On the recordApril 25, 2002
I rise today to oppose the Carper- Specter amendment. I join with my colleagues in opposition. I note this issue is of great importance to my colleague from Delaware. We have had a lot of conversations about the best approach to increasing fuel efficiency and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. While I appreciate his effort and the amendment he is bringing forward, I believe the Carper-Specter approach has the same major flaws as the Kerry-Hollings amendment and sets, in fact, an arbitrary CAFE number. It just does it in a different way. It is not called CAFE, but it has the same effect. The Carper-Specter amendment sets, in fact, an arbitrary number which is exactly what we were debating before. We wanted a process; we wanted NHTSA to have the opportunity to have a number of months to take into consideration all of the factors and not set an arbitrary number. Our opponents, the makers of the amendment, say this is, in fact, not a CAFE number and that the amendment creates a modest and measurable objective for reducing vehicle gasoline consumption. Unfortunately, it is a mandate. It is a fuel economy mandate in the form of millions of barrels saved that is no less arbitrary than the Kerry-Hollings provision that was replaced in this bill. Currently, the only regulatory authority that is available to the Department of Transportation to pursue such regulations through passenger and light truck fleets is the CAFE program.…
Source
govinfo.gov




