Automobile Fuel Economy Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise today to draw the attention of the Senate and those following this proceeding to a global emergency many of us believe the last Congress did not adequately address.

Imagine the public reaction that would ensue if every year the United States lost a population the size of the city of Chicago to HIV/AIDS- related deaths; if every year the United States lost the number of children equal to the population of this city, Washington, DC, to HIV/ AIDS-related deaths. This is the reality the world faces.

Imagine how bad the situation would have to be in the United States for the public to accept an HIV-positive muppet on Sesame Street, the popular television show geared to little kids ages 2 to 4. This is the reality of children's TV in South Africa.

In 2001, 662,000 children lost either one or both parents to AIDS in South Africa.

In 2002, 3 million children, defined as 15 years of age or younger, were reported to be living with AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa; 800,000 children worldwide were newly infected with HIV last year.

Last weekend I went with several of my colleagues to Haiti. The reason for that trip had a lot to do with a well-known rock singer named Bono whose group U2 is legendary in rock-and-roll history. But he has taken on a special mission, not only to make music, but to make the world more aware of the HIV/AIDS crisis. He is a very likable fellow. He has been a great lobbyist. This Irishman comes to Capitol Hill and opens every door.

In my office, when he came to see me, I couldn't get over how many of my staffers took a great interest in HIV/AIDS just to be in the room when he sat down and talked about it. He has done such spectacular work with Democrats and Republicans, the executive branch, and the legislative branch. Then he had a tour, which was scheduled about 2 or 3 months ago, in the Midwest. The tour was really to speak to the heartland of America about this issue of HIV/AIDS. He came to my City of Chicago. I was proud to meet with him and a group of African American clergy.

Then he went out to a very conservative piece of real estate near the City of Chicago, the great Wheaton College. Wheaton College was where Billy Graham took his training before he went into the ministry. Wheaton College has a reputation of being pretty conservative, high- minded in their values, dedicated to their religion and their belief. And they invited him, this outspoken Irishman, to speak to them about HIV/AIDS. It was a great presentation.

At the very end there was some music, but most of it was very serious in that people talked about their life experiences. The thing I noticed, as the presentation was made, was that one of the doctors said: You Americans tend to want to look across the ocean for HIV/AIDS. You have it here in the United States, and don't forget it. But you also have it in your hemisphere in Haiti in a way that most people don't even appreciate.

Last weekend I traveled to Haiti with several of my colleagues, including Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. But the leader of our codel was Senator Mike DeWine, a Republican of Ohio, and his wife Fran. Let me just say something for a moment about Mike DeWine. Mike and I had been friends since we were both elected to the House 20 years ago. He left for a period of time and ran for Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, then came back as a Senator from that State.

Most people don't know Mike and his wife and family have a particular interest and dedication to Haiti and the poor people who live there. This trip was their eleventh trip to Haiti. Many Members of Congress are lucky to go to the same place far away once or twice in a lifetime. Think about the fact that Mike and Fran, people on their staff, continue to return to one of the poorest places on earth over and over and over again. It isn't just to take photographs. In fact, they do very little of that. It is to bring bags of toys and soccer balls, basic items, medical and otherwise, that the poorest people in our hemisphere need, to visit programs like one called Hands Together. Hands Together is something I never heard of before I got to Haiti, but I met Father Tom Hagan, who is the leader of Hands Together in Haiti, and Doug Campbell, his executive director, and they showed us a center which they have created in

one of the poorest slums on earth. It is called Cite Soleil. My French translation would be Sun City. But it is not always sunny in this city for the tens of thousands who live in the worst poverty.

They created this little school and community center to teach children how to read and write on the condition that their parents also come in and learn. They provide basic food for these children. They invite in senior citizens who come in for the only meal of the day that is worthwhile, and they try to give them some encouragement and maybe some basic things they need to survive.

They told us a story about the senior citizens being brought to the center. There is no place for them to go in this terrible slum. When they first started bringing them in, most were brought in in wheelbarrows. They could barely walk. The life expectancy in Haiti is 51 years of age. If you are 60 or 70--I met people who are even older-- it is a rarity, but you obviously have some good genetics. But they were still struggling.

At their center with Hands Together they offered these senior citizens a basic meal. I saw it. It was beans and rice with a few little peppers on the top of it, and a vitamin pill. In a matter of weeks, these same elderly people, who could barely walk and were brought in in wheelbarrows, were up and moving around, thanks to Hands Together and to Father Hagan.

There is also the center where the kids are educated, called the Becky DeWine Center, named after Mike and Fran's late daughter. It is wonderful to see those children come in in their uniforms, 6 days a week. They want to be there, learning.

The reason I tell you this as background is that amidst all this poverty, Haiti faces an AIDS epidemic which is unparalleled in our hemisphere. When Bono visited Wheaton College, he said to the students: This is a global crisis. It is in our backyard in the Caribbean. It is all across Africa. It is moving across India and Russia and China. We have to do something about it.

It was that piece of information that led me to go to Haiti. I am glad I did. We set up a meeting at the ambassador's residence. Ambassador Brian D. Curran is our career ambassador. Previously he had been the ambassador to Mozambique. He let us meet with Bill Pape, who is known as ``Dr. Pop'' in the French pronunciation. What an impressive man. Here was a man who told us how he had decided as a public health leader in one of the poorest countries to try to eliminate the deaths of children, infants, from diarrhea, a terrible problem in the Third World. These poor children, who drink water that is contaminated, get sick with diarrhea and throwing up, become dehydrated and die.

They put together a program that has virtually eliminated that as a challenge in Haiti. I am impressed. That is a big undertaking, and a lot of success was demonstrated. Now Dr. Pape and his organization, known as GHESKIO, an organization that is one of the earliest in terms of commitment to dealing with HIV and AIDS, have received a $10 million-plus grant from the Global AIDS Fund to take on the AIDS epidemic in Haiti. Already he is able to demonstrate on the chart that just their first year or two of activity, the AIDS rate of infection is starting to come down ever so gradually. He believes he is on the right course to deal with this epidemic.

Do you know where the Global AIDS Fund money comes from? Some of it comes from us, taxpayers who contribute to the Global AIDS Fund. As we contribute and he is successful, fewer children are infected; fewer children are orphaned. There is more hope for their future.

I left that visit to Haiti inspired again, as I am every time I visit some of the poorest places in the world. You might think it is depressing to see people living in the worst squalor imaginable, to see them holding beautiful little babies as they stand right next to open sewers that pigs are rooting through, to see dogs that are so skinny they can barely walk, to see the living conditions which are so horrible. You would think that would be so depressing, but you will find in every one of these places stories of courage, not just the mothers and fathers struggling to keep the family together, but people like Father Tom Hagan and Hands Together and Doug Campbell who come into that setting and say: Let us help.

There are many others. I just mentioned Hands Together. There is World Vision, CARE, Catholic Relief Services. The list goes on. Thank goodness they are there. I am glad I had a chance to see it.

When we came back here to Washington, I came back with a renewed dedication and determination to really work on this issue of global

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has been open and candid about using all of these things to deal with AIDS. When I told him Senator Mike DeWine and I had been successful on the Senate floor in putting in $180 billion more on the global AIDS fight, a big smile crossed his face.

Today, 42 million people worldwide are living with HIV/AIDS--5 million were newly infected last year. We have seen 3.1 million AIDS- related deaths in 2002. Each year, AIDS deaths claim more than the entire population of Chicago. Life expectancy has dropped below 40 years of age in 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS has already erased 15 years of progress in the worse affected countries. Despite our efforts to date, this epidemic continues its deadly spread across the globe. As the disease spreads, unraveling social structures and decimating populations, the national security implications for the United States multiply--in number as well as intensity.

Last year, the National Intelligence Council released a report supplying grave statistics for ``the next wave.'' In 5 of the world's most populous countries, the number of HIV-infected people will grow from 14 million to 23 million currently to an estimated 50 million to 75 million by 2010.

The disease infiltrates national armies, as well as the public sector, weakening the country's ability to govern and respond to regional threats. As the number of infections grows, the cost of fighting HIV/AIDS overwhelms national governments and competes for the same funds they need to maintain their economy and basic social structure.

Most governments face a lose-lose situation: Either they fight AIDS and underfund the infrastructures necessary to sustain continued immunity, or they continue to build the infrastructures while HIV/AIDS decimates

any progress, and they fall victim to it and watch their state crumble.

On every continent, AIDS is traveling along social fault lines and exploiting the weaknesses, hurting both lives and economies.

HIV/AIDS is a national security issue that is as important to our time as the war on terrorism. It is an economic issue, a health and safety issue, and it is a moral issue. Without comprehensive action, the HIV/AIDS epidemic will worsen, demanding even more attention and funding. That is why I introduce this bill to reset global AIDS as a top priority in this Congress.

The main purpose of the bill is to provide a comprehensive response to the AIDS pandemic and acknowledge the growing need for resources. In the form of specialized initiatives, my bill will focus on the growing number of AIDS orphans, the lack of health professionals in AIDS- ravaged countries, and the lack of access to affordable treatment for the majority of those afflicted with HIV/AIDS.

I have designed the Global CARE Act to achieve four major goals: Better coordination of our own agencies in fighting global AIDS; the provision of programs that address all components necessary to support a comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS, including prevention, treatment, care, and investment in broader health systems and national economies; increased accountability for the health and policy objectives we will seek to achieve with our financial and human investment; and the ability to mobilize the most effective human capacity-building tools to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Last year, I introduced a version of this bill which authorized $2.5 billion in global AIDS spending for fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year 2004, I have proposed authorization levels of $3.35 billion. The United States, unfortunately, only contributed $1 billion to fighting this epidemic in 2002. With the passage of the Durbin-DeWine amendment, the Senate allocated $1.525 billion in its fiscal year 2003 appropriations bills. This is a breakthrough--a 50-percent increase by the United States in its commitment.

But these funding levels are still far short of the goal. To meet the need, our target for fiscal year 2004 should be in the $3.35 billion range. Frankly, when you look at the world this year, the global need just to fight HIV/AIDS stands at $8.2 billion. Despite these good efforts by the United States, we can do more. But other countries in the world can do more as well. Let them join the President and the Congress in our commitment to this fight. We have been shortchanging this epidemic for too long. We take tiny steps in pursuit of a challenge that is racing away from us.

Because the spread of this disease remains in its infancy, we have to look at it in more serious terms. We must do more for the 42 million people worldwide who are living with HIV/AIDS, and we have to understand that the disease is not going to wait for our political determination.

A 15-year-old boy in Botswana faces an 80-percent chance of dying from AIDS. We have to change his future. To do that, the Global CARE Act addresses this epidemic aggressively and honestly. I hope this bill will provide a basic blueprint for the United States, and I hope we can join on a bipartisan basis in passing it. I hope my colleagues who read my remarks and follow this debate will believe, as I do, that the President has given us a great opportunity on a bipartisan basis to stand together and tell the world that this caring Nation is committed to dealing honestly and effectively with the global AIDS crisis.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three welfare bills. Although these bills do not represent a comprehensive welfare reform proposal, they do address what I see as some of the most critical and pressing issues we must deal with as we move toward improving the TANF program.

Let me begin by introducing the Children First Act on behalf of myself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg and Mr. Reed).

Since 1996, federal funding for child care assistance under the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, has significantly increased, making it possible for states to provide more low-income families with child care assistance and to expand initiatives to improve the quality of child care. This has been an extremely important endeavor. Access to high quality childcare is crucial in helping families to work and children to succeed.

Most people agree that the recent employment gains among welfare recipients can only be sustained if families have access to dependable child care. Studies show that when childcare is available and when families get help in paying for care, they are more likely to work. In fact, when I talk to people in my home State of New Mexico about welfare reform, they identify access to childcare as the most important work support we can provide.

Despite the past increases in the CCDBG, we must do more. Overall, only one out of seven children eligible for assistance through the CCDBG program receives a subsidy, leaving approximately 12.9 million eligible children without assistance. Less than 25 percent of New Mexican children under the age of six who are eligible for childcare assistance are currently receiving it. Unfortunately, the need for childcare assistance is only likely to increase in the near future. Many states are currently threatened with serious budget shortfalls that threaten the availability of funds for numerous important endeavors, including childcare assistance. In addition, the administration's recently proposed TANF plan includes provisions for increased work requirements for recipients. If passed, this would create an increased need for welfare support services, especially childcare. Without subsidized care, many of our Nation's poor families simply cannot afford to work.

We must not only seek to increase access to childcare overall, but also to ensure the improved quality of such care. Currently, many families receiving assistance cannot provide their children with a high quality childcare setting. In part, this is because the childcare reimbursement rates are so low that many of the higher quality providers do not accept state-subsidized children into their programs. Low salaries and the lack of health care and other benefits also make it difficult to attract and retain highly qualified childcare workers. These are major issues given that quality childcare provides low-income children with the early learning experiences they need to do well in school and in life. We know that children in high quality early care are more likely to experience academic success, for example, higher test scores and an increased likelihood of graduating from high school, and less likely to experience social problems such as being charged in juvenile court or being aggressive toward others.

The Children First Act will address these important issues by increasing funds for the CCDBG by $11.2 billion over 5 years. With these funds, States will be able to serve approximately 1 million more children nationally. The bill also contains an increase in the quality set-aside in CCDBG, which will provide States with funds that can be used to train care providers and create and enforce standards of care.

I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. It will help low-income families work and help prepare our children to succeed.

Next, I would like to introduce the Education Works Act on behalf of myself and Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Reed, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Wyden.

Since the 1996 changes in our welfare laws, the number of individuals on welfare has dramatically decreased in most States. However, although many have successfully left welfare for work over the past several years, too many have been left behind because they don't have a high school degree, have little or no work history, or are lacking the skills that are important for success in the job market. In addition, many of those who have secured work are working for low wages, receive few or no benefits, and have limited opportunity for upward financial mobility. As we move toward reauthorization, we must do more to support State efforts to insure that all individuals leaving welfare have the capacity to obtain employment that will provide long-term financial independence. The Education Works Act will do just that.

We know that the welfare programs that have been most successful in helping parents work and earn more over the long run are those that have focused on employment but also make substantial use of education and training, together with job search and other employment services. Yes, less than 1 percent of Federal TANF funds were spent on education and training in 2000, largely because current law limits the extent to which education activities count toward Federal work participation requirements, effectively restricting how long individuals can participate in training and also capping how many people can receive these services.

The Education Works Act would change this by: clarifying that states have the flexibility to allow participation in postsecondary, vocational English as a Second Language, and basic adult education programs by

TANF recipients as part of TANF work requirements; giving States the flexibility to determine how long each recipient may participate in education and training activities while receiving benefits; giving states the flexibility to provide non-cash assistance in the form of childcare and transportation supports to individuals who are participating in a full-time education program, without counting these services against the 5-year time limit on TANF benefits; eliminating the 30 percent cap on the number of TANF recipients that can participate in education and training programs in fulfillment of their work requirements.

Via TANF waivers, many States have already been operating programs that do many of the things we're talking about here. In other cases, however, state efforts to provide education and training to welfare recipients have been hampered by an inability to use TANF funds to support these efforts. For example, in my home State, we already have an ``Education Works'' program but only 400 participants are enrolled statewide, due to funding limitations.

States should be held accountable for decreasing welfare caseloads but also for insuring that those entering the workforce have the skills they need to become and remain economically self-sufficient. We need to give all states the flexibility to implement the types of programs that they believe will best achieve these goals. The Education Works Act is an important step in this direction and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Finally, I would like to introduce the Self-Sufficiency and Accountability Act. This Act has several broad goals: to increase state reporting and accountability for welfare dollars that are received, to encourage states to develop concrete strategies to help families move from welfare to self-sufficiency, and to allow states not currently receiving TANF waivers to do so.

First, State plan requirements under current welfare law are simply not comprehensive enough. Under current law, States can submit plans that contain little information about the services that will be provided, long-range or strategic planning, goals or benchmarks, or how they will insure equitable treatment of all welfare clients. In addition, there are currently few provisions for informing the public about the details contained in state plans. Thus, States have little or no accountability to legislators or to the public for the billions of welfare dollars they receive each year.

The Self-Sufficiency and Accountability Act seeks to remedy these deficits. Some of the key provisions include the following: comprehensive state plans would be required to describe the programs and services that will be offered, eligibility requirements, the purposes and goals for all programs and how these goals will be assessed; the new State plans would increase compliance with nondiscrimination, employment, and civil rights laws by requiring among other things, better training of caseworkers, better communication with welfare clients about their rights and obligations, an appeals process, reporting requirements for complaints, and penalties for states that fail to comply with these requirements; the Act would improve public awareness of and access to State plans in their entirety and provides opportunity for public comment when a state plan is pending or being amended.

As I mentioned earlier, large numbers of individuals have moved from the welfare rolls to work since 1996. During the current welfare reauthorization, we must look beyond simply putting people to work and focus on strategies that will help these individuals achieve lasting economic self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, the current content and structure of state plans are wholly inadequate to address these crucial self-sufficiency concerns. The self-Sufficiency and Accountability Act will address these shortcomings by encouraging States to develop concrete strategies designed to move families toward self-sufficiency. The bill requires States to identify and address individual and environmental barriers to self-sufficiency, describe program strategies implemented to promote self-sufficiency, and to assess the progress of former welfare families in this regard.

The final purpose of this bill is to address the issue of increased State flexibility to implement programs that have been proven effective. After the last reauthorization, many states obtained and some continue to use TANF waivers to develop innovative welfare programs that are suited to the specific needs of their TANF caseloads and labor market conditions in their states. This Act would allow states that currently have waivers to continue to operate under those waivers. In addition, the Act stipulates that any state may submit a waiver application on terms similar or identical to states that are successfully implementing innovative programs. In this way, all States would be provided with the flexibility to employ proven strategies in an effort to address the unique needs of their welfare clients.

Taken together, the three bills I have introduced today would go a long way toward helping people transition from welfare and providing these individuals with the skills and supports they need to achieve a lifetime of productive and financially sustaining work.

I urge my colleagues to support these three bills and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to express support on behalf of The Charity Aid, Recovery and Empowerment, CARE, Act of 2003, which I am introducing today with Senator Lieberman, Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, Senator Bayh, Majority Leader Frist and other bipartisan cosponsors with the support of President Bush. The CARE Act was introduced in the last Congress and was considered by the Senate Finance Committee but was never debated on the floor of the Senate because of repeated objections to unanimous consent requests to bring up the bill. The time has come to move this important resources package forward to help those in need and to assist those charitable organizations walking alongside them to restore families and communities.

The CARE Act reflects America's renewed spirit of unity, community and responsibility in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the new challenges that have faced us since then. It is an important legislative package to encourage giving, saving, and fairness which builds on the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiative. This bipartisan consensus bill seeks to harness the potential of charitable organizations in order to better serve the most needy members of our society in partnership with government efforts. A coalition of more than 1,600 national and grassroots charitable organizations helping those in need endorsed nearly similar legislation last year. The bill offers incentives to individuals and corporations to increase charitable giving, rewards low-income citizens who choose to save, and insists on fairness for faith-based organizations by leveling the playing field so that non-governmental organizations involved in charitable activities may compete for government funds to provide social service delivery.

Throughout our country many social entrepreneurs and community healers are making a difference in the lives of those who are struggling and in the neighborhoods and communities seeking to revive themselves in the face of poverty, crime, failing schools, and unemployment. Many of these heroic individuals and organizations are also motivated by faith. For example, more than 75 percent of the food banks across our Nation have a religious affiliation.

The CARE Act attempts to help with the current challenges that charitable organizations are facing and expand the base of private and governmental resources well into the future to better help those in need such as the hungry, the homeless, the addicted, the sick, at-risk children, and the elderly through a variety of tools and resources. The tremendous outpouring of generosity by Americans after September 11 is to be celebrated. Yet the reality is that many needs remain unmet throughout the country as some charitable giving has been redirected and other human needs have increased. Unfortunately, as a result of the tragic events of September 11, a struggling stock market, and the recent recession, numerous charitable organizations have suffered financial losses, in some cases, up to 20 percent or more. The bill seeks to expand the capacity of the voluntary and charitable sectors in this country which is one of the greatest strengths and traditions of our country.

The CARE Act seeks to address these needs through a number of expanded tax incentives. The bill restores a charitable tax deduction for the 84 million

Americans who do not itemize for a maximum deduction of up to $250 for individual taxpayers and $500 for couples for charitable giving beyond a base level of $250 for individuals and $500 couples. To encourage larger donations, IRA holders will also be allowed to make charitable contributions without tax penalties. Corporations and farmers will be offered tax deductions for their donations of food to charity, amounting to $1 billion dollars over 10 years in order to provide more food to the needy rather than letting it go to waste. A deduction is also provided for contributions of books to schools.

The CARE Act also attempts to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Through Individual Development Accounts, IDAs, low-income Americans are encouraged to save and build assets and provided training in financial education. These special savings accounts offer matching contributions from the sponsoring bank or community organization reimbursed through a Federal tax credit, on the condition that the proceeds go to buying a home, starting a business or paying for post- secondary education. Low-income Americans are now being given the possibility of sharing in the American dream. The provision would provide for a phased-in 300,000 savings accounts for a national demonstration.

The CARE Act helps small faith and community-based organizations. Through the Compassion Capital Fund, it provides these community healers with additional resources for technical assistance such as enabling incorporation, grant writing and accounting skills. It also allows social service agencies with experience in administering government contracts to play an intermediate role between government agencies and smaller charities. These provisions will help smaller faith-based charities to survive and to grow into viable charitable organizations. The legislation also expands resources through significant increases in the Social Services Block Grant, SSBG, funds of more than $1.2 billion.

Despite the positive advantages of the CARE Act, some are wary of the impact of its provisions. Some critics on the left argue that the provisions violate the Constitution by fusing church and state because preferential treatment is given to religious groups. This is false. Instead, the CARE Act gives religious charitable organizations the opportunity to compete with secular organizations for Federal funding by strengthening the principle of nondiscrimination against faith-based organizations through the codification of basic and commonsense equal treatment protections. The proposed legislation creates a more level playing field for faith-based charities by ensuring that they cannot be discriminated against in applying for government funds because of their religious nature by ensuring the right to maintain religious icons, religious names, religious governance criteria, and religious references in founding documents. The provision also makes clear that the mere fact that a faith-based provider has not previously received government funding does not disqualify them from consideration.

On the other hand, some critics on the right argue that the CARE Act will undermine the religious nature of faith-based organizations by restricting their abilities to promote religious values and by controlling the hiring process. But the moral integrity of faith-based organizations is protected by the Act. Though the question of hiring is not addressed in the bill, current laws will continue to apply, the equal treatment for non-governmental organizations provision in the bill assures that organizations which seek federal funds are not required to remove religious symbols, change their names, or change their governing structures to qualify. Hence, faith-based organizations can still adhere to the values and beliefs that motivate, make them unique, and reflect the diversity of America as they serve those in need. The initiative does not require faith-based organizations to participate with government funds in their efforts to serve those in need, it merely gives them the option if they feel that doing so is consistent with their mission and prevents the government for excluding qualified social services providers merely because they are faith-based in character.

The CARE Act is supported by both Democrats and Republicans. The time has come to get this legislation on the President's desk as he has repeatedly called for. The Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, wrote shortly after the bill's introduction last year that ``the CARE Act is not a Republican or Democratic plan. it is a bipartisan proposal that strikes the right balance between harnessing the best forces of faith in our public life without infringing on the First Amendment . . . I look forward to working with President Bush and my congressional colleagues to get this proposal signed into law.''

The time has come for the Senate to pass this important legislation. The Senate Finance Committee will take an important step next week when the legislation is considered in committee. The CARE Act advances our common interest in turning the immense spirit of volunteerism and civic duty in our country toward building strong communities. The Act's ultimate goal is to help those most in need in our society, the poor, the hopeless and the destitute. I thank my colleagues for their support and the many generous Americans working to transform lives and improve communities for the difference that they make each day.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feinstein today in renewing the call we made in the 107th Congress for improving vehicle fuel economy by taking logical steps to close the SUV loophole provided to the ``light truck'' category in the Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, Program.

My colleague has been a passionate advocate of this proposal, and I am proud to work with her again in introducing S. 255, our practical, attainable bill that can garner the kind of broad support necessary to address this national imperative this year. I know when we introduced our plan in 2001, some believed it was too much too soon, while others felt it didn't go far enough. But can anyone honestly say we are better off today without nothing? That we are in better shape because we failed to pass what is possible 2 years ago?

Just think about where we would be today, we would be a model year away from giving consumers greater choices in purchasing more fuel efficient SUVs. And we would also be that much closer to controlling our own energy destiny by reducing our reliance on foreign oil, all the more critical at a time when the current strike in Venezuela and the situation in Iraq make already volatile world oil markets even more precarious. As an oil analyst with the Deutsche Bank in London recently put it, ``The oil markets can stand having one thing go wrong, but not two. That's what's happening with Venezuela and Iraq.''

And it is not as though we haven't been burned by the foreign oil market before. It is not as though this is something we have never thought of. This year is the 30th anniversary of the Arab oil embargo. I recall in the 1970s when the day you were allowed to refuel your car was determined by whether the last number of your license plate was odd or even. Why hasn't any of this been enough to wean us off this habit?

Right now, we rely more on foreign oil than ever. In 2001, 55 percent of the U.S. total demand was met by oil from abroad, up from 37 percent in 1980 around the time when the original CAFE standards took effect, I might add, and by 2025 that number will jump to a projected 70 percent if we don't take action. With such a large percentage of this imported resource coming from such a volatile region of the world, what do we need to have happen before we feel a sense of urgency?

The fact is, this is an emergency, and we can make a difference. Even just increasing fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks by 1.5 miles per gallon by model year 2007, which the administration proposes, would reduce gasoline consumption by 2.5 billion gallons through that year. Just imagine what we could achieve with the proposal Senator Feinstein and I are re-introducing, which would phase-in changes in CAFE requirements in four, attainable stages that will bring the standards for SUV's in line with passenger cars within the next 8 years.

Our legislation is backed by the findings of a 2001 National Academy of Sciences CAFE report that this body requested in 2000 on CAFE standards. The report clearly states that, ``Because of concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and the level of oil imports, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to ensure fuel economy levels beyond those expected to result from market forces alone.''

I believe that fuel economy through better vehicle mileage is probably the most significant and realistic environmental and energy independence issue we, as leaders, could tackle this year in developing our Nation's energy policy. Had the Senate boosted fuel economy standards over a decade ago as proposed by Senators Bryan and Gorton rather than defeating the measure by three votes, new vehicles would be averaging 33 miles per gallon today instead of 24.5 miles per gallon, and the U.S. would have saved more than 1 billion barrels of oil each and every day.

Instead, all our vehicles combined consume 40 percent of our oil, while coughing up 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, the greenhouse gas linked to global climate change. To put this in perspective, the amount of carbon dioxide emission just from U.S. vehicles alone is the equivalent of the fourth highest carbon dioxide emitting country in the world. Given these stunning numbers, how can we continue to allow SUVs to spew three times more pollution into the air than our passenger cars?

And it is not just an environmental issue, it is also a pocketbook issue, with rising prices at the pump. In fact, according to DOE's Energy Information Administration, the typical price for regular unleaded gas, now $1.47 per gallon, is a full 37 cents higher than just a year ago. Yet ironically, in the past quarter century since the last adjustments were made to CAFE standards, overall fuel economy has actually fallen to its lowest level since 1980, 24.7 miles per gallon.

Just think for a moment how much the world has changed technologically over the past 25 years. We have seen the advent of the home computer and the information age. Computers are now running our automobiles, and global positioning system devices are guiding drivers to their destinations. Are we to believe that technology couldn't have also helped those drivers burn less fuel in getting there? Are we going to say that the whole world has transformed, but America doesn't have the wherewithal to make SUVs that get better fuel economy?

Well, I don't believe it, and neither does the National Academy of Sciences that issued a report in 2001 in response to Congress' request the previous year that the NAS study the issue. They concluded that it was possible to achieve a more than 40-percent improvement particularly in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10-15 year period, and that technologies exist now for improving fuel economy. That was a year-and- a-half ago.

But, automakers have instead invested their new technologies in other attributes over the past 13 years. Specifically, there has been a 53- percent increase in horsepower, a 19-percent increase in weight, an 18- percent increase

for acceleration and, correspondingly, a minus eight percent decrease for fuel economy. The bottom line is that the auto industry has had the technological opportunities to do better but chose another road. They tell us this is what the consumer wants.

But maybe that is because, for the most part, consumers haven't been presented with viable alternatives. Indeed, a March 2002 poll by the Mellman Group shows that nearly three-quarters of voters nationwide favor increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles. Another survey conducted since 9/11 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc., showed that 88 percent of likely voters support increasing the fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

We have seen what a positive difference changes in CAFE standards can make. The NAS panel experts found that, as a result of CAFE standards put into law by Congress in 1975, we have achieved a 75-percent increase in fuel economy for cars. Cars went from 15.8 mpg in 1975 to 27.5 mpg in 1985. And, through CAFE standards, we have seen a 50- percent increase for light trucks, from 13.7 mpg in 1975 to 20.7 mpg in 1987. In addition, NAS noted that CAFE helped maintain fuel economy levels when market forces might have forced fuel economy lower in the passenger fleet.

I don't want America's SUV manufacturers to be ``the industry that time forgot?'', and history clearly shows that the Federal Government must play a role in ensuring that consumers have a choice in vehicles with high degrees of fuel economy, an appropriate degree of safety and a minimal impact on our environment. How can we do anything less? Closing the SUV loophole will help us achieve these goals, and it is an idea whose time has long since arrived.

When I think back to the balanced budget debate in the Senate, many of us argued that continued deficits would leave the generations to come with mountains of debt, and we had an obligation to ensure that this did not happen. Today, I say to you that we have a similar obligation to take practical steps, to make practical tradeoffs to ensure that generations to come won't be left with a mountain of carbon dioxide emissions, with an even greater dependency on foreign oil, with even higher prices at the pump, and with fewer of our precious natural resources.

I urge my colleagues to take the responsible road and support the Feinstein-Snowe CAFE standards incremental increases for SUVs and the light truck category as the right direction to take.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feinstein today in renewing the call we made in the 107th Congress for improving vehicle fuel economy by taking logical steps to close the SUV loophole provided to the ``light truck'' category in the Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, Program.

My colleague has been a passionate advocate of this proposal, and I am proud to work with her again in introducing S. 255, our practical, attainable bill that can garner the kind of broad support necessary to address this national imperative this year. I know when we introduced our plan in 2001, some believed it was too much too soon, while others felt it didn't go far enough. But can anyone honestly say we are better off today without nothing? That we are in better shape because we failed to pass what is possible 2 years ago?

Just think about where we would be today, we would be a model year away from giving consumers greater choices in purchasing more fuel efficient SUVs. And we would also be that much closer to controlling our own energy destiny by reducing our reliance on foreign oil, all the more critical at a time when the current strike in Venezuela and the situation in Iraq make already volatile world oil markets even more precarious. As an oil analyst with the Deutsche Bank in London recently put it, ``The oil markets can stand having one thing go wrong, but not two. That's what's happening with Venezuela and Iraq.''

And it is not as though we haven't been burned by the foreign oil market before. It is not as though this is something we have never thought of. This year is the 30th anniversary of the Arab oil embargo. I recall in the 1970s when the day you were allowed to refuel your car was determined by whether the last number of your license plate was odd or even. Why hasn't any of this been enough to wean us off this habit?

Right now, we rely more on foreign oil than ever. In 2001, 55 percent of the U.S. total demand was met by oil from abroad, up from 37 percent in 1980 around the time when the original CAFE standards took effect, I might add, and by 2025 that number will jump to a projected 70 percent if we don't take action. With such a large percentage of this imported resource coming from such a volatile region of the world, what do we need to have happen before we feel a sense of urgency?

The fact is, this is an emergency, and we can make a difference. Even just increasing fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks by 1.5 miles per gallon by model year 2007, which the administration proposes, would reduce gasoline consumption by 2.5 billion gallons through that year. Just imagine what we could achieve with the proposal Senator Feinstein and I are re-introducing, which would phase-in changes in CAFE requirements in four, attainable stages that will bring the standards for SUV's in line with passenger cars within the next 8 years.

Our legislation is backed by the findings of a 2001 National Academy of Sciences CAFE report that this body requested in 2000 on CAFE standards. The report clearly states that, ``Because of concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and the level of oil imports, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to ensure fuel economy levels beyond those expected to result from market forces alone.''

I believe that fuel economy through better vehicle mileage is probably the most significant and realistic environmental and energy independence issue we, as leaders, could tackle this year in developing our Nation's energy policy. Had the Senate boosted fuel economy standards over a decade ago as proposed by Senators Bryan and Gorton rather than defeating the measure by three votes, new vehicles would be averaging 33 miles per gallon today instead of 24.5 miles per gallon, and the U.S. would have saved more than 1 billion barrels of oil each and every day.

Instead, all our vehicles combined consume 40 percent of our oil, while coughing up 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, the greenhouse gas linked to global climate change. To put this in perspective, the amount of carbon dioxide emission just from U.S. vehicles alone is the equivalent of the fourth highest carbon dioxide emitting country in the world. Given these stunning numbers, how can we continue to allow SUVs to spew three times more pollution into the air than our passenger cars?

And it is not just an environmental issue, it is also a pocketbook issue, with rising prices at the pump. In fact, according to DOE's Energy Information Administration, the typical price for regular unleaded gas, now $1.47 per gallon, is a full 37 cents higher than just a year ago. Yet ironically, in the past quarter century since the last adjustments were made to CAFE standards, overall fuel economy has actually fallen to its lowest level since 1980, 24.7 miles per gallon.

Just think for a moment how much the world has changed technologically over the past 25 years. We have seen the advent of the home computer and the information age. Computers are now running our automobiles, and global positioning system devices are guiding drivers to their destinations. Are we to believe that technology couldn't have also helped those drivers burn less fuel in getting there? Are we going to say that the whole world has transformed, but America doesn't have the wherewithal to make SUVs that get better fuel economy?

Well, I don't believe it, and neither does the National Academy of Sciences that issued a report in 2001 in response to Congress' request the previous year that the NAS study the issue. They concluded that it was possible to achieve a more than 40-percent improvement particularly in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10-15 year period, and that technologies exist now for improving fuel economy. That was a year-and- a-half ago.

But, automakers have instead invested their new technologies in other attributes over the past 13 years. Specifically, there has been a 53- percent increase in horsepower, a 19-percent increase in weight, an 18- percent increase

for acceleration and, correspondingly, a minus eight percent decrease for fuel economy. The bottom line is that the auto industry has had the technological opportunities to do better but chose another road. They tell us this is what the consumer wants.

But maybe that is because, for the most part, consumers haven't been presented with viable alternatives. Indeed, a March 2002 poll by the Mellman Group shows that nearly three-quarters of voters nationwide favor increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles. Another survey conducted since 9/11 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc., showed that 88 percent of likely voters support increasing the fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

We have seen what a positive difference changes in CAFE standards can make. The NAS panel experts found that, as a result of CAFE standards put into law by Congress in 1975, we have achieved a 75-percent increase in fuel economy for cars. Cars went from 15.8 mpg in 1975 to 27.5 mpg in 1985. And, through CAFE standards, we have seen a 50- percent increase for light trucks, from 13.7 mpg in 1975 to 20.7 mpg in 1987. In addition, NAS noted that CAFE helped maintain fuel economy levels when market forces might have forced fuel economy lower in the passenger fleet.

I don't want America's SUV manufacturers to be ``the industry that time forgot?'', and history clearly shows that the Federal Government must play a role in ensuring that consumers have a choice in vehicles with high degrees of fuel economy, an appropriate degree of safety and a minimal impact on our environment. How can we do anything less? Closing the SUV loophole will help us achieve these goals, and it is an idea whose time has long since arrived.

When I think back to the balanced budget debate in the Senate, many of us argued that continued deficits would leave the generations to come with mountains of debt, and we had an obligation to ensure that this did not happen. Today, I say to you that we have a similar obligation to take practical steps, to make practical tradeoffs to ensure that generations to come won't be left with a mountain of carbon dioxide emissions, with an even greater dependency on foreign oil, with even higher prices at the pump, and with fewer of our precious natural resources.

I urge my colleagues to take the responsible road and support the Feinstein-Snowe CAFE standards incremental increases for SUVs and the light truck category as the right direction to take.