[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 4, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1519-S1520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COLLOQUES REGARDING H.R. 6
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have been asked about the timing of the
colloquy that I entered into with Senators Inouye and Feinstein on
December 13, 2007, during consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Immediately prior to the vote on cloture, on the motion to concur
with an amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the
text of H.R. 6, I was recognized on the Senate floor and requested and
obtained consent ``that a colloquy between myself, Senator Inouye and
Senator Feinstein be inserted in the record at this point.''
Agreement among the three of us on the content of that colloquy was
critical to both my vote for cloture and my later vote for final
passage, as I indicated in my own statement prior to final passage that
was submitted later in the day. The colloquy between Senator Inouye,
Senator Feinstein, and me read in its entirety, as follows:
NHTSA Regulations on Fuel Economy
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support this bill and, in
particular, the provisions that require the Department of
Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, NHTSA, to set new fuel economy standards for
vehicles that will reach an industry fleet wide level of 35
miles per gallon by 2020 based on my understanding that these
new Federal standards will not be undercut in the future by
regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency
regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
I believe that we have taken historic steps in this
legislation by putting in place ambitious but achievable fuel
economy standards that will reduce our Nation's fuel
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In this
legislation, the Senate and House have come together and
established the appropriate level of fuel economy standards
and have directed NHTSA to implement that through new
regulations. In this legislation, the Congress has agreed
that the appropriate level of fuel economy to reach is 35
miles per gallon in 2020, or an increase of 10 miles per
gallon in 10 years.
But it is essential to manufacturers that they are able to
plan on the 35 miles per gallon standard in 2020. We must
resolve now with the sponsors of this legislation in the
Senate any ambiguity that could arise in the future when EPA
issues new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from
vehicles pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act so
that our manufacturers can have certainty. With that in mind,
I want to clarify both Senator Inouye's and Senator
Feinstein's understanding and interpretation of what the
Congress is doing in this legislation and to clarify their
agreement that we want all Federal regulations in this area
to be consistent. We do not want to enact this legislation
today only to find later that we have not been sufficiently
diligent to avoid any conflicts in the future.
The Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the
Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from
vehicles and to delegate that authority, as the agency deems
appropriate, to the State of California. This authority was
recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it is not our
purpose today to attempt to change that authority or to
undercut the decision of the Supreme Court. We simply want to
make clear that it is Congressional intent in this bill that,
with respect to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, any
future regulations issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be
consistent with the Department of Transportation's new fuel
economy regulations that will reach an industry fleet wide
level by 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Does the Senator from California and original sponsor of
this legislation, Mrs. Feinstein, agree with my view that the
intent of this language is for EPA regulations on greenhouse
gas emissions from vehicles to be consistent with the
direction of Congress in this 35 miles per gallon in 2020
legislation and consistent with regulations issued by the
Department of Transportation to implement this legislation?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, of course, we have worked hard to come
together on this legislation directing NHTSA to issue new
fuel economy regulations to reach an industry fleet wide
level of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and it is our intent in
the bill before us that all Federal regulations in this area
be consistent with our 35 miles per gallon in 2020 language.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for her clarification of her
intent.
Does the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the
distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, agree with my
understanding of the intent of this bill that any regulations
issued by the Environmental Protection Agency be consistent
with the direction of Congress in this legislation and
regulations issued by the Department of Transportation to
implement this legislation?
Mr. INOUYE. Yes. I agree that it is very important that all
Federal regulations in this area be consistent and that we
provide clear direction to the agency that has responsibility
for setting fuel economy standards, the Department of
Transportation.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my distinguished colleague from Hawaii,
Mr. Inouye, for his clarification.
With the colloquy accepted and placed in the Congressional Record, I
voted to invoke cloture. Sometime after the vote on cloture, later in
the day, a separate colloquy between Senator Feinstein and Senator
Inouye was inserted in the Congressional Record. It was placed in the
Record immediately following the Levin-Feinstein-
[[Page S1520]]
Inouye colloquy, quoted above, although it was, in fact, presented for
inclusion in the Record at a later point in the day, as noted by
Senator Inouye in the second sentence of the Inouye-Feinstein colloquy.
Their colloquy reads as follows:
Agency Management
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have worked for many months
with the Senior Senator from California and the original
sponsor of this legislation, Mrs. Feinstein, to draft a sound
policy to increase fuel economy standards in our country. I
stated earlier today that ``all Federal regulations in this
area be consistent.'' I wholly agree with that notion, in
that these agencies have two different missions. The
Department of Transportation has the responsibility for
regulating fuel economy, and should enforce the Ten-in-Ten
Fuel Economy Act fully and vigorously to save oil in the
automobile fleet. The Environmental Protection Agency has the
responsibility to protect public health. These two missions
can and should co-exist without one undermining the other.
There are numerous examples in the executive branch where two
or more agencies share responsibility over a particular
issue. The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal
Communications Commission both oversee telemarketing
practices and the Do-Not-Call list.
The FTC also shares jurisdiction over antitrust enforcement
with the Department of Justice. Under the current CAFE
system, the Department of Transportation and the
Environmental Protection Agency work together. DOT enforces
the CAFE standards, and the EPA tests vehicles for compliance
and fuel economy labels on cars. The President himself
foresaw these agencies working together and issued an
Executive Order on May 14, 2007, to coordinate the agencies
on reducing automotive greenhouse gas emissions. The DOT and
the EPA have separate missions that should be executed fully
and responsibly. I believe it is important that we ensure
that the agencies are properly managed by the executive
branch, as has been done with several agencies with shared
jurisdiction for decades. I plan on holding hearings next
session to examine this issue fully.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to thank the chairman of the
Commerce Committee, and I would like to clarify what I
believe to be the intent of the legislation I sponsored to
increase fuel economy standards in the United States.
The legislation increasing the fuel economy standards of
vehicles by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years does not impact
the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of the EPA,
California, or other States, under the Clean Air Act.
The intent was to give NHTSA the ability to regulate fuel
efficiency standards of vehicles, and increase the fleetwide
average to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
There was no intent in any way, shape, or form to
negatively affect, or otherwise restrain, California or any
other State's existing or future tailpipe emissions laws, or
any future EPA authority on tailpipe emissions.
The two issues are separate and distinct.
As the Supreme Court correctly observed in Massachusetts v.
EPA, the fact ``that DOT sets mileage standards in no way
licenses EPA to shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA
has been charged with protecting the public's health and
welfare, a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT's
mandate to promote energy efficiency. The two obligations may
overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies
cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid
inconsistency.''
I agree with the Supreme Court's view of consistency. There
is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer
their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Goldstone has
reiterated this point in finding that if approved by EPA,
California's standards are not preempted by the Energy Policy
Conservation Act.
Title I of the Energy Security and Independence Act of
2007, H.R. 6, provides clear direction to the Department of
Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Energy
and the Environmental Protection Agency, to raise fuel
economy standards.
By taking this action, Congress is continuing DOT's
existing authority to set vehicle fuel economy standards.
Importantly, the separate authority and responsibility of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate vehicle
greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is in no
manner affected by this legislation as plainly provided for
in section 3 of the bill addressing the relationship of H.R.
6 to other laws.
I fought for section 3. I have resisted all efforts to add
legislative language requiring ``harmonization'' of these EPA
and NHTSA standards. This language could have required that
EPA standards adopted under section 202 of the Clean Air Act
reduce only the air pollution emissions that would already
result from NHTSA fuel economy standards, effectively making
the NHTSA fuel economy standards a national ceiling for the
reduction of pollution. Our legislation does not establish a
NHTSA ceiling. It does not mention the Clean Air Act, so we
certainly do not intend to strip EPA of its wholly separate
mandate to protect the public health and welfare from air
pollution.
To be clear, Federal standards can avoid inconsistency
according to the Supreme Court, while still fulfilling their
separate mandates.
____________________