Energy Policy Act of 2005
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - April 21, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 19 OFFERED BY MR. BLUMENAUER
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today I am introducing an amendment to the Energy Policy Act to create a new conservation and research program, Conserve by Bike. This is something that we discussed the last time we had an energy program before us. This was approved by a voice vote. This legislation represents a small but important step forward towards determining our energy future.
There is much discussion on the floor about things that are mandatory. There are lots of things that make people cranky. This is one thing that will be able to help us move forward to actually take advantage of proven technology, and something that is a very positive development in each and every community across the country.
Bicycling, as virtually every Member of this assembly knows, is one of the cleanest, healthiest, most efficient and environmentally friendly modes of transportation that exists. It is the most efficient form of urban transportation in history.
As an alternative to automobile travel, bicycling can be an important element of a comprehensive energy conservation strategy. However, the relationship has not been adequately studied. The Conserve by Bike amendment recognizes that it is time to better understand the positive effects that bicycling can have on the conservation of our energy resources.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the Federal Government educates the public and provides appropriate research into the benefits of bicycling as it relates to energy conservation.
We are well aware of the health impacts. We are well aware of the opportunities that bicycling affords to young people, for example, to being able to have access to school.
This assembly, just last month, has approved in our transportation legislation, almost $1 billion in Safe Routes to Schools. With ISTEA and TEA-21 we have increasingly supported bike facilities through State, Federal and local funding. This amendment will leverage these investments to help people take advantage of energy conservation choices they have in getting around their community.
First, the amendment would establish a Conserve by Bicycling pilot program in the Department of Transportation, oversee up to 10 geographically dispersed pilot projects across the country designed to conserve energy resources, providing education and marketing tools to convert car trips to bike trips.
In addition, the projects would encourage partnerships between stakeholders from transportation, law enforcement, education, public health, environment and energy fields. The project results in energy savings must be documented, and the Secretary of Transportation is instructed to report to Congress the results of the pilot program within 2 years of implementation.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, bicycles are second only to cars as a preferred mode of transportation, demonstrating their potential for commuter use.
In recent years there have been significant upgrades to bicycling environments in the communities across the country. At a time when these communities are seeking to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, increase the safety of their neighborhoods, decrease petroleum dependence, bicycles offer a relatively simple, energy-saving alternative to driving. At a time when we talk seriously about transportation alternatives as an important component to comprehensive energy conservation strategy, this gives us the elements to make sure that we can document the impact.
The Conserve by Bike program is a critical step in the right direction. I strongly urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Hall) willingness to accept the amendment. What he said is true: there are over 100 million bicycles in this country. We have seen in community after community when there have been opportunities people bike. In my home town of Portland, Oregon, we have tripled the number of people who are commuting by bicycle. And when you take thousands of people off the road, it makes a difference in air quality. It makes a difference in congestion, and it makes a difference in terms of people's health.
This is a small step in the right direction. I urge its adoption, and I look forward to greater application in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time and permitting me to speak on this and for his bringing this forward. It is an example of where we can take steps forward to deal with how we put the pieces together in terms of transportation.
Intelligent transportation has tremendous potential for energy savings, to put money back in the pockets of taxpayers and consumers around the country; and it is an example that we do not have to make this equation quite as hard as we tend to on the floor of the House. This, I hope, is going to lead to a broader sense of application about how we squeeze more value.
I appreciate the gentleman's leadership in focusing on the notion of the $800 billion that is spent dealing with energy in this country. That is $800 billion; yet the amount of money that is spent in research for government and for the private sector is arguably less than 1 percent, less than for any other major sector of our economy.
I appreciate my colleague's leadership in focusing on what impact research and technology can have in this critical area. By focusing on intelligent transportation, it will be one important area of research application that will make a difference for millions of Americans, it will save hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel, and it will improve the quality of life for our communities in the offing.
This is the sort of approach that will truly make our communities more livable, make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and strongly urge the adoption of this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, three brief points. We are back here because of the obsession of the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to provide the relief to the oil companies. My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), said that this was one of several oxygenated options. That is what the chairman of the committee raised. He did not pick one of them.
The second point is that we have not voted on this. The procedural vote that we had yesterday was without the focus from the CBO that this is, in fact, an unfunded mandate. The people of this Chamber will be voting with the knowledge that if they do not approve the Capps amendment, they will be imposing unfunded costs.
Last, but not least, it is obscene that we would be transferring these costs to local communities when we are giving billions to the oil companies under this bill, and they are already enjoying unprecedented profits.
It is not fair. It is not right. I strongly urge the approval of the Capps amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it is commonly heard that the world changed after September 11, 2001; yet the energy bill did not.
What Congress is considering this week is virtually identical to that which came forth from Dick Cheney's energy task force and the Congressional process four years ago. The ever growing concerns about energy reliability, the Enron scandal, skyrocketing gas prices, increasing demands on ever scarce supplies in unstable areas of the world all have not produced a change in the mindset of Congress. At a time when we should call forth our best, the energy bill is both a mediocre effort and more appropriate for the 1950s than this new century.
With the American energy experience over the last third of a century, public opinion has grown clearer while Congress' vision has not.
With 10 percent of our energy use tied directly to our vehicular traffic, it is selfevident to the majority of Americans that our fuel efficiency standards should be significantly increased. The Japanese and Europeans are already far ahead of us. Even the Chinese have now adopted more stringent fuel efficiency standards. Congress cannot keep up with the American public or the policymakers in China, Japan or Europe.
The public knows that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the last place that America should look for oil, not the next place.
The public supports investing in renewable energy sources, but this bill is heavily skewed towards more public subsidy of oil and gas interests, already awash in cash. These companies have ample money available to exploit energy resources in this country if they wish. Alternative energy sources are shortchanged in this bill. It has been estimated that they get one dollar for every $363 invested in other sources. Wind and solar energy are abundant, and non-polluting; with a fraction of the resources lavished on traditional energy sources, alternative energy could increase the production and reduce cost.
The public is not interested in cutting deals with special-interests at the expense of the environment and public health. This bill poses significant risk to air pollution and makes an unnecessary and unwise compromise with MTBE manufacturers at the expense of state and local authorities and the quality of local drinking water.
I am opposed to a provision in the bill that shortchanges public participation in the hydropower relicensing process. By denying rights to private landowners, farmers, local businesses, tribes, fishermen, conservationists and others who share a direct interest in dam operations, the bill would make it less likely that license applicants would agree to an outcome that allows for energy generation as well as protection of the river ecosystem. In Oregon, PacifiCorp is in the process of relicensing a number of dams on the Klamath River. The company has been involved in an open and cooperative process with stakeholders, and I am concerned that the language in the bill would both undermine that progress as well as reduce incentives for other companies to engage in this type of open process.
I am disappointed that Congress defeated a number of Democratic amendments that would have boosted fuel efficiency, removed language allowing drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, kept in place important consumer protections, and reduced our dependence on foreign oil. I am pleased that one small, but important, step was taken by the acceptance of my amendment to establish a Conserve by Bike program. This amendment authorizes pilot programs and a national study that will help us better understand the benefits of converting trips from cars to bikes and how to educate people about these benefits
In short, this bill looks at our energy problem through a rearview mirror; it gives too much to the wrong people to do the wrong thing and is dramatically out of step with what the American public needs and wants. One can only hope that as it works its way through the Senate, and as the public discovers what's in this bill, that some of the more unfortunate provisions will be eliminated or modified.
There will come a time in the foreseeable future when the needs of our country and the wishes of the public are heard and that will be reflected in an energy policy for this century that is cost effective and rational.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov