[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. KAREN McCARTHY

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4) to 
     enhance energy conservation, research and development and to 
     provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for 
     the American people, and for other purposes.

  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
4, the Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001. I regret 
having to take this position because I support the Energy and Commerce 
Committee provisions of this bill, which were crafted in a bipartisan 
manner under the leadership of Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Member 
Dingell, as well as the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman 
Barton and Ranking Member Boucher. Working together, the members of the 
committee created a balanced energy policy that recognizes the 
importance of conservation and efficiency as well as increased 
production from traditional sources of energy, while improving our 
nation's commitment to alternative and renewable energy resources. 
These efforts produced an excellent first step toward addressing 
critical national energy supply issues in an environmentally sensitive 
manner, improving efficiency so as to reduce waste, and ensuring our 
nation's energy security for future generations.
  The product of our committee's bipartisan work was combined with the 
sections reported by other committees. Instead of having conservation 
and efficiency as its center, the legislation added millions of dollars 
of tax benefits for corporations involved with exploration and 
production and distribution of energy supplies with no guarantees that 
the savings will be passed on to the American consumer. Several 
provisions were added which threaten sensitive environmental areas such 
as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and allow the private 
sector to short circuit important environmental regulations. These 
provisions fundamentally alter the balance that was needed to increase 
energy supply and protect the environment.
  The process by which the bill was pieced together for floor 
consideration was also seriously flawed. I worked with my colleagues in 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, on both sides of the aisle, to 
include important provisions that will improve the energy efficiency of 
the federal government through a streamlining of the Federal Energy 
Management Program (FEMP), saving taxpayers millions of dollars for 
years to come.
  We created an innovative funding mechanism called the Federal Energy 
Bank to establish a fund that would help federal agencies invest in 
more efficient technologies and renewable resources, recouping the 
savings for reinvestment later on. We also included incentives for 
production from renewable energy facilities through revisions to the 
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI).
  When H.R. 4 was presented for floor consideration the Energy Bank 
provision, which was unanimously approved by committee, was missing, 
with no explanation of why other than that the Office of Management and 
Budget had concerns about the provision that had not been raised during 
the three previous versions of the legislation as it was developed in 
committee. After learning that those concerns could be addressed with 
minor revisions, I offered an amendment to clarify the language for the 
floor, but it was not made in order by the rule. As the details of the 
legislation came to light, it was determined that other important 
provisions contained in the Energy and Commerce Committee bill were 
removed without consultation with committee members. Mr. Speaker, 
legislation of this magnitude deserves complete and thorough review and 
the rush to get the measure to the floor should not supersede the good 
bipartisan work that was performed in committee and thwart the public 
policy gains that were made.
  Increasing the fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles and light trucks 
holds the greatest potential to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and 
emissions of harmful global greenhouse gases, but the implications on 
the industry and jobs requires a delicate balance on how we best 
approach this problem. The Energy and Commerce Committee took a first 
step toward addressing improved fuel efficiency through the requirement 
that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) take 
steps to decrease petroleum fuel consumption of new vehicles 
manufactured between 2004 and 2010 by five billion gallons than 
otherwise would have occurred. Because the rulemaking process under 
existing law has been stalled for the past six years we have lost the 
opportunity to approach increasing fuel efficiency at a reasonable 
pace. We should continue to work to increase the fuel efficiency of all 
vehicles. The automakers have indicated repeatedly that they have the 
existing technology to increase the fuel economy of their products and 
plan to implement those improvements in the near future. Making these 
changes to improve automotive fuel efficiency and actually affecting 
the number of these vehicles sold is a different matter. Whether for 
safety, convenience or performance reasons, Americans' buying habits 
have trended strongly toward larger sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and 
light trucks. The public supports improved fuel economy, but balanced 
with the desire to have vehicles that meet their transportation needs.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee provisions also call for a report 
that will examine alternatives to the current CAFE standard policy and 
requirements for each manufacturer to comply with these standards for 
vehicles it makes. The National Research Council report suggests 
alternative means by which we could achieve greater success at 
improving fuel efficiency such as a system of tradeable credits to 
augment the current CAFE requirement and eliminating the 
differentiation between foreign and domestic fleets. We should continue 
the effort to examine how best to accomplish this over the next several 
months and come back to this issue once we have learned more about the 
economic effects of the suggestions that have been included in the 
report. Mr. Speaker, we must follow through on our commitment to make 
the provisions of this bill the first step to increase the fuel 
efficiency of all vehicles, not the last.
  When considered as a whole, H.R. 4, is an incomplete solution to our 
nation's energy needs which will harm the environment we are charged 
with protecting. I cannot support such an unbalanced and shortsighted 
energy strategy, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

                          ____________________