[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1562-E1563]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. DARLENE HOOLEY

                               of oregon

                    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

[[Page E1563]]

     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.

  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have to admit I'm a little surprised the 
Administration has proposed an inadequate proposal to address our long-
term energy needs. After all, both the President and Vice President 
have extensive experience in the energy sector. Quite frankly, I'd 
think they'd be a little more creative in their vision of America's 
future.
  After all, a national energy policy is supposed to be predicated on 
the assumption that we need to increase supplies to mitigate demand. 
And to some degree, the Administration's plan is geared toward that 
end. However, given their experience in the energy sector, we ought to 
expect that.
  But the cold hard fact is that the Administration sees drilling and 
mining as our only way to address our predicament. Personally, I 
disagree with the Vice President--conservation isn't a personal virtue. 
It's not only a proven method to increase energy supplies, but the 
costs to the taxpayer to fund research in this field is a drop in 
bucket compared to the huge taxpayer-funded subsidies this legislation 
bestows on traditional industries.
  Unfortunately, instead of debating a reasonable and prudent 
legislation, we have forfeited that option. Instead of making tough 
choices, we have before us a bill that too heavily focuses on oil, 
coal, and nuclear energy. This Administration simply isn't worried 
about giving equal consideration to promoting and encouraging energy 
efficiency, renewable energy, and conservation.
  That's unfortunate for a variety of reasons. Not only does it defy 
common sense, but it defies a Department of Energy report issued last 
November demonstrating increased efficiency and renewable energy can 
meet 60 percent of the nation's need for new electric power plants over 
the next 20 years. Yet the recommendations in the report are nowhere to 
be found in this legislation.
  Moreover, this bill grants billions in new tax breaks for the oil and 
coal industries--all of this in the wake of record profits for industry 
and record-high energy bills for consumers. Why are we providing 
``royalty relief'' to the oil industry when, as the Wall Street Journal 
recently reported, the industry currently has more money than it can 
manage to spend? Why do they need royalty relief when they are making 
billions of dollars in profits from oil that is pumped from public 
lands and are more financially stable than ever before?
  Finally, in this bill is a provision that authorizes oil production 
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). According to proponents 
of this provision, we need to drill in ANWR as a solution to our energy 
crisis.
  Unfortunately, facts are stubborn, and the truth is we could have 
done more to lower our dependence on foreign oil by passing the 
Boehlert/Markey amendment that would have increased fuel efficiency in 
SUV's than we could ever get from pumping every drop of oil from the 
coastal plain in ANWR. For a bill designed to reduce our reliance on 
foreign oil, it seems strange to me that the sponsors of this bill 
would object to raising gas mileage standards. Doing so is not only 
completely feasible, but once completely implemented this step would 
reduce our oil consumption by hundreds of millions of barrels a year. 
But the amendment failed and again we regress.
  As such, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and let's 
work to create a comprehensive energy bill that is truly one for the 
21st Century.

                          ____________________