Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   It is very interesting to hear my colleagues from California speak out about this solution to our crisis that we have there. Either they and our colleagues on the Republican side are closing their eyes to a situation which they do not wish to acknowledge, to quote the Music Man, or they refuse to acknowledge the caliber of disaster posed by the exploitation by the power companies who have withheld energy in order to drive up prices to exploit the market and increase costs to the consumers.

   This amendment, which is the Inslee amendment, is appropriate to come up on this emergency supplemental because it is an emergency indeed. It does not cost one penny. But what it says is that this body will recognize an emergency. You be the judge. In 1999, Californians spent $7 billion on energy. In 2000, it was $27 billion because of this exploitation. And projected for 2001 is 50 to $60 billion, nearly 10 times.

   This is taking a terrible toll on our economy. We will have a revenue bond issue to help cover the cost, to underwrite cost to consumers and businesses, residences and businesses, of about $12 billion, the highest State bond issue ever. What does that mean? It means that our credit rating for our State will be affected by that. And when our State's economy is affected, the economy of the whole country is and certainly that of the western United States as our colleagues from other States in the West have testified to.

   We have at this moment homeowners, residences, businesses, which will be driven out of existence. They cannot afford to pay even the cost that is not being underwritten by the State. In some cases their energy bills will go up $400 for a residence and even much more than that for some of the businesses, especially the small businesses will have their very existence threatened. We have 800,000 people who are disabled in California, who depend on energy at all times and will be very affected by not being able to pay their bills and have that source of energy.

   So when people want to talk about how we got where we are today, we can have that debate and frankly if we had more time we could have it right here. But the fact is that whatever those reasons, it does not eliminate the fact that power companies withheld energy to drive up the cost, to exploit the market, to have this impact on consumers. So our choice here, Mr. Chairman, is to make a choice between the exploiters and the consumers.

   Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. INSLEE), who with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. ESHOO) and others from this region is the author of this amendment, which as I say I am pleased as an appropriator to offer and thank him again for his leadership.

It is very unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that while there may be 30 perhaps, the gentleman has not told us an exact figure, but I respect the fact that he will get that information to us, authorizations protected by the rule for this bill, that the majority has chosen to ignore a crisis in California and the western States, our western region as our amendment addresses the West.

   This is an emergency for us. Our energy costs have increased 10 times, into the tens of billions of dollars as I mentioned. Hundreds of thousands of disabled people depending on access to energy at all times cannot tolerate rolling blackouts or any other kind, including the high cost of energy. It will have an impact on the credit rating of our State which has now surpassed France as an economy in the world. California has surpassed France as an economy, and we are going to be cavalier about the impact that has on our country and that small businesses and homeowners and residences and all the rest will carry this tremendous burden.

   It seems to me our Republican colleagues want to play the blame game instead of trying to find a solution to this problem. No matter how you describe it, the fact is that the suppliers have exploited the market by withholding power to drive up the prices to exploit the consumer. You cannot deny that, as many places as you want to place the blame. The fact is that we have had tremendous growth in our economy in the West. We have also had a real dearth of rainfall and we depend heavily on hydroelectric. There are other reasons why we are in the situation we are in today.

   But again I repeat, the remedy that we are suggesting today is for a reasonable cap based on expenses and profit to the suppliers that is just and reasonable. That is what the power law called for. That is what they told and instructed the FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, that they could do if there were not just and reasonable rates charged. The FERC determined that the rates were not fair and reasonable. They are almost $9 billion overcharged to consumers in California. With all of that, the FERC has decided to act this week, favoring the dirtiest and oldest technology to make the cap the highest possible cap.

   So while they recognize there is a problem, they intervened into the market. They did so in a way that was, as was said earlier by my colleagues, half baked. So for this committee to say that we will object to this on the basis of the fact that it is authorizing on an appropriations bill, when there are at least 30 other authorizations in this bill protected by the rule, but to save the people in the western United States the emergency does not count to us, again we would rather play the blame game than solve the problem, I have serious problems with that, Mr. Chairman. I just wish that the chairman would reconsider his objection on the basis of it being authorizing; but if that is the route the majority chooses to go, as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. CALLAHAN) said last week, he said the Californians made their bed, then let them lie in it.

   The Republicans are making their bed on this issue right now by siding with the exploiters at the expense of the consumers. They are making their bed.