John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. May I say, it is not with any disrespect for the Senator from Alaska. I admire his tenacity. I know this means a great deal to him. We just happen to differ. And I think it is an issue that has to be resolved with those 60 votes.

Mr. KERRY. I agree.

Mr. KERRY. But he has done it.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I can't speak to the question of methodology. I simply am asking about the result. My result answer is affirmative.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think that the assistant majority leader may or may not have a better history of that than I do, but I just want to say something. With respect to--I ask the Senator from Alaska about this. The other day, in the Washington Post, Paul Portney, who is the chairman of the National Academy of Sciences panel that the Senator referred to --and he is the president of the think tank--said that what we are proposing in our bill is--I am quoting--``roughly consistent with what the Academy identified as being technologically possible, economically affordable, and consistent with the desire of consumers for passenger safety.'' Is the Senator aware that the chairman of the panel signed off on that?

Mr. KERRY. And he has circumvented.

Mr. KERRY. I am going to answer. I am asking recognition to be able to do that, Mr. President.

Mr. KERRY. I will. Mr. President, let me say pointedly, I have been here now for 18 years. And in the 18 years that I have been here, as the Senator from Alaska knows, there are certain kinds of issues that rise to such a level of both emotional as well as substantive quality and contest that they always require 60 votes. I have seen time after time on both sides of the aisle--it is just the difficulty here--if you have a contested issue, that is significantly contested on both sides, almost every time here it does not happen unless one side or the other musters 60 votes. It may be regrettable, but many people believe that is one of the great protections of the Senate, so we do not rush to do things that we regret or even as a way of protecting the minority. It is what our forefathers put in place. And I have said that I will exercise that privilege afforded us by the rules of the Senate. And that is what I intend to do on that subject.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would be delighted to answer the question. And, at the same time, may I say to the Senator, look, my question to him was whether or not a majority leader on the other side has circumvented. I did not ask him whether they met or not.

Mr. KERRY. Is that accurate?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, in his memory here--he has been here quite a while--is it not fair and accurate to say that when the Republicans were in control, the majority leader, on a number of different occasions, did exactly the same thing? Is that fair?

Mr. KERRY. Is totally inaccurate?

Mr. KERRY. That is only to bring it on line. The Senator said you can't be profitable.

Mr. KERRY. Never circumvented?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator mentioning $1,200. That is an accurate statement of the up side cost that is talked about in the National Academy of Sciences report. They also talk about the low side of $500--so, $500 to $1,200. I accept that. He is absolutely correct. It will cost a little bit more. But what he doesn't say and what they never say is that the savings in gasoline over the life of the car pay for the cost. Moreover, we are prepared to give a tax credit. Is the Senator aware that Ford Motor Company executive, John Wallace, said in an interview that with a $3,000 tax incentive for the purchase of the gas-electric hybrid, that would solve the problem of profitability and they would be profitable immediately with the Ford Escape? Is the Senator aware that Ford Motor Company says they can be profitable immediately with the tax credit which we are going to pass?

Mr. KERRY. That is not what I asked.

Mr. KERRY. That is not my question. With a tax credit, is it profitable immediately?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator hasn't answered my question. I agree with that. I know exactly what they say with respect to that. But he hasn't acknowledged that the findings of Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety point to the fact that the analysis on which the conclusion was based is flawed because it is not based on current safety capacity. It is not based on dual airbags. It is not based on lighter materials. It is not based on new technology. It is based on what happened in the transition. I want to explain why it happened.

Mr. KERRY. Yes. This is in our bill. It is introduced. It is on the floor now. You are about to strip it. But that is what is here.

Mr. KERRY. There are additional findings. In fact, the finding of the National Academy of Sciences is that it would not affect safety. That is, in fact, the current finding.

Mr. KERRY. Let me again say what it relates to. Specifically, the data used in the study is from 1993--not 2002. It fails to reflect the changes in passenger protection. It doesn't reflect dual airbags. It doesn't reflect what we have in our bill, which is rollover safety. Ten thousand people lost their lives last year because SUVs roll over. They have a 75-pound roof. The car is so heavy that it crushes them. The industry has resisted that protection. For a small cost, you could save those 10,000 lives. That is in our bill. It is not in their bill.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I may, the Senator said we will lose the safety. He quoted the National Academy of Sciences. Is the Senator aware that the National Academy of Sciences said specifically on page 70 of the report that it is technically feasible and potentially economic to improve fuel economy without reducing vehicle weight or size, and therefore without significantly affecting the safety of motor vehicle travel? Is he also aware that the most important entities in this country with respect to safety--Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety-- are both opposed to the Levin amendment and support the effort to have CAFE standards for a safety basis? I want the Senator to hear this, if I may.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in 1972, 1973, and 1990, each time the auto industry has said: We cannot do this. They said it about seatbelts. They said it about laminated windshields. They have said it about every single requirement, each time Congress has agreed we ought to try to do these things. This is not arbitrary. Congress has made decisions about safety, fuel efficiency. We invited Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat to testify before our committee. In 1975, Mr. Eizenstat was the domestic policy adviser to President Carter. He was part of the team that developed the first CAFE standards. His testimony speaks very directly to this issue. I will quote from his testimony. He said: In spite of the obvious merits of the standards, the American automobile manufacturers were opposed to the regulations. I remember their opposition well. In my role as domestic policy adviser to President Carter, I was part of the team that developed the first CAFE standards. Those standards set the fuel economy levels for the period 1977 to 1985, starting at 18 miles per gallon in 1977 and rising to 27.5 in 1985. He said: I specifically remember a meeting in the Cabinet office with President Carter and the heads of the Big Three automobile manufacturers: Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, in which all three strongly opposed the imposition of fuel economy standards. They claimed their companies lacked the technology to reach the standard that the administration had in mind. Does that sound familiar? Yet once the CAFE standards were implemented, all three companies met and exceeded the standards. I can imagine the pressure you are under from those same companies and others as you consider raising the standards. But as you embark on this process, I strongly urge you to recall our experiences in developing the first set of CAFE standards. You should feel confident that the automobile manufacturers do have the ability to achieve and, in fact, surpass whatever standards you set. I believe Ambassador Eizenstat has proven himself to be an enormously capable negotiator, and very studious, and I think most people would agree one of the most thoughtful contributors to positive dialog in the political process in this country. He said we should do this; we can do this. He testified before the committee, as, I might add, did countless other entities in this country that were affected one way or the other by the potential of this change.

Mr. KERRY. If the Senator has finished, I want to claim the floor, and then I will ask a question, if I may.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator that is their first report. Let me say that over the course of the next 15 years, given the technologies that are available to us, you have the reliability to bring on line a car that can tow any size boat, and the vehicles you need for that fall outside the CAFE standard because of weight--this perfect capacity to have all the towing you want, all the carrying capacity, and all the lift capacity and still drive a more efficient vehicle. But I also want to ask the Senator--he said we are going to lose safety. I want to have the Senator from Illinois have a chance. He mentioned safety.