Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey a fair market value of approximately 110 acres at the Los Angeles Air Force Base. I believe this amendment has been cleared.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this is a technical amendment to amendment No. 3383. I believe this has been cleared.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEVIN. That question, of whether the words ``recommend" or ``proposed,'' in any event, was explicitly discussed among all of us who were involved in this revised motion, and it was important to those of us who opposed the original motion that the word ``recommend'' be used for the reason I just gave. If the recollection of the Senator from Washington is the word ``proposed'' originally was made by me, if in fact that is true, so be it. That is not my recollection. Nonetheless, it did become an issue in discussion whether the word be ``proposed" or ``recommend,'' and it became important to those of us opposing the motion that the word ``recommend'' be used to avoid that implication which everybody said was not intended.

Mr. LEVIN. Perhaps our recollection is different, but I am not sure it makes a major difference. My recollection is in the original draft of this motion, the Senator from Washington had used the word ``recommend.'' I may be wrong on this, but this is my recollection, which I have shared with my good friend from Nevada so we are all straight with each other, as we always are. The word at some point was changed to ``proposed,'' and then a number of us on this side of the issue urged the word ``recommend" be used instead of ``proposed'' to avoid any implication that this was a proposed rulemaking. That was the reason that word did have some relevance. There is no intention here that there be a proposed rulemaking which be authorized in any way by this motion. The word ``proposed'' could create an implication which was unintended, whereas the word ``recommend'' does not have that implication. That was my recollection. If I am wrong on that, then I certainly want my friend from Nevada to know historically that was my recollection, and that is what I represented to him.

Mr. LEVIN. The better alternative for increasing SUV and light truck fuel economy from both an environmental and equity perspective is aggressive investment in fuel efficiency research projects. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, PNGV, provides an example of the pay-off from programs that harness the energy and ingenuity of government and business to achieve this policy goal. The goal of PNGV is to improve national manufacturing competitiveness, implement technologies that increase the fuel efficiency of and improve emissions for conventional vehicles, and develop technologies for a new class of vehicles with up to 80 mpg without sacrificing the affordability, utility, safety, and comfort of today's midsize family sedans. For the five years that this program has existed (it is currently in its sixth year), the average annual government contribution has been about $250 million per year. The average annual private sector contribution by the Big Three has been in excess of $900 million per year. PNGV fuel-efficient technologies, such as lightweight materials, advanced batteries, and fuel cell and hybrid electric propulsion systems, are already appearing on experimental concept vehicles shown by automakers at recent auto shows. Under PNGV, U.S. automakers will have production-ready prototypes by 2004. Some of the technology from this aggressive research will be transferable to the light duty truck fleet. I urge Members to vote against this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have heard already one speaker contest some of the facts that are set forth in the USA Today article. But it seems to me that, at a minimum, it is relevant to discuss the question of safety, to study the question of safety, to look at whether or not there are additional traffic deaths that result from lighter cars. Surely, at a minimum, any law which seeks to regulate in this area should look at the kind of analysis which has been done-which shows 46,000 people have died. Now, I am not an expert in this area. I don't know if 46,000 people have died or not. I do know that serious objective analysis by serious objective people have reached that conclusion and the CAFE law, which would be triggered into effect unless this freeze is continued, as the House of Representatives proposes, doesn't allow for consideration of safety. It seems to me that any regulatory process should look at all of the costs and all of the benefits before we regulate. But when we look at the CAFE laws that would be put back into effect unless the position of the House of Representatives is adopted, they require that at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year, the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe by regulation--this isn't optional, this is mandatory--shall prescribe by regulation a standard which shall be the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the manufacturers can achieve in that model year. None of the four or five factors listed in the law that should be considered on decisions on maximum feasible average fuel economy has to do with safety. It seems to me that kind of a narrow approach, which is just focused on some of the factors which should go into the regulatory process, is not the kind of approach which a proper regulatory process should adopt. I emphasize that the CAFE law isn't a study. This is a mandate. No. 1, every year there must be a decision by the Department of Transportation as to the maximum feasible average fuel economy level for the model year, and it is mandatory. No. 2, it does not provide for consideration of highly relevant factors. I have no problem myself with a study that looks at all the relevant factors. Quite the opposite. I think it is perfectly appropriate, provided we don't prejudge the outcome of the study and lift the freeze before we find out what the outcome of the study is. I don't have any problem with a study that looks at all of the factors objectively and then makes a recommendation. I have plenty of problems with telling any agency of this Government that, based on a restricted list of relevant factors, they should mandate something every year on the automobile manufacturers. That excludes this current law. This CAFE law excludes highly relevant factors that should be considered. That is point No. 1. At the top of the list of considerations is the question of safety. In addition to that, we have in this law which, in my judgment, unfairly discriminates against the U.S. automobile industry. That includes both the manufacturers and the people who manufacture parts. I would like to give one example of what I mean. Take two vehicles. These are two sport utility vehicles--the GM Sierra and Toyota Tundra. Both of these vehicles are about the same weight. One of them is slightly more fuel efficient than the other; that is, the GM Sierra. But the way the CAFE law is designed it has absolutely no impact on the imports. It has a huge impact on domestic manufacturers. Because of the way the CAFE law is written, even though the GM vehicle is slightly more fuel efficient than the Toyota vehicle, Toyota can sell 309,000 of those Tundras without any penalty. GM can't sell one of its vehicles without a penalty. It seems to me that this kind of disparate impact has to be looked at. No study worth its salt, and no study that is worthy of being called objective or fair, could ignore the disparate impact which the CAFE law has added. If it is put back into effect, it will continue to have a discriminatory effect on the American automobile manufacturers because of the way it is designed. It doesn't look at each vehicle weight class. Instead, it looks at the manufacturer and its total fleet. The result is that you have some manufacturers producing vehicles no more efficient than other manufacturers that have absolutely no effective limit on what they can sell--you have the other manufacturers--and it is the American manufacturer--that are discriminatorily impacted because of the nature of their fleet. The American-made vehicles are just as fuel efficient, or perhaps slightly more fuel efficient. Yet they have to pay the price in terms of loss of market share. They have to pay a penalty. They have no room to sell vehicles the same weight as the imports can sell with no effective limits whatsoever. People can give the arguments on the other side of this issue. That is fair enough. But the problem is--if I am right, and I believe I am right--that the discriminatory impact on the American manufacturers and parts producers cannot be taken into consideration as part of the annual CAFE imposition. That is not on the list of things that go into the definition of ``feasible average fuel economy'' because the Secretary is told that he or she must prescribe the ``maximum feasible average fuel economy,'' and then defines it in such a way that it excludes the discriminatory impact of the CAFE law on American manufacturers. The CAFE law is flawed in many ways. It has some very negative consequences, in my judgment, and in the judgment of others in terms of safety, loss of life and discriminatory impact on American automobile manufacturers and parts producers. One other thing: Not only do the imports have this huge amount of room to sell their heavy vehicles while General Motors, using this particular analysis, cannot sell any without penalty, but they can also bank so-called ``credits'' under the CAFE law. Because they can bank credits--again, we are comparing vehicles that are the same weight where the GM vehicle is slightly more fuel efficient--then because of the way in which the law is designed, Toyota could sell 1.6 million of those vehicles without any penalty; General Motors, none. This is the original 309,000 that I made reference to, and these are the addition of so-called ``banked credits.'' There are many discriminatory, disparate, and, I hope, unintended consequences of CAFE. But I wasn't here in the early seventies when this law was drafted. I can only say I hope the consequences which I described are unintended. The better approach to this entire issue, it seems to me, is for Government and the private sector to cooperate in a partnership for a new generation of vehicles. That is what is now underway. That partnership is producing some extraordinarily positive results. That research approach-that voluntary cooperative partnership- harnesses the ingenuity and the energy of business, partially funded with the Government, to achieve the policy goal which we all want-- which is more fuel-efficient cars, and cars that are also safer. And we don't want at the same time to unfairly damage the American automobile industry. How much time does this Senator have left on his 15 minutes?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the CAFE law, which the House of Representatives very properly has kept on the shelf--is a bill with many flaws. I am just going to focus briefly on a couple of those flaws. First, the CAFE law, as it is written, and which would be put back into force, does not allow for the consideration of some very highly relevant factors that should be considered in the regulatory process. One of these is safety. Senator Ashcroft--and I believe Senator Abraham--have also made reference to analyses of losses of life that have resulted from lighter vehicles. There has been a study and analysis, which has been referred to at some length, by USA Today which shows that 46,000 people have died because of the CAFE law who otherwise would not have died. I want to read very briefly from this article: . . . in the 24 years since a landmark law to conserve fuel, big cars have shrunk to less-safe sizes and small cars have poured onto roads. As a result, 46,000 people have died in crashes they would have survived in bigger, heavier cars. This is according to the USA Today's analysis of crash data since 1975, when the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was passed. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards it imposed have improved fuel efficiency. The average of passenger vehicles on U.S. roads is 20 miles per gallon versus 14 in 1975. But the cost has been roughly 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained, the analysis shows. These figures can be disputed, although this is a very lengthy and very objective analysis in the USA Today of July 2, 1999. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask that you consider in conference our specific requests as well as the overall allocation of $70 million for Bus Grants for Bus Dependent States.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate H.R. 4475, the fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Act for transportation. Included in the Senate Committee Report is the statement: State of Michigan buses and bus facilities: Despite unanimous supported agreements among the Michigan Public Transit Association, its members, and the Michigan Department of Transportation that Section 5309 bus funds to Michigan transit agencies be distributed through MDOT, designations of funds to individual transit agencies continue to be sought and proposed apart from the agreement. The Committee directs that any fiscal year 2001 discretionary bus funds for projects in Michigan be distributed through MDOT in accordance with the MPTA-MDOT agreement. I have spoken with many local jurisdictions who do not agree that there has been an agreement that all money would go to the Michigan Department of Transportation and that there would be no specific earmarks. I have a letter here from the President of the Michigan Public Transit Association which states that it was understood by MPTA that Michigan transit systems be allowed to pursue their own individual earmarks. I have requested such earmarks from the Committee. I ask consent that this letter be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of this colloquy.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to be clear that this language instructs the conferees to accept section 318 in the House bill. Those are the words in this motion. In addition, one of the specific factors in the study we look at is ``the disparate impact, if any, on the U.S. automotive sector.'' Then it issues the words, ``and any other factors deemed relevant by the National Academy of Sciences or the committee of conference.'' My question to the Senator from Washington is whether or not in his judgment the fairly lengthy list of factors which are relevant to this question, which are set forth in Senate bill 2685, a bill which was introduced, I believe, by Senators Ashcroft and Abraham, myself, and a number of others, whether in his judgment those factors would be included as being relevant in any study?

Mr. LEVIN. I am prepared to go.

Mr. LEVIN. And the answer specifically is what?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LEVIN. Has this motion been adopted?

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest this motion be agreed to if there is no further debate.

Mr. LEVIN. And the speech of the Senator from Michigan, relative to the motion, be inserted prior to adoption of the motion.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Illinois for his comments. As always, he has his finger on the pulse of his constituents. That is the No. 1 issue with the people of Michigan at the moment, the skyrocketing price of gas at the pump. There is not even a close second. This is the first, second, and third issue on the minds of the people of Michigan and the Midwest, and obviously other parts of the country as well. We have to hold the oil companies accountable. We have to put as much pressure on them as we can. Withdrawing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is one of the ways in which we can fight back against these skyrocketing prices.

Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me congratulate the Senators from Maine and New York for this resolution. Because it is a sense-of-the- Senate resolution which might be ruled not to be germane or appropriate on this bill for technical or procedural reasons, I understand they will be withdrawing it. I am sorry that is what they must do under our rules, or need to do under our rules, because this resolution of theirs really addresses one of the most critical issues my constituents in Michigan are facing. I know the Senator's constituents in Maine are facing it, and the constituents of the Senator from New York. All of our constituents are facing these skyrocketing prices which have no rational explanation--except that the oil companies have decided they are going to gouge us pricewise, although their own prices of oil per barrel have not gone up nearly as much as have the prices that they are charging us. We have had two agencies of this Government that have said there is no logical or rational explanation for the huge increase in gas prices. The Federal Trade Commission should investigate this matter. I have asked them to investigate this matter because of the possibility of anticompetitive practices on the part of the oil and gas industry. That is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission. Their staff, indeed, is required to undertake that inquiry. What is going on here is intolerable. It is not a reflection of the price of oil per barrel. The prices at the pump have gone up far more, proportionally. In the absence of that kind of explanation, and in the presence of the kind of skyrocketing prices we are facing at the pump, as the Senator from Maine said--in the Midwest, in my State, now over $2 a gallon--I think the signal which is being sent by this resolution is a very important one. The letter they are sending I hope will get the signatures of every Member of this body. I have already sent the President a similar letter urging the withdrawal of some oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the later swap of oil back into that reserve. I intend to sign this letter again because I think the more of us who ask this administration to withdraw oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve the better, and the more likely they would do so. I commend the two Senators for their action. I intend to forcefully join with them in their letter and to continue my own efforts, as previously indicated both with the Federal Trade Commission to obtain their investigation for potential anticompetitive practices, as well as the withdrawal issue by the Department of Energy, because I believe that is one of the ways we can fight back against the OPEC monopoly.

Mr. LEVIN. I am.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend from North Dakota will yield. First, I join Senator Warner in thanking him for allowing, with such graciousness, as always, the interruption of his presentation. Secondly, he has a very important amendment. It is an amendment on which this Senate has voted, and this vehicle is a perfectly legitimate vehicle for legislation. It is one of the few opportunities we have for legislation. It is because there are such few opportunities that it has attracted this many potential amendments. I do not think anyone needs to apologize for that. Senator Warner--the way he works so well--and I will attempt to work with him and attempt to accommodate Senators who wish to offer amendments to this legislation. They need no apologies. We will try to work through it. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for not just intending to offer an important amendment again, but being willing to take a very short time agreement on it, which means we can move the bill along.

Mr. LEVIN. If my good friend will yield for a comment on that, I happen to share with him the desirability of moving this bill, but I also understand the need of colleagues to offer legislation in the Senate. That is why we are here. The way I would accomplish the goal which the good Senator from Virginia has just laid out--a goal I share--would be to encourage colleagues who feel strongly about amendments, as the Senator from North Dakota does, and understandably so, to agree to short time agreements. The shorter the time agreement we can get on some of these amendments, particularly amendments which have been debated for a long time before, is a way in which we can expedite the passage of the bill, and that is the way in which I think effectively we can do that.