Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. That would leave 5 minutes and 3 minutes for summation.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Obviously, the law sets forth criteria that are to be employed. I don't have those in front of me. I will accept the contention of the Senator from Nevada that those are the criteria. The question is whether a prejudgment as to the outcome is already ordained. In my judgment, the positions that were already in process in 1994, prior to the implementation of the moratorium, suggest that those decisions 5 years ago had already essentially resulted in a preliminary decision to increase the standards by 15 to 35 percent. If, in effect, the moratorium does not go forward, I believe we would, indeed, be moving a process that will mandate this kind of increase.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, there are a number of us on the floor who want to speak about this issue. Earlier we heard from the proponents of the amendment. They brought it to the floor at a time when those of us who opposed the amendment were not in position to respond. I know there is a desire, and we certainly are amenable, to get to a vote in the next hour and a half, or so. We would like to have an opportunity to present our side of this debate, at least for a reasonable period of time, and if there needs to be a further time agreement, then we will be able to enter into one. I see Senator Levin on the floor and Senator Ashcroft. I know they would like to follow. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senators Ashcroft and Levin be permitted to speak prior to any other speakers on this amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. My sense, reading the history of this, is that is where the starting point would be. I believe, in effect, if we do not have this, if this is not in place, that that would be the mandated effect.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I will make some comments then. I wanted to clarify the amount of time we have, and we will see if other Members come down. Let me do the following: I will suggest the absence of a quorum and suggest the time be taken off my time while I prepare to make these comments.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I inquire of the Chair what the pending business before the Senate is.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma such time as he may consume on this issue.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I am not here to present an amendment. I am interested in knowing if the pending amendment is the Gorton amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by Senators Gorton, Feinstein, and Bryan. I oppose this amendment because it will impose an unnecessary and unacceptable burden on the working men and women of this country, and of my state in particular. Throughout Michigan, men and women are working hard every day to produce the cars that make our economy and our nation move. They and their families depend on the jobs produced by our automobile manufacturing industry, just as the rest of us depend on the cars they produce. But those jobs and Michigan's economy are jeopardized by efforts to increase standards for corporate average fuel economy or CAFE. I have come to the floor because I want to make certain that my colleagues are aware of the extremely serious impact of increased CAFE standards, not just on Michigan, but on every state in the union. And make no mistake, increased CAFE standards are the intention of the amendment we are debating today, and will be the result should it be adopted. The Federal Government currently mandates that auto manufacturers maintain an average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars, and 20.7 miles per gallon for sport utility vehicles and light trucks. Since 1995 Congress has prohibited federal transportation funds from being used to unilaterally increase these standards. We have recognized that it is our duty, as legislators, to make policy in this important area of economic and environmental concern. Now, however, a number of my colleagues are calling for an end to this congressional authority. This sense-of-the-Senate urges the Senate conferees to the Transportation appropriation bill to reject the House funding prohibition on raising CAFE standards. It does not call for the Department of Transportation to study the benefits and costs of raising CAFE standards, as some proponents of this amendment have suggested. Rather, the amendment states: ``The Senate should not recede to section 320 of this bill, as passed by the House of Representatives, which prevents an increase in CAFE standards.'' Make no mistake and I reiterate this, if the House funding prohibition is stripped from this bill, the Department of Transportation will raise CAFE standards. Current law requires D.O.T. to set CAFE standards each year at the ``maximum feasible fuel economy level.'' And the Secretary is not authorized to just ``study'' CAFE. He must act by regulation to set new CAFE standards each year. In 1994, the last year prior to the CAFE freeze, the administration began rulemaking on new CAFE standards. Department of Transportation's April 6, 1994 proposal referenced feasible higher CAFE levels for trucks of 15 to 35 percent above the current standard. So let us be clear, this is not and never has been about a study. This proposed sense-of-the-Senate amendment is a precursor to higher CAFE standards on Sport Utility Vehicles and light trucks. Mr. President, this action is misguided. It will hurt the working families of Michigan. It will undermine American competitiveness. And it will reduce passenger safety. Higher CAFE requirements cost jobs. It really is that simple. Let me explain what I mean. To meet increased CAFE requirements, automakers must make design and material changes to their cars. Those changes cost money, and force American manufacturers to build cars that are smaller, less powerful and less popular with consumers. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences found that raising CAFE requirements to 35 mpg would increase the average vehicle's cost by about $2,500. And that is just a low-end estimate. Japanese automakers have escaped these costs because sky-high gasoline prices in their home markets forced them to make smaller, lighter cars years ago. Increased CAFE requirements will continue to favor Japanese auto makers. And that means they will continue to place an uneven burden on American automobile workers. Increased CAFE standards also reduce consumer choice, contrary to the assertions made in the earlier debate. For example, the principal reason full sized station wagons have disappeared from the market is the need to meet fleet mileage requirements under the CAFE program. Full-size station wagons, long popular with the American public, simply cannot be engineered economically to achieve high enough gas mileage to make them worth selling. Consumers suffer when their choices are narrowed. and auto makers and their employees suffer when they are forced to make cars the public simply does not want. In a statement before the Consumer Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, Dr. Marina Whitman of General Motors notes that in 1982: We were forced to close two assembly plants which had been fully converted to produce our new, highly fuel-efficient compact and mid-size cars. The cost of these conversions was $130 million, but the plants were closed because demand for those cars did not develop during a period of sharply declining gasoline prices. This story could be repeated for every major American automaker, Mr. President. And the effects on our overall economy have been devastating. The American auto industry accounts for one in seven U.S. jobs. Steel, transportation, electronics, literally dozens of industries employing thousands upon thousands of American depend on the health of our auto industry. Our automakers simply cannot afford to pay the fines imposed on them if they fail to reach CAFE standards, or to build cars that Americans will not buy. In either case the real victims are American workers and consumers. Nor should we forget, that American automakers are investing almost $1 billion every year in research to develop more fuel efficient vehicles. Indeed, we do not need to turn to the punitive, disruptive methods of CAFE standards to increase fuel economy for American vehicles. Since 1993, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles has brought together government agencies and the auto industries to conduct joint research--research that is making significant progress and will bridge the gap to real world applications after 2000. By enhancing research cooperation, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles will help our auto industry develop vehicles that are more easily recyclable, have lower emissions, and can achieve up to triple the fuel efficiency of today's midsize family sedans. All this while producing cars that retain performance, utility, safety, and economy. We have made solid progress toward making vehicles that achieve greater fuel economy without sacrificing the qualities consumers demand. Finally, I wish to address the issue of vehicle safety. For a number of years now, the federal government has taken the lead in mandating additional safety features on automobiles in an attempt to reduce the number of lives lost in auto accidents. How ironic to learn that federal CAFE requirements have been costing lives all this time. The Competitive Enterprise Institute recently estimated that between 2,600 and 4,500 drivers and passengers die every year as a result of CAFE-induced auto downsizing. USA Today, in a special section devoted to the issue of CAFE standards and auto safety, calculated CAFE's cumulative death toll at 46,000. I ask unanimous consent that the July 2, 1999, USA Today series on CAFE be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will make some brief remarks in response to some of the comments that have been made by the Senator from Washington and others, as well as to elaborate on some of my earlier remarks today. First, I point out that with respect to the safety issues, the question is not whether on a cumulative basis there have been fewer fatalities since the implementation of CAFE standards. The question is what the consequence is or the correlation is between fatalities and CAFE standards. Since 1975, on a variety of fronts, safety efforts have gone forward to protect passengers and drivers in motor vehicles ranging from the introduction of airbags to State laws which require the use of seatbelts, primary laws that require the use of seatbelts to the introduction of countless child safety and passenger protection activities and child safety seats. One cannot draw that correlation. What one can, of course, do is follow the studies of USA Today and the National Academy of Sciences that try to determine what the direct effects of CAFE have been, and those effects are quite clear. As the Senator from Missouri and my counterpart, my colleague from Michigan, have indicated, the conclusion is the direct consequence of CAFE standards has been an increase in fatalities since 1975 of an estimated 46,000 people who lost their lives as a consequence of CAFE standards because of the lighter vehicles and the less safe vehicles that CAFE has fostered. Mr. President, I note the Senator from Ohio is here. He wishes to speak, and I yield up to 5 minutes to him.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his confidence in my legal skills. As I read the sense-of-the-Senate resolution which has been proposed, it says, in its concluding section, the resolution section: It is the sense of the Senate that the issue of CAFE standards should be permitted to be examined by the Department of Transportation. And then in subsection (2): The Senate should not recede to section 320 of this bill, as passed by the House of Representatives, which prevents an increase in CAFE standards. Now, if we do not include that provision, if the sense-of-the-Senate resolution were to prevail and that were to be the ultimate outcome and section 320 as contained in the House version of the legislation were to not survive the conference and the final resolution of the legislation, it is my understanding that we would then revert back to the process which is in the law otherwise, which, by my understanding of it, mandates that the Department of Transportation, under 49 USC subtitle 5 part (c) section 32902, required that the Department of Transportation set CAFE standards each year at ``the maximum feasible average fuel economy level.'' I believe that is what would happen at the Department of Transportation. The Secretary of Transportation is not authorized to just study CAFE. He must act by regulation to set new CAFE standards each year. That has not happened because of the moratorium which has been imposed over recent years, since 1995. Prior to the CAFE freeze in 1994, the administration began rulemaking on new CAFE standards. On April 6 of 1994, again, in the last year--I don't want to take all the Senator's time; I will try to be quick--the proposal referenced feasible higher CAFE levels for trucks of 15 to 35 percent above the current standard.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I inquire how much time remains for the various sides?

Mr. ABRAHAM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, even the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, which runs the CAFE program, has recognized the deadly effects of CAFE standards. In its publication ``Small Car Safety in the 1980's,'' NHTSA explains that smaller cars are less crash worthy than large ones, even in single-vehicle accidents. Small cars have twice the death rate of drivers and passengers in crashes as larger cars. And smaller light trucks will mean even more fatalities. These trucks and SUV's have higher centers of gravity and so are more prone to rollovers. If SUV and truck weights are reduced, thousands could die. I believe it is crucial that we get the facts straight on the true effects of CAFE standards so that we can come to the only rational conclusion available: safe, economically sensible increases in gas mileage require cooperation and research and technology, not Federal mandates. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gorton-Feinstein-Bryan amendment. Mr. President, it is very simple. When Washington makes these dictates, when unelected bureaucrats make these decisions and impose them on an industry, the ramifications can and will be serious. We have seen that before in the auto industry. If this were to go forward, we would see it again. The autoworkers in my State and around this country, and the people who work in other industries that are related to the sale of automobiles, will have their lives in jeopardy, as well as their jobs in jeopardy, if we move in this direction.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I have been informed we have Members on our side who still want to speak, so I have been holding our remaining time for them. I do not want to put the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Nevada in the position of exhausting all of their time before we have rebuttal. I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. ABRAHAM. How much time do we have?

Mr. ABRAHAM. I know there may be other speakers on our side. As I indicated earlier, the proponents of the amendment had over an hour to initially make their case. We agreed to a time agreement that gives less than that in terms of bringing it up to balance. I don't want to run any more time off of our clock at this stage. I ask unanimous consent that time during a quorum call run off the time of the Senator from Washington.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I am interested in speaking on that amendment at this point, if that is in order.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes remaining?

Mr. ABRAHAM. There are other opponents on my side who wish to speak. Let me summarize with a few concluding remarks. I want to first reiterate what my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, has said. A chart that shows the correlation between increases in CAFE and decreases in fatalities is not based on a study that relates the two. The studies that do relate the two, particularly as he said, the outside study by the National Academy of Sciences, suggest a contrary finding. In fact, the implementation of CAFE standards has led to approximately 46,000 lost lives as a consequence of the lighter vehicles being in our fleets. The second point I make relates to the broader point that also was made earlier by my colleague from Michigan. Higher CAFE standards are going to affect American manufactured products, but not necessarily the products of our competitors from overseas. Hence, the same kind of vehicles, with virtually the same types of fuel efficiency levels, as well as the same types of emission levels, will be purchased by the same market that wants and craves these vehicles today. The only difference will be the kind of difference we saw back in the late 1970s and early 1980s and throughout much of the decade of the 1980s when we found the foreign imports' share of the American market continuing to go up, at the expense of American domestically manufactured products, and ultimately at the expense of American autoworker jobs. In summation, this is simple to me: Do we want to put at risk the safety of people who will be purchasing sports utility vehicles, light trucks, and others by making a change in CAFE standards? I hope the answer is no. Do we want to risk the jobs of American autoworkers? I speak not just for those autoworkers in Michigan, who tend to be on the front lines, but many other people in this country who are working in related industries and whose jobs are affected by the sale of domestically manufactured automobiles. Do we want to put at risk all of these jobs? I don't think so. Do we want to risk the investments made by the auto companies in new, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and the significant investments that we have made in the partnership for a new generation of vehicles? Do we want to derail those efforts as a result of this type of action? In my judgment, we should say yes to more safe vehicles; we should say yes to American autoworkers; we should say yes to the technological advances that have been and are continuing to be made. That is ultimately how we are going to have more fuel-efficient vehicles. If we say yes to all of those, then, in my judgment, we must say no to this amendment because to have a Washington bureaucracy made up of unelected individuals who impose upon this very significant sector of our economy these kinds of standards, the likely outcome will be exactly the opposite of what I have proposed today. I think it will hurt our economy and the American automobile industry, although it may help the automobile industries of other countries. I think it will make the vehicles that come about as a result of higher standards less safe, as the studies that we have cited here today demonstrate. So for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Gorton-Bryan-Feinstein amendment. Before I conclude, I ask that a letter produced by the United Auto Workers be printed in the Record at this point as an expression of their views on this issue, which are consistent with those my colleagues and I on this side of the issue have been offering here today.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sincere congratulations to the Arab American Cultural and Community Center in Houston, Texas. The Center will be hosting its Fourth Annual Gala ``Unity of Friendship'' in Houston on October 16, 1999, and it is worthy of recognition. Mr. President, I commend those who have strived so hard to build this Center and make it a vibrant part of the community in Texas. This is an important effort which has advanced and demonstrated the continuing positive contributions of Arab-Americans. This Center has served as a cultural resource center for all nationalities in Houston, but is a special place where Arab-American culture, art, and language can be preserved and carried on for generations to come. It has assisted the children in the Arab American community by teaching them about their ancestors' impressive history and heritage. I am pleased to recognize the efforts of those involved in this year's banquet and to note that they are generously donating a portion of the proceeds to help very worthwhile humanitarian projects. They are to be commended for their efforts and foresight, and I am pleased to acknowledge them in the United States Senate.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, It gives me great pleasure to rise today and honor two outstanding Republican visionaries and admired civic leaders, Mr. and Mrs. Peter and Pat Cook, on the occasion of the Gerald R. Ford Republican Women's Club, Annual Fall Reception on September 13, 1999. Peter Cook began his professional career with Import Motors Limited Inc., where he was named President in 1954. In 1977, with his typical entrepreneurial spirit and innovative thinking, Peter Cook formed Transitional Motors Inc., also known as Mazda Great Lakes, where he currently sits as chairman of the board and majority stockholder. Additionally, Mr. Cook serves on the boards for numerous companies, most notably, Gospel Communications, Woodland International, Applied Image Technology and the new Van Andel Institute. In the past he served as chairman of the South Y.M.C.A. and the Kent County Republican Finance Committee. Pat Cook has always been very supportive of her husband's career. In the late 1950's she took it upon herself to help deliver some of the first Volkswagens to dealers in Midland and Detroit. After the birth of their two children, Tom and Steve, Mrs. Cook stayed at home and continued in a voluntary capacity to enrich her community. She has served on the boards of Welcome Home for the Blind, Blodgett Hospital Guild and Porter Hills Ladies Auxiliary. Perhaps what is most truly admirable and wonderful about Mr. and Mrs. Cook is their dedication to helping the lives of others and the Grand Rapids community. They made the leading gift establishing the Research and Education Institute of Butterworth Hospital. Mr. and Mrs. Cook are active members of the Grace Reformed Church and much of their support is focused toward youth and Christian institutions. They have helped make possible the construction of the carillon on the Grand Valley State University campus; they have worked with Aquinas College students in making a new Student Center; and they have also contributed greatly to the Hope College Student Housing Center and Cook Valley Estates for the Porter Hills Presbyterian Village. Mr. and Mrs. Cook lead their lives as an example to others by being strong Christians, distinguished philanthropists, and dedicated citizens. Their countless efforts and support will continue to benefit the community for many years to come. Mr. President it is with sincere joy and appreciation that I honor Peter and Pat Cook. Rarely do you see two people who have unselfishly done so much to help others.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Marilee Smiley of Fenton, MI in recognition of her service as Supreme Guardian of the International Order of Job's Daughters. I extend to her my heartfelt congratulations for her service. Marilee Smiley is a woman who has consistently demonstrated her commitment to the ideals of Masonry and the International Order of Job's Daughters. This exemplary organization is dedicated to instilling in young women, age eleven to twenty, the character traits necessary for success as human beings and citizens of our great land. In this quest, Mrs. Smiley has contributed her very best, and the young women she has so ably guided have been the beneficiaries. Marilee Smiley has had tremendous impact not only in MI, but nationally and internationally. A woman of high principles, Marilee has utilized her intelligence, concern for youth, belief in humanity, and leadership abilities to serve others through participation in the International Order of Job's Daughters for forty-three years. As a youth she held various offices, including Honored Queen of Bethel No. 30, and the Grand Blanc and Michigan Grand Bethel Representative to California. As an adult leader she also held various offices in Bethel No. 30 of Grand Blanc, Bethel No. 50 of Lansing-Okemos, and Bethel No. 58 of Lansing, including serving as Bethel Guardian of Bethels No. 1, 2, 50, and 58. Marilee Smiley has exemplified the character traits taught to her as a young woman in her continuing association with the International Order of Job's Daughters. As an adult leader, she was awarded the Triangle of Honor, the highest honor that the Grand Council of Michigan can bestow an adult leader. This fine lady has also held several positions with the Grand Guardian Council of Michigan of the International Order of Job's Daughters, serving as Grand Guardian during the 1982-83 year. She has continued her service to the International Order of Job's Daughters, holding several positions with the Supreme Council. Her services have included several committee offices, including serving the Board of Trustees from 1992 through 1995, and currently serving as Supreme Guardian of the International Order of Job's Daughters, the highest position an adult leader may hold. Along with her work with the International Order of Job's Daughters, Marilee raised three wonderful children with her husband Ken. She taught them the importance of being involved in the community as well as volunteering. She was actively involved with Swim Clubs and Swim Boosters as all of her children swam competitively year-round. Marilee Smiley deserves the highest tribute in recognition of her service as Supreme Guardian of the International Order of Job's Daughters.