[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 64 (Thursday, May 1, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             ENERGY POLICY

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM UDALL

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 30, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. We should be using 
this opportunity today to pass an effective and balanced energy bill 
that will help conserve our nation's resources and lessen our 
dependence on energy sources that are detrimental to our environment 
and even our national security. Instead, the bill being debated today 
harms the environment, threatens public health, endangers wildlife, and 
hurts consumers.
  I believe a balanced national energy policy would be one that helps 
consumers by increasing energy production and reducing energy demand. 
Further, I feel that America's current and future energy needs should 
be met through a balanced approach that supports our fundamental 
environmental values. We must focus on becoming more energy efficient, 
investing in innovative technologies, and ensuring that energy markets 
are fair and competitive. We must also focus on reducing America's 
dependence on international oil suppliers and developing clean and 
renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, this bill accomplishes none of 
these goals.
  Before consideration of the bill, I testified before the Rules 
Committee and requested that I be allowed to offer three amendments. 
The first would have required retail electricity suppliers to obtain 
15% of their power production from a portfolio of renewable energy 
resources by 2020 and within 5 years add an additional 5%. This would 
allow us to enhance our nation's energy independence and national 
security while lowering prices for consumers by mitigating the effects 
of energy shortages and natural gas spikes. In addition, I believe 
including a Renewable Portfolio Standard in our nation's energy policy 
would create jobs and expand economic development, while simultaneously 
reducing air pollution and the threat of global warming.
  The second amendment I hoped to bring to the floor was in support of 
the thousands of farmers, ranchers and homeowners across the west that 
are directly impacted by oil, gas and coal bed methane development 
activities on their lands. This amendment would have required surface 
use agreements between landowners and the oil and gas industry prior to 
any development of subsurface mineral rights owned by the federal 
government. Many farmers and ranchers own split estate interests, 
meaning that they own the surface resources and the federal government 
owns the subsurface mineral rights that it leases to the oil and gas 
industry. Currently, it is not required that the oil and gas companies 
repair and clean up a project site during or after its completion. 
Instead, the surface use agreements are only voluntary. Oftentimes as a 
result, many surface owners suffer loss of income, impairment of water 
quality, erosion and contamination of soil, harm to livestock and 
wildlife species, and they have no recourse because they did not have 
surface use agreements with the oil and gas companies. My amendment 
would have given these landowners the legal recourse they deserve.
  Unfortunately, neither of these amendments was accepted by the Rules 
Committee. However, I was able to offer before the full House an 
important amendment that would strike an unnecessary and potentially 
dangerous subsidy included in H.R. 6 pertaining to uranium in situ 
leach mining. As written, the subsidy allots $30 million to the 
domestic uranium industry. The in situ leach mining procedure could 
cause radioactive uranium and other toxic chemicals to leach into 
groundwater. The area where this mining could potentially be undertaken 
in my district is near a high-quality aquifer, which is the sole source 
of scarce drinking water for over 10,000 people of the Navajo Nation in 
New Mexico. This subsidy compounds past disasters by promoting mining 
that could have dangerous health and environmental implications. 
Although my amendment was defeated, the roll call made it clear that 
there is bipartisan backing for striking this unfair and unwise 
subsidy. As this bill is negotiated in conference, I will continue to 
work to protect my constituents in New Mexico who have suffered so much 
from uranium related activities near their homes.

  As we move into the future, we must act responsibly in ways that take 
into account the changing landscape of the world's energy situation 
instead of exacerbating the already dire energy dependence problem our 
nation faces. Conservation--getting the maximum value out of every bit 
of energy we use--must become a central feature of our nation's energy 
philosophy. We praise those who maximize the value of every dollar they 
spend; we should do the same with our energy. America should prize 
efficient and productive use of all our important resources, including 
energy. Conservation is real, achievable, and crucial.
  Again, in those areas, this energy bill falls short. H.R. 6 weakens 
consumers protections, allows companies to contaminate water, allots 
over $18 billion in unnecessary subsidies to big oil and gas 
corporations, and takes one more step toward drilling in the untouched 
wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This will not 
enhance conservation or provide for the security of the energy supply 
for the American people as proponents of this bill claim. What it will 
do is reward the energy companies and leave the responsibility of 
keeping secure the nation's energy supply to yet another generation.
  It is my hope that a conference committee will help produce a more 
sound compromise energy bill that does not threaten the future of 
either the environment or the country's energy needs. I will continue 
to work to see that our nation implements an energy plan that is 
balanced and addresses environmental concerns in a way that also 
provides for our continued economic success.

                          ____________________