Energy Policy Act of 2003 - Resumed

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003—RESUMED

AMENDMENT NO. 1386

    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 27½ 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 27½ 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.

    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.