THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
The effect of this amendment is that General Motors and Ford will have to close over 20 plants in order to comply with the new standard. This action would result in the loss of 100,000 auto worker jobs. Daimler-Chrysler says it would have to close two of its truck plants and would no longer be able to produce the Durango, the Dakota or Ram pickup truck lines. That would cost 35,000 Daimler-Chrysler workers their jobs. These are job losses that would result by model year 2004. More job losses would follow when the CAFÉ standard would be increased to 27.5 mpg by model year 2005.
[Page: H5128] GPO's PDF
The jobs of these auto workers and the economic health of auto-making communities is too important for us to ignore. Yes, we want more fuel efficient automobiles, minivans, pickups and SUVs. But as the National Academy of Sciences reported, automakers need sufficient lead time--10 to 15 years--to phase in fuel saving improvements.
H.R. 4 specifically instructs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a new standard for light trucks based on maximum feasible technology levels and other criteria in addition to reducing gas consumption by 5 billion gallons by year 2010. The fuel efficiency standard in H.R. 4 is a floor, not a ceiling.
The economy is too anemic and basic industry in America--especially the auto industry--is too fragile to sustain a production change requirement of this magnitude. This economy cannot afford to lose more than 100,000 auto industry jobs. President Bush is fond of saying, ``Don't mess with Texas.'' Well, I'm from Michigan--Detroit City, the motor capital of the world--and I say, ``Don't mess with Michigan; don't mess with auto-making centers such as Detroit, and don't mess with auto workers and their families.'' Vote against the Boehlert-Markey Amendment.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I represent a district with thousands of automobile workers who are proud to build safe cars for consumers. These workers produce quality parts and vehicles that drivers have confidence in.
They're concerned when someone in Washington presumes to know more about auto engineering than the people on the production line. And they get really worried, when a decision made here threatens their jobs.
By raising CAFÉ standards , Congress would literally be dictating to automakers how to build their cars and minivans, and telling consumers what they can and can't buy. Frankly, I don't think that many people want a car or SUV designed by a government committee ..... or want Congress to be their car salesman.
CAFÉ is bureaucratic, and diverts resources from real fuel economy breakthroughs. It compromises safety, because ultimately it has the effect of forcing heavier, sturdier vehicles off the road. And for all of the ballyhoo, the statistics show that CAFÉ has not saved as much gasoline as its proponents predicted.
Manufacturers are already working on a new generation of fuel efficient vehicles that consumers will want to buy. Honda is producing a hybrid car at its Marysville plant in Ohio. The workers there--and they include some of my constituents--are building that car because it responds to a consumer need, not because the government is telling them to do it.
If we really want to bring relief to the driving public ..... we need far-sighted policies encouraging oil exploration, additional refinery capacity, and common sense environmental regulation. CAFÉ is a 1970s solution to our energy challenges that is as threadbare as your old bell bottom jeans.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with conditional support for the Boehlert-Markey Amendment. The provisions in H.R. 4 on CAFÉ standards are not strong enough to adequately address the need to improve vehicle fuel efficiency . But, this amendment does not provide a sensible way to help U.S. manufacturers deal with the energy problems in this nation with out jeopardizing U.S. jobs. We can do better for U.S. manufacturers and energy savings in this country. As this amendment makes its way through the legislative process, my support is conditioned on the following concerns being addressed.
To begin with, the structure of the CAFÉ standards creates a competitive imbalance among the automobile manufacturers. I am uncomfortable with this regulatory impact and will work to see it minimized. By using a fleet average calculation, manufacturers who have product lines of smaller vehicles are better able to meet the CAFÉ standards than those for whom larger cars and trucks make up larger portions of their inventory. Thus it is much easier for some manufacturers to meet any increase in CAFÉ standards than it is for others. While the legislation and amendments before this chamber do not address this issue, I am hopeful that there will be an effort in the Senate or in conference to better level the playing field for manufacturers, so that we will have improvements to this when the bill comes back before the House.
Also, I believe that the time frame outlined in this amendment for implementation of the CAFÉ standards is too short. We should be taking a long term view on energy policy issues. By placing such tight time lines, you cause the manufacturers to resort to shortcuts in design and production to meet these requirements. These shortcuts will create negative long term impacts. These include, among others, negative consequences on the industries that supply the materials for the vehicles, such as steel manufacturers, and the safety of these vehicles for the consumer. The first chance for the auto manufacturers to make changes in their vehicle designs comes with the 2004 model, leaving only 1 year to meet new standards . While I think it is possible for them to achieve these goals, I am concerned that there may be unnecessary negative consequences. Again, energy is a long term challenge.
In spite of these reservations, I believe it is time for action to be taken to improve vehicle fuel economy standards given the energy situation in this country. In addition to the increase in CAFÉ, I think incentives in this bill for consumers to purchase alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles will go a long way to better fuel economy and lower oil consumption.
Broadly, I believe H.R. 4 is unfairly skewed toward increased production and is not focused enough on conservation and renewables. Supporting the Boehlert-Markey amendment, with the adjustments that are necessary, will help steer this bill back on the right track toward better conservation.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe it is extremely important for Congress to increase fuel efficiency standards to improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen dependence on foreign oil.
I am very anxious to include in this energy bill, HR 4, measures to improve gas mileage in a manner that does not harm the automobile industry of this country. However, the only amendment permitted that addressed fuel efficiency was submitted by the gentleman from New York, Mr. BOEHLERT. Unfortunately his amendment set impossible time lines, and would have hurt American auto manufacturers. My vote in favor of the amendment was simply a statement of principle. My vote should be interpreted solely as a desire to move in a direction of increased gas efficiency . My vote should definitely not be interpreted as an intent to cripple the automobile industry in its attempt to compete with foreign automakers.
I pledge to continue to work towards increasing fuel efficiency , cleaner air and energy conservation. I will also continue to work towards these goals within a reasonable time frame that will help, not hurt, America's automobile industry.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-Markey amendment to increase CAFE standards for SUVs and light trucks.
America controls 3 percent of the known world oil reserves, while OPEC controls 76 percent! We need to make our economy less dependent on oil by becoming more energy efficient. According to the 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, ``Improved fuel economy has reduced dependence on imported oil, improved the nation's term of trade and reduced emissions of carbon dioxide, a principal greenhouse gas, relative to what they otherwise would have been.''
If fuel economy had not improved, gasoline consumption (and crude oil imports) would be about 2.8 million barrels per day higher than it is, or about 14 percent of today's consumption.'' The National Academy report states that ``Had past fuel economy improvements not occurred, it is likely that the U.S. economy would have imported more oil and paid higher prices than it did over the past 25 years.'' ``Fuel use by passenger cars and light trucks is roughly one-third lower today than it would have been had fuel economy not improved since 1975 .....''
Congress must continue to increase CAFE standards because the auto manufacturers will not do so on their own. The technology does exist to further improve the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks and SUVs. If we do, we can save consumers' money at the gas pumps, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and improve air quality.
I urge support for the Boehlert-Markey amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LATOURETTE). All time for debate has concluded.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in Part B of House Report 107-178.
AMENDMENT NO. 4 OFFERED BY MRS. WILSON
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. WILSON:
Page 81, after line 12 (after section 308 of title III of division A) insert the following
[Page: H5129] GPO's PDF
SEC. 309. PROHIBITION OF COMMERCIAL SALES OF URANIUM BY THE UNITED STATES UNTIL 2009.
Section 3112 of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-10) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) PROHIBITION ON SALES.--With the exception of sales pursuant to subsection (b)(2) (42 U.S.C.2297h-10(b)(2)), notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States Government shall not sell or transfer any uranium (including natural uranium concentrates, natural uranium hexafluoride, enriched uranium, depleted uranium, or uranium in any other form) through March 23, 2009 (except sales or transfers for use by the Tennessee Valley Authority in relation to the Department of Energy's HEU or Tritium programs, or the Department or Energy research reactor sales program, or any depleted uranium hexafluoride to be transferred to a designated Department of Energy contractor in conjunction with the planned construction of the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride conversion plants in Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, to any natural uranium transferred to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation from the Department of Energy to replace contaminated uranium received from the Department of Energy when the U.S. Enrichment Corporation was privatized in July, 1998, or for emergency purposes in the event of a disruption in supply to end users in the United States). The aggregate of sales or transfers of uranium by the United States Government after March 23, 2009, shall not exceed 3,000,000 pounds U
3O
8 per calendar year.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. WILSON) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. WILSON).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Over the last 5 years, the domestic uranium industry in this country has collapsed because the Federal Government is dumping uranium onto the market.
Our amendment prohibits the sale of government uranium inventories through March of 2009 and honors existing contracts and obligations that are already in place. After that, the transfers are limited to 3,000 pounds of uranium a year. It would allow the transfers needed to cover current obligations and allow government uranium inventories to be used in the event of disruption of supply to U.S. nuclear facilities.
We need a nuclear power industry long term to maintain the diversity of our electricity supply. If we do not maintain a domestic supply of uranium, then we will become increasingly dependent on foreign sources of uranium, and in 10 to 15 years, find ourselves in the exact situation with uranium and nuclear power as we find ourselves in in the oil business.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a balanced and very fair amendment. It has no budgetary impact. I believe that the Department of Energy has now indicated its support for it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, although I support the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. TAUZIN) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would prohibit the Department of Energy from selling into the open market approximately 85 percent of the Department's inventory of approximately 21,000 metric tons of uranium until after the year 2009. However, this amendment would not prevent DOE from selling approximately 3,700 tons of uranium, or 15 percent of its total inventory, that the DOE is required to sell by statute pursuant to the U.S.E.C. Privatization Act.
Many domestic uranium mining companies have stopped production or are on the verge of bankruptcy. We do not want the Government to cause further deterioration in the uranium markets by selling its vast quantities of uranium inventories. The amendment seeks to prevent the further deterioration and downward price pressure on the price of uranium by restricting DOE from selling 85 percent of its inventory.
It is my understanding the Department has already implemented a memorandum of understanding dating back to 1998 that restricts the sale of the same quantity of uranium it holds in inventory. Thus the proposed amendment seeks to codify sales restrictions that the Department of Energy has already determined were necessary.
The amendment would not prevent DOE from selling or transferring uranium that it has already agreed to sell or transfer under existing contracts or agreements. There should be no disruption in those programs or activities as a result of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment; and I urge my colleagues to do so, too.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. WILSON).
I understand, I say to the gentlewoman, that the language as drafted is intended to support the recovery of the U.S. uranium industry. The ability to process materials other than conventional mined ores, which are primarily materials from the U.S. Government, has allowed conventional uranium mills to provide a valuable recycling service. This has resulted in a significant savings for the Government over direct disposal costs, as well as the recapture of valuable energy resources.
It has also resulted in an overall improvement in the environment, because the tailings from the conventional milling process are less radioactive, due to the extraction of the uranium, than they would have been if disposed of directly.
I believe this problem could be resolved with a simple language change. Would the gentlewoman from New Mexico be amenable to working on that between now and conference?
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would be more than amenable to that. I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Utah in conference to make sure that uranium recyclers, a very valuable service provided with the U.S. Government, are not impacted at all by this amendment. It is not the intent of this amendment to limit that in any way.
I would be happy to work with the gentleman on it and fix it as this bill moves forward in the process. I very much appreciate his bringing it forward.
Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. CUBIN).
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, currently over 20 percent of America's electricity is supplied by nuclear power, which requires roughly burning 50 million pounds of uranium as nuclear fuel each year.
As our Nation's energy needs grow, so must all of our sources of energy in the future, including nuclear. Uranium, much like our current dependence on foreign oil, is increasingly produced outside the United States. Uranium domestically produced is currently 3 million pounds or just 6 percent of the Nation's nuclear fuel . Remember, 20 percent of our electricity is supplied by nuclear. The vast majority of that uranium that is produced is owned by foreign countries.
At least the oil and gas end of the public lands, for the most part, is owned by domestic corporations. Over the last 5 years, the domestic uranium production industry has faced the loss of the uranium market due to government inventory sales, resulting in the decline of sales and income, market capitalization, and massive asset devaluation.
In my home State of Wyoming, uranium suppliers over the past several years have been forced to reduce a healthy workforce from several thousand to just 250 people, all this in a State that has just under 480,000 total population. This has made a huge impact on my State.
In December of 2000, the General Accounting Office reported that the sales of natural uranium transferred from DOE to the United States Enrichment Corporation created an oversupply and
[Page: H5130] GPO's PDF
| <<< | >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display