[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19362-19369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--Resumed

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now ask for the regular order with 
respect to S. 14.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 14) to enhance the energy security of the United 
     States, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Campbell amendment No. 886, to replace ``tribal consortia'' 
     with ``tribal energy resource development organizations.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we currently 
on the Indian amendment of Senator Campbell?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Campbell amendment No. 886 is pending.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have cleared this on both sides. I ask unanimous 
consent that amendment be set aside so we can conduct some business 
this evening. There are two or three amendments of substance that 
Senators would like to offer. Senator Campbell and Senator Bingaman 
have no objection to setting this aside.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I have spoken to Senator 
Campbell earlier this evening. We have, now--however many weeks it has 
been since we were on this bill. The Senator on our side we said would 
be here to offer the next amendment is Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin 
is ready whenever the Senator yields the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Surely.
  Mr. REID. He is ready to offer that right now, whenever the Senator 
desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico has the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to Senator 
Durbin having the first amendment this evening. I just want to make 
sure we have an understanding about how long he might take and what 
will be next. There are a number of people who want to offer similar 
amendments. We understood the purpose tonight was to stay, even though 
it is late, so Senator Durbin might offer an amendment in the area of 
CAFE standards, and that two other Senators might follow.
  Mr. REID. If I can respond to the Senator from New Mexico, the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Illinois 
intends to lay down the amendment tonight and that is all.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Before I yield the floor, I ask if the Senator from 
Georgia wishes to ask something of the Senator from New Mexico, or does 
he want the floor?

[[Page 19363]]


  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for no 
more than 5 minutes as in morning business.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He asked to speak as in morning business prior to the 
amendment. I have no objection.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would love to hear the Senator from Texas, 
but Senator Durbin is going to take less than a minute to do his.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will then sit down. Certainly you can seek 
recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send two 
amendments to the desk. I will take up the first amendment and ask the 
second amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1384

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr. 
     Nelson of Florida, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reid, Mr. Reed, and Mr. 
     Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 1384.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                           Amendment No. 1385

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1385.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't object. I don't know what is 
going on, but I understood we were yielding so Senator Durbin could 
offer an amendment. Now I understand there are two amendments.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the chairman will yield, through the Chair, I am 
setting aside the second amendment. I filed but set aside the second 
amendment. I am only going to offer one amendment. I ask unanimous 
consent only one amendment be considered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank you.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am prepared, having filed this amendment, to yield so 
the Senator from Georgia may be recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator would like to get the floor, after 5 
minutes yielded to the Senator from Georgia, the Senator from New 
Mexico asks the floor be returned to him so he can make brief opening 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Chambliss are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have all been waiting for a long 
time. The minority has been telling us that we can't finish the Energy 
bill in 1 week starting on Monday and working for the entire week. Our 
distinguished majority leader has been telling us--at least 10 times--
that it won't be 1 week, it will be 1 week and whatever else it takes 
to finish it. He is sending a nice warning to all of us, as I see it, 
that we don't intend to put up with long delays. Nobody is offering the 
last phase of this Energy bill so that we can all have fun on the 
floor.
  The idea is, if you want to recess, finish the Energy bill. I will do 
everything in my power to keep it right in focus. But I can't do much 
more than the rules permit me and the minority manager on that side 
will let me do. But I guarantee you that from our standpoint, there 
will be no efforts to go outside the scope of what is required to 
complete an Energy bill for the United States.
  My colleagues know this is how the Senate works. We have scores of 
amendments listed on the so-called final list. But if anybody were to 
look at them in this country, they would say: What are you talking 
about? Those aren't amendments. That is right. They are not. It is just 
a list of words with numbers alongside them that Senators have put in.
  I am looking at my friend from Illinois. Some Senators put 30 and 40 
of them down. There is no intention to offer those kinds of amendments. 
We can finish this. The fact is there are 392 amendments. It doesn't 
mean a thing. As a matter of fact, we have put together a bipartisan 
electricity bill. It was circulated. I believe that bill alone might, 
by itself, take between 30 and 50 of the amendments on that so-called 
list. Those are the kinds of things that have been incorporated in this 
major electricity amendment.
  While I am on it, let me suggest that if things work right, we should 
be on the electricity portion of this bill on Monday. Monday is a 
workday here, too, according to our leader. There is no holiday on 
Monday. Tomorrow is a workday, even though it is Friday.
  Essentially, the bill that was submitted to everyone will have many 
cosponsors. It has been worked out over a long period of time with 
almost all the interests in the electrical future of our country as 
part and party to seeing the solution put together. We believe it 
represents a very wide scope of coverage, and that should be found 
acceptable. Certainly there will be amendments, and we will debate 
them. But the main bill should be found acceptable by an overwhelming 
majority.
  In talking about what is really left in this bill, this huge bill--if 
we pass it and it goes to conference--will be the basis for America 
producing all kinds of energy for her future and jobs.
  I think there are seven major issues left.
  CAFE: My good friend from Illinois offered not two but one CAFE bill 
amendment tonight. He will get his turn. If not tonight, we are going 
to finish up CAFE in the morning. Other Senators have amendments also.
  With cooperation, which I think we will get, our plan is to have the 
next one, and the next one, and the next one, with the Senator from 
Illinois reserving his right. If he wants to have his amendment voted 
on first, he is the first one up. We believe CAFE will be disposed of. 
Frankly, we believe it will be disposed of by Monday night. We don't 
intend to spring this on everyone. This requires everybody who can be 
here to be here. It looks as if that will be Monday afternoon sometime.
  We think climate change will be offered by two or maybe three 
Senators. This Senator could make the point--but I think it will fall 
on deaf ears--that climate change doesn't belong in this bill. I don't 
think we have jurisdiction. I don't think it belongs in the Environment 
and Public Works bill. But we are going to get it anyway. We are very 
hopeful that can come up after CAFE.
  I have explained electricity.
  That makes three major items.
  Then we have one that I thought was resolved between the 
distinguished Senator Craig and the ranking minority member, Senator 
Bingaman, on hydroelectric relicensing. But I understand it has not 
been resolved. So we had better list it as four in terms of serious 
amendments.
  Fifth is an Indian energy issue. We just set it aside prior to the 
amendment of the Senator from Illinois. It involves a serious 
discussion between the junior Senator from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, and 
the minority leader. Senator Bingaman wants to amend it. I understand 
the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, may also want to 
amend it, which would mean the Indian energy bill would have two 
amendments.
  There is the longstanding, always recurring issue called renewable 
portfolio standards--the RPS. I don't know whether we call it a 
standard. But essentially it is an approach that says we are going to 
take some of this renewable energy supplied by wind and solar. Even 
though we are giving them plenty of incentives in this legislation, 
indeed wind is--it is kind of a strange way of saying it--coming on 
strong; there is no question but that it is. It has even been enough to 
show up on these various diagrams that talk about energy. We have given 
them all kinds of incentives.

[[Page 19364]]

  But the idea is mandating that companies which produce electricity in 
our sovereign States have a percentage each year of the renewables. 
Thus, the renewable portfolio standard will be an issue.
  That is as I see it. That is the sixth issue. I am aware of two 
amendments in that area; again, one from the distinguished Senator 
Bingaman, and one from the distinguished Senator Jeffords from Vermont.
  Then everybody should know there sits on the sideline a package. It 
is called a tax package. The way we have been doing this on energy 
bills is: Those of us concerned with energy, we all go to the Finance 
Committee, which has total jurisdiction over taxes, including tax 
incentives, and we make our case, and they produce for us a package of 
tax incentives and tax legislation. They have done so again this year. 
That is ready.
  At a point in time--let me suggest--I cannot predict exactly, but I 
am thinking some time about Wednesday or the latest Thursday--we would 
offer this tax package in its entirety to become part of this bill.
  I know there are many Senators who are anxious to offer tax measures, 
and this tax package will be no different. It will be an opportunity, 
for those who want to offer tax amendments, to do so. Except I might 
suggest that the precedent, if you can count on it, has been that 
amendments that are not relevant to this package do not find themselves 
in this bill; that is, if somebody does not like the current state of 
play on the child tax credit, they may want to offer that on this bill 
that has incentives for windmills, incentives for biomass.
  I can say, here and now, as manager of this bill, the rules are the 
rules. Senators' prerogatives are Senators' prerogatives, but I would 
ask--and I will ask in advance as many Senators as I can talk to--that 
we table any such amendments, and we keep the tax package to the energy 
package.
  There will be some who want the Energy bill to pass, and they will 
quickly understand that is the right way to do it; and they will help. 
I don't know of any, so I am just talking. But there may be some who do 
not want us to finish by next Friday night or Saturday or Sunday or 
Monday--part of our vacation--and they may not like the idea of getting 
this tax package over with, and they may want to spend their recess 
debating taxes. I hope not because there are a lot of Senators around 
here who do not want to spend their recess debating taxes. They want to 
finish this bill and go home or go wherever their plans are.
  I note that our leader is serious enough about this where he can be 
here an extra 3 days or 6 days before his plans take effect. Just to 
show us he is serious, that is what it looks like in his regard.
  Let me tell my colleagues that it is 9:05 p.m. The minority has 
generously let us set aside the Indian amendment and offered the first 
CAFE amendment. I am hopeful that in a few minutes the senior Senator 
from Missouri, Mr. Bond, will be here. I am hopeful he will seek to 
offer a CAFE standards amendment and that the other side will be as 
generous as we were and let him offer his without jeopardizing the CAFE 
amendment of the distinguished Senator from Illinois--just setting it 
aside temporarily while Senator Bond offers his.
  Frankly, I do not see any reason after that occurs--unless somebody 
comes here with some business--to stick around very long. There have 
been many votes today. I am just as tired, if not more tired, than most 
of the Senators who have already left the premises. So I do not want to 
stay beyond the offering of the two CAFE amendments.
  I say to Senators, there is great cooperation taking place. And 
tomorrow morning, if we can get the same cooperation, the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona intends to offer his CAFE amendment. I say to the 
Senator, as you know, he has been telling us about that amendment for 
quite some time. And then immediately after that, if everyone continues 
to be somewhat harmonious, there will be another modified CAFE 
amendment that will be offered by Senator Feinstein, joined by others, 
but I know joined by Senator McCain.
  That will put us tomorrow, before noon, with four CAFE amendments of 
sorts--I say to the Senator, his being one kind and the last one I 
spoke to being another kind--all pending before the Senate. After they 
are pending, we can determine what voting on each one does, one to 
another. But until then, we will hope that each Senator, who is 
interested in what they will clearly tell us is one of their important 
issues, what they perceive to be very important; namely CAFE--they will 
have a chance to make their presentation, as I understand it.
  Senator Bond will be here shortly. I say to the Senator, if you do 
not mind, without going into any detail, I have a Senator to take my 
place for the rest of the evening.


                        Death of Colin McMillan

  Mr. President, I received word today, not too many hours ago, that 
one of our President's nominees to become Secretary of the Navy, Colin 
McMillan--some of my colleagues knew him; he would have been up here 
for confirmation shortly; he was a very good friend of mine for 35 
years--he is dead. That is as much as I can say. And that is not a 
great way to start the evening.
  One of my fellow Senators has told me that if I put in a brief quorum 
call, he will take my place and save enough time for Senator Bond, whom 
we have imposed upon to come down and offer his amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I don't know if a quorum call has been 
ordered. If not, I would like to ask recognition from the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was going to suggest the absence of a quorum. I say 
to the Senator, if you don't mind, I would like a Republican to be 
here. If he will just tell me he wants to speak on his amendment--is 
that what the Senator wants to do?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is exactly right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, when Senator Bond arrives, upon 
request, will the Senator from Illinois yield and let him offer his 
amendment?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to do that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can we do that? Under those conditions, rather than 
suggest the absence of a quorum, I will relinquish the floor. Senator 
Durbin can start. Senator Bond will be here shortly, and a Senator will 
be here to replace me in short order.
  Here is Senator Bond now.
  I ask the Senator how long he thinks it will be before he is ready?
  Mr. BOND. About a minute and a half.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let's proceed as we had planned and let the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri proceed next.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1386

       (Purpose: To impose additional requirements for improving 
     automobile fuel economy and reducing vehicle emissions)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
myself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Domenici, and Ms. Stabenow, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself, Mr. 
     Levin, Mr. Domenici, and Ms. Stabenow, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1386.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we continue debate on the Energy bill, 
there are a number of very important issues and amendments facing the 
Senate. One is of great interest to me and, frankly, any Senator who 
has automobile plants or suppliers in his home

[[Page 19365]]

State. It actually should be of interest to every Senator since it 
directly affects all American consumers in every State who drive a car, 
SUV, other vehicle, or even ride in one. It is also of vital interest 
and a high priority to the Chamber of Commerce, the United Auto 
Workers, the American Farm Bureau, and a very large, diverse coalition 
of labor, business, and consumer groups. I refer to Corporate Average 
Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards.
  I am a great baseball fan, and I can think of no higher authority 
than Yogi Berra to quote when I say it is deja vu all over again. I 
must admit I was holding out hope that the Senate could avoid a lengthy 
debate this year over the CAFE standards. After all, this body examined 
fuel economy proposals in great detail during debate on the Democratic 
Energy bill last year. As some of my colleagues may recall, Senator 
Levin and I, with the help of others, developed an amendment to strike 
the job-killing antisafety CAFE provisions offered and proposed by 
other Members and replace it with commonsense language mandating that 
the experts at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration set 
new CAFE standards at the maximum feasible level.
  The Levin-Bond amendment last year passed on a vote of 62 to 38, 
obviously including Senators from both sides of the aisle. I am pleased 
to be offering a similar amendment again this year with Senator Levin, 
Chairman Domenici, and Senator Stabenow.
  Members supported our amendment last year because they knew then and 
I believe they know now that setting fuel economy standards is 
complicated. Future standards should be based on sound science, and 
they must take into account a number of important criteria, including 
the impact on jobs, safety, technology, consumer choice, and many 
others. They should not be based on a political number, and that is why 
the Kerry-McCain provision was stripped out of last year's bill. In 
fact, it was withdrawn for an obvious lack of support.
  When the Senate debated the Levin-Bond amendment last year, some in 
the Chamber doubted whether the Bush administration would take CAFE 
seriously and issue new standards in a timely fashion. The 
administration did act earlier this year and announced the biggest 
increase in 20 years in CAFE levels for light trucks and SUVs.
  Regrettably, proponents of higher CAFE standards are back again this 
year. Several Senators have developed proposals to increase CAFE 
standards significantly without regard to the effect on American jobs 
and the American economy. If I might borrow a line from a recent movie, 
those CAFE numbers are ``too fast, too furious.''
  I did some research on the economic job impact to the automobile 
industry in Arizona, Illinois, and California. Perhaps the sponsors of 
the higher CAFE amendments are not familiar with some of data for their 
home States. Let me provide for the record, in Arizona there are over 
75,000 auto-related jobs, including 16,000 directly employed in the 
industry. In Illinois, there are 311,000 auto-related jobs, including 
45,000 directly employed. Lastly, the great State of California has 
over 462,000 auto-related jobs, including 118,000 direct jobs.
  Here are a couple of figures on a national scale: 6.6 million, this 
is the number of Americans employed in direct or spin-off jobs related 
to the automotive industry. Here is another big one: $243 billion, that 
is the economic contribution of the industry. In fact, every State is 
an auto State. Let me show my colleagues this chart. Most people would 
know that Michigan, Missouri, Indiana, and Ohio are big manufacturing 
States. But even smaller States--Nebraska, New Hampshire, Delaware, 
Arkansas--have suppliers and other industries whose success and 
business profitability are directly related to the bigger 
manufacturers.
  Nebraska has 33,700 jobs; Arkansas 46,800; New Hampshire, 27,300 
jobs; Delaware has 30,100 jobs. This chart is here for everyone to 
view.
  Proponents of arbitrarily higher CAFE standards try to avoid any 
discussion of the job impact or they just dismiss concerns as being 
overreactive. But I have heard from a broad array of union officials, 
technical experts, plant managers, local dealers, and small businesses. 
They tell me that these proposals could cost jobs, because the only way 
for manufacturers to meet these unrealistic political numbers is to 
make significant cuts to light truck, minivan, and SUV production--the 
vehicles, quite frankly, Americans are demanding.
  In fact, I had recently read in Roll Call that some of my colleagues 
here on the floor right now actually drive these bigger SUVs here in 
Washington, though there may be some fender damage to at least one of 
them.
  I have also read the National Academy of Science's report on CAFE 
standards issued in 2001. Let me share with you a key finding about 
safety and higher standards:

       In summary, the majority of the committee finds that the 
     downsizing and weight reduction that occurred in the late 
     1970s and early 1980s most likely produced between 1,300 and 
     2,600 crash fatalities and between 13,000 and 26,000 serious 
     injuries in 1993.
       If an increase in fuel economy is effected by a system that 
     encourages either downweighting or the production and sale of 
     more small cars, some additional traffic fatalities would be 
     expected.

  That is the National Academy of Science. I believe that NAS report 
offers us in the Senate clear guidance and expert scientific analysis 
as we debate fuel economy standards. CAFE standards which cannot be met 
by technological improvement have killed roughly 2,000 people a year--
that is almost as many as in the tragedy of September 11--because of 
what we in Congress have mandated. That is a frightening number.
  This past April, the Energy Committee debated an amendment by Senator 
Feinstein to raise the light truck CAFE standard. That could have had 
negative consequences for pickup trucks for ranchers and farmers across 
Missouri and in many agricultural States. The amendment would have also 
negatively impacted soccer moms and dads driving minivans, too, since 
they are part of the light truck category.
  The committee soundly rejected the Feinstein amendment 15-7, on a 
bipartisan vote, including four Senators from the other side of the 
aisle opposing adoption. I look forward to working with those Senators 
and others to defeat excessive CAFE amendments to be offered on the 
floor.
  I urge and strongly encourage Members who voted for the Bond-Levin 
amendment last year to do so again this year. It is a commonsense 
amendment to the Energy bill that will protect jobs, safety, consumer 
choice, and continue to pursue reasonable, scientifically achievable 
environmental improvements.
  I know that some in this Chamber believe our fellow Americans cannot 
be trusted to make the right choice when purchasing a vehicle. For my 
part, in choosing between the Government or the consumer making 
choices, I side with consumers. I do not pretend to know what is best 
for each of the 16 million Americans who purchase a new vehicle every 
year.
  For those who say, ``too bad, we must force Detroit to build more 
fuel-efficient cars and trucks,'' do you know that under CAFE, it 
doesn't matter what the companies manufacture and build? It is 
calculated based on what they buy. There are over 30 vehicles in 
showrooms that get over 30 miles to the gallon, but guess what: They 
represent less than 2 percent of sales. In their buying decisions, 
consumers consistently favor safety, utility, performance, and other 
characteristics over fuel economy.
  Do we still have a free society? I think so and I hope so. Higher 
CAFE standards could lead to downsizing of many popular vehicles. I 
don't want to tell parents in Missouri, or in any State, they cannot 
get the SUV or minivan they wanted for their family or business because 
Congress decided it would be a bad choice. Is that any way to develop 
sound public policy? Of course not.
  Last year, I said on the floor that I would be most interested to see 
the hard data and the solid science which

[[Page 19366]]

supposedly justifies the higher CAFE standards put forward by some of 
my colleagues.
  Mr. President, I never did get a firm answer. Frankly, I doubt one 
exists. The numbers in these CAFE amendments are political numbers 
picked out of thin air. Some of my colleagues are trying to indicate 
that their proposed standards are suggested in the NAS study. I remind 
my colleagues the National Academy of Science report states the 
following:

       The committee cannot emphasize strongly enough that the 
     cost-efficient fuel economy levels are not recommended CAFE 
     goals.

  Mr. President, automakers are investing billions of dollars in 
advanced technology research and new products, such as hybrid and fuel 
cell vehicles, which offer great promise to improve fuel economy and 
continue to offer the driving public the comfort, safety, and utility 
they demand. We should be encouraging this type of research. In fact, 
the President has recognized the importance of advanced technology and 
has pledged $1.2 billion in fuel cell research funding, so that America 
can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. 
We have already voted to accept Senator Dorgan's amendment, which paves 
the way for production and deployment of 2.5 million hydrogen fuel cell 
vehicles by 2020.
  The Bond-Levin amendment allows the Transportation Department to 
continue its plans for a multiyear rulemaking to set new CAFE standards 
in the future. Our amendment includes provisions so that the Government 
plays its part in addressing vehicle fuel efficiency.
  I urge all of my colleagues to oppose higher CAFE amendments, which 
will only hurt consumers and do very little for fuel economy and are 
not based on sound science. I ask that we save jobs, improve safety for 
our fellow Americans, and continue to make scientific progress toward 
greater fuel economy and environmental improvement. Vote ``yes'' on the 
Bond-Levin-Domenici-Stabenow amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri made reference 
to a colleague on the floor who is driving a big SUV with a dented 
fender.
  I drive a 1993 Saturn, and I just took it, with my wife, on a trip to 
North Carolina. We averaged 35 miles a gallon with the air conditioning 
on. I wanted that on the record so people won't believe I am standing 
here talking about fuel efficiency and the only car I drive is an SUV. 
I don't own an SUV. People who want to are certainly entitled to. That 
is their free choice.
  You have just heard the opening statement by the Senator from 
Missouri, but you may not have noticed the flapping in the background. 
It was the waving of a white flag. It was a concession by the Senator 
on his behalf and on behalf of the cosponsors that America is incapable 
of developing a technology to make our cars and trucks more fuel 
efficient--so incapable that if we establish a new fuel efficiency 
standard, the Senator from Missouri tells us it will cost us thousands 
of jobs. So we are just going to give up. America is going to walk 
away, surrender. There is no way we can deal with the challenge of an 
amendment which says we need more fuel-efficient cars.
  The Senator is prepared to say to us, if that battle is underway, we 
concede defeat to all the foreign automobile manufacturers. America 
just cannot keep up. We are just going to fall behind, and our workers 
are going to lose their jobs.
  Forgive me, but I don't have that negative attitude or pessimistic 
view of the people who work in the automobile industry, nor those who 
design cars and trucks. When given a challenge, I believe they can meet 
it. But if not given a challenge--which is what the Senator from 
Missouri and his cosponsor, Senator Levin of Michigan, are proposing--
we know what will happen. We have seen it happen. Take a look at the 
history of this.
  First, consider the fact that we are debating an Energy bill. How can 
you have a serious Energy bill and not talk about conserving energy? If 
you are going to talk about conserving energy, how can you avoid the 
largest consumer of petroleum products in America, the cars and trucks 
we drive on the highway? How can you have an honest Energy bill that 
talks about America's energy future and doesn't address the critical 
need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to make certain that 
the cars and trucks we are driving are more fuel efficient?
  I think the answer is obvious. When I go through my State of 
Illinois, whether I am talking to soccer moms or corporate executives, 
they all understand this. If you continue to say to Detroit that you 
can continue to build the heaviest, most fuel-inefficient vehicles 
imaginable and put them on the road with absolutely no motive or no 
impetus to change, we are going to continue to import oil from 
overseas, and we are going to continue to be dependent upon Saudi 
Arabia and all the other oil sources in the Middle East. We are going 
to continue to pollute our air until our children have a planet that, 
frankly, has been blighted by our own neglect, and that is an 
abdication of our responsibility. So I offer an amendment to improve 
the fuel efficiency of vehicles across America.
  This is not a radical concept. We have done this before. When we get 
down to it, there are only two or three ways to basically improve fuel 
efficiency of the vehicles we drive. One, we can wait for consumers to 
demand it. Well, they might, over some period of time, driven by 
foreign policy concerns or environmental concerns. It might happen. 
Secondly, we can increase the cost of fuel in America. And we know what 
happens then. If gasoline went up over $5 a gallon, every spouse would 
be asking his or her spouse, what kind of fuel economy do we get on 
that car in the driveway? At $5 a gallon, we need to know, and maybe we 
need to get a more fuel-efficient car. But I think that is a poor way 
to do it.
  Imposing new taxes or new cost in fuel means families across America 
are going to spend more. Small businesses are going to struggle with 
more cost. That certainly is not the way to answer it.
  There is a third way, a proven way. It is one we have used before. 
Remember back in 1975 when America was struggling with this whole 
question, and people were in long gas lines wondering whether we would 
have enough gasoline to fuel our vehicles? Congress took a look at the 
average fuel economy across America and found that the cars we were 
driving were averaging about 14 miles a gallon. So Congress said: We 
are going to impose a new standard; over 10 years, the automobile 
industry has to virtually double the fuel economy of its vehicles to 
almost 28 miles a gallon.
  What did the critics say about that? Well, exactly what the Senator 
from Missouri just said: We cannot do that. We cannot double fuel 
economy in 10 years; why, that is technologically impossible. Secondly, 
if you want to build a car that gets 28 miles a gallon, it will not be 
safe. It will be light, it will be dangerous, it will not be fair to 
families, and people will die.
  The third thing they said was: If we impose this standard of 28 miles 
a gallon, bet dollars to donuts those cars are going to be made 
overseas. They will be made in Japan and Germany and other countries, 
and American workers will lose their jobs. Sound familiar? Those are 
exactly the arguments we have heard from the Senator from Missouri: 
Technologically impossible; cars will be unsafe; we are going to lose 
jobs.
  What did this Senate and the House of Representatives say about that? 
They rejected it. They said: We are not going to give up on American 
ingenuity and American technology. We believe that given a goal, 
Detroit and other automobile manufacturers can meet it. And we imposed 
a mandate to increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles and double it 
over a 10-year period of time.
  What happened? It worked. By the end of 10 years, average fuel 
efficiency was up to about 27\1/2\ miles a gallon. They found the 
technology, cars were safer, and there were still plenty of

[[Page 19367]]

jobs in the United States, good paying jobs, in the auto industry. That 
is what happened.
  What has happened since 1985, when that requirement to double fuel 
efficiency ended? Nothing. Eighteen years of no improvement in fuel 
efficiency of the cars and trucks in America; and, even worse, because 
of loopholes in the law, we decided to call SUVs ``trucks'' so they 
were exempt from fuel efficiency.
  So what happened over the 18 years? We started to slide backwards, 
from 27\1/2\ miles a gallon to now about 24 miles a gallon average fuel 
efficiency across America. What does it mean? More dependence on 
foreign oil; more dependence on Saudi Arabia and the oil sheiks; more 
dependence on the tangle of politics in the Middle East; more air 
pollution because the cars that we are driving, those big SUVs and 
heavy trucks, with less fuel efficiency and less fuel economy, are 
burning more gallons of gasoline, tossing more emissions out of the 
tailpipe, creating a bigger soup in the atmosphere to heat up our 
planet Earth, endangering not only lives with the problems that come 
from pulmonary disease and lung disease but endangering species around 
the world and endangering our environmental future. That is what we get 
for 18 years of neglect.
  What is the answer of those who come before us today with the 
alternative amendment? More neglect. They believe America is not up to 
this challenge, America cannot come up with this technology. Sadly, 
there is some evidence that they are right.
  Take a look at the hybrid cars that are on the road today. Do my 
colleagues know the cars I am talking about? The ones that combine 
gasoline engines and electric-powered engines and they get 
substantially better fuel mileage than most cars that are on the road. 
Where are the two models of these cars coming from today? Sadly, they 
are coming from Japan. Detroit is running second again in the race for 
technology.
  I am not giving up on American ingenuity and technology. I do not 
agree with those who say there is no way we can make our cars and 
trucks more fuel efficient. I think we can do better, and I think we 
will do better, but we have to establish challenges and goals.
  Let me talk for a moment about this concept of soccer moms. I have 
heard this--the Senator from Missouri often refers to it--there are a 
lot of soccer moms in Illinois and, yes, they drive minivans and SUVs 
and a lot of other types of cars. But when I sit down and talk to these 
soccer moms, they understand that they have a responsibility beyond 
just picking out the biggest and heaviest automobile they can buy. They 
understand their responsibility to the future that their children are 
going to share with others. They understand their responsibility to the 
environment.
  They ask me: Senator, are you saying that Detroit, given 10 years, 
cannot give us a safe, fuel-efficient vehicle?
  I tell them, I believe they can. But the Bond-Levin amendment says 
they cannot, that there is no way they can; that soccer moms are going 
to be stuck driving some flimsy old vehicle that may get better gas 
mileage but at the expense of the safety of their children.
  I do not buy it. I am not that pessimistic. I am very optimistic. 
When it comes to American creativity, I think we can meet this 
challenge, and I think those soccer moms and dads want to drive more 
fuel-efficient vehicles, not just for the money savings--that is 
important to every family--but also because they feel a responsibility 
to the future of their children. They feel a responsibility to the 
environment in which we live. They understand that the No. 1 diagnosis 
of kids going into emergency rooms and hospitals across America today 
is asthma and lung disease that is caused by air pollution. They 
understand that.
  They want to do their part. To do their part, they need leadership 
right here on the Senate floor, not waving the flag of surrender, not 
retreating, but moving America forward with a new vision, a vision 
which says to Detroit, to Chrysler, to General Motors, to Ford, to 
manufacturers in our country, let us show the rest of the world we can 
lead. We do not have to surrender, as the amendment that is being 
offered tonight suggests. We want to lead. In leading, we will solve 
the environmental problem and reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.
  I have a few charts, but it is late, and I understand that staff has 
been here for a full day, so I am not going to belabor this issue. 
There will be time. I think we will return to this issue next week, and 
at that time on Monday evening, when I return, I plan to give a full 
statement and show charts that talk about the CAFE standard, which I am 
sure will be very convincing to my colleagues.
  I do hope my colleagues will consider this: If we are serious about 
an Energy bill, if we are serious about tomorrow's energy supply, if we 
are serious about looking at this issue in an honest fashion, how can 
we avoid talking about conservation? What we have proposed by a variety 
of amendments, including the one from the Senator from Missouri, is 
more study: Let's take a look at this; surely there must be some way we 
can study this problem into a solution.
  I do not think it works that way. The choices are very few: raising 
the gas tax, which I oppose for reasons I have stated, or establishing 
standards to reach a 40-mile-per-gallon standard fuel efficiency. That, 
I think, is what America needs, and that is what we can achieve. We can 
do it over a reasonable period of time.


                    Amendment No. 1385, As Modified

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment No. 1385 
with the changes that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1385), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. MODIFICATIONS TO GAS GUZZLERS TAX TO ENCOURAGE 
                   GREATER AUTO FUEL EFFICIENCY.

       (a) Increase in Tax Rate.--Subsection (a) of section 4064 
     (relating to gas guzzlers tax) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is hereby imposed on the sale by 
     the manufacturer of each automobile a tax determined in 
     accordance with the following table:

If the fuel economy for the model year of the model type in which the 
  automobile falls is:                                      The tax is:
Less than 5 mpg below the applicable fuel economy standard          $0 
At least 5 but less than 6 mpg below such standard               1,000 
At least 6 but less than 7 mpg below such standard               1,500 
At least 7 but less than 8 mpg below such standard               2,000 
At least 8 but less than 9 mpg below such standard               2,500 
At least 9 but less than 10 mpg below such standard              3,100 
At least 10 but less than 11 mpg below such standard             3,800 
At least 11 but less than 12 mpg below such standard             4,600 
At least 12 but less than 13 mpg below such standard             5,500 
At least 13 but less than 14 mpg below such standard             6,500 
At least 14 mpg below such standard                              7,700.

       ``(2) Inflation adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning after 2005, each dollar amount referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section (1)(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, by substituting `2004' for `1992'.
       ``(B) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under 
     subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $100, such amount shall 
     be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.''.
       (b) Expansion of Definition of Automobile.--
       (1) Increase in weight.--Section 4064(b)(1)(A)(ii) 
     (defining automobile) is amended by striking ``6,000 pounds'' 
     and inserting ``12,000 pounds''.
       (2) Exception for certain vehicles.--Subparagraph (B) of 
     section 4064(b)(1) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Exception for certain vehicles.--The term 
     `automobile' does not include--
       ``(i) a vehicle which has a primary load carrying device or 
     container attached,
       ``(ii) a vehicle which has a seating capacity of more than 
     12 persons,
       ``(iii) a vehicle which has a seating capacity of more than 
     9 persons behind the driver's seat, or

[[Page 19368]]

       ``(iv) a vehicle which is equipped with a cargo area of at 
     least 6 feet in interior length which is an open area or is 
     designed for use as an open area but is enclosed by a cap and 
     is not readily accessible directly from the passenger 
     compartment.''.
       (c) Additional Definitions.--Section 4064(b) (relating to 
     definitions) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(8) Applicable fuel economy standard.--The term 
     `applicable fuel economy standard' means, with respect to any 
     model year, the average fuel economy standard as defined in 
     section 32902 of title 49, United States Code, for passenger 
     automobiles for such model year.
       ``(9) MPG.--The term `mpg' means miles per gallon.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales after October 31, 2005.

     SEC. __. HIGHLY FUEL-EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILE CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by 
     redesignating section 36 as section 37 and by inserting after 
     section 35 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 36. HIGHLY FUEL-EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILE CREDIT.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a 
     credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for the 
     taxable year an amount equal to the new highly fuel-efficient 
     automobile credit determined under subsection (b).

       ``(b) New Highly Fuel-Efficient Automobile Credit.--For 
     purposes of subsection (a), the new highly fuel-efficient 
     automobile credit with respect to any new automobile placed 
     in service by the taxpayer during the taxable year is 
     determined in accordance with the following tables:
If the fuel economy for the model year of the model type in which the 
  passenger automobile falls is:                         The credit is:
Less than 5 mpg above the applicable fuel economy standard          $0 
At least 5 but less than 6 mpg above such standard                 770 
At least 6 but less than 7 mpg above such standard               1,540 
At least 7 but less than 8 mpg above such standard               2,310 
At least 8 but less than 9 mpg above such standard               3,080 
At least 9 but less than 10 mpg above such standard              3,850 
At least 10 but less than 11 mpg above such standard             4,620 
At least 11 but less than 12 mpg above such standard             5,390 
At least 12 but less than 13 mpg above such standard             6,160 
At least 13 but less than 14 mpg above such standard             6,930 
At least 14 mpg above such standard                              7,700.

If the fuel economy for the model year of the model type in which the 
  non-passenger automobile falls is:                     The credit is:
Less than 5 mpg above the applicable fuel economy standard          $0 
At least 5 but less than 6 mpg above such standard                 770 
At least 6 but less than 7 mpg above such standard               1,540 
At least 7 but less than 8 mpg above such standard               2,310 
At least 8 but less than 9 mpg above such standard               3,080 
At least 9 but less than 10 mpg above such standard              3,850 
At least 10 but less than 11 mpg above such standard             4,620 
At least 11 but less than 12 mpg above such standard             5,390 
At least 12 but less than 13 mpg above such standard             6,160 
At least 13 but less than 14 mpg above such standard             6,930 
At least 14 mpg above such standard                              7,700.

       ``(c) New Automobile.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `new automobile' means a passenger automobile or non-
     passenger automobile--
       ``(1) the original use of which commences with the 
     taxpayer,
       ``(2) which is acquired for use or lease by the taxpayer 
     and not for resale, and
       ``(3) which is made by a manufacturer.
       ``(d) Passenger Automobile; Non-Passenger Automobile.--For 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Passenger automobile.--The term `passenger 
     automobile' has the meaning given the term `automobile' by 
     section 4064(b)(1).
       ``(2) Non-passenger automobile.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `non-passenger automobile' 
     means any automobile (as defined in section 4064(b)(1)(A)), 
     but only if such automobile is described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Non-passenger automobiles described.--An automobile 
     is described in this subparagraph if such automobile is--
       ``(i) a vehicle which has a primary load carrying device or 
     container attached,
       ``(ii) a vehicle which has a seating capacity of more than 
     12 persons,
       ``(iii) a vehicle which has a seating capacity of more than 
     9 persons behind the driver's seat, or
       ``(iv) a vehicle which is equipped with a cargo area of at 
     least 6 feet in interior length which does not extend beyond 
     the frame of the vehicle and which is an open area or is 
     designed for use as an open area but is enclosed by a cap and 
     is not readily accessible directly from the passenger 
     compartment.
       ``(e) Other Definitions.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (d), for purposes of this section, any term used in this 
     section and also in section 4064 shall have the meaning given 
     such term by section 4064.
       ``(f) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1)  Reduction in basis.--For purposes of this subtitle, 
     the basis of any property for which a credit is allowable 
     under subsection (a) shall be reduced by the amount of such 
     credit so allowed.
       ``(2) No double benefit.--The amount of any deduction or 
     other credit allowable under this chapter with respect to an 
     automobile described under subsection (b), shall be reduced 
     by the amount of credit allowed under subsection (a) for such 
     automobile for the taxable year.
       ``(3) Property used by tax-exempt entities.--In the case of 
     a credit amount which is allowable with respect to an 
     automobile which is acquired by an entity exempt from tax 
     under this chapter, the person which sells or leases such 
     automobile to the entity shall be treated as the taxpayer 
     with respect to the automobile for purposes of this section 
     and the credit shall be allowed to such person, but only if 
     the person clearly discloses to the entity at the time of any 
     sale or lease the specific amount of any credit otherwise 
     allowable to the entity under this section.
       ``(4) Recapture.--The Secretary shall, by regulations, 
     provide for recapturing the benefit of any credit allowable 
     under subsection (a) with respect to any property which 
     ceases to be property eligible for such credit (including 
     recapture in the case of a lease period of less than the 
     economic life of an automobile).
       ``(5) Property used outside united states, etc., not 
     qualified.--No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) 
     with respect to any property referred to in section 50(b) or 
     with respect to the portion of the cost of any property taken 
     into account under section 179.
       ``(6) Election to not take credit.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under subsection (a) for any automobile if the 
     taxpayer elects to not have this section apply to such 
     automobile.
       ``(7) Interaction with air quality and motor vehicle safety 
     standards.--Unless otherwise provided in this section, an 
     automobile shall not be considered eligible for a credit 
     under this section unless such automobile is in compliance 
     with--
       ``(A) the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act for 
     the applicable make and model year of the automobile (or 
     applicable air quality provisions of State law in the case of 
     a State which has adopted such provision under a waiver under 
     section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act), and
       ``(B) the motor vehicle safety provisions of sections 30101 
     through 30169 of title 49, United States Code.
       ``(g) Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as necessary to 
     carry out the provisions of this section.
       ``(2) Coordination in prescription of certain 
     regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination 
     with the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, shall prescribe such 
     regulations as necessary to determine whether an automobile 
     meets the requirements to be eligible for a credit under this 
     section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1016(a), as amended by this Act, is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (23), by striking 
     the period at the end of paragraph (24) and inserting ``, 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(35) to the extent provided in section 36(f)(1).''.
       (2) Section 6501(m), as amended by this Act, is amended by 
     inserting ``36(f)(6),'' after ``30B(f)(9),''.
       (3) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or 
     from section 36 of such Code''.
       (4) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     chapter 1 is amended by striking

[[Page 19369]]

     the last item and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 36. Highly fuel-efficient automobile credit.
``Sec. 37. Overpayments of tax.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after October 31, 
     2005, in taxable years ending after such date.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his 
comments. I regret that he did not apparently gather what I was saying 
in my remarks because his characterization of my position was 
untenable. He suggested that we do not want to increase CAFE standards. 
The amendment that Senators Levin, Domenici, Stabenow, and I prepared 
on page 4 reads that the Secretary of Transportation shall issue new 
regulations setting forth increased fuel economy standards for 
nonpassenger automobiles, among others. We say they shall increase it. 
But you know something? We say they ought to base it on sound 
technology and sound science. For example, on page 2, we say when 
deciding the maximum fees of fuel economy, the Secretary shall 
consider:

       ``(1) Technological feasibility.
       ``(2) Economic practicability.
       ``(3) The effect of other motor vehicle standards of the 
     Government on fuel economy.
       ``(4) The need of the United States to conserve energy.
       ``(5) The desirability of reducing United States dependence 
     on imported oil.
       ``(6) The effects of the average fuel economy standards on 
     motor vehicle and passenger safety.
       ``(7) The effects of increased fuel economy on air quality.
       ``(8) The adverse effects of average fuel economy standards 
     on the relative competitiveness of manufacturers.
       ``(9) The effects of compliance with average fuel economy 
     standards on levels of employment in the United States.

  These are all points that are very important. But we start off 
saying, don't push something that is purely political. Make sure there 
is a technological basis for it.
  Yes, my colleague is right. We did increase the CAFE achievements, 
but much of it came through lowering the weight of the vehicles. If my 
colleagues will listen and pay attention, we have the very frightening 
statistic from the National Academy of Sciences that those lower weight 
vehicles, vehicles initially designed for safety, were forced to be 
downsized, and they caused roughly 2,000 additional fatalities a year 
in automobile vehicle accidents and some 13,000 to 26,000 serious 
injuries. That is why we say safety is part of it. That is why we say 
we need to make sure we can achieve these technologically. We are 
pushing the technology.
  My colleague talks about soccer moms. If they want to drive a very 
small fuel-efficient car, they can. If they want to drive an SUV, they 
can. We are going to push the technology to make those as efficient as 
possible. But we are not some kind of dictatorial or authoritarian 
society that says, no; we will tell you what you can buy.
  We want to have parents, whether they are soccer moms, baseball dads, 
granddads who want to take their kids to the ball game, to have the 
ability to choose the kind of car they want.
  It is about safety, it is about choice, and it is about jobs.
  I am very grateful for a letter I have just received dated July 24, 
2003, from Alan Reuther, legislative director of the UAW. He says in 
part:

       The UAW strongly opposes a number of other CAFE amendments 
     that may be offered by Senator McCain, Senator Feinsten or 
     Senator Durbin. Although taking different approaches, all of 
     these amendments would mandate excessive, discriminatory 
     increases in fuel economy standards that would directly 
     threaten thousands of jobs for UAW members and other 
     automotive workers in this country. In our judgment, fuel 
     economy increases of the magnitude proposed in these 
     amendments are neither technologically or economically 
     feasible. The study conducted by the National Academy of 
     Sciences does not support such increases. Given the economic 
     difficulties currently facing the auto industry, we believe 
     it would be a profound mistake to impose additional burdens 
     on the companies by mandating excessive increases in the CAFE 
     standards.

  That is why, in summary, the UAW says it strongly supports the Bond-
Levin amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
           Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2003.
       Dear Senator: This week the Senate is scheduled to take up 
     the comprehensive energy legislation. At that time, the 
     Senate may consider a number of important amendments relating 
     to Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
       The UAW strongly supports the Levin-Bond amendment, which 
     would require the Department of Transportation to engage in 
     expedited rulemaking to issue new fuel economy standards for 
     both cars and light trucks. DOT would be required to take 
     into consideration a wide range of factors in establishing 
     the new standards, including employment, safety, technology, 
     economic practicability and the relative competitive impacts 
     on companies. This amendment is similar to the Levin-Bond 
     substitute that the Senate approved by a wide margin last 
     year. The UAW supports the approach contained in this 
     amendment because we believe it will lead to a significant 
     improvement in fuel economy, without jeopardizing the jobs of 
     American workers.
       The UAW strongly opposes a number of other CAFE amendments 
     that may be offered by Senator McCain, Senator Feinstein or 
     Senator Durbin. Although taking different approaches, all of 
     these amendments would mandate excessive, discriminatory 
     increases in fuel economy standards that would directly 
     threaten thousands of jobs for UAW members and other 
     automotive workers in this country. In our judgment, fuel 
     economy increases of the magnitude proposed in these 
     amendments are neither technologically or economically 
     feasible. The study conducted by the National Academy of 
     Sciences does not support such increases. Given the economic 
     difficulties currently facing the auto industry, we believe 
     it would be a profound mistake to impose additional burdens 
     on the companies by mandating excessive increases in the CAFE 
     standards.
       In addition, the UAW is particularly concerned that the 
     structure of the proposed fuel economy increases--a flat mpg 
     requirement for cars and/or light trucks--would severely 
     discriminate against full line producers (such as GM, Ford 
     and DaimlerChrysler) because their product mix contains a 
     much higher percentage of larger cars and light trucks. This 
     could result in severe disruption in their production, and 
     directly threaten the jobs of thousands of UAW members and 
     other workers associated with the production of these 
     vehicles. Furthermore, by eliminating the distinction between 
     foreign and domestic car fleets, the McCain amendment would 
     enable the Big Three automakers to outsource their domestic 
     small care production to other countries, resulting in the 
     loss of thousands of additional automotive jobs in this 
     country.
       The UAW continues to believe that modest improvements in 
     fuel economy are achievable over time. Indeed, NHTSA has 
     already promulgated new CAFE standards for light trucks that 
     will yield significant fuel savings. In our judgment, we can 
     continue to make progress on fuel economy by following this 
     same approach, and directing NHTSA to promulgate new fuel 
     economy standards for both cars and light trucks, as called 
     for by the Levin-Bond amendments. But we also believe it is 
     critically important that the Senate reject the extreme, 
     discriminatory CAFE proposals contained in the amendments 
     sponsored by Senators McCain, Feinstein and Durbin, which 
     would threaten the jobs of thousands of American automotive 
     workers.
       Thank you for considering our views on this priority issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alan Reuther,
     Legislative Director.

                          ____________________