Trent Lott: “I rise in very passionate support of the Levin-Bond amendment. I know very good work has been done on this amendment…”

“I rise in very passionate support of the Levin-Bond amendment. I know very good work has been done on this amendment, and it is based on sound science and solid data. It seems to me that is the way to go instead of just picking a number out of the sky, whether it is 32 or 35 or 37 or moving the years up or down. It seems to me it would be wiser to have decisions about the miles-per-gallon requirements done in a responsible way, having been studied by the proper entity and based on science and solid data. Of course, the organization to do that is NHTSA. They have the expertise to analyze the numbers and consider all that should be involved here: the jobs that might be affected, technology, how soon this improved fuel efficiency could be obtained, and safety. Safety is a big issue. I heard Senator Mikulski from Maryland on the radio this morning talking about her concerns about the safety issue, and that was the point she emphasized. That is certainly understandable. The Levin-Bond amendment would be what we would do instead of the Kerry provision which adversely affects employment, safety, and consumer choice. I think the Levin-Bond amendment is a much wiser way to proceed. The National Academy of Sciences CAFE report declared there will be more deaths and injuries if fuel economy standards are raised too fast without proper consideration given to how that is going to be done and what impact it might cause.”