Conference Report on H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 28, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the comprehensive energy bill before us, a bill that purports to address the energy challenges facing this country, yet ignores the most fundamental issues and fails to set us on a path to a more sustainable future.
Despite the fact that the transportation sector is the biggest emitter of harmful pollutants into our air, this bill fails to increase the efficiency of our cars. The technology is there, the demand is there, but the will is not. Although the bill offers incentives for consumers to purchase hybrid vehicles, this country's broken fuel economy program prevents it from having an effect. When an auto maker sells more fuel efficient cars, they are then given flexibility to crank out more gas guzzlers, which boggles my mind.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also fails to require our utilities to derive even a small percentage of their power from renewable energy, as voters in Colorado overwhelmingly approved last year. Enactment of a national renewable portfolio standard would spur innovation in the marketplace, attract new capital investment, create jobs, and reduce pollution.
This legislation, which acknowledges that global warming is a problem, sets up yet another federal advisory committee to ``develop a national policy to address climate change.'' Maybe I am mistaken, but isn't that Congress' job? We had the opportunity in this bill to create a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas emissions that are warming our earth, polluting our skies, and endangering our national security by keeping us bound to foreign oil. Again, we had the opportunity, but with this bill, we are passing the buck for another Congress to deal with, when the problem is even more out of control.
This bill weakens some of our most basic environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. It presents some nice handouts to industry, such as billions in giveaways to oil companies that are already drowning in profits due to high oil prices, while the Nation is experiencing huge deficits and slashing education and health care programs.
This bill fails to recognize that high energy costs are a function of both supply and demand. While it is quite generous in increasing the production of fossil fuels, it does not even acknowledge the oil scarcity problem. Instead of drilling and more drilling, we should be helping to curb the Nation's appetite for this rapidly declining resource by encouraging the development of alternative technologies.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this bill is a marked improvement over previous iterations. I applaud Chairman BARTON for his devotion to ensuring an open, transparent process with full debate on the issues. He has great courtesy and respect for the deliberative process, and I thank him for that. The bill he has put forward takes steps towards greater energy efficiency and conservation, ensuring the reliability of the electricity grid, and providing customers with incentives to purchase vehicles powered by alternative fuels.
But the problems with this legislation far outweigh its benefits, and as such I am forced to oppose it. I wish this Congress had the courage to enact reforms that would set this country on a more sustainable energy future, but instead it seems content to stick with a status quo that emphasizes extraction over conservation, pork over investment, and development over efficiency. Americans deserve better.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov