Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a friend and constituent in the Sixth District of New Jersey whose unselfish service to his community has left a lasting impression in the hearts of members of both his church and his community. Reverend Henry Alphanzo Hildebrand has dedicated his life to serving his congregation and his community. Throughout his career, Reverend Hildebrand has served in five different churches and has been recognized by a numerous organizations for his years of dedication. He began his career as a pastor for Ebenezer A.M.E. Church in Rahway, New Jersey, where he led the congregation in the construction of the present church edifice. After serving the Rahway community for three years, he was assigned to the Mt. Zion A.M.E. Church in Plainfield. There the inspired dedicated members to aid in the recovery of the church building and parsonage. Then in 1953, Reverend Hildebrand was assigned to Morris Brown A.M.E. in Philadelphia and quickly expanded the size of the congregation.Under his leadership, the church was recognized as a leading church in the area. Following his assignment in Philadelphia, Reverend Hildebrand returned to New Jersey and dedicated himself to the St. James Church in Atlantic City where he was instrumental in renovating and refurbishing the church as well as in the acquisition of a new parsonage. For the last thirty-seven years Reverend Hildebrand has been a Pastor at the Mount Zion Church where he has become the Senior Pastor in the city of New Brunswick, as well as the New Jersey Conference. Reverend Hildebrand is also the only Pastor in the conference to dedicate his service to the same congregation for over 30 years. Throughout his years at Mt. Zion, the congregation has experienced unparalleled spiritual, cultural and economic expansion. Reverend Hildebrand is dedicated to his congregation-he weeps for the lost of loved ones, rejoices in times of celebration and services as a source of support. It is my sincere hope that my colleague will join me in honoring Pastor Henry A. Hildebrand for his inexhaustible enthusiasm and many outstanding achievements in the Mt. Zion A.M.E. Church community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank His Holiness Karekin II for providing this morning's prayer and for helping this House celebrate the 1700th anniversary of the world's first Christian nation, Armenia. It was 1700 years ago that the leader of the Kingdom of Armenia, the pagan King Drtad III, was baptized as a Christian and made the historic decision to proclaim Christianity as the official religion of the Armenian kingdom. It is the anniversary of this event that brings His Holiness to the United States this month. I will be fortunate to join him at what should be one of the largest gatherings of Armenian Americans in New York City's Central Park this upcoming Memorial Day weekend. His Holiness will also be the honored guest at an ecumenical prayer service next week at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception here in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank His Holiness for gracing this House with his presence this morning and for making this trip to the United States. It not only means a lot to me but to the millions of diaspora Armenians and Americans of other faiths who will have the opportunity to hear his words during this visit.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Gurudev Shree Chitrabhanuji for providing such words of wisdom this morning here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Gurudev Shree Chitrabhanuji spent 28 years as a Jain monk. During his years in India, he founded the Divine Knowledge Society and other social welfare and emergency relief organizations. He is also a prolific writer, having written more than 25 books that reflect his message of world peace and nonviolence. The Jain religion, which places heavy emphasis on personal and societal nonviolence in thoughts, speeches and actions, has flourished in India for 3,500 years. This year Jains all around the world celebrate the 2,600th birth anniversary of Lord Mahavere, the last of the revered 24 genas, who spread the Jain message. I guess we could say in a way that Lord Mahavere was ahead of his time, once proclaiming all human beings are equal, whether male or female, rich or poor. I would like to thank Gurudev Shree Chitrabhanuji again for providing this morning's opening prayer and also Mr. Sushel Jain and all the Jains who have made the trip to Washington this morning to hear this prayer. Many of them are in the gallery. I would also like to thank the House Chaplain Coughlin for allowing us the opportunity to celebrate the Jain spirit here on the House Floor this morning.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am going back to the oil companies again now, but if we think about these examples for oil, electric utilities, nuclear waste and coal, just to compare what they gave to the Bush and Republican campaigns as opposed to what they are going to get if the Bush energy policy went through, to talk about the oil and gas industry, which gave $3.2 million to the President's campaign, $25.6 million to the Republicans in the Congress. But if we look at what they stand to gain based on the President's energy policy that just came out, he would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, permit oil drilling on Federal lands, that is, national parks, national forests, national monuments, permit oil drilling off the cost of Florida, undercut environmental protections to permit new oil refineries and pipelines, review and potentially lift economic sanctions against Iraq, Libya, and Iran so that U.S. oil companies can do business there, and lock in place record prices at the pump at the same time that they see record profits. Now, that is the oil and gas industry. Let us go to the electric utilities. They gave $1.3 million to Bush, $12.9 to Republicans. The Bush energy plan says no price caps in the western United States, which is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) have been talking about. The Bush policy would waive environmental standards for the Endangered Species Act, for hydroelectric plants, and it would enable FERC to seize private lands for constructing electric transmission lines. Then we go to the nuclear industry. They gave $105,000 to Bush, $1.2 million to Republicans in Congress. They get to gut current licensing procedures for nuclear plants to ensure public input on safety and nuclear waste disposal and tax credit for more nuclear plant construction. Then lastly, coal. The coal industry gave only $110,000 to Bush, $3.3 million to GOP Republican congressional candidates. If we look at what they get out of the energy policy, the Bush energy policy, basically it is what I mentioned before, the permission for coal-fired power plants to exceed clean air limits. I have to stress that last one again, because as the gentleman knows, in my home State of New Jersey, much of the air pollution comes from these old coal-fired plants in the Midwest that do not meet current clean air standards, but were grandfathered. What they would do in order to expand is that they would expand their existing plants and they would use the same old standards, the grandfather standards, rather than the new ones under the Clean Air Act. It went so far and got to be so outrageous that the EPA, under the Clinton administration, actually brought suit in Federal court and managed to win, to succeed in the Federal courts with their suits, and the courts required these companies to put in place new standards when they expanded their generating capacities. So we actually are in a situation now where those court actions are in the process, if they are allowed to continue over the next few years, they will have settlements in place that basically require these old coal-fired plants to meet the up-to-date standards, not for the old generation, but for new generation, expanding the capacity. The way I understand the Bush policy, he basically would throw that all out and say, okay, maybe they have been sued, maybe they have been successful, but we are just going to let them expand their capacity and not have to meet the new standards. First of all, what does that do to the air quality? Obviously, it deteriorates, but what does it also say to those utilities who have been the good actors and who have built the new plants and have expended resources to do so and who are now told, well, you probably are stupid that you did that and did the right thing, because you could have just waited around and you would have gotten an exemption, and you will not even be able to compete with them because the dirty guys are going to be able to produce and generate capacity at a much lower rate. So it is really outrageous. Every day when I look over the President's proposal, I get more and more upset, because he started out, if anyone watched him last week, he had all of these charts and big bulletin boards behind conservation, everything was green and blue, and we are supposed to either think of trees or maybe the ocean. Everything was beautiful. I said it was subliminal. I do not know much about these subliminal things, but if you looked at it on TV, I think it was trying to give the impression that he was green or he was blue or he was a good guy, conservationist. Then we look at the details and it is just the opposite. It really upsets me, because I do not like to see that kind of chicanery, if you will, pulled by government officials. Everybody thinks we all do that, but I do not think we all do. That was particularly egregious, in my opinion.

Mr. PALLONE. I could get into the oil companies' profits, and maybe I will do that later; but obviously the profits have just soared in the last year. Maybe we will give some examples of that later. I would like to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) at this time.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PALLONE. I am glad the gentleman did. The gentleman explained it in detail. Of course, I characterize it sort of briefly and probably too generally as wholesale price caps, but it is not exactly that. It is, as the gentleman said, more detailed than that. Nonetheless, the point is that neither the President nor the FERC are willing to do anything about prices at the wholesale level. I thought the gentleman said something very interesting. If we think about it, when one tries to say to their constituents why is it that the President and the Vice President do not want to deal with this, it obviously makes sense to deal with the immediate problem and have in place something to address wholesale costs the way the gentleman describes. I am convinced and the only way to explain it is because of the administration's ties to big oil and their history. I am not going to go on forever about it, but I just wanted to mention that big oil give $3.2 million to the Bush campaign in the last election and $25.6 million to Republicans overall, and other sectors of the energy industry have been similarly generous. If one thinks about it, we have the President himself who was involved in oil ventures in Texas and abroad in the 1980s. He run Arbusto Energy Firm, which after a few years become the Bush Exploration Oil Company. It merged with two other companies. Vice President Cheney, who was the former CEO of Halliburton, the world's largest oil fuel services company, in August of last year he received $20.6 million for a sale of Halliburton stock. But it is not just them. The National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice served on the board of directors for Chevron, a major U.S. oil company, for 10 years. Chevron gave GOP candidates and committees in the last cycles $758,000; $224,000 to Republican Congressional candidates. The list goes on. The Secretary of Commerce Evans who spent 25 years at Tom Brown, Inc., a $1.2 billion Denver-based oil and gas company. We can mention the Energy Secretary and the Interior Secretary. They were also big oil money recipients when they ran for public office. There is no other way to explain it other than the special-interest money they are getting. Otherwise they would not be doing these things because they do not make sense.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for his comments, and I want to continue talking about the issue of what is happening in California. I know that our other colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), has actually introduced a bill that is designed to return the West to just and reasonable cost of services, and I know that his bill was actually part of the Democratic proposal that we have been talking about. So I was going to ask if the gentleman, which is probably what the gentleman was going to do anyway, but I wondered if the gentleman would specifically continue with what our colleague from California said and what we can do in that regard.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last week President Bush announced his energy plan in front of a backdrop on which was printed the word ``conservation,'' and I strongly suggest that my colleagues not be misled by this subliminal approach. I have always said that actions speak louder than words, and President Bush's actions during his first 100 days clearly illustrate that he will undermine any environmental regulation that prevents implementation of the administration's energy plan. So, please, I caution my colleagues, do not be confused by the fact that he has the word ``conservation'' printed prominently behind him in a backdrop. There is nothing conservation-oriented about President Bush's energy policy. Clearly, neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney nor the National Energy Policy Development Group believes that conservation should be the foundation of sound comprehensive energy policy. In fact, the Vice President recently stressed that the Bush administration views conservation as a sign of personal virtue but not a sufficient basis for a sound comprehensive energy policy. And when we talk about conservation, conservation is the planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction or neglect. It is the only basis on which to build a comprehensive energy policy that provides for the responsible long-term use and development of our Nation's energy resources. And by missing this simple principle, President Bush's energy plan is immediately flawed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to examine some parts of the Bush plan beyond its fundamental flaw, because I think many Americans do not understand the direct impact it will have on them. First, the administration's plan will do nothing to lower the prices that Americans are paying for energy today and will do little to mitigate price fluctuations in the future. When I talk to my constituents, they are concerned about the high cost of gasoline and the fact that gas prices keep going up. When I talk to my colleagues from California who are facing blackouts on a somewhat regular basis and more potential for blackouts as the summer progresses, they are concerned about the fact that they cannot get electricity. But if we look at the Bush policy, it will not lower gasoline prices, and it does nothing to prevent the rolling blackouts in California or prevent price gouging by the industry. It will not significantly affect America's dependence on foreign energy sources. On the other hand, what it does do, the President's energy plan does impact the quality of life for every American. The President's plan will damage public health through increased pollution of the air and water, it will speed up the impact of global warming and industrialize our Nation's pristine wilderness and open spaces. In my home State of New Jersey, we are already facing relatively dirty air and major problems that we have had with polluted water. And, frankly, I just do not see how we could possibly face a situation where the impact of the energy policy is to actually increase air pollution or increase water pollution, nor in New Jersey are people willing to tolerate the risk of contamination of our coastal environment by drilling off the coast. Now, I know that the President has not specifically mentioned drilling off the coast of New Jersey, but the Minerals Management Service within the Department of the Interior has a plan to drill off New Jersey, as it does for most of the coast. And the logical extension to President Bush's policy would be to seek out offshore oil essentially in every State. The reason that I believe that the President is moving in the direction he is, which basically is to drill more, try to increase production without addressing conservation, is primarily because of his alignment and his historic involvement with the oil industry. If we look at his references, they are all oil. And when we talk about the environment, conservation, and efficiency, I think we just see him giving more and more lip service. The National Energy Policy Development Group, which put together the President's plan, did not once have a substantive meeting with environmental - or conservation - minded organizations, so there really was no input from conservationists or environmentalists. The input was all from the oil industry. Let me talk a little about some of the problems I foresee with the President's new energy policy. First, I think it is going to accelerate the problem that we have with global warming. He calls for increasing coal and oil production. Specifically, the President requests a 10- year, $2 billion subsidy for clean coal to make coal plants less polluting. However, in the energy budget, the administration did not specifically earmark funding for less polluting technologies, and instead, the budget requested this funding only to expand the use of coal in the United States. So the problem is that what we are going to see is essentially more coal-fired plants, and the emissions that come from those will only aggravate the situation that we already face with some of the air emissions that are coming from those plants right now. The largest contributors of greenhouse gases are coal-fired power plants and gasoline-powered automobiles. Power plants in the United States emit almost 2 billion tons of carbon dioxides pollution each year, and this is equivalent to the carbon dioxide emissions of the entire European Union and Russia combined. But as we know, or we learned a couple months ago, the President completely ignores this fact and he does not recommend any solution to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, even though he talked about that during the campaign. The President's plan regulates only three pollutants, and so carbon dioxide is completely left out. I have to point out that even in my home State there are utilities and utility executives who come to me and say that they are more than willing to regulate carbon dioxide. Around the time of Earth Day, the end of April, we actually did a bus trip where some of the Members of Congress joined me and we went around the State. One of the stops that we made was in Linden, New Jersey, where Public Service Electric & Gas, which is one of the two largest utilities in New Jersey, was about to construct a new generating plant which would cut back on the carbon dioxide that was generated by the old plant by about a third. So the reality is that many companies, not only in New Jersey, but around the country, are taking actions to reduce the carbon dioxide output from their plants and there is a significant segment of the power industry that supports the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. Now, why are we not dealing with it? Why does the President not want to deal with it? I do not know, other than I think he is the captive of the special interests and the oil interests and those who do not want to see this kind of regulation. Utility executives who support reducing carbon dioxide emissions take the science of global warming seriously and they understand that carbon dioxide emission regulations are likely to develop within the life expectancy of coal-fired plants built today. One of the biggest problems that I see with the President's energy policy is that he is advocating taking these old coal-fired plants that are grandfathered, and most of them are in the Midwest, that are allowed to generate emissions that do not meet the air quality standards that we have adopted in the last, say, 10 or 15 years, and which continue to spew forth the air pollution that the newer plants that were built more recently are not allowed or not built to do, and in his energy policy, the President is saying he would allow those older coal-fired plants to expand their operation and basically generate more capacity and still be grandfathered for that additional capacity power that they generate. What we are saying, and those who would be concerned about conservation and the environment would say, is rather than allowing these older plants to expand, they should be retrofitted to reduce carbon dioxide. In the long run, it probably saves money. And there are industry executives now that are willing to do that, but they are not going to do it unless they are told by the Federal Government they have to. And so essentially what President Bush's plan does is ignore them and says, okay, let us expand, let us continue to pollute, that is okay. The administration's plan also calls for the creation of 1,300 to 1,900 more power plants in the United States over the next 20 years. Now, 1,300 power plants equates to an additional 26 power plants per State, in every State, and that equals five new power plants on line every month for the next 20 years. The question is where are we going to place these plants; and is that really doable? I do not think it is. But the major problem with that, of course, is that if we somehow managed to do that, we would increase air emissions and air pollution tremendously, particularly if we did not require them to meet the existing strict standards. Mr. Speaker, I can give an example in my State. In New Jersey, we had a government analysis of our air quality this year reported that every county in New Jersey has poor air quality. So one can understand why I would not want to see any backsliding on the issue of air emissions from power plants because if we are already in a bad situation, what the President proposes would only make it worse. Finally, on this point I wanted to mention if one looks at the President's plan, he claims the goal of his energy plan is to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. However, the solutions espoused will sacrifice our environment and do little to alter the imported quantities of oil the U.S. will actually need. Let me talk about why I think what he is proposing will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. First, the Bush administration supports drilling in the ANWR. They claim there are responsible ways to go about the drilling. However, if you think about it, drilling for oil in the Arctic refuge would require hundreds of miles of roads and pipelines, millions of cubic yards of gravel and water from nearby water bodies, housing, power plants, processing strips, air strips, landfills and services for thousands of workers. There is certainly nothing environmentally responsible about that. But even more important, there remains significant oil reserves in already-developed areas of Alaska's North Slope. Estimates from the State of Alaska project from 1999 to 2020 another 5.7 billion barrels of oil could be produced from the Prudhoe Bay region while 15 to 20 billion barrels could be produced in nearby WSAK oil field. This land was made available under the Clinton administration, as were thousands of other acres around the country. I do not think President Bush wants to open the ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, because there is an energy crisis; I think his aim is to open this wilderness to drilling because he believes he has the political support to do so. I do not think he does. I think if you talk to Members on both sides of the aisle, both in the House and Senate, you will find that there is a majority against drilling in ANWR. But he persists that we should drill there. Let me go back to why opening up ANWR does little to reduce the U.S.'s dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there are between 3.2 and 16 billion barrels of oil, of which about 3 billion barrels are economically recoverable. Furthermore, the DOE's EIA, which is environmental impact assessment, reports that the U.S. exported 339 million barrels of oil in 1999, far more than the 106 million barrels that might be produced in the Arctic. I can go through the statistics all night, but the general point I want to make clear is that drilling in ANWR is not a reasonable solution to meeting energy needs. Even if one were able to do what the President wants, it is not going to have an impact. What we really should do if we want to be serious about trying to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil is increase the fuel efficiency of our own automobiles. If one thinks about what we could accomplish, one could increase the fuel economy of automobiles today to 40 miles per gallon. That would save more than 50 million barrels of oil over the next 50 years. This would change the oil use charts in the President's energy brochure. But again, he does not want to do that. The President does not want to change efficiency standards until another government agency finishes another government study, determining the effectiveness of raising fuel standards. Basically that is the excuse he uses. That is another agency, that is another department. I think that the biggest thing that bothers me about the President's policies and the ideology around President Bush's policies, they do not take into consideration American ingenuity and creativity. We have the ability to find new ways of doing things: efficiency, renewable resources, conservation. We have the ability and the know-how to effectively implement those kinds of strategy, rather than reverting to the supply-side, energy-based approach which is drill, drill, drill. I think it is backward, and I think it is not in the tradition of Americans trying to find solutions to their problems. If I could, Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a little time talking about what the House Democrats have put forward in terms of an energy policy, and contrast that a little bit with the President's plan. I have been to the floor. I was here last week with some of my Democratic colleagues where we talked about the Democratic proposal. I think the most important thing I can say about the Democratic proposal which was unveiled just a couple of days before the President's proposal is that we try to address the immediate concern that the average American has. And when I talk to my constituents, I am home every weekend and I hear from them, they say look, the biggest problem are gas prices. Even though we do not think that that we are going to have blackouts in New Jersey, they remember last summer. And when we hear about what happened in California, we think maybe that is going to reoccur. What the Democrats have done in our energy plan, first of all, with regard to the California situation, we have basically put what I would call caps, if you will, on wholesale prices for gasoline. The Democrats believe that the FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, basically has failed to enforce the law and should step in and essentially put in place ways of controlling prices and looking at the wholesale prices. We have asked specifically for the Department of Justice to investigate energy pricing to assure that illegal price fixing does not occur. The other thing that we do that directly impacts what needs to be done in terms of foreign sources, is that we say that the President should go to the next OPEC meeting, which I believe is going to take place within the next couple of weeks in June, and he should request that there be an increase in production at this time. During the campaign, then-candidate Bush said if it were up to him, President Clinton should demand that OPEC increase production. Now as President, he says that is not necessary, I am not going to ask them to increase production. Similarly, we have a source of oil called the strategic petroleum reserve which basically is a storage of petroleum that the U.S. Government has made over the years. During the Clinton administration, the Republicans and then-candidate Bush said the SPR should be used to control prices in the fashion that has been done many times over the last 10 years or so. Even under former President Bush, we used the SPR in that fashion. Now President Bush says no, we do not want to touch the SPR, that is not its purpose. The Democrats are saying look at wholesale prices, control wholesale prices of energy so we can hopefully help out California and the other western States. With regard to gasoline, demand more production from OPEC. Use the SPR as a hammer, and try to deal with the immediate crises that we face. I see some of my colleagues have come in, and particularly I see two colleagues from western States who I think are very knowledgeable about what has been going on. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Sherman who has been up here for the last couple of weeks on a regular basis talking about this problem very effectively.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we will continue until we get that opportunity. I want to thank the gentleman again.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know we only have a couple more minutes, so I am going to try to wrap up. If the gentleman from California would like to add to this, please do not hesitate. I just wanted to point out, I started out this evening by saying that actions speak louder than words. Really, I think that describes what we are seeing from this administration and from the President. We are seeing a lot of rhetoric about conservation and no action. The gentleman talked about the budget. Two things I wanted to mention. We know that renewable energy programs were slashed by 50 percent in the President's budget proposal. But what he did in his energy plan that he came out with last week, and I think it is really hypocritical and really outrageous, he recommended the creation of a royalties conservation fund. This fund would provide money in royalties from new oil and gas production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to fund land conservation efforts, and it would also pay for the maintenance backlog at national parks. So what we are basically being told is that we have to destroy the wilderness, the Arctic wilderness, in order to protect the national parks, or to provide money for other land conservation efforts. I just think it is a slap in the face to any conservation or environmental efforts to suggest that that is the way we are going to fund these things, and then just go ahead and cut all things in the Federal budget. I think the only thing we can do is to continue to speak out, as the gentleman has so well done. I know the gentleman is probably going to be back again tomorrow night or another night this week, and I plan on doing the same thing, because we have to get across to the public that as much as the President has a lot of rhetoric about conservation, his energy policy really is a disaster for the environment, and is not going to do anything, either long-term or short-term, to deal with the problems that we face now with gas prices or blackouts. Does the gentleman wish to add anything else?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. I was talking before about the oil company profits, and it is amazing. We just have a little table here that talks about six of the largest companies, and to just give my colleague some examples, for Exxon-Mobil in the first quarter of this year, profits were up 43 percent; for Texaco in the first quarter, profits were up 45 percent compared to last year; Chevron, 53 percent compared to last year; Conoco, 64 percent compared to last year; and the first quarter of this year for Phillips Petroleum, profits are up 96 percent by comparison of last year.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) for taking the time and being here to lead the bill on the Democratic side. As I did last week in committee, I wanted to take a moment to recognize the significance of the consensus legislation that we will be considering in the House today. H.R. 1831, the Small Business Liability Protection Act, is a result of the hard work of Democrats and Republicans alike working towards a common goal. I believe our bipartisan efforts have produced an effective piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, this bill will provide relief from private third-party litigation against homeowners and small businesses who had their trash taken to the local landfill and anyone who generates a minuscule amount of waste material containing hazardous substances. It is the EPA policy not to pursue or sue persons who meet these criteria. Unfortunately, in many places, like Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and Quincy, Illinois, large responsible parties have threatened or sued small businesses with litigation. This legislation provides real protections for small businesses, homeowners, and contributors of very small amounts of waste material. Most important is the fact that this legislation provides necessary protection while, at the same time, preserving the government's burden of proof, upholding important environmental provisions, and insuring that cleanup funds are not affected because there are no cost shifts to the Superfund trust fund or the Federal program. Again, Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out my pleasure with this consensus legislation. I want to thank the staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce who helped us on both sides of the aisle put this together, and I look forward to a joint effort to help pass this bill obviously today in the House and also in the Senate soon and have it enacted into law. Madam Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), my colleague, for being here to be in charge of the bill on the Democratic side.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I believe that a new era of a defense partnership between the United States and India is on the horizon. I come to the House floor this evening to discuss the potential for stronger defense ties between these two nations. This relationship between the United States and India makes sense, and it is time that the world's two greatest democracies come together as natural allies. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see India and the U.S. form a stable defense alliance. Such an alliance would help secure our national security and those of our allies while isolating nations such as China, which pose a threat to India and other Asian democracies. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who called on New Delhi in a visit last weekend, said that he was very pleased with the warm support and cooperation extended by the Indian government on various matters, including defense and military cooperation. Bridging a new defense relationship with India would be remarkable, given the history of this nation's ties with the United States in the past. During the Cold War, India unofficially joined hands with Russia in the non-alignment movement. This created tense relations between the United States and India, and ultimately the U.S. viewed India negatively. However, the Cold War is over. We have no reason to view India as a threat. In fact, India and the United States have many similar democratic interests, and as a result, both countries could work together and work together well against the threat from a military buildup in China or from rogue nations in Asia that threaten American interests. Mr. Speaker, Americans are still reeling from the incident last month when Chinese authorities detained a U.S. plane and military personnel. This incident and others exacerbate the difference between our democratic system and China's Communist regime. It highlights the need to have India, a stable democracy for over 50 years, as an ally in the region. It was well documented that the Chinese have transferred missile technologies to rogue nations. The Chinese premier has reaffirmed this during a recent visit to Pakistan, during which he disclosed his commitment to helping Pakistan develop its military. Threats to U.S. security loom large in Asia. Pakistan is politically unstable, is full of terrorism, as is documented in the U.S. annual terrorism report, and is moving further away from a return to civilian government. The central Asia region is brewing with the extensive Osama bin Laden networks, which hold another comprehensive threat to U.S. security and regional interests. We do not need to look back too far, just to last year, to remember the tragic incident of the USS Cole. U.S.-India defense relationships have increased under the Bush administration. This was clearly evidenced in external affairs minister Jaswant Singh's visit to Washington last month when President Bush, Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, and national security adviser Condoleeza Rice made commitments to build on our relationship and to increase cooperation on defense and military matters bilaterally. This is evidenced in the prompt scheduling of the U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman General Henry H. Sheldon's visit to India later this month to discuss high-level military issues between the two nations. If a U.S.-India defense relationship can be nurtured, I believe it will improve bilateral, commercial, and trade ties and expand our existing investment commitments. In order for us to do this in a substantial way, we must first remove all remaining sanctions on India. Many American and Indian scholars, as well as officials from the Department of State, have now acknowledged that the sanctions have done more harm to American companies doing business in India than to India itself, and removal of the sanctions will allow us to engage in a more comprehensive relationship with India. Mr. Speaker, collaboration between the United States and India is moving both countries in a positive direction. As two great democracies, the United States and India are natural allies, and a strong defense relationship is the next logical step in our foreign policy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Oregon. I said last night when we had some of our Democratic colleagues doing a Special Order on energy that we would continue to make the point every night if necessary, and I want to thank my colleague from Oregon for continuing that tonight. We know that tomorrow President Bush is expected to unveil his energy package. We have gotten some indication, even though he has this secret task force with Vice President Cheney, and they do not really tell us, they do not reveal what they are doing, they do it behind closed doors; but we have had some indication of what they are going to suggest tomorrow. From all indications, the Bush-Cheney energy plan that has been developed in secret is basically pro-drilling, pro-nuclear, anti- consumer, and as the gentleman from Oregon has so well mentioned, anti- environment. I have had a number of my constituents say to me, well, why is Bush so anti-environment? Why is the President this way? Why is he leaving the issue of what kind of an energy policy we should have primarily to the oil companies and the oil interests? And the answer is that he and the Vice President are captive. They are the oil companies. They are the oil interests. They are the special interests. We know that big oil gave $3.2 million to the Bush campaign and $25.6 million to Republicans overall; and other sectors of the energy industry have been similarly generous. Apparently, tomorrow is payback time to the energy industry, and I am afraid that consumers and the environment are going to suffer for it. I do not say that because I am trying to be cute. As the gentleman knows and he mentioned, and the gentleman is the champion of the livable communities issue, which is so important in my home State of New Jersey as it is in Oregon and around the country, people care about the environment. People do not want drilling at the expense of the environment. But what we are getting is drilling in ANWR, in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Further, the Bush administration seems to have decided to move forward with offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico, even rejecting an appeal from the President's brother, who is the Governor of Florida. President Bush has suggested drilling for oil in national monuments. He told that to the Denver Post. We are getting the oil and gas companies running the show. He wants to drill, build new plants. Not that we should not, but I do not know that we need as many as he is suggesting. He does not seem to want to do anything about what my colleague from California and his constituents face, the problems they face right now. He has rejected, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) knows, the idea of any wholesale price caps which, from what I can see, are the best way to address the near-term problem in California and western States. He said that he does not want to do anything about OPEC. He is not going to ask them to increase production. He said it is not good policy to ask. He says that he does not want to use the SPR, the strategic petroleum reserve, to control prices. He does not seem to have any concern about the immediate problem of gasoline prices. Mr. Speaker, we are at $1.72 in my district now, but I understand in California we are over $2. I would not be surprised to see $2.50 or $3 a gallon in the next few weeks. The Democrats unveiled through our energy task force on Monday their proposal. Lo and behold, the Democrats not only want to deal with long- term energy efficiency and provide tax credits for people who buy a car or a home that provide for energy or fuel efficiency, but we want to put an end to the price gouging. We are saying, go to OPEC and demand that they increase production so that prices come down. Use the SPR as President Clinton and the previous President, the father, did before President Clinton. Instruct the Department of Justice to investigate to ensure that illegal price-fixing does not occur, and have FERC impose wholesale price caps so we do not continue to have the blackouts. Mr. Speaker, we passed this tax reconciliation bill and this tax cut, which I opposed and most Democrats opposed. President Bush is saying, we will give you a tax refund and you can take that tax refund and pay the higher prices for gasoline at the pump. Well, I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Now I am going to feed the oil industry with my tax refund, which is probably going to be very limited if I am middle income. But I am supposed to take that and give it to the oil companies so they can continue to make huge profits and continue to pay the Bush-Cheney campaign expenses. Hopefully, someday everybody will wake up and realize what an outrage this is.

Mr. PALLONE. I wanted to briefly point out that although the comments I made earlier were primarily with regard to the President's proposal, President Bush and Vice President Cheney's proposals and what they are likely to come up with tomorrow from their task force in terms of a policy to address energy issues, that it is also true that for the last 6 years since the Republicans have been in the majority in this Congress, that they have conveniently forgotten, or failed really, to address what has now become an energy crisis. And each year from 1995 on when President Clinton and the congressional Democrats tried to present commonsense, balanced, both immediate and long-term solutions to the energy problems that existed then and were continuing to build, the Republicans blocked those efforts in the Congress every step of the way. If I could just mention a few, I think the most egregious was in 1999, I remember, I was here, when the Republican leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) joined 36 other Republicans to introduce a bill that would have eliminated the Department of Energy altogether and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. As I mentioned, President Bush still says that he does not want to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but they would have abolished it completely. In the same year, the Republicans rejected an Energy Department proposal to buy 10 million barrels of oil when crude prices were only $10 a barrel that would have allowed us to build up the SPR. So they wanted to abolish it. They did not want to fill it. In addition to that, every year in those 6 years the President and congressional Democrats would propose budget initiatives that would help with energy efficiency and renewables. But between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2001 the Republicans underfunded energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $1.4 billion below what President Clinton and congressional Democrats' funding requests were at the time. We have seen essentially no effort to address conservation, no effort to address energy efficiency, alternative fuels, the list goes on. Next week in the Committee on Commerce which I sit on, we are going to have a full committee markup on a bill that is being brought by the congressional leadership in the Committee on Commerce, the Republican leadership in the Committee on Commerce called the Electricity Emergency Relief Act. This is sponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. This bill, I mean, needless to say, is fundamentally flawed. It is not going to address the problems in California; and I just wanted to point out, this is from my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who is a leading member, a more senior member of the Committee on Commerce, he cited four major flaws with the bill. Keep in mind this is the Republican answer to the California energy crisis. First, it fails to address runaway wholesale electricity prices. The efforts by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) of the Committee on Commerce, then in the subcommittee, next week in the full committee, to impose some sort of cap as the Democrats would like to see on wholesale electricity prices is not included in the bill. The bill, the Republican bill, also interferes with California's actions to address the electricity crisis. It increases the State's dependence on the spot market. It inhibits the State's ability to acquire and operate transmission lines in California. It conflicts with California's innovative demand reduction programs. So it is actually hurting the State, making it difficult for the State to actually do what the State wants to do to improve the electricity situation. It also, and I note that my colleague from Oregon has repeatedly noted the effort to break down environmental laws, this bill creates loopholes in the Nation's environmental laws. It opens up every national park and wilderness area to the construction of new power lines. It allows States to waive environmental requirements applicable to hydro-power projects. It authorizes extensive waivers of the Clean Air Act requirements for electricity generation. And lastly, of course, the bill fails to adequately address conservation. I know that my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), has repeatedly said how there has to be a conservation component in our energy policy. The Democrats have that. The Republicans do not. This bill does nothing to improve it. Tomorrow we are going to hear about the Bush-Cheney report and how great that is going to be. Next week we are going to hear about the Barton bill and how great that is going to be to solve the California problem. Neither one solves any of those problems. Unfortunately we continue to have Republican inaction.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, then-Candidate Bush said at the time when heating oil prices were soaring in my State, he said, ``What I think the President ought to do is get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, we expect you to open your spigots.'' Now he says that he does not want to talk to the cartel. I think Secretary Abraham was saying that it was sort of degrading to the United States to have to go to OPEC and ask them to open the spigots. He might feel degraded, but my constituents would like him to go to the OPEC countries, some of whom we have saved their very existence, and ask them to open their spigots.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman. I do not mean to take the last word, but I just wanted to comment on what the gentleman said, because I think what he pointed out is that the Democrats' energy policy is a well-rounded, commonsense approach. We are saying that we want more production in those areas that are available to be done; to drill for oil, to drill for natural gas, in an environmentally sensitive way. It can be done. We are for more production. We are saying we want conservation. We want the use of more renewables. We want more energy efficiency. We have tax credits for energy efficiency, if you buy a car or do something to your home that is more energy efficient. We basically are very well rounded in our approach in terms of the types of fossil fuels that could be used, and I for the life of me do not understand why we have to take this Bush-Cheney approach that just says drill, drill, drill, and nothing else. Even in our Democratic proposal, we have a supplement to the LIHEAP program for low-income individuals, because we recognize that they are going to need additional help. If you think about what the Democrats have put forward, more production, more energy efficiency, more use of renewables, trying to provide direct payments to low-income individuals so they can pay for their rising costs, all these things are in there. But we want this energy policy to be well rounded. We do not want it to just be limited to something that the oil companies want, which is to drill and drill and drill. There is no way that you can possibly look at what the Democrats have in mind and then look at what the President is proposing. The President's proposal is nothing more than a payback to the special interests, to the oil industry. We have seen that. I know tomorrow it is going to be unveiled. We heard a lot about it, but I am waiting to see what happens, because, as the gentleman says, we want to be bipartisan, and we are hoping that maybe he will incorporate tomorrow some of the conservation and other things that we are talking about tonight. I doubt he will, but I hope he does, because I would like to see a responsible energy policy passed. I just do not see that coming from the White House so far. With that, I thank my colleague for all he has done and continues to do on these issues.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), and mention, which I am sure some people already know, that certainly the Democrats today, our Democratic leadership, announced an energy policy program under the auspices of the House Democratic Caucus, our energy task force. There are a number of provisions in there that I think are very good. But one of them specifically says with regard to price gouging that we would instruct the Justice Department to aggressively investigate energy pricing to assure that illegal price fixing does not occur and to give thorough antitrust reviews to any proposals to further consolidate energy companies. I know that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our leader, was out there with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) in San Diego, with some of our other colleagues from California, Southern California. We have been basically saying that we have got to look at this problem overall. Price gouging and gasoline prices are an important part of this. We still do not have the President's or the Cheney proposal. That is supposed to come out Thursday. But so far every indication that we have got from President Bush and Vice President Cheney is that they simply do not want to do anything about gasoline prices. It is just not their problem. I cannot imagine that, with all the problems that one faces in California with regard to blackouts and the overall energy crisis, that anybody is happy to hear that we are going to not address gas price problem.

Mr. PALLONE. And in New Jersey we have the phenomenon whereas after Memorial Day, and I represent the shore area, everybody is going to be paying these higher prices when they have to travel to the shore or to the beaches. I know some might say that people do not have to go on a vacation; but obviously, that is not the answer. I just cannot believe that the President and the Vice President simply do not see this as a problem and think that somehow a tax cut is going to help that. I want to thank the gentlewoman for being here. I know she has been taking her leadership in her home State on this issue. Thanks.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I now wish to yield time to my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas. It is really almost incredible to think that the President and the Vice President do not understand what needs to be done now to address the problem with the gasoline prices. I was just looking at some of the statements that were made here. This is from Vice President Cheney, May 11, I guess just a week ago, in USA Today. He said, ``There's not much we can do in the short-term.'' And he goes on to talk about everything they are going to come out with, theoretically this Thursday, is long term. Then it says that they apparently have been warning Republicans on Capitol Hill that the energy policy to be released will do little to help with gas prices or California blackouts this summer. To me, it is incredible to think that they are not looking to at least talk to OPEC and say, look, do something here. These are countries where I think we have a lot of clout and the ability to influence their policy because they depend on us for so many things. The same thing with the SPR. I cannot believe there was so much discussion last session about the SPR and the ability to use that as a sort of a hammer to force prices down and to force more production of OPEC, and yet so far they are not willing to do it. The gentleman obviously has the same problem leading up to Memorial Day and the summer in Arkansas that we have in New Jersey, and I just know that a few more weeks of these price increases, and it is already almost the number one issue on people's minds, but I do not know how we are going to be able to go back from Congress and say Washington is not doing anything about it. It is just incredible. I want to thank the gentleman for participating and we are obviously going to be doing a lot more of this. Thanks. Next, Mr. Speaker, we have, from my neighboring State of New York, and I imagine he has the same phenomenon with people leaving to go to Long Island for the start of Memorial Day weekend, the gentleman from New York.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York. I know we are both in the New York metropolitan area, so we share the same concerns and we hear the same complaints from our constituents. I just wanted to mention, if I could, that the Democrats' energy policy paper was released today, wherein our leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who is the chairman of the caucus and also the chairman of the task force that put this together, talked about two major tax credits along the lines of what the gentleman just discussed; and I wanted to mention them briefly, if I could. There is this best energy savings tax credit, which is basically a consumer tax credit for up to $4,000 provided for new homes, in other words, a $4,000 credit for purchase of a new home based on the energy efficiency of the new home. And then similarly with regard to home improvements, 20 percent of the cost up to $2,000 based on the measures taken by the consumer. And there is a separate one for vehicles that an individual could get a credit up to $4,000 based on fuel savings or other performance standards when they purchase a car or a light truck or SUV equipped with these new fuel saving technologies. And then for businesses, the Democratic proposal has what they call a SAVE incentive, structure and vehicle efficiency tax incentive; and this provides up to a 30 percent investment tax credit for business investment in renewable energy generation and allows businesses to take a deduction for increasing energy efficiency. These are the kinds of conservation measures linked to new technology that we need, and I know that is what the gentleman was talking about. And I think the great part of what the Democrats put forward today in our energy proposal is that it deals with the high price of gasoline, which is an immediate concern; it deals with conservation; it deals with efforts to use tax credits and deductions for conservation; and, at the same time, it has measures to increase energy production. So we are looking at this universally, in a sort of a well-rounded way, whereas all we get from the Bush-Cheney administration is just pump; let us pump more oil, let us pump more, and that is going to solve all our problems. But that is not going to solve our problems, particularly in the short term.

Mr. PALLONE. The amazing thing that I find is that even my own utilities, during Earth Day myself and my other Democratic colleagues in the House did a bus tour around the State, and one of the places we went, I think it was in the district of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), was a generating facility in Linden, which was building a new plant that would reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions by 30 percent. Here are these utilities, and this is the business community, telling us that they can address carbon dioxide emissions effectively at the same time that the Bush administration tells us they do not want to regulate it. So the President is just not being realistic about what can be done. He is sort of living in the past, in my opinion; and it is very unfortunate. I want to thank the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, next is my colleague on the Committee on Commerce who has been involved in these energy issues for a long time, and I know that our committee has taken up some legislation, but so far the Republicans have not really been helping us very much in terms of addressing the California situation. I yield to my colleague from Ohio.