Waiving Points of Order Against Congference Report on H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005

Floor Speech

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, after passage of this rule, the House will consider the conference report for the energy bill. And before I explain why I strongly oppose this conference report, let me congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for presiding over a full and open conference committee. Last Congress Democrats were shut out of the conference committee. Republicans wrote that bill in the dark of night and behind closed doors. This time the chairman opened the process. He consulted frequently with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and held public hearings.

The energy bill is an important piece of legislation that deserves to be debated out in the open, and while I do not support the final product, I want to commend the chairman for attempting to restore some bipartisanship to this Chamber, and I hope others will follow his example.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) deserves to be singled out as well. His long and distinguished career has produced some of the most important laws that govern our Nation. The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) said it best last night in the Rules Committee when you talked about trying to discern the intent of one provision that would change current law. The chairman told the Rules Committees that as he was trying to explain the intent of the law, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) leaned across the table and talked about what he intended when he wrote that provision years ago.

And so I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his work on this conference committee.

With that being said, Mr. Speaker, let me comment on the substance of the energy bill. I must say that I agree with the editorial in this morning's Washington Post which says, and I quote, ``The nicest thing we can say about the comprehensive energy bill is that it could have been a lot worse.''

We all know that our Nation is facing a severe energy crisis. The President knows it, the House knows it, and, most importantly, our constituents know it. As we stand here today, the average retail price for gasoline is $2.32, up 40 cents just this year. For a family of four this amounts to nearly $3,000 spent annually on gasoline. That is a tax increase courtesy of the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress, and the oil companies that are reaping the rewards of record profits.

Yet the conference report that we have before us today does nothing, absolutely nothing, to lower energy prices for consumers. It fails to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil. It makes no real commitment to the development of renewable energy sources.

In all, the oil and gas industries will receive a multibillion-dollar package of tax breaks, and if that was not for the dedicated leadership of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), these same companies would have also been shielded from liability claims for their role in polluting our Nation's water supply with MTBE.

But let us be clear: Though a few concessions have been made, this bill is nowhere near what it should be. In fact, this bill is chock-full of giveaways to the oil and gas industry at the expense of public health and environmental safety.

If enacted, nearly 30,000 new oil and gas projects developed each year will be exempted from clean water requirements which aim to control erosion and run-off into rivers and streams. These same companies, including the administration's friends at Halliburton, would also be permitted to inject fluid laced with toxic chemicals into oil and gas wells. This provision alone poses an enormous threat to the safety of our Nation's drinking water sources, and if that was not bad enough, this bill extends the reach of the Federal Government into what should be local energy decisions.

Local communities like the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, in my district would have virtually no say in the construction, expansion and operation of liquid natural gas facilitates. Permits granted by State agencies would no longer be subject to review by State courts. Rather Federal appeals courts, which are far from experts on individual State laws, would have exclusive jurisdiction. This provision undermines the ability of State and local officials to protect their communities from dangers surrounding LNG.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we have before us today is not a comprehensive approach. It does not solve our Nation's energy crisis. And I cannot say it any more simply than this: The Energy Policy Act will harm the environment, reward special interests at the expense of consumers and taxpayers, and limit States rights.

Mr. Speaker, I think we could have done much, much better, and I believe that it should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member. They have worked in a bipartisan way in this conference committee to produce this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the following is an editorial that appeared in The Washington Post today entitled ``Energy Deficient'' and the editorial that appeared in today's New York Times entitled ``Energy Shortage.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me just say in conclusion that I have great respect for Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell. They have worked very hard on this bill. I think it is a better bill that is before us than the one that we passed here in the House. As Chairman Barton pointed out, Ranking Member Dingell supports this bill. There was virtually a love fest in the Rules Committee last night, in part a tribute to the process during these last several weeks.

Having said that, some of us obviously have some philosophical differences, and some of us feel compelled to vote against this bill. I have no doubt that this bill will pass with strong bipartisan support, but as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I feel compelled to oppose the bill as well. I am concerned about some of what I consider are giveaways in this bill that I think were unnecessary. One would ease environmental restrictions on oil and gas companies drilling on public lands. The other would give billions of dollars in, I think, undeserved tax breaks to companies that, quite frankly, right now are gouging Americans. Oil companies right now, I think, are gouging Americans who are paying the highest gas prices in recent memory.

I think this bill could have been a better bill. Again, there are philosophical differences here. There will be a debate on the conference report. I have no objection to the rule. Again, let me close by expressing my respect and admiration for Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell, notwithstanding the fact that I oppose their final product.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source