Click here to return to Congressman Grene's home page
November 18, 2003
In Support of the Conference Report on H.R. 6
The Energy Security Act of 2003
Washington, DC - Mr. Speaker, this conference report before us is the first comprehensive energy bill in over ten years.  There is a lot of room for disagreement on energy policy, and I would draft it differently, but I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill because it will increase our energy security.   
 
Congress is always uniting to help the steel industry, high technology industry, aviation industry, the agriculture industry, but yet the high cost of energy must also be addressed.  We cannot have a strong economy with strong domestic energy production.
 
The bill has a number of important incentives for improving our domestic supply of conventional energy sources. 
 
It allows expensing of geologic seismic work, faster depreciation for natural gas pipelines, deductions for independent oil and gas drilling activity, royalty relief for marginal wells and deepwater wells in the Gulf, and tax incentives for unconventional sources of oil and gas.
 
The bill makes a number of improvements in our electricity policy.  We are moving the national electricity market towards the Texas model.  That means more open access to the transmission system by all power producers leading to a competitive wholesale market for electricity.  More choice and no blackouts.
 
People wonder why MTBE producers are granted safe harbor and grants to assist in conversion of eligible facilities to new products.  The reason is that oxygenates were required by the Clean Air Act because they clean our air, but the properties of oxygenates make them vulnerable in leaking tanks. 
The public policy problem here is the leaking tanks and the unused tank repair money in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. 
 
I also want to note H.R. 6’s provision to study the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.  Frankly, I’ve long-urged this, and look forward to its enactment.  It’s a fact: extreme weather kills.  Heat’s particularly deadly.  In 1999 alone, nearly 500 deaths resulted from extreme heat, while seven were attributed to cold.  The Centers for Disease Control advises that home cooling effectively protects against heat-related death and injuries.  CDC suggests “exposure to air conditioning for even a few hours a day will reduce the risk of heat-related illness.” 
 
As more Americans live within urban heat domes, and move to warmer climates, LIHEAP must respect our population and health science alike.  LIHEAP now fails to reach most qualified Americans wherever they live.  This stems both from inadequate funds and their apportionment. 
 
As the Secretary undertakes this analysis, it is important that the study identifies and assesses:
 
  • Biases within either formula toward heating or cooling, and resulting regional effects.
  • LIHEAP’s ability to adjust as Americans move about the country.   
  • The New or Old formulas’ ability to accommodate changes in energy costs.  
  • ‘Home energy burden’ as an alternative means to guide distributions. 
  •  Extreme temperatures effect upon human mortality and health, and LIHEAP’s ability to protect at-risk Americans from these effects.
The Secretary’s study offers a step toward reform.  While woefully long in coming, it’s an important opportunity to improve this essential program -- which I welcome.
 
I urge my colleagues to unite in the support of energy security for our country.  Millions of jobs, including manufacturing jobs, are very much at stake here today.  Thank you. 

 

Click here to Print this PagePrint this page

Click here to return to the News Center