THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display

[Page: E330]  GPO's PDF
---

• 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.

  
  

  ---

  THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
  Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
  Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
  Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                  Contents Display
  

  ---