Date: 2004-06-15
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this week we are going to be asked to votein some cases. for a second timeon a package of misguided and previously discarded energy initiatives we are alternately told will enhance our Nations energy independence. provide price relief at the pump and create goodpaying jobs for those still looking for work in the Bush economy. If only that were true. From the shroudedmemos of the Cheney Energy Task Force to the most recent audio revelations of rampant profiteering at the trading desks of Enron. we can now see clearly that the approach embraced by this Administration and embodied in these proposals is a policy process run completely amok. Unfortunately. one need not rely solely on history to reject this legislation. A straightforward evaluation of its merits leads inexorably to the same conclusion. Take energy independence. We all have an interest in moving away from our current reliance on foreign oil. But according to the Bush Administrations 9wn Energy Information Administration (EIA). the energy conference report before us today will have non appreciable impact on reducing demand for foreign petroleumallowing oil imports to jump a staggering 82.9 percent by 2025. only slightly lower than the 84.8 percent rise expected under current projections. And what about gasoline prices? The same EIA analysis concludes that gas prices will actually be higher with this legislation than without- itincreasing 10.3 percent by 2025 under the bill. compared to an 8.2 percent rise with no action. As for all those jobs purportedly waiting for out of work American if only Congress passes this bill. the nonpartisan Center for Economic and Policy Research reports: "Republican claims that their energy bill will create one million jobs are not credible on their face . . . The number of jobs affected by the bill will certainly only be a small fraction (almost certainly less than one tenth) of the size claimed by Republicans." Whats going on here? If were not credibly enhancing our nations energy independence. battling prices at the pump. or creating the next generation of hightech. highwage energy jobs. what in the world are we doing? Given the enormous size of our current budget deficit. along with the hefty $31 billion price tag on the energy bill alone. the taxpaying public has a right to know. Notwithstanding my serious objections to the priorities reflected in the bills before us. I sincerely believe this nation needs a comprehensive energy policy. For that reason. I will be supporting the common sense provisions in the Democratic motion to recommit. But frankly. I would domore. Rather than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)-an enormously environmentally destructive exercise expected to yield the equivalent of about 6 months of oil some 10 years from nowI believe we should increase the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars. SUVs and light trucks to 40 MPG. According to the national Academy of Sciences. a 40 MPG CAFE standard is feasible with existing technology. and conservative estimates place the energy savings at a multiple of the amount of recoverable oil in the ANWR. As an added benefit. consumers would save billions at the pump. and localities would be significantly aided in their efforts to comply with the Clean Air Act. Additionally. I think it is foolhardy to talk about formulating a national energy policy without reference to that policys potential implications for global climate change. So long as fossil fuels are part of our energy mix. we will be contributing to the ongoing carbon buildup in the earths atmosphere. For that reason. Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. OLVER and I offered an -amendment at the Rule Committee directing the federal government to establish a comprehensive. principlebased. datecertain national climate change policy along with a national database for registering greenhouse gas emissions. The language we suggested was far more modest than the Climate Stewardship Act legislation we have introduced this Congress and. in fact. passed the Senate by a noncontroversial voice vote in 2002. Nevertheless. on a bipartisan basis. we went to the Rules Committeebecause we believe that the day for denial on this issue is over. and because we felt it was important to get this particular conversation started. Unfortunately. our amendment was not made in order. Finally. I think it is high time we stop paying lip service to energy conservation. energy efficiency and renewablesand start investing seriously in the green technologies of tomorrow. We should invite business. labor and the environmental movement to construct a new forwardlooking energy policy -for the 21st century---one that rewards innovation. propels American dominance in the global marketplace. moves us credibly in the direction of energy independence. safeguards our environment. creates hundreds of thousands of new. domestic. highskill. highwage jobs. and incentivizes the production- and consumption of ever more efficient products and services. Mr. Speaker. we as a nation have a choice to make. We can embrace the majoritys vision of watered down environmental protections paired with hefty subsidies for the mature. highly profitable. and yes. polluting. industries of the 20th century. Or we can craft a new. more dynamic energy policy that meets both the serious challenges and the substantial opportunities of the 21st century. That is the vision I will be fighting for. and I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same..