Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007

Floor Speech

CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NATION ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - June 20, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to support legislation which is pending before the Senate which would increase fuel economy standards in automobiles and trucks over the next 10 years. Regardless of what opponents of this amendment may say, technology is available today to reach this goal. We don't have to compromise the safety of the cars and trucks we drive and American jobs don't have to be lost to meet these standards. The CAFE legislation we have proposed is different than it has been in the past. It is a true compromise, a middle-ground position.

We have come a long way with this compromise, and I applaud the efforts of Senators Inouye and Stevens. It is not an easy issue to meet in the middle on, but we have. I am sorry the automobile industry, which has resisted efforts to improve fuel efficiency over the last 20 years, is still resisting these efforts.

This is something most Americans understand intuitively. If we are going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, if we are going to reduce the pollution we are creating with the cars and trucks we drive, we should be using fewer gallons of gasoline for the miles we drive. Yet what we have seen consistently over the last 22 years, while we have not had a national fuel economy standard, is that the cars and trucks being sold on average are getting less mileage. So each year, we buy these vehicles and find we need more gasoline than we did the previous year to drive the same number of miles. That is unacceptable.

The CAFE provisions have come a long way since I offered my amendment 2 years ago. When I came to the floor and suggested it was time to start talking about fuel economy, there were not too many Senators joining me. I called for an increase in fuel economy standards that would have had vehicles reach a target of 40 miles a gallon with a target date of 2016.

This legislation before us sets a target of 35 miles per gallon, providing even more lead time for the automobile industry to the year 2020. The last time we debated 40 miles a gallon, my opponents said that was just too high a standard to reach. Now we have lowered that target to 35 miles a gallon, and the industry proposal has 36 miles per gallon 2 years out. It makes me wonder why they no longer think it is arbitrary or whether they have any intention of ever meeting the target.

My amendment 2 years ago did not provide the industry the flexibility this legislation does. I originally called for a hard target. You either had to reach it or pay fines. This legislation before us allows for flexibility, providing the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration the authority to lower the target if it is not technologically feasible.

My amendment did not reform the CAFE program by creating attribute-based standards, something I understand the industry would rather see than the existing system. This legislation does. My amendment did not create a fleetwide fuel economy standard. This legislation does. Nor did it extend the credit trading program, as this amendment before us will do.

We have come a long way to reach a compromise on this legislation. We understand the concerns about the existing programs brought to our attention. We understand the difficulties in the domestic auto industry. We tried to address them honestly. Unfortunately, for the past 2 years the auto companies were not at the table when they could have been. So we changed the CAFE system to allow for a more level playing field between American and foreign manufacturers.

We provided NHTSA the authority to create attribute-based standards for passenger cars, something President Bush asked for. We already witnessed NHTSA set new fuel economy standards for light trucks by using this system. The CAFE standards will no longer be by manufacturer but, instead, fleetwide, based on the size-attribute system. That means the total fuel economy for all cars in the United States will meet the fuel economy targets we set. The targets will be set for different groups of cars based on their size attributes, not based on the manufacturer. Since the fuel economy target is fleetwide, the relative mix of vehicles manufactured by each company is not a real issue in the debate. GM will not be penalized for making more SUVs and fewer small passenger vehicles than Toyota.

In order to meet a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon, each vehicle group will have to meet its own average fuel economy. For example, all midsized sedans will have to attain an average fuel economy standard. For example, the Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, and Chevy Malibu must attain roughly the same fuel economy. These cars will have to get about 36 to 38 miles per gallon based on current trends. Likewise, all large SUVs will be subject to different, lower average fuel economy. We will be comparing apples to apples. Each vehicle will have to reach an attainable fuel economy standard based on its size. All of these targets must average out to 35 miles per gallon for the entire fleet sold in the United States by 2020.

I repeat that because it is a large and important change on how CAFE standards are now structured. The relative mix of any manufacturer's fleet between similar passenger cars and larger SUVs is less relevant in the fuel economy debate. The American auto manufacturers should not be at any disadvantage relative to foreign automobile manufacturers.

Now we are focused completely on increasing the fuel economy of vehicles driven in the United States, regardless of who makes them and their size.

Even though our legislation now addresses one of the major issues raised in the 2002 National Academy of Sciences report and does what NHTSA has requested, sadly, the auto manufacturers still oppose our compromise and have come up with even more arguments to try to persuade my colleagues to vote against improving the fuel economy of the cars and trucks we drive.

Let me remind everyone about the impact on the transportation sector of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

In 2005, the United States used 20.8 million barrels of oil per day. Sixty percent of it, or 12.5 million barrels of the oil we use, is bought from other nations--60 percent in the year 2005. Of the 20 million barrels of oil we use every single day, 69 percent is used for transportation, and of this, 62 percent is used for surface transportation by cars and light trucks. Every minute, we consume more than 267,000 gallons of gasoline in America. You could say we import oil to run our cars, and by and large we do.

Any increase in fuel economy will decrease our dependence on foreign oil. How significant is the issue of foreign oil? I don't need to remind anyone that we are in the midst of a war in the Middle East. We have lost 3,521 of our best and bravest soldiers. Ten times that number have been injured. Twice that number have been seriously injured, facing traumatic brain injury and amputations.

It is no coincidence that these battlegrounds time and again are battlegrounds in the Middle East, which is the source of our energy. We have to reach a point where we are less dependent on that region of the world to fuel the American economy.

NHTSA estimates that if we had not established CAFE standards in 1975, highway fuel usage would be 35 percent higher today. A lot of critics of what we did in 1975 said that was a Government mandate, and they are right. It was a Government mandate which was resisted by the automobile industry. They said to us that it was impossible, there was no technology that could result in cars being more fuel efficient than the ones we drove in 1975. The manufacturers also argued that any cars built to meet these standards would be so light in weight that they would be unsafe. They argued that only foreign manufacturers would be able to make them. Thankfully, Congress ignored that argument and passed CAFE standards in 1975 and 10 years later saw the average miles per gallon of cars in America almost double because of the Government mandate.

The Natural Resource Defense Council estimates that the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act now before the Senate will save 1.2 million barrels of oil per day by 2020. Think about it, 1.2 million barrels of oil per today. I think the price of oil is around $70. Do the math. That is the kind of money we will not be sending overseas, oftentimes to countries that do not agree with us in terms of our values and the kind of America and world we would like to see in the future. Raising fuel economy standards will reduce our demand for gasoline, which will decrease the amount of oil we have to import.

Does anyone remember waiting in gas lines in 1973 to get their 10 gallons of gas? I do. The shortage was due to an OPEC embargo on oil exports to the United States in response to actions we had taken in the Middle East. Overnight, the price of oil went up from $3 a barrel to $5.11 a barrel. Three months into the embargo, oil prices rose further to $11.65 a barrel. This embargo came at a time when the United States imported less than 30 percent of its annual oil--about 28 percent, in fact. And it hit America hard. Suddenly, Americans had to ration gasoline. Sales were maxed at $10 per sale, gasoline stations closed on Sundays, and people waited in lines. OPEC succeeded in exerting its influence on global markets, as well as the United States. Our vulnerability was revealed in 1973, and so easily we forget.

Currently, crude oil costs just over $68 per barrel. Oil costs about 27 percent more now than it did the last time we talked about CAFE on the floor, the last time I offered an amendment 2 years ago. And it makes the $11 a barrel during the oil embargo of the seventies seem like some sort of utopia.

OPEC brought us to our knees in the 1970s. Imagine what they could do now. We do not import 28 percent of our oil now; we import 60 percent of our oil. If other countries we buy oil from decided to stop selling to the United States or to hike the cost, our economy and individuals and families, small businesses and family farmers would be in big trouble.

Literally 40 percent of all U.S. oil imports come from potentially hostile or unstable nations, and 92 percent of all conventional oil reserves are in these nations. Amazingly, we continue to operate in a business-as-usual mode, reliant on imports to quench our thirst from some of the most unstable countries in the world. Venezuela, one of the top five oil exporters to the United States, is also one of the most autocratic in Latin America. The Chavez government regularly threatens nationalization of key industries and pursues policies inconsistent with many of our policies in the United States. Nigeria, while struggling on a path to democracy, is also extremely unstable, with ongoing violence in the oil-producing regions. They are also in the top five oil exporters to the United States. The more we rely on foreign nations to supply us with oil, the more susceptible we are to their instability.

I hope my colleagues realize that any future crisis that prevents or significantly restricts the production or flow of oil resources will have consequences on our economy far worse than anything we experienced in the 1970s. So we can do nothing and hope that some manifestation of 1973 does not occur again or we can take steps now, wise steps to prepare for our future.

Another argument we hear is that if you raise fuel economy standards, American auto companies will be forced to make small cars that are not as safe. That is just not true.

This argument comes from the same industry that has fought incorporating new technology into their automobiles that now make our cars safer--including seatbelts and airbags. They now argue that they are concerned about your safety and that raising fuel economy will put you at risk.

Better fuel economy does not mean a vehicle needs to be smaller. Take for instance, the Saturn VUE. This vehicle's hybrid system will provide a 20 percent increase in fuel mileage over the conventional VUE engine and not be one inch smaller.

Their safety argument stems from the idea that the only way to make a car more fuel efficient is to decrease weight and size of the vehicle.

This, they posit, would decrease the safety of the vehicles.

Although reducing vehicle weight will increase fuel economy, it is not our only option.

The International Council on Clean Transportation released a report 2 weeks ago called ``Sipping Fuel and Saving Lives: Increasing Fuel Economy Without Sacrificing Safety.''

This report highlighted many mechanisms that would increase safety without affecting fuel economy, including: rollover-activated seatbelt pretensioners; window curtain airbags; and electronic stability control which allows each tire brake to be individually activated depending on circumstances.

They also advocated the use of advance high-strength construction and aluminum and a shift to unibody construction.

This would not only increase the safety of the vehicle, it would decrease the weight of the vehicle, thus also increasing fuel economy.

Smart design and use of strong materials to protect the passengers in strategic places will also lead to decreased overall weight of the vehicles without diminishing either vehicle size or safety.

The report went on to state that most of the technologies available to increase fuel economy have no impact on safety.

In fact, as fuel economy has increased, the number of traffic fatalities has decreased.

During the late 1970s and continuing through the 1980s, the number of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled decreased dramatically. During the same time, the fuel economy doubled.

I think this shows us without a doubt that increased fuel economy can be obtained without jeopardizing vehicular safety.

The National Research Council's 2002 report, ``Effectiveness and Impact of CAFE Standards'', 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.

In fact, 85 percent of the gains in fuel economy we have witnessed have come from technologies that had no impact on vehicle safety--including changes in valve control, throttling, or increasing the efficiency of accessories like air-conditioning and heating units.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has recently cited both the 2002 National Academies study and its own recent review of safety noting that down-weighting if concentrated among the heaviest vehicles could produce a small, fleet-wide safety benefit.

Additionally, scientists have the ability to develop superior, cutting edge materials that can reduce the weight of the largest and most fuel inefficient vehicles.

For instance, ``composite materials'' made from graphite fibers, magnesium alloy and epoxies comprise 60 percent of Boeing's 7E7--providing greater durability, reducing maintenance and maintaining safety--and increasing efficiency between 20 and 30 percent over its rival similar product.

The same auto industry that fought against safety belts, airbags, mandatory recalls, side-impact protection and roof strength is fighting against better fuel economy.

I am not surprised--just disappointed.

We have heard the argument too, that increasing fuel economy standards will force American automakers out of work.

Sadly, we are already witnessing tremendous job loss in our American automotive manufacturing sector, and it wasn't caused by an increase in fuel economy standards.

Instead, it has been this industry's failure to change with the times and recognize that the growing global dependence on oil would inevitably force gasoline prices to increase and that consumers would respond to the high prices at the pump by demanding more fuel-efficient cars.

Some companies are adapting to consumer demand--they are making more fuel-efficient vehicles, and being rewarded by higher sales.

Other companies are not adapting as quickly to consumer demand and continue to make cars that are more difficult to move off the lots.

The argument that increased CAFE standards would result in job loss speculates that the industry would just stop producing vehicles instead of introducing new vehicles.

I suggest that they would still make vehicles--that they would need expertise and labor to design new cars and retool existing models to be more efficient--expanding to potential for jobs in the U.S.

Consumers across America are paying over $3 per gallon at the pump, and they are not happy about it.

Stagnant fuel economy and increasing gasoline costs pinch American familys' pocketbooks.

In a poll released right before Memorial Day, 46 percent of respondents said they expect spiking gasoline prices to cause them severe financial problems.

Increasing fuel economy standards would help consumers save more than $2,500 over the life of the vehicle.

According to another recent poll conducted by the Mellman Group, 88 percent of rural pickup owners support higher CAFE standards.

Eighty-four percent of people who use their pickup trucks on the job approve of increased CAFE standards.

Eighty-seven percent of people who are economically dependent on the auto industry are supportive of increased CAFE standards.

The consumers who actually have the most to gain from increased fuel economy are people who live in rural areas--they frequently have larger vehicles and must drive further on a daily basis.

They are therefore spending more at the pump and are overwhelmingly supportive of increasing the fuel economy of the vehicles they need to drive.

A constituent of mine, Chuck Frank, owner of ``Z'' Frank Chevrolet/Kia recently visited with me to discuss the bill we are debating.

Chuck runs a family business. His family has been selling and leasing cars and trucks in Chicago since 1936--and has sold well over 1 million Chevrolets.

He doesn't want to be at odds with the manufacturers he represents, but he recognizes that times are changing.

In a letter he sent us, Mr. Frank wrote:

It is important for you to know that there is support from within the auto industry for moving forward with raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.

Mr. Frank also shared with me a recent editorial by Keith Crain, the editor-in-chief of Detroit's Automotive News. The editorial states:

It's a real shame that the industry and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers can't be a part of the solution rather than an embarrassment to the nation.

If there is no objection, I would like to have both the letter and editorial printed into the Record.

Since 1999, Chrysler group has lost 2.7 percentage points of its market share while GM's domestic brands have lost 4.9 percentage points and Ford has lost 7.4 percentage points.

It is time these companies recognize that they are not making enough of what consumers want and should start delivering what the consumers need.

Finally, increasing fuel economy standards will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Every gallon of gasoline burned releases approximately 20 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

One-fifth of the greenhouse gas emissions are from the tailpipes of our cars.

Increasing CAFE standards will decrease emissions as we use less gasoline.

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are extremely promising. Using energy equivalents between gasoline and electricity, the Natural Resources Defense Council calculated that a plug-in electric vehicle would get the equivalent of 105 miles per gallon.

If we look at the oil savings we can expect to get from our bill, the alternative amendment and a strict 4 percent per year increase, we see that these approaches have a dramatically different impact on the amount of oil we use in our transportation sector.

If we increase fuel economy by 4 percent annually, we see the best oil savings. Ironically, this is closest to what the President suggested in his State of the Union Address this year.

Four percent per year would yield an oil savings of 5.5 million barrels per day by 2030 if the auto manufacturers were not provided an off ramp.

The CAFE amendment that we have seen would make very small gains in oil savings by 2020, we would be using less than one-half of a million barrels of oil per day and by 2030 we would be using less than 2 million of barrels of oil per day than we otherwise would be.

Our proposal is the real compromise here, by getting to 35 mpg by 2020, we would save 1.2 million barrels of oil per day. If fuel economy rises at 4 percent per year after the first 10 years, we would save almost 4 million barrels of oil per day by 2030.

If we also look at the greenhouse gas emissions and fuel cost savings to consumers, we see more clearly how much more effective our bill is for consumers and the environment.

The amount of oil savings that we would achieve by 2020 under our proposal is 1.2 million barrels per day.

The other proposal would only save 0.4 million of barrels of oil per day.

A 4 percent annual increase in fuel economy would achieve 1.7 million barrels of oil per day savings.

Our bill would save 206 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere every year.

The other CAFE proposal would cut greenhouse gas emissions by only 65 million metric tons per year.

Finally, our bill saves consumers more at the pump. We would save consumers $25 billion by 2020 compared to only $8 billion in savings by 2020 with the alternative CAFE proposal.

Our position is the compromise position--it has been worked out in a bipartisan fashion. We have worked hard to address the concerns of the auto industry and NHTSA. And still the auto manufacturers are unable to come to the table to support a bill that makes any meaningful change that would save millions of barrels of oil per day, using off the shelf technology.

I cannot for the life of me explain how a great industry such as the automobile industry in the United States has fallen so far behind when it comes to new technology in fuel economy. Several years ago when Toyota and other Japanese manufacturers came up with hybrid vehicles and hybrid engines, Detroit was dismissive: It is a fad; people don't really want them. They have now sold their 1 millionth Toyota Prius in the United States. There is a strong appetite for cars that get 40, 50, 60 miles a gallon, serve our families, and serve the needs of our economy. Detroit has not registered when it comes to this obvious reality.

My wife and I bought a Ford Escape hybrid, at the time the only hybrid offered by an American manufacturer. I am sorry to report to you, unfortunately, that the hybrid technology in my Ford was made by Toyota. Ford did not make it. They were not up to it. I hope they soon will be when it comes to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

There are opportunities out there. I am afraid if we listen to the automobile manufacturers and continue to wait, nothing will happen. Fuel efficiency will continue to falter, will continue to be dependent on countries that send their oil to the United States.

It is interesting, while we are in this CAFE debate in the United States, other countries have already had their debate. The winners, when it comes to fuel economy, are Japan and the European Union, where automobiles are now getting 40 to 46 miles per gallon. China--China, this fledgling economy--has more fuel-efficient cars than we do, and their fleet is almost at 35 miles per gallon already, as we debate whether the United States can reach that goal in 10 years.

There is a lot of reasons we have fallen so far behind. I will not try to dwell on them, but clearly we have a chance to catch up.

The last point I would like to make is, this is a timely debate as well when it comes to our environment. There are a few of my colleagues on the Senate floor who don't believe in global warming and climate change. They are entitled to their point of view. I happen to think they are wrong. I am sure they believe they are correct. I happen to believe something is happening in this world today: The climate is changing; storms are more violent; glaciers are melting. We are seeing changes already that are going to have a long-term negative impact on the world in which we live.

When I look at my grandchild, who is about 11 years old, and talk about what the world will be like for him, I am sure the day is going to come when he is going to ask me: Did you do what you could to try to avoid the environmental crisis that was looming when you saw it back in the early 21st century?

It is a legitimate question. Each generation has to be able to answer that question. We know now if we don't do something smart when it comes to energy and energy consumption, we are going to make this world less comfortable for us to live in. That is a fact. I hope by moving toward fuel efficiency we can start doing the right thing.

And I will go a step further. If we fail on the fuel efficiency question, on the CAFE question when it comes to the cars and trucks that we drive, then I believe we will have failed on one of the most fundamental issues in terms of the future of this planet and the future of the United States. I honestly believe we have an opportunity to move forward, and I hope we do it, and do it soon.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. First of all, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, your words are really like music to my ears. I am so grateful that you, Senator Durbin, are in the leadership because I think you reflect the views of the vast majority of Americans who see the challenges ahead and know we just can't do business as usual.

I think this bill is a very fair bill when it comes to fuel economy. This bill went through the Commerce Committee, a committee on which I serve, and it was a bipartisan measure. Everyone voted for it. It was fair; it was good.

The question I have for my colleague is, I just wanted to make sure he was aware of another provision in this bill, which is a good one, too, and that is to make sure the Federal Government is, in fact, the model of energy efficiency when it comes to the purchase of new cars. I wanted to make sure my friend was aware because it is tucked away in this bill, a provision we got out of the Commerce Committee, that says from now on, when the Federal Government buys its 60,000 cars a year--60,000 cars a year for its Federal fleet--that it buy the most fuel-efficient car. Is my friend aware of that?

Mr. DURBIN. I am aware because I know the Senator from California has been working on this for quite some time. I might also add that I recently met with the Postmaster General, and the U.S. Post Office has many vehicles bought by the Federal Government. They are trying to focus on how to reconfigure existing vehicles with diesel technology, for example, which is less polluting and uses less fuel. And they need our help. So I hope this bill will be a breakthrough when it comes to Federal vehicles.

I might also add, I am aware the Senator from California has joined me and a few of our colleagues and invited the experts to come and take a look at our office operations. Members of Congress, the Senate and the House, have to lead by example, and I hope the small steps we have already taken, and other steps we will take to have less of what we call a carbon footprint from our operations, may point the way toward more fuel efficiency and conserving electricity even in our own office operations.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, absolutely, I say to my friend, and again I thank him for yielding for another question.

Several of our offices are part of this model project to see how energy efficient we can be. It is a pretty straightforward way for us to lead by example.

The other question I have for my colleague is this: The bill that is on the Senate floor, which Senator Reid worked so hard to put together, along with Senator Bingaman, myself, and Senator Inouye and others--Senator Kerry was involved, and I know my friend was involved as the assistant leader. There are other provisions in this bill--which is why I am so hopeful we will get this done--that take this notion of the Federal Government being a model to our buildings as well.

I am not sure my friend is aware of the exact number, but the Federal Government either runs or operates 8,000 buildings--8,000 buildings. When my friend talks about global warming, it is a fact that in America 39 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions comes from buildings. So if we can set the tone here, and we can move forward with a bipartisan vote--we were able to pass a lighting efficiency bill for the Federal Government, which is included. This also has a component where grants will be given across this country to cities and counties to make their buildings energy efficient in terms of lighting. It will save money, and it will reduce the carbon footprint.

Then, with the help of Senators LAUTENBERG and WARNER, we got another piece of legislation included in this bill, which is called the green buildings bill, which also impacts all new and existing Federal buildings and also requires the EPA to come out with a model of green buildings for schools. So we will help our schools because you are so right when you talked about your 11-year-old grandson. I have a 12-year-old grandson, as you know. They are going to ask those tough questions, and they may well ask it of the schools they are in too.

So I wanted to make sure my friend knew, since we really are talking more with the leadership of Senator Bingaman, who has been working on the most contentious amendments, that there is so much in the underlying bill that came out of his committee, my committee, and other committees that is strong, and that is why we would hate to see this derailed. This would be an enormous setback.

The people want us to reach across party lines and take care of business, and an energy policy is going to take care of business.

Mr. DURBIN. I might just say to the Senator from California that it wasn't that long ago we used to hear about all the California laws, rules, and regulations. It was a source of amusement to many of us in the Midwest that you had your own design in automobile engines, and we thought: What is going on with these crazy people in California? We learned our lesson because in the period of time that you led the Nation in thinking about these things, you proved something: that you could keep economic growth moving forward in California and conserve energy in the process.

That is a lesson the Nation needs to learn. We don't want to sacrifice jobs, business growth, or opportunity in America. Instead, we want to create opportunity in a reasonable, wise, environmentally sensitive way.

I thank the Senator from California for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Source