http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/21/energy.bill.pambo/index.html

House Resources chairman disses key provision of energy bill
From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shortly before the House began debate Wednesday on an energy bill aimed primarily at making the country less dependent on overseas oil, a House committee chairman involved in the legislation bluntly dismissed a key provision to boost the use of hydrogen fuels.

House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-California, a key proponent of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, whispered, "This is bulls--t," to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt as the two men stood listening to Rep. John Doolittle, R-California, talk about the benefits of hydrogen fuel at a crowded Capitol Hill news conference.

The remark, which was meant to be private, was overheard by a CNN reporter standing next to Blunt.

After the event, CNN asked Pombo why he made the off-message comment about the $2 billion alternative vehicle program proposed by President Bush and backed by the Republican congressional leadership.

"It's not a short-term solution because we just don't have the technology to produce it," he said, adding that the promised hydrogen-powered vehicles are "multimillion-dollar prototypes that nobody's going to buy."

He said, "They're just not done economically that the average person can afford them. Hopefully, if this stuff all works, 10 years from now they'll be able to produce them."

In the comments that drew Pombo's whispered comment, Doolittle said the alternative vehicle program would "turbocharge" development of pollution-free hydrogen vehicles in the United States.

"The goal is to have hydrogen vehicles on our roads by 2020," Doolittle said enthusiastically. "We presently have the technology. It's not decades away, it's not five years from now. Hydrogen fuel cells exist now."

Pombo said afterward that despite his dismissive comment he thinks it's important the hydrogen technology gets funded in the bill, which is expected to pass the House Thursday before going to the Senate where it faces an uncertain future.

"Long term it's good energy policy, but this is something that's out 10 years from now,' he said.

A White House communications aide agreed, saying hydrogen-powered cars are part of the administration's long-term energy strategy. Dana Perino noted that when Bush first proposed the hydrogen program in January 2003, he said his goal was that the first car that a child born at that time would drive would be powered by hydrogen.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman also spoke at the news conference.

Ironically, Pombo, whose turn to speak at the event came right after Doolittle, opened his comments by saying last year he had a hydrogen-powered vehicle on his ranch.

"It was a lot of fun," he said.

Gee, a two-faced douche in Congress. What a surprise.

Heh, "douche."

Pombo then added, "And hey, what the fuck do I care about something thats 10 yrs from now? What can be done right now to most easily and expeditously ensure me votes so that I can continue to gorge myself on the opulence afforded me by my position of power, not to mention guarantee me access to the pig trough of special interest money, kickbacks, and vacations that corporate interests are practically falling all over themselves to lavish upon me? Huh? Anybody ever think about that? Dumb-asses...."

Y'know, I think he's right. From what I've seen, hydrogen fuel is a pipe dream that's decades away.

One of my theories for a way to help speed the development of alternative fuels has always been that if the federal gov't would take it upon itself to require that any vehicle provided to a gov't employee that is not being used in a military or security capacity must be powered by alternative fuels by say, 2007, then put up for bid a contract that would allow an automaker to have exclusive rights to providing those alternate fuel vehicles for a period of maybe 5 yrs. before the contract would come up for a rebidding.

I would like to think that the prospect of having a guaranteed contract to provide however many hundreds of thousands of vehicles this might entail would be enough to spearhead greater inititiave on the behalf of automakers.

This is way oversimplified, and is not backed by hard facts, primarily whether the # of vehicles would be significant enough to spur a change; also it doesn't take into account how many people would stretch the truth to get their vehicle classified as security or military related in order to meet an exemption, but I think it provides one way in which govt. could lead by example.