Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, first, I am disappointed that the Senator from Colorado has chosen to propose striking this provision entirely. The provision is clearly written in a way that provides absolute maximum flexibility to States to participate or not participate. The Senator starts out with the argument that we do not know how much this will cost. That is right because this is strictly an authorization. It will cost whatever we decide to appropriate for this program. Congress will still have to make a judgment as to whether to appropriate anything for this program. This is a grant program to States that want to participate. We will either put some money in to fund this grant program or we will not, and we will specify each year the amount of funds we think should be made available to the Department of Transportation to fund this program. It is clear it is a purely voluntary program on the part of States. There are some States that have vehicle scrappage programs in place today. There may be other States that would want to consider that. The purpose of the provision is obvious. The purpose of the provision is to try to assist with getting extremely fuel-inefficient vehicles, high- emission vehicles off the road where there is a desire on the part of the owner of the vehicle to either improve the efficiency of that vehicle or to trade that vehicle in and get something else. That is the clear intent of these programs that some States have adopted. What we are saying is that the Federal Government would be authorized through the Department of Transportation to assist States in these programs to the extent that we appropriate money to support them. The argument by the Senator from Colorado is that this is a terrible burden on people with low incomes. There is obviously a misunderstanding about what this provision says. This is purely a voluntary provision. Nobody is required to do anything under the language of this section 822. If an individual wants to continue driving a 30-year-old vehicle, that is their option. There is no penalty; there is no requirement they do anything. They clearly would not even have the opportunity to do anything if they were in a State that did not have one of these vehicle scrappage programs. If they were in a State that did have a vehicle scrappage program, then at least if that program was receiving Federal funds, the State could use some of those Federal funds under the program that is designed by the State. The individual could use some of those funds to compensate for having the vehicle scrapped or to repair the vehicle so that it is more efficient, so that it has fewer emissions. That is clearly the purpose of it. As to the argument that this will cause a problem with the salvage of valuable parts for vehicles, there is a specific provision in the bill that the Secretary cannot provide any funds to a State under this program. The Secretary could not provide funds unless the State's plan allows for giving public notification before any parts are scrapped so that those parts could be purchased or auctioned or otherwise salvaged. And as to the objections that the Senator has cited, we heard similar objections to an earlier version of this section. Frankly, we thought we had accommodated the concerns that were brought to us and modified the amendment in order to do that. Now, of course, after making the modifications, we are faced with an amendment to strike the section entirely. I think it is good public policy for the Federal Government to assist States that want to have these programs. I do not see why it is in the public interest to strike a provision that enables the Secretary of Transportation to pursue this, to the extent the Appropriations Committee puts in funds to support the program. So I very much hope we will not adopt the Senator's amendment and have this provision stricken from the bill. To my mind, it is a good provision. It provides an opportunity for States to move ahead with these programs where they would like to do that and where Federal funds are made available. As I see it, it is not onerous in any respect as to either what States are required to do or what individuals are required to do. The entire effort is purely voluntary. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me take a moment while there is a lull in the proceedings to reiterate a request that I believe has been made by both Democratic and Republican cloakrooms last night, to Senators on both sides of the aisle, and it is my hope, as floor manager, along with Senator Murkowski, that we can, at some stage later this week, seek a finite list of amendments that would be in order on the bill. As all Members know, we have been on this bill now for all of last week; and so far this week, we have addressed some significant issues. There are some other amendments that are being negotiated and finalized, and we have been working with some Members on those. There are others that we just hear about. There are rumors of amendments which we hear about. I think the majority leader is trying to get as much done as possible before we move to the issue of campaign finance reform, which he is committed to move to later. I think our chances of completing action on this energy bill would be dramatically improved if we could get a finite list of amendments to work through. So I once again encourage all Members to cooperate with the two cloakrooms and give copies of their amendments to those cloakrooms so that we can see them and can talk to Senators about how to move ahead with those amendments or with votes on those amendments, if those are necessary. I know there will be an amendment at some stage fairly soon by my friend Senator Thomas. If he is ready, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I will yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois. Let me put this in perspective. We just had an amendment agreed to on the Senate floor which essentially says that we in the Congress are not going to specify what the corporate average fuel efficiency or economy number ought to be; that it ought to be left up to NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to make those decisions. The Republican leader came to the floor and said we should do this because clearly we need to be sure that the decision is made on the basis of sound science and solid data. Those were the two phrases he kept using--sound science and solid data. The Senator from Michigan continually referred to the fact that we should not adopt some arbitrary number; that is totally contrary to common sense. Now we have an amendment by my good friend the Senator from Georgia which says let us make it permanent law--that beginning 2 years from now with model year 2004 and after, for all pickups, it is prohibited for NHTSA or anyone else to impose a fuel efficiency standard in excess of what has been the standard for many years, 20.7 miles per gallon. The last amendment said that NHTSA would make the decision. This amendment takes that away and says we are making the decision. It will be 20.7 miles per gallon on pickups starting in 2004, and from then on it is permanent law. I don't think we can have it both ways. If we know best, then fine, we shouldn't have adopted the last amendment. If NHTSA knows best, then we shouldn't adopt this amendment. I understand where the votes are. I understand that everyone wants to wrap themselves in the flag of the pickup pops and indicate that they don't want to pick on pickups. I understand all that rhetoric. I have a lot of pickups in my State. But I don't see why people who drive pickups should be required to be buying vehicles that are less fuel efficient than the rest of the population. The truth is these people who work so hard and have callused hands and are driving pickups don't want to have to pay more at the gas pump than anyone else. And this amendment essentially will ensure that they have to pay more from now on. They may get a very fuel-inefficient pickup, but every time they go in to fill up, they are going to be paying more because of this amendment, if it is agreed to. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes in opposition to the amendment. The Republican leader was just urging us to consider sound science and sound data in making judgments on this issue. I recall several years during which we passed in the Congress prohibitions against the administration, through NHTSA, even considering a change in CAFE standards. That doesn't seem particularly consistent to me with a reliance on sound science and sound data. The truth is, the Republican leader has set up a totally false choice. He has indicated the choice is between what we have now and, as he put it, this purple people eater that he has pictured. The reality is, the technology is there to keep the cars, the SUVs, the vehicles we now drive and shift them to being much more fuel efficient. The real choice is in the SUV that the Senator from Massachusetts has a picture of, which Ford Motor Company indicates they are going to have on the market next year. They say it is the same power as before, the same convenience as before, the same room as before, but it uses half as much gas. That is the option. We just need to step up to giving that challenge to the car dealers. When you look at why we are continuing to import more and more oil, it is very clear. The main reason is we have stalled out on improving efficiency in the motor vehicle sector. This chart shows that, since 1989, there has been absolutely no improvement. In fact, there has been a decline in the fuel efficiency of our overall fleet. So this amendment will take the teeth out of our efforts to improve efficiency. It should be rejected. I hope my colleagues will do so.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes on behalf of the position that the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Arizona have articulated and in opposition to this amendment Senator Levin and Senator Bond have proposed. I want to start by asking the real basic question, which may be obvious to a lot of folks, but it seems basic to me, that is, why are we even dealing with the issue of vehicle fuel efficiency as part of an energy bill? Some people might say energy involves drilling wells, not vehicle fuel efficiency. But it seems to me there is an answer to that. Let me get one of these charts up and I can make the point I am trying to make. This first chart, which I showed earlier in the debate on the energy bill, tries to talk about U.S. oil consumption, because we give a lot of speeches on the Senate floor about how we want to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, we want to be more efficient in our use of foreign oil, we want to consume less. Well, this is consumption. Millions of barrels of oil are consumed per day in this country. You can see the top line is for total oil demand. The total oil demand has been going up. The line that comes down on the right-hand side of the chart is for the years 2001 and 2002. You can see that the projection for the remainder of the time covered by this chart--up to 2020, the next 18 years--for the remainder of that time oil consumption in the United States is expected to increase very substantially. You may ask, why is it increasing so much? It is obviously increasing because of the transportation demand. When we talk about the transportation demand, we are talking about gasoline. The oil comes in, we refine it, turn it into gasoline, put it in our cars, our SUVs, and in our trucks, and that is what is driving total oil demand up and up and up. People say, well, why in the world are we importing more than half of the oil that we are consuming? The truth is, domestic production of oil peaked in 1970. It has been going down ever since. Whether we open ANWR or not, it will continue, over the long term, to go down because we have 3 percent of the world's reserves of oil. So we need to also look--in addition to production--at consumption. That is what this chart tries to do. That is why we are dealing with vehicle fuel efficiency. We are trying to flatten out that top line, total oil demand, so it doesn't increase dramatically, and we are trying to flatten out the transportation demand so it doesn't increase so dramatically, and that will flatten out the top line. There is another chart I want to show to explain why we are trying to deal with fuel efficiency as part of this bill. Let me put that up. This is a chart that came out of the National Academy of Sciences study, which has been referred to so many times by Senators Levin, Bond, McCain, and Kerry. It shows what has happened to passenger and light truck fuel economy between the years 1965 and 2000. You can see that between 1965 and about 1975 nothing happened. The miles per gallon of new passenger and light truck vehicles coming onto the market was just flat. That is the red line and the green line over at the left. They are flat. Then you see a dramatic increase between about 1976 and 1985 or 1986. You see a dramatic increase for the top line, new cars, and the next line down is new light trucks. So you can see that all of those have gone up substantially during that time period. The real issue, and the important thing about this chart, is what happens from about 1989 until the present. The reality is that we have stagnated. There has been no improvement in this country in corporate average fuel economy for vehicle fuel efficiency since 1989. In fact, for the entire fleet, it has declined. We are actually less efficient in our use of gasoline today than we were in 1989. That is why it is important as part of a comprehensive energy bill that we try, once again, to address corporate average fuel efficiency; that we, once again, try to put in law some requirement. What is at stake in this amendment that Senator Levin and Senator Bond have brought to the floor? The underlying bill, the bill before us, sets a figure. It tries to say: Let's become more efficient, and here is the goal, here is the target, here is what we need to try to do. Very simply, what we have in the Levin-Bond amendment is an elimination of that goal, an elimination of that target. It sets up a procedure which kicks the issue back to the administration. The administration has been very outspoken about the fact that they oppose the provision in our bill. The President has opposed it; the administration has opposed it; the Secretary of Energy opposed it. They do not think we should be mandating anything in law in the way of improved efficiency in cars, trucks, and SUVs. This amendment would kick it back to the administration, to NHTSA, as it is always referred to--the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration--and have them study this issue and come up with a set of regulations. Quite frankly, when my colleague, my good friend from Michigan, Senator Levin, urged at the beginning of this debate this afternoon that I read his amendment--that is always a dangerous thing to do in the Senate; very few of us read the amendments on which we vote, but I did. I read the amendment. It has some of the most unusual provisions I have encountered in the Senate. It has what are called expedited procedures. It says, first, if this amendment is adopted, that the Secretary of Transportation would have 6 months to issue proposed CAFE regulations on passenger automobiles. Then he would have 2 years for final regulations to be issued. He would have 15 months to issue final CAFE regulations on nonpassenger automobiles. If the Secretary goes ahead and issues something in the way of regulations, then that is the end of it. It is pretty clear in the amendment. Those become the law. If, on the other hand, he fails to meet those deadlines in 2 years from now--2 years from the effective date of the act, so perhaps if we actually pass an energy bill, that might be 2 years from this summer or 2 years from this fall--if the Secretary fails to meet those deadlines, the Congress can pass a bill under expedited procedures to override what the administration has determined. The expedited procedures dramatically limit what we are able to do. Basically, they tell us what the title of the bill is going to be, for any bill to override the regulations; they tell us precisely that we are limited in the bill to inserting a particular CAFE miles-per-gallon number, and a year, and substituting that for what the administration has come up with, and it limits us to four amendments in the Senate, two to be offered by the majority leader, two to be offered by the minority leader, and four amendments in the House of Representatives. I have been around here a long time, and I have never seen the ability of the Senate to amend and consider legislation in a flexible way so constrained. That is what the amendment proposes, and that is what Senators will be signing on to if they decide to support the amendment. I urge any Senator who has an interest in the procedures of the Senate and has concern about limiting the ability of Senators to offer amendments to read the amendment in some detail. The amendment does, as I say, eliminate any specific number. There is no number as to what CAFE standard we hope to get to in the future. As I see it, this is something of a test in the Senate as we deliberate on these issues. The test is: Can we, as a country, as a Government, as the Senate, do anything significant to increase fuel efficiency when gas prices are as low as they are? The last time we acted, let's face it, we acted because there was a real crisis in the Middle East--in the seventies. People were shocked into realizing that dependence on foreign sources of oil was a problem for us. Today that is not that big a problem. One can buy a tank of gas in Albuquerque for $1.12 a gallon. It is hard to get people worked up about the continued addiction we have to cheap gas under those circumstances. Nobody thinks too much about it. As to the argument that soccer moms are going to be disadvantaged, the Senator from Massachusetts has talked about that. I am persuaded that Ford Motor Company can make an SUV that is fuel efficient. They can make a pickup that is fuel efficient. Each of the other major manufacturers can do the same thing. I do believe we need to focus their attention on that as a priority, and that is what the underlying legislation is trying to do. As to the argument that U.S. manufacturers are going to lose jobs, I think it is sad that we have lost such confidence in U.S. industry and U.S. ingenuity that we are claiming we cannot do this, this is an impossible mountain to climb, our manufacturers cannot possibly be held to this kind of enormous standard. When President Kennedy challenged the country to put a man on the Moon, it is fortunate we were not tasking the automobile industry to do that. They would have come back, I am sure, and indicated it was just totally impossible. The country can meet this challenge. We can produce more energy, and we have many provisions in this bill to try to do that. But we can also use the energy we have in a more efficient way, and part of that is through vehicle fuel efficiency. We need to do something significant in this area. I hope the Levin-Bond amendment is not adopted because it does take the teeth out of the legislation in terms of any real requirement for improved efficiency. I do not question anyone's motives. I am just telling you that the effect of it will be to essentially say: Status quo is fine; the administration can study this for a couple of years; if the President decides there is something that ought to be changed in current law, he can propose that in regulation; otherwise, Congress should back off. That is a sad signal to send, and I hope we do not send that message. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment when it does come up for a final vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri is in the Chamber and ready to speak on the amendment Senator Levin and he are intending to offer. The floor is open for their discussion at this point.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we do not object to this amendment. It is supported on this side. I urge that the Senate proceed to dispose of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment of the Senator from Idaho, and it certainly is acceptable on this side. I support the amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. We should add it to the bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response, let me say it is in keeping, and I know the Senator from Idaho is here and ready to offer an amendment. His amendment is acceptable.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 12; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time of the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin consideration of Executive Calendar No. 706, as under the previous order; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conferences.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, the next rollcall vote will occur at 10:45 a.m. and it will be on Executive Calendar nomination No. 706.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements regarding the matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 218, and that the Senate immediately proceed to its consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements regarding this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 225, which was introduced earlier today.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I call up for consideration amendment No. 2990 dealing with U.S.-Mexico energy technology cooperation.