Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, in July of 1976 a 900 acre wild fire ripped through the Battlement Creek area of Western Colorado. During the blaze, four brave forest service firefighters from different parts of the country were killed while trying to knock out one of the deadliest forest fires in recent memory. On July 21st of 2001, these four men will be honored at the opening of a memorial to be dedicated in their memory. I ask that Congress take a moment to honor these four men for giving their lives in the line of duty. The four-day blaze which claimed the lives of three hotshot firefighters and one pilot was started by lightning, and took nearly 300 fire fighters to douse the blaze. Twenty-five year old Anthony (Tony) Allan Czak was in his fourth year working on the Mormon Lake hotshot crew from Coconino National Forest in Arizona and was serving as the crew boss for the 76 season when he was killed by a ``fast moving finger of fire''. Tony was born in Buffalo, New York and later moved to Phoenix, Arizona with his wife Janice to attend the University of Arizona. On the Morning of July 17, 1976, the crew was assigned to build a section of fire line to protect Federal lands belonging to the BLM. After they were finished, Tony sent the line crew out of the fire and into a safety zone. He then went back into the burn area to help the remaining three members with the burnout operations. Without warning, the fire took off and overran Tony and two other crewmembers. The fourth member of the crew survived. Mr. Speaker, four men gave their lives protecting Federal land during the Battlement Creek fire in July of 1976. Anthony Czak and his crew will be honored by the citizens of the Battlement Creek area for their courage and bravery. I would ask that Congress honor them and thank them for their work. Anthony's family should be proud of what he accomplished in his life and what he did for the people of Battlement Creek.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 2001 Rovilla R. Ellis, the Executive Director of the Mesa Verde Museum Association, retired after 28 years. I would like to take this moment to have Congress say thank you for all of her hard work and dedication to the museum over the years. She has been a great asset and will be missed greatly by all she worked with. The Mesa Verde Museum Association is a non-profit organization established by Congress in 1930 to assist and support various interpretive programs, research activities and visitor centers. Rovilla began her career in 1972 as a part time bookkeeper with the association. Over the years she moved up through the ranks to become Executive Director. Rovilla saw the gross revenues grow from $54,000 in 1972 to well over $900,000 in recent years. She has worked with five park superintendents during her time at Mesa Verde. ``Rovilla has made a positive, long-lasting and important contribution to Mesa Verde National Park during her career,'' said Superintendent Larry T. Wiese. ``Her many years of service reflect a deep love for Mesa Verde and a strong commitment to the mission of the National Park Service. We are sad to see her leaving the park, but we know that she will enjoy her retirement.'' Mr. Speaker, I hope Congress will join me in expressing my thanks to Rovilla Ellis for her years of service to the Mesa Verde National Park and to wish her good luck in her retirement.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like a moment to recognize and thank a Delta, Colorado resident who has made sure that students who are having difficulty in school get the help and support they need. Mr. Tony Amaya serves as the risk coordinator for the Delta County Joint School Task Force and the liaison coordinator for the 21st Century Learning Program. Tony lived in Tijuana, Mexico until he was eight years old. His family then migrated to the United States. Tony spent much of his free time learning English. He got involved in sports where he eventually competed in wrestling. His dream was to qualify for the Olympics. In 1990 a Mexican international coach recruited him. He then traveled all over the world and took third in the Pan American Wrestling Championships. After serving as a law enforcement officer for both the Montrose Sheriffs Department and the Montrose Police Department, Tony became the at-risk coordinator for the Delta County Joint School District. His job involves speaking to students who are not having a good school experience. He also works with parents and administrators to help students with their academic needs and to find and resolve the problem to keep students in school. ``Life is what you make of it. If you work hard, stay away from drugs and bad companions you can follow your dream,'' said Tony in a Delta Tribune article. In March, 2001, Tony was the Hispanic motivational speaker at Lincoln Elementary and Delta Middle School. He spoke to students about the dangers of drinking, smoking, using drugs and disrupting their education. ``Be proud of who you are and don't forget your Spanish . . . You are our future--our doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.'' Mr. Speaker, his hard work and dedication has made Tony Amaya a role model for all the young people of his community, and especially for the Hispanic youth of the community. I would like to thank Tony for all that he has done and wish him the best of luck in the future.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize an individual who throughout the course of her career has served the citizens of Colorado with great distinction, Mrs. Geneva Taylor. After almost 40 years of service in the banking industry and eight as the senior vice president of loans for Community 1st National Bank, Geneva is set to begin a much-deserved retirement at the end of this month as family, friends and colleagues gather to celebrate her accomplished tenure with the banking industry and the community, I too would like to pay tribute to Geneva and thank her for her service. Clearly, her hard work is deserving of thanks and praise of Congress. Born in Scott City, Kansas, Geneva moved to Colorado with her family at the age of 3. Eventually her family moved to Yampa, Colorado where she graduated from high school. In 1961 she graduated from Parks Business School in Denver, where she received her secretary's business certificate in nine months. Along with her daily schedule, Geneva was heavily involved in the community. Throughout the years, Geneva has worked with numerous community organizations. Geneva served on the Board of Directors of the Perry-Mansfield Performing Arts Camp and the Rotary Club. She was also instrumental in keeping the Toast Mistress Club for Women running. In 1998, Geneva was given the Hazie Werner Award for Excellence for all of her outstanding Community Service. This year the United States Department of Agriculture presented her three awards for her service to senior citizens communities, the USDA Rural Development Special Recognition award, the USDA Rural Development Site Manager of the Year award and the USDA Rural Development award in acknowledgement of her achievement in maintaining 0% average vacancy for the Mountain View Estates. Geneva was instrumental in obtaining monetary funds for special needs at the Selbe and Mountain View Manor complexes. After 39 years in the banking industry, Geneva has decided to retire so she can spend more time with her daughter Vicki and her grandchildren Brianna and Dakin. ``Geneva is always helping people, and now she will have the time to do more of that,'' said her husband, state Senator Jack Taylor. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Geneva for her service to our community. I know that her husband Jack, her daughter Vicki, and her grandchildren couldn't possibly be prouder of her. That, Mr. Speaker, is a sentiment shared by Geneva's friends, colleagues and associates, as well as the United States Congress. Geneva, congratulations on a job well done and best wishes for continued success and happiness during your well deserved retirement!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues, in my opinion, the biggest problem we have got out there is not so much the immediate energy crisis that we now face, it is the fact of our dependency upon foreign countries for our energy needs. Right now, today, as we speak, 60 percent of our energy requirements come from foreign countries. We cannot afford for the future of this country, for future generations, for planning the future progress of this country to continue to increase our dependency or, in fact, to continue to have our dependency at a 60 percent rate. It puts this country in high danger of energy espionage or energy blackmail. We cannot continue that path of going down that direction because the direction or the result of where that leads us is not good for future generations. There are two separate ways, two methods to address our dependency on foreign oil. One of those methods, of course, as we have heard from the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the previous speaker, is more exploration. We have got to find more of our own energy resources. But the second one, and this was highlighted today and it has been highlighted again and again and again, is conservation. Conservation is something that everybody in America can practice this minute, this hour. Those of us on this floor, those of us across this country, as we hear these comments, we can begin to conserve energy. We can begin to become less dependent on foreign oil by exercising a little individual responsibility ourselves. I will give my colleagues an example. Right now our latest census, I think, showed our population at about 282 million people. Can one imagine how much energy we would save if 282 million people that were using lights turned off the light as they left the room. Think of the instant savings in electricity. If we had 282 million people who combined trips to the grocery store every week, every Sunday, if these 282 million people took a look and said, all right, we ought to have our groceries. Here is what we need this week. Let us go to the grocery store once instead of three times, or let us go twice instead of three times. Now, obviously we do not have a clear factor of 282 million people because we have young people and there are people that do not drive, et cetera. But my colleagues understand the point. Imagine how much water we could save, how much energy on water heaters we could save if, instead of running the garbage disposal with hot water, we ran our garbage disposal with cold water, if these millions and millions of people ran that garbage disposal for 20 seconds, which really in most cases is adequate to dispose of the garbage that one has, instead of continuing to allow the water and the electricity generating, running the garbage disposal to run for 60 seconds or 70 seconds. We can conserve as the citizens of this country. We can contribute to help alleviate this problem. I have got a couple of examples. Now I am not going to go through all of these because I have several of my colleagues that I think have very important points to offer. But there are some key conservation areas that I am asking those of you who are hearing me, who are listening to go ahead and deploy yourself this evening in your own home. Set an example in your own home. The best thing you can do when you go home this evening, most of us use ceiling fans for cooling in the summer. In the summer, make sure your fans are running in a clockwise direction. Clockwise. Because that is what pulls the cool air off the floor. So when you go home this evening, look at your ceiling fan. Most ceiling fans will run both directions. I would guess that many of you today, when you go home, will find out that your fan is actually going counter-clockwise. If you move it, simply one flick of the switch to clockwise, you have done something today to help conserve energy in this country. Many of you own automobiles. I would bet most of you who own an automobile have not read your owner's manual; or maybe when you purchased the car, in my particular case, several years ago, you read the owner's manual then, but you have not looked at it since. Take a look at your local newspaper. Your local quick lube. They say change your oil every 3,000 miles. Do you know what the experts say, that major automobile company that designed your automobile, that were in charge of the manufacture of your automobile? More likely than not, you are not required to change your oil every 3,000 miles. In fact, if you look at your owner's manual tonight on your way home from work, I will bet you it says in your owner's manual change the oil every 5,000 miles or every 6,000 miles. Do you know that, if we could get people to change their oil when the owner's manual tells them to change their oil instead of changing their oil when the marketing enterprises out there, the quick lubes tell you to change your oil, we could save a minimum, a minimum in this country of 11 million barrels of oil a day. We could start today. There are a number of different things. Do you know how much energy we could save if people simply closed the refrigerator after they walked away from it, if people shut off the air conditioner when they were not going to be home? A lot of us want to help get this country out of this problem. A lot of us in our hearts, we do not have it in our hearts to waste energy. We have it in our heart to be good citizens, and good citizens help conserve energy. Let me just summarize it like this. I have had a number of constituents who have said to me, gosh, it is going to take a while for us to get electrical generation in place ready to go. It is going to take a while for us to find additional energy resources so that we can lessen our dependency on foreign oil. What can we do in the meantime? Again, let me repeat to all of my colleagues, as we leave these Chambers, we can help immediately by turning out lights, by not changing that oil every 3,000 miles, by making sure that the direction of the ceiling fan is going as it should go. I myself this morning, as I walked into my office, it is routine for me when I get to my office to turn on all the lights in my office. But for the first 2 hours I am in my own office in the morning, I sit at one location in my office; and I read newspapers. I only need one light. I do not need six lights. This morning in my office, I only had one light on, not six lights. The rest of my colleagues can do that as well. So my contribution to these comments this afternoon is let us all contribute today to conservation. That is exactly what the Republican plan calls for. That is exactly what our President and our Vice President have said. Again, we need two elements to lessen our dependency on foreign oil. We need to look for other energy resources. There is no question about it. We need to do it in an environmentally clean and safe manner. But we also need to conserve. If we combine those two elements, this country will, I think in a modest period of time, fairly quickly move out of this energy crisis, and we will be secure with energy for the future generations. That is what is critical.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), Chairman of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to honor the life of Mr. William Hanley. Mr. Hanley served his community diligently as the Mayor of Mountain Village. His contributions to the area were varied and distinguished. Not only did Mr. Hanley serve as Mayor, but as a member of the board of directors on various community organizations. As his friends, family and colleagues gather this week to celebrate a life spent in service to the public, I too would like to pay tribute to William and honor his accomplishments. Clearly his service is worthy of the praise of Congress. Born in San Pedro, California, William spent much of his childhood overseas. His family eventually settled in Indianapolis, Indiana making annual trips to Walloon Lake in Michigan. This summer tradition created the avid outdoor enthusiast and sportsman that his friends and family know well. William attended the Fountain Valley School, and received his degree from the University of Colorado. In 1989 William moved from San Francisco to the Telluride area with the beautiful Kimmy Kelly whom he married the following year. The hobbies that he enjoyed included skiing, golfing, fly fishing and spending time with his family. William started his career in the Telluride area as a real estate developer and realtor. He then served on various board of directors including Mountain Village Metro District, Telluride Foundation and the Elk Run Homeowners Association. He was also a member of the Telluride Elks Club and the Telluride Ski and Golf Club. For eight years William made great contributions to the town of Mountain Village, as their Mayor. As Mayor he had the opportunity to touch many lives. Mr. Speaker, although Mr. Hanley's life was short, he made an enormous impact on his community. His wife Kimmy, daughter Ryan, son Wilder along with his parents Barbara and William, Jr., sister Bobsey and brother Micheal should all be extremely proud of his accomplishments. William is an example to all, and going to be missed by many. His legacy, Mr. Speaker, is what I would like to honor here today.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to ask Congress to congratulate and thank Bob Cote of Denver, Colorado on receiving the prestigious ``National Service Award'', given by the Washington Times Foundation. The award honors Americans who have made outstanding contributions in the area of humanitarian service to their community. This is a proud moment for Bob, his family and his community. Bob is one of over fifty outstanding faith-based leaders who were chosen for this award. Bob is the director and founder of Step 13, a 100-bed facility for the homeless in the skid-row district of Larimer Street in Denver, Colorado. Since its inception in 1984, Step 13 has touched the lives of more than 1,700 drug addicts and alcoholics. Graduates of Step 13 staff the program. Being a former alcoholic is what fuels Bob's commitment to Step 13. ``You can't take someone who's been drunk for five years and expect him to get it turned around in thirty days. Staying at a shelter a few nights doesn't help. They need to build up their self-respect by learning how to do things for themselves.'' Step 13 is based on a clear and simple premise: ``Any system or program that takes responsibility away from a capable person dehumanizes that person.'' Since the founding of Step 13, many clients have become ``Total Successes'', which means that after leaving, they continue to work as productive tax paying members of society. Over half of those who make it to the transitional houses stay off the street permanently. Bob has also received the Thousand Point of Light Award, the Achievement Against the Odds Award, and was voted ``One of America's Most Virtuous Citizens'' by George Magazine. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for all citizens of Colorado to have such an exemplary hero such as Bob Cote to work to better the community. Bob has helped many over come life on the streets to become a member of society and for that he deserves the praise and thanks of Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dean Dennis of Pueblo, Colorado for his year of service to the community as the director of the Pueblo Convention Center. Dean is stepping down to move to Denver with his wife, former State Senator Gigi Dennis. Dennis has been with the convention center since it opened in 1997. ``Life's too short. We basically said we love each other and we like to be married to each other and we like to spend time with each other,: Dean said in a Pueblo Chieftain article. Dean served as the Vice President of Conventions and Visitors for the Pueblo Chamber of Commerce, as well as President of the Tourism Industry Association of Colorado. In his spare time he works with the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk Project Commission, and has served on the Board of Directors for the United Way. Dean also serves on the Pueblo Board of Trustees for the Packard Foundation, and Pueblo Rotary 43. His wife Gigi, has served in the Colorado State Senate since 1995, resigned at the end of March to accept an appointment from President George W. Bush to become the Colorado Director of the Department of Agriculture's Office of Rural Development. Mr. Speaker, Dean Dennis has helped out the community in numerous ways, and his devotion, love and commitment to the wonderful city of Pueblo deserves the thanks and praise of this Congress. I hope that Dean and Gigi both find success and happiness in their new life. Congratulations to both of you and good luck with your future endeavors!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that Congress take a moment to recognize and thank Howard Jay of Glenwood Springs, Colorado for his years of teaching and service to the community. The National Association of Elementary School Principals honored Howard as the National Distinguished Principal for the state of Colorado. Howard graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Education degree from Arizona State University and received a Masters of Arts in Education from Western State College. He spent three years teaching special education classes in Roy, Utah before moving to Colorado, where he worked as a teacher for five years, and as a principal for 15 years. In 1986 he became the assistant principal at Glenwood Springs Elementary, and then in 1989 Howard started his career as a principal. He has spent the last four years at Sopris Elementary School. ``It's quite an honor for our school and the community, as well as the district. The staff is just walking on air because of this, and I'm riding their coattails,'' said Howard. Howard has the ability to involve parents in the day-to-day operations, which makes the school's successes a real community effort. He also takes a leadership role in the community by being involved in various organizations. ``I'm thrilled for him. He's been with the district a long time and has worked hard to accomplish goals and to help teachers succeed with kids. I think that's what being a part of the community is all about . . . It's not just a job, it's your life,'' said Jim Phillips, former Glenwood Springs principal. Howard is the first principal in the district to win this prestigious award. ``We're as strong as the community we serve. If I'm being recognized, it just says great things for the community.'' Mr. Speaker, Howard, his wife Mary, and his three sons Zack, Steven and Jon should be proud of this achievement. Howard Jay has helped shape the minds of children for over 15 years and is well deserving of this award as well as the thanks and praise of Congress. Howard, congratulations on a job well done and best wishes for continued success and happiness!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, in regards to the gentlewoman from California, this diabetes is a horrible, horrible disease and there are lots of statistics that support exactly what the gentlewoman from California has said. If we could figure out a cure for diabetes, according to the statistical information that I have, it would be amazing how dramatically we could cut health care costs in this country. A huge portion of our Medicare and Medicaid budgets in this country are directly attributable to diabetes, juvenile diabetes, adult diabetes, et cetera, et cetera. So I encourage the gentlewoman from California to go on with her efforts. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to talk about the energy crisis that we have in this country; and I want to talk about what is our future. What is the future for this country? I want to talk about conservation. I want to talk about realistic conservation. I want to talk about the solutions that start at home, not solutions that are dictated out of Washington, D.C. However, before we do that, I just listened to an hour of rambling on about how bad the Republicans are here, how bad this is here and how bad that is there, and how California has innocently suffered the wrath of the United States, because California, after all, does not deserve this blame. I think we need to take just a couple of minutes of rebuttal. The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), my colleague, says that the answer for this energy crisis in California lies in Washington, D.C. I say to the gentleman, with all due respect, the answer should not come out of Washington, D.C. The answer should come at the local level and at the State level. Frankly, the State of California thought they would show all the other States how deregulation was done. They took the lead on deregulation, and they made a mistake. I say to the gentleman, with all due respect, the gentleman sounds like another gentleman from California. He sounds like defense attorneys. He blames everybody else: it is not my fault; it is their fault. It is not the fault of California; it is the fault of the Federal Government in Washington, D.C. It is not the fault of California and the State legislature and the Governor of California; it is the fault of the Western States. It is not the fault of the Governor of the State of California and the legislature of California; it is the fault of the oil companies or it is the fault of this and that. Mr. Speaker, we want to help California. Let me say something about California. Despite the fact that a lot of people in this country think they have it coming because of the fact that they do not want it in their backyard and, although they will never admit it, that is the attitude in California, and frankly, that has been the attitude in California. Despite the fact that some people think they have it coming, I am telling my colleagues here today, California needs our help. California is the sixth most powerful economic factor in the world. In other words, if California were a State of its own, California would be the sixth most powerful economy in the world. The United States of America is very dependent upon the State of California. After all, they are a State. They are our neighbors. They are fellow citizens. We have an obligation to help California. But, Mr. Speaker, before we go out to help somebody, especially somebody that got into that jam largely because of their own doing, we like to hear some kind of admission from the person that we are about to help: hey, I made a mistake. We would like to see a little humbleness come out of some of the people that have made this mistake, like the government and the legislature in California. But that is not what we are hearing. Instead, what we are seeing is the blame game. It is Washington, D.C.'s fault, it is Colorado's fault, it is Nevada's fault, it is everybody's fault but us here in California. Come on, Governor. One does not need to be a defense attorney. We are not out to prosecute California. We should not be out to prosecute California. We are not putting California on trial. Do not act like a defense attorney, I say to the Governor of California, and say that it is everybody else's fault and you share none of the fault. Stand up to it. Take the blame. Do not play the blame game. Do not delay the pain game. You think what you are trying to do out there in California is defer the pain: we will freeze these prices. That does not bring conservation. The Governor of California and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), why do you not just for a moment say, all right, maybe in California we have to change some of the philosophy we have had; maybe we have to come up with the approach that maybe somewhere it is going to have to happen in our backyard; maybe we have to admit that there is a balance out there, a balance, a balance that can be reached with conservation as an element, with energy production as an element. I mean there is a balance. In California, frankly, the problem is they have gone to one side of the balance, that somehow all of the production should take place out of the State of California. By the way, I heard one of the previous speakers talk about the power plants that are needing to be built in this country. Let me tell my colleagues, we have built three power plants a week, three power plants a week last year that came online in this country. Three a week. Multiply that times how many weeks we have in a year, and that is how many came online in this Nation. How many came online in the State of California? Zero. How many natural gas lines has the Governor of the State of California allowed? Zero. For 8 years their leadership out there has not had it come. Do not let California put the blame game on the rest of the United States. As I said earlier, the United States has an obligation to California. They are important for our economy. They are good people out there. They are people that are working hard and want this resolved. But the politicians in California, specifically that governor who I heard last Sunday on Meet the Press talk about maybe the answer is to seize the power plants; a Governor of California who blames everybody but himself for this problem in California. Come on. One cannot blame everybody else when one has not had a natural gas line in 8 years. They have not had any power plants come online in California last year, although throughout the rest of the country, we had three a week come online. You place price gaps; all you are doing is artificially messing with the market. Take a look. Every time the government gets involved, the consumer suffers. Tonight we hear some of my colleagues say, what we should do is go out and freeze the prices. Now, I know that sounds great. Who does not want to do that? But we do not get something for nothing. The best way to destroy conservation is to tell people the prices are not going to go up. I can tell my colleagues right now, the reason my wife and I are conserving, I think fairly extensively in our own personal life, is because our prices have gone up. If we let the market take its place, the market will produce. California has artificially tried to guide the market, first through deregulation, and then through their governor-led sponsorship of no price increase, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and look what has happened. California, if you want help, let us help you; but you have to participate. You have to be willing to help the other States produce this power. You have to be willing to let transmission lines be built in your State. You have to be willing to let a natural gas transmission line come through your State and distribute in your State. Anybody in these Chambers, anybody in these Chambers who does not want to help California ought to leave these Chambers. I mean that. Any one of my colleagues in here who does not want to help the State of California ought to leave these Chambers. That is a State in the Union. I think we have an obligation to help California. But by gosh, California has got to help pick itself up by its own bootstraps too. They have to help. And to the governor and the politicians out there in California, you have to help. The people of California deserve more, frankly, than I think you are giving them; and you do not help the situation in California by getting on the Sunday talk shows and blame it all on Washington, D.C. and blame it on all of the western States, blame it on everybody but your own regime out there in the government of California. Now, let us talk about not just California, let us talk about our entire country. What can we do with this energy crisis? How bad is the energy crisis. First of all, let me say to my colleagues, I think it is going to work itself out. Now, that might be heresy around here. What do you mean it is going to work itself out? We have a crisis that is going to sink this country. I do not think it is going to sink this country. In fact, I think the electrical power production will increase fairly dramatically in the next year or two. In fact, we may even have a glut out there of electricity. That is hard to believe. But if we take a look and go beyond the rhetoric, go beyond the emotion, we are going to see that this country, that the private marketplace out there, that the people of this country are an enterprising bunch of people, and we will be able to stand up to this. But one of the big factors, one of the most critical things we can do, every one of us, every one of us, I say to my colleagues, not only to help the State of California, but to help every one of our constituents out there is to take a serious look at what we can do for conservation. I say to my colleagues, do we know what is neat about conservation? We do not have to go through a lot of pain to conserve. I will give a good example. I have the statistics on it. No pain. I am going to give my colleagues some gain without any pain. My colleagues say, something for nothing? Let me tell my colleagues, take a look at this. How many people of America have read their owner's manual in their cars? I say to my colleagues, do it tonight. Take out the owner's manual and see what the manufacturer, the experts, the manufacturer, the engineers and the designers and the manufacturer of your car, take a look at what those experts say about how often you should change the oil in your car. My guess is, at a minimum, 5,000 miles, maybe 6,000 miles. Take a look at all of the advertising in the newspapers by the quick lubes and people like that. You should change your oil every 3,000 miles. I say to my colleagues, we could conserve lots of oil in this country without any pain, without any harm to our vehicles, without any harm to the motors that we operate, by simply taking the time, read the owner's manual and find out exactly when we do need to change the oil in that vehicle. If we could move people off the 3,000 mile oil change to the oil change recommended in the owner's manual, we would have a dramatic savings in petroleum products in this country. Let us talk about some other things. I have thought a lot about conservation; and I can tell my colleagues, I am exercising it myself. In fact, in the mornings, when I usually go back to my office, when I go into my office in the mornings, I get to the office oh, 6:30, 7 o'clock in the morning, and the first thing I do is I turn on every light in my office. I turn on every light. I started thinking about this a couple of months ago. I do not need every light. I probably have six or seven different lights in my office. What I do for the first 2 hours I am in the office is read or work on the phone. I have one light that provides enough light for that. So now in my office five lights stay off for an additional 2 hours. I just turn on the one light that I need to do my work. We can do it. All of us can conserve without a lot of pain. I have some other ideas here that I would like to go over, because they work. They work, again, without economic pain. We do not have to pay money to do it or go out and buy some fancy device or go out and buy a hybrid automobile in order to help us conserve, in order to help this country take a look at its consumption of energy and figure out how to get the same product with less energy. Let us go through a few things. Obviously, turn off room lights in rooms not in use. Although obvious, this tip saves the most energy. Take a look at a city. I was in Denver the other day. It was interesting to notice in Denver how many of those tall buildings which had cleaning crews in them, how many of those tall buildings had lights on them from the bottom floor clear to the top. If we could just go, if all of us could accept the responsibility of conservation, by just shutting the light off after we leave the room, we would have a dramatic impact. In the State of California alone, if the citizens in California, I say to Governor Davis, if his citizens in California would just simply change the oil when the owner's manual tells them to change the oil, not when their local quick-change outfit tells them to change the oil, if they would simply turn out the lights after they left the room and follow a few more of these tips, I can assure my colleagues from the State of California, their crisis would be much less than it is today. I am here to help. Let me tell the Members, every State in the Union is dependent upon the State of California, and, frankly, California is dependent upon us. We are a union of States. Let us go on. Set the thermostat to 69 degrees or less during the day, 60 degrees or less at night. Bundle up. Put on an extra sweater. Keep all exterior doors tightly shut and avoid frequent in-and-out traffic. Lower the temperature of the hot water heater to low, or 120 degrees. That is really a pretty simple thing. If we lower our water heater to 120 degrees, that is plenty hot. We are not going to suffer at all. We are not going to get a chill. We are going to feel that water is as hot as we could possibly want it, but we save energy by simply going down into the basement tonight, go to the hot water heater, turn that little button. We do not have to call the plumber in or call the electrician in. It is made for pretty simple adjustment by the homeowner. Go down and turn the switch from high, from medium to low. I assure the Members that tomorrow morning, tomorrow morning when we take a shower or bath or wash our hands in hot water, we will have to add cold water to hot water because that 120 degrees will be adequate, yet overnight we will have helped this country begin to work its way out of this energy crisis. Again, I am optimistic that we are going to work out of this crisis. In fact, I am more optimistic than most people here that we will get out of it sooner than we will later, but it is good for us to accept long-term conservation. We are not going to stop our conservation efforts once we work out of this crisis. What we are going to be able to do once we work out of this is we are going to be smarter. We are going to know how to use our energy better. Let us continue on, here. Do not let the hot water run while washing hands, brushing teeth, or shaving. That sounds pretty simple, but I was thinking about the comments I was going to make today. Believe it or not, this morning when I was at the gym I was shaving and I had the hot water running. Instead of just filling a bowl in the sink, I had the hot water running. Then I would go over and switch the TV channel and I would come back. I got to thinking, I probably had several gallons of hot water run down that drain. I can do it better, and we can do it better. Let us go on from there. Take shorter showers. Do not let the hot water run while washing hands, brushing teeth, or shaving. We went through that. Turn water on only when one is actually using it. Use smaller appliances such as microwaves, toaster ovens, and crock pots to cook meals. Use cold water to operate the garbage disposal. It is surprising how many people will turn on their garbage disposal and turn on the hot water in the sink. The garbage disposal does not require hot water, it will run with cold water. By the way, do not let it just run and run, with the water continually flowing and flowing. We can dispose of the garbage much quicker than most people usually do. We do not need to run that garbage disposal for 2 or 3 minutes. We can run it probably for 15 or 20 seconds, run the water for 15 or 20 seconds instead of running it five times as long as that to accomplish the same results. Let us just keep going. Wash clothes in cold water. Schedule washings so we can do the laundry in as few loads as possible. Air dry the clothes when possible. Close blinds, shades, and draperies. That is amazingly simple. When we leave during the day, if we want to maintain the coolness during the day in the summer coming up, close those blinds. It is amazing over a period of time how much energy and money, by the way, we will save for ourselves. These are pretty easy conservation tips that can be followed. Let us go on. Regular maintenance is important to the efficient operation of heating and air conditioning systems. Clean or replace air filters monthly. Vacuum and clean the condenser coils, fan blades, registers, and dampers frequently. Again, this does not require an electrician, it does not require a master mechanic. A lot of these are simple methods that we ourselves can do, like turning down that hot water heater. Shut off any unneeded lights, computers, motor-driven appliances and fans. If you use ceiling fans, blades should rotate. This is very important. I did not know this until I read this tip. If we are using a ceiling fan, and most of us have ceiling fans in the home, run it clockwise in the summer months because it pulls cool air up from the floor. I never even looked at my fans at my house, my ceiling fans, to see which direction they are running. I do know that the fans run either direction. But in the summertime, run those fans clockwise. It pulls the cool air off the floor and will reduce the utility bill, and it is more money in our pockets while at the same time we are helping the Nation conserve its energy. That is a win-win deal. That is how we are going to get to the bottom of this energy problem. Finally, before we move on, keep the doors closed as much as possible on refrigerated coolers. That makes a lot of sense. Tomorrow morning when we get ready for breakfast, let us take a look at what happens when we get the milk. We will run over and still have the refrigerator door open because we are going to go back and get the butter. Shut the door. Or many refrigerators have an outside door where one can open up a little door and keep the most frequently-used food products in that little box, and we will save ourselves some money. Over a period of time, that kind of money makes a lot of difference. Let me pull up this next one. I thought this was a fabulous poster when I saw it. That is why I have reproduced it. I want to go over it. ``How does electricity power my home? The electricity in a home travels through the house wires.'' We know that. ``The wires lead to light switches and outlets which power televisions, computers, lights, and most everything else in the home. Electricity makes our homes very comfortable to live in, but electricity is not free. Before electricity gets to our homes, some type of fuel must be used.'' Again, before the electricity gets to our house, some type of fuel must be consumed to generate that electricity. It can be coal, it can be nuclear elements, or even a dam on a river. We give up certain parts of nature to enjoy electricity, so we must do our part to conserve electricity. There is the balanced statement. We give up certain parts of nature. We do give up parts of our nature to enjoy the benefit of electricity, but while we do that, it is incumbent upon us to act in a responsible fashion. It is incumbent upon us to help conserve the utilization of that part of nature that we are bringing in so we have the convenience of electricity. For example, if we leave a light on in the room after we leave it, we are using electricity that we do not need. To conserve electricity, simply shut off the lights in the rooms we are not using. Other examples include: Shut off the TV when nobody is watching it. Keep the computer in sleep mode if we are not using it, and shut off the monitor. Use fluorescent lights or use gas-filled lights, like halogen lights. These light bulbs use less energy than regular light bulbs. Unplug appliances, like curling irons and irons, clothing irons, right away. Letting them sit while turned on wastes electricity, and on top of that, it is unsafe. There are lots of different ways we can conserve. My purpose in starting my comments out this evening about conservation is this solution, number one should not be dictated out of Washington, D.C. As I said earlier, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) says, ``Regulate. The solution rests in Washington, D.C.'' I appreciate the compliments of the gentleman from California that he has given to this respectable body in Washington, D.C., but I am telling the Members, the best answers start at home. The best answers start at home with conservation. The best answers start in our own States, where, on an environmentally sensitive and an environmentally clean and a safe project, it can allow natural gas transmission lines, for example, or allow electrical transmission lines. There is a balance out there that can be reached. What I have seen since we have gotten into this energy crisis is an extreme on this side and an extreme on this side. Some people say, drill wherever it is necessary to drill. Some people over here want us to live on the pretense that conservation alone will solve the problem or that we do not have to build any more electric plants in this country or that the oil and gas companies really somewhere in this world have a huge pool of gas that they are hiding because they do not want to sell it to us right now. It is interesting, when the price is the highest it has been in a long time, and they do not want to sell gasoline to us when they can make a lot of profit. Let us go on from there. Let us talk about some of the facts. I think tonight my real focus in the balance of my time is to do a little research, to look into some of the facts, and then let my colleagues draw their own conclusions. But I think I have some interesting information to reflect on here. Cleaner air. Energy consumption has risen while emissions have declined. Take a look at the emissions from a car or from a coal plant or from a nuclear plant or Florida hydro dam. Take a look at the pollution that was emitted 25 years ago. It is as dramatic a difference from 25 years ago to today as a car 25 years ago, its radiator system, heating system. Of course, it did not have the anti-lock brakes and things like that. The technology today has moved that car to a point that is fairly dramatic. We have done the same thing. Despite what we are hearing from one side, that we continue to generate electricity without any regard to the environment, that we continue to run our cars that are dirtier than ever, we hear misstatement after misstatement after misstatement. Here are some of the facts. It is American technology at work. Technology is another critical piece of this puzzle to solve this energy problem. Cleaner air. Energy consumption has gone up while emissions have declined. Here is our gross domestic product. That is recognized right here by the green line. It has gone up 147 percent. Our economy, our gross domestic product, has gone up 147 percent in the last 30 years. Vehicle miles traveled, the amount of miles we put in our vehicles country-wide, and obviously the population has gone up, that has resulted in additional miles of 140 percent in the last 30 years. U.S. coal consumption, the amount of coal that we are using every day for generation of power, that has gone up 100 percent. Energy consumption, the energy we are using in our country in the last 30 years, has gone up 42 percent. But take a look at what has happened to the key air emissions. It has gone down 31 percent. So consumption is up, the economy is up, the miles driven is up, but the emissions going out are going down. Why? Because it is American technology. That is one of the key ingredients. We have to encourage technology. Let us not be fooled, there are a lot of people that sell us the magic, like the old medicine man that drove around in a wagon and whatever sickness we had, he had a cure for it. We are going to see the same in this energy crisis. We are going to see all kinds of wild ideas they have the cure for. The taxpayers of this country, by the way, have for some period of time funded research on technology, and it is not working. It has not worked. We have to have enough guts, frankly, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, to stand up to a technology that is not working and take that money from a technology that is not working and put it into a technology that has some promise. President Bush has stepped forward and said, I have a number of programs out here that the American taxpayers have spent billions of dollars on and we have no real result, we need to use that money on other technology. It is not working. Do not just reject out of hand our proposition that all technology that is being studied out there is giving us promising results. It is not. It was of interest that I heard I think again the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) talk about hybrid cars, and the Japanese are the only ones who really have it out. He is wrong on that fact. In fact, Americans have a few out. But the Japanese in this article, it is in the newspaper today, the Japanese are having problems. They are not sure how much more production they can continue with that. Take a look at that. Do Members know what the Japanese are saying? ``We have to find a technology that conserves energy, that satisfies the consumer, and that operates in an economic manner such that the average consumer out there can afford it.'' Mr. Speaker, these are not graphs that I made up. These are graphs that are all sourced. It is information that if you listen to the emotional arguments that are going on out there, you would say this does not sound like what I just heard at coffee this morning. That is why I thought it would be important this evening to look at the facts. Let us put the emotions aside. Let us put the political arguments aside and look at some of the facts. The U.S. economy is more energy efficient. Energy use has been constant since 1972. Right there, that is the energy use. If we look at 1950, if we come back in 1950 and go to about 1972, the amount of energy use, we tracked the actual amount of projected energy use and the actual energy use. We recognized no savings, no efficiency, no real efficiency. But in 1972, because of the fact that the American people begin to demand from products more energy efficiency, we begin to see a dramatic gap. Today, had we not exercised that energy efficiency, had American technology and, frankly, some foreign technology not been deployed in everything from our appliances to increased mileage in our cars, our actual energy consumption would be right here. The American technology has that actual energy use right here. In a way, in a way, this energy crisis that we have today will actually be somewhat beneficial, because right now there are more Americans conserving every minute of the day today than there were just 1 year ago. There are many, many more Americans that will be conserving next week than were conserving this week. This gap right here will continue to grow. That is positive. Efficiency is being realized. Conservation is being realized. This next chart I think is very, very important. We cannot continue to ignore the fact. As I showed you on that earlier poster with electricity, having electricity come into your home means that somewhere, somewhere, fuel is being utilized to generate that electricity. It is the same thing with refrigeration. It is the same thing with our petroleum products, everything from the making of clothes to driving vehicles, air-conditioning units which preserve everything from medicine to our poultry, to our agricultural fields out there, all of these things require energy. What has happened in this country is that there has been a fairly directed attack, saying that any kind of pursuit of energy, any kind of development of oil and gas products, any kind of development of a coal product, any kind of a development of a nuclear product, any kind of development of a dam on a river for a hydroproduct, for some reason is fundamentally wrong; that this country should not do it. What has happened, unfortunately, is in some of those cases, including especially the nuclear generation case, these arguments have prevailed. Now, maybe that is what the American people want. I do not think so. Because, you know what it does? It makes us more dependent on countries who are not exactly allies of the United States of America. What happens when you become dependent on foreign energy resources? Then you are subject to their whims. Sixty percent, 60 percent, of our energy comes from overseas; 60 percent of it. If tomorrow OPEC, for example, decided they did not want to sell to the United States, can you imagine what that would do to us? If, for example, air, let us take the air, every breath you breathe in, you are dependent on 60 percent of your air from one source, and all of a sudden that source is shut off, you are all of a sudden going to be gasping for air. You are going to be short of air; dramatically short. That is exactly what happens if OPEC tomorrow decides to shut off the valve. That is not what we need, because that then brings on all kinds of panic. That is the kind of panic that brings on exploration that is not environmentally sensitive. That is the kind of panic where people begin to do things they should not be doing. So what we need to do is have some kind of a logistical balanced plan for a clean energy product. Take a look right here. This is our consumption since 1970, this blue line. These are net imports, that is the percentage. It is above 60 percent right now. That is a very dangerous line. That dependency on these countries puts our Nation at the whim of governments that may not have the best interests of the United States of America in their minds. As we begin to explore a little further this evening, I thought it would probably be useful to take a look at where the energy consumption is by sectors. Take a look at it from 1970. In 1970, this is residential, the blue reflects residential use. Compare residential use in 1970 with the jump that it is going to take by the year 2020, like we are talking about today, the year 2000. That is the blue line there. There is the blue line. In 1970, take a look at where commercial is today, the increase in commercial. Take a look right here on industrial, and we come over here on industrial. I mean, these lines are going like this. Finally, transportation. Transportation takes a huge leap, a huge leap, to move people, to move products. Remember that when you hear people talk about we need to reduce the number of cars we have and we need to get trucks off the road, remember that is what trucks provide. There is lots of transportation that takes place, and it is not transportation of a person from point A to point B; it is transportation of products from point A to point B. Most of the products that you have on right now, if I were to take a look at my own clothing, every piece of clothing I have on right now, my eyeglasses, my ring, all of this was dependent upon transportation. None of this was produced in the community in which I lived. I purchased it locally, but it was transported in. Transportation is a critical energy consumer in our economy. But now that we have an idea, somewhat of a relation of what energy consumption is, let us go a little further. As we continue in our society to provide, put more computers in rooms, to have more conveniences, even as we build bigger and better schools in our country, as we have more products that help us with different needs in this country, better machines in our hospitals, et cetera, et cetera, here is what is happening. Our energy consumption continues to go up, and this is our energy production at the 1990 to the 2000 growth rates. In other words, production is flat, consumption is going up. A portion of this gap, this gap, somehow we have to provide for that gap. The more this goes up, the red line, the more the green line stays flat; then the more we become dependent on foreign oil supplies or foreign energy supplies like OPEC. Again, that is very dangerous. Mr. Speaker, a portion of this red line, I think we can move this from an angle like this, perhaps down to an angle more like this, if all of us help conserve. That is where conservation comes in to help. But do not be led down the straight path by some of the speakers, including some who preceded me this evening. Do not believe that this entire gap here, like this line will come down to energy production level simply through conservation alone. Conservation is a critical factor. It helps, but it is not the total solution. The fact is we have to continue to build generation facilities in this country. And we are, by the way. Construction of generation facilities has not stopped in this country. It has stopped in California, but it has not stopped throughout the rest of the United States. Obviously, now it is restarting in California. We need this production. We need it handled in a safe way. I do not want my workers, and my colleagues do not want your workers working out there in an industrial facility that is not safe. We want safe facilities. We want clean facilities. My district has some of the cleanest water in the United States of America. My district, as you know, is the highest district in the Nation. It is the Rocky Mountains in the State of Colorado. I happen to think all of us take a great deal of pride in our district, but I happen to think that my district has a lot of unique beauty. We do not want dirty water in our district. On the other hand, we think we have hydroelectric power plants in our district, which we have some right now. We can have hydropower in our district without dirtying the water. We have hydroelectric plants that are safe, because we need them. We need the electricity. We need the energy. We need it done in an economic way that not just the wealthiest people of our society get the benefits of turning on a light switch anytime they want, the American people, regardless of their income level, have come to expect that when they turn on the light switch in the house, the lights come on. They have a right to that expectation, and we can provide that energy. We can provide that juice to them again in an efficient manner, in a safe manner and, most importantly of all, in a clean manner. Now, we have heard lots of emotional arguments in the last few weeks. The evil oil, the word ``oil.'' You would think if you heard the word ``oil,'' it is almost like a cuss word. When you were a young child, the teacher would slap you on your wrist: Do not say the word ``oil'' around here. Look, we need oil. There is a lot of our routine life that is fully dependent on oil: our health care, our medicines, our transportation, our air-cooling systems, our homes, construction; I mean, whatever you talk about, it is very interesting to hear people who speak very badly against oil. They think it is terrible that we have oil in our society. They come to the meeting, they drive up in a car, and they expect the room they are in to be at 68 degrees. They expect the light to go on when they flip the switch. And, by the way, you need oil to generate electricity. Oil is not an evil word. It is a resource that the entire world is dependent upon. It is a resource that we cannot afford to ignore. It is a resource that we must conserve. It is a resource that is fair game for us to utilize to provide for the needs that we have in our society. In the next 20 years, our demand for oil will increase by 33 percent. Yet, as demand rises, domestic production drops. We now produce 39 percent less oil than we did in 1970; almost 40 percent. We produce less oil, 40 percent less oil than we did just 30 years ago. We are down nearly 4 million barrels a day. Unless our policies change, domestic production will continue to drop to 5 million barrels a day in 2020, down from 9 million barrels a day 30 years ago. We are increasingly, and this is what frightens me, and I say to my colleagues take a very careful look, we are increasingly dependent on foreign governments for our oil. Back in 1973, we imported just 36 percent of our oil from overseas. Today we import 54 percent of our oil. When you add the other energy that we import, almost 60 percent of the Nation's energy needs are imported from foreign governments. The number of U.S. refineries has been cut in half since 1980. There has not been a new refinery built in this country, in the interior of this country, in more than 25 years. We have to come to some policy decisions. As I said earlier, those policy decisions are best made at the State level, not at the level of this Congress in Washington, D.C. I keep hearing over and over, California, the Governor of California, again acting like a defense attorney, blaming it on everybody else and focusing his blame on D.C., and saying Washington, D.C. ought to come up with the remedy. California, you need to help yourself, and you can begin by conserving. You can begin by forgetting these artificial price freezes out there. Face up to the music. The reality is you have got to allow electrical generation to be built in your State. The reality of it is, despite the fact that the Governor and some politicians may despise the oil production, it is sometimes necessary. Not sometimes, it is necessary. It is necessary to my colleagues in California that you, like every other State in the Union, allow natural gas transmission lines. Look, we can do it in a clean manner, and we have a responsibility to do it in a clean and efficient manner. I despise somebody coming into my district who thinks they want to explore for natural gas resources and leaves a scar on the land or damages the environment or, worse than that, dirties our water. Because back where I am, water is like blood. We can do it without that kind of destruction. We have a responsibility, one, to provide energy to our constituents, and, two, to do it in an efficient manner that is also a clean and safe manner. Natural gas. Let us move to natural gas very quickly. Consumer prices for natural gas have increased twenty-fold in some parts of the country over the past year. America's demand for natural gas is expected to rise even more dramatically than oil. According to the Department of Energy, by 2020, we will consume 62 percent more natural gas than we do today. Now why am I talking about 2020? Look, part of our leadership role in Washington, D.C. is to provide for the young people and for the future of this country. We have an obligation in my opinion to make sure that the future generations to this country are not dependent on foreign governments, that the future generations of this country have fuel services, fuel energy resources that can be provided through the most modern technology we have. We have an obligation for the people in 2020 that they are not going to have polluted air, that their water is clean, and when they turn on the switch, they can have electricity. We can do it. Right now, an estimated 40 percent of potential gas supplies in the United States are on Federal lands that are either closed to exploration or limited by severe restrictions. Even if we find supplies of gas, moving to the market, it will require an additional 38,000 miles of pipeline and 225,000 miles of transmission lines. The problem of inadequate supply lines is illustrated by Prudoe Bay in Alaska. The site produces enough gas a day to meet 13 percent of American's daily consumption. But because a pipeline has not been built, the gas is pumped back to the ground; and in some cases, the gas is simply burned off. Let us take a look very quickly at what our problems are region by region in the United States. I think of all the charts that I have shown this evening, this one will probably be of the most interest. We have heard a panic across the country about electricity. I really think the electrical shortage in California is going to be limited pretty much to California this summer. New York City is going to be hit with some of it, but New York City can have the utilization of generation, portable generators. So I think New York City will probably be able to get through the summer pretty well, too. Now, California has got a problem. But I do not want, Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues to think that we need to panic, that the entire Nation is going to have the electrical crisis as is faced in California. Let us take a look at what stands out in California. Dark days are ahead, an estimated 34 of them. Actually, I think they will probably have more than 34 days of blackouts as summer descends on the once Golden State. Rolling blackouts are inevitable if California uses as much electricity as it did last year. Now, what are some of the problems of California? First of all, the Governor of California blames it on everybody else. Second of all, I wanted the Governor of California to know that we in Congress feel an obligation to help California. And unlike what the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the previous speaker, said, that President Bush told California to drop dead, President Bush never said that. That is a highly inaccurate statement. It is charged with emotion. It is misleading. That statement was never made by President Bush. We care about California. But, California, there are a couple of things we need to do to alleviate the problem. One is conservation. I have spent a lot of time this evening on conservation. Two, they need transmission lines. Our transmission systems in this country can only handle so much of a load. It is as if you have lots of cars. For example, let us say you have a pickup and you need to go from one community to the other community. If you do not have a road to get you between them, it does not do you any good no matter how many pickups you have. You have got to have a path. You have got to have transmission lines. California, you are going to have to build some transmission lines. California, you are going to have to build some gas transmission lines. California, you are going to have to do some things in your own backyard. You are going to have to bring electrical generation facilities on-line. Now, let us look up to the Pacific Northwest. Now, the Pacific Northwest faces problems, not because of lack of generation, not because of lack of foresight, not because they attempted to deregulate, but because of nature. They have the second worst drought on record. The second worst drought on record has tamed the mighty Columbia River, a source of most of the Pacific Northwest electricity. Enough hydroelectric capacity has been lost to power four Seattles just because they have not had the rainfall. This cycle, too, will pass, but this is their problem this summer. Texas. Texas has a very interesting situation. Texas has kind of been self-sufficient on its power generation, but its power grid is pretty well restricted to Texas. It does not have the continental transmission lines that most other States have. New power plants mean an ample supply for the Lone Star State, but its freestanding power grid does not allow it to share its electricity riches with others. So, in Texas, they are beginning to expand their transmission lines to help the rest of the United States. It was nothing but political rhetoric in my opinion. When Governor Davis on Sunday, Gray Davis out there in California, every other sentence, he kept blaming the Texans for California's problem. Take a look at a replay of that Meet the Press or whatever it was. Every other sentence, it was Texas' fault; and then the sentence in between, it was Bush's fault. Here is a State that pulled itself up by its bootstraps and is now running transmission lines to help other States. Mid-Atlantic. Most mid-Atlantic States can rest easy this summer because largely of their sophisticated shared system to ensure electricity reliability. They know that they need that energy. They have planned for that. They have not pretended that some kind of magic fix was out there, that they did not have to have electrical generation, or they did not need transmission lines; but, yet, they still have low-priced power coming into their homes. That is the dream that took place out here in Disney Land. It is not what took place in the mid-Atlantic. In the mid-Atlantic States, they knew they had to plan for it, and they have done it in an environmentally sensitive manner. They also are exercising conservation. New York City is unable to generate enough electricity within its border to meet its demand. With the blackouts in 1995 and 1997, the officials are racing to install 10, actually more as I understand it today, more power plants as a hedge against these shortages. Look, the United States is preparing for this. This energy crisis is not going to bring us to our knees. But it is going to bring to our attention the fact that conservation is important, that exploration is important, that there is a balance out there. It will also continue to bring to our attention the fact that we all have to share in this. California, you can no longer enjoy the privilege of saying, no, not in my backyard. I say to the governor of California, you can no longer enjoy the privilege of saying no electrical generation in my State. It is time for us to take a new look at whether or not hydropower, which is the cleanest power out there, or nuclear power, if we can do it in a safe and environmentally conscious way, why not look at it. We ought to put these things on the table. That is exactly what President Bush has committed to do. He has assigned his Vice President Dick Cheney to go out there and take a look at the different alternatives, which also include conservation, despite the liberal Democrats, this vision of emotional fear that they are trying to put out there that conservation is not a critical part of this puzzle. In fact, my colleagues will find out with the announcements tomorrow that it is a part of the puzzle. But my colleagues also have to understand that conservation alone, while it is important, it alone will not meet the energy needs of this country. So we have to face up to these facts. I think the American people are willing to do it. Mr. Speaker, I have got about 7 minutes, and I want to take this last 7 minutes to kind of resummarize what we have visited with in the last 50 minutes. I stand before my colleagues today saying that I do not think this energy crisis is going to bring down America. I do not think this energy crisis is going to bring down our economy. Our economy is having some tough times. It is not solely because of the energy crisis that our economy is suffering. There are a number of different factors. There are a number of economies around the world that are suffering. Our economy, too, will recover. But this is a good time for us to reflect as American people on what do we do about energy for the future of this country. Today we have plenty of power. Here in the House, I do not know, I probably have 100 lights lit up above us right here. All our TV cameras are powered. All my colleagues have watches on their hands that have batteries that are powered. We are not suffering in this country, really suffering in this country. But we do have an obligation to look to the future. We have an obligation for some foresight. We have an obligation for this generation, not just this generation, the one we live in, to provide the energy needs that they have. But we have an obligation to move in some kind of direction that will prove positive for future generations of this country. We have to face some realistic facts. Let us go through the facts. Conservation makes a difference. Every one of us can help conserve. I am doing it in my family. I can tell my colleagues what has driven most incentives to conserve in this country in the last few months is not government action by Governor Davis in California or by the government bureaucracy back in Washington or by those elected to Congress. We are not the ones who have driven people to conservation. Do my colleagues know what has driven them to conservation? It hit them in the wallet. It has cost a lot more money. My wife and I are trying to conserve. We started several months ago. Why? Because we got a power bill we had not seen in a long time. That hurt. We began to conserve. Guess what? It works, and it has not hurt our life-style. So conservation works. But conservation alone will not close the gap between energy consumption and energy production. Here is production. Here is consumption. That conservation will help close the gap, but it will not close the gap. So I do not think we should stand up here and hold out as villains those leaders such as President Bush, the Vice President, who say we need to do exploration. We need to lessen our dependency on foreign governments. That is a real pickle we are getting future generations into. We are obligating future generations of this country to foreign governments who do not have the best interest of the United States of America in mind. In fact, many of those countries could care less about what happens to the United States of America. We have got to look out for ourselves. We cannot just tell California to look out for themselves. We as a Nation, including California, need to look out for this Nation. We need to help protect future generations. So this energy problem that we have got today can help be resolved starting today. Tomorrow, my colleagues are going to hear the President come out with some proposals. I gave my colleagues some proposals tonight. Let us look at those real quick. Every one of my colleagues, my guess is most of them change the oil in their car every 3,000 miles. Certainly if they do not, they have heard the advertising that you need to change it every 3,000 miles. All of us could help conserve oil without any pain if we simply looked into the owners manual and changed our oil pursuant to the recommendation of the manufacturer and the engineers who put this product together. My guess is most of my colleagues will find out they actually do not need to change their oil except every 5,000 or 6,000 miles, and they can cut their oil consumption in that car in half as far as their engine oil is concerned. Turn out the lights when you leave the room. Help get together at a community level, not have policy dictated to you through regulation out of Washington, D.C., from forum and community level, to the community, to the County, to the State levels on ways that your State can help this Nation conserve on energy. At the same time, when you are having those conversations, have open and legitimate conversations about what do we do for energy production. It is best that we come to the table with an open mind on conservation and it is best that we come to the table with an open mind on energy production. We cannot do one without the other. The solution for the problem that we are now seeing in this country, that we are experiencing in our every day life in this country, can be resolved through a commonsense, clean, and safe solution of more energy production and more conservation. It works. It is a win-win for us today, and it is a win-win for the future of this country.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, what a bunch of hogwash. I was just peering over the last few minutes. What is this, Broadway? I am saying this to the Democrats, what is this, Broadway? They have got a Member up here with a gasoline can stomping around trying to use his theatrical props. Before the speaker, before the gas can, we had another Member on the other side of the aisle up here playing with some dice. This is serious business. We are not on Broadway over here, we are on Washington, D.C. using other people's money. Did my colleagues ever hear of play on Broadway ``Using Other People's Money''? That is exactly what the Democrats want to do, but they want to use more and more of other people's money. Their policy is simple: spend, spend, spend. When the American taxpayer, who, by the way, is the American worker and, by the way, men and women that are working out there in that workplace, when they begin to question the liberal Democrats about their policy of spend, spend, spend, they come up with one answer: fear tactics. I will tell my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), and I question the accuracy of his remarks, in fact, they are inaccurate. Let me quote his remarks: If we pass this, all future needs of this country cannot be met, if you give a tax refund to the taxpayers. He goes on further: Further, if you give a tax cut to the American taxpayers, no money for education, no student finance assistance, no prescription drugs, no health care, no more money for the Cops on the Street, and once again he summarizes, it stops all future needs of this country. It is that kind of exaggeration that puts disrespect in Washington, D.C. That is why people are concerned about the integrity of the institution back here. My colleagues are talking about other people's money, and they ought to move it off Broadway and they ought to move it to Main Street. Those liberal Democrats that want to continue to spend and spend and spend should at least have enough guts to stand up to the people who are working for this money, who are creating jobs in this country, and tell them they want to spend, spend, spend instead of threatening them with their future education for their children or all future needs of this country will not be met if a tax cut goes to the American taxpayer. Take a look. Everybody on this House floor, all of my colleagues, we do not go out there. Our salary is created by tax dollars. We do not go out and sell more hamburgers or put up a Kool-Aid stand or mow a lawn. We reach into people's pockets and take the money they got for selling a hamburger or setting up a Kool-Aid stand or mowing a land. We take their money, and the first thing we do is pay ourselves. The second thing we do, when we discover there is money left, do not give it back to that person, people at the Kool-Aid stand. Just spend it, spend it, spend it. When the person at the Kool-Aid stand says, hey, can I have a little back of what I gave you? You have some extra money. No, not if you care about your kids' education. No, not if you care about more cops on the street. No, not if you care about prescription care. In fact, no, not if you care about any future need of the country. What an exaggeration. The Republicans and the conservative Democrats deserve more from the liberal side of the Democratic party. My colleagues ought to follow the leads of their conservatives over there and give back these taxpayers a little of what they deserve.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize an individual who throughout the course of his career--and indeed his life--has served the citizens of the United States with great distinction, Mr. Dan Penry. After over 25 years of service as a Federal Probation and Parole officer, Dan is set to begin a much- deserved retirement at the end of this May. As family, friends and colleagues gather to celebrate his accomplished tenure with the federal courts, I too would like to pay tribute to Dan and thank him for his service. Clearly, his hard work is deserving of thanks and praise of Congress. Born in Detroit, Michigan to Marian and Fred Penry, Dan moved to Fairhope, Alabama at a young age, a place he would call home throughout his formative years. Growing up in Alabama with five brothers--Leonard, Fred, Pete, Jim and Tom--Dan was a wonderfully gifted young athlete, a talent shared by all of his brothers. He would go on to a noteworthy athletic career at Fairhope High School, lettering in four sports as a schoolboy--football, basketball, baseball and track. To this day, Dan and his brothers are remembered for their athletic prowess during their high school days. After graduating from high school, Dan experienced first hand the defining experience of his generation--the Vietnam War. Drafted into the United States Army, he served America in Vietnam as a Military Police Officer stationed in, among other places, the City of Saigon. Dan broke away from the war effort in September of 1966 on a brief furlough to marry Linda Smart, his beautiful wife of the last 34 plus years. After marrying in Hawaii, Dan returned immediately to Vietnam, finishing out his tour just as he had started it--with honor and distinction. After returning Stateside, Dan immediately enrolled in college, earning his undergraduate degree from Metro State College in Denver and Master's from the University of Northern Colorado in a matter of only a few years. Thereafter, he went to work for the Texas Commission of the Blind, eventually moving to the United States Courts as a federal parole officer where he's worked ever since. Mr. Speaker, for the last 25 years Dan Penry has served his community, state and nation well as a United States Probation Officer. While asserting a genuine toughness with his parolees, Dan has also shown a compassionate side, earning the respect and, in many cases, the friendship of those who have committed themselves to true rehabilitation. Dan has been a tireless worker throughout his tenure, covering a field area that looks an awful lot my Congressional District--a District larger than the State of Florida. Through it all, Dan has been a model of integrity, hard work and professionalism. That service and leadership will be very difficult to replace. As Dan's accomplished career with the federal government winds down, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank him for his service to our country. I know that his wife Linda, his daughter Kristi, and his son Josh couldn't possibly be prouder of him. That, Mr. Speaker, is a sentiment shared by Dan's friends, colleagues and associates, as well as the United States Congress. Dan, congratulations on a job well done and best wishes for continued success and happiness during your well deserved retirement!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the City of Montrose, Colorado on receiving the `Small Community of the Year' award from the Economic Developers' Council of Colorado. Montrose was given this honor for its economic activity through out the year. Every year the EDC honors a small community that has distinguished itself in economic or community development. ``The Montrose Economic Development Council has shown itself to be one of the most effective, viable and responsible economic development programs in Colorado,'' said Don Dunshee, president of the state council, in a Daily Sentinel article. Clearly, the Montrose EDC has been the driving force behind Montrose's prosperity. In 2000, MEDC facilitated four deals that by 2005 will have contributed more than $12 million in annual payroll to Montrose. It retained three local companies and recruited a New Jersey manufacturer, generating 117 additional jobs. Also in 2000 the MEDC launched its new five-year prosperity plan, which predicts a $188.4 billion return to the area's economy on an investment of $2 million. ``It's that can do attitude that we possess, I think, that this award reflects,'' said Steve Jenkins, executive director of the MEDC. In 2001, the MEDC is implementing its ``Cornerstone Initiative'' to shepherd economic growth into the future. ``What we want to do is create the right type of jobs without the impact to the community. That ensures the community is prosperous in the long term,'' said Jenkins. Mr. Speaker, for years the Montrose Economic Development Council has helped small, local businesses achieve their American Dream, and with that, the City of Montrose is experiencing a period of economic growth that benefits everyone. For that, they deserve our thanks and praise.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad time in Colorado, Jack Elway, the father, mentor and friend of Denver Bronco great John Elway. Jack passed away from a heart attack over Easter weekend at the age of 70. Not only is this a great loss for the Elway's, it's a loss for the Denver Bronco organization and the state of Colorado. Jack was not only a football coach, pro scout, and a father but he was the best friend and longtime mentor of his son, John. ``I'm just so shocked. What a classy, loving person. He was as fine a coach as there was, and more important, a fine a man as there was,'' said Colorado State football coach Sunny Lubick. ``The passing of Jack Elway is a tragedy for his family and for the entire Denver Broncos family as well. He was a first-class individual in every way,'' said Mike Shannahan, head coach of the Broncos. In addition to being a great husband, father, and grandfather, he was a tremendous friend to everyone here at the Broncos, and played a vital role in personnel evaluation for back-to-back World Championship teams. ``Jack was happy to stay in the background and let others get more public attention, but his position with us was truly invaluable. Our teams have had great success with free agent players, and Jack Elway was in charge of that area. Even in his retirement, we leaned on him a couple of months a year regarding talent.'' Jack worked with the Broncos organization from 1993 until 2000 when he retired. During his time with the broncos, he served as a pro scout and then as Director of Pro Scouting, a position which he held four previous times with different teams. Before coming to the Broncos, Jack was the head coach of the Frankfurt Galaxy in the World League for two seasons. Through out his football career, Jack has coached several college and high school teams, including Cal State Northridge, San Jose State, and Stanford. Jack is a native of Hoquiam, Washington, and played quarterback for Washington State, where he earned his bachelor's and master's degrees. ``Whether it was about football, whether it was about life or friendships, he was a coach all the time. He had a wealth of knowledge and experience and with the people he cared about. He shared that all the time. You cannot replace people like that. It cannot be done,'' said Ted Sundquist, Denver's director of college scouting. ``There is nobody that didn't like Jack Elway,'' said Bronco owner Pat Bowlen. ``Here it is Easter, and Jack dies on the biggest celebration day of the year. He's arriving up there with a party and Jerry waiting for him.'' Mr. Speaker, the memory of Jack Elway will always be with his wife Jan, his three children, Lee Ann, John, and Jana, his friends and the state of Colorado.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I now honor an extraordinary human being and great American. Officer Ryan Cunningham of the Vail Police Department was killed in the line of duty on Sunday, May 5, 2001 while trying to avoid an out of control semi truck. ``Officer Cunningham was one of the finest officers I have known in my 24 years of policing,'' said Vail Police Chief Greg Morrison. In the early morning hours of Sunday, Ryan and another officer responded to an accident on I-70 when a truck driver lost control of his semi on an icy stretch of road and began heading in Ryan's direction. Ryan's immediate reaction was for those around him. After he was sure of the safety of his fellow officers, Ryan ran to the left shoulder and tried to protect himself by jumping over a concrete retaining wall. He fell 60 feet to his death. The truck was able to make a controlled stop 100 feet away from where Ryan jumped. Ryan was born in Salt Lake City and moved to Colorado in 1992 where he graduated from Arapahoe Community College in 1998. He joined the Vail Police Department in 2000. ``Ryan just radiated goodness. He was a member of the Latter Day Saints church. His dedication to family and community was very, very heartfelt,'' Morrison said. ``He was a fine human being.'' Mr. Speaker and fellow colleagues, as you can see, this extraordinary human being truly deserves our timeless gratitude for his service and supreme sacrifice while in the line of duty. Ryan Cunningham may be gone but his legacy will long endure in the minds of those who were fortunate enough to know him. Colorado is assuredly a better place because of Ryan Cunningham.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, It is with great honor that I ask this body to recognize and congratulate the first recipient of the ``Outstanding Teacher Award'' presented by the Dove Creek Soil Conservation District. Dolores County High School teacher Linda Coffey, received the award for her outstanding work with students over the years. The award was created to emphasize the importance of teachers in the lives of our children. After graduating high school, Linda attended the University of Northern Colorado where she received her teaching certificate. Overall, she has taught for 19 years, covering a variety of subjects like, Computer Applications, Keyboarding I & II, Accounting, Senior Seminar and Office Job Applications. ``I have had the pleasure of working with Linda Coffey for five years now. In that time I have come to know her as a very caring and compassionate teacher,'' said Stephen Baroch, principal of Dolores County High School. Linda is also the FBLA Sponsor and the Senior Class sponsor. ``A lot of respect and admiration is evident in all of her classes. Linda is very popular with students and willing to go that extra mile to help a student succeed,'' said Principal Baroch. ``Being passionate about learning and high expectations encompasses everything that Linda believes in. I appreciate everything that she is willing to do for our school and community.'' Mr. Speaker, Linda has succeeded in making sure that students learn and feel comfortable in her class. She is very deserving of this award and it is fitting that she be recognized as the first ever recipient of this ``Outstanding Teacher Award''. I would like to congratulate her and wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate two Western State College graduates. Richard and Grace Nugent will graduate in May with degrees in art and English. But they are not your typical grads. Richard is going on 69 and Grace will soon turn 64 years old. Richard and Grace have been students at WSC since 1998. Grace attended college for the first time, while Richard is finishing his education, which was cut short in the 1950's. ``We've always had some kind of goal--some kind of plan we were working towards,'' Grace said in a recent Denver Post article. ``A lot of people our age figure they're done. We continually have something to look forward to.'' Richard and Grace had been operating a bed and breakfast in Crawford, Colorado when they decided they needed a new challenge. They were not your ordinary nontraditional students. Instead of just attending classes, Richard and Grace decided to immerse themselves in the college experience. They moved into the dorms, ate college food and hit the hot college hang outs on Friday nights. ``They blend in well. They seem to belong,'' said Robert Sewell, a student who works out with Richard. ``This is so great,'' Richard said. ``Have you ever been in nursing homes? They're just sitting there. But look around here, there is life here.'' After graduation, Richard and Grace will start their new careers as English teachers in China. Mr. Speaker, it is great to see two people so far along in life return to their youth. I want to congratulate Richard and Grace Nugent on their graduation and wish them all the best teaching English in China. I know they will put forth the same effort and enthusiasm with their new career as they did in college. Richard and Grace, job well done!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that Congress pause for a moment of silence in memory of a life long resident of Durango, Colorado. Marion E. Jenkins, owner and operator of the former Jenkins Ranch, died from a stroke on April 30 at the age of 82. Marion became a friend of everyone he met and will truly be missed. ``He was one of those guys you loved being with, and he loved being with you,'' said Kenny Jenkins, Marion's son. ``He never was a stranger. Everybody was his friend.'' Marion was a cattle rancher who loved to tell stories and travel across the United States with friends and family. Marion moved to the family ranch in 1920. Over the years the ranch grew to 520 acres, which was used primarily for cattle and crops. Marion served in the U.S. Army Medical Corps during World War II, where he was present at the Normandy Landing. ``He's one of those people that will sorely be missed,'' said friend Ray Stolworthy. ``Marion Jenkins would like to be remembered as a person who would not condemn anybody for something they wanted.'' Mr. Speaker, Marion Jenkins spent a lifetime being everyone's friend, for that I would like Congress to take a moment and pay respects to a great friend. An entire community will miss Marion.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I ask Congress to pay tribute to a native Coloradoan. David Jerry Donelan passed away on April 5 at the young age of 31. His family as well as all the people he came in contact with throughout his life will miss David. David grew up in Aspen, Colorado and attended the University of Colorado were he graduated in 1993. Following graduation, David worked as a field director for Terry Considine's unsuccessful race for a U.S. Senate seat in Colorado. At the conclusion of the campaign, GOP leaders were very impressed with David's hard work. Sensing that David had a political future, he was quickly hired at the Colorado State Republican Party to serve as the Deputy Political Director. During the 1993-1994 election cycle, David played a critical role in maintaining GOP control of the state House and Senate. He worked closely with and provided countless hours of assistance to candidates from throughout the state. After the 1994 election cycle David was hired by a major lobbying firm and worked on a number of governmental issues important to the state of Colorado. David is survived by his parents, Charles and Penny, sister Shanley, grandparents, Bruce and Florence McKenzie and godfather George Beckvermit. Mr. Speaker, David made a quick climb up the ladder of success and influenced a lot of people. His death is tragic, and he will be missed by everyone that knew him. David was an inspiration to all who knew him.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like Congress to take this moment to honor local flight instructor Deanna Strand who was named Federal Aviation Administration ``Flight Instructor of the Year'' in both the Salt Lake City District and the Northwest Mountain District. Deanna has been an instructor for 18 years, and wouldn't have it any other way. Deanna has been around planes for more than 30 years, but her true passion has always been teaching. She owns and operates her own school, Strand Flying School, where she teaches people from all over the world how to fly. ``She's real patient. I've probably asked her the same questions five times, but she just tells me the answer again without getting mad,'' said Andrew Donelly, a 15-year-old student. She became so good at flying that the FAA asked her to become an examiner and perform final flight checks at the age of 29. She is one of only two pilots on the western slope to hold the position. In addition to the two FAA awards, Deanna is featured on the Discovery Wings Channel program ``Aviatrix''. ``I have the most fun teaching and training,'' said Deanna. ``It's fun for me because I get to see a student grow and develop in something they enjoy.'' Mr. Speaker, Deanna has excelled at something that she enjoys very much. She is a world-renowned pilot and for that, I would like Congress to applaud her for everything she has accomplished and wish good luck in future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank and say good-bye to a nationally recognized leader in outdoor recreation. Laurie Mathews announced her departure from the Colorado State Parks system, after a decade long tenure as its director. The state of Colorado will miss Laurie's leadership as well as her dedication to the park system in Colorado. During her ten years with the state parks, Laurie helped bolster environmental and interpretation, adding 30 seasonal interpreters, while developing programs that reach more than one million visitors per year. The State Trails program under Laurie's leadership grew to more than $4 million dollars annually. ``The people of Colorado have been lucky to have Laurie Mathews at the helm of the State Parks for the past decade, a time of transition for the State Parks system into a national model,'' said Governor Bill Owens. ``On behalf of the people of Colorado, I want to thank Laurie for her significant contributions to our beautiful state.'' Laurie oversaw the addition of 25,000 acres, worth $54 million to the State Park system as well as an initiative to improve staffing levels and customer service throughout the state. She also created the Crown Jewel initiative, which brokered the cost share with the Bureau of Reclamation that brought over $40 million in renovation to Colorado State Parks, and oversaw the construction of 19 new visitor centers. ``The last ten years have been a remarkable experience for me. I am very proud of the accomplishments I've been fortunate enough to be part of, from the addition of incredible new park lands and buffer lands to new visitors centers the people of Colorado will be able to enjoy for generations,'' said Laurie. ``What I will miss most are the wonderful people who work for Colorado State Parks. I am honored to have been part of such a strong and talented team.'' Mr. Speaker, the people of Colorado will miss Laurie's leadership greatly. She has done so much for the beauty of Colorado and for its citizens. For that I would like to say thanks and wish her good luck in her new career with the Himalayan Dental Relief Project in Nepal. I know she will excel just as she did with the Colorado State Parks system.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, once again I want to spend a little time with an evening chat. I want to discuss this evening a couple of issues, but first of all I will rebut a couple of the comments that were made in the last hour. As my colleagues understand the rules on the House floor, the previous speakers were allowed to speak 1 hour unrebutted, and now I have an opportunity to speak for an hour. It was not my intent when I came over here this evening to rebut this, but some of these statements were so strong that certainly my colleagues deserve to hear what the other side of the story is. It reminded me of a courtroom, one time in a closing argument where the statement was made that if you have ever been a parent you understand that if there is a problem between two children and you separate the children, each child comes up and tells you an entirely different version of what happened. And it is not that either child is intending to lie; it is that through the eyes of those two different children, they have seen different versions. And I think that is what happens here. It is not necessarily between Republicans and Democrats, although clearly there is a line drawn between the moderate and conservatives versus the liberal side of the Democratic party, but I think what we heard in the preceding hour certainly reflects the more liberal side, the left side, of the Democratic Party. I do not think it is the mainstream of America, and I do not think it represents the mainstream in this body. I mean, how many of my colleagues will turn their backs on the elderly? Give me a break. There is nobody in these Chambers that intentionally turn their backs on the elderly. That is an exact statement that was made here just a few minutes ago, that our President, through his policy, turns his back on the elderly. As strongly as I disagreed with President Clinton in the previous administration, I never accused him of turning his back on the elderly. It is these kinds of emotionally driven comments that are really nothing but, in my opinion, an effort to have emotion drive the issue instead of facts. We cannot come to a good solution if the means to get to that solution is driven entirely on emotion. That is exactly why this country has got financial problems; it is exactly why this country got into a deficit, because time after time after time Members of this body go out, and in their leadership strategy they lead the public by emotion; and then they leave it to the other Members to try to dig out what the facts are. We see it out in the West. We see it all the time in the West on the public lands, where emotion drives the issue, not the science of the forests, not the science of the use of the water, not the science of using dams for hydropower, but the emotion of it. All the good of a hydroelectric power plant in the West can be overcome by simply tying it to some kind of degradation of Yellowstone National Park. So what I would say to my colleagues that just preceded me speaking is, come on, let us talk about the facts. Next time I would be happy to join those colleagues. Bring a pencil and a calculator and let us see how we are going to afford exactly what they prescribed this evening. Of course all of us in this country are having problems with pricing on prescription drugs. Of course, everybody that I would run a survey on and asked if they would like help on their prescription drugs are going to say yes. Anytime somebody offers to help pay our obligations with others' money, not our own money, with someone else's money, well, we are happy to accept that. The proposals that were being made this evening by these preceding speakers, they are emotional. They sound wonderful. How can you lose? Somebody else gets to pick up the tab. And by the way, anybody that says maybe we ought to do the addition, maybe we ought to figure out the bottom line, that people will pay more and that we will have the government interfering more, maybe we ought to take a look at that. But the minute we say that, we get a comment from the left side that says, well, they are turning their backs on the elderly. And it is some of these very same types of comments, or in my experience these types of representatives from that side of the party, that show up here and talk about how we turn our backs on education or we are ignoring the children or we do not care about this or we do not care about that. I have yet, I have yet to find one Congressman, Democrat or Republican, or independent, I have yet to find one Congressman that does not like education. I have yet to find one Congressman that intentionally or with any kind of design whatsoever turns their back on the elderly. There are a lot of hard-working focused people in this body, none of which by the way, in my opinion, deserve to have the label put on them that they are turning their back on the elderly. And the same thing applies for the administration, this administration as well as the previous administration. As I mentioned earlier, my disagreements with the Clinton administration were clear, and in my opinion they were very strong disagreements with the Clinton administration; but I never went to that administration and said they turned their back on the elderly or they turned their back on this or they turned their back on that. So I think, really, in order for us to get to a solution in regards to prescription and health care in this country, we need to put some of this emotional rhetoric aside and sit down at a table. And when my colleagues come to that table, they had better bring a pencil and a calculator, because we cannot put together a wish list without figuring out, number one, who pays for it; number two, how we are going to pay for it; and, number three, what are the honest expectations of that cost. Take a look, for example, when Social Security was first conceived back in the 1930s. It was never intended to be a full retirement. Do not kid yourself. Social Security was never intended by the people of this country to be a full retirement package. Take a look at where we are today. Today, it is an expectation. It is an entitlement program for full retirement. That is what some people expect. As a result, some of us on this floor continue to give and give and give; and yet this system now, for future generations, for our young people, and if my colleagues want to talk about somebody we need to pay attention to, look at this young generation and try to explain to them with a straight face that there is going to be Social Security dollars around. One of our problems today is we pay out $118,000 for people on Social Security today. For a couple we pay out $118,000 more on average than they put in the system. Now, how does that work? It does not work very well. Later this evening I am going to talk a little about energy. You cannot continue to tell the consumer out there that their prices are not going to increase on the demand side and pay escalating prices on the supply side. That is exactly what is happening with the kind of calculations and the figuring with these promises that are being made about health care in this country. Of course we want to improve health care; but dadgummit, we have to be straight with constituents. We have got to be straight with the American people and tell them what it is going to cost. This does not come free. It is so easy to stand on this House floor, it is so easy to stand on this floor and make promises about things we are going to give away. We may not use the word free, but that is the implication. We will handle all the prescription care problems of this country; we can finance all the priorities of this country. Well, let me tell my colleagues, we would not have enough money in the world to finance the priorities. Because every time we would start paying out, for every five priorities out, five more would jump in. My colleagues know that, and I know that. And when we talk about things like health care, when we talk about things like the military, when we talk about things like education, when we talk about specific projects in our districts, when we are parochial about our districts, we have an obligation to be honest about the cost. We can look at any substantial entitlement program that this government has, any one of them, pick it randomly. Any one my colleagues want to pick, I can promise that at the time it was put into place the costs that were attributed to it, this is what it is going to cost the taxpayer, those costs were minuscule as compared to the actual costs. Here is the cost they promise; here is the cost we end up with. It is the history of a Democratic government in a body like this, because the incentive is not to be straight with the taxpayers and the citizens of this country. The temptation is to go out there and promise everything for nothing. And that is exactly the problem today we now face in California. In California, the leadership out there, the elected leadership and the appointed leadership out there promised the citizens of the State of California, look, we do not have to take any risk of exploration; let us do not allow any generation plants in this State; let us not allow people to drill in this State; let us do not encourage conservation. Now, they did not say, let us not encourage conservation, the practice they followed discouraged conservation. Because no matter how much energy was wasted, the price did not go up. It was capped. No matter how much the electricity cost, the generators sold it, citizens did not have to worry about it, the State capped it for them. Well, that is an empty promise, in my opinion, just the same as some of the promises or commitments that were made this evening. Those promises are empty if in the long term we do not have the dollars or the resources to provide for those. And based on the statements I heard here in the last hour, if we stacked up the cost of those commitments or those promises that were made by these speakers, and we put it on our calculators, first of all we would have to have a calculator with a screen that long. We are talking about trillions. We are not talking about billions; we are talking about trillions of dollars. So if my colleagues can figure out how to pay for that, that is what they should do first, then make their promises second. But what they do is they make the promise, and this is the typical program in the Federal Government, make the promise, put the program into place, then pass the cost of it on to the next generation. That is exactly what has happened here, year after year after year. You get to give out the freebies, you get to be the Santa Claus, but the next generation has to pay for it because my colleagues were clever enough in their legislation to deflect the true cost, to not admit the true cost, or to defer the true cost to some point in the future. That is why we have financial problems. Being a Congressman does not require a lot of education. All we have to be is a citizen; we have to be a certain age. But we are not required to have a college degree. In fact, it was intentionally designed that way. The reason it was designed that way is our forefathers, justifiably and correctly, thought we wanted people from all walks of life to represent the fine people of this country. But if we could redo it, I think I would go back and say, look, every one of us ought to take business 101 or accounting 101. It ought to be a fundamental requirement before we sit in these chairs. Because what we tend to find happening is there are a lot more promises made than what are funded. Then when they are not funded, we hear comments like I just heard a half an hour ago: they are turning their backs on the elderly. And I have heard it on education: they do not care about kids; education is not a priority with them. Again, let me point out that I do not know one Congressman, Democrat or Republican, I do not know one for which education is not a priority. It is a priority with everybody in these Chambers. So to make the statements like were made in this preceding hour, in my opinion, are totally unjustified and do not get us at all towards the kind of solution that we need to come towards in order to help bring those prescription prices within range of the average American so they not only can afford it, but they have access to it. I want to visit about another issue before I get very deep into the subject of energy. I think the President today made a very, very significant speech to the American people. The President talked about how since the Cold War the defense mechanisms of this country have changed. Our military status, our defense in this country, has to be very fluid. It has to change with time. There are a few facts that are very clear. Number one, it is not only the United States, China, and Russia that have nuclear capabilities. Now we have got India, we have got Pakistan, we have Israel, we have Iran, we have North Korea. I mean, the spread of nuclear weapons is a fact. Now, no matter how many millions of barrels of oil we promise the North Koreans, they are going to continue to develop nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon kind of shows you are the big guy on the block. There is a lot of countries that want those weapons because it gives them leverage in world negotiations. So we should not be naive and think that these countries are not going to develop these weapons. I think what we have to do is assume that in fact these countries will develop these nuclear weapons, the ones that do not already have them. In fact, the ones that have them probably will, in many cases, like with China and like with Iran, assist other countries in acquiring these nuclear weapons. So is the answer to build more nuclear weapons? I do not think so. I think our country has adequate military supplies of our weapons. The answer is figure out a device, figure out a missile defense. How do we stop those nuclear weapons? We are not going to stop it by trying to convince these people they should not own them. Of course they are going to own them. They will do anything they can to get their hands on them. What we need to do is to convince them, look, you are going to spend a lot of money developing a nuclear weapon; you are going to take a lot of resources from your people, developing a nuclear weapon; you are going to put a lot of your scientific resources of your country into developing a nuclear weapon. And guess what is going to happen, when you come to your product, your final product, i.e. that nuclear weapon, the United States and its allies will have a defense that makes that weapon useless. That is exactly what the goal of this President is. And it is a justifiable goal. We are crazy, we are certifiably crazy if we continue to turn our face and pretend at some point in the future there is not going to be a nuclear missile headed towards this country. We are irresponsible, in dereliction of our duty if we do not now begin an aggressive effort at putting some kind of a protective shield for this Nation and this Nation's allies and friends so that when that type of an attack comes, we are prepared. And we make the ownership of these kinds of weapons, not weapons of threat or fear, we neutralize them because we have a defensive shield for those kinds of weapons. It seems to me that it is so basic that with this threat developing out there, in consideration of the fact that we have an obligation to the generations behind us, as well as the generation ahead of us and our own generation, we have an obligation to continue to give this country the best defense that it can possibly have. You are totally disregarding your obligation as a congressman if you continue to ignore the fact that this country needs to defend against a missile attack. A lot of Americans, a lot of your constituents assume because we have NORAD space command out in Colorado Springs and we can detect a missile launch within a few seconds anywhere in the world, in fact we are so good we can track a 6-inch bolt maybe 500 miles into space. We know what is coming at us. A lot of Americans assume that once we know it, we shoot it down. That is not the truth. That is not what can occur out there. All we can do once we detect a missile launch against the United States of America, all we can do is call up the destination site and say, hold onto your britches, you have an incoming missile. Do we have an obligation to put up some kind of shield to defend against that? Of course we do. That is exactly the direction that the President of the United States told this country this morning. That he is prepared, that the time has changed, he is prepared to reduce our nuclear stockpiles while at the same time putting together a defensive shield. Now some of the critics and some people who oppose the military just in general pop right up and say we do not have the technology. It is going to be too expensive. We did not have the technology when we said that we were going to put somebody on the moon. We did not have the technology when we figured out we were going to solve polio. The fact is that we can do it. Americans can put their minds to something and accomplish it. So these people who want to criticize ought to stand aside. They do not want to take a leadership position in the defense of this country. That is fine. I do not think that everybody needs to participate, but get out of our way. Let us defend this country because I do not want to be one with tears in my eyes who has to look at my children or my grandchildren, or maybe even great grandchildren, if I am fortunate, when we are in the height of an international crisis where these missiles might be used and say to those generations behind me, I am sorry, I could have put a defense together. I could have done something to help you, but I walked away from it. None of us want to walk away from that obligation. We all need to come together behind the President and help the President with these efforts to defend this country and to build a capacity that will allow or take away all of the leverage of all of the countries in the world that have a nuclear weapon and they want to use it against the United States via some type of missile. Let me move on to the other topic that I want to discuss with you this evening. That is energy. Look, we have all heard about the State of California. We know what the problem is in California, or at least we know some of the problem. Fundamentally I think every one of our constituents understands that California is running out of power. You know, it is kind of hard to feel sorry for California. California kind of adopted the not-in-my-backyard syndrome. California has promised its citizens do not worry, we will not increase your prices on energy, which means, in essence, you do not have to conserve. California has not allowed a power generation facility to be built, an electrical- generation facility to be built in their State for what, 10 years. California has not allowed a natural gas transmission line to go through their State in California. In California you do not even dare talk about nuclear energy with their elected officials. There are a lot of people in California with the national Sierra Club whose number one priority is to take down the Glen Canyon Dam, one of the larger hydroelectric producers. There are people in California who are leading the effort to take down the dams in the Snake River or the Columbia River because they are trying to convince the population of California you can have it all and no risk. You can have it all and no cost. You can use as much as you want, it keeps on coming at the same price. We do not have to build electrical generation facilities in our State, because you can have it without it. We do not have to take risk and allow exploration of natural gas in our State. Do not worry about it. In the meantime as this Titanic comes up on the iceberg, demand is going like this and supply is going like this. You cannot operate like that. You cannot operate an airplane when your airport is this far away, and your fuel consumption is going to get you this close. It does not work. Despite the flowery promises, despite all of the hype that was given about California, we discovered something new. We have discovered for the first time in the history of the capitalistic market that we are going to be able to allow you to use all of the electricity you want, the price will be capped. We will deregulate. We will not have to take any kind of risks or suffer as a result of natural gas transmission lines or exploration because we have it all, and we will not have to do it in our own backyard. It is hard to find sympathy for the State of California. In fact, I have heard a lot of people say that is their problem. Well, fortunately or unfortunately, I am here to tell you it is not all of California's problem. What is bad in many cases for California is bad for the United States of America. California, after all, is a State. It is a major State and it is a big player. It is a huge player in the world's economy. A huge player in the economy of the United States. It is a huge player in their educational institutions. It is a huge player in their artistic institutions in California. We have a lot of fellow citizens in California who are going to suffer lots of consequences this summer as a result of the short-sightedness of a few government officials. And, frankly, suffer as a result of adopting the concept or being convinced or swayed by the concept that you can have all of the power you want without having to have a generation facility somewhere in your State. We cannot let California die on the vine. I am sure, colleagues, like the rest of you, I will probably go back to my office this evening and have calls from people that say let them die on the vine. California brought it on themselves, let them suffer. It is not that simple. We need to work with California. But let us look at a few of the facts. Let me say at the very beginning that there seems to be a make-believe theory out there that if we just simply conserve, our energy crisis will be resolved. Let me tell you, that is inaccurate on its face, and it is inaccurate no matter which direction they tell you it. It does not work. Conservation is a major contributing factor that we have to put in place immediately. In fact, you know what has put more conservation in place in the last few months than in any recent time in history? It is not the government. It is not the government that put conservation into place, it is the price of energy that has put conservation into place. I am a good example. I will use myself. I did not turn down my thermometers a year ago in my family home. We had the temperatures in our home, I live high in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, and in the winter time all of our rooms were at 70 degrees. And in the summertime, our air conditioning, because we like cool air, although we have a lot of cool air, if during the day it got hot, we kept the air conditioning at 60 degrees. It was not because some government brochure or some bureaucratic official said you do not have to have your rooms at 70 degrees, especially if you are not using them. Why not leave those rooms at 55 degrees so your pipes do not freeze when you are not using the rooms. It was not because some government brochure came and told me that, it was because we got our gas bill. I can assure you now in our household, anywhere in the house where there are not people, that temperature is at 55 degrees. We have not even started our air conditioning. We have not had it on one time, not that it is on a lot this time of year; but still for a day or two, we would have had it on. We have our fans running. We are trying to make plans for this summer, how do we conserve? Why, because the price stun us. In California, the elected officials did not have enough guts to let the prices sting. They tried to make an artificial world out where you can continue to have as much energy as you want and not have to have your prices increased. That does not encourage conservation. But let us say here is supply, here is demand. Conservation will go up like this. So conservation closes a gap. I brought this over, it is one of the most fascinating things that I have seen. This is where we are going with incentives in the marketplace. A crisis drives innovation. To come up with alternative energy, this energy crisis is actually of some benefit because it will drive innovation. There are a lot of people trying to figure out how to make a better mouse trap. There are a lot of people saying we better make our air conditioning units more efficient. We can have a competitive advantage if our SUV gets better mileage. Here is a piece of innovation here, colleagues. This is a little piece of paper. To me it looks like a little piece of tinfoil. It is laminated in a piece of plastic, and there are two wires attached to this little piece of paper. Now the person that talked to me about this little device said there is a lot of energy and movement, movement that does not have to be generated. You know to generate electricity, you have to generate movement. You do not need to generate this, this is natural movement. He said, we think we can capture energy out of waves, out of waves in the ocean. He showed me this. He gave me this. I was so fascinated by it. You will not be able to see it from there. If the lights were out in the Chambers, you would see as I go like this, the light comes on. That light is on. That movement generates energy which is put into this light. But do we have the capability today to generate any kind of significant source of power as a result of this device? No. Maybe in 15 years, maybe in 10 years, maybe we would get a real break and have stuff like this available in 10 years. But we do not have it available today. But that has not slowed down the demand out there that we have for power. In fact, I find it interesting, one of our largest age consumption groups of power is our younger generation. That is the generation of people that some of the more radical environmental groups, for example, the National Sierra Club, has never supported a water storage project in the history of their organization. It is organizations like them out there trying to convince this younger generation, you can continue to increase your demand for power, whether it is your computer, your radio or whatever, you can continue to increase demand and yet at the same time stop supply or not allow supply to expand, or take down the dams. ``Don't worry, the hydro power will be replaced somewhere else.'' Those are fallacies. That is exactly what got California into the jam that it is in. That is exactly what is getting the rest of us. We will be sucked down that drain as well if California goes down that drain. Let us go over some statistics that I think are important to look at. Again remember, conservation is obviously a critical element for this solution to come together, but it is not the total answer. It is only a contributing factor to the gap in the energy supply that we have today. Let us just pull up natural gas. Consumer prices for natural gas have increased 20-fold in some parts of our country over the past year. In a 1-year period of time, the demand for natural gas has gone up 20 times. I talked to a gas analyst who went to the different companies like General Electric that make power generation facilities that are powered by natural gas. Just the orders in place exceed the natural gas supply now available in this country. Let us go on. America's demand for natural gas is expected to rise even more dramatically than oil. Why? Because natural gas is a very clean fuel to utilize. It is a very convenient fuel to utilize. According to the Department of Energy, by 2020, we will consume 62 percent more natural gas than we do today. Right now, an estimated 40 percent of potential gas supplies in the United States are on Federal lands that are either closed to exploration or limited by severe restrictions. Even if we find supplies of gas, moving it to the market will require an additional 38,000 miles of pipeline and 255,000 miles of transmission lines at an estimated cost of 120 to $150 billion, just to move the gas. In some places we have plenty of gas, but that is not where the population is. You have got to move the gas to the population. Now remember, the numbers that I am going over are assuming that the American public exercises conservation. Even in consideration of the fact that you would conserve, these are still numbers you are going to face. The problem of inadequate supply lines is illustrated by the Prudhoe Bay in Alaska. The site produces enough gas a day to meet 13 percent of America's daily consumption; but because a pipeline has not been built, the gas is pumped back into the ground. I might add, many of my colleagues have driven by gas wells where we now have the technology to capture the gas, and they burn it off or they burn it off because they do not have the capability to move the gas. They are looking for the oil. There are a lot of things we can do for efficiencies in this country, but we cannot do it by having our head in the sand and pretending that there is not a crisis, at least not as it applies to us and our price should not go up. Let us move from natural gas. Electricity. By the way, Vice President Cheney gave some great remarks here in the last couple of days. Now, of course some of the more radical environmental organizations went nuts, saying, Oh, my gosh, look at what he's demanding. He's saying that we're going to have to have I think a power plant every week for the next 20 years just to meet the demand. So what these groups are suggesting, put your head in the sand and say, It ain't so, Dick. It ain't so, Mr. Vice President. It is so. If we are going to continue with the kind of demand that we have and remember this demand, that is not wasted power. This demand, just take a look at what the computer generation has brought onto us for demand for energy. Realistically, we are going to have to have energy in this country on an increasing production rate. So at least somebody has had enough guts to stand up and say because we have ignored this, because we have put our heads in the sand, we now have to build a bunch of power plants. We should have been building them all along. What we need, the best energy policy and, by the way, keep in mind, the last administration had no energy policy. Our Secretary of Energy had no energy policy. Our President had no energy policy. Our Vice President had no energy policy. This new administration has come forward and a great part of the wrath that they are getting put upon them by, say, some of the environmental organizations has been brought about because this administration is saying to the American public, we need an energy policy. We need to put everything on the table. We need to have on the table conservation, we need to have natural gas, we need to have the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. That is not to say that all of these are going to be accepted, but they have got to go on the table. And then we need to have level-headed minds from all walks of life sit down and come up with a strategy for energy for this country. That means we may add more items onto the table, or it means we may take some items off the table. But for us to prematurely eliminate sources or restrict conservation, what you do by the way with price caps, to do those kind of things does not help us develop a solid energy policy. Let me move on to electricity. Electricity is one of our greatest challenges. As illustrated in the growing crisis in California, the Department of Energy estimates that over the next 20 years, the demand for energy in the United States will increase by 45 percent. The increasing reliance on technology has prompted our energy demands to outstrip recent projections. Some experts calculate that the demands of the Internet already consume eight to 13 percent of the electricity. If demand grows at the same pace as the last decade, we will need 1,990 new plants by 2020, or more than 90 a year just to keep pace. With conservation ideas in mind, with the current technology that we have, we are going to need to build 90 plants a year to keep pace. What happens if you do not? Some people might say to you, Well, you know, we can all do without a little air conditioning. We can all suffer a little more. Most people that say that really mean you can suffer a little more. We do not really mean I should be the one that suffers a little more, but you can suffer a little more. Take a look at what these rolling blackouts will do to the State of California. California is one of the largest agricultural producers in the world. Refrigeration is a basic ingredient in order to, once you pick that crop, to store that crop, to transport that crop. Take a look at the chicken farms and the turkey farms out in California. They have tens of millions of birds out there. I had a chicken farmer tell me the other day that if their circulating fans go off this summer, if they are shut down for 20 minutes, they lose their flock of birds. Take a look at the computer chip industry that has to have refrigerated storage. Take a look at the medical industry that has to have refrigerated capacity. Take a look at the frozen foods. You all see them, those trucks that have those little boxes up on the front of the trailer and a lot of times when the truck is parked you can hear that little engine in there idling. That is refrigerating that trailer. That will not be shut off obviously because of the shutdown of a power plant in California, but those little generating facilities take fuel. My point here is electricity is very important for us. Do not think that it is just a matter of turning off the air conditioner that is going to get us out of this crisis. The only way we are going to move out of this is we have got to build additional electrical generation. Let me continue. Hydroelectric power generation is expected to fall sharply. Today, relicensing a power plant can take decades and cost millions. Now, even though consumers are faced with blackouts and shortages, some of the activists still want to tear out dams on the Snake River. Let us move on to our next one. Oil. It is amazing to me how negative people have turned the word oil, as if it is some evil empire out there. They think of the J.R. Ewing of Dallas days and oil. I am telling you, everything we have in our life depends on this oil. I would like to be able to go to solar. So far, despite years and years and years and billions of dollars in research, we have not made any kind of dramatic steps forward in solar. We have got some, but we have not made the kind of steps we thought we could make to replace oil. I hope someday oil goes the same direction that whale oil went. It used to be before the discovery of oil, we used whales for oil, before the discovery of oil in the ground. Thank goodness we stopped hunting the whales because we found a replacement product. I hope through our technology we are able to find a replacement product, but the fact is we do not have it today. The hard reality of it is we are not going to have it next year. We are probably not going to have it for any number of years. So our reliance on oil, our dependency on oil is very significant and we all depend on it. Our clothes are made with oil. Our medicine is made with oil. Our vehicles, our ambulances, our fire trucks, our school buses, our personal vehicles all run on oil. The lights that we have. Members know what I am talking about. Take a look at any facet of life and tell me where oil is not needed. Any facet of life. It is fundamentally important. Until we find the replacement, we better face up to the reality that we have to meet the demand. You cannot just meet the demand through conservation alone. Let us talk. Oil. In the next 20 years, America's demand for oil will increase by 33 percent, according to the Energy Information Institute. Yet as demand rises, domestic production drops. So the demand is going up and the domestic production in our country is going down. We have not had an inland refinery built in this country for 25 years. That is not how you answer an upswinging demand line. We now produce 39 percent less oil than we did in 1970. Those of you my age and older, a little younger, can remember the crisis we had in the 1970s. Remember how this country committed that we would lessen our dependence on foreign oil, lessen it? It did not work. What happened is we continued to regulate, and I can tell you a lot of those regulations were good regulations. But we continued to discourage any kind of oil exploration in this country, and we depended on other countries because other countries were easier to extract it from because less regulations and safeguards, et cetera, et cetera, and we have become more dependent, not less dependent, upon it. We are down nearly 4 million barrels of oil a day. Unless our policies change, domestic production will continue to drop to 5.1 million barrels a day in 2020, down from 9.1 million barrels a day 30 years ago. We are increasingly dependent on foreign governments for our oil. Back in 1973, we imported just 36 percent of our oil from overseas. Today, we import over 54 percent of those resources. The number of U.S. refineries has been cut in half since 1980. There has not been a new refinery built in this country in more than 25 years. Those are pretty startling statistics. Let us go back very quickly to California and take a look at the California situation. We have just seen the nationwide situation. Let us look at California. No new natural gas lines in 8 years. They placed price caps on the rate that electricity providers could charge to the consumers while doing nothing to discourage demand. You continue to allow demand to go up. You do not discourage it through conservation. You do not discourage it through price. What you do is allow it to continue to go up, and you allow supply to continue to go down. When there is a cross, there is a collision. It is like two airplanes hitting in the sky. It is going to be a nasty crash. No new coal-fired plant permits in 10 years. No nuclear power plants have been built in our Nation in over 20 years. No inland refineries have been built in 26 years. California's power capacity is down 2 percent since 1990 while demand is up 11 percent in that same period. So on one end, your supply you take it down by 2 percent. On the other end you take demand up by 11 percent and in the meantime you say to the consumer your price is capped; you do not have to worry about a price increase. My purpose tonight is to say that this Nation needs an energy policy. It is our President, the first President now in 9 years, who has come forward and in my opinion had enough gumption to stand up, not hype, not a bunch of hype but the gumption to stand up and say maybe we ought to look at everything we are doing out here in regards to energy. Maybe, for example, we ought to look at some of the sanctions we have on oil-producing countries like Iran or some of these others. Maybe we ought to take a look and tell the people, look, we have to conserve. Again, let me remind my colleagues, and my guess is every colleague in here has been conserving in the last few months. Why? Not because the government told them to conserve but because the price of the energy they are using has gone up tremendously. That is what is driving their conservation. We have a President who says let us put everything on the table. Let us put conservation on the table. Let us put oil exploration on the table. Let us put ANWR, let us put transmission lines on the table, put everything on this table and then bring people to sit down at this table and let us develop an energy policy. It is an obligation, by the way, that we have; not only to ourselves but to the generation behind us and the generation ahead of us. What do you think we are going to do? Earlier in my comments I mentioned that I said somebody said well, we turned our back on the seniors, if you do not buy their program you are turning your back on the seniors. You better talk to those seniors this summer when you have to shut off air conditioning out there in California. You better explain to those seniors out in California why you would not be a willing participant at the table in trying to come up with some kind of energy policy. You better be willing to talk to the seniors not only of California but of New York, of Oregon, of Washington, and explain to them why you did not find time to come to the table. We have to come to this table. The President has provided the table. The President has even provided the subject of the discussion and the debate. Here are some of my ideas. Here is what I want to talk about. Now if you have a better idea, let us talk about it. Let us put it in place. In the end, at the end of the day, the President says I need an energy policy for this country. That is good policy of its own. We, Members of this Congress, have an obligation, and I said earlier that obligation also means helping the State of California. It does not mean subsidizing the State of California. It does not mean allowing the citizens of California to continue to have their electricity or their gas or their oil at artificially low prices. What it does mean is we have to be willing to participate with California and help them get through this crisis, but California has got to step up to the plate as well. California is going to have to take a little more careful look about the not-in-my-backyard position that they have taken. California is going to have to take a little more careful look about going out to its citizens and promising them no price increases. California is going to have to take another look at not allowing refineries in their State or at least stalling the permitting process so they cannot get in there. California is going to have to take a look at not allowing a natural gas transmission line permit to go into their State or be granted in their State over such a long period of time. This crisis, by the way, is not a crisis that is going to sink us. This is not like being in these House chambers say on December 7 or December 8 of 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor, the day after Pearl Harbor. That crisis is much more severe. This is a crisis we can resolve. This is a crisis that if we bring our heads together we can do something about it, but we are going to have to change some policy. We are going to have to change the policies of the previous administration of drifting along without an energy policy. We are going to have to adopt an energy policy. We are going to have to change the policies that you do not have to have an increase in supply to meet increasing demand. We are going to have to educate, I think, our younger generation, work with our younger generation, and prove to them that the technologies that we have for oil exploration have improved and that if they want to continue to use power at the rate they are using power we all have to join in in finding this additional supply to meet that demand. I think in the long run, what I hope in the long run, is that 5 years from now those of us on this House Floor can look back and say that energy problem we had back in 2001, it had some good benefits to it. The American people are now smarter about their utilization of energy. They are conserving. We have more innovation on the market. We have ways, we have alternative energy that really works similar to this one right here with the light. That is what I hope 5 years from now we look back, I hope 5 years from now we can look back, and we have SUVs, for example, that get 45 or 50 miles to the gallon instead of 12 or 15 miles to the gallon. I think we can do it, but in order for us to do it, we have to stand up on the line. We have to come out of the foxhole. Somebody has got to be the first one out of the foxhole. To that end, I give credit to the President of the United States. He has taken a lot of heat in these last 3 or 4 weeks or maybe the last 2 or 3 months. Well, he has not been in office 3 months but a couple of months, and he has taken a lot of heat because he stood up and said we need an energy policy and, God forbid, we are going to need to explore for oil; and gosh darn, sorry about this but we are going to have to have an ability to move natural gas from one end of the country to the other end of the country. Those are tough stands to take in a society that has become pretty used to the fact that they get the energy they need without having a generation facility inside of their home or inside of their community or even within the boundaries of their State. Times are changing. Is it not Bob Dillon that said, times are changing? That is what is happening. Times are changing in our defense strategy and times are changing in our energy strategy. We have to pay attention to defense and we have to pay attention to energy. We have to pay attention to health care. We have to pay attention to education. Times are changing, and energy is not exempt from the change of time. Energy is not exempt from continuing demand with diminishing supply. You cannot have or continue to have diminishing supply with continuing upgrade in demand without a mid-air collision. That is exactly what happened in California, kind of. That is exactly what is going to happen in California this summer. We are going to have a mid-air collision. Maybe we can avoid it. We probably cannot. Let me wrap up my comments here in regards to energy by saying to all of us, especially to my colleagues from California, I have been particularly harsh this evening about what has gone on in the State of California but I am not about to abandon the State of California. You are important to us. We are important to you. But it does mean you are going to have to change your habits. It does mean that you are going to have to start to conserve. It does mean that you are going to have to stand up and tell your consumers out there that they are not going to be able to enjoy artificially low prices. They are going to have to pay. When you have disruptions in the market you do not get the product you want, and disruptions are in the market when you artificially subsidize prices. That is what has happened out there. So we want to help our colleagues from California but for the rest of us, in our States that do not face this imminent energy crisis, we better watch out because one of these days that nasty wolf will be knocking on our door. So let us learn from the lessons of California. Let us figure out conservation methods that really work. Let us figure out where in a reasonable and responsible environmental fashion we can explore for additional resources for energy. We have to do it. Let us be frank when we talk to our constituents and let them know, hey, we have to build power plants. We are going to have to have resources to do that. You are no longer going to be able to enjoy the luxury perhaps of having every room at 70 degrees. Times, they are changing. It is going to happen to us just like it has happened in California. Let me just summarize my earlier comments in regards to the missile defense. We have left energy now. Let me just summarize my comments. It is an inherent responsibility of every Member of Congress to provide a national defense not only for the people currently here today, our generation and maybe the one behind us, but for the future generations. It is an undeniable fact that countries will continue to accumulate nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them by missile. That is undeniable. The only way that you will be able to defend yourself against those type of horrible weapons is to have a missile shield of some type. Do not kid yourself. You are not going to be able to talk these countries out of disarming themselves. You are not going to be able, as the previous administration did or thought they could, bribe North Korea by sending them lots of oil, which by the way goes right to their military; or give them millions of dollars in foreign aid and expect these countries, on my word we are going to disassemble our nuclear weapons. The fact is our country is going to have to disassemble nuclear weapons and any of you, by the way, who are opposed to nuclear weapons, you ought to be in support of this defensive shield. Why? There is no quicker way to make a nuclear weapon ineffective than have a shield against it. It works. We know it. You cannot disassemble a nuclear missile fast enough as you can with a missile shield once we put it in place. It makes them ineffective. That is what will break the nuclear arms race. Mark my word, that is what will break that race is the first country that is a major power that comes out with a shield that itself and their allies can use to defend themselves, that will break the nuclear arms race as we know it today in the world. I intend to come back, I want to visit I hope later this week, certainly next week, and talk a little more about the issue of the death tax and what it has done to a lot of families in America. It looks like we are close to a tax agreement. This afternoon they have been down at the White House, Mr. Speaker, working with the administration. I hope we come together on that. I hope as we begin to put our budget together for this next year that we refrain from comments as were made in the previous speech prior to my coming up here, refrain from the comments that the administration, for example, has turned their back on the elderly or that they do not care about education or they do not care about this or they do not care about that. They care about it. As I mentioned earlier, I think everybody on this floor, no matter how liberal their politics are, how conservative their politics are, I think everybody on this floor, everybody on this floor cares about education; they care about the elderly; they care about health care; they care about defense. I have a list a half a mile long that we care about. Let us work together as a team. I think we can do it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to ask that this Congress recognize and say thank you to Colorado Mountain College's ``Adjunct Faculty of the Year'' Marcia Hund. Marcia was selected from 1,000 community faculty members for her ability to teach and for her understanding of students. For that, Marcia deserves the recognition of this body. Marcia teaches the fundamentals of math, and is an instructor in the CMC's Rifle Center Learning Lab. And after school she volunteers as a tutor for Literacy Outreach, teaching adults otherwise unaffiliated with CMC how to read. Marcia is also involved with the students as a faculty advisor. She has worked on CMC's Adjunct Faculty Pay Plan Committee, and has been an active member in the National Association of Developmental Education. ``We are very excited that Marcia has been chosen as the college's adjunct faculty of the year,'' said Dean Harry Silver in a recent Glenwood Springs Post Independent article. ``Marcia epitomizes our adjunct faculty.'' Marcia came to CMC 14 years ago as a science and ecology teacher. She soon began teaching developmental classes. ``Students will come after failing, sometimes again and again in school, and see success as an impossible dream. The wonderful part is for me to see them succeed and see that they can learn,'' said Marcia. Marcia's supervisor Karen Dunbar says she has the ability to present information to the students in a kind and gentle manner. ``I really do love working with adults who have had problems in school in the past . . . It's more than a job for me, it's something I feel is a valuable contribution, and I'm good at it.'' Mr. Speaker, for the last 15 years Marcia Hund has helped out numerous students trying to finish their education, and for that she deserves the thanks of Congress. I know she will continue to do an outstanding job with her students. For that, we are all grateful.