Fuel Consumption Education Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5611) to provide for the establishment of a partnership between the Secretary of Energy and appropriate industry groups for the creation of a transportation fuel conservation education campaign, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5611, the Fuel Consumption and Education Act.

I would begin by noting that in the debate on the last bill and, indeed, in the 1-minute speeches which occurred in this Chamber just this morning, it was noted that the cost of gasoline across America is spiking. Indeed, it is imposing a severe financial burden on every single American family and on every single American business. Rightfully, the American people have asked Congress to solve this problem and to solve it quickly, and yet I think most Americans understand, indeed, survey data show that they understand, that there is no single silver bullet that we can enact and solve this problem overnight.

But, Mr. Speaker, there are steps we can take. And this legislation, the Fuel Consumption and Education Act, takes one of those important steps. The rising cost of gasoline is a hardship, and this bill goes right at how we might address that hardship, and that is to reduce unnecessary demand for gasoline and gasoline products through a cooperative effort to understand how we can reduce that demand.

Indeed, the problem of high cost is, in part, specifically that, a result of excessive demand and inadequate or insufficient supply. This bill establishes a fuel conservation public service education campaign aimed at lowering demand for gasoline in the short term. And, indeed, it can work. Using mass media to influence energy consumption behavior across the country has been proven to work in the past.

Let me give you some examples.

In January of 2000, increased energy demand led to rolling blackouts in California. A part of the effort to combat those rising energy costs and to avoid rolling blackouts was a government-funded, public-private cooperative campaign undertaken to help reduce demand. Over the course of the year, Californians reduced peak demand by 89 percent. That is a fact. That is not a mistake. Californians, through this education program, reduced peak demand by 89 percent. They reduced total consumption by 6.7 percent in that year.

There are many things that can be done to reduce consumption, from properly inflating the tires of a vehicle, to making sure that the engine is tuned, to making sure that the air cleaner for the vehicle is replaced when it should be, to making sure that the fuel filter for the vehicle is replaced when it should be.

Mr. Speaker, there are many steps that we can take, that the average consumer, the average automobile driver does not understand and does not routinely do. All of that causes demand to go up, and all of that forces prices higher.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it is critically important. I want to commend my colleague from Texas, Mr. Conaway, for introducing this legislation and bringing it forward. It is the kind of step that we can do immediately to address both our excessive demand and the high prices.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. It is a constructive suggestion. And I am sorry to say that at least at one point in this debate it was proven that any issue, sadly, any issue that is brought to this floor can be made partisan.

It seems to me that the famous quote by Roosevelt applies here, and that is that it is always easy to point out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them

better. It is always possible to come in and say, well, this isn't good enough. You should have done this. You should have done that.

But, as that quote suggests, the credit belongs not to the critic but to the man who is in the arena struggling and trying to do the right thing. In this case, Mr. Speaker, that is my colleague, Mr. Conaway of Texas.

Now, some people say facetiously, oh, this is energy week for the Republicans; and they criticize that we haven't done enough. I would note that some of those people oppose drilling in ANWR where we might find additional resource. They oppose even rational proposals to do offshore drilling. They oppose rational proposals called for by the industry to incentivize additional refineries.

Indeed, I worked very hard to increase hydroelectric energy; and the same people who are today here criticizing this bill opposed the construction of additional hydroelectric production facilities. Indeed, they say we should tear down existing dams that produce hydroelectric energy.

One of the speakers on this bill said, well, this really is unnecessary. Indeed, it is a waste of time. Because in point of fact there is already an Energy Department Web site which tells consumers this information.

Well, unfortunately, that misapprehends what this bill does. This bill doesn't just create a Web site. This bill calls for a cooperative effort to advertise to American consumers what they can do.

Perhaps the gentleman who made that argument knows that every single person residing in his congressional district understands already that using their cruise control on the highway can help maintain a constant speed and save gas.

Perhaps the gentleman understands, or in his congressional district every single consumer understands, that aggressive driving can reduce mileage by 33 percent.

Presumably, in that particular Member's district, every single member observes the speed limit and understands that for each five miles per hour over the 60 miles an hour that you drive, you are increasing the cost of gasoline by 21 cents a gallon.

Perhaps, indeed, I assume, every single consumer in that congressional district understands that a single 100 pounds of extra weight in your vehicle can cost you an additional 2 percent each year.

Perhaps in that congressional district every consumer understands that fixing a car that is not timed properly can save you 4 percent of the gasoline you need to consume. Indeed, fixing a serious maintenance problem can save you 40 percent.

And perhaps every consumer in that congressional district understands that if you keep your tires properly inflated you will save 3.3 percent.

But I would suggest that not all Americans do understand those things. I would suggest that this is good legislation. I would suggest that it is indeed the right thing to do, to help educate consumers; and I am, quite frankly, stunned that an opponent would come to the floor and say we do not need to educate America's consumers on the cost of excessive consumption of gasoline.

This is good legislation. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) for his effort. I appreciate the support of some of my colleagues on the other side, and I urge that all of the Members pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that high praise indeed. I appreciate members of the Energy and Commerce Committee moving this bill along and moving it to the floor today with bipartisan support. I also want to thank the cosponsors of the bill, Fred Upton, Ralph Hall, Ed Towns and Gene Green, who helped work on this modest attempt to address the usage of gasoline in this country.

Several speakers ahead of us this morning during the one minutes spoke very eloquently about the rising cost of

gasoline. I think yesterday there was a report that it hit a record $3.02 a gallon on average across the United States. It seems as though we as consumers will begin to make decisions at $3 a gallon that we won't make at $2 a gallon, decisions we ought to make at $2 a gallon, but the concern about the money is not there in our heads to make that happen.

This effort of a joint public-private educational effort has shown results in the past, as Mr. Shadegg has already mentioned, in California, the dramatic results they had; people just making informed decisions, decisions that they ought to make day in and day out, but they don't.

There is a recent headline in the USA Today which said natural gas prices, not gasoline prices, but natural gas prices went down dramatically. Let me read one sentence out of that. ``Prices have fallen because natural gas supplies are far above normal after a mild winter and lower demand, leading to an inventory surge.''

Here is what we are trying to effect. If each one of us, each of us who drives a car in America this coming week and for the foreseeable future, would use just one gallon less of gasoline, you would see that impact. Inventories would begin to surge, and the prices would come down.

When I am out at town halls and other places in the district, even from a district that represents Midland and Odessa, the crude oil and natural gas production capital of the world, that may be a bit over the top, but, nevertheless, an awful lot of crude oil produced in West Texas, even there, people complain about high gasoline prices.

If all of us would collectively do small things, Mr. Shadegg mentioned a couple of those, several of them, we could have a dramatic impact on total gasoline demand. As demand goes down, inventories would rise; and as those inventories go up, the law of supply and demand takes over and the prices go down.

We would have two benefits from that. One, the benefit we would get directly by actually spending less money on the gasoline for powering our cars; and then collectively we would benefit, the economy benefits as well as the ecology benefits.

2004, the last time we had statistics on that, we drove in America 2,962 billion miles, vehicle miles. You add all the cars up, the 243 million registered cars and trucks in this country, collectively we drove those many miles. With a volume of that size, modest reductions in the usage of gasoline or modest improvements in the efficiency of the usage of that gasoline can yield dramatic results.

Each one of us, on average, drives about 12,000 miles a year. It works out to about 234 miles a week. If we could begin to do the things that would improve the efficiency with which we drive those miles, or simply drive a few miles less, on average, it is about 17 miles to the gallon. If we just drove next week 17 miles less in our car than we did this week, if all of us did it, then the impact we want to achieve on this would begin to happen.

We are going to try to begin to convince the American gasoline users of this idea through media, print, television, Internet, Web sites, a variety of ways, to communicate the benefits of being smarter when you drive. Benefits like driving sensibly. If you are an aggressive driver, if you accelerate aggressively from stop signs and run the tachometer on your car above 2,000 RPMs, you will use more gasoline than you need to. So if you make a conscious effort to keep your tachometer below 2,000 RPMs a minute, you will use dramatically less gasoline. On average, the savings would be between 5 and 30 percent, which would save up to between 8 and 52 billion gallons of gasoline a year.

If you observe the speed limit, something that we all do here in this body, I am sure, religiously, but if you simply observe the speed limit, you could save economy fuel benefits between 7 and 23 percent, another 12 to 40 billion gallons of gasoline a year.

Excessive weight. These are some small things that most of us don't think about. But all that extra stuff that you haul around in the trunk of your car that ought to be stored in the garage, if you will take that weight out, you will improve your gasoline efficiency. In fact, the smaller your car, the greater that weight, then the differential is even bigger. So take all that extra weight out of the trunk of your car, and you will have savings there.

If you also keep your car tuned and the filters changed, there are dramatic savings in those regards as well. Keeping the tires inflated, our colleague on the other side has mentioned the importance of tires and the impact that they have.

So every one of these issues, each of us can choose to do our own. Particularly on our side of the aisle, we talk an awful lot about less government regulation, freedoms and personal choices. That is what we are talking about here. These are personal choices that you and I can make, not walking into work or not riding bicycles, not doing draconian kinds of things that really aren't going to work in the long run, but smart things that we can do, day in and day out, to begin to form a habit that allows us to use a little bit less gasoline than we would have otherwise used and also to keep money that we would spend on that gasoline.

So I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a modest attempt to address the problem. The overall problem of gasoline costs and usage in this country needs a long-term solution. This is not what that is about. This is about something we can begin to do today and tomorrow to affect this problem.

So I appreciate the Energy and Commerce Committee moving this bill forward, and I appreciate the sponsors that have helped with it.

Mr. Speaker, this bill that we are debating right now was supposed to be a part of a comprehensive Republican Energy Week that we were going to have here at the end of July, showing how committed the Republican Party was to dealing with the energy crisis in our country.

And this is energy week for the Republicans, although I would spell ``weak,'' w-e-a-k, because that is really what this bill is. This is a conservation, efficiency, education bill.

Now, it turns out that if you go to the Department of Energy Web site, you find out that they are already doing almost everything that is in this bill. It is already on their Web site. What I think the American people understand is that they should not expect the Republican Party to actually stand up to do something about energy efficiency.

Because, after all, we put 70 percent of all of the oil which we consume into gasoline tanks. So you would think that they would be out here on the floor, we would be having a huge debate about how to increase the fuel economy for the automotive fleet in our country, which has gone backwards over the last 20 years, to a standard that we met in 1981.

Now, the problem is that America now imports 61 percent of all of the oil which we consume. We put 70 percent of that oil into gasoline tanks. Now, if we just improve the fuel economy standards for our country to 33 miles per gallon over the next 10 years, that would be all of the oil that we actually import from the Persian Gulf. Thirty- three miles per gallon is all of the oil from the Persian Gulf.

Instead, we are back down at 25 miles per gallon in the United States, with this huge challenge knowing that the United States only has 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world.

So this bill out here educating the public as to how to drive their vehicle better or inflate their tires, that is all fine. But it is already out there. The Department of Energy is already doing it. Consumers are already trying to save the price of gasoline at the pump, because they know that OPEC and the oil industry is tipping them upside down and shaking money out of their pockets every time they go in to refill their tank.

By the way, when it comes to appliances, when it comes to electric consumption in our country, the Bush administration, over the first 6 years, has yet to promulgate a regulation on making the devices which we use in our country more efficient. They keep putting it back and back and back. And what they do is they tell us that the first one might be issued in September of 2007, and the last of the backlogged standards will not come out until 2011 and will not go into effect until 2016.

That will be the energy efficiency legacy of the Bush administration, of the Republicans, because, ladies and gentlemen, all of the coal- fired, oil-fired, nuclear-fired power plants that are built in America are nothing more than that electrical generation which is built so that we can plug in toasters, refrigerators, stoves, computers, have light bulbs go on.

But the Bush administration does not want to ensure that the industries that make these devices have to make them more efficient. So as a result we have more pollution, more health problems, and when it comes to automobiles and the importation of 70 percent of the oil, which we consume, by the way it was only 30 percent of the oil that we consumed in 1975 at the first oil crisis.

We are now up to 61 percent getting deeper and deeper. Since the Republicans took over the Congress in 1995, we have gone from 45 percent dependence on imported oil to 61 percent dependence upon imported oil, a 16 percent increase. Goes up about 1\1/2\ percent every year that the Republicans control the House and the Senate, and it really accelerates when they take over the Presidency, which they have had for the last 6 years.

They are saying today that they are not going to do anything about the fuel economy standards for SUVs and for automobiles. They are not going to improve the efficiency over the next 10 years, next 20 years, no plan in place. Same thing is true for the appliances which we use, the devices which consume electricity, no plan. But you can go to the Web site. That is what their bill will do. You can find out how to make more efficient the inefficient devices which you now have. That is the plan.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you it is about as dangerous an abdication of responsibility on any issue that our country has ever seen. We just had the new President of Iraq address the Congress today. Is there a connection between the volatility in the price of oil for Americans at the gas pump and his presence here today?

The pictures that we see every night in Lebanon? All of it is related to the unfortunately crazy, speculative marketplace that is now opening up on the price of oil, because people believe that chaos is breaking out. Who is the victim? Each and every American who has to pay these exorbitantly high prices for energy because there is no Republican energy plan.

This is energy week for the Republicans, w-e-a-k. That is what we have on the floor debated this afternoon. I urge a ``no'' vote on this ineffectual, redundant, unnecessary piece of legislation

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 60-, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5611, the Fuel Conservation Education Act. Again, I find myself agreeing with my friend from Arizona in everything he said, which is why the bill is having strong support from all the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, during this time of record gasoline prices, over $3 a gallon in my home State of New York and in most States of this Union, we have to be smarter about the way we conserve energy. As individuals, we have a responsibility to make informed choices about what we drive, how we drive and what fuel we put in our cars.

In a recent Energy and Commerce Committee markup, our committee considered several bills to help consumers make decisions about how to improve the fuel economy of their cars. One of these was H.R. 5611, the Fuel Conservation Education Act, which we are debating today, which will direct the Department of Energy to establish a public-private partnership with industry on a conservation education program and campaign, teaching drivers about simple steps they can take to achieve real results. Education is clearly a necessary component of our national commitment to improving fuel economy.

During the same committee markup, our committee considered a bill by Congressman Shimkus, Congressman Allen and myself that would establish a National Tire Education Program. Right now, consumers have no way of knowing how efficient the replacement tires they purchase are or even that proper maintenance of tires will improve the fuel economy of these tires and of their automobile. It has been estimated that you can improve fuel economy by anywhere from 1 to 3 percent per year if tires are kept properly inflated. This could lead to savings of 1 to 2 billion gallons of fuel per year.

So it is all about education, and that is what this bill is about.

So, Mr. Speaker, while we must work on long-term solutions to our energy challenges that will have a significant impact on gasoline prices, we should also promote programs in the short term that will empower individuals to make informed choices about fuel economy. That is what this bill does, and that is why I urge the adoption of H.R. 5611 today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to our Democratic whip, my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. Again, I urge our colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.