[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 27]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 36177-36178]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 H.R. 6

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. WALLY HERGER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, December 17, 2007

  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, today the House considered H.R. 6, new tax 
and energy legislation. I strongly opposed the bill because I believe 
it will contribute to higher gasoline and diesel prices. Though there 
are a few worthwhile provisions in the legislation, its failure to 
effectively address the fact that families and small businesses are 
spending more and more of their hard-earned income on gasoline, diesel, 
and other energy costs warrants its defeat. Unfortunately this bill is 
a case of one step forward and many steps back.
  H.R. 6 would extend tax credits for renewable electricity production 
from wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. Increasing the diversity of 
our energy supply is important to meeting our Nation's future energy 
needs and is something I've long supported. But any benefits America 
would gain from new renewable production would be seemingly lost 
because of the bill's steep tax increases on petroleum and natural gas 
production. Petroleum and natural gas currently supply roughly 63 
percent of America's energy needs. Renewable sources account for only 7 
percent. A truly balanced bill would provide incentives for 
environmentally responsible production of all energy sources, including 
fossil fuels, which energy forecasters predict will continue to provide 
for the vast majority of energy uses in our country. Not only does H.R. 
6 not provide incentives for new American oil and gas production, the 
bill could actually make the cost of producing these important energy 
resources more expensive because of the new multibillion dollar tax 
increase that is the centerpiece of this legislation. These tax 
increases will likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher 
gasoline and diesel and home heating and cooling costs.
  Singling out American energy companies for new taxes also runs 
directly counter to our goal of reducing the Nation's reliance on 
foreign sources of oil by encouraging more domestic production. At the 
time of America's first ``energy crisis'' in the 1970s, approximately 
30 percent of our petroleum needs were met by oil imported from foreign 
countries. Today that number is over 62 percent. With petroleum use 
expected to increase over the next several decades, this number will 
only continue to grow unless steps are taken to reverse the trend. 
Continued reliance on hostile regions of the world for our energy needs 
threatens America's national and economic security. Such a serious 
problem is deserving of an equally serious response rather than the 
hollow gestures of energy independence within H.R. 6. While it's 
reasonable to expect that some percentage of our oil supply will 
continue to come from overseas, America can increase her energy 
independence through environmentally responsible oil and gas production 
here at home. We have resources in Alaska and deep ocean areas and, 
importantly, the state-of-the-art technology needed to develop these 
resources while preserving a healthy environment.
  This legislation's completely unbalanced approach to energy policy 
could not come at a worse time for northern California. Gasoline and 
diesel prices in our area are hovering around record levels despite the 
fact we are now in the driving ``off-season''--a time when fuel demand, 
and consequently fuel prices, are historically at their lowest levels 
of the year. One can only imagine how high prices will rise in the 
spring, when driving season begins and the state's fuel refiners take 
facilities offline to prepare them for production of California's 
special summertime boutique fuel blends.
  H.R. 6 would also increase the Nation's ``CAFE'' or fuel efficiency 
standards for cars, light trucks, and SUVs. Fuel efficiency is an 
important attribute in any car. The emergence of new ``hybrid'' 
vehicles is an example of consumer preference in the free marketplace 
forcing automakers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. But 
developing the know-how to build a car with better gas mileage takes 
time. I'm concerned that when faced with a federal mandate to meet such 
high efficiency standards in a relatively short amount of time, 
automakers may be forced to choose the path of least resistance by 
simply reducing vehicle size and weight, thereby making the cars people 
drive less safe in collisions. The National Academy of Sciences 
concluded in a 2002 study that smaller vehicle sizes have caused 
traffic fatalities to increase anywhere from 1,300 to 2,600 lives per 
year.
  An increase in the Nation's ethanol mandate is also in the bill. 
While striving to develop new sources of fuel should remain a 
significant goal, it is important to point out the unintended 
consequences that have come with mandating ethanol use throughout the 
Nation. For instance, the ethanol mandate has contributed to higher 
gasoline prices for California motorists. Ethanol cannot be shipped by 
pipeline. Instead, it must be transported from the Midwest by rail or 
truck. This process not only adds to the fuel's cost, it can, in some 
cases, contribute to California's notorious refining bottleneck if 
there are delays in its delivery to our State.
  The current ethanol mandate has also caused corn prices to roughly 
double over the

[[Page 36178]]

last 2 years. While this has been good news for corn farmers, the 
result has had a slightly different outcome for everyone else. Prices 
for food products dependent upon corn and other grains, such as beef 
and dairy, have increased along with the price of corn. H.R. 6 seeks to 
raise the current ethanol requirement by a factor of five. Such a 
dramatic increase, combined with growing demand for corn-fed meat 
products the world over, will likely result in even higher food prices 
for U.S. consumers.
  Some have suggested that the shipping problems and price inflation 
associated with corn ethanol can be overcome if biofuels are made 
locally with material native to our area. Cellulosic forest residue 
left over from thinning or restorative forestry projects has been at 
the top of this list. Although the technology to make this fuel in a 
cost-effective manner is still being developed, California's 18 
National Forests could serve as a ready supply of material to meet 
future biofuel needs. But this legislation expressly forbids any forest 
materials from our National Forests--not even a single pine needle--to 
be used as feedstock for biofuels manufacturing. The vast majority of 
the National Forest land in our congressional district has been rated 
as ``Condition Class III'' by forest researchers and scientists, 
meaning that the forests face an extraordinarily high risk of 
catastrophic fire. There is no scientific dispute of the fact that 
forest materials must be removed in order to protect communities and 
wildlife from severe fire and to generally restore forest health. Using 
forest residue for biofuels would arguably contribute both to forest 
recovery and to the Nation's fuel supply. But for reasons that can only 
be explained by environmental politics, the Democrat leadership has 
again labeled California's National Forests ``off-limits'' to 
commonsense forest management and a new and important source of a 
future renewable fuels supply.
  Finally, H.R. 6 seeks to mandate a new national ``Renewable Portfolio 
Standard'' or ``RPS.'' The RPS would require all private electricity 
supply companies to generate 15 percent of the electricity they produce 
with renewable sources, such as wind, solar power, or biomass. 
California already has such a mandate so the proposed federal standard 
is not new policy for our State's electricity providers. But other 
States, particularly those that lack the abundant natural resources we 
have, will likely struggle to meet the requirements of the RPS. Energy 
companies in these areas will have to purchase high cost power or 
renewable energy ``credits'' from other regions of the country. These 
costs will also be passed on to families and small businesses. Higher 
energy costs, no matter where they occur, harm U.S. economic 
competitiveness and will likely serve as a drag on an already uneasy 
economy.
  But even California, with its own renewable electricity requirement, 
would not come out ahead if the proposed federal RPS mandate in H.R. 6 
becomes law. Just as the bill inexplicably limits the use of National 
Forest materials for cellulosic ethanol production, it also places 
unworkable limits on the use of forest resources for electricity 
production. Again, one step forward and several steps back.
  A truly balanced energy bill would begin with the serious problem of 
record gas prices and reducing America's dependence on foreign sources 
of energy and then proceed with creating incentives that would unleash 
the power of American inventiveness and creativity in order to develop 
the next generation of energy technology and supplies. H.R. 6 relies on 
an outdated and failed belief that Washington knows best. Over 1,000 
pages of legislative text contains little in the way of broad-based 
incentives, but is chock-full of new regulations and a higher tax 
burden, which will do little, if anything, for consumers. A better 
approach would get Washington out of the way and allow market-oriented 
solutions to provide for an affordable, diverse, and secure energy 
supply for America.

                          ____________________