[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 191 (Thursday, December 13, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2582-E2583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TODD TIAHRT

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, December 13, 2007

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise with disappointment in the lack of 
pro-energy and pro-consumer provisions contained in the Democrat energy 
bill being considered on the House floor today. I strongly oppose 
passage of the House Amendment to H.R. 6 and urge my colleagues to join 
me in defeating this bill. We should work in a bipartisan manner to 
pass real solutions for America's growing energy needs.
  The American economy has ups and downs. But overall it continues to 
grow, producing jobs for American workers. To keep pace with our 
economy, more reliable and sustainable sources of energy are needed. 
Conservation, innovative and efficient energy technologies, renewable 
forms of energy and of course traditional sources of energy all must 
play a role in our energy future.
  I am pleased the bill included an increase in fuel efficiency 
standards from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. As a 
cosponsor of H.R. 2927 that would increase the corporate average fuel 
economy, CAFE, standards for automobiles, I believe we must not waste 
any more time in making our vehicles more fuel efficient. I support 
increasing the CAFE standards and hope we can work together with the 
private sector to achieve this worthy goal.
  Unfortunately, the Democrat's closed-door energy bill containing more 
than 1,000 pages is not the kind of solution the American people 
deserve. Rather than work together to pass a more complete and 
comprehensive plan to address our energy needs, Democrat leadership has 
chosen to forego their pledge to work with Republicans on important 
policy matters. The result is an energy bill that will lead to higher 
electric utility bills, drive up gasoline prices at the pump, 
discriminately raise taxes on manufacturers of domestic energy and 
depress exploration efforts to find additional sources of domestic 
energy.
  The bill fails to include proven, reliable energy production methods 
such as nuclear energy for lowering emissions into our atmosphere. 
Instead, the House Amendment to H.R. 6 mandates a one-size-fits-all 
Renewable Portfolio Standard for some electric utility companies while 
exempting other electric utilities. I support utility companies 
investing in and offering renewable energy to customers, and I support 
incentives for increased production of renewable energy. Many Kansas 
farmers and landowners are already participants in wind and bio fuel 
production, and Kansas has potential to do even more.
  But Congress must exercise great caution when attempting to mandate 
levels of renewable fuels that must be used by electric power 
companies. Many of our Nation's electric companies are presently 
investing billions of dollars in renewable energy projects--not because 
they are mandated by the Federal Government, but because market forces 
have led them to do so. By mandating higher levels of renewable energy 
for power generation than the market naturally supports, ratepayers are 
going to be stuck with higher electric bills.

  I cannot think of a single constituent who has asked me to support 
higher electric bills. This Democrat bill is not an energy solution 
that is good for Kansas, and it is not a good solution for America.
  Great harm will particularly fall upon America's poor and middle 
class customers as a result of increased electric rates. Senior 
citizens who are living on fixed incomes and families on tight budgets 
should not be forced to suffer because of ill-thought Federal mandates 
on select electric utilities and their customers.
  Another section of the House Amendment to H.R. 6 mandates a Federal 
Renewable Energy Standard that will require unrealistic quantities of 
biofuel. For example, the Democrat energy bill mandates that 100 
million gallons of cellulosic biofuel be included in our fuel supply by 
2010. However, commercially viable production of cellulosic fuel is 
only projected to be 27 million gallons by 2010. As a strong supporter 
of cellulosic biofuel, I hope American ingenuity will help us surpass 
current projections. The Federal Government should encourage private-
sector innovation that has long been a hallmark of America's history.
  But the Federal Government should not be mandating on the private 
sector requirements that are not commercially tested and far exceed 
industry projections. Reckless mandates will result in increased fuel 
costs for consumers.
  I am also disappointed that the House Amendment to H.R. 6 contains 
more than $21 billion in tax increases that will negatively impact 
American jobs. By raising taxes on the oil and gas industry, we are 
driving up manufacturing costs making domestic companies less 
competitive. Raising taxes on oil and gas companies will not reduce 
prices at the pump, and it certainly will not help ease our dependence 
on foreign oil. If anything, it will make

[[Page E2583]]

 us more dependent on foreign oil and will cause energy prices to 
increase.
  Raising taxes on the energy sector will inevitably be passed to 
consumers at the pump. If the Democrat energy tax increase is passed, 
motorists will consider today's $3 gasoline to be a cheap deal. 
Families and small businesses in Kansas do not want higher fuel costs, 
which is why I refuse to accept a plan that raises the price of 
gasoline.
  By raising billions of dollars through tax increases imposed on the 
oil and gas manufacturing industry, but not raising taxes on other 
manufacturing sectors, Congress picks winners and losers and American 
manufacturing jobs suffer.
  Instead of encouraging more domestic energy exploration, production 
and investment, the Democrat energy bill instead makes these activities 
more expensive for American companies trying to supply America with 
energy.
  This bill is woefully inadequate when it comes to American energy 
independence. It harms consumers by raising energy costs. And it wreaks 
havoc on American manufacturing jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal.

                          ____________________