[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 54 (Thursday, April 28, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E818-E819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DENNIS MOORE

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 21, 2005

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6) to ensure 
     jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable 
     energy:

  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, our country needs to reduce its 
dependence on foreign oil and increase its national energy 
independence. Increasing our energy independence will stabilize future 
energy prices, benefit American consumers and businesses, and enhance 
both our energy security and our national security.
  As a member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus, I have supported 
measures to encourage and increase the use of renewable and alternative 
energy sources. H.R. 6 included tax incentives for energy efficiency 
programs and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar production 
that I would like to vote for. As a co-chair of the Biofuels Fuels 
Caucus, I also support the renewable fuels standard which I have 
promoted to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, help U.S. farmers 
and protect the environment.
  There are several issues, however, that concern me about H.R. 6, and 
these issues have continually blocked congressional passage of 
comprehensive energy legislation over

[[Page E819]]

the last few years. It has become clear that removing these provisions 
would ensure that the Senate will pass, and the President will sign, 
this measure.
  Section 22 of H.R. 6, provides for drilling in the Alaskan National 
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). While some consider this area to be one of the 
most promising U.S. onshore oil and gas prospects, studies indicate 
that this area could only provide six month's supply of oil, 10 years 
from now, and consequently have no significant effect on our nation's 
dependence on foreign oil. This 1.5 million acre coastal plain, 
however, is an area often referred to as ``America's Serengeti'' 
because of the presence of caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, 
migratory birds, and many other species living in a nearly undisturbed 
state. In fact, the Refuge and two neighboring parks in Canada have 
been proposed for an international park, and several species in the 
area are protected by international treaties or agreements. In the 
108th Congress, I supported a conference agreement on H.R. 6 that 
eliminated the provisions opening up ANWR for drilling. A future 
conference agreement needs to eliminate this controversial section from 
this bill to ensure its passage.

  Title 15, Section 1502 of H.R. 6, contains a safe-harbor provision 
protecting producers of methyl tertiary butyl ether [MTBE] and other 
fuel oxygenates from product liability claims. This provision includes 
language applying the safe-harbor retroactively, potentially barring 
several pending suits against some of the worst environmental polluters 
in our country.
  Under this provision, cities and towns would be prevented from 
bringing against potential offenders ``defective product'' lawsuits, 
which some cities have employed to recapture the cost of MTBE clean 
ups. Approximately 130 lawsuits have been filed by states, cities, 
water districts, and businesses over MTBE contamination. The trade 
association for the MTBE industry conservatively estimates that a 
nationwide cleanup of MTBE will cost between $500 million and $1 
billion. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, however, maintains that those 
costs could run higher than $29 billion. Our states and localities, 
which are struggling with budget deficits, should not be forced to pay 
the tab for these clean ups. If our states and localities are forced to 
pay these costs, the real costs will be borne by taxpayers, who should 
not be responsible for the actions of a few MTBE producers.
  I also cannot support provisions in this legislation that do nothing 
to safeguard electricity consumers from unscrupulous utility companies 
that abuse market power and manipulate electricity prices. Rather than 
holding these electricity companies accountable, this bill would weaken 
consumer protections regarding electricity. I supported Representative 
John Dingell's amendment that would have protected electricity 
consumers by increasing penalties for violations of the Federal Power 
Act and would authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 
to refund electricity overcharges. Unfortunately, the House defeated 
this amendment that would have helped safeguard electricity consumers.
  I urge my colleagues to work together to pass a true comprehensive 
energy legislation that is fiscally responsible and that protects 
consumers, our communities, and environmentally sensitive areas. Our 
national energy situation should not be a partisan issue, and I hope 
that both parties can come together to do the right thing for America.

                          ____________________