Tuesday, March 12, 2002

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the managers of the bill. Senator Levin will be in the Chamber shortly, but I thought I would go ahead and make some remarks prior to the offering of this amendment, which I think is a very significant one.

There are many important issues in an energy bill, but what happens to our automobile economy, what happens to the workers, what happens to the people who buy them, what happens to the people on the highways should be a very important consideration.

I think when you talk about energy and fuel economy standards, the impact on jobs and safety need to be at the top of anyone's list. That is why I am pleased to join my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, in crafting a commonsense amendment to the energy bill that will increase passenger car and light truck efficiency while protecting jobs, highway safety, and consumer choice.

Before we get into the details of the amendment--and we will be getting into lots of details, probably more than anybody wants to know about corporate average fuel economy--let me just take a moment to review the state of our economy.

A few weeks ago, I was disappointed that the Senate had stalled out on an economic stimulus package. We have been in a recession for months, and although there are signs of a recovery, there are still many Americans without jobs.

Of course, as you know, we did pass a smaller bill to increase the time of payment for unemployment compensation that did have a portion of the stimulus package in it.

Now, what would be the link between higher fuel economy standards and economic recovery and stimulus and jobs? I will tell you.

I have listened to the car manufacturers, the working men and women in the unions who build the cars, and the other impacted groups, and the significantly higher CAFE standard, or the miles per gallon, which will be required for vehicles that are included in Senator Daschle's energy bill that he created, without committee action, has a very real likelihood of throwing thousands of Americans out of work, including many of the 221,000 auto workers in Missouri.

That is because the only way for car companies to meet the unrealistic numbers in the underlying amendment is to cut back significantly on making the light trucks, the minivans, and the SUVs that the American consumers want, that the people of my State and the people of the other States want--to carry their children around safely and conveniently, to do their business. If they have jobs in one of the trades, they need minivans and compartment trucks and others to carry their goods. If they are farmers, they need pickup trucks to take care of their livestock and to haul equipment and feed.

I know some in this Chamber believe our fellow Americans cannot be trusted to make the right choice when purchasing a vehicle. But when it comes down to choosing between the consumer and the Government as to who is best to make a choice, I will side with the consumer every time.

I don't pretend to know what is best for each of the 15 million Americans who will be purchasing a new vehicle this year and the ones next year or in the years after. Those who want higher Government CAFE or miles-per-gallon standards always claim to have the best interests of the consumer in mind and always promise that the last thing they want to do is hurt the car manufacturers. Well, they have missed the mark by a mile with language that ended up in the bill before us today.

Proponents portray this CAFE provision, authored by Senator KERRY and others, as reasonable and necessary. I have other words in mind to describe it. It is anti-safety, anti-consumer and anti-job.

I also have the numbers to consider during this debate. How about 6.6 million. That is the number of Americans employed in direct or spin-off jobs related to the automotive industry. In fact, every State in America is an auto State. We all know that Michigan, Indian, Missouri, and Ohio are big manufacturing States. But even smaller States such as Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Delaware have suppliers and other industries where success and business profitability is directly related to the large car assembly plants in the Nation.

As we struggle to get our economy moving again, we ought to be developing proposals that will increase the number of jobs. Unfortunately, the underlying miles-per-gallon standard in this bill by Senator Daschle does just the opposite. It must be removed. It must be replaced.

I recognize there are competing views on this subject. Some of my colleagues prefer to listen to the arguments put forth by those who have never built a vehicle, never visited a plant, or don't even have an elementary understanding of how a car works.

I prefer to listen to those who are actually engaged in the business of making cars, of designing cars, servicing cars, selling cars and trucks. They tell me one consistent message: The CAFE provision is a job killer, a threat to the safety of our friends and families and a mandated market that eliminates consumer choice. 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 the consumer buys.

There are over 50 of these high economy models in the showrooms across America today. But guess what. They represent less than 2 percent of total sales. Americans don't want them. You can lead a horse to water; you can't make him drink. You can lead the American consumer to a whole range of fancy, lightweight, long-distance automobiles, but you can't make them buy them.

Meanwhile, consumers from families, soccer moms, farmers, people with teenagers, people with soccer teams, they want the minivans. A constituent of mine, Laura Baxendale in Ballwin, MO, asked:

Senator, our mini-van is used to transport two soccer teams, equipment and seven players, how would this be possible in a smaller vehicle?

I have to tell Ms. Baxendale, the bad news is they would have to have a string of golf carts. You can see the golf carts going down the highway to soccer practice, maybe two kids in each golf cart. It is not a very safe or efficient way to transport.

Here is a quote from Jeffrey Byrne, of Byrne Farm in Chesterfield, MO:

As a farmer I do not purchase pickup trucks because of their fuel economy, I purchase them for their practicality.

He buys them because he needs them. He is taking care of his livestock. Did you ever try to put a load of hay in the back of a golf cart? It doesn't make a very big delivery vehicle.

Under the new CAFE numbers, the production of these popular vehicles would need to be curtailed. I don't want to tell a mom and dad in my home State they can't get the SUV they want because Congress decided that would be a bad choice. I don't think that is a sound way to set public policy. After hearing from assembly line workers, farmers, auto dealers, and others directly impacted by Government CAFE standards, I fully believe the appropriate fuel economy standards are best decided by experts within the Department of Transportation who have the technology and the scientific know-how to determine what is feasible to help lead us down the path towards the most efficient, economical, and environmentally friendly standards, rather than by politicians choosing some political number out of the air. We could get in a bidding war, but we are bidding on something we know nothing about--how efficient can engines be made.

Under the Levin-Bond amendment, the experts at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration are directed to refer to sound science in promulgating an appropriate and feasible increase. Think of that. This would be historic, if this body said we are going to use sound science on a technological issue before us. Senator Levin and I believe the time has come. This amendment will strengthen the regulatory process to ensure that the miles per gallon or CAFE levels are accurate and reflect the needs of consumers, the technology development, without undo consequences for safety and jobs.

Ultimately, I do believe science, not politics, should drive the deliberations on the CAFE or miles-per-gallon standards. I would be most interested to see what hard data and solid science our colleagues who have pushed for this 35-mile-an-hour CAFE standard say justifies it, the standard in the bill. I am waiting to see what scientist thinks there is a technology to meet it. I don't believe I would hold my breath because I don't think it exists.

This is, unfortunately, a political number pulled out of thin air. Even worse, it is a number that could have deadly consequences for American drivers and passengers. I have read the 2001 National Academy of Sciences report on the CAFE standard. Let me share with you a key finding about safety and higher standards.

This is a report in USA Today. It says:

The fatality statistics show that 46,000 people have died because of a 1970s-era push for greater fuel efficiency that has led to smaller cars.

The National Academy of Sciences say:

In summary, the majority of that committee finds that the downsizing and weight reduction that occurred in the late 1970s and in early 1980s most likely produced between 1,300 and 2,600 crash fatalities and 13,000 to 26,000 serious injuries in 1993.

They estimate that 2,000 people were killed in 1993. I fear that has been replicated every year since. It goes on to say:

If an increase in fuel economy is effected by a system that encourages either down-weighting or the production and sale of more small cars, some additional traffic fatalities would be expected.

That National Academy of Sciences report offers all of us clear guidance and expert scientific analysis as we debate fuel economy levels. I would also point out that the NAS panel was extremely careful to caution its readers that its fuel economy targets were not recommended CAFE goals because they did not weigh considerations such as employment, affordability, and safety.

These are the quotes from the National Academy of Sciences that I have just given you. I will leave it up so my colleagues can read it. I will have a copy of the report on the floor. I am sure everybody will be as fascinated as I have been to read it because it contains important information.

Opponents of our amendment may question how effective the experts at NHTSA will be in leading the new fuel economy standards. Some might prefer that Congress set a political number as we find in the current energy bill. Our amendment takes an approach that, rather than politics and guesswork, hard science and technological feasibility should be the prime consideration in the development of any new CAFE standards.

I will ask that my colleague from Michigan, who is going to describe this amendment, give you the details. I will just say that it is vitally important that we strike the people killing, jobs killing, market killing, CAFE or miles-per-gallon provisions currently in S. 517 because they would only hurt the consumer and do very little for fuel economy. Let's save jobs and save American lives by voting yes on the Levin-Bond amendment.

I yield the floor.