[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 106 (Friday, July 29, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1736-E1737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. SAM FARR

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 28, 2005

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Conference 
Report to H.R. 6, the so-called comprehensive energy bill before us 
today. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation, which 
represents bad energy policy, bad environmental policy, bad fiscal 
policy, and bad nonproliferation policy.
  H.R. 6 does nothing to address the issue of America's continuing 
dependency on imported oil. It does nothing to require more fuel 
efficient vehicles. It does nothing to reduce pump prices now or in the 
future, but it does shower wealthy oil and natural gas companies with 
unneeded tax breaks, royalty-free drilling on public lands, and 
exemptions from environmental laws.
  We can and must do better if we are to seriously address the energy 
needs of our Nation. We should strike a sound policy balance by 
pursuing improvements in fuel technology and energy efficiency, 
maintaining a clean environment, and preserving our wilderness areas 
and public lands.
  Frankly, this bill is an embarrassment--after six years of discussion 
and negotiation, the best we have to offer is a bill that in effect 
preserves the status quo? Instead of providing forward-looking policy 
ideas for a sound energy future, H.R. 6 is content to drive us into the 
future by looking through the rearview mirror with its heavily weighted 
dependence on fossil fuels.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority of subsidies in H.R. 6 go to the oil, gas, 
coal and nuclear industries, leading to more pollution, more oil

[[Page E1737]]

drilling and more radioactive-waste-producing nuclear power.
  By contrast, only a small percentage of the tax breaks would go to 
energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives that could actually 
save consumers money and reduce our dependence on dirty energy sources.
  By refusing to commit to improving and investing in sustainable fuel 
technology, we are putting our technology and manufacturing industries 
at a competitive disadvantage at a time when the rest of the planet is 
searching for alternatives to fossil fuels.
  American consumers are being squeezed at the pump while the big oil 
companies are reaping record profits and the Republican Leadership is 
passing an energy bill that will further raise gas prices.
  How in good faith can we go back to our constituents with a national 
energy policy that does not address the future, does not address short 
term fixes or long term solutions?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation so we can develop a 
comprehensive energy policy that looks to the future and doesn't rely 
on repackaged out-dated technologies from the past.

                          ____________________