To impose additional requirements for improving automobile fuel economy and reducing vehicle emissions.

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--Resumed

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

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

Pending:

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we currently
on the Indian amendment of Senator Campbell?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Campbell amendment No. 886 is pending.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have cleared this on both sides. I ask unanimous
consent that amendment be set aside so we can conduct some business
this evening. There are two or three amendments of substance that
Senators would like to offer. Senator Campbell and Senator Bingaman
have no objection to setting this aside.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I have spoken to Senator
Campbell earlier this evening. We have, now--however many weeks it has
been since we were on this bill. The Senator on our side we said would
be here to offer the next amendment is Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin
is ready whenever the Senator yields the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Surely.
Mr. REID. He is ready to offer that right now, whenever the Senator
desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico has the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to Senator
Durbin having the first amendment this evening. I just want to make
sure we have an understanding about how long he might take and what
will be next. There are a number of people who want to offer similar
amendments. We understood the purpose tonight was to stay, even though
it is late, so Senator Durbin might offer an amendment in the area of
CAFE standards, and that two other Senators might follow.
Mr. REID. If I can respond to the Senator from New Mexico, the
distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Illinois
intends to lay down the amendment tonight and that is all.
Mr. DOMENICI. Before I yield the floor, I ask if the Senator from
Georgia wishes to ask something of the Senator from New Mexico, or does
he want the floor?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for no
more than 5 minutes as in morning business.
Mr. DOMENICI. He asked to speak as in morning business prior to the
amendment. I have no objection.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would love to hear the Senator from Texas,
but Senator Durbin is going to take less than a minute to do his.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will then sit down. Certainly you can seek
recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

[[Page S9889]]

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send two
amendments to the desk. I will take up the first amendment and ask the
second amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1384

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

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

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

Amendment No. 1385

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

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

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

We think climate change will be offered by two or maybe three
Senators. This Senator could make the point--but I think it will fall
on deaf ears--that climate change doesn't belong in this bill. I don't
think we have jurisdiction. I don't think it belongs in the Environment
and Public Works bill. But we are going to get it anyway. We are very
hopeful that can come up after CAFE.
I have explained electricity.
That makes three major items.
Then we have one that I thought was resolved between the
distinguished Senator Craig and the ranking minority member, Senator
Bingaman, on hydroelectric relicensing. But I understand it has not
been resolved. So we had better list it as four in terms of serious
amendments.
Fifth is an Indian energy issue. We just set it aside prior to the
amendment of the Senator from Illinois. It involves a serious
discussion between the junior Senator from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, and
the minority leader. Senator Bingaman wants to amend it. I understand
the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, may also want to
amend it, which would mean the Indian energy bill would have two
amendments.
There is the longstanding, always recurring issue called renewable
portfolio standards--the RPS. I don't know whether we call it a
standard. But essentially it is an approach that says we are going to
take some of this renewable energy supplied by wind and solar. Even
though we are giving them plenty of incentives in this legislation,
indeed wind is--it is kind of a strange way of saying it--coming on
strong; there is no question but that it is. It has even been enough to
show up on these various diagrams that talk about energy. We have given
them all kinds of incentives.
But the idea is mandating that companies which produce electricity in
our sovereign States have a percentage each year of the renewables.
Thus, the renewable portfolio standard will be an issue.
That is as I see it. That is the sixth issue. I am aware of two
amendments in that area; again, one from the distinguished Senator
Bingaman, and one from the distinguished Senator Jeffords from Vermont.
Then everybody should know there sits on the sideline a package. It
is called a tax package. The way we have been doing this on energy
bills is: Those of us concerned with energy, we all go to the Finance
Committee, which has total jurisdiction over taxes, including tax
incentives, and we make our case, and they produce for us a package of
tax incentives and tax legislation. They have done so again this year.
That is ready.

[[Page S9890]]

At a point in time--let me suggest--I cannot predict exactly, but I
am thinking some time about Wednesday or the latest Thursday--we would
offer this tax package in its entirety to become part of this bill.
I know there are many Senators who are anxious to offer tax measures,
and this tax package will be no different. It will be an opportunity,
for those who want to offer tax amendments, to do so. Except I might
suggest that the precedent, if you can count on it, has been that
amendments that are not relevant to this package do not find themselves
in this bill; that is, if somebody does not like the current state of
play on the child tax credit, they may want to offer that on this bill
that has incentives for windmills, incentives for biomass.
I can say, here and now, as manager of this bill, the rules are the
rules. Senators' prerogatives are Senators' prerogatives, but I would
ask--and I will ask in advance as many Senators as I can talk to--that
we table any such amendments, and we keep the tax package to the energy
package.
There will be some who want the Energy bill to pass, and they will
quickly understand that is the right way to do it; and they will help.
I don't know of any, so I am just talking. But there may be some who do
not want us to finish by next Friday night or Saturday or Sunday or
Monday--part of our vacation--and they may not like the idea of getting
this tax package over with, and they may want to spend their recess
debating taxes. I hope not because there are a lot of Senators around
here who do not want to spend their recess debating taxes. They want to
finish this bill and go home or go wherever their plans are.
I note that our leader is serious enough about this where he can be
here an extra 3 days or 6 days before his plans take effect. Just to
show us he is serious, that is what it looks like in his regard.
Let me tell my colleagues that it is 9:05 p.m. The minority has
generously let us set aside the Indian amendment and offered the first
CAFE amendment. I am hopeful that in a few minutes the senior Senator
from Missouri, Mr. Bond, will be here. I am hopeful he will seek to
offer a CAFE standards amendment and that the other side will be as
generous as we were and let him offer his without jeopardizing the CAFE
amendment of the distinguished Senator from Illinois--just setting it
aside temporarily while Senator Bond offers his.
Frankly, I do not see any reason after that occurs--unless somebody
comes here with some business--to stick around very long. There have
been many votes today. I am just as tired, if not more tired, than most
of the Senators who have already left the premises. So I do not want to
stay beyond the offering of the two CAFE amendments.

I say to Senators, there is great cooperation taking place. And
tomorrow morning, if we can get the same cooperation, the distinguished
Senator from Arizona intends to offer his CAFE amendment. I say to the
Senator, as you know, he has been telling us about that amendment for
quite some time. And then immediately after that, if everyone continues
to be somewhat harmonious, there will be another modified CAFE
amendment that will be offered by Senator Feinstein, joined by others,
but I know joined by Senator McCain.
That will put us tomorrow, before noon, with four CAFE amendments of
sorts--I say to the Senator, his being one kind and the last one I
spoke to being another kind--all pending before the Senate. After they
are pending, we can determine what voting on each one does, one to
another. But until then, we will hope that each Senator, who is
interested in what they will clearly tell us is one of their important
issues, what they perceive to be very important; namely CAFE--they will
have a chance to make their presentation, as I understand it.
Senator Bond will be here shortly. I say to the Senator, if you do
not mind, without going into any detail, I have a Senator to take my
place for the rest of the evening.

Death of Colin McMillan

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

Amendment No. 1386

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

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

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we continue debate on the Energy bill,
there are a number of very important issues and amendments facing the
Senate. One is of great interest to me and, frankly, any Senator who
has automobile plants or suppliers in his home State. It actually
should be of interest to every Senator since it directly affects all
American consumers in every State who drive a car, SUV, other vehicle,
or even ride in one. It is also of vital interest and a high priority
to the Chamber of Commerce, the United Auto Workers, the American Farm
Bureau, and a very large, diverse coalition of labor, business, and
consumer groups. I refer to Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE,
standards.
I am a great baseball fan, and I can think of no higher authority
than Yogi Berra to quote when I say it is deja vu all over again. I
must admit I was holding out hope that the Senate could avoid a lengthy
debate this year over the CAFE standards. After all, this body examined
fuel economy proposals in great detail during debate on the Democratic
Energy bill last year. As some of my colleagues may recall, Senator
Levin and I, with the help of others, developed an amendment to strike
the job-killing antisafety CAFE provisions offered and proposed by
other Members and replace it with commonsense language mandating that
the experts at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration set
new CAFE standards at the maximum feasible level.

[[Page S9891]]

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.

[[Page S9892]]

I urge all of my colleagues to oppose higher CAFE amendments, which
will only hurt consumers and do very little for fuel economy and are
not based on sound science. I ask that we save jobs, improve safety for
our fellow Americans, and continue to make scientific progress toward
greater fuel economy and environmental improvement. Vote ``yes'' on the
Bond-Levin-Domenici-Stabenow amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri made reference
to a colleague on the floor who is driving a big SUV with a dented
fender.
I drive a 1993 Saturn, and I just took it, with my wife, on a trip to
North Carolina. We averaged 35 miles a gallon with the air conditioning
on. I wanted that on the record so people won't believe I am standing
here talking about fuel efficiency and the only car I drive is an SUV.
I don't own an SUV. People who want to are certainly entitled to. That
is their free choice.
You have just heard the opening statement by the Senator from
Missouri, but you may not have noticed the flapping in the background.
It was the waving of a white flag. It was a concession by the Senator
on his behalf and on behalf of the cosponsors that America is incapable
of developing a technology to make our cars and trucks more fuel
efficient--so incapable that if we establish a new fuel efficiency
standard, the Senator from Missouri tells us it will cost us thousands
of jobs. So we are just going to give up. America is going to walk
away, surrender. There is no way we can deal with the challenge of an
amendment which says we need more fuel-efficient cars.
The Senator is prepared to say to us, if that battle is underway, we
concede defeat to all the foreign automobile manufacturers. America
just cannot keep up. We are just going to fall behind, and our workers
are going to lose their jobs.
Forgive me, but I don't have that negative attitude or pessimistic
view of the people who work in the automobile industry, nor those who
design cars and trucks. When given a challenge, I believe they can meet
it. But if not given a challenge--which is what the Senator from
Missouri and his cosponsor, Senator Levin of Michigan, are proposing--
we know what will happen. We have seen it happen. Take a look at the
history of this.
First, consider the fact that we are debating an Energy bill. How can
you have a serious Energy bill and not talk about conserving energy? If
you are going to talk about conserving energy, how can you avoid the
largest consumer of petroleum products in America, the cars and trucks
we drive on the highway? How can you have an honest Energy bill that
talks about America's energy future and doesn't address the critical
need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to make certain that
the cars and trucks we are driving are more fuel efficient?
I think the answer is obvious. When I go through my State of
Illinois, whether I am talking to soccer moms or corporate executives,
they all understand this. If you continue to say to Detroit that you
can continue to build the heaviest, most fuel-inefficient vehicles
imaginable and put them on the road with absolutely no motive or no
impetus to change, we are going to continue to import oil from
overseas, and we are going to continue to be dependent upon Saudi
Arabia and all the other oil sources in the Middle East. We are going
to continue to pollute our air until our children have a planet that,
frankly, has been blighted by our own neglect, and that is an
abdication of our responsibility. So I offer an amendment to improve
the fuel efficiency of vehicles across America.

This is not a radical concept. We have done this before. When we get
down to it, there are only two or three ways to basically improve fuel
efficiency of the vehicles we drive. One, we can wait for consumers to
demand it. Well, they might, over some period of time, driven by
foreign policy concerns or environmental concerns. It might happen.
Secondly, we can increase the cost of fuel in America. And we know what
happens then. If gasoline went up over $5 a gallon, every spouse would
be asking his or her spouse, what kind of fuel economy do we get on
that car in the driveway? At $5 a gallon, we need to know, and maybe we
need to get a more fuel-efficient car. But I think that is a poor way
to do it.
Imposing new taxes or new cost in fuel means families across America
are going to spend more. Small businesses are going to struggle with
more cost. That certainly is not the way to answer it.
There is a third way, a proven way. It is one we have used before.
Remember back in 1975 when America was struggling with this whole
question, and people were in long gas lines wondering whether we would
have enough gasoline to fuel our vehicles? Congress took a look at the
average fuel economy across America and found that the cars we were
driving were averaging about 14 miles a gallon. So Congress said: We
are going to impose a new standard; over 10 years, the automobile
industry has to virtually double the fuel economy of its vehicles to
almost 28 miles a gallon.
What did the critics say about that? Well, exactly what the Senator
from Missouri just said: We cannot do that. We cannot double fuel
economy in 10 years; why, that is technologically impossible. Secondly,
if you want to build a car that gets 28 miles a gallon, it will not be
safe. It will be light, it will be dangerous, it will not be fair to
families, and people will die.
The third thing they said was: If we impose this standard of 28 miles
a gallon, bet dollars to donuts those cars are going to be made
overseas. They will be made in Japan and Germany and other countries,
and American workers will lose their jobs. Sound familiar? Those are
exactly the arguments we have heard from the Senator from Missouri:
Technologically impossible; cars will be unsafe; we are going to lose
jobs.
What did this Senate and the House of Representatives say about that?
They rejected it. They said: We are not going to give up on American
ingenuity and American technology. We believe that given a goal,
Detroit and other automobile manufacturers can meet it. And we imposed
a mandate to increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles and double it
over a 10-year period of time.
What happened? It worked. By the end of 10 years, average fuel
efficiency was up to about 27\1/2\ miles a gallon. They found the
technology, cars were safer, and there were still plenty of jobs in the
United States, good paying jobs, in the auto industry. That is what
happened.
What has happened since 1985, when that requirement to double fuel
efficiency ended? Nothing. Eighteen years of no improvement in fuel
efficiency of the cars and trucks in America; and, even worse, because
of loopholes in the law, we decided to call SUVs ``trucks'' so they
were exempt from fuel efficiency.

So what happened over the 18 years? We started to slide backwards,
from 27\1/2\ miles a gallon to now about 24 miles a gallon average fuel
efficiency across America. What does it mean? More dependence on
foreign oil; more dependence on Saudi Arabia and the oil sheiks; more
dependence on the tangle of politics in the Middle East; more air
pollution because the cars that we are driving, those big SUVs and
heavy trucks, with less fuel efficiency and less fuel economy, are
burning more gallons of gasoline, tossing more emissions out of the
tailpipe, creating a bigger soup in the atmosphere to heat up our
planet Earth, endangering not only lives with the problems that come
from pulmonary disease and lung disease but endangering species around
the world and endangering our environmental future. That is what we get
for 18 years of neglect.
What is the answer of those who come before us today with the
alternative amendment? More neglect. They believe America is not up to
this challenge, America cannot come up with this technology. Sadly,
there is some evidence that they are right.
Take a look at the hybrid cars that are on the road today. Do my
colleagues know the cars I am talking about? The ones that combine
gasoline engines and electric-powered engines and they get
substantially better fuel mileage than most cars that are on the road.
Where are the two models of these cars coming from today? Sadly, they
are coming from Japan. Detroit is running second again in the race for
technology.

[[Page S9893]]

I am not giving up on American ingenuity and technology. I do not
agree with those who say there is no way we can make our cars and
trucks more fuel efficient. I think we can do better, and I think we
will do better, but we have to establish challenges and goals.
Let me talk for a moment about this concept of soccer moms. I have
heard this--the Senator from Missouri often refers to it--there are a
lot of soccer moms in Illinois and, yes, they drive minivans and SUVs
and a lot of other types of cars. But when I sit down and talk to these
soccer moms, they understand that they have a responsibility beyond
just picking out the biggest and heaviest automobile they can buy. They
understand their responsibility to the future that their children are
going to share with others. They understand their responsibility to the
environment.
They ask me: Senator, are you saying that Detroit, given 10 years,
cannot give us a safe, fuel-efficient vehicle?
I tell them, I believe they can. But the Bond-Levin amendment says
they cannot, that there is no way they can; that soccer moms are going
to be stuck driving some flimsy old vehicle that may get better gas
mileage but at the expense of the safety of their children.
I do not buy it. I am not that pessimistic. I am very optimistic.
When it comes to American creativity, I think we can meet this
challenge, and I think those soccer moms and dads want to drive more
fuel-efficient vehicles, not just for the money savings--that is
important to every family--but also because they feel a responsibility
to the future of their children. They feel a responsibility to the
environment in which we live. They understand that the No. 1 diagnosis
of kids going into emergency rooms and hospitals across America today
is asthma and lung disease that is caused by air pollution. They
understand that.

They want to do their part. To do their part, they need leadership
right here on the Senate floor, not waving the flag of surrender, not
retreating, but moving America forward with a new vision, a vision
which says to Detroit, to Chrysler, to General Motors, to Ford, to
manufacturers in our country, let us show the rest of the world we can
lead. We do not have to surrender, as the amendment that is being
offered tonight suggests. We want to lead. In leading, we will solve
the environmental problem and reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.
I have a few charts, but it is late, and I understand that staff has
been here for a full day, so I am not going to belabor this issue.
There will be time. I think we will return to this issue next week, and
at that time on Monday evening, when I return, I plan to give a full
statement and show charts that talk about the CAFE standard, which I am
sure will be very convincing to my colleagues.
I do hope my colleagues will consider this: If we are serious about
an Energy bill, if we are serious about tomorrow's energy supply, if we
are serious about looking at this issue in an honest fashion, how can
we avoid talking about conservation? What we have proposed by a variety
of amendments, including the one from the Senator from Missouri, is
more study: Let's take a look at this; surely there must be some way we
can study this problem into a solution.
I do not think it works that way. The choices are very few: raising
the gas tax, which I oppose for reasons I have stated, or establishing
standards to reach a 40-mile-per-gallon standard fuel efficiency. That,
I think, is what America needs, and that is what we can achieve. We can
do it over a reasonable period of time.

Amendment No. 1385, As Modified

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

At the appropriate place insert the following:

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

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

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

``(2) Inflation adjustment.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning after 2005, each dollar amount referred to in
paragraph (1) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section (1)(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, by substituting `2004' for `1992'.
``(B) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under
subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $100, such amount shall
be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.''.
(b) Expansion of Definition of Automobile.--
(1) Increase in weight.--Section 4064(b)(1)(A)(ii)
(defining automobile) is amended by striking ``6,000 pounds''
and inserting ``12,000 pounds''.
(2) Exception for certain vehicles.--Subparagraph (B) of
section 4064(b)(1) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) Exception for certain vehicles.--The term
`automobile' does not include--
``(i) a vehicle which has a primary load carrying device or
container attached,
``(ii) a vehicle which has a seating capacity of more than
12 persons,
``(iii) a vehicle which has a seating capacity of more than
9 persons behind the driver's seat, or
``(iv) a vehicle which is equipped with a cargo area of at
least 6 feet in interior length which is an open area or is
designed for use as an open area but is enclosed by a cap and
is not readily accessible directly from the passenger
compartment.''.
(c) Additional Definitions.--Section 4064(b) (relating to
definitions) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraphs:
``(8) Applicable fuel economy standard.--The term
`applicable fuel economy standard' means, with respect to any
model year, the average fuel economy standard as defined in
section 32902 of title 49, United States Code, for passenger
automobiles for such model year.
``(9) MPG.--The term `mpg' means miles per gallon.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales after October 31, 2005.

SEC. ____. HIGHLY FUEL-EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILE CREDIT.

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

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

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for the
taxable year an amount equal to the new highly fuel-efficient
automobile credit determined under subsection (b).
``(b) New Highly Fuel-Efficient Automobile Credit.--For
purposes of subsection (a), the new highly fuel-efficient
automobile credit with respect to any new automobile placed
in service by the taxpayer during the taxable year is
determined in accordance with the following tables:

[[Page S9894]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are all points that are very important. But we start off
saying, don't push something that is purely political. Make sure there
is a technological basis for it.
Yes, my colleague is right. We did increase the CAFE achievements,
but much of it came through lowering the weight of the vehicles. If my
colleagues will listen and pay attention, we have the very frightening
statistic from the National Academy of Sciences that those lower weight
vehicles, vehicles initially designed for safety, were

[[Page S9895]]

forced to be downsized, and they caused roughly 2,000 additional
fatalities a year in automobile vehicle accidents and some 13,000 to
26,000 serious injuries. That is why we say safety is part of it. That
is why we say we need to make sure we can achieve these
technologically. We are pushing the technology.
My colleague talks about soccer moms. If they want to drive a very
small fuel-efficient car, they can. If they want to drive an SUV, they
can. We are going to push the technology to make those as efficient as
possible. But we are not some kind of dictatorial or authoritarian
society that says, no; we will tell you what you can buy.
We want to have parents, whether they are soccer moms, baseball dads,
granddads who want to take their kids to the ball game, to have the
ability to choose the kind of car they want.
It is about safety, it is about choice, and it is about jobs.
I am very grateful for a letter I have just received dated July 24,
2003, from Alan Reuther, legislative director of the UAW. He says in
part:

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

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

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

____________________