Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Conference Report

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT -- (Senate - July 29, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to today in support of the Energy bill and to provide some perspective on the conference report for H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

I have been in Congress since 1976, serving first in the House of Representatives, and since 1990 in the Senate. I have served with many outstanding Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Senators who have advanced my knowledge and appreciation for comprehensive energy policy in the long-term. I served with Representative Jim Lord, who was my mentor in the House when I first arrived. I saw him again just before I stepped into last Sunday's conference committee meeting in Rayburn. I served with my good friend and colleague, JOHN DINGELL, from Michigan, and I served with the dedicated and ever-insightful Congressman from Massachusetts, ED MARKEY. Both of them have made enormous contributions to this year's energy bill, as have all the House Members.

I have served on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for more than 10 years. I was here when the Senate passed the last energy bill, the Energy Policy Act of 1992. That bill was a benchmark that established a range of energy efficiency, conservation, renewable energy, research and development, and regulatory frameworks for energy that are still in place today.

My observation is that the compromise that we have now may be the best we can get in the next 5 to 10 years, given the regional nature of energy and the partisan nature of politics. Energy is an issue with regional, special interest, and State and local ``tugs'' and ``pulls'' unlike other national issues. The breadth of this energy bill is almost incomprehensible. An energy policy sounds simple, but it is a complex, interlocked patchwork of agreements, prohibitions and incentives.

If we do nothing, we will be worse off than when we started. We will not advance energy conservation, efficiency, or production of alternative fuels if we do not pass the bill. I urge members to remember that we have spent over 5 years debating an energy bill and we have seen bills that are much, much worse. This bill represents a victory in many ways.

It is victory of democratic process over regional politics. This bill was fully heard by the committee and fully debated and amended in the Senate. It was a bipartisan effort on which we spent 3 months exploring the topics making a comprehensive bill. We spent another 2 weeks debating and changing this bill in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. We accepted many amendments on the Democratic side. The Senate debated the bill for another 2 weeks, changing it and improving it again.

I applaud the efforts of Senators DOMENICI and BINGAMAN, the chair and ranking member of the Energy Committee, for upholding the promise of the Senate energy bill in the conference discussions. They showed great leadership in holding firm to the Senate bill, rejecting House provisions that were unacceptable. Their staffs were determined to provide us an energy bill that did not include excessive spending or destructive environmental compromises.

The energy conference report is not perfect, but its a good bill. I know the bill does not have provisions for fuel efficiency standards for cars, SUVs, and trucks, provisions which I supported in the Committee and on the floor. It does not have controls on carbon dioxide or standards for renewable electricity, although the latter was approved in the Senate.

In many respects, these are small steps, but important ones, in the right direction to meet our energy challenges. It encourages cleaner alternative energy initiatives such as hydrogen, solar, wind, geothermal, and natural gas resources. It emphasizes greater use of renewables. It promotes greater efficiency in the way we currently use appliances, home heating and cooling, with more stringent standards. It encourages more efficient cars, homes, and commercial appliances such as dishwashers. It strengthens the reliability of our electricity grid, encourages more transmission lines, and protects ratepayers from market abuses. These are things that are needed now, not in another 5 years when the composition of Congress or the White House might change.

The bill does not go as far as I would have liked to address some of the biggest energy problems our Nation faces. It seems Congress cannot mobilize the political will to take the difficult steps needed to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, improve vehicle fuel efficiency or deal with global warming. I supported those amendments, both on the Senate floor and in conference committee deliberations, but we lost in fair votes in an open process.

What we have before us, in the long run, is a bill that is balanced in terms of production of energy from a variety of sources and it uses appropriated funds and tax expenditures to encourage research, development, and production. There will always be detractors who can find problems with particular pieces of this far-reaching energy bill. The comprehensive bill is so broad that I do not believe it will ever satisfy the positions of every interest group. The bottom line is that this bill does not include the onerous provisions of an MTBE liability waiver, an ozone bump-up, and it does not include categorical waivers for NEPA for oil and gas developments.

It does include many tax provisions to encourage alternative and renewable fuels, nuclear energy, and oil and gas industries. But the proportions allocated to the renewable sector, clean coal, and energy efficiency are greater than the tax credits and royalty relief for oil and gas, particularly when you consider that a large portion is for a refining capacity incentive, badly needed to increase the efficiency of oil and gas refineries. I greatly appreciate the efforts of Senators GRASSLEY and BAUCUS, and their staffs, who bore the responsibility of crafting the finance portion of the bill under great pressure with grace and generosity.

In this era of alarming Federal budget deficits and declining domestic discretionary spending, we have to look to tax incentives and loan guarantees to mobilize capital investment in new and cleaner energy. For the Nation to maintain our leadership in technology and engineering, we must spend money. Because of many circumstances, namely the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and future extensions of tax cuts, we do not have adequate funds to spend on this effort. The only place we can find revenue to encourage the adoption of new technologies is through tax incentives. To me, this is an innovative way to create opportunity out of hardship.

The bill the Senate will consider today, on balance, improves our energy policy and deserves to be enacted. Enormous credit for the success of the conference and the development of the bill goes to my colleagues from New Mexico, Senators PETE DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN, and their staff, who worked long and hard around the clock to bring this bill to fruition. Senator Domenici has taken a fresh look, from the beginning of the 109th Congress, and changed his entire approach to the energy bill. I greatly appreciate his orientation and his strategy working with his colleagues on this energy bill. I also extend my great appreciation to Chairman JOE BARTON and Ranking Member JOHN DINGELL for their openness and willingness to work with members on the special needs of their States. Their leadership ensured that the conference was fair, open, and bipartisan from start to finish. I look forward to voting for this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/