Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - April 20, 2005)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I heard the previous speaker's comment. This is not a bipartisan bill. That does not mean that some Democrats will not vote for it, but none of the ranking members were involved in this policy, and they are not voting for it.

Mr. Speaker, the United States of America needs an energy strategy that not only reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil, but also strengthens our national security.

As a bipartisan group of 26 national security officials, including Robert McFarlane, President Reagan's National Security Adviser, and Jim Woolsey, President Clinton's CIA Director, recently stated in a letter to President Bush: ``It should be a top national security priority of the United States to significantly reduce its consumption of foreign oil. The United States' dependence on imported petroleum poses a risk to our homeland security and to our economic well-being.''

Yet, Mr. Speaker, this Republican energy bill does virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on petroleum products. In fact, at a time of record profits for the oil and gas industries, these traditional energy producers stand to reap 93 percent of the tax incentives in this bill, or $7.5 billion.

Do we know who said they did not need it? The President of the United States, George W. Bush said that just a day ago.

Renewable energy and conservation receive only 7 percent of the resources allotted in this bill. This bill is simply a rehash of the same policies and incentives that have made us more, not less, energy dependent.

It would provide more than $22 billion to the oil and gas and other energy industries in tax breaks, direct spending, and authorizations. Does anybody who is paying $2.50 or $3 at the pump think that the energy companies are hurting for dollars? I think not.

It would shift the costs of MTBE cleanup from manufacturers to the American taxpayers. I think most Americans do not think that is a good policy. Furthermore, the problem with it is, that is why we do not have an energy bill, because the majority leader demanded of the Senate that that be in there, and the Senate would not take it.

It would weaken the Clean Air Act and, unbelievably, this Republican bill would actually increase gas prices by 3 cents per gallon, according to the Bush administration's own Energy Department. Apparently, this Republican majority believes you need to pay more for gasoline.

There is a reason that this energy bill is going nowhere fast. It is bad policy, and it fails to address the energy needs of this great Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

http://thomas.loc.gov