``THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL ECONOMY ACT OF 2000'' -- HON. DALE E. KILDEE (Extensions of Remarks - April 13, 2000)

[Page: E567]
---

HON. DALE E. KILDEE OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 13, 2000

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, recent gasoline price spikes have renewed our awareness that continuing improvements in fuel economy are important to America. Because the goal of improved fuel economy should not be forgotten,
```
[Page: E568]
```
I am introducing a bill entitled ``The Advanced Technology Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Act of 2000.''

Back in 1975, after the disruptions of the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, Congress worked to improve energy conservation efforts. One of the key elements was the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, whereby automakers would meet increasing levels of fuel economy for their fleets of vehicles. This program was well intentioned. It was expected to help the U.S. reduce its import of petroleum--especially from the least stable producers around the world. National security would be improved. The balance of payments would be improved. Americans would save money at the pump. And automakers would be encouraged to bring new technologies to market faster.

However, expectations did not translate into reality. We have never seen $3 a gallon for gasoline, and price spikes have only occurred on a couple of temporary occasions. Oil supplies have not significantly tightened nor have imports declined. Furthermore, gasoline consumption has not changed significantly.

Despite suggestions to the contrary, the fleet average fuel economy for passenger cars has increased by over 100% and for light duty trucks by over 50% since 1974. Manufacturers have made cars lighter, smaller and more aerodynamic. They have improved the efficiency of engines, transmissions, and accessories. Some may assert that this shows the success of the CAFE program. However, these changes actually occurred largely as a result of the higher prices that did exist through the late 1970s and the intense competitiveness among manufacturers worldwide after world oil prices began to decline.

While I support the goals of improved fuel efficiency, I believe any increases in CAFE would be very disruptive of the current light truck market and are not necessary. Vehicle choice is too important to consumers, and unilateral disruptions would significantly hurt our vital American Auto Industry. Instead, I believe the proposals in ``The Advanced Technology Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Act of 2000'' are a better way to achieve the results we want.

First, it focuses on the advanced technologies that the automakers are already aggressively pursuing by providing incentives to consumers who purchase vehicles that use hybrid powertrains, electric drive or fuel cells. These incentives will help to promote the work that is underway in the industry/government partnerships like the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). PNGV is a collaborative program to develop breakthrough technologies to improve fuel economy.

PNGV has been a huge success already. Just last month, DaimlerChrysler, Ford and GM each displayed concept cars that show how the technologies being developed (hybrid powertrains, lightweight materials, lower rolling resistance tires, great aerodynamics, and others) can be packaged to provide a five passenger, family sedan that can get 80 miles per gallon without sacrificing performance and most of the other important characteristics of today's comparable vehicles.

Second, the bill sets up a thorough study of current and future energy conversation measures related to motor vehicles and transportation. This study would provide for the National Academy of Sciences to review the current U.S. energy situation and make recommendations for future action. In addition, this title of the bill would require a study of lean burn technologies to make sure the U.S. is not embarking on a path that would preclude the use of promising fuel saving technologies.

The bill also extends CAFE credits available to manufacturers for producing flexible fuel vehicles: vehicles that can use either gasoline or an alternative fuel, such as ethanol or natural gas. The existence of these credits over the past several years has helped address an ongoing problem: fuel providers do not want to commit to alternative fuel stations without knowing that vehicles would be available to use them. Automakers did not want to produce vehicles that use only alternative fuels without knowing that the fuels would be available. The production of flexible fuel vehicles bridges this gap.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will help us deal with the CAFE dilemma that we face. The freeze of the current standards should continue. But in the meantime, we can study where we are, where we have been, and think carefully about where we need to go. And we can provide consumers with the incentives to purchase the vehicles that are starting to show up in the marketplace with some of the advanced technologies resulting from partnerships and competition among the manufacturers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
END