Volume 153, No. 193 covering the 1st Session of the 110th Congress (2007 - 2008) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ENERGY” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S15768-S15769 on Dec. 17, 2007.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ENERGY
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the energy legislation Congress is on the brink of passing in these last days of the first session of the 110th Congress. I voted against this legislation in the Senate because it contains numerous provisions that will distort competitive markets for energy through subsidies, Government mandates, special projects, and irresponsible increases in Federal spending. This bill will not promote the goal of energy security but will likely increase fuel and food prices and reduce consumer choice for everything from cars to light bulbs.
First, I want to talk about ethanol. It is difficult to understand why Congress continues to believe that ethanol is a desirable substitute for gasoline. It is widely reported that even if all of the 300 million acres--500,000 square miles--of currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, they wouldn't supply all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and they would supply only about half of the demand for the year 2025. We are not going to grow our way to energy security. We are also starting to see the devastating effects our current ethanol production is having on our scarce water supply, the environment, and human health.
Despite these facts, one of the bill's most prominent features is a five-fold increase in the ethanol mandate from the currently required 7.5 billon gallons by 2012 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Meeting this mandate will require even more corn-based ethanol and the production of other so-called advanced biofuels, largely made from cellulosic ethanol. Although cellulosic ethanol production is in its infancy and does not exist commercially today, the bill specifies that 21 billion gallons of the 36 billion gallons mandated be cellulosic ethanol. This is nothing more than a congressional gamble with American taxpayer dollars.
If Congress is serious about moving away from oil to alternative fuels it cannot, as it has done here, subsidize political favorites and engage in statutory prescription. This will actually slow energy innovation and may even retard the gains we have made. An excellent example of this point is the exclusion of woody biomass material from our Nation's overgrown forests from the production of advanced biofuels. Companies throughout the West, including many small businesses, are working in partnership with the Federal Government to help restore our national forests by removing this woody biomass material and using it to produce energy. This oversight in the bill complicates these efforts and could seriously slow the gains my home State of Arizona and other Western States dominated by Federal lands have made to combat catastrophic wildfire.
Now, let's turn to the other major feature of this bill--federally mandated increases in corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, standards. This bill requires each manufacturer's fleet to average 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a roughly 40 percent increase over current standards for cars and trucks. What this proposal seems to overlook is that more fuel efficient cars and trucks already exist on the market for those who want them. And as gas prices rise, my guess is increasing numbers of consumers will buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars without being told to do so by Congress. The point is that this is a consumer choice issue. By federally mandating these increases there will be less choice, increases in car sticker prices, and the very real possibility of more unnecessary highway deaths due to the increases in lighter vehicles, which generally are less safe in collisions on the road. A National Academy of Sciences study concluded that vehicle downsizing costs 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year.
Another major problem with the CAFE provisions in the bill is the failure to clarify the regulatory responsibilities of the National Highway Transportation Safety Board and the Environmental Protection Agency over the regulation of tailpipe emissions and fuel economy requirements. The administration in its Statement of Administration Policy makes this point. Failing to address this issue will likely leave industry to sort through layers of contradictory regulation.
Beyond the biofuels and CAFE provisions, the bill includes a full assortment of new efficiency mandates for appliances and buildings and even takes measures to phase out incandescent lightbulbs. Industry in the private sector has already brought to market alternative lighting technologies to the traditional lightbulb, and as prices drop consumers are switching over to them. Provisions like these are nothing more than Congress's attempt to take credit for something the market is already doing and accomplishing far more quickly and efficiently than the government can, I might add.
In sum, instead of enacting poor energy policy, Congress should focus on what it must do before we leave here this year--fund the Government by enacting fiscally responsible appropriations bills and ensuring our troops have what they need.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up