[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16251-16252]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. GERALD D. KLECZKA

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 4) to 
     enhance energy conservation, research and development and to 
     provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for 
     the American people, and for other purposes.

  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, only a few short months ago, the members 
of this House passed, one of the largest tax cuts in over a decade. Now 
here we are again, debating an energy bill that is as fiscally 
irresponsible. Just two days ago, the U.S. Treasury announced that it 
will be forced to borrow $51 billion to pay for the tax rebate checks, 
instead of paying down the debt as previously planned. The New York 
Times also cited the Bush Administration as saying that the surplus for 
this fiscal year could fall by $120 billion below the January estimate. 
No matter how we slice it, the fact remains that the U.S. Government 
simply doesn't have enough surplus funds to pay for the recently passed 
tax cut as well as the tax breaks contained in H.R. 4.
  Furthermore, H.R. 4 does little to solve America's long-term energy 
challenges. Its primary focus is on developing non-renewable

[[Page 16252]]

fuel sources, such as oil, natural gas, and coal, with a lesser 
emphasis on energy conservation and renewables. H.R. 4 gives over $33 
billion to energy companies in the form of tax breaks, all at taxpayer 
expense. About two-thirds of this tax break goes to oil and gas 
companies whose profits are at all-time record highs and some of whom 
have so much surplus cash they haven't yet figured out how to spend it 
all.
  From 1999 to 2000, profits for the five largest U.S. oil companies 
rose 146%, from $16 billion to $40 billion. Exxon-Mobil reported yearly 
profits of $17.7 billion. A July 30, 2001, Wall Street Journal article 
reported that, ``Royal Dutch/Shell Oil said it was pumping out about 
$1.5 million in profit an hour and sitting on more than $11 billion in 
the bank.'' Even personal salaries for energy executives have 
skyrocketed. Yearly compensation for executives at the largest energy 
companies selling power to California rose an average of 253%, with one 
top executive collecting over $100 million alone. With unprecedented 
increases in oil company profits, the industry clearly does not need 
financial assistance from Uncle Sam.
  Not only is H.R. 4 fiscally unsound, but its provisions allowing 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) reflect an utter 
disregard for the preservation of America's last remaining untouched 
wilderness. ANWR is a pristine region, teeming with a wide variety of 
plant and animal species. To believe that we could drill in ANWR 
without causing irreversible environmental damage is, at best, overly 
optimistic. As recently as last month, a corroded pipeline in an 
Alaskan oil field erupted, causing 420 gallons of crude oil to spill 
onto Alaskan tundra. This spill is but one of many that have occurred 
in the 95% of Alaska's North Slope that has already been opened to oil 
development.
  According to the U.S. Geological Survey, ANWR contains about 3.2 to 
5.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable crude oil. Since the 
U.S. consumes about 19 million barrels of oil daily, or almost 7 
billion barrels of oil annually, even with drilling at top efficiency, 
the coastal plain would only supply about 2% of America's oil demand. 
Additionally, if the total amount of oil in this area could be 
extracted all at once and the ANWR oil was used as the primary oil 
supply for the U.S., it would only last about 6 to 8 months. Destroying 
our environmental treasures in search of a quick fix to our energy 
needs is not the right course of action.
  During debate on this bill, we will also consider an amendment to 
increase fuel efficiency standards for light trucks and sport utility 
vehicles (SUVs). Currently, the minimum average mileage per gallon 
(mpg) standard is 20.7 mpg for the fleet of SUV's produced by an 
automaker in a given year. The amendment would increase this to 26 mpg 
by 2005 and then to 27.5 mpg by 2007. This standard has not been 
changed in five years, and it is time that we allow it to be increased. 
While the underlying bill would decrease gasoline use by 5 billion 
gallons between the year 2004 and 2010, this amendment would create a 
savings of 40 billion gallons of gasoline over that same period. The 
amendment would increase the minimum average fuel efficiency standard 
of all cars and light trucks by only 1.3 mpg over what the industry 
actually produced back in 1987.
  Opponents of this proposal claim that raising these standards is not 
feasible and would result in a decrease in safety to SUV passengers. 
However, this is not the case. In fact, a competition recently 
sponsored by General Motors and the Department of Energy illustrates 
this point. Various engineering schools across the country competed to 
increase the fuel efficiency of one of the larger SUV'S, a Chevrolet 
Suburban. The winner, University of Wisconsin at Madison, increased the 
fuel efficiency of this vehicle to 28.05 mpg while maintaining the 
structural integrity and protections that vehicle affords.
  In conclusion, passing H.R. 4 today would be highly imprudent. 
America's long-term energy needs would be better served with an energy 
policy that places greater emphasis on energy conservation and 
renewable fuel technologies.

                          ____________________