[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 30448]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. TAMMY BALDWIN

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 18, 2003

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this House considered H.R. 6, 
the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Our country has been waiting almost 
three years for a sound and comprehensive energy bill, and I am sad to 
say that they will still be waiting if H.R. 6 is signed into law.
  It was my hope that rolling blackouts in California three years ago, 
the terrorist attacks on September 11 two years ago, and the massive 
blackouts in the northeast this past August would have provided 
Congress with the will and fortitude to pass a truly comprehensive 
energy bill. This bill should have presented a clear vision of what our 
energy policies should be well into the 21st century; provided us with 
the tools and resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and 
improve the security of our nation; and made investments in alternative 
and renewable fuels to provide better answers to our energy needs than 
simply encouraging more drilling and more pollution. It is crystal 
clear that H.R. 6 fails on all these counts.
  The Republican leadership crafted this 1,700-page bill in secret and 
sold out to special interests. For months, Republican leaders presided 
over meetings in which they were supposed to be laying the foundation 
for the nation's long-term energy priorities. Instead, they chose to 
negotiate the bill alone, refusing even to tell their Democratic 
colleagues where or when important sessions were being held. I believe 
that cowering under the cloak of darkness and cutting backroom deals 
are not the ways a bill of this magnitude should be debated, discussed, 
and crafted.
  The Energy Policy Act makes a number of changes to our nation's 
electricity system. The blackouts that wreaked havoc across parts of 
the Midwest and Northeast four months ago prompted legislators to 
include much-needed electricity reliability standards in the final 
bill. I believe this is a good first step in improving the transmission 
and distribution of the electricity that powers our homes and 
businesses. Despite this sound provision, H.R. 6 is wrong to repeal the 
Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). PUHCA was designed to 
oversee mergers and prevent power companies from investing in unrelated 
businesses. PUHCA has been the linchpin in protecting investors and 
consumers from market fraud and abuse by utilities. By repealing PUHCA 
and not replacing it with a better alternative, the risk of future 
Enron-type abuses increases exponentially and our constituents will be 
the victims.
  I am pleased H.R. 6 does not include language that would allow 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or allow for an 
inventory of oil reserves in our nation's Outer Continental Shelf--but, 
any benefits of this bill provides our environment stop there. The bill 
expedites the approval of permits for drilling and mining on federal 
lands. H.R. 6 also exempts oil and gas drilling activities from some of 
the major tenants of the Clean Water Act, such as exempting the 
industry from certain requirements when they inject diesel fuel and 
other harmful chemicals underground when drilling.
  The most egregious provision of this bill grants the producers of 
MTBE, a gasoline additive that pollutes underground drinking water, a 
liability waiver. While the bill phases out the use of MTBE over the 
next decade, it makes taxpayers pick up the bill for cleaning up the 
mess. More incredulously, the bill provides the producers of MTBE $2 
billion in subsidies to help them convert MTBE into other types of 
chemicals. I believe this is simply unacceptable. Polluters should be 
made to clean up and pay for their messes, not the American taxpayer.
  Altogether, the energy proposal includes $23 billion in tax giveaways 
over 10 years and calls for tens of billions of dollars in additional 
spending. The Republican leadership rejected Senate provisions that 
would have partially paid for these costs, despite a deficit in the 
federal budget that could top $500 billion this year. Two-thirds of the 
tax breaks would go to the oil, natural gas and coal industries, 
helping to perpetuate the country's dependence on fossil fuels. Less 
than a quarter of the tax breaks would promote the use and development 
of renewable-energy sources, and less than a tenth would reward energy 
efficiency or conservation.
  It makes no sense to lavish billions of dollars in subsidies to 
companies that consistently earn large profits every year. The bill 
does encourage the use of some alternative fuels such as ethanol--which 
I strongly support--and $2.5 billion to boost development of hydrogen-
powered vehicles. However, the money allocated for renewable and 
alternative fuel development is a mere pittance of what is given to 
producers of traditional sources of energy.
  This bill is equally bad for what it does not contain: the 
legislation does almost nothing to reduce the nation's dependence on 
foreign gas and oil and nothing to reduce global warming. For example, 
this bill does not increase the fuel efficiency standards for cars and 
trucks. The bill may even wind up lowering the current 27.5 miles per 
gallon average since it discourages tougher standards. It also scraps a 
Senate plan that would have required electric utilities to generate 
more of their power from renewable sources like wind and solar energy 
by 2015. Finally, outside of a few provisions on electrical appliances 
and heating systems, the bill does not significantly encourage energy 
conservation.
  Instead of creating and carrying out a vision in this bill, lawmakers 
have put together a jigsaw puzzle with hundreds of unrelated pieces 
crammed together. A few initiatives are worthwhile, but most look more 
like a laundry list of special-interest subsidies. Together, they do 
not add up to a policy that I believe will come close to meeting our 
future energy needs. While it took three years to finish this energy 
bill, it is my fear that Congress will spend the next several decades 
fixing the problems this bill could eventually create.

                          ____________________