[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 195 (Wednesday, December 19, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2660-E2661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. BOB GOODLATTE

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 18, 2007

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
reckless energy policy, which will do absolutely nothing to make us 
energy independent, or lower energy costs. This bill sets us on a 
dangerous path and ties our hands in a regulatory mess to ensure that 
we cannot produce domestic energy.
  Like my colleagues, I believe we should find solutions to address the 
growing demand for energy. The biggest concern facing the farmers and 
ranchers of this country is increased input costs from higher fuel 
prices and fertilizer. The U.S. fertilizer industry relies upon natural 
gas as the fundamental feedstock for the production of nitrogen 
fertilizer. The rest of the U.S. farm sector also depends on 
significant amounts of natural gas for food processing, irrigation, 
crop drying, heating farm buildings and homes, the production of crop 
protection chemicals, and, let's not forget, ethanol biofuel 
production. In addition to the farm sector, the forest products 
industry relies more on natural gas than any other fossil fuel, and 
energy amounts to the third largest manufacturing cost for the industry 
.
  Unbelievably, this legislation contains no new energy supplies in it 
and does nothing to relieve the burdens of increased costs on producers 
who provide the food and fiber for American consumers. It seems that 
the majority's plan to move toward energy independence includes 
limiting domestic energy production and imposing new government 
mandates that will prove to be costly and burdensome to the American 
people.
  This legislation would dramatically expand the Renewable Fuels 
Standard RFS, by increasing it to 36 billion gallons by 2022. This 
initiative is extremely ambitious and could be achieved by tapping all 
sectors of agriculture including plant and wood waste, vegetable oil, 
and animal fat and waste which would result in the production of 21 
billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol. While I am in favor of finding 
new markets for agriculture products, what good is finding new markets 
for agriculture commodities when the cost of production is too much for 
our farmers and ranchers?
  We should develop a policy that is technology neutral and allows the 
market to develop new sources of renewable energy. The RFS provisions 
create an unrealistic mandate for advanced biofuels technology that 
doesn't yet exist and creates hurdles for the development of second 
generation biofuels by placing restrictions on alternative fuels, 
renewable fuel plant production, and, most important, limits the 
harvesting of our homegrown feedstocks. These restrictions will 
undoubtedly lead to a consumer tax to help bridge the gap in production 
that will occur if this policy is put into place.
  Even with the advancement of cellulosic ethanol, the expansion of the 
RFS would still require 15 billion gallons of renewable fuel to come 
from the only current commercially available option: grain ethanol.
  Last year, 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol 
production and that amount is expected to rise significantly over the 
next few years. With feed stocks meeting most of our renewable fuel 
initiatives, the livestock sector is facing significantly higher feed 
costs. Corn and soybeans' most valuable market has always been, and 
will continue to be, the livestock producers. We must ensure that there 
are not unintended economic distortions to either grain or livestock 
producers as a result of these sectors prospering from other markets.
  The benefits of reduced reliance on foreign energy sources, stable 
energy prices, and new markets for agricultural products should not be 
replaced with a risk of adding even more increased input costs for 
livestock producers and creating even higher food prices for consumers.
  In addition to the above mentioned concerns, I'm also deeply 
disappointed that the Renewable Fuels Standard would essentially shut 
out one of the largest potential sources of feedstock for renewable 
fuel, forest biomass. In total, forests have the potential to 
sustainably produce 370 million tons of biomass for energy every year. 
This is approximately two and one-half times the amount of forest 
biomass we currently consume in traditional forest products. This 
amount of forest biomass could produce 24 billion gallons of ethanol 
per year, according to very conservative estimates. This could 
supplement, not replace, existing forest products markets.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 6 would not allow forest biomass grown on public 
lands to be used to meet the Renewable Fuel Standard, unless the 
biomass was removed near buildings, public infrastructure, or areas 
people inhabit regularly. This greatly reduces the opportunity for any 
substantial market in the energy sector for the byproducts of hazardous 
fuels reduction. These markets could help lower the costs of reducing 
wildfire risks and improving forest health on public lands. With the 
restrictions in H.R. 6, very little of these byproducts could be used 
to meet the Standard. Currently, we have serious issues in our public 
forests, with over 90 million acres at risk of wildfire, insects, and 
diseases. H.R. 6 would do nothing to help address these concerns.
  Additionally, H.R. 6 stipulates that, with respect to private 
forests, only forest biomass

[[Page E2661]]

removed from ``tree plantations'' or biomass that is considered slash 
or brush can be used to meet the renewable fuel standard. It would also 
exclude any biomass taken from old growth forests, forests in the later 
stages of development, or forests that are considered ``ecological 
communities'' as defined by State Natural Heritage Programs.
  With these restrictions, this Renewable Fuels Standard discourages 
efforts to reduce wildfire risk, control insects and disease in 
forests, improve forest health and wildlife habitat, and create market 
opportunities for family forest owners. There is also a tremendous 
opportunity to utilize existing forest products industry infrastructure 
to produce renewable fuels. H.R. 6 would do little to encourage that 
development.
  A renewable fuels producer would likely look at all these 
restrictions on forest biomass and decide not to bother with forestry 
materials. If we are to come anywhere close to meeting the RFS mandates 
in H.R. 6, we must have a substantial amount of forest biomass as a 
feedstock. I'm deeply concerned that we will not be able to meet these 
mandates with the restrictions in H.R. 6 on the use of forest biomass.
  This energy policy, set in place by the Democrat majority, 
exemplifies the Democrat motto through and through: tax and spend. This 
bill imposes $21 billion in tax increases. The other side will tell you 
that these tax increases will not affect the average hardworking 
American, only the ``big, evil oil companies.'' Nothing could be 
farther from the truth. The taxes contained in this bill will impede 
new domestic oil and gas production, will discourage investment in new 
refinery capacity, and will make it more expensive for domestic energy 
companies to operate in the U.S. than their foreign competitors, making 
the price at the pump rise even higher.
  Let's make no mistake: an increased tax doesn't just hurt energy 
companies, it hurts every American--individual, farm, or company--that 
consumes energy. Increased taxes on energy companies are passed to 
consumers. Every American will see these increased costs on their 
energy bill. This body shouldn't pass legislation that further raises 
energy prices for consumers.
  What is even more disturbing is that these increased costs will be 
felt by some of our Nation's most poor. On average, the Nation's 
working poor spends approximately 13 to 30 percent of their yearly 
income on energy costs. This average is already too high, and sadly 
this legislation will only dramatically increase the amount of money 
these workers will have to spend on energy costs. I have heard those on 
the other side of the aisle say that we must all shoulder the cost to 
produce clean energy. Well, the costs of the clean energy in the 
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) alone, as estimated by just one of 
Virginia's many electric utilities, will increase $200 million for its 
retail customers. By shifting to renewable energy sources, that are not 
as available or as cost effective as traditional sources, we will see a 
rise in energy prices across the board and this will be hardest felt by 
working people who cannot afford to shoulder any more costs.
  While this bill is said to be focused on new energy technologies, it 
fails to address some of our most promising domestic alternative and 
renewable energy supplies that could be cost effective for American 
consumers. Coal is one of our Nation's most abundant resources, yet the 
development of coal-to-liquid technologies is ignored in this bill. 
Furthermore, this legislation does nothing to encourage the 
construction of new nuclear facilities.
  Proponents of this legislation will tout how green this bill is; 
however, if my colleagues really want to promote green energy they 
should encourage the production of more nuclear sites, which provide 
CO2 emission-free energy. The rest of the world is far 
outpacing the U.S. in its commitment to clean nuclear energy. We 
generate only 20 percent of our energy from this clean energy, when 
other countries can generate about 80 percent of their electricity 
needs through nuclear. It is a travesty that in over 1,000 pages this 
legislation does not once mention or encourage the construction of 
clean and reliable nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is the most reliable 
and advanced of any renewable energy technology, and if we are serious 
about encouraging CO2-free energy use, we must support 
nuclear energy.

  This legislation does nothing to address the energy concerns of our 
country; and it does nothing to relieve agricultural producers of their 
increasing input costs. This legislation only makes the situation worse 
and it is the product of a flawed process that does not have bipartisan 
support.
  This bill is a dangerous policy for our country. If we really want to 
make our country energy independent, this Congress must pass an energy 
bill that contains energy. This bill does not. I urge my colleagues to 
reject this awful bill, let's start over, and work to find real 
solutions to the energy needs of our Nation.

                          ____________________