     consideration of these amendments.
       June 20, 2001--Representative Nancy Pelosi attempts to 
     bring a cost-of-service amendment to H.R. 2246 to the floor. 
     Republicans block it on a procedural objection.
       June 20, 2001--Governor Gray Davis, with many Members of 
     the California Congressional Delegation in attendance, 
     testifies before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee 
     about FERC's activities in the Western energy market.
       June 30, 2001--California Democratic Congressional 
     Delegation writes to FERC Chairman Curtis Hebert about 32 
     important California-related cases that were pending before 
     the Commission for an extended period of time. Reply dated 
     August 28, 2001.
       July 17 and 18, 2001--House Energy and Commerce Committee 
     holds markup of the Committee Print, Energy Advancement and 
     Conservation Act. Committee defeats two amendments offered by 
     the California Democrats on the Committee to impose cost-of-
     service pricing and require the refund of overcharges.
       August 1, 2001--Floor consideration of H.R. 4, Securing 
     America's Future Energy. House defeats Rep. Waxman's cost-of-
     service pricing amendment by 157-274. The Rules Committee 
     refuses to make in order an amendment offered by 
     Representatives Eshoo and Harman to require refunds of 
     overcharges.
       October 29, 2001--Rep. Eshoo testifies before a FERC 
     technical conference on behalf of the California Democratic 
     Congressional Delegation. Requests that the Commission's 
     price mitigation plan remain in force until the market has 
     stabilized. Asks the Commission to act quickly in ordering 
     refunds.
       November 27, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy 
     and Commerce Committee write to Energy and Air Quality 
     Subcommittee Chairman Barton to urge him to address the 
     problem of market power in energy markets within draft 
     electricity restructuring legislation. No reply is received.

     2002

       February 14, 2002--Members of the California Delegation 
     write to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin 
     to urge him to investigate and hold hearings on the business 
     conduct and pricing practices of Enron during the Western 
     energy crisis.
       May 8, 2002--The California Democratic Congressional 
     Delegation and 4 Northwestern Democrats write Chairman 
     Tauzin, urging him to open an investigation and to hold 
     hearings on market manipulation in the Western energy market 
     after FERC posts internal Enron memos detailing how the 
     company artificially inflated prices. Memos indicate that 
     other companies adopted the same practices that Enron did.
       May 9, 2002--The Securities and Exchange Commission 
     announces investigation into the ``round-trip'' trades 
     between Dynegy, an energy marketer that sold into the 
     California market, and CMS Energy of Dearborn, Michigan.

[[Page 14148]]

       May 15-16, 2002--Senate Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, 
     & Tourism Subcommittee holds hearing on Enron memos entitled, 
     ``Examining Enron: Developments Regarding Electricity Price 
     Manipulation in California.'' Rep. Eshoo and Harman attend. 
     The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee holds a 
     similar hearing.
       June 5, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and 
     Commerce Committee lead 75 House Members, including Minority 
     Leader Gephardt, in a letter to House Speaker Hastert and 
     Energy and Commerce Chairman Tauzin to ask for an 
     investigation of energy suppliers.
       June 5, 2002--31 California Democrats write to FERC 
     Chairman Patrick Wood to urge him to extend FERC's price 
     mitigation plan for the West beyond September 30, 2002 when 
     it is due to expire.
       June 18, 2002--The General Accounting office issues a 
     report that exposes weaknesses in FERC's ability to regulate 
     energy markets. The report says, ``FERC is not adequately 
     performing the oversight that is needed to ensure that the 
     price produced by [energy] markets are just and reasonable 
     and therefore, it is not fulfilling its regulatory mandate.''
       June 19, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and 
     Commerce Committee write to Chairman Tauzin again to urge a 
     hearing and investigations, noting that the GAO report 
     indicates that FERC is not up to doing the job on its own.
       June 20, 2002--Congress Daily AM reports, ``House 
     Republicans agreed [June 19, 2002] to hold a hearing to 
     examine whether trading firms such as Enron Corp., may have 
     illegally manipulated electricity prices in the West.'' The 
     article continued, ``The hearing would serve as a spring 
     board for a broader inquiry into price manipulation and 
     FERC's ability to oversee the Market [Energy and Commerce 
     Committee Chairman] Tauzin said.''
       July 25, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and 
     Commerce Committee write to Chairman Tauzin again to urge a 
     hearing and investigations, noting that he has not fulfilled 
     his public promise a month earlier to hold hearings and 
     investigate energy transactions in the West. The letter notes 
     that this work should be completed before Chairman moves 
     ahead with the consideration of electricity provisions in the 
     House-Senate Conference Committee on H.R. 4, the 
     comprehensive energy bill. Finally, the letter asks for 
     access to documents that Committee obtained from FERC. The 
     documents had been compiled by FERC as a part of an 
     investigation that it initiated following inquiries from U.S. 
     Senators.
       July 26, 2002--Chairman Tauzin responds to the Western 
     Representatives May 8, 2002 letter with a recitation of the 
     Committee's previous work on the Western energy crisis in 
     2001. The Chairman notes that he requested and received the 
     documents he received from the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission (FERC), which were being reviewed by majority and 
     minority staffs. However, he does not explain why the 
     Committee has not held a hearing since the Enron ``smoking 
     gun'' memos were made public. The Chairman does not respond 
     to the request for access to the FERC documents.
       August 21, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy 
     and Commerce Committee respond to Chairman Tauzin's letter, 
     and again ask for a serious, independent investigation of the 
     Western Energy market. The letter reiterates the request for 
     access to FERC documents obtained by the Committee.

     2003

       January 9, 2003--The California Democratic Congressional 
     Delegation writes to the Chairman of the Federal Regulatory 
     Energy Commission (FERC) Patrick Wood, III, to reject the 
     findings of Administrative Law Judge Bruce Birchman (Refund 
     Case EL00-95-045) because he recommended that energy 
     generators who supplied power to California during the 2000-
     2001 energy crisis owe far less than the $8.9 billion that 
     California is seeking.
       March 3, 2003--The California parties (including the 
     Governor and the Attorney General of California, the 
     California Public Utilities Commission, and the state's major 
     independently-owned utilities) present to the Commission more 
     than 1,000 pages of evidence of widespread market power abuse 
     and market manipulation. The California parties had to go to 
     the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to force the Commission to 
     allow them to discover and present this evidence.
       March 26, 2003--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     (FERC) released a detailed report on the California Energy 
     crisis, concluding that there was widespread manipulation in 
     the California energy market. However, FERC did not propose 
     increasing refunds substantially to reflect the gaming that 
     took place. In particular, FERC continued to insist that the 
     State of California could not receive refunds on the short-
     term electricity purchases it made to keep the lights on.
       April 2, 2003--During the Energy and Commerce Committee 
     markup of the Energy Policy Act (H.R. 6) Rep. Eshoo offers an 
     amendment to increase the refunds for California consumers by 
     $5 billion. The amendment simply required the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) to refund all ``unjust and 
     unreasonable'' charges the State of California incurred for 
     the short-term energy purchases it made to keep the lights on 
     during the California energy crisis in 2001. The amendment 
     failed on a vote of 21 to 30 in the Energy and Commerce 
     Committee. Rep. Eshoo, supported by the California Democratic 
     Congressional Delegation, attempts to bring the amendment to 
     the floor for consideration several days later but not one 
     California Republican would support the amendment and it 
     wasn't considered.
       September 25, 2003--31 Members of the California Democratic 
     Congressional Delegation write to FERC Chairman Wood 
     reiterating previous concerns that FERC is having a poor 
     record in defending the interests of California consumers, 
     lacks an effective price mitigation plan, refuses to order 
     the renegotiation of unjust and unreasonable long-term 
     contracts, and has thus far short-changed consumers in the 
     refund proceedings.

     2004

       May 6, 2004--An amicus brief is filed at the 9th Circuit 
     Court regarding FERC and California energy refunds signed by 
     37 parties: California's 2 Senators, 33 House California 
     Democrats, State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, and 
     State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. The brief supports the 
     California parties' lawsuit that FERC follow the Court's 
     order to use the existing Remedy Proceeding--a forum subject 
     to judicial review--to collect evidence of energy market 
     manipulation, rather than non-public investigatory 
     proceedings that shut CA consumers out of the process.
       June 2, 2004--CBS News broadcasts tapes unearthed by 
     Snohomish Public Utility District which capture Enron traders 
     bragging in profane terms about their effort to manipulate 
     the Western Energy Market.
       June 14, 2004--All 33 California House Democrats write to 
     FERC to request that it address the issues raised by the 
     Enron tapes.
       June 15, 2004--The House defeats motion to recommit H.R. 
     4305, the Energy Policy Act of 2004, 192-230 (Roll Call Vote 
     240). The motion would have added language to the bill that 
     will enable California consumers to receive equitable 
     refunds.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the sad tale of our energy rip-off in the 
western United States is really before us today. We started out 
reacting in a bipartisan way, but, in reviewing the history, I note 
that after House Republicans met with the Vice President on May 1, 
2001, that bipartisan effort did stall.
  We have tried for 4 years to get results. In June, 2001, the 
California delegation asked for amendments to H.R. 2246; and the 
Committee on Rules refused to allow those amendments which would 
provide a refund for unjust and unreasonable rates.
  In July, 2001, amendments were offered in the markup in the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce; and Republicans refused to allow the 
requirement of refunds in overcharges.
  In August of 2001, the Committee on Rules refused to make in order an 
amendment to require refunds of overcharges.
  In June of 2002, the GAO report indicated that the FERC was really 
not doing the job, but Congress and the administration did nothing 
about it.
  In April, 2003, the effort was made again through H.R. 6 to refund 
all unjust and unreasonable charges, but, again, we were blocked in 
that effort.
  Finally, in May, 2004, Californians, including the attorney general, 
the chief law enforcement officer of the State of California, filed a 
lawsuit to try and get the law followed.
  Now, what is the problem here? We had energy manipulation. We had a 
theft. California was a crime victim. When there was a fire, they were 
quoted as saying, ``burn, baby, burn, that is a beautiful thing,'' the 
trader said about the massive fire; and they also said he is just F-ing 
California, meaning he steals money from California to the tune of 
about a million.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to do something about this. Yesterday, we asked 
that the Eshoo amendment be made in order so we could get the refunds 
and relief that citizens in the West are due. It was mentioned at the 
time that because this litigation has been filed that somehow it would 
be improper to proceed with Congress' action. That is simply not the 
case.
  Earlier this week, I was in the Committee on the Judiciary. I have 
been a member of the Committee on the Judiciary for 9\1/2\ years. We 
were marking up enhanced penalties for terrorism crimes, and the issue 
was raised, these new penalties are going to be imposed

[[Page 14149]]

on individuals whose prosecutions are under way. We got a lengthy 
letter from the Justice Department pointing out that there was no 
problem in terms of ex post facto issues and that we could proceed.
  I am mindful, when the World War II Memorial was threatened because 
of its time frame because of a lawsuit filed by NEPA, the House of 
Representatives acted and simply removed the World War II Memorial from 
NEPA coverage. I voted for that because I wanted to get the memorial 
approved.
  Earlier this year, there was an arcane issue between interns and 
residents employed by medical schools and hospitals on whether or not 
that was an employment or an educational issue, and it was in court 
over an antitrust case. We voted actually to define that relationship 
as an educational relationship, ending the litigation. I voted for that 
because I thought it was appropriate for Congress to step in and 
protect medical education in America.
  It can never be correct that Congress is excused from doing its job 
because someone filed a lawsuit. If that were the case, all we would 
need to do to paralyze the House of Representatives and the Senate 
would be to have people file lawsuits.
  I would like to say this, that for those who are refusing to act 
still, now in our fourth year who are through their actions, whether 
intended or not, covering up and protecting the wrong-doers at Enron 
and others, I feel a kinship with that story told to me in law school: 
It is like the guy who kills his parents and then throws himself on the 
mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
  Let us act on the Eshoo amendment and get relief for California.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the vice chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) and state what a great Member of Congress the gentleman is.
  I want to come this morning, after a long year, and thank the staff. 
Kevin Cook, the majority staff and the minority staff have worked 
diligently and have created a very balanced product. There are a few 
things that are not as high as we would like and are not funded as much 
as we would like, but overall it is excellent work.
  Over the last year and a half, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Hobson) has been all over the country familiarizing himself with our 
varied missions, both in the Corps of Engineers and the Department of 
Energy. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, 
is a thoughtful and diligent member who has made enormous 
contributions; and this is possibly the best bipartisan work we will 
see through the appropriations process this year.
  The things I want to point to during the debate to bring the rule up 
and pass this bill with tremendous bipartisan support today are, first 
and foremost, frankly, in the wake of September 11, the enhanced 
security at our nuclear weapons facilities that is manifested in this 
bill. This is the result of a chairman who went out and looked at these 
facilities, many times in a very classified setting, but came back and 
really dug in to get to the bottom of what needs to be done and 
accelerate those improvements as much as possible in this bill. I want 
to thank him because I represent one of those facilities, and we are 
going to be much more secure in the months and years ahead because of 
the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
  Secondly, I was with the Secretary of Energy yesterday; and we were 
touting how this bill even ramps up the administration's commitment to 
science and research, supercomputing, fusion energy, the next 
breakthroughs that will lead to a productive society in future years in 
this bill. The Congress is even doing more than the administration. The 
administration is doing more than last year. We are making great 
breakthroughs. This is the seed corn of a productive American society, 
and this Congress is responding through this committee's work.
  I am excited. We really do have a team of leadership on the 
subcommittee that gets it, and we need it. We have nanoscale research 
now at a level we have never had. This subcommittee is honoring that.
  Another great initiative of this administration is we have all of 
these nuclear weapons facilities from the Cold War legacy. We have been 
maintaining them at billions and billions of dollars of annual cost. We 
should clean them up quicker. It is called accelerated cleanup. It is a 
Bush-Abraham initiative. This Congress is fully funding accelerated 
cleanup all across the country. Spend more money early so we do not 
have to spend all that money later.
  Accelerated cleanup is honored in this committee's work; and I am 
very grateful, again representing one of those sites where for a number 
of years we were just stirring the money around in a pot every year and 
asking for more. We were spending money to stir it, instead of cleaning 
it up.
  Mr. Speaker, important water projects, infrastructure investment are 
in this bill. It is very balanced between energy and water. Sometimes 
the Senate goes more towards energy investments and takes away water 
money, sometimes the House has more water, less energy. This committee 
has balanced the approach from the very start, which is what we need.
  For instance, in the Tennessee Valley, we have this river system with 
a number of dams and locks, but we have one lock with bad concrete 
growth problems. The Corps of Engineers has said for a number of years 
it needs to be replaced, but it is a $300 million ticket. This bill 
starts the process of replacing the Chickamauga lock on the Tennessee 
River.
  The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) from the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and the Environment, our chairman, he wrote a bill to 
replace this lock; and we passed the bill. The President signed the 
bill into law. This committee puts the money in to start the process. 
We need to get it rolling and clean it up.
  Now, what does this bill not have? This bill does not have everything 
we need to keep the nuclear energy program in this country robust and 
growing which has been flat for a number of years because of the long-
term waste issue. That is the Yucca Mountain piece. We do not have the 
money. We are going to keep fighting. We believe that nuclear is a 
safe, clean alternative to fossil emissions. If Members want clean air, 
we need nuclear power.
  Other countries get it. Other countries which are more 
environmentally sensitive, from time to time, than America are in the 
nuclear business because they see it as clean green energy. We need 
that, but we have to work out this long-term storage issue. That is 
Yucca Mountain. We fully funded it last year. The chairman knows that 
we have to have this, but we do not have the money. But we are not 
giving up. This is the beginning of the process with the Senate, with 
the budgeteers and all of the people who would have imposed caps on it. 
This is a great bill with bipartisan support.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I said at the beginning. We have no 
problem with this bill. We congratulate the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the 
ranking member, for a job well done. We are just frustrated the 
Committee on Rules, when it comes to amendments of substance, continues 
to shut us out. That is what we are upset about today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the late 1990s, California, whose energy 
markets dominate the effect up and down the West Coast, adopted a 
competitive market for electric generation. Under Federal law, if a 
State adopts that competitive model, it gives up the right to regulate 
wholesale energy prices and transfers that responsibility to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In late 2000 and early 2001, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, slept during an artificial 
crisis during the winter; and over $9 billion was stolen.

[[Page 14150]]

  Why do I emphasize winter? Westerners will understand this. We had 
enough electric generation capacity to power our air conditioners in 
the summer, but somehow there was not enough electricity for the much 
lower demand to keep the lights on in the winter. Why? We were told 
that there was a shortage because plants were ``closed for 
maintenance.''
  Here is the chart that illustrates what happened. The blue indicates 
the noncrisis previous year as to the number of plants and the amount 
of electricity not generated thereby due to maintenance. The yellow 
shows the crisis, closed for maintenance.
  Now the transcripts are out. Not just Enron but Reliant and other 
Presidentially protected corporate criminals were closing the plants in 
order to create an artificial shortage.
  Now the transcripts that are most famous are obscene. They include 
the now-famous quote that says, Gramma Millie, she wants her F-ing 
money back for all the money you jammed up her orifice for $250 a 
megawatt hour. That is thought to be the most obscene quote, but truly 
the most obscene, and there are dozens like this quote, is when an 
Enron trader turns to the plant manager and says, ``just go ahead and 
shut it down.'' Closed for maintenance, artificial shortage, $9 billion 
stolen.
  The responsibility for this, the greatest economic crime in our 
history, is not just for the thieves but those who protect them.
  Whose side are Members on? Reliant and Enron and the others who shut 
plants down to create an artificial shortage? Or on the side of Gramma 
Millie and other western consumers? Members define themselves and 
define their party with their vote on the previous question.
  Reliant is relying on the other side to protect them; and the other 
side may indeed enjoy a hollow victory today as they shut down debate 
and prevent us from even discussing an amendment to require FERC to let 
the western States see the documents, to require FERC to look at the 
fraud that occurred before a complaint was filed. They can win that 
hollow victory today, but 45 million westerners, including the voters 
of three swing States, are watching. The other side of the aisle cannot 
hide from them, and Gramma Millie's revenge is less than 5 months away.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Members should avoid engaging 
in personality toward the President, even by innuendo.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule but only 
the rule, because I certainly support the underlying legislation. I do 
not support the rule because it does nothing to help Californians who 
have been bilked out of at least a billion dollars by Enron. It is 
unbelievable to me that the California members on the Committee on 
Rules would not make this issue that is so important to California part 
of today's debate.
  During the 2001 energy crisis, Californians begged the President for 
relief, but the President did nothing. Each week, $50 million was 
drained from the pockets of Californians by Texas-based energy 
producers. The President actually called this supply and demand. 
Californians, however, called it highway robbery. As it turns out, 
while this was happening, Enron traders were laughing about sticking it 
to Gramma Millie in California.
  It has taken a small utility in Washington State to do what this 
administration has refused to do: Bring to light the callous 
manipulation that harmed millions of Californians and West Coasters. 
Enron fleeced more than $1.1 billion from consumers while literally 
laughing all of the way to the bank. And even with the evidence brought 
out by the Enron tapes, the leadership of this House once again leaves 
millions of California consumers in the dark. I guess they want to hide 
what they have done to help Enron behind closed doors, much like the 
Bush administration has been working in the shadows with its energy 
plan for the Nation. Maybe they will not be happy until they have 
turned out the lights on all Americans. This bill does nothing to help 
California and the other western States get their retribution.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, like those Members who rose before me, I 
support the underlying bill. It is a vital investment in our country. 
But I do object to the rule because it is long past time to begin to 
rectify this massive theft that went on.
  Every day, today every Oregonian, every residential ratepayer, every 
business will pay, on average, 42 percent more for the electrons 
purchased from the same plants transmitted over the same electric lines 
as 4 years ago. Just one thing happened in between. That is the Bush 
administration, the Bush FERC and Kenny Boy Enron Lay, the President's 
previous largest single contributor until this year.
  The Snohomish utility found that on 473 of 537 days, Enron 
manipulated the market. How can the Bush FERC say that is just and 
reasonable and not require that those illegal contracts achieved 
through market manipulation be voided? We do not know because they will 
not release the documents. They do not want people to know how involved 
Enron was in setting the national energy policy.
  In the year before the Bush administration released their energy 
policy, Enron officials met with members of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission and their staff on 272 occasions during one work 
year. That means on every day there was an Enron official in the FERC 
offices. Were they also in Vice President Cheney's office? We do not 
know because he is fighting release of those records. We need these 
illegal contracts to be voided, and we need all of the documentation 
released about this massive market manipulation.
  This is continuing to cast a pall over the economy of the Pacific 
Northwest. We have some of the worst unemployment in the country over 
the last few years, and a good part is because billions of dollars have 
been illegally extracted from our ratepayers by the Texas-based Enron 
company with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission appointed by 
President Bush standing by complicit, compliant and silent.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close 
with one speaker at the very end.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule on behalf 
of ratepayers in the West who depended on the Eshoo amendment being 
made in order.
  Time and time again, members of the California, Oregon and Washington 
delegations have attempted to get this House to focus on the damage 
caused in the western electricity crisis a few years back. We have been 
trying to get the House to do something to return the money stolen from 
my constituents and millions of others. The electricity market 
manipulation that went on was shameful. It was surpassed, perhaps, only 
by the actions or rather inaction of the FERC and this Congress.
  Literally billions of dollars were stolen from consumers and 
taxpayers by pirate firms like Enron. Recently, we were all treated to 
a front-row seat to the carnage demonstrated in tapes of Enron traders 
figuring out how best to create shortages, to drive up prices, and rip 
off consumers. It was sickening. But, in reality, there was nothing new 
in those tapes. It was just more evidence of what I and many in our 
delegation have been requesting for over 3 years. Enron and other power 
companies were shutting down power plants, diverting electricity, and 
engaging in illegal actions in order to drive up electricity prices.
  The amendment brought before the Rules Committee by the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo) would be a great step in bringing some 
justice here. It would open up all the records at FERC on these cases 
of price fixing

[[Page 14151]]

and market manipulation. It would force FERC to let States participate 
in the settlement negotiations, and it would make some key changes in 
the Power Act to enable full refunds to these western States.
  The Committee on Rules should have made it in order and the House 
should have adopted it, but that would be breaking the practice of this 
House and this administration in doing nothing in response to one of 
the great hijackings in American history. It is disgraceful. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this unfair rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I, like others, rise in support of the bill. I 
think the authors of this bill, particularly the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), have done 
a great job, but this is the only bill we have before Congress which 
allows us to have a debate on FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission.
  It would be a better bill if we put an amendment in there, but the 
Committee on Rules has not allowed that amendment, and that is wrong. 
It is really wrong because this is the only place where we can address 
that issue. The administration should address it. They have been 
silent. They sit by and allow FERC to continue to do nothing.
  FERC is a regulatory agency. This is where the consumers can go to 
get some protection. That is the only agency in the Federal Government 
that can do anything about it; and when they do not act, we have 
nowhere to turn.
  This is an agency that ought to have money withheld from it until it 
answers the questions. That is something that we do in the legislative 
process all the time. And since the administration has failed to hold 
them accountable, Congress should. We are asleep at the switch. When 
that switch was asleep at FERC, a regulatory agency, they allowed all 
of these companies to just screw California.
  Mr. Speaker, it took $9 billion of taxpayer money to pay these bills. 
This is absolutely absurd. It is more than absurd. It is obscene, it is 
criminal and it ought to stop now. The Eshoo amendment should be 
debated. It is a shame on the Committee on Rules that they did not make 
it in order.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to call for a no vote on the previous 
question so this body can consider and vote on the Eshoo amendment.
  We all remember the horror stories of the energy crisis in California 
in 2000 and 2001. Virtually overnight, energy prices went through the 
roof, causing a fiscal crisis and chaos due to energy shortages. Energy 
became prohibitively expensive. Electricity that had cost under $50 the 
previous year was suddenly costing over $1,000, and some days peaked 
above that.
  Energy disruptions brought enormous disruption to the everyday lives 
of the people of that State. There were rolling brownouts that shut 
down traffic signals and crowded intersections, endangering those stuck 
in the gridlock. Even some hospitals suffered temporary power loss with 
little or no notice. To add insult to injury, we found out months later 
that this so-called energy crisis was a fraud on the part of the 
companies that sold the energy. They created a fake shortage and jacked 
up energy prices.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to do something to make sure that this never 
happens again. The Eshoo amendment is a step in that direction. It 
deserves consideration in this House. A no vote on the previous 
question will not stop the House from taking up the energy and water 
appropriations bill, which is a good bill. However, a yes vote will 
prevent the House from considering the Eshoo amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what we did yesterday on the House 
floor, but it was a complete waste of time. Overwhelmingly, the bill 
considered yesterday and all the amendments were rejected. We have an 
opportunity today to actually debate something meaningful that will 
make a difference in people's lives.
  I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join 
with us in voting no on the previous question. My colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle say they are outraged by Enron and Enron-style 
companies that ripped off the consumers in California. If they are 
truly outraged, then they should put their action where their rhetoric 
is: Vote no on the previous question and allow us to have a meaningful 
debate that will make a real difference in the lives of the people of 
this country and allow us to vote on the Eshoo amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the Eshoo 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, to close this great debate and this opportunity we have had 
to talk about energy and water.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank him for the management of this rule. Thanks to the 
manager of the rule, he has allowed me to patiently listen to the 
statements that have been made by my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle about this legislation. And so I sat patiently and listened 
to my very distinguished California colleagues, all very good friends 
of mine, and I would like to say, as we have agreed in a bipartisan 
way, a very good bill. This is a bill that is focused on the energy and 
water needs that exist for this country, and they are priorities in 
many ways, ranging from ensuring the kind of growth that we need to 
national security issues and research, which are very important.

                              {time}  1000

  So I believe that we are going to, based on the work of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the full committee chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the ranking minority member of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and the 
vice chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp) who spoke earlier, we are going to be able to move ahead with a 
very, very good piece of legislation.
  But over the last few minutes, Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to 
a great deal of talk about my State of California. I would like to take 
just a few moments to talk about exactly where we are and the challenge 
that we have faced.
  We know that we have a horribly, horribly serious situation when it 
comes to ripping off the energy consumers of California and the West. 
We all have demonstrated how extraordinarily distraught we have been, 
when we saw and heard the transcript of those executives who were 
talking about taking advantage of our constituents, the consumers out 
there. That is one of the reasons that we joined in wanting to do 
everything that we possibly can to ensure that we get to the bottom of 
this issue, address this issue, and resolve it in behalf of the 
consumers.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill is being considered under an open 
amendment process. It is an open rule, meaning that any Member will 
have an opportunity to stand up and offer a germane amendment. There 
was bipartisan agreement among Democrats and Republicans, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the ranking minority member, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), to move ahead with a rule that 
would allow for protection of the legislation itself and an open 
amendment process. That is why the request which has just been made by 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, somehow saying that we 
are unfair, we are denying an opportunity; we are simply complying with 
the Rules of the House and the bipartisan request that was made of the 
Committee on Rules.

[[Page 14152]]

  I heard a statement, and I am the lone Californian on the Committee 
on Rules and I happen to have the honor of chairing the committee, but 
a statement that I somehow denied the opportunity for the consideration 
of the Eshoo amendment. That is not the case at all, Mr. Speaker. I 
want to say that, under this open amendment process, we are going to be 
able to have a chance to bring about a successful resolution of this.
  Now, we all know that a couple of things have happened. In the Ninth 
Circuit Court in California, this case is under consideration. We have 
this process under way, and we know that the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission is scrupulously looking through those transcripts and the 
other concerns are there, and we are on track towards seeing 
reimbursement for our consumers, which is the right thing to do.
  The second thing is, we in the House passed H.R. 6 just this past 
week. It is pending in the Senate. That legislation goes a long way 
towards addressing the concerns which we share and are a very high 
priority to us. They are designed to improve the operation of 
electricity markets by providing for an electronic system to increase 
transparency in electricity markets, something that we are all very 
interested in. It prohibits filings of false information and round trip 
or wash trading. It dramatically increases criminal and civil 
penalties, limits and expands penalty provisions to cover all 
violations of the Federal Power Act. It moves the refund effective date 
up to the complaint, so the refund effective date will be when the 
complaint was launched; and it extends the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's refund authority to cover sales by otherwise 
nonjurisdictional utilities in certain markets. That is legislation 
that we passed right here in a bipartisan way.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close in saying that we do plan to 
address this issue under the Rules of the House by accepting the Eshoo 
amendment. The Eshoo amendment is going to be offered under an open 
amendment process, and I have discussed with the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hobson) the issue of this great, great problem that we have of 
horrible abuse that has taken place in California and the West.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Will the gentleman concede that the amendment that is going to be 
accepted by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and we appreciate the 
great leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), is not the 
same amendment that the Committee on Rules did not allow to come to the 
floor this morning?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could simply reclaim my time, and in 
reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that the amendment, 
of course, is not identical to the one that is, in fact, in violation 
of the Rules of the House. With the bipartisan request that was made of 
the Committee on Rules, we are having an open amendment process, and 
that means, as my friend, the gentlewoman knows very well, that any 
amendment that is germane and falls within the Rules of the House will 
be in order.
  The Eshoo amendment gets right at the problem that we are trying to 
address here, and we all know that we have pending, we have pending the 
important case that is before the Ninth Circuit Court, as well as the 
successful passage of H.R. 6. The Eshoo language, which is going to be 
accepted, gets at the root of the problem and underscores our 
bipartisan concern for this issue.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I very much want us to bring about a 
successful conclusion to what has been a very tragic time for our 
consumers. Contrary to what I have heard from the other side of the 
aisle, there is, in fact, bipartisan concern, and we will take a back 
seat to no one when it comes to standing up for our constituents 
against any powerful interest.
  So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of the rule; and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The amendment previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  Previous Question for H. Res. 694--Rule on H.R. 4614 The Energy and 
            Water Development Appropriations Bill for FY2005

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative Eshoo of 
     California or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.''
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

                  Amendment to H.R. 4614, as Reported

                          Offered by Ms. Eshoo

       Page 29, after line 13, insert the following:
       The Congress finds that--
       (1) incontrovertible evidence has come to light that 
     certain sellers of wholesale electricity, including Enron, 
     manipulated energy markets in order to overcharge electricity 
     consumers in the Western United States;
       (2) these overcharges have adversely affected state 
     economies, families, small business, and other consumers;
       (3) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has failed to 
     expose this wrongdoing in a timely manner and has failed to 
     take effective action to make consumers whole, and has 
     undercut the ability of States and other parties to pursue 
     relief by withholding critical documents and disaggregating 
     claims into dozens of small proceedings; and
       (4) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should fully 
     disclose evidence in its possession, fully involve States, 
     and ensure that refunds are ordered for any time period in 
     which market manipulation occurred.
       The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall publicly 
     disclose all documents and evidence obtained in the following 
     proceedings: Western Energy Markets: Enron Investigation 
     (Docket No. PA02-2), the California Refund case (Docket No. 
     EL00-95), the Anomalous Bidding Investigation (Docket No. 
     IN03-10), the Physical Withholding Investigation, and the 
     Gaming Investigation (Dockets EL03-157 et al, EL03-180 et 
     al).
       The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall allow States 
     affected by market manipulation, acting through their public 
     utility commissions, to fully participate in settlement 
     negotiations regarding disgorgement of profits. The Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission shall consolidate the various 
     refund and disgorgement matters related to activity in the 
     Western markets since May 2000 into a single proceeding in 
     order to facilitate effective participation by states and 
     other parties. No settlement shall be adopted by the 
     Commission if it is opposed by any state whose public utility 
     customers have an economic interest in the results of the 
     settlement.
       Section 206(b) of the Federal Power Act is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By amending the first sentence to read as follows: ``In 
     any proceeding under this section, the refund effective date 
     shall be the date of the filing of a complaint or the date of 
     the Commission motion initiating the proceeding, except that 
     in the case of a complaint with regard to market-based rates, 
     the Commission shall establish such earlier refund effective 
     date as is necessary to provide a refund of any rate or 
     charge that is not just and reasonable, as determined by the 
     Commission. To the extent necessary to achieve the purposes 
     of this section, the Commission shall initiate new 
     proceedings, including investigations, and issue appropriate 
     refunds.''.
       (2) By striking the second and third sentences.
       (3) By striking out ``the refund effective date or by'' and 
     ``, whichever is earlier,'' in the fifth sentence.
       (4) In the seventh sentence by striking ``through a date 
     fifteen months after such refund effective date'' and insert 
     ``and prior to the conclusion of the proceeding'' and by 
     striking the proviso.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman will state it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry to the point 
of addressing what our distinguished chairman said. Is it not 
appropriate under the Rules of the House that the Committee on Rules 
could have made the Eshoo amendment, as submitted to the Committee on 
Rules last night, in order for debate on this floor today, with 
waivers?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee on Rules may propose special 
orders of business to the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. So if I may just clarify, then it would have been 
possible and not outside the regular order for the

[[Page 14153]]

Committee on Rules to have put the Eshoo amendment, as presented in the 
Committee on Rules, with the waiver.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not speculate about actions 
in the Committee on Rules.
  The question is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on adoption of the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209, 
nays 182, not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 320]

                               YEAS--209

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--182

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Ackerman
     Barton (TX)
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Collins
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Deutsch
     Dunn
     Engel
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinojosa
     Issa
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Lipinski
     Mollohan
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Vitter
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1029

  Mr. COOPER and Mr. BERRY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, if I had been present for rollcall vote No. 
320, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained 
this morning. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 
320.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________