Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

This bill, first and foremost, should be rejected by this Congress, because it is very bad for the consumers, it is a very bad deal for the taxpayers, it is lousy for the environment, and it certainly does not do much for the American economy.

This bill is another missed opportunity to take America into the future, to take America into the leadership around the world in energy production, energy innovation, and energy technology; to create a new generation of important products, and a new generation of jobs.

But what this bill does not understand is that energy sufficiency and sustainability is very different from energy oil independence. The first is achievable in the national interest and the other is not. Oil independence is not achievable in this bill or in any bill you can bring to the floor.

If we were really seeking to strengthen America's hand with respect to energy and our economy, we would do all that is possible to develop a national sustainable energy policy that would minimize our dependence on foreign oil. That is not this bill.

Rather than placing too much of our emphasis on new oil supplies, we would build a national energy policy that is based upon the strength of our country, rather than its weaknesses. Those strengths are the marketplace, innovation, technology, and capital. If these economic forces were truly unleashed to provide a national energy policy, the role of coal and oil would be greatly diminished and would still be important, but diminished.

America's energy policy would evolve into one where business decisions, capital allocations, research commitments, and environmental policy would coincide to make businesses more efficient and productive, develop new products and services, would expand and cover the environment, would be easier and less expensive and clean.

Such a policy demands a synergy of most parts of national energy policy. To date, these ideas have been treated as a stepchild, as they are in this bill. To do so, the Congress would have to stop thinking about energy policy as an extension of the past. They would have to think about it as going out to embrace the future, with American technology, American ingenuity, American talent, American capital, and the American marketplace. America should go out and embrace the future, rather than dumping billions and billions of dollars into trying to bring the past a little bit further forward, to bring the fossil fuels a little bit further forward.

That is the mistake of this bill, that is the tragedy of this bill, and that is the missed opportunity. That is the reason why this bill does so little for the consumer.

In fact, it harms the consumer at the pump by increasing the price of gasoline. That is why it is such a bad deal for the taxpayer, because the taxes are used for old production, for old ideas, not for innovation, not for the future, and not for a sustainable energy policy. That is why it is so bad for the environment, because they use tax policy to drive environmental decisions that otherwise would not be made and, of course, that is why it is bad for the economy, because it continues our dependence. In fact, it drives us deeper into the dependence on the most unstable countries in the world, into the hands of those countries that simply cannot provide stable environments for the production of those energy resources.

That is why a different policy would be about a sustainable energy policy, not trying to achieve oil independence, or foreign oil independence as this bill does. It is unfortunate, because what we do is we miss the opportunity to bring about what the best and the brightest prospects of America have always offered, and that is new innovation, new technologies, new discoveries, new capital formation, and a new economy. But this bill does not do it.

This bill resides in the past century. This bill resides with the old industries. This bill resides with the old ideas, and it certainly resides with the old and tired subsidies that milk the taxpayers, to turn around and give them to now the most profitable companies in the American economy at this time.

It is very unfortunate, and it should be rejected.