[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 106 (Friday, July 29, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 28, 2005

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, nearly 5 years in the making, the energy bill 
passed by the House should have provided a vision for addressing our 
long term energy needs.
  Instead, the bill sacrifices our long term economic, national, and 
environmental security for the short term advantage of oil companies 
and other energy producers.
  Thankfully, some of the most extreme provisions were deleted from the 
final bill. The provision to give oil refiners liability protection for 
the damage done to drinking water supplies by the gasoline additive 
MTBE was removed from the bill. If this provision had been adopted, 
local communities would be responsible for $29 to $85 billion in 
cleanup costs resulting from MTBE contamination.
  The provision opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to 
drilling was also dropped, but the Majority leadership has promised to 
pass it in separate legislation.
  Despite these omissions, the bill remains deeply flawed. New 
provisions were added and key policy challenges were not addressed.
  The bill fails to address our growing dependence on foreign oil. 
Today we import more than half of the oil we use, and in 20 years, 
nearly 70 percent of our oil will come from overseas--whether or not 
this bill is signed into law.
  By doing little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we're making 
ourselves dependent on OPEC and countries that might not share our 
interests.
  This is a concern shared by a number of national security experts of 
diverse political viewpoints. In a letter to the President sent on 
March 24th of this year, the Energy Future Coalition (which includes 
former Reagan Administration National Security Advisor Robert 
McFarlane, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Reagan 
Administration Assistant Defense Secretary Frank Gaffney, and former 
President George H.W. Bush's Counsel C. Boyden Gray) stated:

       The Unites States' dependence on imported petroleum poses a 
     risk to our homeland security and economic well-being.
       With only two percent of the world's oil reserves but 25 
     percent of current world consumption, the United States 
     cannot eliminate its need for imports through increased 
     domestic production alone.

  Since 40 percent of the 20 million barrels of oil we burn every day 
is used in passenger automobiles, we should be increasing automobile 
fuel economy requirements, but efforts to add those requirements to 
this bill were rejected.
  Compounding the problem, the bill doesn't invest sufficiently in 
renewable alternatives. Only about 20 percent of the bill's $11 billion 
in tax incentives will go toward developing renewable energy resources 
which can replace fossil fuels.
  The bill fails to address high gasoline prices. Rather than reducing 
gas prices, the bill guarantees that they'll go up by requiring that at 
least 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be blended into gasoline by 2012--
triple the current level. According to the Energy Information 
Administration, the independent forecasting agency within the 
Department of Energy, this mandate could force consumers to pay an 
extra $1.7 billion per year once it's fully implemented.
  The bill weakens coastal protections and threatens the environment.
  The bill requires an inventory of oil and natural gas resources in 
offshore areas where drilling is now prohibited, allowing pre-drilling 
activities in these areas. This includes Coastal California.
  The bill undermines the ability of states to ensure that liquefied 
natural gas, LNG, terminals are properly sited and operate safely.
  The bill provides oil and gas drilling operations exemptions under 
the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental 
Policy Act.
  The bill fails to address global climate change.
  The bill fails to compensate Western consumers for overcharges by 
electricity generators. The National Energy Policy developed by Vice 
President Cheney was billed in part as a response to the Western 
``energy crisis'' of 2000 and 2001, but there was never an effort to 
compensate consumers for the market manipulation that occurred in 
California and the western U.S. The Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission arbitrarily limited the amount of refunds consumers could 
receive. My repeated efforts to add language to fully compensate 
consumers were rejected.
  Conclusion. Energy touches all aspects of public policy: Public 
health, the environment, the economy, and national security. In the 
coming years and decades, the global competition for non-renewable 
energy resources will become more frantic. The bill passed by the 
Congress does not respond to that challenge, and it is comprehensive 
only in the sense that it contains a hodge-podge of special interest 
provisions that will benefit each segment of the energy production 
industry. Supporters of the bill have said that after 5 years we can't 
afford to kick the can down the road. With this bill, that's exactly 
what's happened.

                          ____________________