BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RIGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding and bringing this to our attention. It's a critical matter facing our country. It has a direct impact on job creation, and I regret the way it's headed. That impact is adverse. And so we rise tonight, I believe all of us do, in defense of the folks who would be most directly impacted by it, the folks who are producing our cars, the folks who are selling and servicing our cars and the related industries.
I come to this body, and I know we all do, regardless of political affiliation, with the idea that we are first Americans. And I always try to find where do we agree. I start out tonight thinking we surely agree that it's a good idea for fuel economy standards and performance to increase over time. We share that with our colleagues on the other side. Yet that is also regrettably the point of demarcation because there is a sharp contrast, I believe, between where the administration is headed with this.
This is yet a third level of regulation on an industry that is already highly regulated. The Department of Transportation, the State of California itself, and now, and I believe unwisely so, the administration is allowing, in fact, encouraging the EPA to inject itself into this. There are multiple flaws in this path that I believe the administration is on through the EPA.
I just want to touch on one, Judge. Because as you noted, I've had the privilege of being in this great industry for a long time. Since I was about the age of 23, I've had the privilege of being a retail automobile dealer for about 21 of those years, and through our organizations had the great pleasure of retailing over 100,000 automobiles in our market and have spent a tremendous amount of time on the sales floor.
You know, we know this instinctively, that as the price increases, demand will drop. Now, this may be, I think, some noteworthy news to some who are in the regulatory business here, but an additional $30 a month, I've seen it oftentimes, it becomes the stopping point for families, and rightfully so. As they try to live within a budget, $30 a month--$1 dollar a day you could say--that is in and of itself enough for a family to make a different purchasing decision. The math is pretty easy. With over a $3,000 increase in a vehicle over 60 months--I think my math is pretty good here--it would be at least $50, not to include interest, on a monthly basis. So on the margin we would see in dealerships across this country decisions to not buy cars. The higher the price, the fewer the buyers.
Now, that which seems so obvious to us--let me read from the regulation itself here. The administration's proposed regulation states: ``Since the impact of this proposal on sales is unknown and sales have the largest potential effect on employment''--here's the point of note--``the impact of this proposal on employment is also unknown.'' Judge, I'd submit to you tonight, well, the EPA and the Obama administration may not understand the impact of these regulations on employment, but I do. I think the American people do. Sales go down, employment follows. The only thing that increases is the pain, real pain and suffering, of American families on the margin. Some employers have to tighten up, some manufacturers have to tighten up because of the decreased demand.
So Judge, I stand with you tonight. I applaud your leadership in this matter. And I hope that the EPA will reconsider--in fact, come to a full stop and allow the CAFE standards that have been in place since 2007 to guide us going forward. They're doing a good job. Manufacturers are improving in their fuel economy standards. It's a wise course of action to stay where we are. And I thank you again for your leadership.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT