mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to this amendment . 
now , let me get to the heart of this matter , because if i thought this was going to cost people jobs , i certainly would not bring it up . 
this question specifically was litigated in 1985 in the d.c . 
circuit court , center for auto safety v. thomas , and the court clearly determined that the cafe calculation can not be changed unless congress changes u.s. code 49 , section 32904 ( c ) . 
my amendment does not change that section . 
my amendment only changes section 32908 , which has to do with the data that underlies vehicle stickers . 
now , the epa has changed its testing procedures at least twice since 1975 . 
it did not add a lot of cost . 
it was not a big problem . 
it is an epa center that does this testing . 
and every time they changed their testing procedures for the sticker purpose , they did not change it for the cafe standard purpose , because to do that , you have to change section 32904 , and my amendment does not change section 32904 . 
so i am sorry we have not been able to communicate well enough about this , because i certainly do not want to cost manufacturing jobs . 
i am a big advocate of manufacturing . 
but i do want consumers to have honest information . 
and the adjustment in information that the rogers amendment to my amendment brings is an amendment that will bring down the miles per gallon for those that are high achievers and bring it up for those who are actually low achievers . 
so it actually makes the problem worse rather than better . 
so i urge the body to oppose the rogers amendment and support the johnson amendment , because the rogers amendment has the effect of gutting my amendment , whereas my amendment does not address the cafe standards section of the law , which is section 32904 ( c ) and only addresses the vehicle sticker section of the law , 32908 . 
mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time . 
