[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8064-8065]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    ENERGY CONSERVATION SHOULD BE FOUNDATION OF OUR NATIONAL POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is for the Federal 
Government to be a better partner with individual citizens, their State 
and local governments; our communities more livable, our families safe, 
healthy and economically secure.

[[Page 8065]]

  Having a dependable supply of energy and using it wisely is critical 
for a livable community. The current controversy surrounding energy is 
an excellent opportunity for this administration and this Congress to 
give thoughtful consideration to the impact that energy decisions can 
have on the livability of our communities and to develop a more 
rational approach to energy utilization.
  Unfortunately, the President, his chief spokesperson, and most 
recently the Vice President, are setting up a false policy conflict for 
Americans. They would like us to somehow believe that being more 
thoughtful about use of energy and the Federal Government's role in 
promoting a better approach is somehow an assault on the American way 
of life. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, America works best when we give people choices so they 
can determine what works best for them. A country that disregards the 
value of conservation, that ignores fuel efficiency for all 
automobiles, that seeks to maximize production of energy at the expense 
of environmental quality is not protecting the American way of life, 
nor is it doing American families or businesses any favors.
  Energy conservation is not just a matter of personal virtue, but if 
it were, there is nothing wrong with formulating energy policy that 
recognizes the importance of this virtue.
  Energy conservation should be, with all due respect to the Vice 
President, the foundation of our national policy. It is the only way we 
will provide significant amounts of energy in the near term. 
Furthermore, it is an approach that has already proven effective and 
has received bipartisan support.
  All the hotly debated talk about drilling in the Alaskan National 
Wildlife Refuge and building a new power plant a week is not going to 
alleviate the problems facing consumers now. Instead of cutting the 
budget for environmental conservation, we need to set policies that 
actually encourage it.
  There are simple conservation measures we could be taking today. 
Number one, extending fuel efficiency standards to all vehicles, 
including SUVs, light trucks and minivans. An increase of 3 miles per 
gallon in the fuel efficiency of SUVs will save more oil than drilling 
in the Arctic would ever produce, and we will get the benefits long 
before we ever get any Arctic oil.
  Two, encouraging higher building standards that are more energy 
efficient, such as colored roofs, which reflect heat rays and lower 
home temperatures by as much as 5 degrees.
  Three, we should be promoting new technologies and alternate fuels. 
We should not force people who want a 70-mile-per-gallon vehicle to 
have to buy one from overseas. By providing incentives and Federal 
support for developing and deploying energy-efficient technologies here 
in the United States, we can provide new and lucrative markets for 
American businesses.
  Four, we ought to restore the higher standards for energy guzzling 
appliances. The Bush administration should allow the saving standards 
issued by the Clinton administration to stand, not be rolling them 
back.
  Businesses are already realizing these benefits. A DuPont plant in 
New Jersey, for instance, which refused energy use per pound of product 
by one-third, cut global warming pollution per pound of product by 
nearly one-half, and as production rose 9 percent, the total energy 
bill fell by $17 million a year.
  But we need to get help to the people who perhaps cannot afford it.
  Five, helping low-income people with today's skyrocketing energy 
bills and helping them install energy savings appliances seems to make 
sense. If we can afford, as some suggest, up to $2 trillion in tax 
cuts, there is no reason that Congress cannot put some money on the 
table now that will help reduce the demand for energy production and 
help low- and moderate-income people save money over time.
  We should have policies that reduce the extra costs for low-income 
people who may not have the money to replace appliances that in the 
long term will pay for themselves many times over. The long-term 
benefits accrue not just to those low-income households. The community 
and the utilities will benefit huge savings by not building unnecessary 
power plants.
  Yesterday's poll in USA Today showed that the American public 
understands this problem and an overwhelming percentage favor 
conservation over production.
  We should invest in alternative energy, retrofit existing buildings 
with new technology, help lower-income people cope today and conserve 
for tomorrow, and all of us should embrace conservation.
  These principles should be the basis of a national energy policy, an 
approach that will unite us in Washington, D.C., because it is what the 
people want and it is the quickest path to building more livable 
communities.

                          ____________________