Hearings of House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality: The Energy Policy Act of 2005

HEARINGS OF HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY: THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

February 10, 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the world of nuclear physics, there is a theory known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that the more precisely the position is known, the less precisely the momentum is known.

Scientists tell me that this uncertainty principle has profound implications for understanding the behavior of subatomic particles, such as electrons. There appears to be a similar theory at work in the Congress these days, a theory known as the Republican Uncertainty Principle. Here, too, the more precisely a position is known, the less precisely we know what the momentum is. The Republican party's position on national energy policy are known with great precision, while we can never quite determine at any given time exactly what the momentum of their legislative efforts is, or whether there is any momentum at all.

For example, will the House wait to move an energy bill until the Senate acts? Maybe, maybe not. Is the committee only going to have one hearing on an energy bill? Maybe, maybe not. Are the members going to be able to deliver opening statements at any hearings or markups? Maybe, maybe not. Are we going to have a subcommittee markup? Maybe, maybe not. Are we going to have a full committee markup? Maybe, maybe not. Is the energy bill going to the House floor in February, or will we wait until March? Maybe, maybe not. Will the bill, when it goes to the floor, allow Democrats to make amendments on the floor? Maybe, maybe not. Will those Democrats from the Democratic side who are appointed to any future conference with the Senate on this bill, will they be invited to participate in the meetings of the conferees? Maybe, maybe not.

Under the Republican Uncertainty Principle, you know exactly at all times what their positions are on this bill. You know that they want to drill in the Arctic Refuge. They want to weaken environmental laws in the name of energy production. They want to provide generous tax breaks and other favors to large oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and electric companies. They want energy consumers to pay higher rates and big energy companies to grow even bigger. All of this is certain. But you can never quite determine what the forward momentum of the bill really is, what their process is, or if there is any process at all.

That is the Republican Uncertainty Principle at work, and I welcome all of our witnesses back once again to this wonderful world of Republican political quantum mechanics. I look forward to your testimony this morning, but I am uncertain whether it will lead to the enactment of any legislation at all.

I yield back the balance, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edward J. Markey follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the world of nuclear physics, there is a theory known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that ``the more precisely the position in known, the less precisely the momentum is known.'' Scientists tell me that this Uncertainty Principle has profound implications for understanding the behavior of subatomic particles, such as electrons.

There appears to be a similar theory at work in the Congress these days, a theory known as the Republican Uncertainty Principle. Here too, the more precisely a position is known, the less precisely we know what the momentum is. The Republican Party's positions on national energy policy are known with great precision, but we can never quite determine at any given time exactly what the momentum of their legislative efforts is, or whether there is any momentum at all. For example:

Will the House wait to move an energy bill until the Senate acts? Maybe. Maybe not.

Is the Committee only going to have one hearing on an energy bill? Maybe. Maybe not.

Are the Members going to be able to deliver opening statements any hearings or markups? Maybe. Maybe not.

Are we going to have a Subcommittee markup? Maybe. Maybe not.

Are we going to have a full Committee markup? Maybe. Maybe not.

Is the energy bill going to the House floor in February or will we wait until March? Maybe. Maybe not.

When the bill does go to the floor, are we going to be able to offer our amendments? Maybe. Maybe not.

Will those of us from the Democratic side who are appointed to any future conference with the Senate on this bill be invited to participate in the meetings of the conferees? Maybe. Maybe not.

Under the Republican Uncertainty Principle, you know exactly at all times what their positions are on this bill. You know that they want to drill in the Arctic Refuge, they want to weaken environmental laws in the name of energy production, they want to provide generous tax breaks and other favors to large oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and electric companies, they want energy consumers to pay higher rates and big energy companies to grow even bigger. All of this is very certain. But you can never quite determine what the forward momentum of their bill really is, what their process is, or if there is any process at all.

That's the Republican Uncertainty Principle at work, and I welcome all of our witnesses back once again to the wonderful world of Republican Political Quantum Mechanics. I look forward to hearing your testimony this morning, but I am uncertain whether it will lead to the enactment of any legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Markey. Mr. Garman, yesterday, I asked the Secretary about the DOE's laxity in the promulgation of efficiency standards. There are 22 rulemakings that are still not completed. There is a 13 year delay in one of the 22 rulemakings. It is the simplest, smartest way for America to save energy. It is what we are greatest at. It is ensuring that our appliances, our furnaces, our air conditioners, are the state-of-the-art, using less and less energy, and that is how we are going to put a chill in OPEC. But yet, the Department of Energy isn't doing its job in promulgating these efficiency standards, and we are becoming more and more dependent upon the wrong kinds of energy sources. So what is the problem, Mr. Garman? Why can't your agency do its job and promulgate these regulations to help protect America?

Mr. Garman. I will be happy to respond to that, Congressman. Essentially, and a little history is in order, and you know this history very well, in the Energy Policy Act and other acts, Congress set out a timetable for when it wanted to see certain standards promulgated from the Department. After the Department started doing that, there were some complaints from a variety of parties that this process was not very transparent, and this was during the Clinton Administration, when the Congress actually instructed the Department of Energy to stop work on its rulemaking, and imposed a moratorium on further rulemaking, until such time a new process was developed. Again, during the Clinton Administration, that new process was developed, a process called the process improvement rule, and it was adopted by rulemaking. It was a consensus process, involving the energy efficiency advocates and the manufacturers. That process improvement rule set into place, and again, this is the prior administration, a very, very complicated, rigorous, analytical process that is also very, very transparent, with lots of opportunities for public input, public hearings, at every stage----

Mr. Markey. All right. I got it. So here is the thing, Mr. Garman, okay? The President has been able to assemble a coalition to surround Iraq, invade Iraq, have elections in Iraq, all in the last 4 years, but you and the Department of Energy, and President Bush, even though he gives these speeches about how much he cares about energy and our independence, he can't figure out in 4 years, President Bush, how to have one new rulemaking on energy efficiency, to reduce our dependence. So how long is it going to take, Mr. Garman, 4 years already? Are you going to drag it out for the whole 8 years, just go into a complete stall, and then hand it over at the end of your term, and say look, we did our best, but our hands were tied?

Mr. Garman. Actually----

Mr. Markey. Because if that is our policy at the Department of Energy on this, I am afraid for our security of our country, knowing that the projection is dramatically increased energy consumption in the years ahead.

Mr. Garman. Again, Congressman, we have instituted 3 new rulemakings during my tenure at the Department. We instituted----

Mr. Markey. You have not completed. You have not completed a single new rulemaking in the entire time that the Bush Administration has been in office. We are now in the fifth year.

Mr. Garman. Actually, we have completed a number of different items. Let me remind the Congressman that a rulemaking is a two part process. We must first, again, under the provisions that were adopted in the prior administration, come through with a test determination. We must first, through a public process, determine how----

Mr. Markey. The only thing the Bush Administration did was after the Clinton Administration finished a rulemaking on air conditioning, was for the Bush Administration to try to roll back the rulemaking on air conditioning, which was----

Mr. Garman. No, sir. We----

Mr. Markey. [continuing] a 20 to 25 percent improvement on the efficiency of air conditioners in America.

Mr. Garman. We have----

Mr. Markey. That is the--that is where all the energy of this administration----

Mr. Garman. We have instituted new----

Mr. Markey. [continuing] went to.

Mr. Garman. [continuing] rulemaking and commercial air conditioning standards. In fact, yesterday, I signed a Federal Register notice----

Mr. Markey. Have you completed any new rulemaking since the Bush Administration took over? Have you commenced and finished any new rulemakings on energy efficiency, on anything, Mr. Garman? Anything?

Mr. Garman. I would say that in the first term of the Clinton Administration, they did not complete any, either.

Mr. Markey. I am not asking about--I am asking about you, Mr. Garman, the job you are doing, the job that President Bush is doing, to make our country less dependent upon imported oil. Have you completed anything that you started? Anything?

Mr. Garman. We have not gone to a final rule.

Mr. Markey. A final rule.

Mr. Garman. A final rule. And under, again, the process improvement rule, Congressman, a rule takes a minimum of 3 years. A test determination and a rule takes more than 3 years.

Mr. Markey. The statute established----

Mr. Garman. A term of a President is 4 years. So it is very----

Mr. Markey. The statute----

Mr. Garman. [continuing] difficult in the first term.

Mr. Markey. Mr. Garman, this whole Bush Administration energy policy is a fraud. It is just an attempt to drill in the most pristine area of our country.

Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time----

Mr. Markey. It is nothing more than that.

Mr. Shimkus. [continuing] from Massachusetts has expired.

Mr. Markey. It is not an energy policy. It is----

Mr. Shimkus. I think we understand his----

Mr. Markey. [continuing] a fraud.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=99906.wais