Fuel Consumption Education Act

FUEL CONSUMPTION EDUCATION ACT -- (House of Representatives - July 26, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 Ð60-, 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/