Duncan Debates "Comprehensive" Energy Bill

September 16, 2008

Washington, DC -- Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this very misnamed bill and the rule that brings it to the floor.

First, it claims to be a comprehensive bill, yet it has nothing about nuclear energy, clean coal or increasing refinery capacity and halts much oil shale development. Second, and more importantly, it has no reforms or limitations on lawsuits by special interests environmental groups.

Radical environmental groups have successfully used lawsuits, the courts and administrative procedures to stop or drastically slow down all types of energy production and have really shut down this country economically in many, many ways. They have opposed not only drilling for oil, but also digging for any coal, cutting any trees, or, heaven forbid, any new nuclear plants. They want to go to wind power, but they oppose putting up any windmills.

I have noticed that almost all radical environmentalists come from very wealthy or very upper-income families. Perhaps they aren't hurt by high gas prices, high utility bills, higher prices for everything made out of wood and higher prices for everything. But almost all middle- and lower-income people are hurt by these higher prices.

The trucking and railroad industries have been hit especially hard by higher diesel fuel costs. The president of Burlington Northern and Sante Fe Railroad told me his company spent $1 billion on fuel in all of 2003, and spent over $1 billion on fuel just in the first quarter of this year. All of these costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

The Air Transport Association says each one penny increase in jet fuel costs the aviation industry $200 million a year. Jet fuel has gone up far more than one penny, leading to much higher fares for the hundreds of millions who fly each year.

The hoax of a bill that we consider today is not a good bill, Mr. Speaker.