[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5839-5840]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   ``THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL ECONOMY ACT OF 2000''

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DALE E. KILDEE

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 13, 2000

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, recent gasoline price spikes have renewed 
our awareness that continuing improvements in fuel economy are 
important to America. Because the goal of improved fuel economy should 
not be forgotten, I am introducing a bill entitled ``The Advanced 
Technology Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Act of 2000.''
  Back in 1975, after the disruptions of the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, 
Congress worked to improve energy conservation efforts. One of the key 
elements was the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, whereby 
automakers would meet increasing levels of fuel economy for their 
fleets of vehicles. This program was well intentioned. It was expected 
to help the U.S. reduce its import of petroleum--especially from the 
least stable producers around the world. National security would be 
improved. The balance of payments would be improved. Americans would 
save money at the pump. And automakers would be encouraged to bring new 
technologies to market faster.
  However, expectations did not translate into reality. We have never 
seen $3 a gallon for gasoline, and price spikes have only occurred on a 
couple of temporary occasions. Oil supplies have not significantly 
tightened nor have imports declined. Furthermore, gasoline consumption 
has not changed significantly.
  Despite suggestions to the contrary, the fleet average fuel economy 
for passenger cars has increased by over 100% and for light duty trucks 
by over 50% since 1974. Manufacturers have made cars lighter, smaller 
and more aerodynamic. They have improved the efficiency of engines, 
transmissions, and accessories. Some may assert that this shows the 
success of the CAFE program. However, these changes actually occurred 
largely as a result of the higher prices that did exist through the 
late 1970s and the intense competitiveness among manufacturers 
worldwide after world oil prices began to decline.
  While I support the goals of improved fuel efficiency, I believe any 
increases in CAFE would be very disruptive of the current light truck 
market and are not necessary. Vehicle choice is too important to 
consumers, and unilateral disruptions would significantly hurt our 
vital American Auto Industry. Instead, I believe the proposals in ``The 
Advanced Technology Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Act of 2000'' are a 
better way to achieve the results we want.
  First, it focuses on the advanced technologies that the automakers 
are already aggressively pursuing by providing incentives to consumers 
who purchase vehicles that use hybrid powertrains, electric drive or 
fuel cells. These incentives will help to promote the work that is 
underway in the industry/government partnerships like the Partnership 
for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). PNGV is a collaborative 
program to develop breakthrough technologies to improve fuel economy.
  PNGV has been a huge success already. Just last month, 
DaimlerChrysler, Ford and GM each displayed concept cars that show how 
the technologies being developed (hybrid powertrains, lightweight 
materials, lower rolling resistance tires, great aerodynamics, and 
others) can be packaged to provide a five passenger, family sedan that 
can get 80 miles per gallon without sacrificing performance and most of 
the other important characteristics of today's comparable vehicles.
  Second, the bill sets up a thorough study of current and future 
energy conversation measures related to motor vehicles and 
transportation. This study would provide for the National Academy of 
Sciences to review the current U.S. energy situation and make 
recommendations for future action. In addition, this title of the bill 
would require a study of lean burn technologies to make sure the U.S. 
is not embarking on a path that would preclude the use of promising 
fuel saving technologies.
  The bill also extends CAFE credits available to manufacturers for 
producing flexible fuel vehicles: vehicles that can use either gasoline 
or an alternative fuel, such as ethanol or natural

[[Page 5840]]

gas. The existence of these credits over the past several years has 
helped address an ongoing problem: fuel providers do not want to commit 
to alternative fuel stations without knowing that vehicles would be 
available to use them. Automakers did not want to produce vehicles that 
use only alternative fuels without knowing that the fuels would be 
available. The production of flexible fuel vehicles bridges this gap.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will help us deal with the CAFE dilemma that 
we face. The freeze of the current standards should continue. But in 
the meantime, we can study where we are, where we have been, and think 
carefully about where we need to go. And we can provide consumers with 
the incentives to purchase the vehicles that are starting to show up in 
the marketplace with some of the advanced technologies resulting from 
partnerships and competition among the manufacturers. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________