Energy Policy Act of 2003 - cont.

Mr. DURBIN. Going back to the point I was making about more fuel efficient vehicles, a lot of people say if we are going to have more fuel efficient vehicles, they are going to cost more and they have to add things to these vehicles that will be expensive to consumers. But they fail to account for several things. One is that a more fuel efficient vehicle costs more money to operate. If it costs $1,200—and that is the estimate from the National Academy of Sciences—to put on the new fuel-saving technology, over the life of the car that same consumer will save $2,000 in terms of the gasoline they have to buy.

Arguing that this is a consumer burden is plain wrong. In fact, most consumers are concerned about fuel economy; unfortunately, the Senate is not. The Senate has taken the position, which unfortunately major automobile manufacturers in this country espouse, that we should not be concerned about fuel efficiency and fuel economy.

As a person who makes a point of trying always to buy American vehicles and having done that all my life, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Detroit is falling further and further behind when it comes to new, environmentally responsible technology to deal with fuel efficiency.

What we have with the Levin-Bond amendment is a concession to the fact that Detroit continues to fail, Detroit continues to come in second when we deal with new technology. I am concerned about that. Our American automobile industry is critically important to our economy.

As a person who wants to buy American as often as possible, I look at this and say we have to do better. This Energy bill before the Senate does not challenge the automobile industry to do better at all. It basically says we are going to include language which does not place any burden on the automobile manufacturing industry or anyone else. We are going to ignore the CAFE standards and basically allow what is currently existing to continue indefinitely. That is energy security? I don't think so.

One of the concerns I have is the impact on pollution by automobile emissions. The United States produces a third of the greenhouse gases emitted from automobiles worldwide. Out of all of the emissions from automobiles in the world, the United States is responsible for one-third of the pollution. These greenhouse gases affect agriculture, public health, the economy, our sea levels and shore lines. The greatest impact is at the North and South Pole.

Scientists predict, for example, that many species will be threatened because of the greenhouse gases that are aggravated and exacerbated by the emissions from the tailpipes of our cars and trucks. That is a reality.

It is not just a question of lessening our dependence on foreign oil but a question of environmental responsibility. Let me give one illustration. When I was a young boy growing up in East St. Louis, IL, one of the biggest treats in my life was to go over to the St. Louis zoo. I would stand there watching the polar bears until my mom and dad finally said we had to go home. I got the biggest kick out of that as a kid. A lot of children around America look at polar bears—the big, huge, lumbering white bears in zoos—and think, what a magnificent creature. The sad reality is if we do not get honest about the environment and the destruction of the environment for which we are responsible, this species of animal will be threatened.

Scientists say if the most optimistic scenario should evolve, the polar bears will not be extinct for 100 years. It means that though your children may see them during their lifetime, their children will not. Others say, no, 50 years. If that is true, if in 50 years polar bears will be extinct because of the pollution coming out of tailpipes of our cars, because of the refusal of the Senate to accept the responsibility to reduce automobile emissions, to reduce the use of fuel, if that happens in 50 years, you can say to your children and grandchildren today, go to the zoo and look closely because this animal will not be here for your children to see. There is no way.

Do we want that burden? Do we want to accept that burden in the name of not pushing the automobile companies to make more fuel-efficient vehicles? That is what this vote comes down to.

From my point of view it is very simple and very sad. We sometimes have a responsibility to make tough decisions in the Senate. We have a responsibility to say to these big multinational corporations that produce these automobiles: You have to do better. You have to do better so the United States is not dependent on foreign oil, so we have true energy security and reduce the environmental degradation and damage of air pollution. We have to accept that responsibility. If we don't, who will? Do you expect the marketplace to answer this? The marketplace will answer this by eliminating this species from the Earth. That is how the marketplace will answer.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. REID. I take this opportunity to tell the Senator from Illinois through the Chair that this is the most important amendment dealing with the environment that will be offered all year. I was asked in a television interview yesterday what I believed was the most important environmental issue facing America today. I said fuel efficiency of automobiles. There is not a close second.

I believe in the Clean Air Act, clean water, endangered species, historical preservation, and there is not an issue that is more important to the people of America and to the world than fuel efficiency of these cars and trucks in America today.

I want the record to be spread with the fact that the Senator from Illinois has offered, in my opinion, the most important environmental amendment that could be offered this Congress. I give the Senator my support.

I know what the vote was previously on this issue. We will probably lose this, which is too bad. The majority of the people in America support this amendment. The majority of people in America support this legislation. The Senate does not. That is too bad. On this issue we are not reflecting the will of the American people.

Does the Senator acknowledge that?

Mr. DURBIN. I agree with the Senator. So does the League of Conservation Voters, an organization in Washington that looks for important environmental votes. They said the Durbin amendment is a critical vote on the scorecards of Senators across the United States because it gets to the basics: Do you care about the future? Do you care about the responsibilities of American consumers and American producers of automobiles to make a better car and a better truck? If you do not care, then you want the current situation to continue.

Remember the history. If you reflect on the history, where did we come up with the word "cafe"? How was this created? It was created by a law in this Chamber in 1975 which said to automobile manufacturers: You have to do better; 14 miles a gallon is sinful. It will make us more dependent on foreign oil and it will pollute the environment. You must produce a more efficient car.

The chorus from Detroit and other automobile manufacturers could be heard all over the Chamber. They said the opponents of this amendment are saying it is technically impossible to make more fuel-efficient cars. It cannot be done.

Second, go ahead and make more fuel-efficient cars; they will not be as safe. We guarantee it. We will be riding around in these flimsy cars that are so light that lives will be lost right and left.

Third, they said: This is a job killer. More fuel efficiency for cars in America means we are going to ship American automobile manufacturing jobs overseas.

Those are the same three arguments they are making today. The Senate ignored them in 1975. The Senate said to the special interest groups: You are wrong. America's national interests demand we pass this bill. And we did.

As a result of passing that bill, we increased the fuel efficiency of America's vehicles from 14 miles a gallon to 27.5 miles a gallon in 10 years by Government mandate from a law we passed.

Is America a better place as a result? You bet. We have less air pollution; we did not sacrifice automobile safety; and we still have a vibrant automobile manufacturing industry.

To suggest we are going to kill jobs because we want cars that are more fuel efficient is, frankly, to wave the white flag and say Americans are not smart enough. We cannot figure this out.

Why is it, time and again, when it comes to fuel-efficient vehicles, automobile manufacturers from other countries seem to have it figured out? Look at these hybrid vehicles. Gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles have great potential. Is it as embarrassing to my colleagues in the Senate as it is to me that the first two companies to produce these vehicles were Toyota and Honda? Where was Ford? Where was General Motors? Where was Daimler-Chrysler? Why do we always have to come in second when it comes to this technology? Is it that our people are not smart enough? I don't buy that. What is lacking is leadership, leadership in the American automobile industry and leadership in the Senate.

My colleagues will come to the Senate today and say 40 miles a gallon on our cars in 12 years cannot be done. If it is going to be done, you are going to condemn soccer moms and their kids to driving back and forth in cars that are death traps.

Listen, another thing that is wrong with the Durbin amendment, you will hear, is it is going to cost us jobs to America. That is the same story, the same argument we heard 28 years ago, the same tired old arguments that give up and give in instead of showing real leadership as this amendment demands that we do.

I say to my colleagues in the Senate, for goodness' sake, don't take the telephone calls from the special interest groups for a few hours. Listen to your heart and your mind and understand where the American people are.

Yesterday I was in the south suburbs of Chicago, Palos Heights. A woman came up to me who appeared to be a soccer mom. She stopped by the Dominick's food store, and I saw her as she walked by. She knew about this amendment, and she said: "Thank you for doing this. We have to do something about these gas guzzlers."

She knows, as we know, that no individual consumer can change this. Unless we show leadership, Detroit is going to continue to make the most fuel inefficient vehicles, put them on the highway, creating more pollution, more dependence on foreign oil, and ultimately destroying the environment of the Earth on which we live.

I don't think I am overstating the case—not at all. When 60 percent of the oil we import into America goes into our transportation, I believe I am understating the case. You cannot have a serious bill about America's energy security, or any serious legislation that considers the impact of energy on the environment, and ignore this issue. Ignore it we have.

The Landrieu amendment, which I supported, is a good idea. It is a study. It is an important message. It has no teeth, no enforcement. The same thing is true on the Levin-Bond amendment. It is an amendment that, in name, says we are concerned about this but, in fact, creates no responsibility on the automobile industry to do anything.

We can do things. The technology is within our grasp. What we need is the leadership in the Senate. My amendment would say we have to improve the fuel efficiency of cars and SUVs, minivans and crossover utility vehicles, to 40 miles a gallon by the year 2015; to require pickup trucks and vans to achieve a CAFE standard of 27.5 miles per gallon by the same year.

It changes the definition of passenger vehicle. That has been one of the most egregious violations of the original intent of the CAFE law that has occurred. You know these huge monster vehicles called Hummers, Humvees, and the like. Take a look at those and realize for a minute they are exempt from the CAFE law.

Take a look at these massive SUVs and realize we create tax incentives for businesses to buy the most fuel inefficient cars in America. I have a tax amendment, which will not be part of the amendment I offer this morning, but it goes after this tax policy which encourages the worst instead of the best.

The argument was made here, as I said earlier, that this technology is so expensive, it is going to cost $1,200 a car.
Forgive me; I have been buying cars recently. Cars are pretty expensive nowadays, and $20,000 and up, I guess, is average. Mr. President, $1,200 on that cost at the front end, if you are going to save $2,000 in gasoline over the life of the vehicle, is certainly not too much to ask.

In terms of losing jobs, the Union of Concerned Scientists say the opponents of this amendment have it all wrong. The opponents say, if we talk about new technology and American leadership, we are going to lose jobs. Just the opposite occurs. We are going to be creating jobs to create this new technology. We will be reducing the cost of business. The businesses that are dependent on cars and trucks with better fuel efficiency will have lower costs, lower input costs, will be more productive and more competitive. But the opponents just don't see it. They have tunnel vision. What they see are these massive SUVs getting bigger and bigger and the American consumers having no alternative but to buy.

Many have said the Durbin amendment is not necessary. I would say the Landrieu measure includes no new authorities to help reach oil savings goals and no enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the requirement be fulfilled.

The Levin-Bond amendment, they say, is based on sound science. But I would say the contrary is true. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences found that existing and emerging technologies—existing and emerging technologies—could improve fuel efficiency of a light truck 50 percent to 65 percent; the fuel efficiency of cars 40 to 60 percent.

The people who oppose this amendment ignore the reality. This technology is within our grasp. But, sadly, what we have found over and over again is that Detroit and other automobile manufacturers do not believe they have any obligation to offer it.

The Levin-Bond amendment does not require an increase in fuel efficiency. It delays the job, passes the buck to NHTSA. It adds new roadblocks to NHTSA's decisionmaking process. NHTSA has failed to make any meaningful increase to fuel economy for 10 years. The record is there. We know if you hand this over to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, you are not going to get fuel efficiency for a decade. Its latest increase of 1.5 miles per gallon to light trucks is almost laughable, to think that is the best they can do considering that the standards for light trucks were last changed 18 years ago.

So if every 18 years we are going to increase the efficiency of vehicles in America by 1.5 miles a gallon, how long do you think we will be dependent on foreign oil? The answer is obvious: Forever.

We are addressing fuel efficiency through the President's hydrogen fuel cell initiative. I support that. But that certainly is not the total answer.

I say to my colleagues, there are people in the business of selling cars. There are people in the business of buying cars. There are consumers across America who are going to ask one basic question: Is S. 14 for real? It is not for real if we do not include any provisions requiring more fuel efficiency and more fuel economy of our vehicles.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.