[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3052-3053]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      COLLOQUIES REGARDING H.R. 6

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have been asked about the timing of the 
colloquy that I entered into with Senators Inouye and Feinstein on 
December 13, 2007, during consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
  Immediately prior to the vote on cloture, on the motion to concur 
with an amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
text of H.R. 6, I was recognized on the Senate floor and requested and 
obtained consent ``that a colloquy between myself, Senator Inouye and 
Senator Feinstein be inserted in the record at this point.''
  Agreement among the three of us on the content of that colloquy was 
critical to both my vote for cloture and my later vote for final 
passage, as I indicated in my own statement prior to final passage that 
was submitted later in the day. The colloquy between Senator Inouye, 
Senator Feinstein, and me read in its entirety, as follows:

                   NHTSA Regulations on Fuel Economy

       Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support this bill and, in 
     particular, the provisions that require the Department of 
     Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration, NHTSA, to set new fuel economy standards for 
     vehicles that will reach an industry fleet wide level of 35 
     miles per gallon by 2020 based on my understanding that these 
     new Federal standards will not be undercut in the future by 
     regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency 
     regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
       I believe that we have taken historic steps in this 
     legislation by putting in place ambitious but achievable fuel 
     economy standards that will reduce our Nation's fuel 
     consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In this 
     legislation, the Senate and House have come together and 
     established the appropriate level of fuel economy standards 
     and have directed NHTSA to implement that through new 
     regulations. In this legislation, the Congress has agreed 
     that the appropriate level of fuel economy to reach is 35 
     miles per gallon in 2020, or an increase of 10 miles per 
     gallon in 10 years.
       But it is essential to manufacturers that they are able to 
     plan on the 35 miles per gallon standard in 2020. We must 
     resolve now with the sponsors of this legislation in the 
     Senate any ambiguity that could arise in the future when EPA 
     issues new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from 
     vehicles pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act so 
     that our manufacturers can have certainty. With that in mind, 
     I want to clarify both Senator Inouye's and Senator 
     Feinstein's understanding and interpretation of what the 
     Congress is doing in this legislation and to clarify their 
     agreement that we want all Federal regulations in this area 
     to be consistent. We do not want to enact this legislation 
     today only to find later that we have not been sufficiently 
     diligent to avoid any conflicts in the future.
       The Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the 
     Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from 
     vehicles and to delegate that authority, as the agency deems 
     appropriate, to the State of California. This authority was 
     recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it is not our 
     purpose today to attempt to change that authority or to 
     undercut the decision of the Supreme Court. We simply want to 
     make clear that it is Congressional intent in this bill that, 
     with respect to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, any 
     future regulations

[[Page 3053]]

     issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate 
     greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be consistent with the 
     Department of Transportation's new fuel economy regulations 
     that will reach an industry fleet wide level by 35 miles per 
     gallon by 2020.
       Does the Senator from California and original sponsor of 
     this legislation, Mrs. Feinstein, agree with my view that the 
     intent of this language is for EPA regulations on greenhouse 
     gas emissions from vehicles to be consistent with the 
     direction of Congress in this 35 miles per gallon in 2020 
     legislation and consistent with regulations issued by the 
     Department of Transportation to implement this legislation?
       Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, of course, we have worked hard to come 
     together on this legislation directing NHTSA to issue new 
     fuel economy regulations to reach an industry fleet wide 
     level of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and it is our intent in 
     the bill before us that all Federal regulations in this area 
     be consistent with our 35 miles per gallon in 2020 language.
       Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for her clarification of her 
     intent.
       Does the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the 
     distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, agree with my 
     understanding of the intent of this bill that any regulations 
     issued by the Environmental Protection Agency be consistent 
     with the direction of Congress in this legislation and 
     regulations issued by the Department of Transportation to 
     implement this legislation?
       Mr. INOUYE. Yes. I agree that it is very important that all 
     Federal regulations in this area be consistent and that we 
     provide clear direction to the agency that has responsibility 
     for setting fuel economy standards, the Department of 
     Transportation.
       Mr. LEVIN. I thank my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, 
     Mr. Inouye, for his clarification.

  With the colloquy accepted and placed in the Congressional Record, I 
voted to invoke cloture. Sometime after the vote on cloture, later in 
the day, a separate colloquy between Senator Feinstein and Senator 
Inouye was inserted in the Congressional Record. It was placed in the 
Record immediately following the Levin-Feinstein- Inouye colloquy, 
quoted above, although it was, in fact, presented for inclusion in the 
Record at a later point in the day, as noted by Senator Inouye in the 
second sentence of the Inouye-Feinstein colloquy. Their colloquy reads 
as follows:

                           Agency Management

       Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have worked for many months 
     with the Senior Senator from California and the original 
     sponsor of this legislation, Mrs. Feinstein, to draft a sound 
     policy to increase fuel economy standards in our country. I 
     stated earlier today that ``all Federal regulations in this 
     area be consistent.'' I wholly agree with that notion, in 
     that these agencies have two different missions. The 
     Department of Transportation has the responsibility for 
     regulating fuel economy, and should enforce the Ten-in-Ten 
     Fuel Economy Act fully and vigorously to save oil in the 
     automobile fleet. The Environmental Protection Agency has the 
     responsibility to protect public health. These two missions 
     can and should co-exist without one undermining the other. 
     There are numerous examples in the executive branch where two 
     or more agencies share responsibility over a particular 
     issue. The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal 
     Communications Commission both oversee telemarketing 
     practices and the Do-Not-Call list.
       The FTC also shares jurisdiction over antitrust enforcement 
     with the Department of Justice. Under the current CAFE 
     system, the Department of Transportation and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency work together. DOT enforces 
     the CAFE standards, and the EPA tests vehicles for compliance 
     and fuel economy labels on cars. The President himself 
     foresaw these agencies working together and issued an 
     Executive Order on May 14, 2007, to coordinate the agencies 
     on reducing automotive greenhouse gas emissions. The DOT and 
     the EPA have separate missions that should be executed fully 
     and responsibly. I believe it is important that we ensure 
     that the agencies are properly managed by the executive 
     branch, as has been done with several agencies with shared 
     jurisdiction for decades. I plan on holding hearings next 
     session to examine this issue fully.
       Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to thank the chairman of the 
     Commerce Committee, and I would like to clarify what I 
     believe to be the intent of the legislation I sponsored to 
     increase fuel economy standards in the United States.
       The legislation increasing the fuel economy standards of 
     vehicles by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years does not impact 
     the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of the EPA, 
     California, or other States, under the Clean Air Act.
       The intent was to give NHTSA the ability to regulate fuel 
     efficiency standards of vehicles, and increase the fleetwide 
     average to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
       There was no intent in any way, shape, or form to 
     negatively affect, or otherwise restrain, California or any 
     other State's existing or future tailpipe emissions laws, or 
     any future EPA authority on tailpipe emissions.
       The two issues are separate and distinct.
       As the Supreme Court correctly observed in Massachusetts v. 
     EPA, the fact ``that DOT sets mileage standards in no way 
     licenses EPA to shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA 
     has been charged with protecting the public's health and 
     welfare, a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT's 
     mandate to promote energy efficiency. The two obligations may 
     overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies 
     cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid 
     inconsistency.''
       I agree with the Supreme Court's view of consistency. There 
     is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer 
     their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.
       The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 
     California in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Goldstone has 
     reiterated this point in finding that if approved by EPA, 
     California's standards are not preempted by the Energy Policy 
     Conservation Act.
       Title I of the Energy Security and Independence Act of 
     2007, H.R. 6, provides clear direction to the Department of 
     Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Energy 
     and the Environmental Protection Agency, to raise fuel 
     economy standards.
       By taking this action, Congress is continuing DOT's 
     existing authority to set vehicle fuel economy standards. 
     Importantly, the separate authority and responsibility of the 
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate vehicle 
     greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is in no 
     manner affected by this legislation as plainly provided for 
     in section 3 of the bill addressing the relationship of H.R. 
     6 to other laws.
       I fought for section 3. I have resisted all efforts to add 
     legislative language requiring ``harmonization'' of these EPA 
     and NHTSA standards. This language could have required that 
     EPA standards adopted under section 202 of the Clean Air Act 
     reduce only the air pollution emissions that would already 
     result from NHTSA fuel economy standards, effectively making 
     the NHTSA fuel economy standards a national ceiling for the 
     reduction of pollution. Our legislation does not establish a 
     NHTSA ceiling. It does not mention the Clean Air Act, so we 
     certainly do not intend to strip EPA of its wholly separate 
     mandate to protect the public health and welfare from air 
     pollution.
       To be clear, Federal standards can avoid inconsistency 
     according to the Supreme Court, while still fulfilling their 
     separate mandates.

                          ____________________