Energy Policy Act of 2005

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 902.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will start by reading a paragraph, but it is not from an environmental magazine or a political magazine or from a liberal magazine. It is from BusinessWeek, published in their most recent online edition of June 20, entitled ``Energy; Ignoring the Obvious Fix.'' I will read this paragraph because it describes where we are at this moment in time:

As Congress puts the final touches on a massive new energy bill, lawmakers are about to blow it. That's because the bill, which they hope to pass by the end of July, almost certainly won't include the one policy initiative that could seriously reduce America's dependence on foreign oil: A government-mandated increase in the average fuel economy of new cars, SUVs, light trucks and vans.

That is BusinessWeek. They say that Congress is about to blow it. Sadly, BusinessWeek is correct because you can search this bill, page after page, section after section, and find no reference to the obvious need in America to increase the fuel efficiency of the cars and trucks that we drive.

The amendment that I am proposing addresses the CAFE standards. This amendment would result in more fuel-efficient vehicles in America. This amendment would incrementally increase fuel economy standards in automobiles over the next 10 years.

Regardless of what the opponents of this amendment say, technology is available to reach these goals, the safety of our vehicles need not be compromised in the process, and we don't have to lose American jobs in order to have safer, more fuel-efficient cars.

I suggest to those who have no faith in the innovative capacity of our Nation that America has risen to the challenge before. We can do it again.

Before I explain my amendment and highlight why improving fuel efficiency would be a priority, let me read from a few headlines that make this debate especially important.

This was in this week's Washington Post:

Gas price rises as oil hits a record high.

What was the dollar amount, the latest amount? It was $59.42 a barrel--record high amounts for oil. In my State of Illinois, the average price of gasoline is $2.16 per gallon.

From the Wall Street Journal, here is the big headline:

Big Thirst for Oil is Unslaked, Demand by U.S., China Rises.

The Wall Street Journal says:

Oil consumption remains strong even as petroleum prices approach $60 a barrel, sparking concerns that growing demand could spur still-higher prices and further dampen economic growth.

Philip Verleger, senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for International Economics, says:

I can see oil at $90 a barrel by next March 31.

I have read from BusinessWeek. We understand their consideration of this provision. They understand that if we do not deal with more fuel-efficient vehicles, we are ignoring the obvious.

I am offering this amendment to give my colleagues an opportunity to put America back on track, to reduce consumption of oil-based products by our transportation fleet by increasing fuel economy standards.

The BusinessWeek online piece continues:

If we don't act now, a crisis will probably force more drastic action later.

I first say to my colleague following this debate, I wish them all a happy 30th anniversary. It was 30 years ago we faced an energy crisis in America. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act that created the original CAFE program and responded to that crisis.

Listen to these oil prices that brought America's economy to its knees 30 years ago. I am going back to October of 1973. The price of oil rose from $3 a barrel to $5.11 per barrel, sending a shock across America. By January, just a few months later, the prices were up to $11.65 a barrel. At the time, however, the United States was only dependent on foreign oil for 28 percent of its use. That percentage has grown to 58 percent today.

Put it in context: 30 years ago, 28 percent of our oil was coming from overseas, and we were dealing with $11 a barrel. Today, 58 percent is, and we are dealing with $59.60 a barrel, roughly speaking. So we have seen a dramatic increase in our dependence, a dramatic increase in price, and there is no reason to believe it is going to end. We are captives of OPEC and that cartel.

When Maria Cantwell came to the floor of the Senate and offered an amendment to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent over the next 20 years, it was soundly defeated. I think only three Republicans joined the Democrats who supported it.

To think we are overlooking in a debate on an energy bill dependence on foreign oil and the inefficiency of cars and trucks tells you how irrelevant this debate is. Any serious debate about America's energy future would talk about our dependence--overdependence--on foreign oil and the fact that we continue to drive cars and trucks that are less fuel efficient every single year.

The recent prices that have shown up also create anxiety over oil exports from other producer nations. This past Friday, the United States, Britain, and Germany closed their consulates in Nigeria, in its largest city of Lagos, due to a threat from foreign Islamic militants. The countries we are relying on for foreign oil are politically shaky, and we depend on them. If they do not provide the oil, our economy suffers, and American families and consumers suffer.

In response to the 1973 oil embargo, Congress created the CAFE program and decided at the time to increase the new car fleet fuel economy because it had declined from 14.8 miles per gallon in 1967 to 12.9 miles per gallon in 1973.

Today we face even more embarrassing statistics. Today we consume more than 3 gallons of oil per capita in the United States, whereas other industrialized countries consume 1.3 gallons per capita per day, and the world average is closer to a half a gallon per capita per day. We use four times more oil than any nation.

The amendment I am proposing would increase passenger fuel economy standards by 12.5 miles per gallon over the next 11 years, increasing fuel economy standards for nonpassenger vehicles by 6.5 miles per gallon in the same time period, for a combined fleet average of nearly 34 miles per gallon. I am increasing it 5.3 miles per gallon over current plans. Current NHTSA rulemaking would only raise it to 22.2 miles per gallon by 2007.

The average mileage of U.S. passenger vehicles peaked in 1988 at 25.9 miles per gallon and has fallen to an estimated 24.4 in 2004.

Let me show one chart which graphically demonstrates the sad reality. Remember the oil embargo I talked about, in 1973, the panic in America, the demand that our manufacturers of automobiles increase the fuel efficiency of cars over the next 10 years? They screamed bloody murder. They said the same things we are going to hear from my colleagues tonight in opposition to this amendment. They said if you want cars that get so many miles per gallon over the next 10 years, America is going to be riding around in little dinky cars such as golf carts. I heard exactly the same words on the Senate floor today.

Furthermore, if you want more fuel-efficient cars, they are going to be so darned dangerous, no family should ride in them. This is what our big three said back in 1973: We can't do this; it is technologically impossible. Frankly, if you do it, we are going to see more and more foreign cars coming into the United States.

Thank God Congress ignored them. We passed the CAFE standards. Looked what happened. Fuel-efficiency cars in a 10-year period went up to their highest levels. Now look what has happened since. It is flat or declining in some areas. It tells us, when we look at both cars and trucks, that our fuel efficiency has been declining since 1985. How can this be good for America? How can this make us less energy dependent? How can this clean up air we breathe? It cannot.

People will come to the floor of the Senate today and say: We think every American ought to buy and drive the most fuel-inefficient truck or car they choose, and if you do not stand by that, you are violating the most basic American freedom. What about the freedoms that are at stake as we get in conflicts around the world with oil-producing nations?

If we want to preserve our freedoms, we should accept personal responsibility as a nation, as families, and as individuals. Personal responsibility says we need better cars and better trucks that are more fuel efficient. We need to challenge all manufacturers of cars and trucks, foreign and domestic, to meet these standards so that we are not warping the market, we are setting a standard for the whole market.

Unfortunately, there is strong opposition to this notion. Some of those who oppose it have the most negative and backward view of American technology that you can imagine.

We understand now from reliable scientific sources--in particular the National Academy of Sciences--that we have technologies and can improve fuel efficiency of trucks by 50 to 65 percent and cars by 40 to 60 percent. But Detroit is so wedded to the concept of selling these monster SUVs and big cars that they will not use it. They will not use the technology that is currently there.

We are dealing now with hybrid technology. Let me tell a little story about hybrid technology.

First let me tell you what we are dealing with on the overall picture. This chart shows U.S. consumption of oil in the transportation sector. As we can see, light-duty vehicles represent the biggest part of it--60 percent. It is a huge part.

We also have general oil consumption in America. If we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we have to focus attention on transportation--68 percent usage of the oil we import.

We know if we want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, this is what we need to do. Here is a list of all the different technologies currently available. I won't read them all through but will make them part of the RECORD as part of my statement: transmission technology, engine technologies, vehicle technologies that could be used right now to make cars and trucks more efficient.

What is going to happen over a period of time, though, is we are going to see a lot of debate about different cars and different trucks. Let me show you one in particular. I just mentioned hybrid vehicles. My wife and I decided a few months ago to buy a new car. We wanted to buy American. We did not need a big monster SUV. It is basically just the two of us and maybe a couple of other passengers. We wanted something American and fuel efficient.

Go out and take a look. You will find there is one American-made car on the market today that even cares about fuel efficiency--the Ford Escape hybrid. That is the only one. The others are made by manufacturers around the world. It turns out they are not making too many of these Ford Escape hybrids. In the first quarter of this year, Ford made 5,274. Take a look at the competition. Japan again, sadly, got the jump on us. When they came up with their Honda Accords and Civics, they ended up selling 9,317 and then 14,604 the first quarter. Toyota was 13,602, and look at the number here: 34,225.

What I am telling you is, how could Detroit miss this? When we look at the big numbers, the total sales for these cars for hybrids sold, total hybrids sold in 2004 before we ended up having an American car on the market was 83,000 vehicles. Where was Detroit? Where are they now? The only place one can turn is a Ford Escape hybrid. What are they waiting for? Do they want the Japanese to capture another major market before they even dip their toe in the water?

We have to understand that there is demand in America for more fuel-efficient cars. We also have to understand the technology is there to dramatically increase gas mileage. This Ford Escape hybrid my wife and I drive is getting a little better than 28 miles a gallon. I wish it were a lot better. Sadly, some of the Japanese models are a lot better. At least it is better than the average SUV by a long shot and better than most cars we buy. They can do a lot better if Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler would wake up to the reality. Instead, they are stuck in the past. They are going to sell more this year of what they made last year. They cannot just look ahead as, unfortunately, their competitors in Japan have done.

The National Research Council puts away this argument that we cannot have a fuel-efficient car that is safe. The National Research Council's recent report found that increases of 12 to 27 percent for cars and 25 to 42 percent for trucks were possible without any loss of performance characteristics or degradation of safety.

What we know now is that we have the technology to make a more fuel-efficient car. They do not have to be so dinky you would not want to drive in them. They accommodate a family, and you do not compromise safety in the process.

Look at history. The automobile industry in America has resisted change for such a long time. I can remember as a college student when they came out with all the exposes about the dangers of the Corvair. Oh, Detroit just denied it completely. The auto industry, sadly, has fought against safety belts, airbags, fuel system integrity, mandatory recalls, side impact protection, roof strength, and rollover standards. I am not surprised they are fighting against fuel efficiency, but I am disappointed. They just don't get the marketplace. As the price of oil goes up and the price of gas goes up, Americans want an alternative--a safe car they can use for themselves and their family that is fuel efficient.

Let me talk about the loss of jobs. The argument is made that if we have more fuel-efficient cars, we are just going to be giving away American jobs. It comes from the same industry where General Motors announced 2 weeks ago they were laying off 25,000 people, and Ford announced they were laying off 1,700 this week. They have to see the writing on the wall. Their current models are not serving the current market. Their sales are going down while the sales from foreign manufacturers are going up.

There was an auto industry expert on NPR a few weeks ago, Maryann Keller. She said:

General Motors has been focused in the United States on big SUVs and big pickup trucks. ..... It worked as long as gas was cheap, but gas is not cheap ..... They really have not paid attention to fuel economy technology, nor have they paid attention to developing crossover vehicles which have better fuel economy. They've just been very late to the party and that's probably their primary problem today in the marketplace.

We ought to ask the American people what they want. We are going to hear a lot of people stand up and say what they want. I will tell you what the latest polls say: 61 percent of Americans favor increasing fuel-efficiency requirements to 40 miles a gallon. They get it; they understand it. The problem is they can't buy it. If you want to buy an American car that meets this goal in your family's mind, there is only one out there. Some will come trailing along in a year or two, but the Japanese have beaten us to the punch again.

Let's create an incentive for Detroit and for Tokyo. Let's create an incentive for all manufacturers that are selling cars in the United States, an incentive that lessens our dependence on foreign oil, cleans up the air, and gives us safe vehicles using new technology. Those who are convinced that America cannot rise to this challenge do not know the same Nation I know. We can rise to it. We can succeed. We can meet our energy needs in the future by making good sense today in our energy policy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for laying out so clearly the fact that we are so dependent on foreign oil. If we really want to do something about it--as the Senator has explained by the charts, it is clear that most of the oil that is consumed in America is consumed in the transportation sector and most of the oil that is consumed in the transportation sector is consumed in our personal light vehicles. So if we really want to do something about weaning ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, of which almost 60 percent of our daily consumption of oil is coming from foreign shores, this is where we can make a difference.

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Florida is correct. I will tell him I know what I am up against. I think the Senator from Florida, being a realist, does too. When you have the major automobile manufacturers who are frightened by the challenge--they are afraid of this challenge. They do not think they can meet it. They have been beaten to the punch by Japan when it comes the hybrid cars. Instead, they started talking about hydrogen fuel vehicles. That may happen in my lifetime, but it is just as likely it will not happen in my lifetime. Instead of dealing with hybrid vehicles that are already successful with consumers in America, they are afraid of this challenge. Because they are afraid of this challenge, they throw up all of these arguments: oh, that car is going to be a golf cart, it is going to be so tiny if it is fuel efficient, it is not going to be safe; there is just no way that American engineers can even figure out how to make them.

I do not buy it. I think, as I said to the Senator and others who are listening, the technology is there. We do not have to compromise safety. What is wrong with the challenge? What is wrong with the challenge from the President and the Congress asking the manufacturers selling cars in America to make them more fuel efficient? This legislation does not do it; my amendment would.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would it not be something if we could start to have all new vehicles be required, in some way, to be hybrid and/or higher miles per gallon standard, if that were combined with an additional thing like ethanol into gasoline, ethanol that could be made more cheaply, perhaps from prairie grass--that is on 31 million acres; all it needs to be is cut--instead of a more expensive process of corn, although that certainly is a good source of ethanol. Would we not start to see exponentially our ability to wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil?

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Florida has a vision that I share, and that is alternative fuels, fuels that are renewable such as those the Senator has described, ethanol and biodiesel, and vehicles that do not use as much fuel.

Senator Obama and I have a public meeting every Thursday morning, and there was a real sad situation today. A group of parents brought in children with autism to talk about that terrible illness and the challenges they face. More and more of that illness, and others, are being linked to mercury. Whether it is in a vaccine, I do not know; whether it is in the air, most certainly it is. If we can reduce emissions by reducing the amount of fuel that we burn, would my colleagues not believe we would be a healthier nation? Maybe there would be fewer asthma victims. Maybe some of these poor kids who are afflicted with respiratory problems would be spared from them.

I cannot believe people can rationally stand on the Senate floor and say what we need is to give Americans a choice of driving a car that burns gasoline and gets 6 miles per gallon; boy, that is the American way. Well, that is selfish. It really is. We ought to be looking at national goals that bring us, as an American family, together to do the responsible thing.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for being so eloquent in laying out what is a looming crisis. The crisis is going to hit us. We may not suspect it. It may hit us in the way of radical Islamists suddenly taking over major countries where those oilfields are, such as Saudi Arabia. If that occurs, Lord forbid. Then we are going to have a crisis, and we are going to be wishing that we were not so dependent on foreign oil, as we are now.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

REAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I will speak for a few minutes and yield to my colleague and friend from Missouri.

To the Senator from Delaware, I am talking fleet average. That applies to German, Japanese, American cars--to all cars. The argument, buy a Toyota Tundra, do not buy a Chevrolet Silverado that is not true. This is not a standard for American-made cars but a standard for cars sold in America from wherever they are manufactured.

Yes, the rules will apply to American manufacturers the same as they apply to others. Don't we want that? Isn't our goal to reduce the consumption of oil in America and our dependence on foreign oil? I no more stand here and put a discriminatory amendment up for American manufacturers and workers and say, You have to play to a higher standard than Japanese, German, Swedish, or whatever the source might be of the other car. This is a fleet average. It does not mean that every car has to meet this average. It is an average, which means there will be larger cars and larger trucks that will get lower mileage, but there must be more fuel-efficient cars that bring it to an average number.

Let me also talk about the unrealism of my proposal. For the record, increasing the fuel efficiency of passenger cars by 12 1/2 miles per gallon over the next 11 years, the argument that it is beyond us, Americans cannot imagine how we would do such a thing--NHTSA has required that trucks in our country increase their fuel efficiency by 2.2 miles a gallon over 2 years. So they are improving by more than a mile a gallon over 2 years. My standard for all is 12 1/2 miles over 11 years. Why is this such a huge technological leap? I don't think it is.

I yield for a short question on a limited time.

Mr. BIDEN. I truly am confused. I don't doubt what the Senator says. I don't fully understand it.

It is a fleet average. Toyota makes an automobile--I am making this up--that gets 60 miles per gallon when people drive around in Tokyo that they will not sell here at all in order that they can make a giant Toyota truck that gets poorer mileage or as poor mileage as our truck, and they get to sell it here because they have averaged out their fleet.

My question is, Why don't we just say, based on the weights of these vehicles, everybody has to meet the same standard, not an average, because people are not buying two-seater 60-mile-per-gallon vehicles here as they are in Europe where it is $4 a gallon. That is my question.

Mr. DURBIN. Let me say to the Senator from Delaware, if that is the loophole, I want to close it.

Mr. BIDEN. I think it is.

Mr. DURBIN. I am concerned about what is sold in America. I am concerned about the oil that is consumed in America and the gasoline consumed in America. I don't care if Toyota makes a car that is sold in Australia and what the mileage might be. That is their concern.

For us to take the attitude or approach that we are not even going to hold the manufacturer to any higher standards with fuel efficiency in my mind is a concession that we will be dependent on foreign oil for as long as we can imagine.

The Senator from Missouri says I am engaged in a ``Soviet survival'' approach to the economy. I will just tell him that I don't believe it was a Soviet-style approach which enacted CAFE in the first instance and resulted in such a dramatic decline in our dependence on foreign oil.

As to the argument that this kills jobs, the idea this kills jobs, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter of endorsement from the Transport Workers Union of America. Here is one union that supports it.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. And I might also say the National Environmental Trust says that by 2020, nearly 15,000 more U.S. autoworkers would have jobs because of a higher fuel efficiency standard, a 14-percent increase in average annual growth in U.S. auto industry employment, an auto industry that is declining in terms of the people who are working there.

In terms of the savings, the Senator from Missouri was troubled by the notion that American consumers would spend $3.6 billion for this new technology in these more fuel-efficient vehicles. What the Senator does not acknowledge is that by making that investment of $3.6 billion, under my amendment the savings in fuel to consumers will be over $110 billion; $3.6 billion in new cars and trucks, $110 billion of savings to consumers.

So would you get rid of an old gas guzzler to have a more fuel-efficient engine if it meant a trip to the gasoline station did not require taking out a loan at a local bank? Of course you would. That is only smart and only sensible.

Let me also say on the issue of safety, if you see the memo on safety on the vehicles involved, we know that we have the potential here of building vehicles that are safer and fuel efficient. We have statistics that relate to cars and trucks sold, but, in fairness, these are statistics in a period from 1994 and 1997. I will assume SUVs are a lot safer today.

But if you think it is a given that an SUV is safer than a car, the Honda Civic, at 2,500 pounds, had a year death rate of 47 per million registered vehicle miles; a 5,500-pound vehicle--twice as large--four-wheel-drive Chevy Suburban had a death rate of 53 per million registered vehicle miles. Other popular SUVs are even more lethal during that period: four-door Blazers, at 72 deaths per million; the shorter-wheel-base two-door Blazer had an appalling 153 deaths per million; the Explorer, 76; Jeep Grand Cherokee had 52; and of course, in fairness, Toyota 4Runner, a large SUV, 126 deaths per million.

The notion that SUVs are automatically safer--we know the problems with rollovers, and we know that some of the difficulties with even the larger cars have to be reconciled. To assume that a larger, bigger SUV is always safer is not proven by these numbers, these statistics.

Let me also say what I propose would apply to Toyota and Honda SUVs sold in America as well. I honestly believe we should hold those to the same standard.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. And I might also say the National Environmental Trust says that by 2020, nearly 15,000 more U.S. autoworkers would have jobs because of a higher fuel efficiency standard, a 14-percent increase in average annual growth in U.S. auto industry employment, an auto industry that is declining in terms of the people who are working there.

In terms of the savings, the Senator from Missouri was troubled by the notion that American consumers would spend $3.6 billion for this new technology in these more fuel-efficient vehicles. What the Senator does not acknowledge is that by making that investment of $3.6 billion, under my amendment the savings in fuel to consumers will be over $110 billion; $3.6 billion in new cars and trucks, $110 billion of savings to consumers.

So would you get rid of an old gas guzzler to have a more fuel-efficient engine if it meant a trip to the gasoline station did not require taking out a loan at a local bank? Of course you would. That is only smart and only sensible.

Let me also say on the issue of safety, if you see the memo on safety on the vehicles involved, we know that we have the potential here of building vehicles that are safer and fuel efficient. We have statistics that relate to cars and trucks sold, but, in fairness, these are statistics in a period from 1994 and 1997. I will assume SUVs are a lot safer today.

But if you think it is a given that an SUV is safer than a car, the Honda Civic, at 2,500 pounds, had a year death rate of 47 per million registered vehicle miles; a 5,500-pound vehicle--twice as large--four-wheel-drive Chevy Suburban had a death rate of 53 per million registered vehicle miles. Other popular SUVs are even more lethal during that period: four-door Blazers, at 72 deaths per million; the shorter-wheel-base two-door Blazer had an appalling 153 deaths per million; the Explorer, 76; Jeep Grand Cherokee had 52; and of course, in fairness, Toyota 4Runner, a large SUV, 126 deaths per million.

The notion that SUVs are automatically safer--we know the problems with rollovers, and we know that some of the difficulties with even the larger cars have to be reconciled. To assume that a larger, bigger SUV is always safer is not proven by these numbers, these statistics.

Let me also say what I propose would apply to Toyota and Honda SUVs sold in America as well. I honestly believe we should hold those to the same standard.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Take a look at this chart and see what is happening in America. As the price of gasoline goes up, this veracious appetite for SUVs is going down. SUV sales in America are declining, with a 19-percent decrease from the first quarter of 2004 to 2005.

Detroit, are you listening? Are you listening to consumers across America? They do not like to take expensive gasoline and put it into an SUV that gets terrible mileage. They are telling you what the future is going to look like when we have $50- and $60- and $70- and $80- and $90-a-barrel oil coming into the United States.

The consumers are speaking already. Sadly, their response is not being picked up. Sadly, their response is not being picked up by some of the major manufacturers of U.S. automobiles.

Take a look at this chart. The Chevy Suburban: I know the Chevy Suburban. The car I am provided in the Senate is a Chevy Suburban. It is a great car but a big, heavy car. It is picked for that reason for security purposes. Whatever. But take a look at the comparable sales: the Toyota Prius, 34,225 in U.S. sales so far in 2005; 35,756 Ford Expeditions; 24,000 Chevy Suburbans.

The point I am making is the American consumer's appetite is growing for a car which Detroit is not making. We are, sadly, 2 years behind. These Toyota Priuses, which one of our colleagues in the Senate drives, happen to be cars for which you can get 50 miles a gallon and more. People want them, but they cannot buy an American version. What is Detroit waiting for?

Look where we are as a nation. When we took the leadership--Senator Bond may call this Soviet-style leadership, command-and-control leadership--in 1975 and said we were going to have more fuel-efficient vehicles, look at that increase in average miles per gallon in a 10-year period of time--dramatic. Look what has happened since then--flat-lining.

As we have increased our dependence on foreign oil, our cars and trucks are less and less fuel efficient. The end is near, my friends. It is going to reach us sooner rather than later if we do not accept the reality that we need to say, if America is going to be truly less dependent on foreign oil, we have to set standards that move us toward energy conservation and energy efficiency. The first place to start is in the cars and trucks we drive.

I think if a President, if a Congress, stood up and said: ``America, we are in this together; we are challenging Detroit to come out with a fuel-efficient car; we need one that is going to make America less dependent on foreign oil so we do not get involved in wars, so we do not have to walk hand-in-hand with Saudi sheiks around America; we want to be less dependent and will you join us, America, the businesses and families of this country would stand up and say: We are ready.

I wish to say, in response to the Senator from Ohio, the Chair of the Senate Auto Caucus, Mr. Voinovich, I could not agree with him more. This is a hugely important industry. It is in trouble because the market share for American automobile manufacturers continues to decline. They are building cars that Americans are not buying. Americans are looking to Japanese and German and other cars instead.

There is a message there. We have to revitalize this industry by thinking forward instead of thinking backward. And thinking forward says, the price of gas is going up. You better have a more fuel-efficient vehicle. You can reach it if you use innovation and creativity. Unfortunately, that is not occurring today.

Let me close with a comment I opened with from BusinessWeek magazine:

As Congress puts the final touches on a massive new energy bill, lawmakers are about to blow it. That's because the bill, which they hope to pass by the end of July, almost certainly won't include the one policy initiative that could seriously reduce American's dependence on foreign oil: a government-mandated increase in the average fuel economy of new cars, SUVs, light trucks, and vans.

The Bond-Levin amendment does not do that. It does not increase fuel efficiency. It does not reduce dependence on foreign oil. The amendment which I offer does, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

http://thomas.loc.gov/