Conference Report on H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (Extensions of Remarks - September 06, 2005)

SPEECH OF
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
OF CONNECTICUT
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2005

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, of everything that can be said about this $15 billion giveaway to the oil and gas industry--that it does nothing to alleviate the record high costs of oil, nothing to reduce our dependence on oil--the worst may be that it is a missed opportunity. And that is because it fails to harness America's entrepreneurial spirit to develop new sources of energy. It is a continuation of the status quo at a time when we need a new American energy policy--bold new thinking to foster energy independence and grow our Nation's economy in a way that addresses the threat of global warming.

But instead, this bill provides billions in tax breaks for oil companies already reaping record profits. It does little to encourage development of new forms of energy. And it restricts States' abilities to protect their own natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are rightly concerned about how our dependence on foreign oil affects our foreign policy. This bill does nothing to reduce that dependence. If anything, it enshrines that dependence into law. Today we import 58 percent of our oil, and by 2025 we will still import between 64 and 68 percent of our oil, even after enacting this legislation. Nor does it reduce skyrocketing gasoline prices--something even the president has conceded.

And that is because this bill rejects common sense ideas that could help us reduce our need for foreign oil. The conference committee rejected a measure that would have required America to decrease its oil consumption by 5 percent by 2015. At a time when Americans are fed-up with high gasoline prices, we should be looking for ways to reduce their need to fill-up at the pump. But the committee also rejected a modest proposal that would have increased the fuel efficiency of our cars by one mile per gallon per year for the next 15 years.

The final version of this bill also rejects a Senate proposal to require utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. This provision would have helped us to significantly reduce our dependence on traditional polluting sources of electricity. Another missed opportunity.

As if the lack of new thinking in this bill weren't enough, it also declares war on States' rights when it comes to protecting their citizens. The bill would eviscerate the role of the States in the siting of LNG facilities and grant sole jurisdiction in such matters to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. This provision flies in the face of the Coastal Zone Management Act. CZMA is a unique partnership between coastal States and the Federal Government that allows States to protect their own coastal resources. This is an especially important law for Connecticut, where the commerce that comes from the Long Island Sound fishing grounds, ports and recreational area makes it a $5 billion economic asset. Because our State's economy depends on the Long Island Sound, we believe that the State has the obligation to protect it from possible environmental harm.

Rather than passing this legislation, we ought to be reducing our dependence on foreign oil by improving our energy efficiency and maximizing our domestic energy production in an environmentally sound way--by investing in cleaner, more secure energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and fuel cell technology. My State of Connecticut is a leader in fuel cell technology, with several businesses doing research that is on the cusp of revolutionizing the way our Nation powers its homes, cars and businesses. This bill should be investing in American small businesses like Proton Energy in Wallingford, Nxegen in Middletown and Danbury's Fuel Cell Energy--companies that already do over $300 million worth of fuel cell business and move us closer to true energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes 20th century solutions for 21st century energy challenges. It neglects the realities of a changing world--that our dependence on foreign oil has real consequences for our foreign policy, that the warming of the planet will have a serious impact on the lives of all Americans. It ignores our entrepreneurial spirit and technological know-how to develop and harness new forms of energy. And it ignores the rights of States to look after the interests of their citizens.

America can do better--and deserves better--than this conference report. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

http://thomas.loc.gov