Schakowsky Votes Against Energy Industry Giveaway Bill
SCHAKOWSKY VOTES AGAINST ENERGY INDUSTRY GIVEAWAY BILL
REPUBLICAN MEASURE FAILS CONSUMERS, TAXPAYERS, ENVIRONMENT
WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) today voted against H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a bill which harms the environment, rewards industry for anti-environmental practices, and shifts the burden of energy costs onto the taxpayer.
"What we have here is an energy bill, written by the energy industry lobbyists, that gives more than $22 billion in taxpayer dollars to the coal, nuclear, oil and gas industries and provides broad new access for energy developers to enter our precious public lands.
This legislation fails to guard the environment against corporate polluters; it fails to promote renewable fuels and efficiency, and it fails to protect consumers from high prices caused by market manipulation.
And while this bill provides billions of taxpayers dollars for the worst polluters, it provides a relative pittance for renewable and efficient technologies.
Even President Bush's Energy Information Administration reported that implementation of bill would actually result in increased prices of gasoline at the pump and a negligible impact on energy prices overall. Republican claims that their energy legislation is anything more than a giveaway to their industry buddies, are just not true.
With this bill, the Republicans have failed to take advantage of all the technological advances that currently exist and that could improve our economy, public health and the environment and which would improve our long-term energy security and independence in ways that bring prices down over time.
Once again, this bill gives taxpayer dollars to Big Oil and nuclear energy giants and continues our old and failed practices of dig, burn and pollute.
Despite the efforts of several members, this bill does not permanently prohibit oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. We were denied a chance to do that and to debate the Stupak amendment, which I cosponsored. In a world with a growing population and diminishing resources, why would any member of Congress choose anything other than the prudent option when it comes to protection of our fresh water resources? Almost every year we are told about oil spills, pipeline accidents and other accidents. Knowing that we cannot absolutely rule those possibilities out, why would we choose an option that makes them possible? It is counter-intuitive and short-sighted
This bill will provide no real relief for consumers from already- high energy prices. The legislation fails to make investments in efficient and renewable energy that would reduce dependence on foreign oil, lower energy prices or create jobs.
This bill guarantees billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to big oil and big gasdollars provided by the taxpayers and for which they will receive no meaningful return on their investment.
This bill shamelessly panders to Republican campaign contributors like big oil and big gas and leaves our constituents out in the cold when it comes to protecting their rights as consumers. And, in order to pay for the huge government subsidies for industry provided in this bill, we will be forced to go further into debt.
Currently, the United States accounts for just 5% of the world's population. Yet we account for 25% percentage of the world's energy demand.
We should have used this opportunity to craft an energy bill that that made our nation stand out as a center of visionary leadership in investing in renewable and efficient technologies that would reduce prices, enhance sustainability of energy sources, improve the environment and public health and create jobs through new industry initiatives. It takes our nation in the wrong direction for our energy future.
Over the last 50 years the Federal government has provided $500 billion in subsidies for fossil fuel and nuclear energy development. As a result, 99% of electricity in places like my home state of Illinois comes from these sources. We need a new approach for our energy future.
This bill should have increased CAFÉ standards so consumers would spend less on gas and burn less gas.
This bill should have held MTBE manufacturers accountable for the damage their products do to our water and to public health. Instead, it protects them.
This bill should have protected the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Instead it threatens the ANWR opening it up to oil exploration and environmental degradation for at best a 6 month supply of oil that will take ten years and billions of dollars to extract.
The list goes on and on. This bill fails our environment and our constituents and I urge my colleagues to reject it."
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/PressRelease_4_21_05_EnergyBill.html