Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
April 12, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 5327 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF DANIEL F. BECKER DIRECTOR GLOBAL WARMING AND ENERGY
PROGRAM SIERRA CLUB
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON RESOURCES
SUBJECT - NATIONAL SECURITY AND STRATEGIES FOR
REDUCING OIL IMPORTS
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee, my name is Daniel Becker and I am the Director of
Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on behalf of Sierra Club's more than half million members nationwide on
how we can improve our energy security and cut our oil dependency. In short we
should not drill under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil. We should
drill under Detroit by making our cars go further on a gallon of gas.
Once more, oil prices have risen because OPEC-- a cartel of oil
producing countries-- is manipulating supply to increase profits. Once more, we
find ourselves vulnerable and victimized by our dependence on foreign oil. And
once more, Americans, tired of being jerked around by the cartel, look to their
leaders for real solutions.
But instead of using the last
quarter-century to reduce America's oil dependency, Congress has bowed to the
oil companies and auto industry refusing to encourage American car companies to
make more fuel efficient cars and voting against research and incentives for
alternate energy use. Since 1995, a rider on the Transportation Appropriations
bill has frozen Corporate Average Fuel Economy.
Today's high prices at
the pump are the result of high demand in the face of a small shortfall in world
oil supply. Globally, oil consumption is 2 million barrels of oil per day more
than supply because of OPEC's decision to cut back on production by 4 million
barrels per day. The U.S. alone consumes about 18 million barrels a day. The
U.S. share of this shortfall is about 400,000 barrels per day. If, in 1994, a 6%
per year increase had been phased in, CAFE standards alone
would have eliminated twice the U.S. share of excess demand according to
analysis by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
Now
some members of Congress are using the oil price hike as an excuse to renew
their calls for drilling the Arctic Refuge. Clearly, destroying one of the most
spectacular places on the planet is too high a price to pay for politics as
usual.
America can break its dependency on OPEC. In the short-term, we
should renew our ban on exporting Alaskan oil to lower prices at the pump for
hard-working Americans. But the long-term solutions lie in reducing our
dependency on oil by making a car go longer on a gallon of gasoline, using
alternate energy sources and enacting real campaign finance reform to reduce the
influence of the oil and auto industries over our nation's energy policies.
How did we get here?
In 1975, Congress, with bipartisan support,
passed the most successful energy savings measure it has ever adopted -- the
provision, signed into law by President Gerald Ford, set miles per gallon
standards for cars and light trucks. By requiring automakers to double the
average fuel economy of cars between the late-1970s through the late-1980s,
Congress ensured that the U.S. would be saving 3 million barrels of oil every
day. Without these savings, the U.S. would be importing at least 1.5 million
barrels a day more oil than we currently do.
Congress established the
initial standards, and delegated responsibility for setting new standards to the
Administration, specifically the Department of Transportation. Congress provided
the Administration with four factors to consider in setting new standards:
technical feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other federal
motor vehicle standards on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to
conserve energy. With these directions, Congress recognized that the Department
of Transportation (DOT), would be best equipped to provide the analysis
necessary for a sound rule making at a low cost for the public value provided.
Today, demand for gasoline is at an all-time high and growing. In large
part, this increase in demand is due to the transformation of light trucks into
passenger vehicles. When Congress passed the CAFE law, it did not require
automakers to steadily improve light truck fuel economy because these vehicles
comprised only 20% of the vehicle fleet and were primarily work vehicles. Today,
Sport Utility Vehicles and other light trucks are nearly 50% of the new vehicles
sold, driving down average fuel economy and driving up demand for oil.
Since 1996, Congress has bowed to auto-industry pressure to block new
fuel economy standards. By attaching riders to Department of Transportation
funding bills since 1996, Congress has prevented the Administration from acting
to reduce demand for oil by improving fuel economy standards for light trucks.
Fuel economy for these vehicles has been stuck for 19 years despite their
increasing percentage of the fleet.
Increasing Supply: A False Choice
To some, the solution to ending our dependence on foreign oil is simple:
increase domestic supply. While close to half our oil is produced domestically,
the U.S. has less than 3% of the world's known oil reserves. The numbers will
never add up to oil independence. And our oil deficit is only getting worse.The
U.S. currently imports 55% of its oil. At the height of the oil crisis in 1975,
the U.S. imported just 35% of its oil. Within the next few years the U.S. Energy
Information Agency projects that we will be importing nearly two- thirds of our
oil.
Where does oil go?
Oil meets 40% of our energy needs. The
transportation sector is the leader in oil demand, with motor fuels accounting
for 65% of oil consumption-- mostly in the form of gasoline. In fact, cars and
light tracks alone guzzle 40% of the oil consumed in the U.S. Demand for
gasoline has been steadily rising, in large part due to the boom in light track
sales, especially sport utility vehicles. Today, about half of all new vehicles
sold in America are light tracks. Many of these are SUVs, which average 12-16
mpg.
The most noticed consequence of our oil dependence is the price of
a gallon of gasoline at the pump. Prices at the gas pump in March were more than
50% higher than last year's prices-- upwards of $1.50 per
gallon for regular unleaded gasoline. But the consequences of oil dependence go
far beyond draining consumers pockets at the pump. Oil dollars account for
$50 billion of our national trade deficit. Oil has extensive
environmental impacts that begin with drilling and continue through to burning
it in our cars and light tracks. The military costs of protecting oil from the
Persian Gulf include defending oil- producing nations as we did in the 1990 Gulf
War. And the greatest long-term costs: Demand for oil creates a constant
pressure to drill in our pristine wilderness areas, particularly the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge and also off the coasts of California, Florida and
other states.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Consumers
facing high prices at the pump want solutions. But the United States can never
drill its way to energy independence.
Though some say the answer to our
nation's energy needs lie below the surface of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, this spectacular landscape need not-- and must not-- be sacrificed for a
few barrels of oil. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's vast North Slope is already
available for oil and gas exploration and leasing. The coastal plain of the
Arctic Refuge represents the last 5% that remains off-limits to drilling. But
Big Oil wants it all.
The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is America's Serengeti. Nestled between the towering mountains of the
Brooks Range and the Beaufort Sea in northeast Alaska, the narrow 1.5 million
acre coastal plain is the biological heart of this untamed wilderness. It is
home to unique and abundant wildlife: wolves, polar bear, musk ox and wolverine.
Myriad bird species rely on the coastal plain for breeding, nesting and
migratory stopovers on trips as far away as the Baja peninsula, the Chesapeake
Bay, and even Antarctica.
The coastal plain is also the calving grounds
of the 129,000 member Porcupine River Caribou Herd who migrate over 400 miles
each year to this same place to give birth to their young. This migration is
reminiscent of the buffalo that once roamed the Great Plains. The coastal plain
is also sacred ground to the Gwich'in Indians, a 20,000 year old native culture
whose subsistence lifestyle depends upon the harvest of caribou. Their villages
are strategically located along the migration routes of the caribou herd, and
they depend on the animal for food, clothing, medicine and their cultural lore.
The Gwich'in people fear that the oil development in the calving grounds of the
caribou will disrupt the herd, cause a decline in caribou population and
ultimately jeopardize their traditional way of life. The wildlife and the native
culture that depend upon the coastal plain are at risk because it is precisely
this coastal plain that Big Oil wants to open to drilling and development,
claiming that vast quantities of oil lie beneath the fragile tundra.
But
truth be told, no one knows how much, if any, oil lies beneath the coastal plain
of the Arctic Refuge. The United States Geological Service (USGS) has conducted
multiple studies of potential oil reserves and the estimates have fluctuated
dramatically. Even in its most favorable estimate, the USGS published a
determination of the mean estimate of economically recoverable oil as 3.2
billion barrels of oil. That's less than a six-month supply at current
consumption rates and even at peak production, arctic oil would represent only
2% of total U.S. daily demand. Plus, it would take 10 years before any oil began
to flow.
But it doesn't matter how much or how little oil may lie
underneath the coastal plain. Drilling the Arctic Refuge would be as
shortsighted as damming the Grand Canyon for hydroelectric power or tapping Old
Faithful for geothermal energy. It would be as foolhardy as burning the Mona
Lisa to keep you warm. America is losing our remaining wildlands at an alarming
rate. We must have the foresight to protect one of America's most spectacular
natural treasures-- not sacrifice it for a minimal amount of oil.
Proponents of drilling argue that the impact of oil development on the
arctic environment will be minimal. But one need only look to the history of
environmental abuse at the Prudhoe Bay oil fields 60 miles to the west to
question that assertion. Prudhoe Bay is a massive industrial complex sprawling
800 square miles across now-mined tundra. Oil development of the coastal plain
will require hundreds of miles of pipelines and roads, numerous drilling pads,
production wells, waste pits, airstrips, and dorms.
Such a massive
industrial facility will forever destroy the pristine wilderness of the Arctic
Refuge and once it's gone, it's gone forever. The Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is public land, which belongs to all Americans and should be protected
for future generations to enjoy, explore, and discover.
Using 21st
Century Technology in American Cars and Trucks
The technology exists
today to improve fuel economy without impeding safety or causing inconvenience
for motorists. However, the auto industry makes its largest profits from
gas-guzzling SUVs and does not want to invest to improve their product.Both
Honda and Toyota are pressing ahead with hybrid gasoline-electric technology.
Honda's Insight is on the market now and gets more than 60 mpg, and Toyota's
5-passenger Prius, expected in the market this summer, will get 50 mpg. Hybrid
engines, combining gasoline and electric power will lead to improvements in fuel
economy. These reasonably priced vehicles ($18,000-20,000)
offer astronomical improvements over current mileage. The Prius has a fuel
economy of roughly 55-mpg and can go over 850 miles on a single tank of
gasoline. And the Insight was recently praised with the first product
endorsement award in Sierra Club history, the Award for Excellence in
Environmental Engineering.
If Congress is serious about ending our
dependence on foreign oil, it should make auto companies give consumers the
choice to buy fuel- efficient vehicles. The Big Three automakers' response to
date is three diesel prototypes with no commercial production, despite the
American people's desire to end our oil dependence.
Updating fuel
economy standards would not be a burden on the auto industry for two main
reasons: 1) Change cannot happen overnight, it must be gradual and steady: A 60%
improvement is achieved over the course of years. That's why the auto industry
should increase fuel economy by an average of 6% a year for the next decade.
This improvement is achievable with current technology.
2) Consumers
will have more choices: The American people deserve more choices, not less.
That's why CAFE standards are fleet averages. For every
fuel-efficient Insight or Prius a company can still produce some gas-guzzling
SUVs. But Americans need more options on the higher end of the spectrum to
achieve this balance.
Benefits of Existing Fuel Economy Standards
The existing standards save more than 3 million of barrels of oil per
day and reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. Without these savings, the U.S.
would be importing at least 1.5 million barrels more every day than today's
current levels.
CAFE standards also result in consumer
savings at the gas pump. Because fuel economy for cars doubled between 1975 and
the late 1980s, a new car purchaser saves an average of $3,000
at the gas pump over the lifetime of the car. Even at today's low fuel prices,
CAFE delivers more than $30 billion annually in consumer
savings. Consumers can spend these dollars in their communities on food,
housing, and clothing instead of on imported oil. Indeed, this program is a
bargain for the American people; there can be no doubt that the very modest
regulatory cost of the CAFE standard program is public money
well spent.
CAFE standards cut pollution. These
standards have reduced US greenhouse gas emissions by 140 million metric tonnes
per year. By reducing oil consumption, they keep 500,000 tons per year of
carcinogenic hydrocarbon emissions (a key smog-forming pollutant) from upstream
sources -- refining and transporting of oil, and refueling at the pump -- out of
the air we breathe. The standards, therefore, improve air quality, helping
polluted cities and states achieve Clean Air Act requirements. They also keep
millions of tons of carbon dioxide, the prime greenhouse gas, out of the
atmosphere, helping to curb global warming.
Finally, the US can achieve
higher fuel economy standards while creating jobs for Americans. A study by the
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy concluded that the money saved
at the gas pump from a modest CAFE increase would be reinvested throughout the
economy creating a net increase of 244, 000 new jobs nationwide, with 47,000 of
these in the auto industry. Raising fuel economy standards for cars and light
trucks would build upon the significant benefits Americans have already received
from the existing standards.
We can safely improve CAFE
Standards It is also important to recognize that the rate of traffic
fatalities decreased by 50 percent over the same time that fuel economy doubled
under the existing standards. The auto industry has consistently opposed the
CAFE law. In 1974, a Ford representative argued before Congress that CAFE would
result in a "product line consisting of either all subPinto-sized vehicles or
some mix of vehicles ranging from a sub-sub-compact to perhaps a Maverick." This
dire prediction proved to be untrue. The industry met CAFE requirements while
providing consumers with a full range of cars and light trucks. In fact, when
Congress passed the CAFE law, America had the industrialized world's least
efficient fleet of vehicles. The CAFE law spurred development of technology and
improved the competitiveness of our auto industry. Eighty-five percent of
efficiency improvements came from technologies such as more efficient engines
and transmissions, and better aerodynamics.
Light trucks pose safety
dangers to their owners and occupants. SUVs are four times more likely to roll
over in an accident. Rollovers account for 62% of SUV deaths, but only 22% in
cars. Yet automakers continue to fight new standards protecting occupants in
rollover accidents. According to a study by the National Crash Analysis Center,
an organization funded by both the government and the auto industry, occupants
of an SUV are just as likely as occupants of a car to die once the vehicle is
involved in an accident. One explanation is that SUVs have high rollover rates.
Light trucks particularly heavy SUVs and pickups, are fundamentally
incompatible with cars on the road. According to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, collisions between cars and light trucks account for more
than half of all fatalities in crashes between light duty vehicles. Nearly 60%
of all fatalities in light vehicle side impacts occur when the striking vehicle
is a light truck. SUVs are nearly three times as likely to kill drivers of other
vehicles during collisions than are cars. Finally, these vehicles pose excessive
risk to pedestrians because of their design, weight and weaker brakes. Raising
light truck CAFE standards would help restore balance and
compatibility to the overall vehicle fleet, resulting in reductions in traffic
fatalities and pollution.
Freezing CAFE Standards: A
Flawed Energy Policy
Starting with the FY 1996 Department of
Transportation Appropriations bill Congress barred the Department from
exercising its expert judgment under the fuel economy law. The rider blocking
fuel economy standards has precluded the Department from using funds to
"prepare, propose, or promulgate" CAFE standards. In effect,
this blocks the department from even considering technical feasibility of
improving the standards, the economic practicality of doing so, the effect of
other Federal motor vehicle standards on fuel economy, and the need of the
nation to conserve oil.
The rider blocking the DOT from doing its work
has frozen fuel economy standards for both cars and light trucks. Light truck
fuel economy has been most affected because the freeze provision killed a light
truck fuel economy rulemaking; it has allowed the large disparity between car
and light truck fuel economy to persist. The CAFE rider has, in essence,
substituted Congress's judgment on the "technical feasibility" of raising light
truck standards as well as the effect of other federal motor vehicle safety
standards on fuel economy for that of the experts it charged with undertaking
this analysis. And, by stealth, the rider even denies the American people the
benefit of DOT's analysis that it would do in preparation for proposing new
standards.
Automakers are now taking advantage of the light truck fuel
economy loophole to produce fleets of gas guzzling, heavily polluting sport
utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans and pickups. The explosion of gas guzzling
light trucks in the marketplace has brought the fleet fuel economy of new
vehicles sold in 1999 to its lowest point since 1980, according to EPA's 1999
fuel economy trends report. Fuel economy of today's light tracks has stagnated
for 19 years while the market share of these vehicles has jumped from 20% in the
1970s to nearly 50% of new vehicle sales today. These vehicles are driving up
demand for oil to an all time high.
The rider blocking CAFE also blocks
critical action addressing "the need to conserve energy." OPEC oil will continue
to provide the nation with the majority of its oil until Congress acts to pursue
an energy policy that directly address rising demand by the transportation
sector. The decision Congress made in the 1970s was to enact a sound energy
policy that included the CAFE program. This program now saves millions of
barrels of oil every day and could save millions more. Instead of seeing
improvement in the average fuel economy of new vehicles sold, we are
backsliding. The average fuel economy of new vehicles sold in 1999 was at its
lowest point since 1980. The standard for tracks has stagnated for 19 years and
car standards have not changed in 14. This status quo does not reflect the real
need of the nation to conserve energy - specifically oil.
And, the rider
blocking CAFE also prevents critical DOT from addressing "the need to conserve
energy" to reduce air and global warming pollution. Twenty percent of US carbon
dioxide pollution comes from cars and light trucks; transportation is the
fastest growing source of US greenhouse gas emissions. Gas-guzzling light trucks
are driving up US emissions of global warming pollution; improving the standards
would help reduce this pollution. Each gallon of gasoline burned in our cars and
light trucks spews out nearly 30 pounds of carbon dioxide, the prime global
warming pollutant. A 14-mile per gallon SUV will emit more than 115 tons of
carbon dioxide over its lifetime, while the average new car emits 64 tons. New
standards would also significantly reduce carcinogenic smog-forming hydrocarbon
emissions from upstream sources (refining, transporting and refueling).
Raising Fuel Economy Standards Will Save Oil
The single biggest
step that the US can take to save oil and curb global warming is to make our
cars and sport utilities go further on a gallon of gas by raising miles per
gallon standards. In fact, improved standards will save more than we import from
the Persian Gulf can expect to get from the Arctic and offshore California
combined. The US could be saving an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day
if updated fuel economy standards were phased in for both cars and light trucks.
A six- percent increase in standards per year over a ten-year period would
achieve these significant savings. One key step toward these larger oil savings
is to close the loophole in the existing fuel economy program that allows light
trucks to meet a significantly lower average standard than cars - 20.7 mpg
rather than the 27.5 mpg standard that applies to cars. Closing this loophole
would put the US on a course to save 1 million barrels of oil every day.
Automakers can use today's technology to achieve real oil savings. And,
automakers can safely increase the fuel economy of cars and light tracks without
significantly changing their size or performance. Research by both the Center
for Auto Safety on cars and by the Union of Concerned Scientists on SUVs
demonstrates that higher fuel economy standards can be achieved using existing
technologies while also reducing occupant deaths and injuries without altering
the vehicle mix. Cost-effective technologies such as improved engines and
transmissions and new materials are the keys to achieving higher fuel economy in
both cars and light trucks. These technologies will also help the American
automotive industry face an increasingly competitive future.
Public
Support for Raising CAFE Standards
Polls consistently
show that the American people support raising fuel economy standards. An August
1999 World Wildlife Fund poll of light truck owners showed that 73% believed
light trucks should be cleaner and two-thirds would pay significantly more for
their next truck if it polluted less. Significantly, 70% believed automakers
would not clean up their tracks if they were not required to do so. Another
August 1999 poll by Zogby International of predominately Independent and
Republican voters in New Hampshire revealed that 75 percent favored increasing
fuel economy to address globalwarming, even at a cost of $300.
A 1998, a Research/Strategy/Management, Inc. poll conducted for the Sustainable
Energy Coalition showed that 97 percent of Americans favored use of new
technologies that would improve fuel economy. And the 1998 Scripps Howard Texas
Poll revealed that Americans are very supportive of measures that will reduce
our dependence on oil. Sixty- four percent of Texans agreed with the following
statement: "We should reduce our dependence on coal and oil energy sources in
order to decrease the impacts of global warming even if that means we will pay
more for cleaner, renewable energy sources."
Investing in Renewable
Energy
While many congressional leaders are now calling for immediate
action to reduce gasoline prices, they have blocked efforts to increase energy
efficiency and reduce oil consumption. In the last two years, Congress has
significantly under-funded the Administration's proposals to: * Fund research
for energy conservation, solar and renewable energy, by 20% less than requested
in FY 2000, or $273 million for FY '99 and 2000;
*
Provide tax incentives to spur: the purchase of energy efficient vehicles and
other products, the use of renewable energy, and clean renewable electricity
production, by 98% less than requested in FY 2000, and by 100% less than in FY
'99, when Congress provided no funding. Those decreases represent
$7.1 billion for the two years, and;
Last year Sen. Jim
Jeffords (R-VT) led efforts to add $62 million to solar and
renewable energy programs, but it was defeated. In the last two years, Congress
cut $7.4 billion from the Administration's efforts to reduce
our consumption of energy.
These programs would have saved business and
consumers $70 on their energy bill for every
$1 invested in these programs, which might have mitigated the
cost of rising gasoline prices.
Weatherization
When the
Northeast was hit with a cold snap in February, the high cost of home heating
oil was a major issue. Congress, since 1995, has slashed funding for important
programs that would help reduce oil consumption and improve energy efficiency.
In Fiscal Year 1996, the energy efficiency budget was cut by 30%. Energy
efficiency helps to reduce demand and save consumers money.
In addition
to cutting funding for energy efficiency programs in general, Congress has
slashed funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program, a program that
provides essential services to low- income families. The program provides up to
$2,000 per household to weatherize homes-- improving
insulation, windows, furnaces, etc. Weatherization has been shown to improve a
home's efficiency by 23%, which would decrease demand for oil and save money in
the long-term. Low-income families were the hardest hit by high oil prices in a
cold snap. By slashing funding for the weatherization program Congress ensured
that homes were less efficient and required more oil to provide much needed
warmth. Congress must invest in programs like weatherization to insure that the
most vulnerable members of society are not left in the cold in the future.
Raising CAFE: A Win Win Solution
If there's one thing that all
sides can agree on, it's that this issue won't go away by itself. We are far
more oil-dependent today than 25 years ago. And unless we demand change, we will
continue to be vulnerable to manipulation by oil producing nations.
Raising Light Truck Fuel Economy
Prior to the FY 1996
Transportation Appropriations bill rider, the Administration had initiated a
rulemaking to increase light truck CAFE standards. The idea
behind the 19982006 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was to give plenty of
time to Detroit's engineers, designers and salespeople to prepare for and meet
improved standards so that all Americans could benefit from energy efficiency
technologies. In the years leading up the proposed rule, the Administration had
increased light truck fuel economy under the 1975 law by a mere two tenths of a
mile, bringing the standard up from 20.5 mpg to the current 20.7 mpg. As these
figures show, the Administration had not rushed out to raise light truck CAFE by
large amounts.
But, the law provides for a thorough and well-considered
rulemaking process guided by the factors Congress included in the 1975 law.
Today, light trucks are more than half of new passenger vehicles sold.
The distinction between cars and light tracks created in the original law is no
longer reasonable. Twenty years ago light trucks comprised less than 20% of the
vehicle market and were primarily agricultural and commercial vehicles. Today,
light tracks, which include sport utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans, and
pickups, are used as family cars for grocery shopping, commuting, and driving
the kids to soccer games on the weekends. On December 21, 1999 President Clinton
announced new Tier 2 standards to reduce smog-forming pollution from
automobiles. Significantly, the Tier 2 standards recognize that all passenger
vehicles should in the same program, closing the loophole that held light trucks
to looser standards than cars. Yet, when it comes to fuel economy, these
gas-guzzlers are driving up demand for oil, increasing emissions of air and
global warming pollution, and compromising traffic safety because a loophole
still exists.
Many of the same technologies used to make cars use less
gas can be used to improve light truck fuel economy. The Union of Concerned
Scientists has shown that the best selling Ford Explorer SUV could travel as
much as 34 mpg instead of merely 19 by using technologies that exist or are on
the verge of marketability. The cost of the technology is made back by the
consumer in about two years from oil savings. Automakers have been very slow to
bring new technologies to the market because the existing standards do not
demand it. In recent years GM put new transmissions on large pickups boosting
fuel economy by 20%, but GM and its Big 3 rivals are still failing to meet the
20.7 mpg light truck CAFE standard.
Putting the light
truck rulemaking back on track will not only result in significant oil savings,
but will slash carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 240 million tons per year
when fully implemented. A light truck fuel economy of 27.5 mpg can be achieved
without compromising light truck safety; it will also help decrease the deadly
threat these vehicles pose to cars on the road. This degree of increased
efficiency can be achieved through a combination of engine and transmission
improvements along with high-strength lightweight materials and better
streamlining. Raising light truck fuel economy is an important starting point to
put the US on the road toward achieving improved energy efficiency for all
automobiles at reasonable, technologically achievable, and safe levels that
satisfy the criteria provided in the law.
Conclusion All Americans
benefit from the existing CAFE standards. And, we would all
benefit from the greater oil savings, reduced pollution, and improved safety
that would result from new standards. By prohibiting the DOT from spending funds
on preparing, proposing, or promulgating new fuel economy standards, Congress is
denying the American people the benefit of the expert judgment of the agency
Congress charged with making these important decisions.
Congress charged
the Department with considering the need of the nation to conserve energy, the
technical feasibility of achieving new standards, and cost-effectiveness of new
standards. Congress should allow the agency best equipped to evaluate this
technical information to make a well-reasoned and supportable decision on the
record. Ultimately, Congress can weigh in and act upon any action the agency
takes. But, it should do so openly, with hearings, and with the benefits of the
Department of Transportation's expert judgment concerning all of the information
on what can be done to improve traffic safety, conserve energy, reduce
pollution, and save Americans money at the gas pump.
Drilling the Arctic
is not the solution. At our current level of consumption, there is no chance
domestic production can equal demand. That's why we need a responsible Congress
that isn't in the pocket of Big Oil to enact real solutions. We have the
technology and national will to finally end our dependence on foreign oil. We
need a Congress with the courage to fight now for working families and to
protect America's environment.
END
LOAD-DATE:
April 13, 2000 
