[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 3174]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF CLEAN ENERGY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 13, 2002

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert into the Record 
an editorial published in the ``Boulder Daily Camera'' on March 6. The 
editorial comes at a critical time, as the Senate is even now debating 
an energy bill that could lead us in the right--or wrong--direction. 
The piece ends by calling on the Senate to recognize conservation and 
alternative energy as not just personal virtues, but as ``important 
components of a national energy policy.'' I couldn't agree more.

                           Demand Less Demand

       In recent months, some have complained that the United 
     States needs an over-arching, under-girding energy policy. 
     They are, in fact, right.
       President Bush has proposed an energy policy that 
     emphasizes increased production of oil, gas and electricity 
     and places relatively little emphasis on conservation and 
     alternative energy. The Bush plan, whose fundamental 
     components were approved by the House of Representatives last 
     year, includes a provision allowing for oil drilling in the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the last true 
     wilderness areas.
       The energy bill passed by the House was predicated on the 
     assumption that we are in an energy crisis and that the best 
     way to confront this crisis is to increase energy production 
     as rapidly as possible. That's the stated justification for 
     drilling in ANWR, and that's the clear rationale for handing 
     $34 billion in subsidies to oil, gas and nuclear industries.
       Curiously, the Bush-backed energy bill does not appreciably 
     boost efficiency standards for the nation's automobiles. The 
     House killed an amendment that would have sharply raised the 
     fuel-efficiency standards for the nation's sport-utility 
     vehicles and light trucks--to an average of 27.5 miles per 
     gallon, the standard that cars now meet. Such an increase 
     would obviate the demand for ANWR oil.
       The House rejected the higher fuel standards because a 
     study concluded that the imposition of fuel-efficiency 
     standards coincided with a higher highway fatality rate. A 
     National Academy of Sciences study last year opined that 
     tough fuel-economy standards imposed three decades ago might 
     have caused an additional 100 deaths or so annually. The 
     Academy's report also argued that the safety concerns could 
     be satisfactorily addressed. That didn't faze the House, 
     which capitulated to the auto industry and labor unions.
       This week, a competing energy bill is being discussed in 
     the Senate. The 500-page Senate bill, sponsored by Sens. Tom 
     Daschle and Jeff Bingaman, is markedly different from the 
     Bush plan. The Daschle bill would increase fuel-economy 
     standards to 35 mpg by 2013.
       It would provide incentives for citizens to buy hybrid gas-
     electric cars such as the Honda Insight. It would require 
     that electric companies produce 10 percent of their 
     electricity from renewable resources such as wind by 2020.
       Critically, the Daschle-Bingaman bill would not open ANWR 
     to drilling.
       The Daschle-Bingaman bill represents a less-lopsided 
     approach to the nation's energy picture. It would focus both 
     on increased production of traditional sources of energy and 
     on conservation and alternative energy. This plan has drawn 
     fire from both ends of the spectrum.
       Greenpeace dubbed the Daschle plan ``Bush lite.'' Sen. 
     Frank Murkowski, the Alaska Republican, suggested that the 
     Daschle plan would make the nation less secure. ``The House 
     has done its job (in passing the Bush bill). The job of the 
     Senate remains in front of us. But I think most members would 
     agree, our energy policy is a critical first step in this 
     challenge. And it is a challenge. It is a challenge when we 
     fight for freedom, when we seize the day for democracy.''
       But while framing the energy debate as a fight for 
     democracy, Murkowski argued that Americans should not be 
     called upon to sacrifice. ``We turn to energy as we look at 
     the standard of living that Americans enjoy. If it is an SUV, 
     it is an SUV because Americans prefer that as opposed to 
     being dictated by government as to what type of an automobile 
     they have to drive.''
       The United States uses one-quarter of the world's energy. 
     Here in the world's largest energy sink, conservation and 
     alternative energy are not just personal virtues. They are 
     important components of a national energy policy. In a clear 
     and convincing voice, the Senate should say so.

     

                          ____________________