Energy Policy Act of 2005

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - April 21, 2005)

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation--an $88 billion giveaway to the oil and gas industry that does nothing to alleviate the record high costs of oil and gas.

At a time when science and common sense tells us we should be doing more research into alternative energy and less drilling in our precious public lands, this bill provides $8 billion in tax breaks for companies to do more drilling and less research into alternative energy. In an $88 billion bill, less than $500 million is dedicated to any kind of renewable energy research.

The legislation promotes drilling in the last vestiges of the great American frontier--places like Alaska's Arctic Refuge and the Rocky Mountain Front--ruining forever these examples of nature's magnificence all for what amounts to 5 percent of a one year's supply of oil. At the same time, it authorizes $80 billion in new spending to assist the big oil companies--one reason conservatIve organizations such as Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste oppose this bill. Just yesterday, the president expressed similar concerns as well. Another provision gives legal protection to producers of MTBE--a substance if consumed can cause a variety of health problems.

I would like to also express my concern about two very important sections of this bill. Section 330 limits the ability of state governments to oversee the permitting process of pipeline construction projects or construction of LNG facilities, placing that responsibility solely within the FERC, with states relegated to a consultative role. This would eviscerate my state government's ability to regulate proposed projects in the Long Island Sound, despite the state's undisputed leadership in the clean-up of the Sound. To say we do not trust Connecticut to act in the best interests of one of its most prized natural resources is bad public policy and I hope that an amendment offered by Mr. CASTLE to strike this section will be adopted.

Rather, we should 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.

That is the future of energy in this country, and that is what this bill should be encouraging. By pressing for 20th Century solutions to deal with 21st Century energy challenges, this majority continues us down the road of ever-rising gas prices, harming our economy and leaving middle-class families to bear the brunt of the cost. And that is no plan, Mr. Chairman--it is an abdication of our responsibilities. Oppose this bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov