Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6052, Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6052, SAVING ENERGY THROUGH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2008 -- (House of Representatives - June 26, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my colleague from Florida, and I admire her leadership on energy issues, among many other issues.

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about two things. One is an amendment that I offered to this bill that's been incorporated into the manager's amendment.

This bill recognizes that one of the steps that we have to take, long overdue, is to build up our public transportation system. It's going to provide relief to commuters; it's going to help our environment; it's going to create jobs.

The amendment that I offered and that Mr. Oberstar incorporated into the manager's amendment would allow funds to be used by local transportation authorities, like the Chittenden County Transportation Authority, to retrofit their equipment and facilities in order to improve energy efficiency and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Those would be specific purposes for which authorized funds may be used.

Specifically, it means that an organization like the Chittenden County Transit Authority in the Burlington area could retrofit their buses and be more fuel efficient. They've been trying to do that. A shortage of funds has kept them from achieving all of their goals. It would also allow the transportation authority in that State and in other States to build a natural gas pump station locally. This, we believe, is a very important part of the legislation presented to you.

Second, we're having, in the process of this debate, an ongoing discussion about energy. The fact is--and I think we all know this--in the past when we've had crises around energy, it has never produced a lasting and durable response. There has been an immediate response but nothing lasting, whether it was after the OPEC organization in the early '70s, after the Gulf war or after Katrina. Usually, a crisis does produce a response. It hasn't. We know the time has passed as to when we can look the other way.

What accounts for the high cost of energy? The reality is there are a number of factors. The weak dollar is one, because of our current account deficit. Speculation is another. There has been a massive increase in speculation in the commodities markets in general, in oil in particular, where it's gone from folks who are delivering the product or who are receiving the product, to financial speculators who see that there is money in playing that game.

There has also been an increased demand with globalization. China and India are building their economies. They're using more energy. But there has also been a significant failure of leadership to move us away from an oil-dependent economy. The reality is, what we need to be doing here in Congress is addressing both the short-term steps that we can take as well as the long-term need for a new energy policy.

So what are the specific things that we can do in the short term? One, we can stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and diminish demand. We've done that. That will have a positive impact in reducing demand. Second, we can limit speculation. We should be putting limits on how much the speculative players can influence price, not only because there is significant expert testimony that that is adding a premium to the cost of a gallon of gas or to a gallon of home heating fuel, but that it also is creating a potential bubble where innocent participants and pension funds may see the value of their assets suddenly diminish when the market goes south. So we will be considering later anti-speculation legislation that will be helpful as well.

Third, the ``Use It or Lose It'' legislation. Our friends on the other side have been making a big argument about the need to increase production. You know, there is not any disagreement here that part of our transition from an oil-based economy to a carbon-free economy has to include the continued production and use of carbon-based fuels, including oil. No question about it. The issue here is whether or not we need to increase lands that are available when we have 68 million acres already under lease, permitted, where all the oil companies need to do in order to produce more oil is to put metal to the Earth. This is 68 million acres, Madam Speaker, as you know, that is both onshore and offshore.

So the argument is that we need to be opening up a national park and starting to drill there or into other coastal areas when we have 68 million acres already available, but for reasons that only the oil companies--the leaseholders--are aware, those are not producing needed oil and natural gas for our citizens. It's estimated that the amount of oil that's available under those 68 million acres is 4.8 million barrels.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. So what we need to do that also is a long-term energy policy is to increase mileage standards and take away the tax breaks that are going to the oil companies and steer them to alternative agency. Incidentally, ExxonMobil, which made $40 billion this year, spent $32 billion buying its stock back rather than producing oil on these leaseholds.

We also have to have a new energy policy so we can keep our money at home. We're sending $1 trillion to the oil-producing states like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, not particularly our friends. If we keep that money at home, we're going to strengthen our economy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source