[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 26, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5878-H5883]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FUEL CONSUMPTION EDUCATION ACT
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5611) to provide for the establishment of a partnership
between the Secretary of Energy and appropriate industry groups for the
creation of a transportation fuel conservation education campaign, and
for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5611
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited at the ``Fuel Consumption Education
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) today's gasoline prices are taking a severe toll on the
pocketbooks of all Americans;
(2) a large number of factors contribute to the price of
gasoline, including worldwide demand for crude oil, taxes,
international conflicts, regional supply chains,
environmental regulations, and refining capacity;
(3) individuals can take steps to address rising demand by
using a few simple gas saving tips; and
(4) increased driving efficiency will lower the demand for
gasoline and thereby lower prices in the short term.
SEC. 3. PARTNERSHIP.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy, through the
existing programs at the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, shall enter into a partnership with
interested industry groups, including groups from the
automotive, gasoline refining, and oil industries, to carry
out a public education campaign that provides information to
United States drivers about immediate measures that may be
taken to conserve transportation fuel. This public-private
partnership shall include a five member advisory board, to be
chaired by the Secretary or his designee, which shall include
representatives from the Department of Energy, the oil
industry, the automotive industry, and the Congress, to be
appointed by the Secretary.
[[Page H5879]]
The Secretary shall appoint the advisory board not later than
30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Accessibility.--The public information campaign under
this section shall be targeted to reach the widest audience
possible. The education campaign shall include television,
print, Internet website, or any other method designed to
maximize the dissemination of transportation fuel savings
information to drivers.
(c) Funding.--The Secretary is authorized to expend not
more than $10,000,000 to carry out this section from funds
previously authorized to the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, but shall provide no more than 50 percent
of the cost of carrying out this section.
SEC. 4. PARTNERSHIP ON FUEL SUPPLY FOR EVACUATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy, through the
exisiting programs at the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, shall enter into a partnership with
interested industry groups and State and local governments,
including groups from the gasoline refining and marketing
industries, to carry out an education campaign that provides
information to the State and local governments and the
private sector about best practices to ensure adequate fuel
supplies during emergency evacuations. This public-private
partnership shall include a five member advisory board, to be
chaired by the Secretary or his designee, which shall include
representatives from the Department of Energy, the gasoline
refining industry, the gasoline marketing industry, a State
government, and a unit of local government. The Secretary
shall appoint the advisory board not later than 30 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Funding.--The Secretary is authorized to expend not
more than $3,000,000 to carry out this section from funds
previously authorized to the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
General Leave
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5611, the Fuel
Consumption and Education Act.
I would begin by noting that in the debate on the last bill and,
indeed, in the 1-minute speeches which occurred in this Chamber just
this morning, it was noted that the cost of gasoline across America is
spiking. Indeed, it is imposing a severe financial burden on every
single American family and on every single American business.
Rightfully, the American people have asked Congress to solve this
problem and to solve it quickly, and yet I think most Americans
understand, indeed, survey data show that they understand, that there
is no single silver bullet that we can enact and solve this problem
overnight.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are steps we can take. And this legislation,
the Fuel Consumption and Education Act, takes one of those important
steps. The rising cost of gasoline is a hardship, and this bill goes
right at how we might address that hardship, and that is to reduce
unnecessary demand for gasoline and gasoline products through a
cooperative effort to understand how we can reduce that demand.
Indeed, the problem of high cost is, in part, specifically that, a
result of excessive demand and inadequate or insufficient supply. This
bill establishes a fuel conservation public service education campaign
aimed at lowering demand for gasoline in the short term. And, indeed,
it can work. Using mass media to influence energy consumption behavior
across the country has been proven to work in the past.
{time} 1400
Let me give you some examples.
In January of 2000, increased energy demand led to rolling blackouts
in California. A part of the effort to combat those rising energy costs
and to avoid rolling blackouts was a government-funded, public-private
cooperative campaign undertaken to help reduce demand. Over the course
of the year, Californians reduced peak demand by 89 percent. That is a
fact. That is not a mistake. Californians, through this education
program, reduced peak demand by 89 percent. They reduced total
consumption by 6.7 percent in that year.
There are many things that can be done to reduce consumption, from
properly inflating the tires of a vehicle, to making sure that the
engine is tuned, to making sure that the air cleaner for the vehicle is
replaced when it should be, to making sure that the fuel filter for the
vehicle is replaced when it should be.
Mr. Speaker, there are many steps that we can take, that the average
consumer, the average automobile driver does not understand and does
not routinely do. All of that causes demand to go up, and all of that
forces prices higher.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it is
critically important. I want to commend my colleague from Texas, Mr.
Conaway, for introducing this legislation and bringing it forward. It
is the kind of step that we can do immediately to address both our
excessive demand and the high prices.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5611, the Fuel
Conservation Education Act. Again, I find myself agreeing with my
friend from Arizona in everything he said, which is why the bill is
having strong support from all the members of the Energy and Commerce
Committee on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, during this time of record gasoline prices, over $3 a
gallon in my home State of New York and in most States of this Union,
we have to be smarter about the way we conserve energy. As individuals,
we have a responsibility to make informed choices about what we drive,
how we drive and what fuel we put in our cars.
In a recent Energy and Commerce Committee markup, our committee
considered several bills to help consumers make decisions about how to
improve the fuel economy of their cars. One of these was H.R. 5611, the
Fuel Conservation Education Act, which we are debating today, which
will direct the Department of Energy to establish a public-private
partnership with industry on a conservation education program and
campaign, teaching drivers about simple steps they can take to achieve
real results. Education is clearly a necessary component of our
national commitment to improving fuel economy.
During the same committee markup, our committee considered a bill by
Congressman Shimkus, Congressman Allen and myself that would establish
a National Tire Education Program. Right now, consumers have no way of
knowing how efficient the replacement tires they purchase are or even
that proper maintenance of tires will improve the fuel economy of these
tires and of their automobile. It has been estimated that you can
improve fuel economy by anywhere from 1 to 3 percent per year if tires
are kept properly inflated. This could lead to savings of 1 to 2
billion gallons of fuel per year.
So it is all about education, and that is what this bill is about.
So, Mr. Speaker, while we must work on long-term solutions to our
energy challenges that will have a significant impact on gasoline
prices, we should also promote programs in the short term that will
empower individuals to make informed choices about fuel economy. That
is what this bill does, and that is why I urge the adoption of H.R.
5611 today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the author of this legislation.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that high praise indeed. I
appreciate members of the Energy and Commerce Committee moving this
bill along and moving it to the floor today with bipartisan support. I
also want to thank the cosponsors of the bill, Fred Upton, Ralph Hall,
Ed Towns and Gene Green, who helped work on this modest attempt to
address the usage of gasoline in this country.
Several speakers ahead of us this morning during the one minutes
spoke very eloquently about the rising cost of
[[Page H5880]]
gasoline. I think yesterday there was a report that it hit a record
$3.02 a gallon on average across the United States. It seems as though
we as consumers will begin to make decisions at $3 a gallon that we
won't make at $2 a gallon, decisions we ought to make at $2 a gallon,
but the concern about the money is not there in our heads to make that
happen.
This effort of a joint public-private educational effort has shown
results in the past, as Mr. Shadegg has already mentioned, in
California, the dramatic results they had; people just making informed
decisions, decisions that they ought to make day in and day out, but
they don't.
There is a recent headline in the USA Today which said natural gas
prices, not gasoline prices, but natural gas prices went down
dramatically. Let me read one sentence out of that. ``Prices have
fallen because natural gas supplies are far above normal after a mild
winter and lower demand, leading to an inventory surge.''
Here is what we are trying to effect. If each one of us, each of us
who drives a car in America this coming week and for the foreseeable
future, would use just one gallon less of gasoline, you would see that
impact. Inventories would begin to surge, and the prices would come
down.
When I am out at town halls and other places in the district, even
from a district that represents Midland and Odessa, the crude oil and
natural gas production capital of the world, that may be a bit over the
top, but, nevertheless, an awful lot of crude oil produced in West
Texas, even there, people complain about high gasoline prices.
If all of us would collectively do small things, Mr. Shadegg
mentioned a couple of those, several of them, we could have a dramatic
impact on total gasoline demand. As demand goes down, inventories would
rise; and as those inventories go up, the law of supply and demand
takes over and the prices go down.
We would have two benefits from that. One, the benefit we would get
directly by actually spending less money on the gasoline for powering
our cars; and then collectively we would benefit, the economy benefits
as well as the ecology benefits.
2004, the last time we had statistics on that, we drove in America
2,962 billion miles, vehicle miles. You add all the cars up, the 243
million registered cars and trucks in this country, collectively we
drove those many miles. With a volume of that size, modest reductions
in the usage of gasoline or modest improvements in the efficiency of
the usage of that gasoline can yield dramatic results.
Each one of us, on average, drives about 12,000 miles a year. It
works out to about 234 miles a week. If we could begin to do the things
that would improve the efficiency with which we drive those miles, or
simply drive a few miles less, on average, it is about 17 miles to the
gallon. If we just drove next week 17 miles less in our car than we did
this week, if all of us did it, then the impact we want to achieve on
this would begin to happen.
We are going to try to begin to convince the American gasoline users
of this idea through media, print, television, Internet, Web sites, a
variety of ways, to communicate the benefits of being smarter when you
drive. Benefits like driving sensibly. If you are an aggressive driver,
if you accelerate aggressively from stop signs and run the tachometer
on your car above 2,000 RPMs, you will use more gasoline than you need
to. So if you make a conscious effort to keep your tachometer below
2,000 RPMs a minute, you will use dramatically less gasoline. On
average, the savings would be between 5 and 30 percent, which would
save up to between 8 and 52 billion gallons of gasoline a year.
If you observe the speed limit, something that we all do here in this
body, I am sure, religiously, but if you simply observe the speed
limit, you could save economy fuel benefits between 7 and 23 percent,
another 12 to 40 billion gallons of gasoline a year.
Excessive weight. These are some small things that most of us don't
think about. But all that extra stuff that you haul around in the trunk
of your car that ought to be stored in the garage, if you will take
that weight out, you will improve your gasoline efficiency. In fact,
the smaller your car, the greater that weight, then the differential is
even bigger. So take all that extra weight out of the trunk of your
car, and you will have savings there.
If you also keep your car tuned and the filters changed, there are
dramatic savings in those regards as well. Keeping the tires inflated,
our colleague on the other side has mentioned the importance of tires
and the impact that they have.
So every one of these issues, each of us can choose to do our own.
Particularly on our side of the aisle, we talk an awful lot about less
government regulation, freedoms and personal choices. That is what we
are talking about here. These are personal choices that you and I can
make, not walking into work or not riding bicycles, not doing draconian
kinds of things that really aren't going to work in the long run, but
smart things that we can do, day in and day out, to begin to form a
habit that allows us to use a little bit less gasoline than we would
have otherwise used and also to keep money that we would spend on that
gasoline.
So I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a
modest attempt to address the problem. The overall problem of gasoline
costs and usage in this country needs a long-term solution. This is not
what that is about. This is about something we can begin to do today
and tomorrow to affect this problem.
So I appreciate the Energy and Commerce Committee moving this bill
forward, and I appreciate the sponsors that have helped with it.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R.
5611. I serve on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I am glad
our committee reported this bill to the floor.
It does basically two things: One, it creates these public-private
partnerships so we can deal with the demand side. That benefits all
Americans. I am honored to represent a district where we make a lot of
gasoline that fuels our cars, but we also have to pay that high price
at the pump. We can control our own destiny if we use public-private
partnerships that this bill will allow between the Department of Energy
and different groups. They will really help to show how we can lower
our number of miles we need to drive and do a lot of other things, some
of them are being done right now.
Making the Department of Energy more proactive with these private-
public partnerships, will lower our demand side and hopefully lower our
individual costs we have to pay for fuel. Also, if we lower demand, the
price will come down. Because the reason we are paying over $3 a
gallon, at least in my area and some areas of the country, is because
of the high demand.
The other part of the bill I think is really good, and I am glad Mr.
Conaway included it, the partnership on fuel supply for evacuations. I
don't think there is any secret that in the Houston-Harris County area
last year when Rita just barely missed us, it went to the east and hit
both Congressman Ted Poe's district and Congressman Kevin Brady's, but
we were concerned enough that we had almost 2 million people trying to
evacuate, and the supply side for evacuations was not there.
The State of Texas and our local community is doing some planning now
in anticipation. But, in hindsight, it really is the Department of
Energy's responsibility to be able to look at this and make sure that
in emergencies we have a plan in place for supply for evacuations but
also after the fact.
In the Houston area, we have a number of refineries, and we actually
shut those down because we thought Rita was going to be in the Houston
Ship Channel and we were going to have 5 feet of water in those
refineries. To get that refining capacity back up, we have to have some
assistance; and I want the DOE to be a partner in that.
I support the bill and thank you, Mr. Conaway, for introducing it
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I
appreciate it.
I want to compliment Mr. Conaway from Texas for his introduction and
[[Page H5881]]
pushing this bill, H.R. 5611, to the forefront. It is an important part
of what we are doing in this House.
We get to the point where Asia has used more oil last year than North
America, and India is yet to come online fully in its oil consumption.
There is only going to be more pressure on the oil produced around the
world.
So this House has taken some important steps to try to steady our
supply. We have invested in the policy changes for domestic production
and expansion of our refinery capability. We have invested in
alternative fuels, not only in research and development but trying to
make sure there is refining capability for ethanol across the country.
Lastly, we talk about conservation, when I recall back to being a
young child and my parents coming home and telling us about President
Nixon's challenge to every American to lower their thermostat in their
house to help conserve energy, and it worked.
What this bill does is really present some very commonsense options
for all of us that we get to follow. It is a true partnership from all
of the players who have really the most to gain by conservation. It
will lower demand, number one; and it will reduce our dependency on
foreign oil, number two. They are small, commonsense things that we can
do individually that add up to big solutions. That is what is important
about this bill.
Just a few examples, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Replacing your clogged
air filter can improve your car's gas mileage by as much as 10 percent.
You can improve gas mileage by around 3 percent by keeping your tires
inflated to the proper pressure. You can increase your gas mileage by 2
percent by using the recommended grade of motor oil by your car's
manufacturer.
These are commonsense, simple things. But Americans need to
understand how important those small things are in adding up to big
savings of barrels of oil consumed every year, which means, at the end
of the day, lower prices, less dependence on foreign oil.
{time} 1415
Every family has sat at the table and talked about the consumption of
their budget by gas prices. If you stop to fill up your pump on the way
to take your kids to school, or to go to work, or run an errand, you
know how painful it is today.
If we continue on the path of this House with good energy policy and
domestic supply and alternative fuels, and individual conservation, Mr.
Speaker, we will ensure that we have an energy supply for the future
that is both affordable and meets the demands of an American economy
that is on the move.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill that we are debating right now was
supposed to be a part of a comprehensive Republican Energy Week that we
were going to have here at the end of July, showing how committed the
Republican Party was to dealing with the energy crisis in our country.
And this is energy week for the Republicans, although I would spell
``weak,'' w-e-a-k, because that is really what this bill is. This is a
conservation, efficiency, education bill.
Now, it turns out that if you go to the Department of Energy Web
site, you find out that they are already doing almost everything that
is in this bill. It is already on their Web site. What I think the
American people understand is that they should not expect the
Republican Party to actually stand up to do something about energy
efficiency.
Because, after all, we put 70 percent of all of the oil which we
consume into gasoline tanks. So you would think that they would be out
here on the floor, we would be having a huge debate about how to
increase the fuel economy for the automotive fleet in our country,
which has gone backwards over the last 20 years, to a standard that we
met in 1981.
Now, the problem is that America now imports 61 percent of all of the
oil which we consume. We put 70 percent of that oil into gasoline
tanks. Now, if we just improve the fuel economy standards for our
country to 33 miles per gallon over the next 10 years, that would be
all of the oil that we actually import from the Persian Gulf. Thirty-
three miles per gallon is all of the oil from the Persian Gulf.
Instead, we are back down at 25 miles per gallon in the United
States, with this huge challenge knowing that the United States only
has 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world.
So this bill out here educating the public as to how to drive their
vehicle better or inflate their tires, that is all fine. But it is
already out there. The Department of Energy is already doing it.
Consumers are already trying to save the price of gasoline at the pump,
because they know that OPEC and the oil industry is tipping them upside
down and shaking money out of their pockets every time they go in to
refill their tank.
By the way, when it comes to appliances, when it comes to electric
consumption in our country, the Bush administration, over the first 6
years, has yet to promulgate a regulation on making the devices which
we use in our country more efficient. They keep putting it back and
back and back. And what they do is they tell us that the first one
might be issued in September of 2007, and the last of the backlogged
standards will not come out until 2011 and will not go into effect
until 2016.
That will be the energy efficiency legacy of the Bush administration,
of the Republicans, because, ladies and gentlemen, all of the coal-
fired, oil-fired, nuclear-fired power plants that are built in America
are nothing more than that electrical generation which is built so that
we can plug in toasters, refrigerators, stoves, computers, have light
bulbs go on.
But the Bush administration does not want to ensure that the
industries that make these devices have to make them more efficient. So
as a result we have more pollution, more health problems, and when it
comes to automobiles and the importation of 70 percent of the oil,
which we consume, by the way it was only 30 percent of the oil that we
consumed in 1975 at the first oil crisis.
We are now up to 61 percent getting deeper and deeper. Since the
Republicans took over the Congress in 1995, we have gone from 45
percent dependence on imported oil to 61 percent dependence upon
imported oil, a 16 percent increase. Goes up about 1\1/2\ percent every
year that the Republicans control the House and the Senate, and it
really accelerates when they take over the Presidency, which they have
had for the last 6 years.
They are saying today that they are not going to do anything about
the fuel economy standards for SUVs and for automobiles. They are not
going to improve the efficiency over the next 10 years, next 20 years,
no plan in place. Same thing is true for the appliances which we use,
the devices which consume electricity, no plan. But you can go to the
Web site. That is what their bill will do. You can find out how to make
more efficient the inefficient devices which you now have. That is the
plan.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you it is about as dangerous an abdication
of responsibility on any issue that our country has ever seen. We just
had the new President of Iraq address the Congress today. Is there a
connection between the volatility in the price of oil for Americans at
the gas pump and his presence here today?
The pictures that we see every night in Lebanon? All of it is related
to the unfortunately crazy, speculative marketplace that is now opening
up on the price of oil, because people believe that chaos is breaking
out. Who is the victim? Each and every American who has to pay these
exorbitantly high prices for energy because there is no Republican
energy plan.
This is energy week for the Republicans, w-e-a-k. That is what we
have on the floor debated this afternoon. I urge a ``no'' vote on this
ineffectual, redundant, unnecessary piece of legislation
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I guess it was about 2 months or so ago that
my friend and colleague from the good State of Texas (Mr. Conaway) came
up to me with a piece of legislation that he thought would really help
consumers, an education plan that promoted, in fact, could save lots of
gasoline that we would not have to import.
[[Page H5882]]
Mr. Conaway wanted to do this the right way. He said, you know, this
is such a good idea, obviously it is going to be referred to the Energy
and Commerce Committee. He wanted it to be bipartisan. And as a new
Member, he was not quite sure what his relationship was with some of
the members on our committee, particularly on the other side of the
aisle.
He asked for some advice. And he went and shopped that piece of
legislation before he introduced it. As it turned out, he got every
person that he asked to be a cosponsor of the bill.
Now, Mr. Towns, Mr. Gene Green, a whole number of different Members.
The bill moved through our committee. And it passed without dissent.
Had a hearing. It passed without dissent and here it is today.
Mr. Speaker, we have an energy crisis. We do. There is a host of
things that we as individuals can do ourselves to help our own family
budget, particularly as it relates to the fuel efficiency of our
vehicles.
Some of us know some of these things already: Going the speed limit,
removing the excess weight. But a whole number of different things,
and, yes, the Department of Energy talks about it on its Web site. I
think we can do a better job. That is what this bill is about, how can
we do better?
Working with industry, working with the Department of Energy, working
with our constituents trying to promote a whole number of things that
collectively make an awful lot of sense. But the bottom line is that we
can save, perhaps, if we did them all, if we were in violation of all
of these things, perhaps save us as much as 25 or 30 percent of the
income that we otherwise use for gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
legislation. I endorse wholeheartedly what our colleague, Mr. Conaway,
does. I would like to think that it will pass with a very strong vote
this afternoon.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to our Democratic whip, my
friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I think this bill, the Fuel Conservation Education Act,
is a worthwhile piece of legislation. I am going to support it. This
bill calls for a public education campaign by the Department of Energy
and industry groups to provide U.S. motorists with information about
measures that they may take to conserve fuel. I think that is important
information.
Many of the measures, from observing speed limits to keeping tires
properly inflated, of course, are already well known.
I believe that even the cosponsors of the bill acknowledge that it is
no substitute, however, for a real, proactive energy policy that seeks
to wean our Nation from its dependence on foreign oil.
Thus, today, I want to take this occasion to call the Members'
attention to legislation that seeks to do precisely that. I call it the
PROGRESS Act, a program for real energy security.
I, along with others, unveiled this proposal yesterday, along with
the dean of the House, Congressman Dingell; the ranking Democrat on the
Transportation Committee, Congressman Oberstar; and Congressmen Udall,
Herseth, Holt, Blumenauer, and Schiff.
In short, the PROGRESS Act seeks to initiate a robust, vigorous,
focused national program, akin to the Manhattan Project, this one
focused on energy independence.
The PROGRESS Act would establish a National Energy Security
Commission, bringing together government, industry and academic leaders
to develop consensus national goals on energy.
Well, that sounds very good, another commission. But it is, in fact,
like the Base Closure Commission, because they will then submit through
the President its proposals, and the Congress will have to act on those
in an expedited fashion, as is true with Base Closure.
It would establish as well a new Manhattan Center for high efficiency
vehicles, seeking to double the current average vehicles' efficiency,
and to diversify fuel types. America, the greatest innovator on the
face of the Earth, ought to be producing cars that are
60-, 70-mile-per-gallon cars, and selling them to India and China, as
opposed to the other way around.
It would establish a national biofuels infrastructure development
program, establishing a grant program to encourage the private sector
to invest in wholesale and retail biofuel pumps, tanks, and related
distribution equipment.
It will do us no good to produce biofuels if we cannot deliver them
to biofuel-capable vehicles. The PROGRESS Act calls for a stimulus
package to upgrade the pipeline for biofuels. You cannot ship them
through pipelines, they are a different chemical make-up and they eat
up pipelines.
The freight rail system, while also providing grants to promote
conservation alternatives, such as public transit and commuter rail,
the freight rail systems are critical.
This bill would also increase the use of alternative fuels in Federal
fleets. Federal fleets are the largest users of petroleum products in
the world. The largest single user in the world. Many of our vehicles
are flex fuel vehicles. The problem is, there is no delivery of flex
fuel infrastructure in place, and therefore they do not use it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to review the PROGRESS Act, this
program for real energy security, which will be introduced tomorrow.
{time} 1430
Energy independence is inextricably linked to our national security,
our economic well-being and our environmental integrity. So, from a
security point of view on national security, from an economics point of
view in terms of the growth of our economy and from an environmental
standpoint, we must apply America's technological capability to
producing clean-burning alternative fuels that are energy efficient and
sell them to China and India. Because if China and India do not have
that capability as well, they will choke us to death. So it is not just
what we do but what these two behemoth societies, growing industrial
societies in our globe are doing. We must act now.
That is the point the gentleman from Massachusetts was making. I
disagree with him on whether we are for or against this bill. I am
going to vote for this bill. There is nothing wrong with this bill.
Educating consumers is a good thing to do. To the extent that they are
more knowledgeable in saving fuel, that is a positive step for us to
take; and I am going to vote for it.
But the point that the gentleman from Massachusetts was making is it
is not enough nor is it a substitute for very focused, comprehensive
action. That is what the PROGRESS Act is all about. I hope that you
will look at it, and I hope that you can help us pass it, perhaps not
this year but in the very early part of the next session of the
Congress of the United States.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise as one Member on
this side of the aisle that in the past has supported Mr. Markey's
calls for increased fuel efficiency standards and voted for his
amendments but believe that it would be foolish to so vote and not also
support this demand side plan presented by Mr. Conaway from Texas,
which also has a proven track record, and urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 5611, the Fuel Education Conservation Act.
I just want to point out one fact, that, over one year, Californians
reduced peak demand by 89 percent and total consumption by 6.7 percent.
I would submit, if we can do it in California, we can do it across
America. So I would urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. Again, I urge our
colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. It is a
constructive suggestion. And I am sorry to say that at least at one
point in this debate it was proven that any issue, sadly, any issue
that is brought to this floor can be made partisan.
It seems to me that the famous quote by Roosevelt applies here, and
that is that it is always easy to point out how the strong man stumbled
or how the doer of deeds might have done them
[[Page H5883]]
better. It is always possible to come in and say, well, this isn't good
enough. You should have done this. You should have done that.
But, as that quote suggests, the credit belongs not to the critic but
to the man who is in the arena struggling and trying to do the right
thing. In this case, Mr. Speaker, that is my colleague, Mr. Conaway of
Texas.
Now, some people say facetiously, oh, this is energy week for the
Republicans; and they criticize that we haven't done enough. I would
note that some of those people oppose drilling in ANWR where we might
find additional resource. They oppose even rational proposals to do
offshore drilling. They oppose rational proposals called for by the
industry to incentivize additional refineries.
Indeed, I worked very hard to increase hydroelectric energy; and the
same people who are today here criticizing this bill opposed the
construction of additional hydroelectric production facilities. Indeed,
they say we should tear down existing dams that produce hydroelectric
energy.
One of the speakers on this bill said, well, this really is
unnecessary. Indeed, it is a waste of time. Because in point of fact
there is already an Energy Department Web site which tells consumers
this information.
Well, unfortunately, that misapprehends what this bill does. This
bill doesn't just create a Web site. This bill calls for a cooperative
effort to advertise to American consumers what they can do.
Perhaps the gentleman who made that argument knows that every single
person residing in his congressional district understands already that
using their cruise control on the highway can help maintain a constant
speed and save gas.
Perhaps the gentleman understands, or in his congressional district
every single consumer understands, that aggressive driving can reduce
mileage by 33 percent.
Presumably, in that particular Member's district, every single member
observes the speed limit and understands that for each five miles per
hour over the 60 miles an hour that you drive, you are increasing the
cost of gasoline by 21 cents a gallon.
Perhaps, indeed, I assume, every single consumer in that
congressional district understands that a single 100 pounds of extra
weight in your vehicle can cost you an additional 2 percent each year.
Perhaps in that congressional district every consumer understands
that fixing a car that is not timed properly can save you 4 percent of
the gasoline you need to consume. Indeed, fixing a serious maintenance
problem can save you 40 percent.
And perhaps every consumer in that congressional district understands
that if you keep your tires properly inflated you will save 3.3
percent.
But I would suggest that not all Americans do understand those
things. I would suggest that this is good legislation. I would suggest
that it is indeed the right thing to do, to help educate consumers; and
I am, quite frankly, stunned that an opponent would come to the floor
and say we do not need to educate America's consumers on the cost of
excessive consumption of gasoline.
This is good legislation. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Conaway) for his effort. I appreciate the support of some of my
colleagues on the other side, and I urge that all of the Members pass
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5611, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A Bill to
authorize a partnership between the Secretary of Energy and appropriate
industry groups for the creation of a transportation fuel conservation
education campaign, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________