[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 19999-20007]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Illinois is 
seeking to speak on his amendment. Is there a time agreement on that 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to have an opportunity to speak on the 
Energy bill. I do not want to interfere with the Senator's amendment if 
we can get it done.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Alaska if he 
would give me an idea how much time he would like.
  Mr. STEVENS. The reverse is true also. I am glad to yield to the 
Senator if he would consider giving us a time agreement on his 
amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Alaska would like to work with me 
through the leadership to come up with a time agreement, I will be 
happy to do that. At this point, with no time agreement, I will yield--
without yielding my right to the floor on the amendment--for the 
Senator to speak on the Energy bill. He certainly has a right to do 
that. I am happy to yield for that purpose.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have come to the floor to speak on the bill in 
general, but I would be happy to have an opportunity to have the 
Senator from Illinois debate his amendment and have it voted on. As I 
understood it, that was the plan this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I address the Senator from Nevada. Is it 
possible to get an agreement on the Durbin amendment?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Durbin has always been agreeable to 
that. He has indicated he would want probably 45 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. And Senator Stabenow may want 10 or 15 minutes. We will 
check with her. I am sure we can do it within an hour on our side. I 
would propose that on the Durbin amendment there be 1 hour of debate on 
our side, that there be no second-degree amendments in order, and we 
would then vote on or in relation to the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are trying to work with Senator Bingaman on the 
Durbin amendment and the other CAFE amendment.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from New Mexico that we have seen the 
proposal. We are not going to agree to the unanimous consent agreement 
that was given to me.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We don't need a time agreement on Senator Durbin at 
this point.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield so I may comment 
briefly, I think we have tried to be as reasonable as we can on the 
Durbin amendment, which is the pending

[[Page 20000]]

amendment. The Senator from Illinois has agreed from the beginning on a 
time agreement. That still stands.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will speak briefly. I hope, however, we 
can move on to the Durbin amendment as soon as we get a time agreement.
  Mr. President, one of the basic goals of the Energy bill, as our 
leader has indicated, is job creation. According to the estimates that 
I have, based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the natural gas 
pipeline project to bring Alaska's natural gas to market would create 
as many as 400,000 job years. There have been various press releases 
issued in that regard. The more conservative estimates by the Energy 
Committee staff put the number at 118,000. Even those figures include: 
1,650 welders and helpers; 2,000 operators; 135 surveyors; 1,250 
laborers; 755 teamsters; 418 inspectors; 90 UT technicians; and 170 
salaried foremen. Beyond that are both manufacturing jobs and 
infrastructure jobs, including airstrip improvements at 5 airports.
  Additionally, the project will require an enormous number of buses, 
loaders, and automatic welders. We will need 440 sidebooms, 225 other 
sidebooms, 18 trenchers, 250 backhoes, 236 large dozers, 125 stringing 
tractors, and 1,300 pickup trucks.
  I have come to the floor to raise my voice in support of this Energy 
bill and to urge the Senate to complete it. I commend Senators Domenici 
and Bingaman and their staffs for their efforts so far. This Energy 
bill is an important step toward a comprehensive and balanced national 
energy policy. It contains many important provisions designed to ensure 
our energy security.
  The most important of those, to me, is the authorization for a 
natural gas pipeline from the North Slope of Alaska connecting through 
Canada to what we call the Lower 48.
  As we are all aware, our country faces a natural gas crisis. The 
leader spoke of that this morning, and I want to emphasize the 
importance of his remarks. In the last 10 years, demand for natural gas 
has increased by 19 percent. It is projected to grow over 50 percent in 
the next quarter century. Absent a new supply of natural gas, a gap of 
15 billion cubic feet per day or 6 trillion cubic feet per year is 
likely in the next decade.
  High natural gas prices have severely impacted our industries and our 
consumers and are hindering our economic recovery.
  The fertilizer industry alone has seen its current operating capacity 
in the United States for ammonia plants drop to 60 to 65 percent of 
former capacity. High gas prices are responsible for the closure of 
almost 20 percent of the nitrogen fertilizer capacity.
  This has severely impacted our farmers. They are now paying $350 per 
ton for fertilizer, more than twice what they paid last year.
  Our chemical industry has been similarly affected as high gas prices 
continue to affect its market share, which again threatens millions of 
existing jobs.
  The chemical industry employs more than 1 million Americans, with 5 
million Americans working at jobs dependent upon that chemical 
industry. Millions of Americans are depending upon our ability to 
maintain an adequate supply of gas. Our constituents are also feeling 
the pressure from natural gas prices. Sixty million households in this 
country use natural gas.
  In 1999, their average gas bill was $534. In 2001, the average gas 
bill was $750. This year, the average gas bill for American consumers 
at home will be $915--almost double what it was in 1999, Mr. President.
  Given these disturbing facts and the negative impacts high gas prices 
are having on the Nation as a whole, I urge the Senate to act quickly 
to address this situation. This Energy bill must pass this year. It 
must be passed by the Senate now before we go on recess so a final 
conference package can be voted on in the fall.
  The Energy Committee has taken the first step towards addressing this 
situation by including authorization for the Alaskan gas pipeline. The 
pipeline is vitally important to preventing an even more serious 
natural gas crisis in the future.
  The gas pipeline will increase our supplies. Alaska's gas alone would 
meet approximately 10 percent of our country's natural gas needs, which 
means 4 billion to 6 billion cubic feet per day. It will decrease our 
dependency on foreign gas and imports of liquefied natural gas. It will 
generate over $40 billion in revenues for the Federal Government. It 
will create the jobs I outlined earlier.
  I do hope the Senate will focus on the jobs created by the Energy 
bill and particularly the Alaska natural gas pipeline. The gas pipeline 
translates into 7,000 construction jobs, thousands of manufacturing 
jobs necessary to create equipment, and thousands of infrastructure 
jobs.
  In addition to the authorization language, the Finance Committee has 
provided a fiscal incentive package to ensure the pipeline can begin 
delivering gas as quickly as possible. I will discuss the fiscal 
package once the energy tax provisions are introduced. We are working 
with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee to assure that 
those provision meet all the objectives of assuring financing for this 
enormous project.
  I urge the Senate to consider that this is gas that was produced 
alongside oil at Prudhoe Bay, almost 13 billion barrels of oil to date. 
As that oil was produced, natural gas was pumped to the surface as 
well. This gas was then separated from the oil and reinjected into the 
ground. This is not gas we have to look for; we know where it is. This 
is 35 trillion cubic feet of gas that is stored beneath Prudhoe Bay.
  I point out to the Senate that 35 trillion cubic feet of gas is 
merely what has already been produced. The North Slope of Alaska has an 
abundant supply of gas, which has the potential to produce around 100 
trillion cubic feet of gas. The Alaska gas pipeline project must begin 
so that we can start tapping into Alaska's gas reserves. No one is 
drilling gas wells in my State now because there is no transportation 
mechanism for gas. The known reserves of natural gas will be 
produceable as soon as there is a transportation mechanism to bring it 
to market. This pipeline will be that transportation mechanism to bring 
Alaska's gas to the Lower 48.
  Nothing is more important to our Nation right now in terms of our 
economy than reassuring our people that we will have the natural gas 
supplies we need for the future. The Alaska natural gas pipeline can do 
it. It will help to fill the gap for the immediate future once it is 
constructed, and the benefits of the Alaska pipeline will have lasting 
effects on our Nation.
  It will take a long time to construct the pipeline. We estimate it 
will be 2012 or 2013 before that gas actually gets to market. But once 
it gets to market, it will be competing with new liquefied natural gas 
that will be coming from foreign sources.
  It is estimated that eventually we will import about 6 percent of our 
gas supplies in LNG. The counterweight to LNG is Alaska's gas. There is 
no other source in the United States with such an enormous amount of 
gas.
  I urge us to move swiftly on this bill, and I will do anything I can 
to help accelerate the decisions on this bill. Again, I congratulate 
the two Senators from New Mexico for what they have done so far. I wish 
we could get together on a bipartisan basis and come up with a 
substitute. We ought to find some way to resolve these differences. The 
country needs this energy, and my State and the country need this 
project. I urge Senators to consider what we have to do to get this 
Energy bill passed as quickly as possible and that it contain the 
legislative authorization that is now in the bill and the tax 
provisions necessary to get the pipeline built.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are preparing a unanimous consent 
request with reference to CAFE that has a reasonable chance. I wish to 
say to everyone, the distinguished Senator from Alaska just suggested 
that we attempt to get this bill completed, suggesting that we sit down 
and try to

[[Page 20001]]

 find some alternative. In this Senator's humble opinion, there are 
ample votes to get the pending bill passed. Individual Senators, 
justifiably, have reason for delay. That is their business, and they 
are going to do just that.
  The question is how long will they delay and to what end. There is no 
question that the Senator is correct with respect to natural gas. There 
are even other provisions with reference to natural gas. But the issue 
now is to get an agreement where we can have some votes.
  It appears to me that we are now close to getting something done on 
CAFE. There are two very important CAFE amendments. We are trying to 
get them written up where we will get them scheduled for debate and 
votes shortly after the recess this afternoon, after which the pending 
amendment will obviously be the Campbell amendment, and we will attempt 
to dispose of that amendment. Then we are free to move with dispatch, I 
say to the Senator from Alaska.
  I wonder if we are pretty close to getting a unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. REID. Perhaps Senator Durbin can start his debate, and as soon as 
the unanimous consent request is prepared, perhaps he will yield the 
floor so the Senator may put the request to the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might we count his time now? I have no objection. He is 
going to get some time in the unanimous consent request. I ask that 
whatever time he uses now be counted.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have been here an hour trying to begin the debate. I 
have tried to cooperate completely. I ask the Senator from New Mexico 
if he will give me assurance that I will get an up-or-down vote on my 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He will. Did the Senator ask for an up-or-down vote on 
his amendment?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I cannot give the Senator that assurance. It is not 
totally up to me. If it was up to me, it would be all right. It is not 
up to me.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will it be included in the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is not included.
  Mr. DURBIN. It could be.
  Mr. REID. The unanimous consent request says ``on or in relation'' to 
the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, ``on or in relation.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I know where that is headed. I will proceed to engage in 
a debate on this amendment if no one else is seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from New Mexico?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree. The Senator can have an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. REID. And as to Senator Domenici's request, Senator Durbin's time 
will be counted against the time in the order; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand my amendment is not pending, 
although it has been offered and set aside. I would like to address 
that amendment and engage in some explanation for my colleagues so they 
can understand what will be voted on shortly by the Senate.
  I hold in my hand S. 14, and it is the bill that has been prepared, 
with long hours of work by the Senator from New Mexico and many others, 
to address the energy security of the United States of America. I 
suggest that if one visits the State of Nevada or the State of New 
Mexico or my home State of Illinois and asks the average person on the 
street, If the Senate is serious about energy security, should they 
consider the fuel efficiency and fuel economy of the cars and trucks 
that we drive, the answer would be universally yes because people 
intuitively know we are dependent on overseas oil to power our cars and 
trucks, and that, of course, is expensive not only in terms of dollar 
amounts but in terms of our political commitment to Saudi Arabia and 
other countries.
  If we are talking about America's energy security, most Americans 
believe S. 14 would include provisions that lead to more fuel 
efficiency and more fuel economy of America's cars and trucks. But the 
sad report for the American people is this: They are wrong.
  S. 14 includes no provisions requiring that automobile manufacturers 
provide us more fuel-efficient cars in the future. So how can it be a 
serious energy proposal? How can we talk about our energy security if 
we ignore the obvious?
  Let's take a look for a moment at what we face. The vast majority of 
oil reserves in the world, according to this chart, are in the Middle 
East. In terms of the billions of barrels of oil, there are 677 billion 
barrels of oil in the Middle East. There is no other part of the world 
that can even come close in terms of its potential for providing oil. 
The closest I guess would be South and Central America with some 86 
billion and then, of course, North America, some 76 billion. But the 
reserve of oil in the world, outside of the Middle East, pales in 
comparison.
  That is important for us to consider because we in the United States 
and in Canada are the largest global consumers in the world of oil per 
capita. These 1999 figures show of what I am speaking. In the United 
States and Canada, we consumed 3 gallons of oil for every man, woman, 
and child every day in 1999. That is 3 gallons a day.
  Let's look at other industrialized countries. It is 1.3 gallons per 
capita in other industrialized countries.
  The world average was about half a gallon. So we have a veracious 
appetite for oil that we do not own.
  When we are talking about energy security, we have to wonder how this 
bill, S. 14, can honestly address energy security without addressing 
the obvious--that unless and until we are less dependent on foreign oil 
to sustain our lives and our economy, how in the world can we reach 
energy security?
  The obvious question is, What are we doing with all of this oil? 
Well, intuitively we know the answer, but this chart tells us with 
specifics: U.S. oil demand by sector, over a 50-year period of time.
  What we will find is this: Cars, SUVs, minivans, pickup trucks, and 
other vehicles account for 40 percent of U.S. oil consumption; and the 
transportation sector in total, 60 percent. They own the oil. We 
consume it in quantities unparalleled in the world. We consume it to 
power our vehicles.
  Stick with me because I think this takes us to the end point and why 
the Durbin amendment really gets to the heart of energy security.
  The amendment which I have proposed would save a cumulative amount of 
123 billion gallons of oil by 2015.
  Now, some have said there are other ways to do this; we do not have 
to ask for Detroit or any automobile manufacturers to do anything 
responsible for fuel efficiency and fuel economy. We can ignore that. 
Let the market work. We continue to have bigger, heavier, less fuel 
efficient vehicles. Just ignore it. There are other ways out. There is 
an easy way to deal with it.
  What is the easy way that opponents of my amendment are proposing? 
Take a look at it. One of them is, let's go drilling for oil in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Take a refuge created by President 
Eisenhower in the 1950s, that is supposed to be protected, and open it 
up for oil exploration. They say: If we just open up the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, we do not have to worry about cars, trucks, 
and fuel efficiency. There is so much oil up there, we just do not have 
to sweat it. So give a little. Compromise this national wildlife 
refuge. Let oil companies come in and make a few bucks and future 
generations are going to be in a much better position.
  Look at the facts. Look at the comparison. Look at what the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge will save for us, or at least produce for us, 
in terms of billions of gallons of gasoline over a 17-

[[Page 20002]]

year period of time. The number is down here and it shows, I think 
conclusively, that we are dealing with a very small amount that would 
come out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; in fact, less than a 
tenth of what we would derive if we set about a sensible national 
energy policy calling for more fuel efficient cars and trucks.
  NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has a 
proposal that would save 20 billion gallons of gas, and that is a good 
idea, but that again is just a fraction of what we can do if we address 
the obvious: The fuel economy of the cars we drive.
  A lot of people have said: We can invent our way out of this problem. 
We do not have to sweat it in terms of demanding from Detroit and other 
automobile manufacturers that they come up with better cars and trucks. 
Let them continue to sell these behemoths on the road that have 
terrible fuel economy and eventually we are going to invent our way out 
of the problem.
  Well, would that that were true. In this situation, when we take a 
look at the proposals for fuel cell vehicles, one of the things we have 
heard about is hydrogen power. I support that. I think the President's 
research is a good idea. But even if it is successful, in a matter of 
12 years it could save us less than 10 billion gallons of gasoline. 
That is less than a tenth of what my amendment would achieve.
  What about the consumers? I have heard Senators say: We have no right 
to dictate to American consumers what they want, what they prefer. We 
should let the consumers have what they want. Let the market govern.
  I will tell my colleagues what consumers have said. An annual survey 
by J.D. Power and Associates found that fuel consumption was the second 
most common driver complaint industry-wide.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a unanimous 
consent request, I ask that Senator Domenici now be recognized to offer 
a unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be permitted to speak in relation to amendments Nos. 
1384 and 1386: Senator Levin, 10 minutes; Senator Bond, 10 minutes; 
Senator Lott, 10 minutes, to follow Senator Durbin; Senator Stabenow, 
10 minutes; Senator Lautenberg, 10 minutes; Senator Durbin, 40 minutes; 
Senator Bingaman, 5 minutes; Senator Domenici, 5 minutes. Further, that 
the Bond amendment be amended with a Bingaman second-degree amendment 
which is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides. Further, I 
ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of the 
time, the votes occur on the Durbin amendment No. 1384, to be followed 
by a vote in relation to the Bond amendment No. 1386, as amended, at a 
time determined by the majority leader after consultation with the 
Democratic leader, and that there be no second-degree amendments in 
order to the amendments prior to the votes in relation to the 
amendments.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the distinguished chairman of the 
committee modify his amendment to allow Senator Bingaman 5 minutes to 
speak after Senator Lott on the Levin amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request of the Senator from New Mexico?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, only to clarify where I am 
with my 40 minutes, I do not know how much time I have consumed. I 
inquire of the Chair how much time I have consumed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has consumed 8\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. Nothing happens until 11:15, and then we go to a judge. So 
the Senator has plenty of time to speak.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator. I have no objection to the unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request of the Senator from New Mexico?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time 
to be determined by the majority leader, with the concurrence of the 
Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of 
H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, en bloc, under the following conditions for 
debate only: Senators Grassley, 45; Baucus, 45; Hollings, 60; Daschle, 
30; Jeffords, 60; Sessions in control of 45; Hatch, 15; Stevens, 15; 
Cornyn, 15; Feinstein, 60. I further ask that upon the use or yielding 
back of the time, the bills be read a third time and the Senate 
immediately proceed to a Senate resolution regarding immigration 
provisions included in the Singapore and Chile free trade agreements; 
the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table; provided, further, that the 
Senate then proceed to a vote on passage of the Singapore free trade 
agreement followed by a vote on passage of the Chile free trade 
agreement, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished manager of the bill 
if he would modify the agreement to allow Senator Harkin 30 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. On the unanimous consent I just read?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there objection to the original unanimous consent request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Before we proceed to Senator Durbin, I say to all the 
Senators, so there will be no misunderstanding, we are going to dispose 
of the CAFE amendments this afternoon. That means that the next 
amendment which will be before us is the amendment regarding Indians. 
If there continues to be objection that we cannot set it aside, we will 
vote either on it or in relation to it immediately following 
disposition of the CAFE amendments. It is the intention of the manager 
that that occur, after which time it is the intention of the manager to 
proceed to lay before the Senate the electricity amendment which has 
been in the hands of Senators for almost 4 days now.
  I thank everyone for their cooperation thus far. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Chair be kind enough to notify me after I have 
used 25 minutes of the 40 minutes I have allocated under the unanimous 
consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. DURBIN. Going back to the point I was making about more fuel 
efficient vehicles, a lot of people say if we are going to have more 
fuel efficient vehicles, they are going to cost more and they have to 
add things to these vehicles that will be expensive to consumers. But 
they fail to account for several things. One is that a more fuel 
efficient vehicle costs more money to operate. If it costs $1,200--and 
that is the estimate from the National Academy of Sciences--to put on 
the new fuel-saving technology, over the life of the car that same 
consumer will save $2,000 in terms of the gasoline they have to buy.
  Arguing that this is a consumer burden is plain wrong. In fact, most 
consumers are concerned about fuel economy; unfortunately, the Senate 
is not. The Senate has taken the position, which unfortunately major 
automobile manufacturers in this country espouse, that we should not be 
concerned about fuel efficiency and fuel economy.
  As a person who makes a point of trying always to buy American 
vehicles and having done that all my life, it is becoming increasingly 
apparent that Detroit is falling further and further behind when it 
comes to new, environmentally responsible technology to deal with fuel 
efficiency.
  What we have with the Levin-Bond amendment is a concession to the 
fact that Detroit continues to fail, Detroit continues to come in 
second when we

[[Page 20003]]

deal with new technology. I am concerned about that. Our American 
automobile industry is critically important to our economy.
  As a person who wants to buy American as often as possible, I look at 
this and say we have to do better. This Energy bill before the Senate 
does not challenge the automobile industry to do better at all. It 
basically says we are going to include language which does not place 
any burden on the automobile manufacturing industry or anyone else. We 
are going to ignore the CAFE standards and basically allow what is 
currently existing to continue indefinitely. That is energy security? I 
don't think so.
  One of the concerns I have is the impact on pollution by automobile 
emissions. The United States produces a third of the greenhouse gases 
emitted from automobiles worldwide. Out of all of the emissions from 
automobiles in the world, the United States is responsible for one-
third of the pollution. These greenhouse gases affect agriculture, 
public health, the economy, our sea levels and shore lines. The 
greatest impact is at the North and South Pole.
  Scientists predict, for example, that many species will be threatened 
because of the greenhouse gases that are aggravated and exacerbated by 
the emissions from the tailpipes of our cars and trucks. That is a 
reality.
  It is not just a question of lessening our dependence on foreign oil 
but a question of environmental responsibility. Let me give one 
illustration. When I was a young boy growing up in East St. Louis, IL, 
one of the biggest treats in my life was to go over to the St. Louis 
zoo. I would stand there watching the polar bears until my mom and dad 
finally said we had to go home. I got the biggest kick out of that as a 
kid. A lot of children around America look at polar bears--the big, 
huge, lumbering white bears in zoos--and think, what a magnificent 
creature. The sad reality is if we do not get honest about the 
environment and the destruction of the environment for which we are 
responsible, this species of animal will be threatened.
  Scientists say if the most optimistic scenario should evolve, the 
polar bears will not be extinct for 100 years. It means that though 
your children may see them during their lifetime, their children will 
not. Others say, no, 50 years. If that is true, if in 50 years polar 
bears will be extinct because of the pollution coming out of tailpipes 
of our cars, because of the refusal of the Senate to accept the 
responsibility to reduce automobile emissions, to reduce the use of 
fuel, if that happens in 50 years, you can say to your children and 
grandchildren today, go to the zoo and look closely because this animal 
will not be here for your children to see. There is no way.
  Do we want that burden? Do we want to accept that burden in the name 
of not pushing the automobile companies to make more fuel-efficient 
vehicles? That is what this vote comes down to.
  From my point of view it is very simple and very sad. We sometimes 
have a responsibility to make tough decisions in the Senate. We have a 
responsibility to say to these big multinational corporations that 
produce these automobiles: You have to do better. You have to do better 
so the United States is not dependent on foreign oil, so we have true 
energy security and reduce the environmental degradation and damage of 
air pollution. We have to accept that responsibility. If we don't, who 
will? Do you expect the marketplace to answer this? The marketplace 
will answer this by eliminating this species from the Earth. That is 
how the marketplace will answer.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I take this opportunity to tell the Senator from Illinois 
through the Chair that this is the most important amendment dealing 
with the environment that will be offered all year. I was asked in a 
television interview yesterday what I believed was the most important 
environmental issue facing America today. I said fuel efficiency of 
automobiles. There is not a close second.
  I believe in the Clean Air Act, clean water, endangered species, 
historical preservation, and there is not an issue that is more 
important to the people of America and to the world than fuel 
efficiency of these cars and trucks in America today.
  I want the record to be spread with the fact that the Senator from 
Illinois has offered, in my opinion, the most important environmental 
amendment that could be offered this Congress. I give the Senator my 
support.
  I know what the vote was previously on this issue. We will probably 
lose this, which is too bad. The majority of the people in America 
support this amendment. The majority of people in America support this 
legislation. The Senate does not. That is too bad. On this issue we are 
not reflecting the will of the American people.
  Does the Senator acknowledge that?
  Mr. DURBIN. I agree with the Senator. So does the League of 
Conservation Voters, an organization in Washington that looks for 
important environmental votes. They said the Durbin amendment is a 
critical vote on the scorecards of Senators across the United States 
because it gets to the basics: Do you care about the future? Do you 
care about the responsibilities of American consumers and American 
producers of automobiles to make a better car and a better truck? If 
you do not care, then you want the current situation to continue.
  Remember the history. If you reflect on the history, where did we 
come up with the word ``cafe''? How was this created? It was created by 
a law in this Chamber in 1975 which said to automobile manufacturers: 
You have to do better; 14 miles a gallon is sinful. It will make us 
more dependent on foreign oil and it will pollute the environment. You 
must produce a more efficient car.
  The chorus from Detroit and other automobile manufacturers could be 
heard all over the Chamber. They said the opponents of this amendment 
are saying it is technically impossible to make more fuel-efficient 
cars. It cannot be done.
  Second, go ahead and make more fuel-efficient cars; they will not be 
as safe. We guarantee it. We will be riding around in these flimsy cars 
that are so light that lives will be lost right and left.
  Third, they said: This is a job killer. More fuel efficiency for cars 
in America means we are going to ship American automobile manufacturing 
jobs overseas.
  Those are the same three arguments they are making today. The Senate 
ignored them in 1975. The Senate said to the special interest groups: 
You are wrong. America's national interests demand we pass this bill. 
And we did.
  As a result of passing that bill, we increased the fuel efficiency of 
America's vehicles from 14 miles a gallon to 27.5 miles a gallon in 10 
years by Government mandate from a law we passed.
  Is America a better place as a result? You bet. We have less air 
pollution; we did not sacrifice automobile safety; and we still have a 
vibrant automobile manufacturing industry.
  To suggest we are going to kill jobs because we want cars that are 
more fuel efficient is, frankly, to wave the white flag and say 
Americans are not smart enough. We cannot figure this out.
  Why is it, time and again, when it comes to fuel-efficient vehicles, 
automobile manufacturers from other countries seem to have it figured 
out? Look at these hybrid vehicles. Gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles 
have great potential. Is it as embarrassing to my colleagues in the 
Senate as it is to me that the first two companies to produce these 
vehicles were Toyota and Honda? Where was Ford? Where was General 
Motors? Where was Daimler-Chrysler? Why do we always have to come in 
second when it comes to this technology? Is it that our people are not 
smart enough? I don't buy that. What is lacking is leadership, 
leadership in the American automobile industry and leadership in the 
Senate.
  My colleagues will come to the Senate today and say 40 miles a gallon 
on our cars in 12 years cannot be done. If it is going to be done, you 
are going to condemn soccer moms and their kids to

[[Page 20004]]

driving back and forth in cars that are death traps.
  Listen, another thing that is wrong with the Durbin amendment, you 
will hear, is it is going to cost us jobs to America. That is the same 
story, the same argument we heard 28 years ago, the same tired old 
arguments that give up and give in instead of showing real leadership 
as this amendment demands that we do.
  I say to my colleagues in the Senate, for goodness' sake, don't take 
the telephone calls from the special interest groups for a few hours. 
Listen to your heart and your mind and understand where the American 
people are.
  Yesterday I was in the south suburbs of Chicago, Palos Heights. A 
woman came up to me who appeared to be a soccer mom. She stopped by the 
Dominick's food store, and I saw her as she walked by. She knew about 
this amendment, and she said: ``Thank you for doing this. We have to do 
something about these gas guzzlers.''
  She knows, as we know, that no individual consumer can change this. 
Unless we show leadership, Detroit is going to continue to make the 
most fuel inefficient vehicles, put them on the highway, creating more 
pollution, more dependence on foreign oil, and ultimately destroying 
the environment of the Earth on which we live.
  I don't think I am overstating the case--not at all. When 60 percent 
of the oil we import into America goes into our transportation, I 
believe I am understating the case. You cannot have a serious bill 
about America's energy security, or any serious legislation that 
considers the impact of energy on the environment, and ignore this 
issue. Ignore it we have.
  The Landrieu amendment, which I supported, is a good idea. It is a 
study. It is an important message. It has no teeth, no enforcement. The 
same thing is true on the Levin-Bond amendment. It is an amendment 
that, in name, says we are concerned about this but, in fact, creates 
no responsibility on the automobile industry to do anything.
  We can do things. The technology is within our grasp. What we need is 
the leadership in the Senate. My amendment would say we have to improve 
the fuel efficiency of cars and SUVs, minivans and crossover utility 
vehicles, to 40 miles a gallon by the year 2015; to require pickup 
trucks and vans to achieve a CAFE standard of 27.5 miles per gallon by 
the same year.
  It changes the definition of passenger vehicle. That has been one of 
the most egregious violations of the original intent of the CAFE law 
that has occurred. You know these huge monster vehicles called Hummers, 
Humvees, and the like. Take a look at those and realize for a minute 
they are exempt from the CAFE law.
  Take a look at these massive SUVs and realize we create tax 
incentives for businesses to buy the most fuel inefficient cars in 
America. I have a tax amendment, which will not be part of the 
amendment I offer this morning, but it goes after this tax policy which 
encourages the worst instead of the best.
  The argument was made here, as I said earlier, that this technology 
is so expensive, it is going to cost $1,200 a car.
  Forgive me; I have been buying cars recently. Cars are pretty 
expensive nowadays, and $20,000 and up, I guess, is average. Mr. 
President, $1,200 on that cost at the front end, if you are going to 
save $2,000 in gasoline over the life of the vehicle, is certainly not 
too much to ask.
  In terms of losing jobs, the Union of Concerned Scientists say the 
opponents of this amendment have it all wrong. The opponents say, if we 
talk about new technology and American leadership, we are going to lose 
jobs. Just the opposite occurs. We are going to be creating jobs to 
create this new technology. We will be reducing the cost of business. 
The businesses that are dependent on cars and trucks with better fuel 
efficiency will have lower costs, lower input costs, will be more 
productive and more competitive. But the opponents just don't see it. 
They have tunnel vision. What they see are these massive SUVs getting 
bigger and bigger and the American consumers having no alternative but 
to buy.
  Many have said the Durbin amendment is not necessary. I would say the 
Landrieu measure includes no new authorities to help reach oil savings 
goals and no enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the requirement be 
fulfilled.
  The Levin-Bond amendment, they say, is based on sound science. But I 
would say the contrary is true. In 2002, the National Academy of 
Sciences found that existing and emerging technologies--existing and 
emerging technologies--could improve fuel efficiency of a light truck 
50 percent to 65 percent; the fuel efficiency of cars 40 to 60 percent.
  The people who oppose this amendment ignore the reality. This 
technology is within our grasp. But, sadly, what we have found over and 
over again is that Detroit and other automobile manufacturers do not 
believe they have any obligation to offer it.
  The Levin-Bond amendment does not require an increase in fuel 
efficiency. It delays the job, passes the buck to NHTSA. It adds new 
roadblocks to NHTSA's decisionmaking process. NHTSA has failed to make 
any meaningful increase to fuel economy for 10 years. The record is 
there. We know if you hand this over to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, you are not going to get fuel efficiency for a 
decade. Its latest increase of 1.5 miles per gallon to light trucks is 
almost laughable, to think that is the best they can do considering 
that the standards for light trucks were last changed 18 years ago.
  So if every 18 years we are going to increase the efficiency of 
vehicles in America by 1.5 miles a gallon, how long do you think we 
will be dependent on foreign oil? The answer is obvious: Forever.
  We are addressing fuel efficiency through the President's hydrogen 
fuel cell initiative. I support that. But that certainly is not the 
total answer.
  I say to my colleagues, there are people in the business of selling 
cars. There are people in the business of buying cars. There are 
consumers across America who are going to ask one basic question: Is S. 
14 for real? It is not for real if we do not include any provisions 
requiring more fuel efficiency and more fuel economy of our vehicles.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 25 minutes.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have used 7 
minutes of my time. I intend to yield the remaining 3 minutes to my 
colleague from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think Senators are all aware, now, that if 
you are serious about doing something positive regarding fuel 
efficiency and safety standards but avoiding something negative for 
jobs, safety, and consumer choice impact, you should vote yes on the 
Levin-Bond CAFE amendment to the pending Energy bill.
  I am only going to make this speech one time, not three times as 
those on the other side do, as we drag it out. I want to point out, 
again, a similar amendment was agreed to last year on a vote of 62 to 
38, supported on both sides of the aisle.
  As I said on the floor a few days ago, Members supported our 
amendment because they knew then and I hope they know now that setting 
fuel economy standards is complicated. Future standards should be based 
on sound science and take into account important criteria: Jobs, 
technology, consumer choice, and many others, but also safety--safety 
which has been compromised by the politically set lower CAFE standards 
of the past. They should not be based on the political numbers. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose the higher, politically set CAFE numbers 
included in the Durbin and Feinstein amendments.
  There are a lot of people who are very strongly supportive of the 
Bond-Levin amendment--farmers, union members, soccer moms, small 
businesses. The United Auto Workers wrote to us specifically urging 
defeat of the Durbin and Feinstein bills. The Chamber of Commerce also 
did. Not often do

[[Page 20005]]

you see the UAW and Chamber teamed up, in opposition, but the people 
who have proposed these unreasonable standards have managed to achieve 
it.
  I spent a lot of time on this floor talking about the impact of 
excessive CAFE standards, and I think it is important to talk about the 
hard industry data, economic impact, and the National Academy of 
Sciences report. After listening to the debate of the last few years, 
it is clear there are many myths.
  The first myth is automakers take advantage of an SUV loophole. Fact: 
During the creation of the program in 1975, Congress recognized, 
because of their utility, different standards should be set for light 
trucks and passenger cars. While light trucks feature more amenities 
than their predecessors and provide more than 50 percent better fuel 
economy than their 1970 counterparts, they remain fundamentally trucks. 
They satisfy consumer needs for safety, passenger cargo space, towing 
ability, and off-road capability.
  Second myth: Only Congress can increase CAFE standards. The other 
side has floated the old canard that our amendment ignores CAFE 
standards.
  Fact No. 1, the Bond-Levin amendment requires increasing CAFE 
standards to the maximum extent feasible as far as the technology will 
permit.
  Fact No. 2, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has 
the authority and expertise to change fuel economy regulations, and a 
few months ago it announced the biggest increase in 20 years in CAFE 
levels for light trucks and SUVs. The agency has already announced its 
intention to set new CAFE standards starting in 2008.
  The difference is they are going to use science and technology and 
not force the use of smaller cars that kill people on the road more 
frequently.
  Another myth is that automakers need to use more technology in their 
vehicles to increase full economy.
  Fact: The auto industry utilizes world-class technology across 
product lines. The average automobile contains 40 to 50 microprocessors 
and has far more power than the computers used for the Apollo mission 
to the Moon. Engineers and scientists for the big three domestic 
manufacturers and their international competitors have focused on 
developments in advanced technology to produce cleaner, more full-
efficient vehicles along with a host of safety advancements.
  In addition, my colleague from Illinois has said the National Academy 
of Sciences has a huge number that can be achieved. If you will read 
that NAS study, I ask my colleagues to focus on the part of the NAS 
report which states ``The committee cannot emphasize strong enough that 
the cost-efficient fuel economy levels are not recommended CAFE 
goals''--not recommended CAFE goals.
  Let us stick with science.
  Proponents of higher CAFE standards try to avoid any discussion of 
the job impact or just dismiss concerns as overreacting. But we have 
heard, as I have said, from union officials, technical experts, plant 
managers, local dealers, and small businesses. They tell me the only 
way for manufacturers to meet these unrealistic political numbers is to 
cut back significantly on producing light trucks, minivans, and SUVs, 
or to make them significantly smaller.
  Look at this. This is a picture of a Ford F-250 series pickup truck. 
It is a workhorse. You buy this truck because you have a job to do, 
whether it is farming, construction, hauling, or any number of other 
legitimate needs. It weighs somewhere between 8,500 pounds gross 
vehicle weight or less than 10,000. It is currently not covered by CAFE 
as it is configured to do more than haul people. Under the Durbin 
proposal, these vehicles would be swept into the CAFE program to the 
detriment of everybody. They would become CAFE-constrained with several 
bad outcomes.
  First, you tell this rancher or farmer that he will need to get a 
golf cart with a little wagon to carry one bale of hay at a time or you 
tell other farmers, ranchers, and construction workers they won't be 
able to buy these vehicles, and then you explain to the workers in the 
automobile industry how they will have jobs.
  Did you know the average compensation by employees in the auto 
industry was $69,500 in 2001? This figure is 60-percent higher than the 
average U.S. job. Those would be the jobs we would lose because they 
could no longer make this machine.
  Furthermore, as I have stated before, mandating politically set CAFE 
standards in the past has led to reduced weight, which, according to 
the National Academy of Sciences in the year they studied it, killed 
between 1,300 and 2,600 people a year on the road. That is roughly 
2,000 people a year.
  These are reasons to support the Bond-Levin amendment.
  I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  We have six production facilities in Missouri that make vehicles. In 
Kansas City, they make the F-series truck for Ford, and the Escape. In 
St. Louis, they make the Dodge Ram and the Mercury Mountaineer. There 
are 36,000 jobs in Missouri that are directly dependent on auto 
manufacturing, and 220,000 jobs that are indirectly dependent on auto 
manufacturing.
  The proposal before the Senate would require an immediate and 
substantial increase in CAFE standards which would increase the cost of 
those vehicles by anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 and would mean, in 
short, that sales would go down and thousands and thousands of people 
in Missouri would be out of a job. It would be a disaster for them.
  These are jobs that pay $50,000, $60,000, or $70,000 a year. These 
are jobs that mean kids can go to school and families can take 
vacations.
  That is what we are talking about. This is not theory. This is not 
abstraction for them. It is bad enough when we try to help people get 
jobs and preserve their jobs and we fail because of extreme 
philosophies or partisanship or personalities or whatever. It is worse 
when we do something that actually takes their jobs away from them. 
They ought to be able to expect this Government is going to try to help 
them get jobs and preserve jobs. At a minimum, we ought not to pass 
legislation that takes it away from them.
  I know this isn't going to happen. The Union of Concerned Scientists 
says the technology is available to do this without costing any jobs. 
That is a great comfort for my people back in Missouri who are trying 
to come out of a recession.
  Maybe we can forgive them for being concerned and not trusting the 
Union of Concerned Scientists when the people who make the cars--the 
auto manufacturers--say they can't do it. The engineers who design the 
cars say they can't do it. The unions that produce the cars say they 
can't do it. I hope we will forgive my people back home in Missouri who 
depend on these jobs for being a little bit concerned.
  I presided over the House while we were debating the measure to 
explore for oil in ANWR, which I think is related to this a little bit. 
A lot of folks who didn't want to explore for oil in ANWR wouldn't 
accept the fact we have the technology available today to do that 
without affecting the environment. They said we can't take that chance 
because it might adversely affect the caribou. It might be bad for the 
tundra in ANWR. Many of the same people who are advocating this big 
increase in CAFE standards said the technology is not available and we 
can't do it. They weren't going to take a chance when what was at stake 
was the caribou or the tundra. But they are willing to take a chance 
when what is at stake is somebody else's job in Missouri.
  I thank the Chair. I will look forward to having a little more time 
later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think I have 10 minutes under the 
reservation. I would like to reserve 2 minutes of that time so Senator 
Bond can close when the debate is finished on this side.

[[Page 20006]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could, just for a matter of 
parliamentary procedure, at 11:15 we consider the judges. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Mississippi be allowed to 
complete his statement before we start with the judgeship. It would be 
3 minutes later. Is that what the Senator wants?
  Mr. LOTT. That would be much appreciated.
  Mr. REID. We would extend consideration of the judgeship for 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is my 
understanding that I have been given 10 minutes. Is that right?
  Mr. REID. Yes but not now. We are going to the judge at 11:15. The 
Senator from Mississippi has the floor.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will speak more later on about the bill 
itself in general terms. But for 3 years the Senate has been trying to 
come to an agreement on legislation that could get through the 
conference and be sent to the President so we will have a national 
energy policy. I believe this is a very important issue for the future 
of this country. If we don't have a national energy policy and if we 
don't deal with these many areas of concern, the day will come when the 
lack of a national energy policy will cause national security or 
economic problems for this country. We could see that even this coming 
winter as we see a declining availability of natural gas.
  By the way, it is inexcusable that we are having a national gas 
shortage. It is because of our policies. That led to this shortage. If 
we don't have an adequate supply, it will affect the economy across the 
board. It is already affecting the chemical industry in my State, and 
the fertilizer industry. It is going to affect people's quality of 
life. This is so important. We need the whole package. We need more 
production. We need new technology. We need clean coal technology. That 
is just one example. We need more conservation of a responsible nature. 
We need to look at alternative fuels. I think a lot of these 
alternative fuels are, quite frankly, not very legitimate. But it is 
legitimate to try to find alternative fuels.
  I urge my colleagues, let us work together. Let us get this done, get 
it into conference, and let us produce a national energy policy.
  I think this issue is more important than any issue Congress is 
considering at this time. It is urgent that we get this work done.
  I wanted to speak in support of the Bond-Levin amendment. I know very 
good work has been done on this amendment. I worked last year with 
Senator Bond and Senator Levin. They have given a lot of thought to how 
this should be designed. It bases decisions on these CAFE standards on 
science and solid data. I believe this idea of just plucking a number 
out of the air and saying that number is achievable is irresponsible. 
It may not even be achievable. Based on what? It makes somebody feel 
good? And what about the choices for the American people? What about 
the sacrifices in safety that we are asking them to make?
  When you just pick a number, such as 32 miles per gallon or 37 miles 
per gallon, I don't think that is a wise decision, unless it has been 
based on thorough study and solid data. Of course, the organization to 
make that determination is the NHTSA. They have the expertise to 
analyze the numbers and consider all that should be involved, including 
the jobs that might be affected, the technology, how this improved fuel 
efficiency could be obtained, and, yes, safety. There are proposals out 
there which would adversely affect all these areas, including jobs, 
employment, consumer choice, and safety.
  The National Academy of Sciences CAFE report declared there will be 
more deaths and injuries if fuel economy standards are raised too fast 
without proper consideration given to how that is being done and what 
impact it might have.
  This amendment is supported by a broad coalition: labor, the UAW, the 
AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the Farm Bureau, automobile dealers, and over 40 other 
organizations. That ought to tell you something. That type of broad 
support indicates that people are concerned about what might be done 
with this CAFE standard.
  Yes, we should continue to work to improve fuel efficiency. We should 
have incentives to move in that direction. But I am very worried we are 
going to cause some real damage. What about the choice made by 
Americans? This is still America, isn't it?
  Is the Federal Government going to mandate that every driver drive an 
automobile like the one in this picture? Last year, I talked about the 
``purple people eater.'' Shown in this picture is a version of the 
``purple people eater.'' That might be fine around town in Washington, 
DC, but I can tell you, on some of the back roads in my State of 
Mississippi that will get you killed. That is not practical and people 
will not choose to drive it. They want an SUV or they want a pickup 
truck. And they don't want to be penalized by the Federal Government 
saying to them: You have to do this. And, by the way, if you don't do 
this, we will make you pay some kind of a price. This is ridiculous.
  In my own case, my family is growing. We have our children and 
grandchildren. It is a wonderful deal. Then, in August, when we take 
our annual family vacation, I have a choice. I can have a bigger 
automobile with the three seats in it, where we can securely carefully 
fasten our grandchildren in these safety seats. We can take two 
automobiles, each being an SUV, or we can take three automobiles. Now, 
how much fuel is saved? And how much safety is given up?
  Mr. President, this is ridiculous. It continues to be. It was last 
year. The American people are speaking with their choices. They are 
voting with their feet and their cash. They can buy these more fuel-
efficient automobiles, but they are not doing it.
  What percent is actually buying these smaller automobiles? I think, 
any way you slice it, not more than 14 percent. The American people are 
making other choices.
  So I think what we are doing is very important. I think there are a 
lot of very substantive issues involved, and the least of which is not 
the American people's choices.
  I do not think we should be forced to drive that automobile shown in 
the picture. I don't know who makes that automobile. I don't know where 
it is made, but it is probably reposing somewhere in France or Germany. 
I like the bigger vehicle shown in the picture behind it.
  The American people have a need for vans or SUVs or pickup trucks. I 
understand there is going to be an amendment offered that will pick on 
particularly light trucks. Goodness gracious, light trucks use less 
fuel. Why pick on a light truck versus a heavy truck? This makes no 
sense.
  I oppose the amendment that is going to be advocated by Senator 
McCain and, I think, Senator Feinstein. I oppose the Durbin amendment.
  This amendment by Bond and Levin is bipartisan. It makes common 
sense. It moves us in the right direction. But it is based on 
commonsense science and solid data. So I urge that we adopt this 
amendment, and let's leave the choice in the hands of the American 
people and not have the ``Grand Poobah Government'' tell us what we 
have to do in one more area. Don't make the American people drive this 
little grunt of a car shown here.
  Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from Missouri, keeping in mind that Senator Bond would have 2 
minutes to close at the end of the debate on this section, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I doubt I will use the full 3\1/2\ 
minutes. It is just that I ran out of time before when I

[[Page 20007]]

was in the middle of ranting and raving on this subject. I would hate 
to close my remarks on that tone, anyway.
  Let me explain to the Senate why this is so important to me 
personally. I recently visited the Kansas City Ford plant where they 
make the new Ford 150 truck. It is a triumph of American engineering 
and the productivity of American workers.
  The workers there are proud of that truck. And they should be proud 
of it. It means many people will be able to travel in this country 
safely and with comfort. I drive an SUV. I don't drive it because I am 
trying to hurt the environment or affect our energy independence. I 
drive it because we have small children. I used to drive a hatchback, 
but if we got in an accident in that hatchback, it would fold up like 
an accordion. That is why I drive an SUV. That is why millions of 
people do.
  The Senator from Mississippi is right to say it is wrong to disparage 
these vehicles. People who make these vehicles in Missouri and around 
the country are proud of what they do. They are satisfied with their 
jobs. Let's not gamble with their jobs. We are trying to come out of a 
recession. We are trying to create jobs in this country.
  Vote for the Bond-Levin amendment. It is a good, modern amendment and 
moves us forward. It protects people's jobs. I urge the Senate to 
support the amendment.
  I thank the Senator from Mississippi for yielding me a few extra 
minutes. I yield back whatever time remains.

                          ____________________