Report from Congress

Statement

REPORT FROM CONGRESS

By Congressman Roger F. Wicker

WICKER: ENERGY BILL DISCOURAGES PRODUCTION, RAISES TAXES

The nation's energy problems were the focus of Congressional attention last week with consideration of a high-profile energy bill, but this plan is no solution. The measure could more accurately be called the "no-energy" bill because it focuses on new regulations, new taxes, and the total absence of initiatives to boost domestic production -- not a formula for energy independence.

While the Democrat majority mustered enough votes for passage, the legislation faces a likely veto from President Bush. I opposed the bill because it would do little to reduce America's reliance on imported oil. It offers no provisions to lower the price of gasoline at the pump.

DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ESSENTIAL

The bill would discourage efforts to increase oil and natural gas exploration in the U.S. and impose billion of dollars in taxes on domestic energy producers, a move that would end up costing consumers. At a time when our country should be increasing domestic output, some experts predict that taxes and additional restrictions on drilling could force a decline in U.S. energy production over the next 10 years.

Democrats have missed an opportunity to build upon a comprehensive energy plan passed in 2005 that contained conservation measures, invested in renewable energy technology, and recognized the need to tap more U. S energy resources. Instead, the provisions in new Democrat version could restrict energy supplies and lead to higher costs for a wide range of consumer goods and services. A Heritage Foundation report concluded that "everything this bill touches will go up in price."

ELECTRIC RATES COULD JUMP

Electricity ratepayers in many southern states, including Mississippi, could feel the negative impact of a provision requiring utilities to produce a larger portion of electricity from renewable sources. While I am an advocate of developing renewable and alternative energy, this 15% mandate would punish states which may not have the resources to meet it. Such a requirement would force electric suppliers to purchase renewable energy credits elsewhere, an expense that would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher power bills.

It is also disappointing that this bill does not adopt a more sweeping focus to include developing additional nuclear power options and seeking environmentally-friendly ways to use an abundant domestic coal supply.

STILL BAD BILL, BAD POLICY

I wrote in a newspaper column in August that this was a bad bill, bad policy, and should be vetoed. In the four months since then, the Democrat majority has done little to improve it. That sentiment is echoed in a recent editorial in the Mobile Press-Register. The newspaper said the legislation "wouldn't do anything to increase the availability of oil, natural gas, and nuclear power. It's certain that energy prices will continue their steep ascent if the nation does not tap its vast energy reserves. The energy status quo is bad enough without Congress taking steps to make it worse."

Source