Contact: Ernie Blazar 202.224.7627 Shana Stribling 202.224.0309
Thursday, July 24, 2003

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 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.

1. 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 In fact, it was withdrawn for an obvious lack of support.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 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.

yield the floor.