Volume 154, No. 36 covering the 2nd Session of the 110th Congress (2007 - 2008) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“COLLOQUES REGARDING H.R. 6” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S1519-S1520 on March 4, 2008.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
COLLOQUES REGARDING H.R. 6
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have been asked about the timing of the colloquy that I entered into with Senators Inouye and Feinstein on December 13, 2007, during consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Immediately prior to the vote on cloture, on the motion to concur with an amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the text of H.R. 6, I was recognized on the Senate floor and requested and obtained consent ``that a colloquy between myself, Senator Inouye and Senator Feinstein be inserted in the record at this point.''
Agreement among the three of us on the content of that colloquy was critical to both my vote for cloture and my later vote for final passage, as I indicated in my own statement prior to final passage that was submitted later in the day. The colloquy between Senator Inouye, Senator Feinstein, and me read in its entirety, as follows:
NHTSA Regulations on Fuel Economy
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support this bill and, in particular, the provisions that require the Department of Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, to set new fuel economy standards for vehicles that will reach an industry fleet wide level of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 based on my understanding that these new Federal standards will not be undercut in the future by regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
I believe that we have taken historic steps in this legislation by putting in place ambitious but achievable fuel economy standards that will reduce our Nation's fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In this legislation, the Senate and House have come together and established the appropriate level of fuel economy standards and have directed NHTSA to implement that through new regulations. In this legislation, the Congress has agreed that the appropriate level of fuel economy to reach is 35 miles per gallon in 2020, or an increase of 10 miles per gallon in 10 years.
But it is essential to manufacturers that they are able to plan on the 35 miles per gallon standard in 2020. We must resolve now with the sponsors of this legislation in the Senate any ambiguity that could arise in the future when EPA issues new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act so that our manufacturers can have certainty. With that in mind, I want to clarify both Senator Inouye's and Senator Feinstein's understanding and interpretation of what the Congress is doing in this legislation and to clarify their agreement that we want all Federal regulations in this area to be consistent. We do not want to enact this legislation today only to find later that we have not been sufficiently diligent to avoid any conflicts in the future.
The Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and to delegate that authority, as the agency deems appropriate, to the State of California. This authority was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it is not our purpose today to attempt to change that authority or to undercut the decision of the Supreme Court. We simply want to make clear that it is Congressional intent in this bill that, with respect to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, any future regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be consistent with the Department of Transportation's new fuel economy regulations that will reach an industry fleet wide level by 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Does the Senator from California and original sponsor of this legislation, Mrs. Feinstein, agree with my view that the intent of this language is for EPA regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles to be consistent with the direction of Congress in this 35 miles per gallon in 2020 legislation and consistent with regulations issued by the Department of Transportation to implement this legislation?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, of course, we have worked hard to come together on this legislation directing NHTSA to issue new fuel economy regulations to reach an industry fleet wide level of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and it is our intent in the bill before us that all Federal regulations in this area be consistent with our 35 miles per gallon in 2020 language.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for her clarification of her intent.
Does the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, agree with my understanding of the intent of this bill that any regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency be consistent with the direction of Congress in this legislation and regulations issued by the Department of Transportation to implement this legislation?
Mr. INOUYE. Yes. I agree that it is very important that all Federal regulations in this area be consistent and that we provide clear direction to the agency that has responsibility for setting fuel economy standards, the Department of Transportation.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, for his clarification.
With the colloquy accepted and placed in the Congressional Record, I voted to invoke cloture. Sometime after the vote on cloture, later in the day, a separate colloquy between Senator Feinstein and Senator Inouye was inserted in the Congressional Record. It was placed in the Record immediately following the Levin-Feinstein- Inouye colloquy, quoted above, although it was, in fact, presented for inclusion in the Record at a later point in the day, as noted by Senator Inouye in the second sentence of the Inouye-Feinstein colloquy. Their colloquy reads as follows:
Agency Management
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have worked for many months with the Senior Senator from California and the original sponsor of this legislation, Mrs. Feinstein, to draft a sound policy to increase fuel economy standards in our country. I stated earlier today that ``all Federal regulations in this area be consistent.'' I wholly agree with that notion, in that these agencies have two different missions. The Department of Transportation has the responsibility for regulating fuel economy, and should enforce the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act fully and vigorously to save oil in the automobile fleet. The Environmental Protection Agency has the responsibility to protect public health. These two missions can and should co-exist without one undermining the other. There are numerous examples in the executive branch where two or more agencies share responsibility over a particular issue. The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission both oversee telemarketing practices and the Do-Not-Call list.
The FTC also shares jurisdiction over antitrust enforcement with the Department of Justice. Under the current CAFE system, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency work together. DOT enforces the CAFE standards, and the EPA tests vehicles for compliance and fuel economy labels on cars. The President himself foresaw these agencies working together and issued an Executive Order on May 14, 2007, to coordinate the agencies on reducing automotive greenhouse gas emissions. The DOT and the EPA have separate missions that should be executed fully and responsibly. I believe it is important that we ensure that the agencies are properly managed by the executive branch, as has been done with several agencies with shared jurisdiction for decades. I plan on holding hearings next session to examine this issue fully.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and I would like to clarify what I believe to be the intent of the legislation I sponsored to increase fuel economy standards in the United States.
The legislation increasing the fuel economy standards of vehicles by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years does not impact the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of the EPA, California, or other States, under the Clean Air Act.
The intent was to give NHTSA the ability to regulate fuel efficiency standards of vehicles, and increase the fleetwide average to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
There was no intent in any way, shape, or form to negatively affect, or otherwise restrain, California or any other State's existing or future tailpipe emissions laws, or any future EPA authority on tailpipe emissions.
The two issues are separate and distinct.
As the Supreme Court correctly observed in Massachusetts v. EPA, the fact ``that DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with protecting the public's health and welfare, a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy efficiency. The two obligations may overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.''
I agree with the Supreme Court's view of consistency. There is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Goldstone has reiterated this point in finding that if approved by EPA, California's standards are not preempted by the Energy Policy Conservation Act.
Title I of the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007, H.R. 6, provides clear direction to the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, to raise fuel economy standards.
By taking this action, Congress is continuing DOT's existing authority to set vehicle fuel economy standards. Importantly, the separate authority and responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is in no manner affected by this legislation as plainly provided for in section 3 of the bill addressing the relationship of H.R. 6 to other laws.
I fought for section 3. I have resisted all efforts to add legislative language requiring ``harmonization'' of these EPA and NHTSA standards. This language could have required that EPA standards adopted under section 202 of the Clean Air Act reduce only the air pollution emissions that would already result from NHTSA fuel economy standards, effectively making the NHTSA fuel economy standards a national ceiling for the reduction of pollution. Our legislation does not establish a NHTSA ceiling. It does not mention the Clean Air Act, so we certainly do not intend to strip EPA of its wholly separate mandate to protect the public health and welfare from air pollution.
To be clear, Federal standards can avoid inconsistency according to the Supreme Court, while still fulfilling their separate mandates.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up