THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY ACT OF 2001 -- (Extensions of Remarks -
August 03, 2001)
[Page: E1561] GPO's PDF
---
SPEECH OF
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 1, 2001
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 4) to enhance energy conservation, research and
development and to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for
the American people, and for other purposes.
- Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 does very little to help the average U.S.
consumers who need to put fuel in their cars to get to work, or who need to
cool their homes in the summertime. It does even less for the state of
California that has been gouged by energy generators while the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC)--the federal body responsible for regulating the
transmission and sale of wholesale electricity--has sat idle. The bill does
however provide an enormous windfall for some of the planet's greatest
polluters seeking to make even bigger profits at the expense of the U.S.
taxpayer, and at the expense of a cleaner environment. This bill is too
expensive, spending nearly $37 billion in new tax breaks without providing
offsets, and it dips further into the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds
which Members of both sides of the aisle have agreed to protect.
- The nuclear power industry alone will receive $2.7 billion in tax breaks
and spending subsidies on what amounts to nothing more than pork barrel
spending. $1.9 billion of this tax break, originally reserved for
state-regulated utilities with nuclear assets, will now be conferred to
unregulated private nuclear entities seeking to increase their profit margin.
- Although the General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported waste and
mismanagement of the $2.4 billion Clean Coal Technology Program (CCTP), this
Congress wants to squander another $3.3 billion in tax benefits for a very
similar program. Add this to the various research and development tax breaks
in the bill and the coal industry will see a $6 billion Christmas gift in
August.
- The biggest beneficiaries of the energy bill are the oil and gas
industries, which will receive $24 billion in tax breaks. The oil and gas
industries are experiencing a period of tremendous profits. Instead of
regulating these industries to ensure that they don't take advantage of flawed
de-regulated electricity states such as California, we are giving them further
tax breaks to increase profits without imposing any additional federal
oversight. This bill rewards the Texas oil producers for gouging California's
electricity consumers but does nothing to guarantee that the price gouging
will cease.
- This bill further rewards companies with a particularly egregious
provision that allows royalty-free oil drilling on federal lands. Currently,
oil companies pay royalty fees to the federal government on the oil derived
from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). However, H.R. 4 will change that. The
bill provides royalty relief to major oil and gas companies seeking new leases
on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. Under the royalty
exemption, the Interior Secretary would be required to give as much as 52.5
million barrels of oil royalty-free, costing Americans at least $7.4 billion
that the government would have received in those fees. Although proponents of
this provision will tell you that it will encourage domestic oil exploration,
there is no evidence that these companies would suspend drilling in the Gulf
without such relief. This provision is nothing more than another handout to an
industry that gets more than its fair share of tax relief.
- Finally, this bill doesn't do nearly enough to protect our environment. We
have an opportunity to slow domestic fuel consumption, increase conservation
and improve our environment by increasing the corporate average fuel economy
(CAFE ) standards . The CAFE program dictates the average
miles per gallon (mpg) that passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold in the
United States must meet. Unfortunately, the ``compromise'' that was reached on
the CAFE standards was nothing more than an
insincere fig leaf.
- The compromise calls for five billion gallons in gasoline savings over a
six-year period. While this might sound like a genuine attempt to decrease
fuel consumption, it translates to a mere six days worth of oil consumption
for the U.S. To achieve that would require an increase in the fuel economy of
cars and trucks of only about I mile per gallon--an increase that, considering
how far fuel economy has fallen in recent years due to increased sales of SUVs
and pickups, would improve efficiency only to the level we achieved in the
early 1980's. The National Academy of Sciences just this week reported that
fuel economy improvements could further reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Our fuel economy standards
should reflect a developed nation, leading in technological advances in the
21st century. But the meager CAFE increase proposed in H.R. 4
reflects a nation unwilling--not unable-- to provide global leadership for
fossil fuel conservation and a cleaner environment.
- Regrettably, my colleagues did not seek a truly bipartisan energy bill
that would encourage conservation and renewable energy generation; and contain
manipulation of the energy spot market by the electricity generators. Instead,
they chose to take a shortsighted approach to help some of their leading
campaign contributors at the expense of our environment.