Energy Policy Act of 2003 - cont.

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003 - CONTINUED

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before us is the most important single amendment on the question of energy security of the United States. That is quite a bold assertion but I stand by that because we understand how dependent we are on foreign oil. We understand that as long as the cars and trucks that we use in America are not fuel efficient, we will continue to have this dependence on foreign oil. So if we want to secure the Nation from an energy point of view, we have to show leadership on the floor of the Senate. We did that in 1975; 28 years ago, we established standards that said to those producing cars for sale in America: You are not doing a good enough job. Fourteen miles a gallon is unacceptable. You have to do better and we will give you 10 years to improve that. And they did.

At the end of 10 years, 27 and a half miles per gallon was the average fleet economy average across America. It was done because this Congress had the will. This Congress stood up to the special interest groups and said it is more important for the energy future of America and for families and businesses for us to have fuel efficiency. Look what we got for it: safe, fuel-efficient vehicles by 1985—double the fuel efficiency of just 10 years before.

Now I come to the floor and say, why haven't we done anything since 1985? Eighteen years of inaction. Isn't it time for us to show leadership again? You would think I was proposing the end of the automobile industry in America. Listen to the arguments we hear from the other side. A Senator came on the floor today and said: If DURBIN has his way, we are all going to be driving golf carts.

Get real. The technology is there. Don't take my word for it. I am a liberal arts lawyer. What do I know about engineering?

In 2001, the National Research Council came out with a report specifying all the technologies currently available that could increase fuel efficiency in cars and trucks. Why aren't they being put on those vehicles? Because Detroit doesn't have the will to do it. And because they don't, we continue to be sold heavier, more cumbersome, and, in many respects, more dangerous vehicles, with even worse fuel economy; we continue to import oil from overseas and be dependent on the Middle East; we continue to burn that oil, polluting the environment, creating greenhouse gases, resulting in public health problems and a degradation of the environment and, frankly, endangering species on Earth that could live, because they are God's creation, but will be destroyed because we are ignoring our responsibility today.

There are those who said: We cannot do this. We must understand that when it comes to this technology war between the United States and other countries, those who oppose this amendment say: Don't you understand, Senator Durbin, we are not up to this fight; we cannot win this fight; we have to find a way to avoid this battle. And I will say to them: That is not my point of view. I believe America can compete. We have proven it in the past. We proved it in 1975.

These people who are so afraid that we will be forced to put a more fuel efficient car on the road that is also safe have told us it is impossible, and leading that chorus is none other than the big three in Detroit, once again falling behind when it comes to a global challenge to do the right thing. That is sad.

For those of us who want to encourage American automobile manufacture, for those of us who want to stand behind those workers, I ask them the simple question: Why are they afraid to lead? Why are they afraid of a challenge to their creativity, to their innovation, to their leadership? Why must we always take second place when it comes to automobile technology? I think America is capable of much more. But those doubters, those who do not believe America is up to the challenge, say: Defeat the Durbin amendment. If you establish a standard of 40 miles a gallon, America is throwing in the towel; we are giving up; no way we can compete on that kind of a standard.

They also say—and this is the saddest part of their argument—we also know foreign countries can compete and will compete successfully against us. What a sad commentary on American industry for the critics of this amendment to come up with that argument. I do not stand by it. I think if we show our leadership, they will show theirs. They did it in 1975; they can do it again today.

There is an old story—and it is probably anecdotal—that after we passed the CAFE standards in 1975 and said we wanted better fuel efficiency in our cars, in Japan they got the message of the passage of this new law and they said: Go out and hire an army of engineers; we have to be ready to compete. When they got the news of the passage of this new law in Detroit, they called all their leaders together and said: Go out and hire an army of lawyers to fight this law. That is sadly reflective of the mentality that comes to the floor today.

Instead of saying American industry can do better, that American families can expect more, that the next generation will have more safe and fuel-efficient cars, the opponents of this amendment say it is impossible, it cannot be done, and it can only be achieved at the expense of the American automobile industry.

That is a sad commentary. Frankly, it is one we should reject. I say to my colleagues in the Senate: If this Energy bill that involves so much work by so many people, S. 14, is to have any value, aren't we going to address the most important single use of energy by American families and businesses today—our transportation sector and its utilization of the imports of oil? If we do not do that, this bill is just window dressing. It is nice.

There are some aspects of the bill I actually like, but it does not get to the heart of the issue. It fears the heart of the issue because there are people who are afraid of it, and I think they are just plain wrong.

Let me mention a couple of other arguments brought up by my opponents. They said the Durbin amendment achieving 40 miles a gallon by 2015 is too fast and too furious. I remind them, the Durbin amendment is an increase of less than 1 mile per gallon per year for the first 6 years. That is hardly fast and furious.

They say my amendment is going to terminate jobs, safety, and consumer choice. The same weak arguments were made in 1975, and they should be rejected today as they were in 1975.

They say my CAFE levels are arbitrary. Listen, we use a standard, not political argument. The National Academy of Sciences already identified the technologies that can be put in cars and trucks effectively. They also say the Bond-Levin amendment is a great leap forward, but it is a great leap forward for litigation.

The Bond-Levin amendment is not an invitation to innovation; it is an invitation to litigation. Let me tell my colleagues why I say that. They establish the standards by which we can improve fuel efficiency in America through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. On one side of this chart are the existing standards. There are a handful of them. The opponents of my amendment decided to add all of these items to the standards that have to be followed by NHTSA before they can improve fuel economy.

What does this mean? It means that if they ever muster the courage to say we can have more fuel efficient vehicles, they will be challenged in court on each and every one of these elements. They will be tied up in court for years. That is exactly what the opponents of the Durbin amendment want. They do not want to see more fuel efficiency. They want this delayed indefinitely. And that delay means more dependence on foreign oil. It means more pollution. It means less energy security for America.

To come up with all of these new categories that have to be met is just a guarantee that, in our lifetime, we will never see a change. For 18 years we have not. NHTSA, left on its own for the last 18 years, has nominally improved MPG, miles per gallon, in America by 1.5 miles per gallon—in 18 years. How long will it take us to reach 32 miles a gallon by that standard? We would not see it this century. That is how slow they are today.

In comes the Bond-Levin amendment and it says: Let's throw some other categories in here and obstacles to increasing fuel efficiency.

The American people get this. American businesses do, too. They understand that more fuel efficient vehicles are going to make a more productive economy, make certain that America is more competitive, make certain there are more and good paying jobs. We are not going to throw in the towel. With the Durbin amendment, we accept the challenge that we can keep our love affair with the automobile alive but do it in a responsible way. It is the kind of situation our Nation has responded to time and again, and I think we should today.