[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               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.
  I urge my colleagues to protect the environment, and protect the 
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Vote no on H.R. 4.

                          ____________________