[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 055 (Monday, April 7, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4899-S4902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 795. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
additional tax incentives for enhancing motor vehicle fuel efficiency, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a package of 
legislation--two bills--designed to put us back on track for improved 
fuel efficiency among automobiles.
  I support a balanced, forward-looking energy policy, which should 
include a strong provision to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. In 
2002, the Senate spent several weeks debating energy policy, including 
fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, a strong bill on this topic was not 
enacted into law last year.
  Both chambers of Congress are currently crafting a national energy 
policy. As the challenging times we currently face demonstrates, we 
cannot delay in addressing our national energy policy, including oil 
consumption.
  Throughout the debate on energy policy, I have emphasized that the 
best way to lessen our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is to improve 
the fuel efficiency of our automobiles. Transportation as a sector is 
the largest user of petroleum. If we are truly committed to crafting a 
forward-thinking energy policy, automobile fuel efficiency is the place 
to start.
  In 1975 the United States Congress had a vision: to double the fuel 
efficiency of our Nation's passenger vehicles in ten years. By 1985 the 
automotive industry achieved the goal that Congress set. As of 2001, 
thanks to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, law, oil 
consumption was about 2.8 million barrels per day lower than it 
otherwise would be.
  Unfortunately, progress is now at a stand-still, and in fact, the 
average fuel economy in the United States has slipped since 1985. Since 
peaking at 22.1 mpg in 1987 and 1998, average fuel economy declined 
nearly eight percent to 20.4 in 2001, lower than it had been at any 
time since 1980. Average fuel economy for automobiles 8,500 pounds and 
fewer continues to decline. One major factor in this regression is the 
fact that passenger standards have not increased since 1985. While the 
Bush Administration has recently increased non-passenger standards by a 
modest 1.5 mpg, this is not enough to compensate for the progress we 
have failed to achieve for more than a decade.
  Another reason why we are losing ground in terms of fuel efficiency 
is the exploitation of the ``non-passenger vehicle'' category. 
Originally intended to cover trucks used for business-oriented 
purposes, such as farming and construction, this category soon was 
seriously abused, so that it now includes minivans, sport utility 
vehicles, SUVs, and cross-over utility vehicles, CUVs.
  In addition, out-dated provisions of our tax code have encouraged 
increased manufacturing and purchasing of non-passenger vehicles. For 
example, the Federal gas guzzler excise tax, enacted in 1978, exempted 
non-passenger vehicles. At the time, few non-passenger vehicles 
existed, aside from heavy duty trucks and vans. But today, sales of 
SUVs, minivans, and CUVs make up over 30 percent of new vehicle 
purchases. As these sales have grown, these vehicles have enjoyed 
increasing subsidies by the Federal Government. In 1999, the SUV 
loophole in the gas guzzler tax cost the government $5.6 billion in 
uncollected taxes.
  For those in America who want to make a difference in terms of energy 
policy: take a look at the parking lots across America. Take a look at 
the inefficient vehicles we are driving on the road today, because this 
Congress and country have not shown the leadership to spur development 
of more efficient cars and trucks in America.
  We can improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles. We have done it in 
the past, and we can do it again. A panel at the National Academy of 
Sciences, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and other reputable 
organizations have documented the myriad technologies available today, 
and emerging technologies, that will reduce or eliminate the need for 
oil in our vehicles.
  Today we squarely face the question and challenge of energy security. 
I believe American families are ready to do their part for their 
country by purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles. And I believe the 
auto manufacturers, scientists and engineers of this country are ready 
to step up to the plate and produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. By 
supporting improved fuel economy, we can lead and demonstrate to future 
generations that we are prepared to make a sacrifice for our national 
security, environment, and public health.
  Many have already voiced their support for decreasing our dependence 
on oil. I am submitting for the record several editorials, which are 
just a sample of the many public calls for enacting an energy policy 
that includes a way to conserve oil. I also am submitting letters from 
national organizations calling for more fuel efficient vehicles. I ask 
that these documents be printed in the Record at the end of my 
statement.
  Today I am introducing two bills to get us back on the track of 
progress, to increase fuel efficiency for both passenger and non-
passenger vehicles.
  The Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act will increase the 
fuel economy standard for both types of vehicles. It will increase the 
CAFE standard of passenger automobiles to 40 miles a gallon by 2015, a 
60 percent increase above the current average of 25 miles a gallon, 
with the first increase required in model year 2006. The bill also will 
increase the fuel economy of non-passenger automobiles to 27.5 miles a 
gallon by 2015, a 60 percent increase above the current average of 17.5 
miles a gallon, with the first increase required in model year 2006. 
Through the CAFE standards required this bill, we will save a 
cumulative 123 billion gallons of gasoline, and over 250 million metric 
tons of carbon dioxide emissions, by 2015.
  This bill also will close the loopholes in the non-passenger vehicle 
definition. It will update the weight cut-off for

[[Page S4900]]

passenger and non-passenger automobiles, to reflect changing trends in 
vehicle weight. Many vehicles, such as the new SUV called the Hummer, 
weigh more than 8,500 pounds, the current weight cut-off for regulation 
under CAFE. This bill will regulate vehicles up to 12,000 pounds, in 
order to prevent large passenger vehicles from circumventing the 
system. In addition, SUVs, minivans, and CUVs would be considered 
passenger vehicles under this bill.
  Another provision of this bill would establish a Federal procurement 
requirement for the purchase of vehicles that exceed CAFE standards. 
The bill also requires a study to improve the accuracy of the EPA test 
for fuel economy, and would implement necessary changes to the test, so 
that we can better account for improvements in fuel efficiency based on 
how vehicles are truly performing on the roads. Finally, this bill 
would update the civil penalties for violating CAFE laws, to adjust the 
amounts for inflation.
  The second bill I am introducing today, the Tax Incentives for Fuel 
Efficient Vehicles Act, would modify the tax code. First, this bill 
would create a new tax credit for purchasers of passenger and non-
passenger vehicles that exceed CAFE standards by at least 5 miles a 
gallon. Second, this bill would modify the gas guzzler tax, effective 
at the beginning of Model Year 2006, so that SUVs and other passenger 
vehicles currently escaping the tax through an existing loophole would 
be included. Heavy-duty trucks and vans would continue to be excluded.
  Modifying the gas guzzler tax to include SUVs, minivans, and CUVs 
will help us advance the policy goal of discouraging vehicles that are 
especially inefficient in terms of energy consumption, while at the 
same time raising revenues that can be used to provide an incentive for 
vehicles that are especially fuel-efficient. This approach will help 
spawn investment in automobiles that are better for our environment, 
energy security and consumers.
  I would ask my colleagues to note that it is my intention that the 
Tax Incentives for Fuel Efficient Vehicles Act will have virtually no 
cost to the Federal Government. If the revenues raised by the expansion 
of the gas guzzler tax do not adequately compensate for the cost of the 
credit, I will adjust the size of the credit accordingly.
  I am proud to have the support of Senators Nelson, FL, Jeffords, 
Corzine, Reed and Kennedy in introducing the Automobile Fuel Efficiency 
Improvements Act. Also I am pleased that the following organizations 
are supporting the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act: Sierra 
Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, 
U.S. PIRG, National Environmental Trust, Friends of the Earth, Public 
Citizen, The Wilderness Society, Citizen Action Illinois, Coalition on 
the Environment and Jewish Life, National Council of Churches, 
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, American Jewish 
Committee, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union of American Hebrew 
Congregations, Central Conference of American Rabbis, MoveOn, and 
Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
  For the benefit of our children and future generations, I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.


                                                  Sierra Club,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2003.
       Dear Congress Member: Protecting our environment and the 
     health and safety of our families are values that are clearly 
     and consistently supported by the majority of Americans. As 
     the nation's oldest and largest grassroots environmental 
     organization, the Sierra Club looks forward to working with 
     you and your staff to keep America's promise to leave a 
     cleaner planet to future generations.
       The challenge facing the 108th Congress is not merely to 
     maintain existing protections, but to take common-sense steps 
     to protect our communities from environmental hazards and to 
     safeguard our natural heritage. Poll after poll confirms that 
     Americans--regardless of demographics or political 
     persuasion--care about protecting our special places, 
     restoring our forests, promoting smart growth, and improving 
     the safety or our clean air and water.
       However, public support alone is not enough. It is for this 
     reason that the Sierra Club works with our more than 750,000 
     members nationwide to educate their neighbors about 
     environmental threats and opportunities, mobilize their 
     communities to demand environmental protection, and to hold 
     public officials accountable for their actions.
       Sierra Club members are looking to their elected 
     representatives to continue progress on protecting our 
     communities, improving the quality of our air and water, and 
     ensuring a natural heritage of wilderness, parks and open 
     spaces for future generations. As the 108th Congress begins, 
     I would like to inform you about the particular issues on 
     which the Sierra Club's members will be seeking your support:
       Oppose efforts to weaken the framework of existing laws 
     that safeguard public health and the environment and improve 
     the quality of our air and water, and protect our communities 
     from toxic pollution;
       Support measures that safeguard America's wildlife and 
     unique natural heritage from Alaska's Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge to the wildlands of Utah and California;
       Provide adequate funding for the enforcement of 
     environmental protection programs;
       In reauthorizing TEA-21, give priority to maintaining 
     existing roads and bridges over new construction, and defend 
     the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air 
     Conformity laws from attack;
       Push for policies that reduce global warming pollution, 
     reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and increase our energy 
     security by increasing our fuel economy, energy efficiency 
     and reliance on clean renewable sources of energy;
       Protect the health and integrity of National Forests along 
     with the public's right to participate in the management of 
     our public lands;
       Fully fund international and domestic family planning 
     programs that are critically important to stabilizing 
     population;
       Ensure tough environmental standards in future US trade 
     agreements, and the personal safety and civil liberties of 
     those on the front lines of environmental protection around 
     the world.
       Many of your constituents are also our members, which is 
     why we would like to work together in Washington and in your 
     district to protect the land we all love. Attached is a 
     contact sheet of our issue experts in several policy areas. 
     If you have any questions about upcoming legislation, would 
     like to find out more about Sierra Club positions, or would 
     like to get in touch with our members in your district, 
     please do not hesitate to contact us.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you and your 
     staff to protect America's environment, for our families, for 
     our future.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Debbie Sease,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                            Natural Resources Defense Council,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 2003.
     [Re Boxer/Chafee amendment to the Senate budget resolution.

     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: On behalf of the over 550,000 members 
     of Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), I thank you for 
     supporting the Boxer/Chafee amendment to the Senate budget 
     resolution preventing oil and gas development in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge.
       You have voted to insure the continued protection of the 
     Arctic Refuge's ``biological heart,'' critical to nearly 200 
     species of wildlife. This area known as America's Serengeti 
     serves as a denning area for polar bears in the winter, a 
     nesting and/or feeding area for millions of migratory birds, 
     and the calving grounds for the 130,000 member Porcupine 
     caribou herd which returns every summer to calf and feed. 
     This herd has supported the Gwich'in Indian's way of life for 
     thousands of generations. The American public overwhelmingly 
     agrees with you that the coastal plain--one of our nation's 
     most spectacular wilderness areas--is too precious to 
     destroy.
       Drilling in the Arctic Refuge makes no sense. It won't 
     lower gasoline prices and, it won't give us energy 
     independence or security. The best estimate is that there is 
     less than a six-month supply equivalency of oil that can be 
     economically produced from the Refuge--a mere drop in the 
     bucket--and, we won't get it for ten years.
       Improving fuel efficiency of our automobiles is the 
     cheapest, fastest and cleanest energy solution. Efficiency 
     savings can be tapped immediately and would cost less than 
     half as much as producing oil from the Arctic Refuge. 
     Improving the fuel efficiency of America's automobile fleet 
     by just one percent per year would save more than 10 times as 
     much oil as is likely to be available in the Arctic Refuge. 
     Advanced hybrid electric vehicles announced by Ford and 
     already being produced by Honda and Toyota achieve about a 
     50% improvement in fuel economy. In contrast to drilling in 
     the Arctic Refuge, increasing fuel efficiency will help slow 
     down global warming.
       We thank you for your leadership to save this irreplaceable 
     natural treasure. We salute your dedication to the protection 
     of this great crown jewel.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                    John H. Adams,
     President, Natural Resources Defense Council.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Mar. 23, 2003]

                      The Missing Energy Strategy

       The Senate struck a blow for the environment and for common 
     sense last week, defeating President Bush's second attempt in 
     less than a year to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
     to oil exploration. Credit goes to the Democrats, who mainly 
     held firm

[[Page S4901]]

     in a close 52-to-48 vote, and to a small, sturdy group of 
     moderate Republicans, which now includes Norm Coleman, a 
     Minnesota freshman who wisely chose not to renege on his 
     campaign promise to protect the refuge despite an aggressive 
     sales pitch from senior Republicans and the White House.
       The pitch included the usual hyperbole from the Alaska 
     delegation, which typically inflates official estimates of 
     economically recoverable oil in the refuge by a factor of 
     four. It also included a new but equally spurious argument 
     minted for the occasion, namely that rising gas prices and 
     the war in Iraq made drilling more urgent than ever. In 
     truth, Arctic oil will have no influence on gas prices until 
     it actually comes out of the ground, and even then it is 
     likely to reduce American dependence on foreign oil by only a 
     few percentage points.
       Nevertheless it is much too soon for the environmental 
     community or its Senate champions, like Joseph Lieberman, 
     John McCain and James Jeffords, to rest on their well-earned 
     laurels. Drilling proposals will almost certainly resurface, 
     most likely in energy bills now on the drawing boards in both 
     the House and Senate. Beyond that, neither the White House 
     nor the Republican leadership shows any appetite for 
     developing what America really needs: innovative policies 
     that point toward a cleaner, more efficient and less oil-
     dependent energy future. Instead, the White House and its 
     Congressional allies continue to push a retrograde strategy--
     of which Arctic drilling was just one component--that 
     faithfully caters to President Bush's friends in the oil, gas 
     and coal industries and remains heavily biased toward the 
     production of fossil fuels.
       On this score, the energy bills now being drawn up on 
     Capitol Hill offer no more hope than the 2002 models. Last 
     year's energy plan, which mercifully expired in a conference 
     committee, was top-heavy with subsidies for industry and 
     light on incentives for energy efficiency, alternative fuels 
     and other forms of conservation. The news from the relevant 
     Congressional committees suggests more of the same. Just last 
     week, Edward Markey of Massachusetts offered his colleagues 
     on the House energy committee a proposal to increase fuel 
     economy standards for cars and light trucks, including 
     S.U.V.'s, by about 20 percent by 2010. This is not an 
     unreasonable goal, given Detroit's technological 
     capabilities, and would save 1.6 million barrels a day, more 
     than double the recent imports from Iraq and far more than 
     the Arctic refuge could produce in the same time frame. The 
     committee crushed the idea.
       The last two years have given the country plenty of reasons 
     to re-examine its energy policies: a power crisis in 
     California, the attacks of 9/11 and now a war in the very 
     heart of the biggest oil patch in the world. It is plainly 
     time to move forward in a systematic way with new ideas. But 
     the best we can do, it appears, is to beat back bad ones.
                                  ____


           [From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 8, 2002]

                            More Per Gallon

       Standards: Congress must approve higher vehicle mileage 
     requirements in order to reverse a troubling trend.
       Body: Each year the Environmental Protection Agency trots 
     out mileage ratings for new car models. And year after year, 
     the news is depressing.
       On Oct. 29, the EPA reported that the average fuel economy 
     for all 2003-model cars and passenger trucks is a paltry 20.8 
     miles per gallon.
       That's down slightly from last year. But more notably, it's 
     6 percent below the peak for passenger vehicle efficiency of 
     22.1 mpg set 15 years ago.
       In the past decade and a half, automakers have made 
     technological improvements that have increased engine 
     efficiency significantly. But those gains have been offset by 
     millions of Americans buying ever-larger gas guzzlers.
       Much of the blame lies in Washington, where the Bush 
     administration and Congress haven't been able to come to a 
     consensus on energy policy and apparently lack the will to 
     mandate even a modest increase in the Corporate Average Fuel 
     Economy (CAFE) standards for vehicles.
       Those standards--which haven't been changed for 17 years--
     require that each automaker's fleet of new cars averages 27.5 
     mpg. Light trucks (which include pickups, minivans and sport 
     utility vehicles) must average only 20.7 mpg.
       The solution is simple: Congress should raise the CAFE 
     standards significantly, particularly for light trucks. But 
     the new standards should be reasonable ones that automakers 
     can meet.
       Continued improvement in engine technology is one key to 
     meeting higher standards.
       Some mileage gains also can be achieved even if automakers 
     make no further technological improvements and Congress 
     continues to sit on its hands.
       Higher mileage standards would cut fuel consumption, which 
     in turn would reduce air pollution, decrease America's 
     dependence on foreign oil, save motorists money at the pump 
     and increase the chances that metropolitan areas such as 
     North Texas will be able to attain federal air quality 
     standards.
       Those are compelling reasons for Congress and the White 
     House to adopt standards that will, for a change, result in 
     higher annual mileage ratings instead of continued declines.
                                  ____


             [From the St. Petersburg Times, Nov. 16, 2002]

                     More Fuel-Efficiency Is Needed

       Americans are getting a confusing message on automobile 
     mileage. ``By driving a more fuel-efficient vehicle, a 
     vehicle powered by alternative fuels, or even by driving our 
     current vehicles more efficiently, we can all do our part to 
     reduce our Nation's reliance on imported oil and strengthen 
     our energy security,'' Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham 
     recently announced.
       Good advice. But Abraham chose an odd occasion to make his 
     appeal. He and Environmental Protection Agency chief Christie 
     Whitman were announcing the mileage figures for 2003 cars and 
     passenger trucks. The average of 20.8 MPG continued a 
     downward trend on fuel efficiency that has continued for the 
     past decade and a half.
       In fact, the percentage of cars getting more than 30 MPG 
     declined in the new model year to only 4 percent of cars, 
     down from 6 percent last year. So it is even more difficult 
     for American drivers to heed Abraham's call to conserve.
       If President Bush, who is Abraham's boss, or Congress 
     really wanted to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, they 
     would have embraced tougher mileage requirements. Yet, Vice 
     President Dick Cheney set the tone for the administration by 
     scorning energy conservation. Congress also backed away from 
     more stringent Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, 
     which have been frozen since 1994. Even pro-environment 
     Democrats played along with the makers of gas-guzzling SUVs 
     when the United Auto Workers union opposed improved fuel 
     efficiency, arguing it would cost jobs (and union members).
       Improving mileage isn't that difficult. ``We could be 
     averaging close to 30 to 40 miles per gallon, and that's with 
     conventional technology: nonhybrids, better engines, better 
     transmission, improved aerodynamics,'' said David Friedman, a 
     senior analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
       Instead, our wasteful ways complicate foreign policy in the 
     Middle East, whose oil fuels not only our cars but also 
     repressive regimes and terrorism. Soon enough, American 
     soldiers could be in harm's way in the region. Rather than 
     winking at the decline in fuel efficiency, our leaders should 
     set about reversing the troubling trend.
       The president and congressional leaders should require 
     automakers to improve CAFE standards. They also should call 
     on Americans to share the sacrifices that lie ahead. We are 
     likely to respond.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 8, 2002]

         Stop Your Grousing, Auto Makers, and Get the Gases Out

                           (By Carl Zichella)

       The auto industry howled when Gov. Gray Davis signed 
     California's landmark global warming control bill. Litigation 
     to overturn the new law, which restricts automobile emissions 
     of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases, was 
     threatened before his signature was dry.
       For auto industry observers, there was a sense of deja vu 
     about this hysterical response. Every time the government has 
     required new safety or efficiency standards, auto makers have 
     claimed that the result would be financial ruin, the 
     elimination of thousands of jobs and the loss of consumer 
     choice.
       The truth is that the industry was wrong at every turn, and 
     it is wrong now. Car makers, instead of suing to overturn 
     this much-needed law, should get busy complying with it. No 
     new technology needs to be developed.
       This is the industry that fought turn signals, seat belts 
     and safety glass. Henry Ford II called laminated windshields, 
     padded interiors and collapsible steering wheels 
     ``unreasonable, arbitrary and technically unfeasible.''
       When Congress required auto manufacturers to build cleaner 
     cars in 1973, the industry response was hyperbolic. ``If GM 
     is forced to introduce catalytic converter systems across the 
     board . . . it is conceivable that complete stoppage of the 
     entire production could occur,'' warned a GM vice president. 
     The company easily complied, consumers benefited and GM 
     suffered no appreciable hardship.
       In 1974, a Ford official told a congressional committee 
     that ``corporate average fuel economy''--CAFE--standards 
     would ``result in a Ford product line consisting either of 
     all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles or some mix of vehicles 
     ranging from sub-sub-compact to perhaps a Maverick.'' That 
     couldn't have been more wrong.
       According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, from 1977 to 
     1983 American-built cars increased in efficiency by seven 
     miles per gallon. From 1977 through 1985, the U.S. gross 
     domestic product rose 27% while oil imports fell by 42%. OPEC 
     lost an eighth of its market. Few public policies have ever 
     been such a resounding success. Vehicle choice expanded while 
     oil prices declined.
       The sky isn't falling for auto manufacturers, but the 
     planet is getting warmer, and the consequences for California 
     are severe. If the snowpack in the Sierra declines, bitter 
     competition for water will result since about 70% of 
     California drinking water originates there.
       Further, farmland will become more arid and sea levels will 
     rise, reducing food production and flooding coastal cities. 
     Forests will shrink and some of the most valuable wildlife 
     habitat on Earth will vanish or be altered.

[[Page S4902]]

       The good news is that some simple solutions are at hand. 
     This year Ford sponsored a ``Future Truck'' competition for 
     university engineering students to build more-efficient sport 
     utility vehicles. If you believe the industry's rhetoric, 
     you'd think that SUVs will be abolished. But Ford's ``Future 
     Truck'' contestants showed the ridiculousness of this charge.
       Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison this year 
     modified a Ford Explorer to get the equivalent of 38 mpg. 
     Others built a GMC Suburban that emits about half the carbon 
     dioxide of the production version. More-efficient vehicles 
     mean less CO2 emissions. You don't need to require 
     mileage standards--something that federal law forbids the 
     state to do--to get these benefits; all the state needs to do 
     is require the auto makers use the best technology available.
       If university students can do this, why can't the Big 
     Three? Ford boasts that it plans to introduce a hybrid gas-
     electric SUV in 2003. This model would meet the standard far 
     ahead of the new law's generous 2009 deadline. Instead of 
     suing California, auto makers should do what is right and 
     comply with the law.

 Mr. NELSON of FLORIDA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join 
with my colleague, Senator Durbin of Illinois, and others, in 
introducing a Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency bill that requires 
passenger vehicles to have an average fuel efficiency of 40 miles per 
gallon and nonpassenger vehicles to have an average fuel efficiency 
27.5 miles per gallon by 2015.
  This proposal should be an important part of the upcoming debate on 
the energy needs of our country. I was very disappointed last year 
during the energy debate when several meaningful CAFE proposals were 
defeated.
  Now, as we again embark on the important task of determining how our 
country's energy needs will be met in the coming decades, CAFE 
increases should be a part of the plan.
  It has been said many times, but is worth repeating: the purpose of 
increasing CAFE is to reduce fuel consumption.
  The U.S. consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, but only has 3 
percent of the world's reserves--so we have to use less of it and find 
alternatives.
  Our national security depends on it. If we don't have to rely on 
other countries, many of whom do not support our policies and may be in 
fact be working against us, for our energy, we as a nation are more 
secure.
  And increasing CAFE protects the environment. Toxic air emissions and 
carbon dioxide emissions are reduced--thereby slowing global warming.
  The automobile manufacturers won't embrace this proposal, but they 
should. The 2001 National Academy of Sciences' report said 40 mph is 
possible and feasible.
  The technology exists to raise CAFE significantly with no net 
consumer costs. And, developing technologies, including hybrid vehicle 
designs, could improve vehicle fuel economy by 20-40 percent. We're 
perfectly willing to give auto manufacturers the lead time necessary to 
make these strides, but the benchmark has to be there to spur them into 
action.
  The pay off to our national security, environment, level of 
technological expertise and market share will be worth the effort.
  I have faith in the ingenuity of our automakers and the adaptability 
of the American consumer to make an increased CAFE standard profitable.
  For these reasons, I lend my support to Senator Durbin's measure and 
look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue during the 
upcoming energy debate.
                                 ______