[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8159-S8162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CAFE STANDARDS

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today we have been discussing in the halls 
and corridors and rooms not far from where I many speaking what changes 
we should make with respect to fuel efficiency standards for cars, 
trucks, and vans. There are a lot of aspects of this bill that are 
important. Few are as important as what we are going to do with respect 
to fuel efficiency standards for cars, trucks, and vans, not just for 
the next couple of years but probably for the next 15 years or so.
  I want to begin my remarks by saying how important I believe 
manufacturing is. We are neighbors. Both Delaware and Pennsylvania have 
a rich tradition of manufacturing. It is an important part of our 
economy and continues to be. If we are going to be successful as a 
nation in the 21st century, it will be because we have retained a 
vibrant manufacturing base, and we are in danger of seeing that slip 
away. Part of the manufacturing base in my State has been, for 60 years 
or so, a vibrant automobile manufacturing base. We have two auto 
assembly plants in northern Delaware. Outside of Wilmington is a GM 
plant where we manufacture the Pontiac Solstices and Saturn Sky. We 
actually export some of those Saturn Skys to Europe, and we are about 
to start exporting Saturn Skys to South Korea, something we are excited 
about.
  In Newcastle County south of Newark along the Maryland line is a 
Chrysler assembly plant where they used to make tanks during World War 
II. Today they make all the Dodge Durangos and all the Chrysler Aspens 
in the world.
  On a per capita basis, we build probably as many cars trucks, and 
vans per capita in Delaware as any other State. We are not a big State, 
but auto manufacturing remains an important part of our economic base.
  With that as a background, I want to mention the approaching debate 
on CAFE, fuel efficiency standards for our vehicular fleet. There are 
three goals I see. The first goal for me--and I hope for us--is to 
reduce the growth of our dependence on foreign oil, then stop the 
growth of our dependence on foreign oil, and then reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil. Over 60 percent of the oil we use comes from sources 
beyond our borders. We have a trade deficit of about $650 billion. 
Fully one-third of that is attributable to our dependence on foreign 
oil. We need to reduce that dependence.
  I was in Iraq the last weekend. We have over 150,000 troops there 
exposed and in danger as I speak. Every time I fill up the tank of my 
car with gas, I am convinced some of the money I spend in buying that 
gas goes to other parts around the world where people take our money, 
and I fear they use it to hurt us. We ought to be smarter than that. 
One of the things we clearly need to do is to reduce our growing 
reliance on foreign oil and eventually, sooner than later, reduce that 
reliance.
  The second goal for me is to reduce harmful emissions, the stuff we 
put up in the air. Whether it is nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, 
carbon dioxide, which is the greenhouse gas that leads to global 
warming, those emissions come out of cars, trucks, and vans. For me, 
goal No. 2 is to reduce the incidence of those emissions. It will 
improve our health and reduce the threat we face from climate change 
from greenhouse gases.
  The third goal for me and in the context of this legislation is to 
accomplish goal No. 1, reduce our reliance on foreign oil; accomplish 
goal No. 2, reduce the emission of bad stuff into the air; and to do 
that by not further disadvantaging the domestic auto industry in our 
State. So those are the three goals I have for us.
  I want to take a moment and look back to 1975. In 1975, the average 
mileage for cars, trucks, and vans was about 14 miles per gallon. For 
several years leading up to 1975, there was a prolonged debate on 
whether we should require more fuel-efficient vehicles. I have asked my 
staff to see if we can find a little bit of what was being said back in 
the mid-1970s as we debated whether to raise over a 10-year period fuel 
efficiency standards from 14 miles per gallon to 27.5 miles per gallon 
for cars and roughly 20 miles per gallon for light trucks and SUVs.
  This is a comment from one of the senior officials at General Motors:

       If this proposal becomes law--

  The increase over 10 years of CAFE standards to 27.5 miles per 
gallon--

       the largest car the industry will be selling in any volume 
     at all will probably be smaller, lighter, and less powerful 
     than today's compact Chevy Nova.

  The Presiding Officer and I are old enough to remember what a Chevy 
Nova looked like. I want to tell you, when we were driving around the 
streets of Washington, DC, or Delaware or Colorado, most of the 
vehicles out there were a lot bigger than a compact Chevy Nova, and 
they were in 1975 as well.
  Here is another comment from the debate of the mid-1970s on raising 
CAFE standards. This is from a senior official at Chrysler in 1974.

       In effect this bill would outlaw a number of engine lines 
     and car models, including most full size sedans and station 
     wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing 
     subcompact-size cars, or even smaller ones, within 5 years.

  Five years from this was 1979. In 1979, we were still making full 
size sedans and station wagons. We were still making them in 1985. We 
are still making them today. The idea that we would be producing 
subcompact-size cars within 5 years or even 25 years, it never 
happened. Those are a couple of comments that were made in 1974 and 
1975, as we took up the debate.
  The Congress decided in 1975 to go ahead and pass more stringent fuel 
efficiency standards for cars, trucks, and vans. Over a 10-year period 
we ramped up so that by 1985, the car fleet was expected to achieve on 
balance 27.5 miles per gallon, and for light trucks and SUVs about 20 
miles per gallon.
  I put up these quotes because a good deal of what we have heard from 
the auto industry in recent years, as we have debated whether to return 
to raising fuel efficiency standards, actually sounds a lot like what 
we heard in 1974 and 1975. You could almost take away the years that 
are at the bottom of each of these quotes, and it would be deja vu all 
over again.
  For the past 22 years since we raised CAFE standards, what we have 
heard mostly from the domestic auto industry is, if you raise fuel 
efficiency standards further, four things will happen: One, the big 
three--GM, Chrysler, Ford--will lose market share, will lose money. 
They will close plants. They will cut or eliminate jobs. We have heard 
that for pretty much the last 22 years, and for the last 22 years we 
have not raised fuel efficiency standards.
  This is a chart where we can see the market share for each company. 
The orange share is Chrysler. The green is Ford. The blue is GM. This 
is 1985. Here we have 20 years later, 2005. Let me just read it. From 
Chrysler to Diamler-Chrysler, when you put that together, you get about 
13.5 percent market share. In effect, Chrysler's market share has 
actually dropped without any change in fuel efficiency standards since 
1985. Their market share has dropped from 1985, if we actually backed 
out Diamler.
  From 1985 to 2005, Ford's market share dropped from 22 percent of 
sales to almost 17 percent. That is without any change in CAFE. Over at 
GM, we see market share dropped most precipitously from about 41.5 
percent of the market in 1958 to 26 percent in 2005.
  I would say these numbers are actually lower now. Ford is no longer 
at 17 percent of market share. Regrettably, GM is not at 26 percent 
market share. The market share didn't drop because of increases in 
CAFE.
  The plants were not closed because of increases in CAFE. Hundreds of 
thousands of people did not lose their jobs

[[Page S8160]]

because of increases in CAFE. These companies, last year, collectively, 
lost in the North American automotive operations--Chrysler, GM, Ford--
lost probably, collectively, about $15 billion. That was not because of 
increases in CAFE, because we have not increased fuel-efficient 
standards for 22 years.
  We have had a lot of visits in my office in the last several weeks. I 
am sure the Presiding Officer has had folks come to see him from the 
auto manufacturers, probably domestic and foreign. One CEO said to me, 
in a visit last week, his company would have to--if we adopted the 
measure that has been reported out of the Commerce Committee, which is 
the underlying language on CAFE in the bill before us this week--but if 
we adopted that, his company would have to produce cars that got 50, 52 
miles per gallon.
  I said: Well, let's think about that. Let's talk about that. You will 
recall the measure before us today says that by 2020, overall, NHTSA--
an arm of the Department of Transportation--would have to have overseen 
an increase in the fuel efficiency standards of cars, trucks, and vans; 
that, overall, cars, trucks, and vans put together would, beginning by 
the year 2020, have 35 miles per gallon.
  What most people do not understand is that trucks, light trucks, and 
SUVs do not have to get 35 miles per gallon under the language in the 
bill by 2020. But overall, when you combine cars, trucks, vans, and 
SUVs from the different companies that sell cars in this country, they 
have to get 35 miles per gallon.
  Now, let's take a look at a chart that lists a bunch of auto 
companies. It is a little hard to follow, but I ask you all to bear 
with me. The effect of the legislation that is before us, the 
underlying bill, would mean--DaimlerChrysler builds more light trucks, 
SUVs. They are a truck-heavy company, as opposed to, we will say, 
Volkswagen. Volkswagen builds mostly cars. They do not build much in 
the way of light trucks or SUVs and sell that in this country.
  But the car companies, the truck companies that tend to build the 
trucks, light trucks, and SUVs, they would end up with a requirement--
between now and 2020--a requirement by NHTSA to have a fuel economy of 
something less than 35 miles per gallon. For the vehicle makers that 
are more heavily on the car side, as opposed to the light trucks and 
SUVs, they are going to expect to have a fuel efficiency standard north 
of, higher than 35 miles per gallon.
  In this case, Volkswagen, if they continue to have the mix they have 
of vehicles in 2005, they would have to have in their mix of product 
about 38, 39 miles per gallon. So this is not a monolithic number. It 
is not 35 miles per gallon for trucks, 35 miles per gallon for cars. It 
is not 35 miles per gallon for each of these auto manufacturers.
  But the idea is, when you put them all together, at the end of the 
day, we want, in 2020, for NHTSA to have presided over a process that 
gets our fleet of vehicles sold in this country, in 2020, to 35 miles 
per gallon.
  Now, for years we have heard our friends from Detroit say: Protect us 
in this way. Protect us so we don't have foreign competitors--who build 
a lot of energy-efficient cars--don't let them use the high miles per 
gallon they get from their fuel-efficient cars to allow them to come in 
and sell a whole bunch of trucks, light trucks, SUVs, and minivans that 
are not energy efficient.
  Meanwhile, companies such as DaimlerChrysler and GM and Ford, which 
are selling a lot of trucks, if we are not careful, will end up with a 
situation where other companies that are listed on this chart would be 
able to sell a whole lot of trucks, a whole lot of minivans, a whole 
lot of SUVs that are energy inefficient. Our automakers could not sell 
anymore. They would be constrained because of the requirements in 
legislation.
  So here is what we have tried to come up with in response to the 
concerns by our automakers. We have come up with a plan that says to 
NHTSA: We do not care who is making real small cars, but we want you to 
set the same fuel efficiency standards for real small cars, regardless 
of who is making them. For midsized cars, we want you to set the same 
fuel efficiency standard targets for midsized cars, regardless of what 
companies make them. For larger cars, heavier cars, bigger cars, the 
same fuel efficiency standard would apply for that category of 
vehicles.
  For pickup trucks, regardless of who is making them, light trucks, 
the same standard would have to apply, whether it is Nissan that is 
making them, Honda, or DaimlerChrysler. For a small truck, they all 
have to be producing vehicles that get the same fuel economy standards. 
For larger SUVs, the largest SUVs, whoever is making them--I don't care 
if it is Toyota, Nissan, Chrysler, GM--NHTSA would be promulgating a 
fuel efficiency standard that would be the same for all manufacturers.
  Now, not everybody likes that. I suspect some of the folks who have 
been making energy-efficient cars for some time believe they are not 
getting the kind of credit they should get for their early work. But 
this is a proposal that is in the underlying bill, and it is in 
response to the domestic auto manufacturers who have said: Do not put 
us in a situation where the only folks who can sell light trucks and 
SUVs of any size are folks who happen to be building vehicles in other 
countries. So we tried to be responsive to their proposal.

  Let's go back to this chart I have in the Chamber, if we could. I 
wish to return to the conversation I had with the CEO of one of the 
companies who came to see us. We will call it company X. Company X 
plans, in about 5 years, to be selling in this country a mix of 
products that would be 60 percent truck, that would be 40 percent cars. 
By trucks, I mean light trucks, SUVs, minivans. But that is their goal 
in 5 years: 40 percent cars, 60 percent trucks.
  If we assume for a moment that the fuel average requirement, the 
minimum average requirement for light trucks and SUVs is going to be 30 
miles per gallon--that is probably pretty close to what it is going to 
be; it may be about what is doable--at the 60-percent market 
concentration for the trucks: 60 percent times 30 miles per gallon adds 
up to 18 miles per gallon.
  If another 40 percent of what they build and sell is cars, the 
question is: What miles per gallon would they have to achieve for their 
car fleet, collectively--small, mid, large--what would they have to 
achieve to roughly get to 35 miles per gallon overall for their fleet 
average? The answer is: 42--not 52, not 62 miles per gallon. But this 
is what they would have to be able to deliver in mileage per gallon in 
2020 from their car fleet in order to come up with an overall fleet 
average for this company of about 35 miles per gallon.
  Now the question is, is it realistic in 13 years for a company to be 
making cars that get 42 miles per gallon?
  Well, I was at the Detroit Auto Show back in January. One of the 
coolest cars I saw was a Chevrolet. It was a Chevrolet Volt, a flex-
fuel, plug-in hybrid vehicle that, hopefully, Chevrolet is going to be 
making by the early part of the next decade. You plug it in, charge the 
battery, and you are off.
  Let me say, the leader is on the floor. I say to the leader, I do not 
wish to get in your way, but if you want to jump in here, jump in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been listening to the Senator speak. 
I wish to say one thing. I participated in an event today where we had 
a car there that was a hybrid. Gee, it was fun. There were two vehicles 
there, a Prius and a Ford. One of those--they would both get basically 
the same mileage--but the man there who was promoting these batteries, 
this past week, drove 177 miles on 1 gallon of gasoline. That is the 
future. That is the future of our country, that we will be able to have 
these hybrids driving across the country, pulling into a motel and 
plugging it in. There will just be a cord, like an extension cord.

  I wanted to say one thing. I want to comment on the Senator's 
advocacy. The people of Delaware--I say this without any hype at all--
are so fortunate to have someone who is so into legislation. I don't 
know of another Senator, in looking at an issue, who understands it so 
thoroughly. I say that sometimes I wish you didn't know it so 
thoroughly, because it doesn't allow me to have any wiggle room at all. 
But I say that without any reservation. I am so admiring of the 
Senator's talents to legislate. I am very partial to you because you 
and I came here together in 1982 as freshmen Members of the House of 
Representatives. But the

[[Page S8161]]

people of Delaware got a well-trained legislator when you came to the 
Senate. Your experience in the State, as a Statewide officeholder, a 
Member of the House of Representatives, a Governor, a Senator--you have 
not only had the experience, but you still have the tenacity and the 
will to be a good legislator, and the people of Delaware are very 
fortunate, but so are we as a country.
  I would ask my distinguished friend, there are a few closing matters. 
Could you do those when you complete your statement?
  Mr. CARPER. I will.
  Mr. President, I was talking about the visit of last week with the 
CEO of one of our major three automakers. The point I was trying to 
make is the automakers don't have to come up with cars that get 52 
miles per gallon or 50 miles per gallon, but if they have a fleet of 60 
percent trucks and 40 percent cars in 2020, they are going to have to 
do better, and better is 42 miles per gallon.
  Our leader, Senator Reid, was talking about an event here today where 
some vehicles were on display. I think they were jerry rigged--maybe it 
was Ford Escape and some other vehicles, maybe Priuses--in order to get 
very high mileage, I think he said 170 miles per gallon. We don't need 
cars that get 170 miles per gallon by 2020 to make this standard of 
roughly 35 miles per gallon for the fleet. We don't need cars that get 
50 miles per gallon.
  But in this case, Company X--which is a real company, it turns out--
is working toward 42 miles per gallon and they would meet the expected 
requirements that would be set for them.
  I said to my visitor last week, the CEO who was visiting me, You have 
an obligation to your shareholders and you have an obligation to your 
employees to try to get the best deal out of this that you guys can be 
proud of and maximize your profits.
  I said: As a Senator who cares about the economic development and job 
creation in my State, I want you to be profitable. I want you to be 
successful.
  So I feel some obligation too. But I went on to add that we have an 
obligation here, as does the Presiding Officer, my friend from 
Pennsylvania, who is going to speak in a minute, we have an obligation 
that goes beyond that which our CEO feels, or other CEOs feel. We have 
an obligation to make sure we do reduce our reliance on foreign oil. 
The car companies, in all honesty, don't have that obligation. We have 
an obligation to make sure the air we breathe is cleaner. We have an 
obligation to make sure the threat of global warming is diminished, not 
increased. They don't have that requirement, as we do. That is our job.
  It is not enough for us, though, to say to the car companies: You 
have to eat your spinach. You have to go out there and make the tough 
decisions all by yourself to raise fuel efficiency standards. I think 
we have an obligation in the Federal Government and in other levels of 
Government as well to help them. It shouldn't be them doing this all by 
themselves; we have an obligation to help them. I mention maybe four 
ways where we are trying to help them in the legislation that is before 
us today and that we will be voting on tomorrow and during the next 
couple of days.
  With respect to making more energy efficient cars, here are some ways 
we can help the industry. One is through basic research and development 
investments. If we go back a few years, we have invested a lot of money 
in fuel cell technologies, as my colleagues know. In the legislation 
before us, the underlying bill on CAFE standards, we authorized the 
expenditure of $50 million a year over the next 5 years for new battery 
technology, for a new generation of lithium batteries, so the kind of 
cars the majority leader was talking about a few minutes ago, so we can 
actually build them, actually build the Chevrolet Volt. The Chevrolet 
Volt, the car I was talking about earlier, the coolest car at the auto 
show, a flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid, you plug it in, charge the battery 
at night from your house, go out the next day, drive maybe 30, 40 miles 
before you have to recharge again. If you get to work before that time, 
plug it in at work. In the meantime, when you put on your brakes, it is 
a traditional hybrid. You put on your brakes and recharge the battery.
  But in the Chevrolet Volt, it actually carries with it an auxiliary 
power unit. The auxiliary power unit doesn't run the car, it charges 
the battery. It can be fuel cell powered, it could be biofuels diesel, 
it could be an ethanol internal combustion engine recharging the 
battery, and the battery running the wheels.
  I saw a headline in the local paper in my State a month ago. It was a 
picture of one of the top folks at GM standing alongside the Chevrolet 
Volt and talking about this vehicle, which they hope to have on the 
road by the early part of the next decade, to get over 100 miles per 
gallon. That is not the entire fleet, it is one vehicle, but that is 
100 miles per gallon. If we can do that, 100 miles per gallon or even 
80 or 90 or 70 for the Chevrolet Volt and the kind of things our 
majority leader saw today, the fuel efficiencies there, if it is even a 
half or a third of what he saw, the idea of getting 35 miles per gallon 
for a total fleet in 2020 is not a pipedream, it is realistic. I am 
convinced that to the extent our auto manufacturers are positioned to 
build more energy efficient cars, to at least have some of them, they 
make themselves more competitive in the world environment.
  But I was talking about the ways we can help, the Federal Government 
can help our industry to meet these higher standards. One, Federal 
investments in basic R&D. Whether it is for fuel cells several years 
ago or whether it is new battery technology, we are putting in about 
$40 million this year. I hope next year it will be 50 and the next 5 
years after that at $50 million a year.
  Second, another way we can help is to use the Federal Government's 
purchasing power to help commercialize these new technologies. We are 
going to be building and putting out on the road a new generation, 
next-generation hybrid Durango and a next-generation hybrid Chrysler 
Aspen. Currently they are internal combustion engines. They don't get 
20 miles per gallon. They are high teens for fuel economy. But starting 
sometime by the middle of next year we will have on the road hybrid 
Durangos and hybrid Chrysler Aspens, the fuel economy of which will be 
increased by 40 percent over current levels--a 40-percent increase. I 
want to see--and I know others of my colleagues want to see--when the 
Federal Government goes out and buys--and we buy a lot of vehicles 
every year on the civilian side and on the defense side--I want to have 
included in the legislation we pass something that says some small 
percentage, some modest percentage of the vehicles we are going to be 
buying, anyway, should be invested in highly energy efficient new 
technology cars or trucks or vans, and their reaction to have the 
opportunity to do that in the context of the underlying legislation.
  We are going to take up the Defense authorization bill in a couple of 
weeks and we will have an opportunity to do the same thing in terms of 
using the Government's purchasing power on the military side to 
commercialize these more energy efficient technologies in the cars, 
trucks, and vans that the military buys.
  A third way the Federal Government can help the auto companies meet 
these more stringent standards, in addition to investments in R&D, in 
addition to the vehicular purchases of the Government to commercialize 
technologies, is with respect to tax credits. In the Energy bill 
adopted in 2005, we have energy tax credits that say if you buy a 
highly energy-efficient hybrid vehicle, you get a tax credit of $300 to 
almost $3,500 for your purchase. There is a similar provision in the 
same bill that says to folks who buy highly energy-efficient, diesel-
powered vehicles with very low emissions that they can get the same 
kind of tax breaks, $300 to roughly $3,500.
  As it turns out, almost all of the hybrids, incentivized by those tax 
credits, are made in other countries. So we have tax incentives to 
encourage people to buy hybrids from other countries. Shame on us. 
Hopefully, in the next couple years we will put American hybrids on the 
road and incentivize people to buy American-made hybrids, such as the 
Durango and the Chrysler Aspen that will be produced less than a year 
from now. No American manufacturer is making today, nor will they next 
year, diesel-powered vehicles with emission levels low enough to 
qualify under the 2005 legislation.

[[Page S8162]]

  One of the changes that has been agreed to and is in the Finance 
Committee's package, Mr. President--and you are a member of the Finance 
Committee--one of the provisions the committee adopted in the finance 
language that accompanies the Energy bill allows the low-emission, 
highly energy-efficient Chrysler products that are being manufactured 
and sold in this country this year, for 1 year--that will be next 
year--their products will qualify not for the full tax credit but for 
about three-quarters of the tax credit just for 1 year. After that, 
they have to be very low emissions starting in 2009, which is as it 
should be.
  That is something we can do to incentivize folks to buy vehicles made 
in this country that have low emissions and are highly efficient. The 
more energy efficient, the bigger the tax credit.
  The fourth and last point we can do in the way of helping the 
industry is, there is a flex-fuel mandate that says some of the 
vehicles we build in this country have to be capable of running on 
ethanol or some kind of fuel other than traditional petroleum. However, 
as my colleagues know, today, if you drive around this country and have 
one of these vehicles that can run on ethanol, it is hard to find a 
pump. It is hard to find a pump in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Delaware, or 
any other State, except Minnesota where I think they have 400 gas 
stations that actually have ethanol. But it is hard to find a fueling 
station where we can actually fill up with something other than 
gasoline.
  There needs to be included in this legislation something that 
mandates the oil companies, just as we did 20, 25, 30 years ago on 
unleaded gas, so the people who have vehicles that are capable of 
running on renewable fuel can actually find a place to fill up.
  Similarly with hydrogen, as we move to the point of building more 
hydrogen-powered vehicles. It doesn't do us any good if we don't have 
hydrogen fueling stations in this country. The Federal Government has 
an obligation to make sure that fuel is available too.
  Those are four actions the Government can do, and I hope will do, in 
the context of this legislation before us: One, investments in R&D, in 
this case new battery technology; two, use Federal Government 
purchasing power to help companies to commercialize this new 
technology; three, use tax credits to incentivize people to buy the 
vehicles once they are produced, more energy-efficient vehicles 
produced; and, finally, hydrogen infrastructure so people who buy flex-
fuel vehicles can find the product, the stations where they can fill 
up.
  The last point I want to make, and it goes back to my conversation 
with my friend who is a CEO of one of these domestic auto companies. I 
mentioned he has an obligation to his shareholders and employees. I am 
sure he cares about the quality of air. I am sure he cares about our 
dependence on foreign oil. That is not his day job. That is our day 
job, so we should focus on it as we debate these issues.
  My colleague from Colorado who is presiding, and my colleague from 
Pennsylvania who is waiting patiently for me to wrap up--and I have 
been to funerals for people from our State who have died in Iraq or 
Afghanistan. We have tried to console family members. I was in Iraq 
over the weekend. We have 160,000 men and women there today. They are 
in harm's way as I speak. We are so dependent on troubled parts of the 
world for oil, unstable parts of the world for oil, where we have men 
and women at risk, where we lost lives yesterday and probably lost 
lives today and probably will tomorrow.
  I think of a member of my staff, Sean Barney, who worked with me 
since 2000 when I ran for the Senate. Sean decided he wanted to go into 
the Marines. He joined the Marines and went through basic training. 
This is a guy with an undergraduate degree from Swarthmore and a 
graduate degree from Columbia who decided he wanted to be a marine.

  A couple years ago, he went to basic training and became a PFC and 
ended up in Anbar Province, in the streets of Falluja, shot by a sniper 
in the neck which severed his carotid artery. He, by all rights, should 
be dead. He lived, miraculously. He has some degree of disability in 
his right arm, right shoulder, right hand, but he is alive.
  When I have visited in Iraq, I had a chance to visit with a bunch of 
National Guard troops. We have them over there from Colorado and 
Pennsylvania too--folks from the 198th Signal Battalion. I was their 
commander in chief when I was Governor for 8 years. I have a special 
affection and devotion to them. I wanted to make sure they come home 
safely.
  When I got home early Monday morning, I went to a sendoff for 150 
members of one of our military police units. They were heading on to 
Fort Dix. They are at Fort Dix today and then on to Iraq.
  I guess the point I am making is, while we want to make sure our 
domestic auto industry is successful and is profitable, and we have a 
good, strong auto manufacturing base, I want to make sure we stop 
sending men and women around the world to these troubled spots that 
have large amounts of oil deposits. And we are concerned about that 
situation. That is something of which we need to be mindful. For me, it 
figures into this equation and this debate.
  I close by saying, we will have a chance to debate these issues 
tomorrow morning, and we will have a chance to vote on the language in 
the underlying bill, maybe with a change from an amendment Senator 
Stevens and I have offered and maybe will be adopted, or maybe with the 
more far-reaching change negotiated and developed by our colleagues, 
Senators Pryor, Levin, Stabenow, and Bond. At the end of the day, 
though, when we pass this legislation and send it on to the House, it 
is so important that it moves in a meaningful way toward reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil; that in a meaningful way it reduces the 
emissions of harmful matter into our air; and in a real way it also 
enhances and doesn't undermine the competitiveness of our domestic auto 
industry.
  It is not easy to do all three of those goals, but those are the 
three things we need to do. If we can send from the Senate to the House 
at the end of this week or early next week legislation that is actually 
faithful to those three goals, we will have done our work and done good 
work.
  Tomorrow and the next day will be the test to see if we can measure 
up to those standards. I hope we can.
  I apologize to my colleague from Pennsylvania for going on as long as 
I have. I thank him for his patience.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________