[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 120 (Wednesday, September 15, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10892-S10923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT--
                               Continued


                           Amendment No. 1677

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning CAFE standards 
           for sport utility vehicles and other light trucks)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent that it be considered to be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for himself, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Moynihan, 
     and Mr. Chafee, proposes an amendment numbered 1677.

  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3____. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING CAFE STANDARDS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) law, codified 
     at chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code, is critical 
     to reducing the dependence of the United States on foreign 
     oil, reducing air pollution and carbon dioxide, and saving 
     consumers money at the gas pump;
       (2) the cars and light trucks of the United States are 
     responsible for 20 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution 
     generated in the United States;
       (3) the average fuel economy of all new passenger vehicles 
     is at its lowest point since 1980, while fuel consumption is 
     at its highest;
       (4) since 1995, a provision in the transportation 
     appropriations Acts has prohibited the Department of 
     Transportation from examining the need to raise CAFE 
     standards

[[Page S10893]]

     for sport utility vehicles and other light trucks;
       (5) that provision denies purchasers of new sport utility 
     vehicles and other light trucks the benefits of available 
     fuel saving technologies;
       (6) the current CAFE standards save more than 3,000,000 
     barrels of oil per day;
       (7)(A) the current CAFE standards have remained the same 
     for nearly a decade;
       (B) the CAFE standard for sport utility vehicles and other 
     light trucks is \3/4\ the standard for automobiles; and
       (C) the CAFE standard for sport utility vehicles and other 
     light trucks is 20.7 miles per gallon and the standard for 
     automobiles is 27.5 miles per gallon;
       (8) because of CAFE standards, the average sport utility 
     vehicle emits about 75 tons of carbon dioxide over the life 
     of the vehicle while the average car emits about 45 tons of 
     carbon dioxide;
       (9) the technology exists to cost effectively and safely 
     make vehicles go further on a gallon of gasoline; and
       (10) improving light truck fuel economy would not only cut 
     pollution but also save oil and save owners of new sport 
     utility vehicles and other light trucks money at the gas 
     pump.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the issue of CAFE standards should be permitted to be 
     examined by the Department of Transportation, so that 
     consumers may benefit from any resulting increase in the 
     standards as soon as possible; and
       (2) the Senate should not recede to section 320 of this 
     bill, as passed by the House of Representatives, which 
     prevents an increase in CAFE standards.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of 
myself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed of Rhode 
Island, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Chafee. I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that has been widely 
discussed relating to CAFE standards; that is to say, the fuel 
efficiency standards of automobiles and small trucks sold in the United 
States. Now, I want to quote an argument against this proposal made in 
a committee hearing on CAFE standards.

       In effect, this bill would outlaw a number of engine lines 
     and car models, including most full-size sedans and station 
     wagons. It would restrict the industry from producing 
     subcompact-size cars or even smaller ones.

  Mr. President, you may well ask me when that hearing took place 
because you were unaware that hearings on this subject had taken place. 
That question would be well put because that hearing took place in 
1974, 25 years ago. That statement was made by automobile manufacturers 
in connection with the fuel efficiency standards that were discussed 
during that year and were implemented. As a result of the 
implementation of those standards, we are saving 3 million barrels of 
oil per day in the United States as compared with the 17 million 
gallons per day that cars and trucks, in fact, use.
  In other words, even from the point of view of a relatively 
conservative Senator, as I consider myself, we have an example of a 
highly successful regulatory action on the part of the Government of 
the United States, a regulatory action that took place 25 years ago and 
was, for all practical purposes, fully implemented within 6 years of 
the time of its implementation. That is the first notable point about 
the subject we are discussing today.
  The second is that the argument I quoted turned out to be wholly 
inaccurate. The evidence of that inaccuracy, of course, is on every 
street, road, and highway in the United States. The genius of American 
manufacturers created an automobile that met all of the fuel efficiency 
standards that were implemented a quarter of a century ago without a 
substantial downsizing of our automobiles' weight, with a tremendous 
contribution to cleaner air, and with the contribution of saving 3 
million gallons of gasoline each and every day of each and every year, 
every single gallon of which, where we are using it, would come from 
imports and from overseas, further exacerbating our trade deficits.
  I find it particularly curious that we should look back at an 
experiment so totally successful in every respect, in cleaning up our 
air, in reducing our use of petroleum products, in reducing our trade 
deficits, and in saving money for the American people, and say: Not 
only are we not going to repeat that experiment, we are not even going 
to study whether we ought to repeat that experiment. What we have done 
in the Congress is to tell our Federal agencies that they may not 
pursue studies and come up with rules and regulations and 
recommendations as to a second round of improving our automobile fuel 
efficiency either for regular passenger automobiles or for small trucks 
or for SUVs.
  The status, in connection with this bill, of course, is relatively 
simple. This Senate bill does not prevent the Federal Government from 
going ahead with such studies and making such recommendations. The 
House bill does, once again, as we have for the last several years, 
prohibit even these studies.
  The amendment before us now is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that 
the Senate should not accept that House provision. It is neither more 
nor less than that. Every one of the 98 Senators, in addition to you 
and me, has been deluged by statements from opponents to this modest 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution, stating, first, that it would make our 
highways less safe, even though our death rate on our highways is 
remarkably lower now--I think three times lower than it was before 
we went through this experiment the first time--that there is no way 
the automobile manufacturers can meet the requirements that would be 
imposed if we allowed these studies to go forward without going back to 
sub-subcompacts--an argument that was shown to be totally fallacious 
and without reason some 25 years ago.

  In short, there is not a single argument being presented against this 
amendment that was not presented 25 years ago to this body and to the 
other body and to the people of the United States and proven to be 
without merit.
  Can we learn nothing from the past? Are we so frightened, as Members 
of the Senate, that we are not even going to try to determine in an 
orderly fashion whether or not we can do better with respect to the 
fuel efficiency of the internal combustion engine? The proposition, I 
think, is bizarre, that we should prohibit even a study and a set of 
proposed regulations on this subject.
  There could possibly be more bite to this argument if what we were 
faced with was the imminent imposition of new requirements that were 
highly unreasonable in nature and about which it might be argued that 
they were impossible to attain. If we were faced with a proposed 
amendment that said the Federal Government could use no part of this 
appropriation to enforce such standards, that would be one thing. But 
what the opponents to this sense-of-the-Senate resolution are saying 
is: Don't even look into the question. Don't do anything. Don't try to 
learn whether or not we can come up with more efficient internal 
combustion engines. Let's just ignore it.
  Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator from Washington yield for a question on 
that point?
  Mr. GORTON. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BRYAN. Do I understand the thrust of the Senator's argument is 
not to advocate some new standards for CAFE but simply to permit those 
who are charged with that responsibility to make a basic inquiry as to 
whether or not there is room, based upon science, safety, and other 
considerations, to consider an increase in fuel economy standards?
  Mr. GORTON. My dear friend from Nevada is entirely correct, as, of 
course, he knows, having been a cosponsor of this amendment and a 
companion with the Senator from Washington in this cause for many years 
in the past.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GORTON. I was about to say, for the benefit of my friend from 
Nevada, isn't it fortunate that the Congress of the United States, in 
the first decade of the 19th century, didn't prohibit the development 
of a steam engine because it might explode?
  That is basically what the arguments against the amendment the 
Senator from Nevada and I have proposed amount to. My gosh, something 
bad might happen if you did something. But, of course, the argument 
against the steam engine in 1810, or 1812, or 1814 would have been 
stronger because they knew nothing about it. We have gone through this 
process before, and it was a complete success. But we are now told, not 
only should we not go through the experiment again, we should not even 
study it; we should not even try

[[Page S10894]]

to come up with facts that would justify it or--and I think it is very 
unlikely--perhaps not justify making any change in the present system.
  Now, I think both the Senator from Nevada and I believe such a study 
would come up with more significant CAFE standards. But I don't think 
the Senator from Nevada, even more than I, has any idea what they would 
be, how far they would go, what we would find to be totally successful 
or not. We just want to find out whether or not we can't do something 
that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help clean up our air, 
and save money for the American purchaser of automobiles, small trucks 
and, of course, the fuel required to run them. That is all.
  Mr. BRYAN. It strikes the Senator from Nevada that the argument the 
Senator is making is a win-win. It is a win for the consumer, for the 
environment, and in terms of the trade imbalance we currently face in 
this country.
  Would the Senator not agree with the proposition that everybody comes 
out a winner if the Senator's resolution would simply ask that an 
inquiry be made into the practicality of increasing fuel efficiency 
standards?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Nevada is entirely correct. If we can 
only take a quick vote on it with the Senators on the floor now, we 
would probably succeed. Unfortunately, we have yet to persuade all of 
our colleagues of this matter. The question the Senator puts--and he 
knows the answer--is a very profound and a very serious question.
  Mr. BRYAN. I enjoyed the Senator's reference to the steam engine in 
the 19th century. The younger members of my staff say they are not 
familiar with this reference, but as the Senator from Washington will 
recall, the Industrial Revolution was born in Great Britain. Just as 
then, seemingly now, there are those fearful of progress.
  The first manifestation of the Industrial Revolution was when we 
changed the textile production from a cottage industry to the floors of 
the factory, and machinery and technology made that possible. I know 
the Senator from Washington State, who is in my generation, will recall 
this reference. But a group of people called Luddites went about the 
country breaking up the machines, trying to prevent progress, fearful 
of the consequences. It seems to me--perhaps the Senator might want to 
comment--that in a very modern-day sense, we have neo-Luddites who are 
fearful of the consequences of what new technology might make possible, 
and in my view, the improvement of technology throughout the vast 
expanse of history has improved a lot for mankind. Does the Senator 
agree with that observation?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Nevada is as learned as he is wise, and 
his reference to Luddites in the late 18th and early 19th century 
England is entirely correct. The word has come down to us today, 
referring to those who are so fearful of changes in our technology that 
in one way or another they would prevent it.
  The point he makes is particularly important, and it is one that I 
want to continue to emphasize to Members. We are not debating a law 
that will mandate a specific new set of fuel economy standards for 
automobiles and small trucks. We are not even debating whether or not a 
specific set of standards should be imposed after a study of their 
feasibility and desirability is completed. We are debating a 
proposition that says we should go forward in an orderly fashion, have 
this determination made by people who are expert in the field and who 
study it carefully and must follow all of the procedural requirements 
for setting rules and regulations, all of which will be vulnerable to 
future debates in the Senate should proposals be made that seem somehow 
or another unreasonable.
  There is not a single Member of the Senate, from the most 
conservative to the most liberal, who has not at one time or another 
been critical of some rule or regulation imposed by some agency of the 
Federal Government. Every Member of the Senate--and for that matter, 
the House of Representatives--knows how to bring up debate on that 
subject, the debate over this appropriations bill, or some other bill 
relating to transportation. But what we have today from the opponents 
to this sense-of-the-Senate resolution is a statement that we are 
ignorant of what might happen if we engage in another round of fuel 
efficiency standards and we want to remain ignorant. That is 
essentially what they are talking about.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if the recollection of the Senator from 
Nevada is correct, in the mid-1970s, the distinguished Senator from 
Washington was the attorney general of that State. As the attorney 
general, he was a leading advocate on behalf of consumer issues in his 
State. Perhaps the Senator will recall when the legislation, referred 
to as CAFE, the corporate average fuel economy standard, was offered on 
the floor of the Senate and in the other body. Those from the 
automobile industry said at the time: if these CAFE standards are 
imposed upon us, everybody in America will be driving an automobile 
smaller than a Pinto or a subsized Maverick.
  That was at a time when fuel economy for passenger vehicles averaged 
less than 14 miles per gallon. As a result of the Congress taking that 
action, fuel economy, from 1973 to 1989, doubled.
  Does the Senator recall the essence of the testimony offered by one 
of the automotive manufacturers? I wonder if he might want to comment 
on what actually occurred over those intervening 16 years when we were 
supposed to be driving around in Pintos and subsize Maverick 
automobiles.
  Mr. GORTON. Just before my friend from Nevada came to the floor, I 
began my remarks with a quotation, which sounded so remarkably similar 
to what we have heard in the last few days about this amendment, and it 
is particularly appropriate. For the Senator's benefit and for others, 
I will repeat it:

       In effect, this bill would outlaw a number of engine lines 
     and car models, including most full-size sedans and station 
     wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing 
     subcompact sized cars, or even smaller ones.

  That was a statement by the duly authorized representative of the 
Ford Motor Company in 1974 in the hearings on the bill that allowed for 
the first corporate average fuel economy standards to take place. Now 
the Ford Motor Company, of course, was far more resourceful in its 
technology than it was in its language. And when these requirements 
were imposed, the Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Chrysler, and the 
rest of the manufacturers met them, and they met them gratefully to the 
advantage of the people of the United States, who ended up with far 
cleaner air. It is impossible to imagine what our air would be like 
today if we were all driving 1974 model automobiles--saving billions of 
dollars in fuel costs, saving the economy of the United States all of 
the costs of that extra fuel, all of which would have ended up coming 
from overseas, given our dependence on foreign oil at the time.
  One of the interesting things as we go into this debate right now, I 
tell my friend, is that a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal 
reported that the same company, the Ford Motor Company, is currently 
developing technology to increase fuel economy of its truck fleet by as 
much as 15 percent.
  The article in the Wall Street Journal said that internal documents 
posted on the world wide web show--I am quoting now:

       Ford could significantly increase its fuel economy on some 
     of its biggest and most popular trucks without losing the 
     things people buy trucks for, horsepower and pulling power.

  That is another illustration of the fact that an argument which was 
utterly invalid in 1974 is utterly invalid in 1999.
  Members of this body 25 years ago might have been excused for giving 
great credence to that argument. After all, we didn't know what was 
going to happen. It is very difficult to give credence to that argument 
given the tremendously positive results of the regulations which were 
adopted in 1974.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, may I inquire further of the distinguished 
Senator, my friend from Washington, with another question.
  Has the Senator had an opportunity to see this morning's issue of 
Congress Daily? On the back, there is an ad designed to uphold the 
thoughtful and well-considered resolution which the Senator from 
Washington, and our able

[[Page S10895]]

colleague, the distinguished Senator from California, I, and others are 
going to be offering for consideration. But the text of the ad says:

       We work hard all year so our family can go fishing and 
     camping together. We couldn't do it without our SUV--

  Sport utility vehicle. It shows the man leaning on the hood of the 
SUV.
  I guess my questions to the Senator would be twofold: No. 1, before 
the automobile manufacturers developed the sport utility vehicles, was 
it not possible for families in America to enjoy fishing and camping? 
Perhaps the Senator might be able to respond to that question.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the question, of course, answers itself. 
It was.
  Americans have acquired far greater choice today after the 
implementation of those fuel efficiency standards than they had 
previously. The interesting part of the ad, which was just handed to 
me--I had not previously seen it--says: Say yes to consumer choice and 
say no to a CAFE increase. In fact, the consumer can't choose a fuel 
efficient SUV at the present time. There isn't any consumer choice 
there. They are not competing over that proposition, though we may hope 
that someday in the future the Ford Motor Company, if it is thought 
correct, will do so. But as consumer choice increased after the last 
CAFE standards were imposed, so am I confident they will increase the 
next time around.
  I greatly enjoyed this conversation with my friend from Nevada. I 
suspect he has more to say on the subject. I know the Senator from 
California wishes to speak on this subject. I don't want to monopolize 
the conversation, even on the pro side, and we will have opponents.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I first began to believe that global 
warming was a major threat in 1998 when a 92-mile long and 30-mile wide 
iceberg broke loose from the Antarctic Ice Shelf. It was 1\1/2\ times 
the size of Delaware. NOAA said it was a possible indicator of global 
warming.
  I began to take a look at some of the other things that have happened 
in the last few years. I find that we have the first species extinction 
in Costa Rica because of it. I find that it now has an impact on the El 
Nino cycle in the Pacific Ocean. I find that there is a serious 
degradation of coral reefs in the Indian Ocean, and 70 percent of the 
existing coral reefs are affected.
  I am a SUV owner. I own three jeeps. I love my jeeps. I have no 
doubt, though, that my jeeps can have the same kind of fuel efficiency 
standards as my automobile.
  Then you have to look and say, well, if my three jeeps have the same 
kind of fuel efficiency, what would that do for global warming?
  Carbon dioxide is the main culprit in global warming. Our country is 
the largest emitter and producer of carbon dioxide in the world. The 
United States saves 3 million barrels of oil because of fuel efficiency 
standards. If SUVs, similar to my jeeps, had fuel efficiency standards 
equal to those of automobiles, we would save another 1 million barrels 
of oil a day. If the 8 million or so of the other SUVs around the 
United States and the light trucks had these same standards, it would 
eliminate 187 million tons of CO2 from the air. The experts have said 
it is the largest single thing, bar none, that we can do to influence 
global warming in a positive way.
  It seems so easy to do it. We know it can be done. We know it need 
not influence the efficiency of the engines. And we know there is 
technology that can make it so.
  So raising these so-called CAFE standards or fuel efficiency 
standards so the SUVs are equal to other passenger automobiles at about 
27 miles per gallon instead of 20 miles per gallon does not seem to me 
to be an unrealistic thing to ask Detroit to do. But instead, since 
1995, there has been a rider in this bill which says to the Government 
that we can't even look, we can't even study, and we can't even make 
any findings to see whether, in fact, it is possible to bring SUVs up 
to automobile standards with respect to fuel efficiency.
  I believe very strongly that this is the largest single positive 
environmental step this Congress can take to reduce carbon dioxide 
emissions in the atmosphere. To have a rider in a bill which says you 
can't even study it, you can't even see if what I am saying is true, I 
think makes no sense whatsoever.
  As I say, I love my three jeeps. But I will tell you, I am going to 
look for a sports utility vehicle that has equal fuel efficiency 
standards in the future.
  Additionally, what would this do for the consumer? It is estimated 
that by simply requiring SUVs to meet the same average CAFE 
requirements as automobiles would save the consumer more than $2,000 in 
fuel costs over the life of each vehicle. It seems to me that is a 
pretty easy way to give people almost a kind of tax rebate. You save 
money buying fuel for your car because you buy less of it over the life 
of the car. And it is estimated those savings are $2,000 per vehicle.
  More importantly, 117 million Americans live where smog sometimes 
makes the air unsafe to breathe where asthma is on the increase and 
where respiratory problems are developing. Almost one-half of this 
pollution is caused by so-called nonpoint sources. That means the 
automobile. Attempting to improve the efficiency of vehicles we drive 
helps address this problem as well.
  There is no substantive evidence to support the fact that this would 
provide technological problems that Detroit cannot meet.
  I hasten to point out, we do not include in this amendment, and the 
intent of this amendment is not to include, agricultural equipment that 
works on agricultural products in fields. However, with this amendment 
we would learn a couple of things. One, the air would be cleaner. 
Consumers would save significant money in fuel costs--$2,000 over the 
life of each vehicle--and we would go a long way to address the problem 
of global warming.
  I am hopeful that this measure will pass today.
  I view with some surprise the degree to which this measure is being 
lobbied by automobile interests in this country. As an SUV car owner, 
as a jeep lover, as someone who would like to buy additional cars, this 
is an important point to me. It seems to me some automobile company 
ought to be willing to address it, to bring these SUVs up to automobile 
standards.
  I stand strongly in support of the amendment. I thank my colleagues, 
Senator Bryan, Senator Gorton, and others, who also support the 
amendment. I am hopeful there will be enough Senators to say: Let's not 
go about this with blinders; let's take one good look and see if this 
is really possible; let's do the necessary studies; let's work together 
to do the largest single thing we can do, relatively painlessly, to 
reduce global warming.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank my able colleague from California 
for her thoughtful and well-considered statement. I associate myself 
with her observations and the conclusions she makes.
  This issue has been framed on a false premise, that somehow Members, 
including the able Senators from California and Washington who support 
this amendment, are interested in depriving the American public of 
their choice of automobiles.
  I know firsthand, having seen the vehicles of my colleague from 
California--she is the proud owner of a sport utility vehicle--she 
would defend as vigorously as would I her right to own such a vehicle.
  This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the American 
public chooses to purchase a minivan, a light truck, or a sport utility 
vehicle. My son and his wife and our first grandchild are in the 
Nation's Capital today. As a family, they have chosen a sport utility 
vehicle. I defend his right as vigorously as I defend the right of my 
colleague from California.
  This is not what this debate is all about. That is a false premise. I 
think some Members are not only offended by the intellectual dishonesty 
of this kind of advertising that suggests the senior Senator from 
California and I somehow seek to deprive American families of their 
opportunity to go fishing and camping. That is just ludicrous. That 
defies any kind of rational argument.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BRYAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

[[Page S10896]]

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have not seen that particular ad. I am most 
interested. Would the Senator read it?
  Mr. BRYAN. It shows two angelic children sitting on the hood of a 
sport utility vehicle. Strapped to the top of that vehicle looks to be 
a canoe, a boat of some type. Now we see a gentleman, perhaps the 
father of these two children, leaning on the hood. He is saying to 
them, ``You know, we work hard all year as a family so our family can 
go fishing and camping together. We couldn't do it without our sport 
utility vehicle.'' Then the tag line is: ``Say yes to consumer choice. 
Say no to a CAFE increase.''
  I was explaining before my colleague's thoughtful question, the 
implication is that those who advocate simply taking a look at the 
standards, simply allowing those within the Department of 
Transportation to take a look at the standards--and I will comment 
later in my remarks as to the criteria involved--that somehow we are 
opposed to this family's right to camp and to go fishing. That is 
outrageous. It is not true. This Senator is greatly offended by the 
text of that ad.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BRYAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. One of the things I have found is the use of ``CAFE'' 
which we bandy around so much--most people don't know exactly what that 
means. We are really talking about the efficiency of a gallon of gas to 
go farther. Therefore, the efficiency of a gallon of gas is what we are 
talking about and applying those standards to SUVs as you would to 
passenger sedans.
  Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from California is absolutely correct. She has 
the clarity of expression that sometimes escapes those who had the 
misfortune to go to law school. We get caught up with acronyms. CAFE 
means nothing to the average person. We are trying to get greater fuel 
efficiency.
  In my colloquy with our colleague from Washington State, it was 
pointed out that this is a win-win-win for the American public.
  The Senator from California and I represent two States that currently 
are experiencing enormous increases in the cost of gas. That takes 
money out of the pocket of America's families. That means less 
discretionary income. In the Senator's State as well as my own, an 
automobile is virtually a necessity to move from one place to another, 
to go to work, to enjoy the recreational opportunities we want to have 
with our family, to do the sort of thing that is part of our lifestyle 
in America.
  If we can improve the CAFE standards for jeeps, sport utilities, 
minivans, and light trucks, we put more dollars in that family's 
pocket; we clean up the air, as the Senator from California pointed 
out; we reduce our dependence on foreign oil--it currently is about 50 
percent; it drives some of the geopolitical policy debates in which the 
good Senator from California has taken a lead--and we help to reduce 
the trade deficit.
  Our economy is performing magnificently, but one of the areas of 
concern to everyone is the mounting trade deficit. About $50 billion of 
that annual trade deficit is attributed to what we as Americans pay for 
oil that we import from around the world to fuel our economy, a good 
segment of which is transportation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada is always pleased to yield to the 
senior Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. One of the things that I think is particularly 
disingenuous about the opposition is that if SUVs and light trucks had 
the same fuel efficiency or even an increased fuel efficiency, it would 
impair the functioning of the car and the vehicle would not be able to 
function at optimal standards.
  Would the Senator reflect on this for the Senate?
  Mr. BRYAN. That is, as the Senator from California knows, an argument 
that has been raised. It is a specious argument.
  The Senator from California hails from a jurisdiction which has been 
on the cutting edge of so much of the technology of the post-World War 
II era. Because of the Senator's own interest in technology and moving 
her own economy forward in California, I know she is deeply committed 
to that.
  The Senator from California and many of our colleagues reflect that 
great confidence that the ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit of 
the American business community responds to challenges. But now there 
is a disconnect. The automobile industry didn't think they could ever 
do anything to improve economy. We couldn't suggest they look at that--
somehow that would deprive us of our choice.
  As the Senator from Washington responded to my question, these 
arguments were made back in 1974 when a representative at that time 
from the Ford Motor Company, testifying in opposition to the first fuel 
economy standards, said--without in any way belying the Senator's own 
youthful appearance, I think she may recall 1974, as the Senator from 
Nevada does. At that time, one of the leading automobiles that Ford 
produced was what I call a pint-sized Pinto. The Senator I am sure will 
recall that.
  This is what the auto industry was arguing in 1974, should the first 
CAFE standards be enacted:

       That the product line [referring to the product line for 
     automobile manufacturers in America] would consist of either 
     all sub Pinto sized vehicles or some mix of vehicles ranging 
     from a sub sub compact to perhaps a Maverick.

  That statement was made in this century--in fact, the latter quarter 
of the 20th century.
  This is a tribute to the industry and its ingenuity. The Lincoln Town 
Car, if not the largest automobile produced by the Ford Motor Company, 
gets better fuel economy today than the Pinto did in 1974. That is 
technology. It does not deprive one of choice. It seems to me for some 
reason the industry has created this facade that they cannot do these 
sorts of things.
  We are saying--and I believe the Senator from California would 
agree--let's just take a look and see if we can't achieve these 
benefits we have just talked about.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I commend and thank the Senator for answering my 
questions. I appreciate it very much. If he would allow me one brief 
comment.
  I think one of the reasons that for awhile the American automobile 
had lost the cutting edge was the reluctance to do research and 
development to develop those kinds of automobile products that became 
very popular, that were produced by the Japanese marketplace. Since 
then, the American automotive companies have changed dramatically. The 
very kind of innovation that was absent for so long has now been 
restored. So it would seem to me any innovation in weight or size or 
engine capacity could very easily overcome these problems and that 
these vehicles could function as efficiently. I will point out it is 
the largest single thing we could do to alleviate global warming. So I 
thank the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the senior Senator from California for her very 
thoughtful comments and excellent presentation.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gorton-Feinstein-Bryan 
amendment that would permit the Department of Transportation to 
consider whether fuel efficiency for SUVs and light trucks should be 
improved. The vote on this amendment will be one of the key 
environmental votes of this Congress. I think it is helpful for our 
colleagues to understand the context in which this debate occurs.
  In 1995, the House of Representatives inserted an antienvironmental 
rider in the Department of Transportation appropriations bill that 
prohibited, that is precluded, the Department of Transportation from 
even considering whether an increase in automobile fuel efficiency made 
sense. That environmental rider has been added to each of the 
appropriations in years 1996, 1997, 1998, and currently we face the 
same situation.
  I think the important thing to emphasize is that those of us who 
support the resolution are not arguing for a specific numerical 
standard. We are simply saying shouldn't the people who have the 
ability to make these judgments, under very carefully considered 
circumstances, have the opportunity to even inquire? In effect, what 
the rider accomplishes is a technology gag rule. It precludes 
consideration. So our amendment is an effort to show there is 
substantial support in this body that we should not prejudge the issue 
and,

[[Page S10897]]

instead, let the experts study the issue and decide what is in the 
Nation's best interests.
  A bit of history may be instructive. Fuel efficiency standards are 
known, in the jargon of the Congressional and Federal professional 
bureaucracy, as CAFE standards, the acronym standing for corporate 
average fuel economy. Those standards have been on the decline in 
recent years, as automakers build bigger and bigger gas guzzlers.
  This chart will be instructive. Prior to the enactment in 1974 of the 
fuel economy standards, the average fuel economy for a passenger 
vehicle in America was slightly less than 14 miles per gallon. As a 
result of the enactment of that legislation, over the intervening 15 
years, fuel economy doubled to 27.5 miles per gallon. This chart 
reflects that.
  What has occurred, in the late 1980s and 1990s, is the vehicle mix 
has shifted dramatically. We have seen a decline in overall fuel 
economy. Not that the vehicles referred to as ``passenger vehicles'' 
are less fuel efficient, but the American public, by choice, has 
included in its purchase agenda light trucks, sport utility vehicles, 
and minivans. These were not terms that were familiar in America in 
1974, and millions of families have chosen light trucks or sport 
utility vehicles and minivans. As I indicated in my colloquy with the 
distinguished Senator from California, my own son and his family have 
such a vehicle in Nevada. A daughter and a son-in-law have such a 
vehicle in upstate New York. So nothing in this debate is in any way 
about limiting choice. But we cannot ignore the reality that the fleet 
mix has changed.
  Today, nearly 50 percent of the vehicles sold in America for family 
use are sport utility, minivans, or light trucks. That reflects the 
percentage. If the chart went 1 more year, they would reflect basically 
about 50 percent of the vehicle mix.
  When the legislation was enacted in 1974, there was a different 
standard for light trucks, which included minivans and the sport 
utility vehicle. So what this debate is all about is simply 
permitting--it is permissive. It in no way mandates, dictates, directs, 
commands; it simply is permissive. I think it may be helpful to read 
the language of the resolution itself. This is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution. The resolved paragraph says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that,
       (1) the issue of CAFE standards should be permitted to be 
     examined by the Department of Transportation, so that 
     consumers may benefit from any resulting increase in the 
     standards as soon as possible.

  Let me repeat.

       The issue of CAFE standards should be permitted to be 
     examined by the Department of Transportation. . ..

  There is no attempt to fix a precise numerical standard. This simply 
would permit an inquiry by the Department of Transportation. The effect 
of this would be to override the technology gag rule that has been 
imposed by the House since 1995 that prohibits or precludes its 
consideration.
  Part 2 of the resolution simply says that:

       The Senate should not recede to section 320 of this bill, 
     as passed by the House of Representatives.

  That is the technology gag rule.
  As fuel efficiency declines, oil consumption, trade deficits, and air 
pollution go up. Few actions have as many beneficial effects on our 
economy as improving fuel efficiency standards. As I said before, the 
amendment in no way seeks to restrict choice. For millions of 
Americans, that is their vehicle of choice and in some geographical 
climes it would be the only sensible choice.
  We recognize, fully respect, and endorse the concept of choice. 
Contrary to all the foreboding in the 1974 testimony before the 
Congress, in point of fact, as my colleague from Washington State 
pointed out, we had greater choice in America after the fuel economy 
legislation was enacted a quarter of a century ago by the Congress.
  So the real question is not whether Americans want and need a larger 
four-wheel-drive vehicle but whether these vehicles can be made more 
fuel efficient. That is what the amendment is attempting to find out. 
Many of us believe that answer will be yes. Others disagree. But all we 
are asking is to allow the experts to make that determination.
  The current law provides a strict criteria to the Department of 
Transportation in considering what process needs to be involved before 
a CAFE standard could be increased. It requires the DOT to consider 
four factors:
  First, the technical feasibility. My friend and colleague from 
Washington State mentioned an article in the Wall Street Journal and 
cited one of the automakers on the technology they currently have 
available. There are many of us who believe technology is there but 
that is not for us to determine. That is for the experts in the 
Department of Transportation, the technical feasibility.
  Second, the economic practicability.
  Third, the effect of other motor vehicle standards on fuel economy.
  Finally, the need of the Nation to conserve energy.
  These are four criteria, each of which must be found before the 
Department could be authorized to go forward with second fuel economy 
standards that build upon the 1974 legislation.
  The auto industry, for all of its achievements in recent years--and I 
applaud them for this--for some reason has this myopic view of the 
future. Whereas most Americans are confident about the future, we 
recognize that changes in technology that are sweeping across the 
country are more vast and more pervasive than anything in the history 
of civilization, and there is no reason to believe the auto industry 
itself would be immune from these current changes, and that new 
technology will make it possible to do things more efficiently than we 
have in the past.
  For some reason--and I do not understand the corporate mentality--
there is this knee-jerk reaction: We don't want anybody to take a look 
at it; we couldn't possibly do it.
  That was reflected in the debate the Congress had for a quarter of a 
century.
  Who would be the beneficiaries? What public policy would be served 
if, indeed, the Department took a look at the evidence and concluded 
that some increase was warranted?
  I can speak of my own State of Nevada, having spent 26 days in rural 
Nevada. If there was one question that came up in every townhall 
meeting, it was the price of gas. For reasons that are not altogether 
clear to me, and I have not been persuaded as to those that have been 
asserted to be the cause of it, gas prices in the West have 
skyrocketed. In central Nevada, gasoline prices are approaching $2 a 
gallon. I realize that is not the situation of my colleagues from the 
East and other parts of the country.
  Who would be an immediate beneficiary of improved fuel economy 
standards? Those individuals who currently own sport utility vehicles 
would be purchasing another vehicle that would be more fuel efficient. 
That would put dollars back in the pockets of America's families. 
America's families would benefit.
  What does the public think about this? In a recent poll conducted by 
the Mellman Group, nearly three out of four drivers who own minivans, 
pickup trucks, or sport utility vehicles think the automobile 
manufacturers should be required to make cleaner, less polluting 
vehicles, and more than two-thirds say they would be willing to pay a 
significant amount more for their next sport utility vehicle if it 
polluted less.
  Opponents of our amendment will cry wolf and say our amendment will 
cause people to drive around in tiny subcompacts. This is kind of deja 
vu. We have been there before. We have heard that, and an earlier 
Congress had the courage to go forward. As a result, we save 3 million 
barrels of oil each day that we otherwise would be consuming as a 
result of those fuel efficiency standards that were first enacted.
  To give perhaps the most graphic and encapsulated insight into the 
corporate culture that seems to pervade the automobile industry, the 
1974 testimony before the Congress is the milestone.
  As my colleagues will recall, the Congress was being asked for the 
first time to consider these fuel economy standards, and the auto 
industry, as one, came forward with this dire projection of doom and 
gloom. As I was saying earlier in a colloquy with the distinguished 
senior Senator from California, the Pinto was one of the smallest, if 
not the smallest, products the Ford Motor Company produced that year.

[[Page S10898]]

 The testimony offered by the representative from Ford concluded that 
the ``product line consisting of either all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles or 
some mix of vehicles ranging from a sub-subcompact to perhaps a 
Maverick'' would be the consequence of that action.

  That is absolutely unbelievable, but that was the testimony. Indeed, 
the refutation of that is today fuel economy has doubled as a result of 
this legislation, and the largest automobile the Ford Motor Company 
makes, the Lincoln Town Car, gets better mileage than the smallest car 
that Ford manufactured in 1974. That is efficiency. That is technology.
  Indeed, 86 percent of the increases in fuel efficiency came from 
improved technology. And why not? This is the country that believes in 
technology. It has fueled our economy. It has made us the most 
productive society in the history of civilization and has produced the 
highest standard of living known in the history of the world.
  The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that using off-the-shelf 
technologies--that is, existing technology--that SUVs, or sport utility 
vehicles, could improve fuel efficiency by 50 percent to 28.5 miles per 
gallon.
  The authors of this resolution do not ask you to believe that. That 
is a responsible assessment. This group of scientists may be right and 
they may be wrong, so this debate is not about whether they are correct 
in their conclusion. This debate is about whether or not the Department 
of Transportation should be allowed to consider that testimony, that 
evidence, and any other evidence that bears on point in making a 
determination as to whether or not improved fuel efficiency standards 
can be achieved. This can be done without shrinking the vehicle size or 
sacrificing safety.
  I invite my colleagues' attention to this chart because safety does 
sometimes get into this debate. This chart depicts two trend lines: One 
is fuel economy, which has increased dramatically, as you see, from the 
1970s, and the fatality rate. This is the rate of automobile deaths 
based on the vehicle miles traveled each year. We all know, without 
being a statistician or having a masters or Ph.D. in statistics, that 
there are more people in America today than in the 1970s, many more 
million automobiles and sport utilities and light trucks and minivans 
on the market, and today the average motorist travels further each year 
in his or her vehicle. But notwithstanding that enormous increase in 
traffic, vehicles, and further driving, the fatality rate has dropped 
precipitously, and that is a good news story.
  The bottom line of that story is it came about because of technology 
improvements, and the auto industry has always reluctantly, for some 
reason, done a marvelous job with respect to improved safety standards. 
Those over at NHTSA have done a wonderful job in making sure we have 
sidebar protection and rollover standards and a whole host of other 
things, including seatbelt technology and airbags that today make our 
cars the safest in the world and traveling by vehicle safer today than 
at any time in our history. And that comes a quarter of a century after 
these dire prophecies of the consequences of enacting a CAFE standard.
  What other benefits do we get? By raising the CAFE or the fuel 
efficiency standards for sport utility vehicles, we save up to 1 
million barrels of oil a day, and that will save consumers money at the 
gas pump, as we just discussed, and reduce annually by 240 million tons 
the amount of carbon dioxide that is produced each year.
  Carbon dioxide is the main culprit involved in what many may believe 
to be global warming. One does not have to embrace the concept of 
global warming. I know not everybody agrees. But virtually everyone 
agrees we ought to try to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide going 
into the atmosphere.
  I had the privilege a couple of years ago of being in London and 
meeting with some of my colleagues with British Petroleum, one of the 
large petroleum producers in the world. They have come around to 
recognize that the role of carbon dioxide and a potential impact on 
global warming is something that they as a company, as part of its 
corporate responsibilities, need to address.
  I know not all oil companies agree, but the vast majority of 
scientists would tell you that it is clearly in our best interest to 
reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted and going into the 
atmosphere. And most of them--not all--would draw that link between 
carbon dioxide and global warming and some of the implications it has 
for us in the future. But, again, you do not have to embrace the 
concept of global warming to agree with the vast majority, virtually 
all the scientific community, that it makes sense, as a matter of 
public policy, to reduce or to curtail the amount of carbon dioxide 
going into the atmosphere.
  Finally, the good news on the economy continues: As inflation remains 
under control, the economy expands, unemployment is low. The stock 
market has been a little skiddy the last few days, but, by and large, 
the stock market has performed extraordinarily well. That is a good 
news story for the American people.
  The only cloud on the horizon, the only shadow that may be casting a 
darker light on the economic future for us in America, is the trade 
deficit. We are importing far more than we are exporting, and 
ultimately there reaches a point in time in which we have to atone for 
that enormous imbalance.
  Fuel economy standards play a part in that debate as well because 
part of that trade deficit--about $50 billion a year, a very 
substantial part--is attributed to what we in America pay those foreign 
countries that produce the oil we import into the United States. We 
would be reducing our dependency on that. That is why I conclude, as I 
said in my opening colloquy with the distinguished able Senator from 
the State of Washington, this legislation is a win-win-win for 
everyone.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It does not, as I 
have observed, require radical change. It simply permits the experts to 
look at what can be done and to make adjustments, if feasible, after 
engaging in a thorough and well considered rulemaking process in which 
all sides are able to be heard.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to end the technology gag rule 
that has ensnarled this piece of legislation since 1995.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded so I can speak on the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Gorton-
Bryan-Feinstein-Reed sense-of-the-Senate resolution that is being 
considered today.
  As my colleagues have stated, our resolution calls on the House of 
Representatives to drop a rider which they have incorporated in the 
Transportation appropriations bill that effectively blocks the 
Department of Transportation from studying ways to improve the 
corporate average fuel economy standards for vehicles in the United 
States. These standards are currently referred to as the CAFE 
standards.
  The current CAFE standard for passenger cars is 27.5 miles per 
gallon, while the standard for the so-called light trucks is just 20.7 
miles per gallon.
  A few years ago, this lower standard for trucks might have been less 
critical, but what we have seen over the last several years has been an 
explosion in the popularity of SUVs, sport utility vehicles. They are 
seen in places that are more akin to shopping malls than the rugged 
terrain for which originally they were designed. SUVs and minivans are 
everywhere.
  As a result, we have to take a serious look at whether this light 
truck exemption makes sense, given the current marketplace. Their 
impact--these SUVs and minivans--on the air we breathe and on the 
amount of gasoline we consume, including increasing amounts of imported 
gasoline, cannot be ignored.

  We know this is a simple law of supply and demand. When you have many 
more vehicles subject to lower CAFE standards on the road, the demand 
for gasoline goes up, the price of gasoline

[[Page S10899]]

goes up, and the amount of gasoline that is consumed goes up, all of 
which ultimately affects our atmosphere.
  In my State of Rhode Island alone, it is estimated that consumers 
face about $39 million in excess annual fuel costs because of this 
light truck loophole. Nevertheless, the CAFE freeze rider has been 
inserted into the House DOT spending bill every year for the past 4 
years. Each time that happens, Congress denies the American people the 
benefits of fuel-saving technologies that already exist, technologies 
that the auto industry could implement with no reduction in safety, 
power, or performance.
  The existing CAFE standards save more than 3 million barrels of oil 
every day. If we did not have these standards, we would be paying much 
more for oil and strategically we would be much more vulnerable in 
terms of our oil supply from around the world. Each year, these CAFE 
standards reduce pollution by keeping millions of tons of carbon 
dioxide out of our atmosphere.
  Shouldn't we at least give the Department of Transportation the 
chance to study this issue? That is at the essence of our request--not 
that we should move immediately or precipitously to the adoption of new 
standards but at least give the Department of Transportation the 
opportunity to study particularly this light truck loophole.
  The House version wrongly precludes any consideration, study, or 
analysis. That, to me, is the wrong way to approach a public policy 
issue. Let's at least study it. It is time we lift this somewhat gag 
order that has been placed on our ability to consider the costs and 
benefits of higher CAFE standards. I believe, by readjusting the CAFE 
standards particularly in terms of these light trucks we can make 
significant progress in terms of fuel oil economy and also 
environmental quality. But at least we have to begin this analysis.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I commend 
the sponsors for their work and hope it will be incorporated in this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to deliver a short statement, 
because I know there are other matters pending that we would like to 
hear fairly promptly. While on the subject of the CAFE standards, I 
will register my support for the position outlined by the senior 
Senator from California and the Senator from Washington.
  For the last 4 years, the Senate has accepted the House's CAFE freeze 
rider. The result has been serious consequences for the environment, 
for employment and for the health of people across the country.
  There is a myth floating around that CAFE standards hurt consumers. 
The truth is, good CAFE standards help consumers. It's a simple 
concept. If your car or SUV uses less gas, you save money. Between 1975 
and 1980, when the fuel economy of cars doubled, consumers with fuel-
efficient cars saved $3,000 over the lifetime of the car. And that 
translated into $30 billion of savings in annual consumer spending.
  Another benefit of CAFE standards is reduced pollution. Air pollution 
from cars has been a major environmental problem.
  In fact, gas-guzzling cars and light trucks are responsible for 25 
percent of this country's output of emissions that cause global climate 
change.
  Few can hear those words, ``climate change,'' and not be concerned 
about the impact of the severity of storms and poor air quality we are 
seeing, such as the current hurricane threat, one of massive 
proportions, which seems to have mitigated a little bit. The fact is, 
there is concern that changes in our climate, changes that are created 
in the atmosphere as a result of pollution, are in some way 
responsible. We have to take a serious look at this, as we consider the 
question in front of us at the moment.
  A Congressional study by the House Government Reform minority staff 
found that, from 1995 to 1998, exposure to the hazardous air pollutants 
measured in Los Angeles' air quality caused as many as 426 additional 
cancer cases per million exposed individuals.
  When CAFE standards were first passed in the late 1970s, light trucks 
made up only 20 percent of the market. Back then, light trucks were 
used mainly for hauling. They didn't often travel through congested 
urban and suburban areas.
  All that has changed. Today, light trucks--a category that includes 
SUV's and minivans--represent half of all vehicles sold. They produce 
47 percent more smog-forming exhaust and 43 percent more global-warming 
pollution than cars. And each light truck goes through an average of 
702 gallons of gas per year. Compare that to 492 gallons per year for 
cars, more than 200 gallons per year.
  Mr. President, if CAFE standards for light trucks were increased from 
20.5 miles per gallon to 27.5 miles per gallon--the standard for cars--
then carbon dioxide emissions would drop by 200 million tons by the 
year 2010.
  Jobs are also an important part of this discussion. The other side 
keeps insisting that CAFE standards will hurt employment, especially in 
the auto industry.
  However, a study by the American Council for an Energy Efficient 
Economy says that money saved at the gas pump, and reinvested 
throughout the economy, would create 244,000 jobs in this country--that 
includes 47,000 in the automobile industry.
  These statistics support the Feinstein-Gorton amendment. I think in 
the interest of our society, the one thing we can do is make sure we 
are treating the environment for human habitation in as friendly a 
fashion as we can. We know it is an accomplishable feat, and we ought 
to get on with it.
  I urge my colleagues to join in favor of this sense of the Senate 
resolution.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am extremely concerned about a provision 
in the Shelby amendment to H.R. 2084, the so-called Department of 
Transportation appropriations bill. This provision I am referring to is 
located on page 21, line 1, through page 22, line 11, of the committee-
reported bill. It would reopen the distribution of funds agreed to in 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, which is the so-
called TEA 21.
  TEA 21 provides a process for distributing any additional gas tax 
receipts beyond those that were projected to be received when TEA 21 
was passed. In other words, we made an estimate of what the funds would 
be, but we expected we might receive less than our anticipated 
receipts. The appropriations bill, as it stands, would change that 
process--in other words, the way the anticipated surplus or losses 
would be distributed. It is my view that the distribution of the 
highway trust fund moneys should not be revisited in annual 
appropriations bills.
  As Members know, the dollars affected by this amendment are those 
that have come in because, as I said, gas tax receipts were higher than 
projected when we passed TEA 21. How much higher were they? They were 
about $1.5 billion higher than projected.
  We anticipated that actual receipts might be different--as I said 
before, higher or lower than projected receipts. Therefore, TEA 21 says 
that a surplus, or a shortfall, should be distributed evenly across all 
the programs funded by TEA 21; in other words, in accordance with the 
formulas that existed in TEA 21. It is good news that receipts are 
ahead of projections and that we have a surplus rather than a shortfall 
to distribute.

  But our colleagues should remember that when the administration 
discovered--who am I referring to? I am talking about the 
administration--there was a surplus, the administration tried to set 
aside the TEA 21 formula, as is being attempted under this 
appropriations bill, except that when the administration was dealing 
with it, the list of

[[Page S10900]]

programs which would have benefited from the end run that President 
Clinton proposed in his budget is quite different. The President wanted 
to increase the moneys for transit and to spend more money fighting 
environmental problems such as air pollution and urban sprawl. In other 
words, he got way out beyond what we were thinking about.
  The day President Clinton's budget proposal came to Congress, I 
joined with Congressman Bud Shuster, who chairs the House 
Transportation Committee, in strong objection to any change in the TEA 
21 formula. I would like to personally spend more money on transit and 
air quality and other items that would have benefitted from the 
President's proposal. As my colleagues can easily understand, these 
things are more important to Rhode Island than more dollars for highway 
construction. But I went on record the very day the President made his 
proposal strongly opposing any change in the TEA 21 formula.
  Senator Shelby is proposing to ignore TEA 21 in the same way, but his 
priorities are quite different. He wants all the money to go to the 
States for highway construction.
  This is my point. Both the appropriations subcommittee and the 
President wanted to do different things with this money. When this bill 
leaves here, we have to remember that it will go to conference. I 
presume there will be some dickering between some members of the 
conference and the administration to produce a bill the President can 
sign. If the Senate endorses this proposed change to the formula, we 
will be opening the door to a deal on the allocation of this money--
some of it for the President's priorities, some for the appropriators' 
priorities.
  We can't really know what is going to come out of the conference once 
we get into that kind of action. If you vote with the appropriations 
subcommittee, you are giving them permission to ignore the TEA 21 
formula. But that is not the end of the story. Your vote will merely 
trigger a real struggle between the conference committee and the White 
House, the administration, on the reallocation of these funds.
  Let's suppose you are a Senator from a Western State that benefits 
from the public lands highway programs, which we have taken care of as 
we have in the past. That is in the original TEA 21 bill. These are 
programs that might very well be shortchanged if we set aside the 
formula. The programs that provide additional funds to States with 
large amounts of Federal land--and there are three or four of them--
would get their fair share of the surplus if we stick with TEA 21. But 
these programs weren't on the list of programs that would have been 
winners under the President's end run. There are 100 percent losers 
under the proposal presented by the appropriations subcommittee.
  So if the Federal lands highway programs are important to your State, 
where do you stand? If you vote with the appropriations subcommittee to 
set aside TEA 21, you have no idea how your State will fare until the 
conference people come back from the meeting at the White House that 
produces an agreement on this bill. That agreement will reallocate this 
$1.5 billion, in part, to meet the priorities of the President and, in 
part, to address the priorities of the appropriators. If their actions 
to date are any guide, the Federal lands programs will not get a dollar 
of this surplus.

  I can make the same point about any number of other programs. By the 
way, let me read off a list of the programs that have been eliminated 
under the appropriations subcommittee, and that is from the additional 
moneys that come in. In all fairness, they haven't touched the moneys 
that are there. They have left those alone. The additional $1.5 billion 
I previously referred to would be chopped up, and about $150 million of 
that would have gone for these programs that are on this list, which 
are totally eliminated from the additional receipts: Indian reservation 
roads; public lands; park roads; refuge roads; national corridor 
planning and border infrastructure, which would be principally along 
the Mexico-Texas border; ferry boats and terminals, principally for 
Alaska.
  Now, if you think TEA 21 is grossly unfair and ignores the special 
needs, such as Federal lands that affect your State, I suppose it makes 
sense to take a chance that the President and the appropriators will do 
a better job.
  But you have another choice. You can support the allocation made in 
TEA 21. If you stick with TEA 21, you know exactly what to expect. 
These surplus dollars will be allocated across the entire 
transportation program in the same proportion as enacted by TEA 21. The 
special programs that benefit your State will get their fair share of 
the surplus, just as they get a fair share of the base authorization 
under TEA 21.
  Let me discuss the particulars of why I believe this provision is 
legislation on an appropriations bill and should not be included in an 
appropriations act.
  The provision in question begins with the phrase: ``Notwithstanding 
Public Law 105-178, or any other provision of law. . . .''
  That phrase has long been recognized as legislative in nature. The 
effect of this provision is to overturn section 110 of title 23, which 
provides for the apportionment of contract authority from the highway 
trust fund.
  Now, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has jurisdiction 
over the apportionment of contract authority from the highway trust 
fund. The Committee on Appropriations only has jurisdiction to impose 
an obligation limitation on the total amount of funds used. In other 
words, they have a role to play and we have a role to play--we being 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  In the House appropriations bill, there is no similar provision 
apportioning contract authority from the highway trust fund. Therefore, 
the Senate provision in question is not germane to the House 
appropriations bill. I realize the Committee on Appropriations will 
likely raise the defense of germaneness to my point of order, which I 
intend to propose.
  Although the Appropriations subcommittee may be successful in 
identifying some provisions to which this provision could conceivably 
be germane, I can assure my colleagues that there is no similar 
provision in the House bill that changes the distribution of these 
additional gas tax receipts. If the Senate agrees with the defense of 
germaneness, it will be saying that almost anything is germane to an 
appropriations bill, thereby undercutting the intent of rule XVI to 
limit legislation on appropriations bills.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no against the defense of germaneness 
should the managers raise this as a defense against the point of order 
which it is my intent to propose.
  Mr. President, I have to say that I am disturbed. As you can tell 
from my description, this is clearly an authorizing provision. It was 
less than 2 months ago that the majority of this body came together and 
said the time had come to stop including authorization language on 
appropriations bills. The ink has barely dried on that resolution, and 
here we are rewriting the rules of the Senate.
  So at the proper time it is my intent to raise a point of order that 
the provision which begins on page 21, line 1, through page 22, line 
11, of the committee-reported bill is legislation on an appropriations 
bill in violation of rule XVI.
  I ask my colleagues to stand with me and put a stop to the 
destructive practice of including legislation on appropriations 
measures.
  That will be my intent. Of course, I don't make that proposal right 
now because there are others who are prepared to speak. I look forward 
to hearing their comments.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished 
colleague, the esteemed Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, to 
safeguard the funding allocation of the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century. We call it TEA 21, the Transportation Efficiency Act 
for the 21st Century.
  What is it? It is a very large, massive transportation bill that this 
Congress passed a couple of years ago--about $217 billion over 6 years 
in highway funds and transit funds for the States. It is very important 
legislation to address this country's infrastructure needs.
  The Senator from Rhode Island will soon raise a point of order under 
rule

[[Page S10901]]

XVI against a provision in that bill; that is, against a provision in 
this bill before us, the Transportation appropriations bill, the 
provision which rewrites a section of TEA 21, known as RABA. What in 
the world is RABA? RABA is the ``revenue aligned budget authority.'' I 
will explain that in just a second.
  This section, the RABA section, is totally within the jurisdiction of 
one committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the 
authorizing committee, and thus the provision in this appropriations 
bill constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in clear 
violation of rule XVI.
  Let me briefly explain how we got to this point.
  Last week, many of us--49 of us--stood together against another 
proposal in this bill to rewrite the TEA 21 formula when this case was 
for transit. Even though the proposed change would have reduced funds 
for only California and New York--that is, the transit provision that 
was earlier proposed by the Appropriations Committee--that provision 
would have increased funds for the remaining 48 States.
  I was pleased that my colleagues supported the provision to not 
include that because it was the right thing to do.
  The transit formula agreed to in TEA 21, along with other provisions 
in TEA 21, particularly the highway provision, was part of a grand 
bargain on which we worked together so hard to write last year. Even 
though most States would have benefited somewhat from the proposed 
change in this bill--that is, the transit provision I mentioned--we 
stuck together to preserve the original intent of TEA 21. We voted to 
protect the integrity of TEA 21; that is, the highway bill. We voted 
for the program as it exists and against the Transportation Committee 
rewrite of the bill.
  The chairman of the subcommittee then removed that provision from the 
bill. I commend him for that. It was the right action to take. I 
compliment him for it. But, unfortunately, he solved only part of the 
problem; that is, the transit piece. I say ``unfortunately'' because 
the reported bill before us from the Appropriations Committee also 
contained a provision that redistributes a portion of the highway funds 
as well.
  These funds are known as RABA, as I mentioned earlier--revenue 
aligned budget authority--that result from the greater than expected 
revenues coming into the highway trust fund because the economy is 
doing quite well; that is, more people are driving. The economy is 
doing well. That means more gasoline tax revenues. The RABA provision 
anticipated that. It explained how those increased funds should be 
dealt with. This year that increases because the economy is doing well. 
It amounts to about $1.45 billion again for the year.
  The highway bill stakes out new ground by putting into law the 
requirement that all gas tax revenues coming into the highway trust 
fund--that is, about $28 billion for this year--should be spent on 
highways. That is, all gasoline tax revenue should be spent on highways 
and a portion for mass transit but not for other purposes.
  A number of Members of this body worked very hard to achieve that 
goal--Senators Byrd, Warner, Gramm, Lott, and many others --to say 
nothing at all about the House Members in the other body who worked 
equally hard. It is a landmark achievement. It restored some measure of 
trust to the highway trust fund.
  TEA 21 provided that if gas tax receipts are greater than originally 
estimated--this is the RABA provision--the increased revenue will also 
go into the trust fund. That is what TEA 21 provides. And it will be 
distributed in a very specific way. Again, that is what TEA 21 
specifically provides.
  What did it provide? Approximately 90 percent would go to States by 
formula--that is, the core programs--and about 10 percent to a variety 
of smaller but equally important programs that were not tied to 
individual States.
  The chart I have now before us shows that these include--that is, 
these other programs, the 10 percent include programs to fund roads on 
national parks. For example, it includes Federal lands highway programs 
and Indian reservation roads.
  Just think about all of us who have Indian reservation roads in our 
States. The provision of the Transportation Subcommittee would say none 
of the increase would go to Indian reservation roads.
  Public lands highways are very important to many Senators, 
particularly their States.
  I mention the national parks and refuge roads.
  What about the border infrastructure program? Many Senators, when 
writing the highway bill, came to us and said: We need a particular 
provision in the highway bill--that is, TEA 21--to address border 
infrastructure needs. We agreed. We put in that provision. But the 
Appropriations Committee said none of the increased funds will go to 
that.
  What about the national scenic byways program? It is very important 
to many States so that the picturesque highways in our States have 
funds equally allocated as all other needs and will receive funds in 
the event of additional dollars.
  Ferry boats and terminals: Yes, ferry boats and terminals would get 
none of the increase under the Transportation Committee bill--none. 
That is wrong because it was contemplated, when we wrote this bill 
together, they would get that.
  Then I mention transportation and community preservation.
  The main point is that these were bargained-for and fought-for 
provisions in TEA 21, the highway bill, and everyone assumed, because 
that was the provision in the highway bill, that if there were 
additional funds, they, too, would get their fair share of the 
increase.
  It is very important for Members to realize that these are provisions 
which have not just increased dollars because of the provisions that 
are in the Appropriations Committee bill.
  I don't have to remind you of the difficult debates we had over 
funding formulas among the Northeast States, the donor States, and the 
Western States. I have to tell you that it was not easy. There were 
many meetings. They were tough meetings. But in the end we achieved a 
bill--the TEA 21 bill--that was supported by 88 Senators. It was 
bipartisan. It was supported by Senators on both sides of the aisle.
  It was not just a distribution of money among the States that 
generated so much support for TEA 21. It also is the host of the 
smaller programs I just mentioned. They are called the allocated 
programs or the discretionary programs in which individual Senators had 
very specific interests.
  Senators from Alaska, Hawaii, and New Jersey came to support 
provisions such as ferry boats. Likewise, Senators from the public land 
States--from Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Nevada--wanted help in 
meeting unique needs in their States. These are the provisions we have 
written into the bill, the so-called allocated discretionary provisions 
that are not included in their fair share of the increase of highway 
funds in the bill provided for the forests.
  Senators from border States--Texas, Arizona, New York, and 
California--needed special attention on the dilapidated border 
crossings impeding trade and economic development in their States.
  In the same vein, Members along potential trade corridors through the 
Midwest had individual interests they wanted to include in the bill, 
but the provision before the Senate will not allow those provisions to 
get their fair share.
  I mentioned Senators seeking help for scenic byways and communities 
across our country.
  TEA 21 was not just about funding State highway programs; it was also 
about a broad range of transportation needs identified not just by 
States but by individual Senators.
  Earlier, I mentioned gas tax revenues were flowing to the trust fund 
faster than expected, to the tune of $1.45 billion in fiscal year 2000. 
TEA 21 provided for a fair distribution of that revenue growth. Again, 
unfortunately, the Transportation appropriations bill prevents the 
allocated programs--the discretionary programs--from sharing in this 
growth.
  The bill before the Senate zeros out about $120 million in funding 
for public lands, the border crossings, ferry boats, Indian 
reservations, research, and other allocated programs, and instead 
distributes that increase to the States

[[Page S10902]]

only through the core highway programs. I am not against the core 
highway programs. I strongly support them. But that is not the issue. 
What is at issue is the protection of the integrity of TEA 21 and fair 
treatment for these allocated programs I have just mentioned.
  Why did the appropriations bill change this part of TEA 21? Is there 
a problem with the TEA 21 distribution? Is there anything wrong with 
these programs? If there is, it is news to me. I have not heard it. 
Nobody has mentioned it. More importantly, if something is flawed with 
the distribution of these programs, let's have a hearing, get the 
facts, and find out what is going on before we run off and start 
changing things for no good reason. Let's do it in the committee with 
jurisdiction of the highway bill, the Environment and Public Works 
Committee.
  Some might ask, what is all this fuss over such a small amount of 
money? After all, this bill redistributes only about $120 million, an 
average increase of just one-third of 1 percent of the State's highway 
dollars. It is because I see this as a start of a very dangerous 
process. Highway bills are 6-year authorizations for a very good 
reason. Highways take time to plan, to design, to build. Our State 
highway departments need some level of certainty about future funding 
levels to plan properly.

  I followed closely what my State of Montana is doing for planning 
these projects. Stable funding is absolutely vital; stability in 
highway spending is absolutely vital so States can plan. Without 
stability, highway and transit projects will proceed more slowly. As 
highway construction slows down, fewer jobs will be created, economic 
activity is reduced, working men and women--many with families to be 
supported--will be hurt.
  Furthermore, once we send the signal that it is open season for 
highway funding in appropriations bills, whose ox will be gored next? 
Today it is the allocated programs, the discretionary programs, scenic 
roads, ferry boats, border crossings, park roads; today only $120 
million. Tomorrow, who knows. I know Senator Chafee and I have a tough 
sell here. All 50 States will get a little more money under this bill 
than under TEA 21. Normally, around here that is called a no brainer. 
If it is more money, Members vote for it.
  Look where the money comes from, and I ask if you still support this 
provision. Tell the tribal leader the Indian road program doesn't need 
anymore money. Tell the economic development leaders in your 
communities that border crossings, trade corridors, don't deserve 
anymore funding. Or tell the mayors that scenic byways and ferry boats 
have to get by with a little less than we promised last year, while 
others get a little more than we promised.
  Let's treat all programs fairly, let them all share in the revenue 
growth, not just a few.
  This is what our Governors, highway officials, and others say about 
the TEA 21 promises. This chart includes quotes from letters from key 
highway user groups.
  Trust Coalition, the main coalition that worked so hard with us as we 
put together the highway bill:

       . . . remind Congress of the importance of keeping its 
     proposition in TEA 21 in the annual budgeting and 
     appropriations process.

  Another letter from the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials:

       Expend additional. . . annual [highway trust fund] revenues 
     . . ., and allocate them as provided under TEA 21.

  From the National Governors' Association, a group this body listens 
to quite frequently and faithfully:

       Ensure that all increases in revenue in the Highway Trust 
     Fund are directed to their intended purposes as outlined in 
     TEA 21.

  I ask my colleagues to think very carefully about this issue. To say 
this vote is about a few more dollars for your State on top of the 
hundreds of millions received under TEA 21 is to miss the point. Do not 
pit the interests of State against the interests of public lands or 
ferry boats or trade corridors or border crossings. Do not start down 
the path of turning highway funding into a political grab bag each 
year.
  Unless someone can show me how the distribution formula of TEA 21 is 
broken and needs to be fixed, I am prepared to stick with the highway 
bill.
  I urge my colleagues to join me, Senator Chafee, and Senator Warner 
and reaffirm our support for TEA 21 and reject the redistribution 
contained in this bill.
  A final point: When we raise this point of order, we mean no 
disrespect to the Appropriations Committee or its leaders. They have a 
very difficult job to do. They have a difficult job to do in the best 
years. This, I might add, is not the best of years with the problems 
they are facing with the budget caps and allocations. It is a very 
difficult problem. I understand that. I deeply respect that. They have 
their responsibilities and I respect that. But the authorizing 
committees also have their responsibilities. I hope the appropriators 
in the Senate respect that, too. That is why I supported the 
reimposition of rule XVI earlier this year. It is a matter of respect. 
The appropriations subcommittees do their work; we respect their work. 
The authorizing committees do their work, and we hope that work can be 
respected, as well. That is what this issue is about. It restores the 
will of order around here and allows the appropriations and authorizing 
committees to concentrate on what they know best. Let's keep it that 
way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I pick up on the concluding note of my 
good friend, the ranking member of our committee.
  We marked up the bill barely 30 days ago and pledged our allegiance 
to rule XVI. Now, the essence of what this debate is all about: Are we 
going to do a 180 and all run downhill? What is the public going to 
think of the Senate and how it conducts itself and how it observes its 
rules? That should be foremost in the mind of every Senator as that 
vote bell rings, hopefully, in but a few minutes, as this debate 
concludes.
  As our distinguished chairman and ranking member have clearly said, 
our committee worked hard, not for a month, not for 2 months. I was 
subcommittee chairman of the subcommittee that did the initial draft of 
TEA 21.
  It was a 2-year task, 2 years carefully going out amongst the 50 
States and evaluating proposals of the various Governors, of the 
organizations that devote full time to America's transportation needs 
and they came forth with a variety of proposals. We worked very 
diligently to take all of that into consideration, and over a 2-year 
period we had many, many subcommittee hearings, and, indeed, hearings 
of the full committee, and crafted this legislation with the intent of 
seeking equity and fairness among the 50 States, of correcting what 
many of us viewed as an inequity between the donor States, of which 
mine was one, and the donee States. Therein was the most difficult 
battle. Two years' work stands on the brink of being disassembled on 
this vote. The precedent of rule XVI stands to be stripped down 
momentarily on this vote.
  As my colleague from Montana stated, if this provision regarding the 
surplus is changed, what is next year? Is it the donee-donor fight? 
Does that become the next debate within the appropriations cycle? It 
was for the very reason this institution has regarded this legislation 
as law it should remain intact for 6 years. This is not a 1-year bill 
or a 2-year bill; this is a 6-year bill, a formula to remain in place 
to provide equity among the States for 6 years. Momentarily, the vote 
will be taken to make the first break, barely after 1 year of operation 
of this bill.
  There is a tradition in this great body not to personalize anything, 
but I just happened to observe there were 70 Senators who sought the 
exact provision that is the subject of this amendment, and that was a 
10-percent set-aside for Federal programs. Seventy Senators came to our 
committee with a wide range of programs they felt were essential for 
their States which would not be covered in the general disbursal of the 
balance of the 90 percent. How interesting, the State of New Jersey 
fought hard for the Intelligent Transportation Systems funds, ITS; the 
State of Alabama fought hard for new corridor programs and ARC, just 
two little footnotes.
  I urge Senators to go back--we have it here in the correspondence--
and have the staffs advise their Senators what they asked of the 
Environment

[[Page S10903]]

and Public Works Committee, and what was included in this bill in 
direct recognition of their needs, 70 colleagues. That is the reason 
for the creation of this provision.
  Our chairman mentioned the House. The House appropriations bill, I 
say to the chairman, as he well knows, had a number of provisions in 
there which his counterpart, Congressman Shuster, recognized as 
legislation on an appropriations bill. He went to the floor of the 
House, and in 18 consecutive instances the House backed up their 
chairman and struck those provisions, one by one, from that bill.
  I daresay, should this provision survive, regrettably, that same 
chairman will see in conference that it is removed. That is why I think 
it is incumbent on our body to likewise remove this legislation, and at 
the same time uphold the credibility of our action some 30 days ago and 
reaffirm rule XVI. This is equity. This is legislative process to 
achieve that equity.
  We put in place a magnificent piece of legislation, accepted all 
across America. As I traveled my State this summer, I saw instance 
after instance of construction on our roads. I said to myself: There is 
the taxpayers' money coming back from the highway trust fund, going 
straight to the States, and now being used to improve our system. It is 
working. TEA 21 is working. That is why we are here today, to ask our 
colleagues to let it remain intact because it is serving the purpose 
for which this body adopted it but a year ago.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I believe it is important that all Members 
of the Senate clearly understand the distribution of revenue aligned 
budget authority--that we called RABA--which the subcommittee 
integrated into this bill.
  The philosophy of the Transportation Act for the 21st century was 
that highway funding is intrinsically linked to receipts to the highway 
account of the highway trust fund, and that increased gas tax receipts 
should be passed along to the States for highway construction and 
improvement projects.
  The provision in TEA 21 that I described is a mechanism to guarantee 
additional revenue in the trust fund from greater than anticipated gas 
tax receipts would be spent for that purpose. The Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee's provision, which we have been talking 
about, ensures this intent is met and it is completely consistent with 
the spirit of TEA 21.
  The President's budget submission, however, requested to divert a 
third of these funds away from the Federal aid highway program to fund 
other programs and their initiatives. The subcommittee rejected this 
approach. Instead, we adopted one that honors the commitment Congress 
made to the States when it passed TEA 21, which I supported along with 
others.
  Our bill sends the funds directly to the States in order to maximize 
the Federal resources flowing to each State. I want to be clear this 
afternoon. This does not alter the TEA 21 formula. It, in fact, 
embraces the formula by strictly adhering to each State's individual 
guaranteed share under section 1105 of TEA 21.
  This is one of those rare instances where Congress is able to put 
forward a proposal that benefits every Member in every State in the 
Union. Within a constrained Federal budget, it is an approach which 
increases the amount that is available to the States for highway 
construction. I believe it makes sense and at the proper time I believe 
my colleagues--I hope, at least, they will support it.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the chairman yield for a question?
  Mr. SHELBY. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. He says it does not change the formula. But, if he had 
nothing in his legislation, these funds would flow in accordance with 
TEA 21. He is putting a switch in the track that diverts that 10 
percent. I say to my good friend, that is clear documentation of a 
change to the formula.
  Mr. SHELBY. I will answer that. It says in the bill:

       Provided further, That notwithstanding Public Law 105-178 
     as amended, or any other provision of law, funds authorized 
     under section 110 of title 23, United States Code, for the 
     fiscal year 2000 shall be apportioned based on each State's 
     percentage share of funding provided for under section 105 of 
     title 23, United States Code, for fiscal year 2000.

  That is the formula of TEA 21.
  Mr. WARNER. If I may say, Mr. President, it is that first word, 
``notwithstanding''--one of those magical words that resonates in this 
Chamber to signal this law is being changed, this formula is being 
changed. If you did not have this provision in there, these funds would 
flow precisely as this Chamber directed those funds to flow when they 
overwhelmingly adopted TEA 21.
  I say to my good friend, it is clear as the light of this given day 
what is taking place.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Who has the floor?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I want to point out the provision referred to by the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation in his own bill says clearly ``notwithstanding Public 
Law 105-178.'' Even though the law says differently, this is what the 
committee is going to find. The committee's own language indicates that 
it is a change because the committee's language says, as just reported 
by the chairman of the committee, notwithstanding the ISTEA bill; that 
is, in spite of the ISTEA bill, this is the change we are going to 
make.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague from Montana is correct. I 
see my good friend from New Jersey standing. Why don't I ask him: Would 
not the result of what you are requesting be simply asking the Senate 
to go up the hill on rule XVI, turn around, and run down the hill?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in deference to my friend and 
colleague from Virginia, I am going to decline to answer the question 
that he puts to frame my speech. After I deliver my message, then I 
will be happy to respond. Perhaps I will have covered the turnaround 
the Senator describes. I will wait until I get the floor before I take 
a question.
  Mr. WARNER. I am happy to yield the floor and await with eagerness 
for a reply to my question.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I hope the Senator has a glass of water there. I am 
going to deliver my missive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what we are seeing is much more a 
question of interpretation rather than a violation of the rule. Because 
the distinguished Senator from Virginia says we had agreed to a 
specific 10 percent, I think more accurately, in all due respect, is 
that we agreed to sums of money that added up to approximately 10 
percent of the total funding. The programs that were detailed in the 
list that was going to be supported have grown, by the way. They have 
grown as the appropriations have grown for highway funding.
  The one thing to which I want to return, and I am sorry our colleague 
from Alabama is not here because I want him to know I agree fully with 
what he has said thus far and the proposition that we are considering, 
and that is extra moneys that are found in the surplus go directly to 
the States to finance their programs as they see them.
  It is funny because so often we have a debate about States rights and 
Big Brother Government and that kind of thing. But here we are, some of 
us find ourselves on opposite sides of the debate. The fact of the 
matter is that each State--and I want my colleagues to know this--is 
going to get more money. They are going to decide where the highway 
needs are in their States. They are going to decide what is critical, 
and they are going to decide it in a year in which the whole country is 
burdened with congestion. Those States will have those moneys to use 
for highway construction or as they see fit under their programs.
  The fact we agreed to a series of programs at the time TEA 21 was 
developed, and though there was a lot of hard work--and I respect the 
work the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Montana did on 
TEA 21--I disagreed with them. They knew it. I voted finally for the 
bill because they had some compromises thrown in. My State went from 
one level of funding in the formula to a lower level, when my State 
sends more money to this Federal Government than any State in the

[[Page S10904]]

country. They said: Frank, agree with us because we will take care of 
you in this program or that program to try to get a compromise.
  Believe me, if I had the 50 other votes, I would not have agreed, but 
I did not have them. So I went along. It was not a happy day. It wasn't 
a happy day for New Jersey or this Senator who serves, by the way, on 
both the EPW Committee as well as the Appropriations Committee.
  What we are seeing is a nuclear explosion in the middle of a chance 
to dynamite a new hole for a new road. I understand how jurisdictions 
want to be preserved, and I support that. But the fact is, I agree with 
the chairman of the subcommittee that this is our interpretation of how 
that money, how that surplus should be spent.
  I point out to our colleagues who may be listening who are going to 
vote on this, every one of your States get more money directly for the 
programs on what your transportation commissioners, your Governors want 
to spend money. I do not know that we have heard from any Governors who 
have called up and said: Listen, don't give us that extra money, put it 
into those Federal programs. I do not think that message goes 
particularly well out there.
  The message that does go well out there is your States get more 
money. All of the programs that were detailed in TEA 21 are fully 
financed as outlined in the original TEA 21 legislation, and each one 
of them has gotten more money as a result of the expanded funding 
available. So we are not cheating anybody. What we are saying is that 
as we see it, these funds should be distributed directly to the States, 
simplify it rather than winding up with I do not know how small the 
smallest change would be on the list of programs, but it would get down 
to relatively tiny sums of money. We give it to the States. It is done 
clearly and everybody understands it.

  My friend from Virginia--this is my closing remark--talked about the 
ITS program that I worked so hard on, intelligent vehicles. Notice I 
never said intelligent drivers. Intelligent vehicles was a program I 
worked very hard to get.
  New Jersey, I am told, gets $5 million, I say to the Senator from 
Virginia, out of that $211 million that we are devoting to intelligent 
transportation systems. New Jersey, though it deserves far more, only 
has a very small percentage of that. It was not New Jersey based. That 
was a program I felt strongly about for my country and for the benefit 
of those who drive across the highways and the byways of this great 
Nation, including reducing congestion wherever we can and expediting 
traffic flow. That is what that was. That was not a ``New Jersey 
special,'' I can assure the Senator.
  I hope when all is said and done, and very often more is said than is 
done, we will have our colleagues' support and carry this bill. Let's 
get done with it. Yes, the debate was worthwhile having because our 
colleagues wanted it and we respect our colleagues, the Senator from 
Rhode Island, the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Montana, but 
we differ with them. We have a job of getting this bill out and into 
the hands of those who are going to be using it for their construction 
needs in the next year, and we ought to move along with it as quickly 
as we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to talk about germaneness for just 
a minute. I know the point of order has not been made yet, but I want 
my colleagues to know that the Senators who could raise the rule XVI 
point of order are trying to characterize the bill's RABA provision as 
not germane to this bill. But before bringing this provision to the 
floor, we checked again with the Parliamentarian, and he indicated the 
defense of germaneness did, in fact, exist on this provision by virtue 
of legislative language in the House-passed text.
  This language was not drafted with the goal of creating germane 
language. If my colleagues will recall, the rule XVI point of order was 
reestablished after this bill had been reported from committee and we 
did not need to modify the provision in order to make it germane. It is 
germane because it is germane, and it is consistent with rule XVI.
  What my colleagues are asking--if they do this--is to rule against a 
provision that is clearly germane pursuant to existing Senate rules 
under rule XVI. I urge my colleagues to reject at that time, if that is 
done, that proposition and uphold the germaneness of this provision.
  My colleagues have probably thrown a lot of smoke at you as to why 
you should not support the existing Senate appropriations provision, 
things such as preserving the genius of TEA 21. Some Western or public 
land States may get hurt under this provision, but do not let this 
confuse you.
  Be careful, I would suggest, when Members argue jurisdiction and in 
the same breath claim that your State might--yes, I repeat, might--be 
disadvantaged by a provision, and then raise a point of order--if they 
do--rather than voting on the merits of the issue.
  Why? Because what the Appropriations Committee has done is simple and 
straightforward and directly benefits every State. Let me be clear 
again. Every State will receive more money because of this provision 
because all the money will go directly to the States with fewer strings 
attached than it would otherwise.
  In addition, the money will get to the States sooner, so they can 
tackle the most critical transportation problems without having to wait 
on some Washington bureaucrats to deem their problems worthy of Federal 
funding.
  I believe it is clear that we cannot--yes, we cannot--always count on 
the Washington bureaucrats to be fair and impartial when making 
decisions about these discretionary highway funding issues.
  In fact, I have here a General Accounting Office study--a copy of the 
study is on the desk--that shows that the Department of Transportation 
does not always follow its own policies when distributing discretionary 
highway funds and that the distribution process can be highly 
politicized.
  The Appropriations Committee provision does not hurt Western or 
public land States in any way. Each of these States will have a 
guaranteed increase in highway funds, and they will get their money 
earlier. They can use these additional resources on public lands 
projects or whatever they want.
  So why raise a point of order--if, in fact, they do--as I anticipate, 
instead of voting on the provision? Because the opponents know they are 
asking Members to vote against their own States' interests. They are 
hoping you will not see that if the vote is on the point of order.
  What the Members objecting to the appropriations provision are asking 
you to do is forgo two birds in the hand, we might say, on the off 
chance that there might be a smaller bird in the bush somewhere else. 
Think about it. Not a very good deal, in this Senator's estimation, and 
not one which is in the best interests of any Senator's State. If you 
think so, check with your Governor in your State.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SHELBY. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator says this legislation on his 
appropriations bill is germane because he says in the House bill there 
is language which redistributes the funds. Therefore, he says it is 
germane.
  I ask the Senator if he could point out to me where that language is 
in the House bill. And let me say, before the Senator answers the 
question, that it is highly unlikely, as all Members of this body know, 
that such language exists, because the chairman of the Transportation 
Committee in the House, Mr. Shuster, would not stand for it.
  So I would like, if the Senator could, for him to show me in his bill 
where----
  Mr. SHELBY. Reclaiming my time, I want to answer that, if I may.
  We have checked with the Parliamentarian. That is why we have a 
Parliamentarian here, among other things, for guidance at times. We 
have been told that the affirmative defense of germaneness would lie 
here because of the legislation.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Could the Senator point out the language?
  Mr. SHELBY. Because of H.R. 2084, the House bill, on page 15.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Could the Senator cite the language?
  Mr. SHELBY. Page 15. I will read it to you, the language, on page 15, 
where

[[Page S10905]]

it says: ``Federal-Aid Highways, (Liquidation of Contract 
Authorization), Highway Trust Fund).''

       For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States 
     Code, that are attributable to Federal-aid highways, 
     including the National Scenic and Recreational Highway as 
     authorized by 23 U.S.C. 148, not otherwise provided, 
     including reimbursement for sums expended pursuant to the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $26,125,000,000 or so much 
     thereof as may be available in and derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

  That is the provision.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I say, with all respect to my very good 
friend and colleague, that language refers to just spending the money 
that must be spent under ISTEA. There is no language there which 
addresses a reallocation of additional dollars. I must very 
respectfully say to my good friend, the language he cited does not in 
any way purport to do what he likes to say it does.
  I just follow up by saying that what this comes down to is respect. 
We in the authorizing committee respect the job of the Appropriations 
Committee. They have a very difficult job. They do their work very 
well. I just hope the Appropriations Committee members will respect the 
work of the authorizing committee.
  As the Senator from Virginia pointed out, there is a reason that this 
is a 6-year bill, that every year we do not come back and try to pass a 
highway bill. It is because of the nature of the beast. Highway 
legislation requires long-term planning. It does not make sense for 
this body to start going down the road--no pun intended--of starting to 
rewrite the highway bill every year in the Transportation 
Appropriations Committee. That is just bad public policy. It is the 
wrong thing to do. I think every Member knows it is the wrong thing to 
do, if he or she just stops to think about it.
  I thank the Chair and my colleague very much, and particularly I 
thank my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, the leader of our 
committee, who is bringing this issue to our attention.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in light of the discussion today about 
weather, indeed, the Appropriations Committee has gotten into the 
authorization area, let's just take a look at what has happened to this 
bill, what the major changes are.
  There are some very substantial changes in this bill to TEA 21. What 
we are talking about is the additional money that is coming in. In that 
case, the additional money totals $1.5 billion. About $150 million of 
that has been set aside--has been in the past and would be, but for 
this legislation--for a series of programs that we thought were 
necessary--indeed, the whole Senate did, and the Congress did--for the 
good of our Nation.
  So what are we talking about? We are talking about is that Indian 
reservation roads don't get a nickel. They don't get a nickel from the 
additional moneys under the proposal of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Transportation: Public land roads, not a nickel; park roads, not a 
nickel; refuge roads in our wildlife refuges, where we have had 
testimony that the roads are just in atrocious condition, desperately 
need money; the national corridor planning of the border 
infrastructure, where there is a lineup of trucks under NAFTA trying to 
come into the country, and we set aside money to give them some 
assistance; ferry boats and terminals, $2 million they would get from 
the funds but for the amendment of the Subcommittee on Transportation.
  So there is no question but that there are major changes in this 
legislation by the Appropriations Committee, getting deeply into the 
territory where we spent months trying to work out a compromise in the 
authorization committee.
  It is my understanding that all who wished to speak have spoken on 
this.
  I now raise a point of order that the provision which begins on page 
21, line 1, through line 11 on page 22, of the language added by the 
committee-reported bill is legislation on an appropriations bill in 
violation of rule XVI.
  I ask my colleagues to stand with me and put a stop to the 
destructive practice of including legislation on appropriations 
measures.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Rule XVI 
motion offered by my colleagues, Senators Baucus and Chafee.
  The changes to the TEA 21 funding formulas included in the 
transportation appropriations bill are unacceptable. They will have a 
severe impact on the ability of the National Park Service, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet their 
responsibilities in managing our nation's public land trust.
  The question we face today on this appropriations bill is one of many 
that will determine the answer to the larger question, can we live up 
to the legacy of our forefathers and protect our federal land trust?
  We are beginning the third century of our nation's history. The first 
and second were highlighted by activism on public lands issues.
  The first century was marked by the Louisiana Purchase, and added 
almost 530 million acres to the United States, which changed America 
from an eastern, coastal nation to one covering the entire continent.
  The second century was marked by additions to the public land trust, 
led by President Theodore Roosevelt.
  While in White House between 1901 and 1909, he designated 150 
National Forests; the first 51 Federal Bird Reservations; 5 National 
Parks; the first 18 National Monuments; the first 4 National Game 
Preserves; and the first 21 Reclamation Projects.
  He also established the National Wildlife refuge System, beginning 
with the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in 1903.
  Together, these projects equated to federal protection for almost 230 
million acres, a land area equivalent to that of all the East coast 
states from Maine to Florida and just under one-half of the area 
purchased in the Louisiana purchase.
  Roosevelt said, ``We must ask ourselves if we are leaving for future 
generations an environment that is as good, or better, than what we 
found.''
  As we enter the third century of our history, we must again ask 
ourselves this question and take action to meet this challenge.
  The action taken with the language in the Transportation 
Appropriations bill does not meet this challenge.
  In 1916, Congress created the National Park Service:

       . . . To conserve the scenery and the natural and historic 
     objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the 
     enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as 
     will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
     generations.

  The ``unimpaired'' status of our national parks and our refuges is 
at-risk. The language in the Transportation Appropriations amendment 
would reduce funds in the Federal Lands Highways Program by $1 million 
for the Fish and Wildlife Service; $12 million for the National Park 
Service; and $14 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  The National Park System and the Fish and Wildlife Service have 
extreme needs for these funds. We are all aware of the infrastructure 
needs for transportation faced by Grand Canyon National Park that were 
highlighted in the August 20 USA Today. I ask unanimous consent that 
this article be inserted into the Congressional Record.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service has similar needs within the National 
Wildlife Refuge System. Last year, in the state of Florida, the 
Wildlife Drive at the J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge 
located on Sanibel Island, Florida was closed for over 2 weeks when one 
of the seven water control structures under the road was washed out by 
heavy rains.
  After this incident, the Ft. Myers Daily editorialized on this 
subject, stating:

       The Wildlife Drive is a huge success, a blessing to the old 
     and infirm who can comfortably enjoy great recreation from 
     their cars. It's a place where countless curious novices and 
     bored children have been bitten by the bug of bird watching . 
     . . And for all that, it is still a must on the list of 
     world-traveled ornithologists . . . Fish and Wildlife 
     [Service] needs to . . . fix this crown jewel of American 
     ecotourism.

  This article calls for action by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
However, this is our responsibility. We, the Congress, must recognize 
the responsibility we have to maintain our public lands in the park 
system and the wildlife refuge system.

[[Page S10906]]

  As we consider this motion, let us remember the challenge that 
President Theodore Roosevelt posed for us with his words, ``We must ask 
ourselves if we are leaving for future generations an environment that 
is as good, or better, than what we found.''
  Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. In relation to this point of order that has been raised, 
I raise the affirmative defense of germaneness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under rule XVI and the precedents of the 
Senate, the Chair submits to the Senate the question for its decision, 
Is the provision challenged by the Senator from Rhode Island germane to 
language in the House bill H.R. 2084?
  Mr. SHELBY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays having been ordered, the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 274 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli

                                NAYS--34

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Burns
     Chafee
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Murkowski
     Reed
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Breaux
     Gregg
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 63 and the nays are 
34. The amendment is germane. The point of order falls.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the pending business of the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is amendment No. 1677 
from the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton.
  Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily 
set aside in order that the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms, 
be recognized to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1658

  (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States 
 Census Bureau should include marital status on the short form census 
questionnaire to be distributed to the majority of American households 
                     for the 2000 decennial census)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment number 1658.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for himself, 
     Mr. DeWine, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
     Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Nickles, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1658.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The survival of American culture is dependent upon the 
     survival of the sacred institution of marriage.
       (2) The decennial census is required by section 2 of 
     article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, and has 
     been conducted in every decade since 1790.
       (3) The decennial census has included marital status among 
     the information sought from every American household since 
     1880.
       (4) The 2000 decennial census will mark the first decennial 
     census since 1880 in which marital status will not be a 
     question included on the census questionnaire distributed to 
     the majority of American households.
       (5) The United States Census Bureau has removed marital 
     status from the short form census questionnaire to be 
     distributed to the majority of American households in the 
     2000 decennial census and placed that category of information 
     on the long form census questionnaire to be distributed only 
     to a sample of the population in that decennial census.
       (6) Every year more than $100,000,000,000 in Federal funds 
     are allocated based on the data collected by the Census 
     Bureau.
       (7) Recorded data on marital status provides a basic 
     foundation for the development of Federal policy.
       (8) Census data showing an exact account of the numbers of 
     persons who are married, single, or divorced provides 
     critical information which serves as an indicator on the 
     prevalence of marriage in society.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the United States Census Bureau--
       (1) has wrongfully decided not to include marital status on 
     the census questionnaire to be distributed to the majority of 
     Americans for the 2000 decennial census; and
       (2) should include marital status on the short form census 
     questionnaire to be distributed to the majority of American 
     households for the 2000 decennial census.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Americans should be disturbed that the U.S. 
Census Bureau obviously no longer regards marriage as having any 
importance.
  When the Census Bureau compiled its list of questions to be included 
in the 2000 decennial survey, the decision was obvious that it would be 
unnecessary and burdensome for the Bureau to include marital status in 
the census forms sent to the majority of American households.
  So the Census Bureau decided to delete the marital status question 
from the census ``short form'' which it is called--which goes to 
approximately 83 percent of the American population--but continue to 
use the question on the ``long form''--which goes only to approximately 
17 percent of the American population.
  This will mark the first time since 1880 that the decennial census 
will not gather from the majority of the U.S. population, a count of 
those who are single, married, divorced, or widowed. This is especially 
disturbing, at least to this Senator, when one considers that the 
survival of the American culture is dependent upon the survival of the 
sacred institution of marriage. Moreover, marital status has heretofore 
regularly been viewed as vital information because there has always 
been great value placed in the institution of marriage.
  It is irresponsible for the U.S. Government to suggest or imply that 
marriage is no longer significant or important, but that is precisely 
the message that will go out if marital status is eliminated from the 
short form by the Census Bureau.
  However, Mr. President, the Census Bureau feels far differently when 
it comes to compiling statistics on various other things including 
race. The Census Bureau made it a top priority to learn the race of the 
majority of Americans; therefore the agency is asking, not one, but two 
questions relating to racial identity.
  One can only speculate the reasoning behind this bizarre maneuver 
removing marital status from the short form, while asking two questions 
about race. It's important to remember that every year, more than $100 
billion in Federal funding is awarded based on the data collected by 
the Census Bureau. Considering that American people will foot the bill 
on the Census Bureau's strange inclinations, should not Congress remind 
the U.S. Census Bureau that its job is not to seek out information to 
promote a social agenda.
  For this reason, Mr. President, I am offering a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment to the Transportation appropriations bill, expressing that 
the U.S. Census Bureau was wrong to eliminate

[[Page S10907]]

marital status from the census short form. The U.S. Census Bureau 
should include marital status on the short form census questionnaire--
the one going out to the vast majority of Americans for the 2000 
decennial census.
  Unfortunately, most of the census short form questionnaires have 
already been printed without the important marital status question 
being included. Notwithstanding that, does not Congress have a moral 
obligation, as caretaker of America's culture, to set the record 
straight in emphasizing that marriage is still at the forefront of 
America's national survey?
  I believe this sense-of-the-Senate resolution deserves careful 
consideration of all Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Helms 
amendment, which I understand is the pending business, be temporarily 
set aside. We are trying to work on a time to vote on it a little 
later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1661

(Purpose: To make available funds for apportionment to the sponsors of 
primary airports taking account of temporary air service interruptions 
                           to those airports)

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate 
amendment No. 1661.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), for Mr. Daschle, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1661.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. ____. TEMPORARY AIR SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS.

       (a) Availability of Funds.--Funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act to carry out section 47114(c)(1) 
     of title 49, United States Code, may be available for 
     apportionment to an airport sponsor described in subsection 
     (b) in fiscal year 2000 in an amount equal to the amount 
     apportioned to that sponsor in fiscal year 1999.
       (b) Covered Airport Sponsors.--An airport sponsor referred 
     to in subsection (a) is an airport sponsor with respect to 
     whose primary airport the Secretary of Transportation found 
     that--
       (1) passenger boardings at the airport fell below 10,000 in 
     the calendar year used to calculate the apportionment;
       (2) the airport had at least 10,000 passenger boardings in 
     the calendar year prior to the calendar year used to 
     calculate apportionments to airport sponsors in a fiscal 
     year; and
       (3) the cause of the shortfall in passenger boardings was a 
     temporary but significant interruption in service by an air 
     carrier to that airport due to an employment action, natural 
     disaster, or other event unrelated to the demand for air 
     transportation at the affected airport.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of 
Senator Daschle. It deals with airport eligibility. It has been cleared 
by both sides of the aisle. I see no opposition to it.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1661) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1663, As Modified

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress that the Administrator 
of the Federal Aviation Administration should develop a national policy 
    and related procedures concerning the interface of the Terminal 
      Automated Radar Display and Information System and en route 
 surveillance systems for Visual Flight Rule (VFR) air traffic control 
                                towers)

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate 
amendment No. 1663, as modified. This is an amendment I will be 
offering on behalf of Senator Inhofe dealing with the TARDIS program. 
It has been modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for Mr. Inhofe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1663, as modified.

  The amendment follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. ____. TERMINAL AUTOMATED RADAR DISPLAY AND INFORMATION 
                   SYSTEM.

       It is the sense of the Senate that, not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration should develop a national 
     policy and related procedures concerning the interface of the 
     Terminal Automated Radar Display and Information System and 
     en route surveillance systems for Visual Flight Rule (VFR) 
     air traffic control towers.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by both 
sides. I urge its adoption.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1663), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I inquire of the Chair what the pending business before 
the Senate is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two amendments have been set aside to the 
Transportation appropriations bill. Therefore, an amendment is 
appropriate at this time.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I am not here to present an amendment. I am interested 
in knowing if the pending amendment is the Gorton amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Gorton amendment was the first amendment 
set aside.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I am interested in speaking on that amendment at this 
point, if that is in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1677

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, there are a number of us on the floor who 
want to speak about this issue. Earlier we heard from the proponents of 
the amendment. They brought it to the floor at a time when those of us 
who opposed the amendment were not in position to respond. I know there 
is a desire, and we certainly are amenable, to get to a vote in the 
next hour and a half, or so. We would like to have an opportunity to 
present our side of this debate, at least for a reasonable period of 
time, and if there needs to be a further time agreement, then we will 
be able to enter into one.
  I see Senator Levin on the floor and Senator Ashcroft. I know they 
would like to follow. I ask unanimous consent that following my 
remarks, Senators Ashcroft and Levin be permitted to speak prior to any 
other speakers on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by Senators 
Gorton, Feinstein, and Bryan.
  I oppose this amendment because it will impose an unnecessary and 
unacceptable burden on the working men and women of this country, and 
of my state in particular.
  Throughout Michigan, men and women are working hard every day to 
produce the cars that make our economy and our nation move. They and 
their families depend on the jobs produced by our automobile 
manufacturing industry, just as the rest of us depend on the cars they 
produce.

[[Page S10908]]

  But those jobs and Michigan's economy are jeopardized by efforts to 
increase standards for corporate average fuel economy or CAFE.
  I have come to the floor because I want to make certain that my 
colleagues are aware of the extremely serious impact of increased CAFE 
standards, not just on Michigan, but on every state in the union. And 
make no mistake, increased CAFE standards are the intention of the 
amendment we are debating today, and will be the result should it be 
adopted.
  The Federal Government currently mandates that auto manufacturers 
maintain an average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars, and 
20.7 miles per gallon for sport utility vehicles and light trucks.
  Since 1995 Congress has prohibited federal transportation funds from 
being used to unilaterally increase these standards. We have recognized 
that it is our duty, as legislators, to make policy in this important 
area of economic and environmental concern.
  Now, however, a number of my colleagues are calling for an end to 
this congressional authority. This sense-of-the-Senate urges the Senate 
conferees to the Transportation appropriation bill to reject the House 
funding prohibition on raising CAFE standards.
  It does not call for the Department of Transportation to study the 
benefits and costs of raising CAFE standards, as some proponents of 
this amendment have suggested. Rather, the amendment states: ``The 
Senate should not recede to section 320 of this bill, as passed by the 
House of Representatives, which prevents an increase in CAFE 
standards.''
  Make no mistake and I reiterate this, if the House funding 
prohibition is stripped from this bill, the Department of 
Transportation will raise CAFE standards. Current law requires D.O.T. 
to set CAFE standards each year at the ``maximum feasible fuel economy 
level.'' And the Secretary is not authorized to just ``study'' CAFE. He 
must act by regulation to set new CAFE standards each year.
  In 1994, the last year prior to the CAFE freeze, the administration 
began rulemaking on new CAFE standards. Department of Transportation's 
April 6, 1994 proposal referenced feasible higher CAFE levels for 
trucks of 15 to 35 percent above the current standard.
  So let us be clear, this is not and never has been about a study. 
This proposed sense-of-the-Senate amendment is a precursor to higher 
CAFE standards on Sport Utility Vehicles and light trucks.
  Mr. President, this action is misguided. It will hurt the working 
families of Michigan. It will undermine American competitiveness. And 
it will reduce passenger safety.
  Higher CAFE requirements cost jobs. It really is that simple. Let me 
explain what I mean.
  To meet increased CAFE requirements, automakers must make design and 
material changes to their cars. Those changes cost money, and force 
American manufacturers to build cars that are smaller, less powerful 
and less popular with consumers.
  In addition, the National Academy of Sciences found that raising CAFE 
requirements to 35 mpg would increase the average vehicle's cost by 
about $2,500. And that is just a low-end estimate.
  Japanese automakers have escaped these costs because sky-high 
gasoline prices in their home markets forced them to make smaller, 
lighter cars years ago. Increased CAFE requirements will continue to 
favor Japanese auto makers. And that means they will continue to place 
an uneven burden on American automobile workers.
  Increased CAFE standards also reduce consumer choice, contrary to the 
assertions made in the earlier debate.
  For example, the principal reason full sized station wagons have 
disappeared from the market is the need to meet fleet mileage 
requirements under the CAFE program.
  Full-size station wagons, long popular with the American public, 
simply cannot be engineered economically to achieve high enough gas 
mileage to make them worth selling.
  Consumers suffer when their choices are narrowed. and auto makers and 
their employees suffer when they are forced to make cars the public 
simply does not want.
  In a statement before the Consumer Subcommittee of the Senate 
Commerce Committee, Dr. Marina Whitman of General Motors notes that in 
1982:

       We were forced to close two assembly plants which had been 
     fully converted to produce our new, highly fuel-efficient 
     compact and mid-size cars. The cost of these conversions was 
     $130 million, but the plants were closed because demand for 
     those cars did not develop during a period of sharply 
     declining gasoline prices.

  This story could be repeated for every major American automaker, Mr. 
President. And the effects on our overall economy have been 
devastating.
  The American auto industry accounts for one in seven U.S. jobs. 
Steel, transportation, electronics, literally dozens of industries 
employing thousands upon thousands of American depend on the health of 
our auto industry.
  Our automakers simply cannot afford to pay the fines imposed on them 
if they fail to reach CAFE standards, or to build cars that Americans 
will not buy. In either case the real victims are American workers and 
consumers.
  Nor should we forget, that American automakers are investing almost 
$1 billion every year in research to develop more fuel efficient 
vehicles.
  Indeed, we do not need to turn to the punitive, disruptive methods of 
CAFE standards to increase fuel economy for American vehicles.
  Since 1993, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles has 
brought together government agencies and the auto industries to conduct 
joint research--research that is making significant progress and will 
bridge the gap to real world applications after 2000.
  By enhancing research cooperation, the Partnership for a New 
Generation of Vehicles will help our auto industry develop vehicles 
that are more easily recyclable, have lower emissions, and can achieve 
up to triple the fuel efficiency of today's midsize family sedans. All 
this while producing cars that retain performance, utility, safety, and 
economy.
  We have made solid progress toward making vehicles that achieve 
greater fuel economy without sacrificing the qualities consumers 
demand.
  Finally, I wish to address the issue of vehicle safety. For a number 
of years now, the federal government has taken the lead in mandating 
additional safety features on automobiles in an attempt to reduce the 
number of lives lost in auto accidents.
  How ironic to learn that federal CAFE requirements have been costing 
lives all this time.
  The Competitive Enterprise Institute recently estimated that between 
2,600 and 4,500 drivers and passengers die every year as a result of 
CAFE-induced auto downsizing.
  USA Today, in a special section devoted to the issue of CAFE 
standards and auto safety, calculated CAFE's cumulative death toll at 
46,000.
  I ask unanimous consent that the July 2, 1999, USA Today series on 
CAFE be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From USA TODAY, July 2, 1999]

                          Death by the Gallon

                          (By James R. Healey)

       A USA TODAY analysis of previously unpublished fatality 
     statistics discovers that 46,000 people have died because of 
     a 1970s-era push for greater fuel efficiency that has led to 
     smaller cars.
       Californian James Bragg, who helps other people buy cars, 
     knows he'll squirm when his daughter turns 16.
       ``She's going to want a little Chevy Cavalier or something. 
     I'd rather take the same 10 to 12 thousand bucks and put it 
     into a 3-year-old (full-size Mercury) Grand Marquis, for 
     safety.
       ``I want to go to her high school graduation, not her 
     funeral.''
       Hundreds of people are killed in small-car wrecks each year 
     who would survive in just slightly bigger, heavier vehicles, 
     government and insurance industry research shows.
       More broadly, in the 24 years since a landmark law to 
     conserve fuel, bug cars have shrunk to less-safe sizes and 
     small cars have poured onto roads. As a result, 46,000 people 
     have died in crashes they would have survived in bigger, 
     heavier cars, according to USA TODAY's analysis of crash data 
     since 1975, when the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was 
     passed.
       The law and the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) 
     standards it imposed have improved fuel efficiency. The 
     average of passenger vehicles on U.S. roads is 20 miles per 
     gallon vs. 14 mpg in 1975.
       But the cost has been roughly 7,700 deaths for every mile 
     per gallon gained, the analysis shows.

[[Page S10909]]

       Small cars--those no bigger or heavier than Chevrolet 
     Cavalier or Dodge Neon--comprise 18% of all vehicles on the 
     road, according to an analysis of R.L. Polk registration 
     data. Yet they accounted for 37% of vehicle deaths in 1997--
     12,144 people--according to latest available government 
     figures. That's about twice the death rate in big cars, such 
     as Dodge Intrepid, Chevrolet Impala, Ford Crown Victoria
       ``We have a small-car problem. If you want to solve the 
     safety puzzle, get rid of small cars,'' says Brian O'Neill, 
     president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The 
     institute, supported by auto insurers, crash-tests more 
     vehicles, more violently, than all but the federal 
     government.
       Little cars have big disadvantages in crashes. They have 
     less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, 
     the more the people inside have to.
       And small cars don't have the weight to protect themselves 
     in crashes with other vehicles. When a small car and a larger 
     one collide, the bigger car stops abruptly; that's bad 
     enough. But the little one slams to a stop, then instantly 
     and violently accelerates backward as the heavier car's 
     momentum powers into it. People inside the lighter car 
     experience body-smashing levels of force in two directions, 
     first as their car stops moving forward, then as it reverses. 
     In the heavier car, bodies are subjected to less destructive 
     deceleration and no ``bounce-back.''
       The regulations don't mandate small cars. but small, 
     lightweight vehicles that can perform satisfactorily using 
     low-power , fuel-efficient engines are the only affordable 
     way automakers have found to meet the CAFE (pronounced ka-FE) 
     standards.
       Some automakers acknowledge the danger.
       ``A small car, even with the best engineering available-- 
     physics says a large car will win,'' says Jack Collins, 
     Nissan's U.S. marketing chief.
       Tellingly, most small-car crash deaths involve only small 
     cars--56% in 1997, from the latest government data. They run 
     into something else, such as a tree, or into one another.
       In contrast, just 1% of small-car deaths--136 people--
     occurred in crashes with midsize or big sport-utility 
     vehicles in '97, according to statistics from the National 
     Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency that 
     enforces safety and fuel-efficiency rules. NHTSA does not 
     routinely publish that information. It performed special data 
     calculations at USA TODAY's request.
       Champions of small cars like to point out that even when 
     the SUV threat is unmasked, other big trucks remain a 
     nemesis. NHTSA data shows, however, that while crashes with 
     pickups, vans and commercial trucks accounted for 28% of 
     small-car deaths in '97, such crashes also accounted for 36% 
     of large-car deaths.
       Others argue that small cars attract young, inexperienced 
     drivers. There's some truth there, but not enough to explain 
     small cars' out-of-proportion deaths. About 36% of small-car 
     drivers involved in fatal crashes in 1997 were younger than 
     25; and 25% of the drivers of all vehicles involved in fatal 
     wrecks were that age, according to NHTSA data.


                          gas shortage worries

       U.S. motorists have flirted with small cars for years, 
     attracted, in small numbers, to nimble handling, high fuel 
     economy and low prices that make them the only new cars some 
     people can afford.
       ``Small cars fit best into some consumers' pocketbooks and 
     drive-ways,'' says Clarence Ditlow, head of the Center for 
     Auto Safety, a consumer-activist organization in Washington.
       Engineer and construction manager Kirk Sandvoss of 
     Springfield, Ohio, who helped two family members shop for 
     subcompacts recently, says that's all the car needed.
       ``We built three houses with a VW bug and a utility 
     trailer. We made more trips to the lumber yard than a guy 
     with a pickup truck would, but we got by. Small cars will 
     always be around.''
       But small cars have an erratic history in the USA. They 
     made the mainstream only when the nation panicked over fuel 
     shortages and high prices starting in 1973. The 1975 energy 
     act and fuel efficiency standards were the government 
     response to that panic.
       Under current CAFE standards, the fuel economy of all new 
     cars an automaker sells in the USA must average at least 27.5 
     mpg. New light trucks--pickups, vans and sport-utility 
     vehicles--must average 20.7 mpg. Automakers who fall short 
     are fined.
       In return, ``CAFE has an almost lethal effect on auto 
     safety,'' says Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., who sides with 
     the anti-CAFE sentiments of his home-state auto industry. 
     Each year, starting with fiscal 1996, he has successfully 
     inserted language into spending authorization bills that 
     prohibits using federal transportation money to tighten fuel 
     standards.
       Even if small cars were safe, there are reasons to wonder 
     about fuel-economy rules:
       Questionable results. CAFE and its small cars have not 
     reduced overall U.S. gasoline and diesel fuel consumption as 
     hoped. A strong economy and growing population have increased 
     consumption. The U.S. imports more oil now than when the 
     standards were imposed.
       Irrelevance. Emerging fuel technologies could make the 
     original intent obsolete, not only by making it easier to 
     recover oil from remote places, but also by converting 
     plentiful fuels, such as natural gas, into clean-burning 
     competitively priced fuel.
       And new technology is making bigger, safer cars more fuel 
     efficient. The full-size Dodge Intrepid, with V-6 engine, 
     automatic transmission, air conditioning and power 
     accessories, hits the average 27.5 mpg.
       ``Improving fuel economy doesn't necessarily mean lighter, 
     inherently less-safe vehicles,'' says Robert Shelton, 
     associate administrator of NHTSA.
       Cost. Developing and marketing small cars siphons billions 
     of dollars from the auto industry. Small cars don't cost 
     automakers much less to design, develop and manufacture than 
     bigger, more-profitable vehicles. But U.S. buyers won't pay 
     much for small cars, often demanding rebates that wipe out 
     the $500 to $1,000 profit.
       Consumers pay, too. Though small cars cost less, they also 
     depreciate faster, so are worth relatively less at trade-in 
     time. And collision insurance is more expensive. State Farm, 
     the biggest auto insurer, charges small-car owners 10% to 45% 
     more than average for collision and damage coverage. Owners 
     of big cars and SUVs get discounts up to 45%. ``It's based on 
     experience,'' spokesman Dave Hurst says.
       CAFE has been ``a bad mistake, one really bad mistake. It 
     didn't meet any of the goals, and it distorted the hell out 
     of the (new-car) market,'' says Jim Johnston, fellow at the 
     American Enterprise Institute in Washington and retired 
     General Motors vice president who lobbied against the 1975 
     law.


                              here to stay

       CAFE is resilient, although concern over its effect on 
     small-car safety is neither new nor narrow.
       A 1992 report by the National Research Council, an arm of 
     the National Academy of Sciences, that while better fuel 
     economy generally is good, ``the undesirable attributes of 
     the CAFE system are significant,'' and CAFE deserves 
     reconsideration.
       A NHTSA study completed in 1995 notes: ``During the past 18 
     years, the Office of Technology Assessment of the United 
     States Congress, the National Safety Council, the Brookings 
     Institution, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the 
     General Motors Research Laboratories and the National Academy 
     of Sciences all agreed that reductions in the size and weight 
     of passenger cars pose a safety threat.''
       Yet there's no serious move to kill CAFE standards.
       Automakers can't lobby too loudly for fear of branding 
     their small cars unsafe, inviting negative publicity and 
     lawsuits. And Congress doesn't want to offend certain 
     factions by appearing too cavalier about fuel economy. Nor, 
     understandably, does it want to acknowledge its law has been 
     deadly.
       ``I'm concerned about those statistics about small cars, 
     but I don't think we should blame that on the CAFE 
     standards,'' says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who supported 
     CAFE and remains a proponent.
       Pressure, in fact, is for tougher standards.
       Thirty-one senators, mainly Democrats, signed a letter 
     earlier this year urging President Clinton to back higher 
     CAFE standards. And environmental lobbyists favor small cars 
     as a way to inhibit global warming.
       Although federal anti-pollution regulations require that 
     big cars emit no more pollution per mile than small cars, 
     environmental activists seize on this: Small engines typical 
     of small cars burn less fuel, so they emit less carbon 
     dioxide.
       Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is a naturally occurring 
     gas that's not considered a pollutant by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, which regulates auto pollution.
       But those worried about global warming say CO2 
     is a culprit and should be regulated via tougher CAFE rules.
       Activists especially fume that trucks, though used like 
     cars, have a more lenient CAFE requirement, resulting in more 
     CO2.
       ``People would be much safer in bigger cars. In fact, 
     they'd be very safe in Ford Excursions,'' says Jim Motavalli, 
     editor of E: The Environmental Magazine, referring to a large 
     sport-utility vehicle Ford Motor plans to introduce in 
     September. ``But are we all supposed to drive around in 
     tanks? You'd be creating that much more global-warming gas. I 
     demonize sport utilities,'' says Motavalli, also a car 
     enthusiast and author of the upcoming book Forward Drive: The 
     Race to Build the Car of the Future.
       Not all scientists agree that CO2 causes global 
     warming or that warming is occurring.


                          Seeking alternatives

       Worldwide, the market is big enough to keep small cars in 
     business, despite the meager U.S. small-car market of 2 
     million a year. Outside the USA, roads are narrow and gas is 
     $5 a gallon, so Europeans buy 5 million small cars a year; 
     Asians, 2.6 million.
       Automakers are working on lightweight bigger cars that 
     could use small engines, fuel-cell electric vehicles and 
     diesel-electric hybrid power plants that could run big cars 
     using little fuel.
       But marketable U.S. versions are five, or more likely 10, 
     years off. That's assuming development continues, 
     breakthroughs occur and air-pollution rules aren't tightened 
     so much they eliminate diesels.
       Even those dreamboats won't resolve the conflict between 
     fuel economy and safety. Their light weight means they'll 
     have the same sudden-stop and bounce-back problems as small 
     cars. Improved safety belts and air bags that could help have 
     not been developed.

[[Page S10910]]

       IIHS researchers Adrian Lund and Janella Chapline reported 
     at the Society of Automotive Engineers' convention in Detroit 
     in March that it would be safer to get rid of the smallest 
     vehicles, not the largest.
       Drawing on crash research from eight countries, Lund and 
     Chapline predicted that if all cars and trucks weighing less 
     than 2,500 pounds were replaced by slightly larger ones 
     weighing 2,500 to 2,600 pounds, there would be ``nearly 3% 
     fewer fatalities, or an estimated savings of more than 700 
     lives'' a year. That's like trading a 1989 Honda Civic, which 
     weights 2,000 pounds, for a '99 Civic, at 2,500 pounds.
       Conversely, the researches conclude, eliminating the 
     largest cars, SUVs and pickups, and putting their occupants 
     into the next-size-smaller cars, SUVs and pickups would kill 
     about 300 more people a year.


                           market skepticism

       U.S. consumers, culturally prejudiced in favor of bigness, 
     aren't generally interested in small cars these days:
       Car-buying expert Bragg--author of Car Buyer's and Leaser's 
     Negotiating Bible--says few customers even ask about small 
     cars.
       Small-car sales are half what they were in their mid-'80s 
     heyday. Just 7% of new-vehicle shoppers say they'll consider 
     a small car, according to a 1999 study be California-based 
     auto industry consultant AutoPacific. That would cut small-
     car sales in half. Those who have small cars want out: 82% 
     won't buy another.
       To Bragg, the reasons are obvious: ``People need a back 
     seat that holds more than a six-pack and a pizza. And, 
     there's the safety issue.''
       That hits home with Tennessee dad George Poe. He went car 
     shopping with teenage daughter Bethanie recently and, at her 
     insistence, came home with a 1999 Honda Civic.
       ``If it would have been entirely up to me, I'd have put her 
     into a used Volvo or, thinking strictly as a parent, a 
     Humvee.''

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, even the National Highway Traffic and 
Safety Administration, which runs the CAFE program, has recognized the 
deadly effects of CAFE standards.
  In its publication ``Small Car Safety in the 1980's,'' NHTSA explains 
that smaller cars are less crash worthy than large ones, even in 
single-vehicle accidents. Small cars have twice the death rate of 
drivers and passengers in crashes as larger cars.
  And smaller light trucks will mean even more fatalities. These trucks 
and SUV's have higher centers of gravity and so are more prone to 
rollovers. If SUV and truck weights are reduced, thousands could die.
  I believe it is crucial that we get the facts straight on the true 
effects of CAFE standards so that we can come to the only rational 
conclusion available: safe, economically sensible increases in gas 
mileage require cooperation and research and technology, not Federal 
mandates.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gorton-Feinstein-Bryan 
amendment.
  Mr. President, it is very simple. When Washington makes these 
dictates, when unelected bureaucrats make these decisions and impose 
them on an industry, the ramifications can and will be serious. We have 
seen that before in the auto industry. If this were to go forward, we 
would see it again. The autoworkers in my State and around this 
country, and the people who work in other industries that are related 
to the sale of automobiles, will have their lives in jeopardy, as well 
as their jobs in jeopardy, if we move in this direction.
  Mr. SHELBY. Will the Senator yield for a UC request?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Let me conclude in 10 seconds.
  For those reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in 
relation to the pending amendment at 6:40 p.m. with the time allocated 
as follows: 30 minutes under the control of Senator Gorton, 40 minutes 
under the control of Senator Abraham, and 10 minutes under the control 
of Senator Levin. I further ask that no other amendments be in order 
prior to the 6:40 vote. I also ask that immediately following that 
vote, a vote occur on amendment No. 1658, with 2 minutes for 
explanation prior to the vote. I understand this request has been 
cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Therefore, it is my understanding the next two votes will 
occur on a back-to-back basis at 6:40 p.m. this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I certainly will.
  Mr. LEVIN. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Michigan and the Chair. I also 
thank the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, for his enlightening 
remarks about this important challenge we face --a challenge which 
would seriously undermine and erode America's competitive position in 
the production of automobiles.
  I want to focus on a different aspect of the corporate average fuel 
economy debate.
  Most Americans, if you talk about CAFE standards, think you will be 
talking about health standards in a restaurant or cleanliness in 
corporate a local coffee shop. In this particular setting, CAFE means 
average fuel economy. Basically, it is the average fuel economy of the 
car produced by a particular company. A company that had a car that had 
a very high corporate average fuel economy also would have to build 
very small vehicles because it takes less fuel to run a small vehicle 
than it does a large vehicle.
  The concept of a corporate average fuel economy standard was 
developed during the oil crisis of the 1970s. It required automobile 
manufacturers to develop vehicles that could travel further with less 
gas. This was due to the shortage of the gasoline that had been imposed 
by the oil industry cartel which had curtailed the availability of 
energy resources to this country.
  The CAFE standards at that time required automakers to maintain, 
fleetwide, an average fuel efficiency of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars 
and 20.7 miles per gallon for trucks.
  This is how the CAFE standards got started. It was to try to help the 
United States get past the energy embargo imposed in the 1970s. It was 
not instituted--I repeat--it was not instituted for clean air purposes. 
Rather, it was adopted to conserve gasoline.
  In fact, Federal regulations require that big cars emit no more 
pollution per mile than small cars. I have to confess, with all 
Americans, that our air is cleaner today than it was 5 years ago or 10 
years ago, and we are pleased that we continue to make progress. The 
air continues to get cleaner and that is a good thing.
  I will focus on the safety impact of increasing CAFE standards. In 
doing so, I will talk about the consequences of imposing CAFE 
standards--but not in terms of making sure we have enough gas to burn 
in the country because the embargo was lifted decades ago.
  I want to focus on the safety aspects of what happens when you demand 
that cars get more and more efficient--that somehow they must be able 
to go farther and farther on a gallon of gas. It does not take any 
special level of intelligence, you do not have to be a rocket scientist 
to understand that in order to meet fuel economy standards, cars and 
trucks have to be made lighter. So in an effort to make cars go further 
on a gallon of gas, the cars and trucks had to be made lighter and 
lighter. Common sense tells us when a lighter and smaller vehicle is 
involved in an accident, passenger injuries will be more severe.
  Since CAFE standards were enacted in the 1970s, the average weight of 
a new car has dropped by about 1,000 pounds. So if you look at the 
weight of a car as being protection--the protective barrier that 
surrounds a passenger--there is 1,000 pounds less of protection in the 
new car than in the cars prior to CAFE standards.
  A recent study from the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, the agency that administers CAFE standards, found that 
increasing the average weight of each passenger car on the road by 100 
pounds would save over 300 lives annually. So if instead of decreasing 
the weight of cars

[[Page S10911]]

in order to reach higher levels of fuel economy we were to add 100 
pounds to the weight of cars, we would save 300 lives every year.
  We are really not debating whether or not we are going to add weight 
to cars; however, this is a debate over whether we are going to mandate 
that car manufacturers make cars out of lighter and lighter materials. 
When you do that, it has a cost in terms of the relatives of the 
Members of this body, our families and our constituents and our 
constituents families.
  A number of studies have been conducted to determine the actual 
effect that the CAFE standards have had on highway safety. I want to 
emphasize that these studies are conducted by very credible agencies--
agencies that would not be anticipated to try and develop information 
that would somehow support the car industry. The National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration is a Federal agency that administers the 
CAFE standards. This agency is talking about the standards, which are 
its job to administer, when it says that if we could increase the 
weight instead of decrease the weight and we did so only by 100 pounds 
per vehicle, we would save 300 lives a year. One person a day, roughly, 
would be saved in America if we had slightly heavier cars. The 
Competitiveness Enterprise Institute found that of the 21,000 car-
occupant deaths that occurred last year, between 2,600 and 4,500 of 
them were attributable to the Federal Government's new car fuel economy 
standards. We have between 2,500 and 4,500 people who don't exist 
anymore, who died because we have demanded lighter and lighter cars in 
order to meet the so-called CAFE standards, just last year.

  That is from the Competitiveness Enterprise Institute. This is not 
from the car manufacturers. This is from an independent think tank.
  A 1989 Harvard University-Brookings Institution study determined that 
the current CAFE standard of 27.5 miles per gallon is responsible for a 
14- to 27-percent increase in annual traffic deaths. These are deaths--
they argue that would not have happened but for the fact that the new 
car fleet must be downsized in order to meet the stricter standards. As 
long as 10 years ago, researchers at Harvard University and the 
Brookings Institution determined that the CAFE standards and the 
imposition of the CAFE standards then extant were responsible for 
between 1/7 and 2/7 of the increase in the annual traffic deaths--just 
that much of a reduction in the weight of cars.
  So we have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, we 
have the Competitiveness Enterprise Institute, the Harvard University-
Brookings Institution study. We have the National Academy of Sciences 
in this decade. This is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM, Ford, or 
Daimler-Chrysler.
  The National Academy of Sciences 1992 study concluded that the 
downsizing of automobiles due to fuel economy requirements has a direct 
impact on passenger safety. That study found:

       Safety and fuel economy are linked, because one of the most 
     direct methods manufacturers can use to improve fuel economy 
     is to reduce vehicle size and weight.

  I really don't want to pick at the National Academy of Sciences. It 
is not just one of the most direct methods used to boost fuel economy; 
it is a very important method.
  The most troubling conclusion from the National Academy of Sciences 
study was:

       It may be inevitable that significant increases in fuel 
     economy can occur only with some negative safety 
     consequences.

  We could go over the litany again: The National Highway 
Transportation Safety Administration, the Harvard University/Brookings 
Institution study, the Competitiveness Enterprise Institute, and the 
National Academy of Sciences--all of these organizations understand 
that it is not a cost-free operation to say we will save a few gallons 
of gas and sacrifice our citizens and their safety on the highways.
  Continuing to quote the National Academy of Sciences:

       The CAFE approach to achieving automotive fuel economy has 
     defects that are sufficiently grievous to warrant careful 
     reconsideration of the approach.

  I personally say we ought to carefully reconsider this approach. One 
study said in 1 year between 2,600 and 4,500 individuals died because 
we have mandated that car manufacturers lighten automobiles so 
substantially that they become death traps for the occupants. I think 
safety ought to be foremost in our consideration. When the National 
Academy of Sciences says we ought to reconsider the approach of 
lightening these cars by demanding more and more fuel economy, I think 
we ought to take that particular admonition seriously.

       The CAFE approach to achieving automotive fuel economy has 
     defects that are sufficiently grievous to warrant 
     careful reconsideration of the approach.

  It is with that in mind that when the National Academy of Sciences 
says we ought to carefully reconsider this approach, I think we ought 
to reject attempts by Members of this body to extend this approach.
  What is at the core of the National Academy of Sciences argument is 
this: They care about these lives that are lost on our highways, people 
who are riding in cars without adequate protection.
  The proponents of this measure dismiss the safety considerations as 
if they are an aside. Frankly, in a setting where our environment 
continues to improve, where our air continues to get cleaner and 
cleaner, we ought to be careful about the number of people we are 
willing to put in jeopardy and at risk. We are not talking about risk 
of a stubbed toe or a hangnail; we are talking about situations where 
individuals lose their lives.
  These standards, according to these studies--whether it is Harvard-
Brookings, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Highway 
Transportation Safety Administration, the National Academy of 
Sciences--are responsible for Americans losing their lives.
  There are those in this body who want to make these standards even 
tougher, in the face of very clear predictions and a conceded 
understanding that to make these standards tougher means more and more 
people die on the highway. Based on experience and research, increasing 
CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon--that is less than proposals 
supported by the President and Vice President of the country; they want 
to take the standards even higher than that--would cost up to 5,700 
people their lives every year.
  I am not even beginning to address the aspect of the government 
telling its citizens what kind of cars they should be driving. This is 
to say that we won't let people buy safe cars, we will make them 
unavailable, and 5,700 a year will lose their lives because we have 
decided that we know better what kind of car people should drive than 
people could know by making their choices in the marketplace.
  I want you to know that this isn't all. I am pleased that Senator 
Abraham submitted for the Record this particular item, which was a 
reprint from the USA Today: ``Death by the Gallon.'' I brought this 
particular chart to show that a USA Today analysis of previously 
unpublished fatality statistics that 46,000 people have died because of 
a 1970s-era push for greater fuel efficiency that has led to smaller 
cars.
  As far as I am concerned 46,000 is 46,000 too many. But to think that 
we want to extend this so as to invite the deaths of as many as 5,700 
more people a year by downsizing this container in which people travel 
called an automobile and lightening it to the extent that it provides 
no cushion of safety for people, or an inadequate cushion of safety, is 
a very serious proposal.
  Forty-six thousand people have died due to the implementation of CAFE 
standards. Is it time to reexamine those standards, or is it time to 
expand those standards? Forty-six thousand angels looking at the Senate 
should be telling us: Reexamine; do not extend those. Forty-six 
thousand people is the equivalent in my State to Joplin, MO. The deaths 
of 46,000 people in my State would wipe out the entire town of Blue 
Springs, MO, or all of Johnson or Christian Counties.
  The average passenger vehicle in 1975 was 14 miles per gallon; today 
it is 20 miles per gallon. That averages 7,700 lost lives for every 
gallon of increased fuel efficiency. I don't think 46,000 lives are 
worth it. I know they are worth more than that. I mean that is not 
worth the 46,000 lives.
  I asked the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to give me an 
opinion on raising CAFE standards and on the

[[Page S10912]]

impact it would have on highway safety. I will insert their response in 
the Record.
  I ask unanimous consent to print this correspondence with the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Insurance Institute


                                           for Highway Safety,

                                   Arlington, VA, August 27, 1999.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: This is in response to your letter 
     of August 20 requesting information from the Institute about 
     relationships between Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) 
     standards and vehicle safety.
       Although the relationships between CAFE standards and 
     vehicle safety are difficult to quantify precisely, there is 
     no question that the two are related because smaller/lighter 
     vehicles have much higher occupant fatality rates than 
     larger/heavier vehicles. But the safer larger/heavier 
     vehicles consume more fuel, so the more ``safer'' vehicles a 
     manufacturer sells the more difficult it becomes to meet the 
     CAFE standards.
       Institute analyses of occupant fatality rates in 1990-95 
     model passenger vehicles show that cars weighing less than 
     2,500 pounds had 214 deaths per million registered vehicles 
     per year, almost double the rate of 111 deaths per million 
     for cars weighing 4,000 pounds or more. Among utility 
     vehicles the differences are even more pronounced: Those 
     weighing less than 2,500 pounds had an occupant death rate of 
     330, more than three times the rate of 101 for utility 
     vehicles weighing 4,000 pounds or more.
       It is important to recognize that these differences are due 
     to factors in addition to the greater risks to occupants of 
     lighter vehicles in collisions with heavier ones. Even in 
     single-vehicle crashes, which account for about half of all 
     passenger vehicle occupant deaths, people in lighter vehicles 
     are at greater risk. The occupant death rate in single-
     vehicle crashes of cars weighing less than 2,500 pounds was 
     83, almost double the rate of 44 for cars weighing 4,000 
     pounds or more. In the lightest utility vehicles the occupant 
     death rate was 199, again more than three times the rate of 
     65 for utility vehicles weighing 4,000 pounds or more.
       The key question concerning the influence of CAFE standards 
     on occupant safety is the extent to which these standards 
     distort the marketplace by promoting additional sales of 
     lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles that would not occur if 
     CAFE constraints weren't in effect. Because CAFE standards 
     are set for a manufacturer's fleet sales, it seems likely 
     that raising these requirements for cars and/or light trucks 
     would encourage a full-line manufacturer to further subsidize 
     the sale of its smaller/lighter vehicles that have higher 
     fuel economy ratings. This would help meet the new 
     requirements while continuing to meet the marketplace demand 
     for the manufacturer's much more profitable larger/heavier 
     vehicles. Obviously the potential purchasers of the larger/
     heavier vehicles are unlikely to be influenced to purchase 
     subsidized small/light vehicles, but at the lower ends of the 
     vehicle size/weight spectrum these subsidies likely would 
     produce a shift in sales towards the lightest and least safe 
     vehicles. The net result would be more occupant deaths than 
     would have occurred if the market were not distorted by CAFE 
     standards.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Brian O'Neill,
                                                        President.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. The institute found that even in single-vehicle 
crashes, which account for about half of all passenger vehicle occupant 
deaths, single-car crashes, people in lighter vehicles are at greater 
risk. I think we could have figured that out. It is pretty clear from 
46,000 deaths that that is understandable.
  The letter also stated:

       . . . the more ``safer'' vehicles a manufacturer sells, the 
     more difficult it becomes to meet the CAFE standards.

So if a manufacturer tries to sell safer, heavier vehicles, it makes it 
impossible for them to meet the Federal standards.
  I want to make one thing very clear. I believe in promoting cleaner 
air. I believe we should be environmentally responsible, and we are 
getting there. I don't believe we should do it at the risk of human 
lives. CAFE standards have killed people. They will continue to kill 
people because cars have been lightened to the extent that they don't 
protect individuals.
  Consumers are not choosing small cars. They look at convenience and 
safety, and then they buy a larger automobile. According to a national 
poll, safety is one of the three main reasons for the popularity of 
sport utility vehicles. Small cars are only 18 percent of all vehicles 
that are on the road, yet they accounted for 37 percent of all the 
deaths in 1997. They are one out of every six vehicles on the road, and 
they are involved in more than one out of every three deaths on the 
highways.
  Some argue these numbers are so high because the small cars are 
getting into accidents with the bigger SUVs. The data does not support 
that. Based on figures from the National Highway Transportation Safety 
Administration, only 1 percent of all small-car deaths involve 
collisions with midsize or large SUVs--1 percent. The real tragedy is 
that these cars are unsafe in one-car accidents or in accidents with 
each other.
  Car-buying experts have said that only 7 percent of new vehicle 
shoppers say they will consider buying a small car. And according to 
that same source, 82 percent who have purchased small cars say they 
would not buy another. Safety-conscious consumers, whether they are my 
constituents in Missouri, or others, are purchasing larger automobiles, 
or sports utility vehicles. But now Washington wants to tell them what 
kind of car to buy, to disregard a value which they place on their own 
safety. We spend millions of dollars a year trying to make our highways 
safer: We fight drunk driving; we mandate seatbelt use; we require auto 
manufacturers to install airbags. Yet today we are being asked to 
support a policy to make our highways more dangerous and more deadly 
than ever before.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to impose higher and 
higher CAFE standards. The attempt to impose higher and higher CAFE 
standards is clearly headed for a consequence of higher and higher 
levels of fatalities. We have seen data from the National Highway 
Transportation Safety Administration. We have seen data from the 
Harvard/Brookings Institution. We have seen data from the National 
Academy of Sciences. We have seen the kind of comprehensive review of 
data published in the USA Today. It is pretty clear, as the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute chimes in, that lightening cars--taking the strong 
substances out of the vehicle so that it goes farther for marginal 
gains in economy, results in more and more people dying.
  I urge my colleagues to be sensitive to the fact that America can ill 
afford to elevate the carnage on our highways by eliminating the kind 
of substance in our vehicles that would be required if we were to adopt 
the amendment that is pending. So I urge them to reject the attempt to 
elevate CAFE standards and, in so doing, protect the lives of 
themselves and their families.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment before us is 
very simply to increase CAFE, despite all the flaws with the CAFE 
system. This is not just a study as is being suggested. The purpose of 
this amendment is very clear from the wording of every single whereas 
clause and every resolve clause: it is to increase CAFE, despite the 
many flaws in the current CAFE system.
  If anybody has any doubt about what the purpose of this amendment is, 
I urge them to read it, and particularly the last paragraph which urges 
the Senate not to recede to section 320 of the bill as passed by the 
House of Representatives, which prevents an increase in CAFE standards.

  Now, some have said all this amendment does is provide for a study. 
Well, this is a study whose results have been prejudged and 
preordained, by the authors of this amendment, because there is not one 
word in this amendment about safety concerns, as the Senator from 
Missouri and my colleague from Michigan have talked about, or about the 
increase in the number of deaths which have resulted from CAFE. Those 
are not our allegations but safety experts' allegations. There is not 
one word in this amendment about the loss of American jobs and the 
discriminatory impact of CAFE against domestic production. I will get 
into that in a moment.
  This isn't just a study we are talking about. The sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution specifically says that the Senate should not recede to a 
section in the House bill which prevents an increase

[[Page S10913]]

in CAFE standards. It doesn't say anything about not receding to a 
section which prevents a study. It doesn't talk about a study which 
looks at highway safety, impact on domestic employment, favoritism 
toward imports, discriminatory impacts on domestic manufacturers and 
workers. It doesn't talk about that at all. There is not a word about 
any of these issues in this amendment--only about increasing the CAFE 
standards.
  There are many flaws in the CAFE approach. My colleagues have already 
gone into some of those flaws at length. But first I want to again 
quote, very briefly, from the National Academy of Sciences' automotive 
fuel economy study, so that people don't think opposition to this 
amendment comes only from folks who have a lot of automobile production 
in their State--although we do and we are proud of it, and we are 
determined that it be treated fairly and sensibly. We surely stand for 
that, and we do so proudly. But this is the National Academy of 
Sciences speaking here. The National Academy of Sciences said the 
following in this automotive fuel economy study:

       The CAFE approach to achieving automotive fuel economy has 
     defects that are sufficiently grievous to warrant careful 
     reconsideration of the approach.

  ``Defects that are sufficiently grievous.'' There is not a word about 
studying those defects in this amendment. I have looked really hard 
through this amendment. I read it a couple of times this afternoon. I 
can't find anything about studying those defects that are 
``sufficiently grievous,'' according to the National Academy of 
Sciences--that they should be part of the study. The purpose of this 
resolution is to increase CAFE, to bring about the result that CAFE is 
increased.
  Now, why not do that? Why not increase CAFE? Sure, let's just 
increase the number from 20 to 25, or 30 to 35, or 35 to 40. Why not? 
We will save fuel. The answer is, because there are a number of other 
considerations that have to be looked at, which weren't looked at when 
this CAFE system was put into place. CAFE has had a discriminatory 
impact on the domestic industry and has had a horrendous effect on 
safety and resulted in the loss of thousands of lives.
  Now, the safety issue has been discussed this afternoon, but I want 
to just highlight one or two parts of it, although the Senator from 
Missouri has just spoken to it. There was a USA Today study. This isn't 
an auto industry study. This isn't an auto supplier study. This isn't 
the UAW study. This is a study by USA Today looking at statistics on 
automobile highway deaths.
  Here is what the USA Today study found. They found that in the 24 
years since a landmark law to conserve fuel was passed, big cars have 
shrunk to less-safe sizes, and small cars have poured on the road, and, 
as a result, 46,000 people have died in crashes. They would have 
survived in bigger, heavier cars, according to the USA Today analysis 
of crash data since 1975 when the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
was passed. The law and the corporate average fuel economy standards it 
imposed have improved fuel efficiency. The average passenger vehicle on 
U.S. roads gets 20 miles per gallon versus 14 miles per gallon in 1975. 
But the cost has been, roughly, 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon 
gained, this analysis shows.
  Is it worth looking at fuel economy? Of course it is. Is it worth 
looking at 46,000 deaths? Is it worth putting that on the scale and at 
least looking at it? It sure ought to be. There is not a word about 
that in this resolution, nothing about safety. We are told this 
amendment is only about a study. Well, if so, it is the most one-sided 
study I have ever seen.
  Now, it has been argued: Wait a minute, aren't these deaths the 
result of small cars running into big vehicles? Again, the study 
answers that. Tellingly, it says most small-crash deaths involve only 
small cars--56 percent in 1997, from the latest Government data. They 
run into something else, such as a tree, or into one another. In 
contrast, just 1 percent--according to this article--of small-car 
deaths occurred in crashes with midsize or big sport utility vehicles 
in 1997, according to statistics from the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, according to the agency that enforces the safety 
rules.

  That is one of the major problems with CAFE--the safety problem, the 
loss of life.
  There are other problems as well. I would like to spend a few of the 
minutes allotted to me to talk about the discrimination of this system 
against domestic production. One of the many problems with CAFE is that 
it looks at the entire fleet. It looks at the average of the 
manufacturers' fleet. That fleet could be predominantly small in size. 
It could be predominantly medium in size. It could be predominantly 
large in size. It doesn't make any difference what your mix is; you 
must meet the same corporate fleet average.
  If you have produced, for instance, historically many small vehicles, 
then because of the way the CAFE rules are jiggered, there are no 
effective limits on how many large vehicles you can sell. But if 
historically you have produced larger vehicles, then it has a 
tremendous impact on your production and a penalty for the production 
of more.
  The result of this is that if, as in the case with the imports, you 
have focused on lighter vehicles rather than the heavier vehicles, 
which are very much now in demand, CAFE has no effect whatsoever on 
your production or on your sales. But if you are a domestic 
manufacturer that has focused on the larger vehicles, it has a huge 
effect on you and on the number of jobs you might have.
  There is no logic or fairness to that kind of approach. CAFE didn't 
say you have to increase by 10 percent the efficiency of your light 
vehicles, or your medium-size vehicles, or your heavier vehicles. It 
says: Take your whole fleet together and reach a certain standard.
  Some people say: Well, aren't the imports more fuel efficient? The 
answer is no. Pound for pound, there is no difference between an 
imported vehicle and a domestic vehicle. A domestic vehicle is probably 
a little bit more fuel efficient.
  Take two vehicles of the same size. Take a GM and Toyota pickup 
truck--the GM Sierra, and the Toyota Tundra. They both weigh about the 
same. These are their highway ratings: 18 miles per gallon for the GM 
vehicle, and 17 miles per gallon for the Toyota vehicle. The GM vehicle 
is more fuel efficient than the Toyota. These are the same size 
vehicles. Now we are comparing apples and apples--not fleet averages 
which are apples and oranges, but apples and apples. The city rating is 
the same thing. The GM Sierra has a 15-miles-per-gallon rating. The 
Toyota Tundra has a 14-miles-per-gallon rating.
  So the discriminatory impact does not have anything to do with the 
efficiency of vehicles of the same size since, if anything, the 
domestic vehicle is at least as efficient as the import when you 
compare the same size vehicles.
  Then where is the discriminatory impact? The discriminatory impact 
arises because the import manufacturers have tended to focus on the 
smaller vehicles instead of the larger vehicles. They have room to sell 
as many large vehicles as they want without any impact. CAFE does not 
affect them. Any manufacturer that has focused on the smaller vehicles 
instead of the larger suffers no impact when CAFE goes up.
  Let's go back to that Tundra and that Sierra. How many more vehicles 
could General Motors sell? These are the same size vehicles. With the 
GM vehicle being slightly more fuel efficient than the Toyota vehicle, 
how many more can GM sell under CAFE? None. How many more can Toyota 
sell? Over 300,000 more.
  Does that do anything for the air? It is costing American jobs. It 
doesn't do a thing for the air. All it does is tell people if they want 
to buy a vehicle, a large vehicle, they have to buy the imported 
vehicle, and not the domestic one. The domestic manufacturer is 
penalized if it is produced under the CAFE approach.
  CAFE was designed in a way--I don't think intentionally, and I pray 
to God it wasn't--but it was designed in a way which has a 
discriminatory impact on the domestic producer because of the way in 
which their fleets happened to be designed historically--because of the 
type of cars they sold historically--and not because the imported 
vehicle is more fuel efficient. It isn't.

[[Page S10914]]

  These numbers are typical. If you have two vehicles of equal size, 
one import and one domestic, they are about the same in terms of fuel 
efficiency.
  So when you increase CAFE, all you are saying is buy an import. That 
is what this thing drives people to do. The import manufacturer isn't 
penalized. There is no limit effectively on how many larger vehicles 
the import manufacturers can sell. It bites on the domestic 
manufacturers--not on the imports. That is a huge effect on jobs in 
America, with no advantage to the air.
  Do we think it does good to the air to tell people to buy yourself a 
Tundra instead of a Sierra? Does that do anything for the air? Quite 
the opposite. It hurts the air. The Tundra is not as fuel efficient as 
the Sierra. Yet there is no penalty whatsoever under CAFE for the 
import manufacturer selling basically an unlimited number of heavy 
vehicles.
  We have a system in place now which has had a very negative effect on 
safety and an increase in the number of highway deaths. These are not 
our figures but figures of people who are on the outside looking at the 
statistics of the highway safety folks. It has had a negative effect in 
terms of domestic versus imports, which is discriminatory.
  Again, I want to emphasize this. It is a very important point. Some 
people think the imports are more fuel efficient. They are not.
  It is the key point. They are not more fuel efficient--slightly less; 
if I had to characterize--there is no difference, basic difference, 
pound for pound.
  What does this amendment do? It expands the current system. We have 
CAFE; let's increase the CAFE standards. Let's not even look at impact 
on safety, increased highway deaths, or discriminatory impact on 
domestic production. That is not referred to in this amendment. Just 
fuel. That is it.
  But CAFE's discriminatory impact takes such a narrow vision, a narrow 
view on jobs in America. I hope this amendment is defeated. It is 
pointing in a very narrow direction, in a direction which ignores the 
discriminatory impact on jobs in America. It ignores safety issues and 
focuses on one piece of an issue, ignoring totally the other parts.
  Finally, the Government and the private sector or private industry 
have put together a partnership for new vehicles. This partnership is 
focusing on new technologies and new materials, trying to see if we 
cannot find ways to have larger vehicles with higher fuel economy. This 
partnership is looking at lightweight materials, advanced batteries, 
fuel cells, hybrid electric propulsion systems; experimental concepts 
sometimes, but things which will--in a cooperative way--achieve the 
kind of goal which CAFE theoretically was aimed at achieving.
  This partnership approach for a new generation of vehicles is 
working. It is in operation now. It is the right way to go. The 
Government contribution to this partnership has been about $220 million 
a year. The private sector's annual contribution to this partnership 
has been slightly under $1 billion a year. We have this investment in a 
partnership, in a new generation of vehicles which is aimed at 
achieving significant improvements in fuel efficiency without the 
downsides, which have been described here--the negative safety impacts 
and the negative effects on domestic production. That partnership is 
now in its fourth year. We should allow that partnership to proceed. It 
is on a cooperative track, aimed at achieving goals without such 
negative side effects.
  I hope the Senate will reject this resolution and will keep on the 
partnership track which is being so productively followed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the pending 
resolution that will give the Department of Transportation the green 
light to raise CAFE standards. According to the proponents of the 
resolution, the amendment just lets DOT ``study'' the issue. I am 
concerned that is not accurate. The DOT has already recommended up to a 
35 percent increase in light truck standards.
  The CAFE program has been in place for 25 years. We know this program 
doesn't work. We know this program has not reduced America's dependence 
on foreign oil. In fact, America's dependence on foreign oil has 
increased from 35 to 50 percent.
  Pollution controls on today's automobiles have driven down pollution 
levels in this nation. It's the older automobiles that have been 
targeted--it's the folks who cannot afford to buy a new $30,000 fuel 
efficient car. Believe it or not Mr. President, but a 1982 Chevy pickup 
is a very popular vehicle on Montana's highways. We can't expect to 
make new cars affordable if we make them more expensive by driving up 
the cost of these new cars through increased government regulation.
  Fuel economies in vehicles have been reduced as a result of 
manufacturer efforts. Since 1980, light trucks fleet fuel economy has 
increased by nearly 2.5 miles per gallon. Passenger car fleet fuel 
economy has increased by nearly 4.5 miles per gallon.
  In my state of Montana, we are very highway dependent. Our roadways 
are our only means of transportation. We cannot efficiently rely on 
transit modes of transportation. Montana is also dependent on vehicles 
that have adequate clearance and power for roads that are not up to the 
standard of a paved highway. We have farmers, ranchers, outdoorsmen and 
sportsmen that use these roads often.
  CAFE standards have failed to achieve their goals. Despite these 
standards, oil imports are up and Americans continue to drive more 
miles annually than they did in the 1970s. CAFE standards force 
automakers to produce many smaller, lighter vehicles to increase fuel 
economy. Studies have demonstrated an increase in highway injuries and 
deaths as a result.
  We know it's not government regulation that drives fuel economy. 
Rather competition drives fuel economy. That is why I will not support 
this amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose the Gorton amendment on CAFE 
standards. I oppose lifting the freeze on CAFE standards because it 
would hurt American workers, American consumers and our economy.
  First, if we raise CAFE standards--we lose American jobs. More and 
more American workers are building larger cars and sport utility 
vehicles. That's because these are the cars that Americans want to buy. 
But if we raise CAFE standards, U.S. car makers will be forced to build 
smaller cars. That means higher costs--for new equipment, new product 
lines, new tests. I'd rather see these resources used to leapfrog to 
new technologies that make cars safer and more efficient.
  Meanwhile, our foreign competitors won't have to do anything. They 
won't face new costs. So by raising CAFE standards, we'll put American 
workers at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors.
  Second, raising the CAFE standards means fewer choices and higher 
prices for American consumers. Americans are buying larger cars and 
SUVs because they're safer and better fit their families' needs. So by 
raising CAFE standards, consumers will have fewer large cars to choose 
from. They'll also face higher prices--since manufacturers will pass on 
their higher costs.
  Finally, we cannot forget the reason why so many Americans are buying 
larger cars--because they are safer. If we have more small cars on the 
road, we will likely have more injuries and fatalities that result from 
car accidents.
  We need to save America's economy, America's jobs and American lives. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this effort to lift the 
freeze on CAFE standards.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, unfortunately I will not be present 
when the Senate votes on the amendment offered by Senators Gorton, 
Bryan, and Feinstein. The amendment expresses the sense of the Senate 
that it should not recede to the House position of prohibiting the 
Department of Transportation from preparing, proposing or promulgating 
any regulation regarding Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) 
standards for vehicles.
  As my colleagues know, I have been and will continue to be a 
proponent of the CAFE program. The fuel conservation goals embodied in 
the original CAFE standards are still important. However, I would not 
support the amendment offered today. CAFE is an extremely complex 
issue. It involves a

[[Page S10915]]

delicate balance between environmental, safety and economic concerns. 
CAFE standards need and deserve the full attention of the Congress.
  The structure of the CAFE statute appears to no longer make sense in 
light of the current auto market. For example, the statute draws a 
distinction between non-passenger vehicles, essentially light trucks 
and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and passenger vehicles. The statute 
establishes a default standard for passenger vehicles and allows the 
Department of Transportation to adjust the level up or down based upon 
certain criteria.
  The statute does not establish a standard for light trucks. Instead, 
the agency sets the standard at its discretion based upon criteria in 
the statute. One of the reasons for the distinction was the size of the 
non-passenger vehicle market. At the time the CAFE was enacted, light 
trucks and SUVs represented approximately 15 percent of the market. 
Now, they are approximately 50 percent of the market. In some states 
like my home state of Arizona they represent more than 54 percent of 
new car sales. I question the wisdom of allowing an agency sole 
discretion over the fuel economy standards of 50 percent of the auto 
market without any guidance from Congress.
  In 1992, the National Research Council conducted what is considered 
to be the most comprehensive study of the CAFE program. In the 
executive summary of that report, the study committee made the 
following statement ``[I]n this committee's view, the determination of 
the practically achievable levels of fuel economy is appropriately the 
domain of the political process, not this committee.'' The Committee 
rightly concluded that many of the issues surrounding CAFE involve 
tradeoffs that are public policy decisions, not a simple scientific 
conclusion. It is my intent to follow this advice and bring this debate 
back to Congress to determine how we should approach fuel economy 
standards as we enter the new millennium.
  As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, it is my intention to 
hold hearings on CAFE early next year to examine this structure. Over 
the next few weeks, I will contact the Department of Transportation, 
the General Accounting Office, environmental groups, the major 
automobile manufacturers and the highway safety groups to solicit their 
views and begin the process of examining the statute.
  Some of my colleagues argue that we should allow the Department of 
Transportation to move forward on a parallel track with the legislative 
process. I disagree with this argument for two reasons. First, the rule 
making process will further polarize and distract all of the parties on 
a specific proposal before consideration is complete on substantive 
changes to the law. Second, should a legislative solution be crafted, 
the agency, as well as interested members of the public will have 
wasted time and resources developing and responding to a standard, 
which will never be implemented.
  Mr. President, I look forward to holding hearings on this matter and, 
I look forward to the participation of my colleagues on both sides of 
this issue as we move forward.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I inquire how much time remains for the various sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, has 1 
minute; the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, has 19 minutes and the 
Senator from Washington has 30 minutes.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I know there may be other speakers on our side. As I 
indicated earlier, the proponents of the amendment had over an hour to 
initially make their case. We agreed to a time agreement that gives 
less than that in terms of bringing it up to balance. I don't want to 
run any more time off of our clock at this stage.
  I ask unanimous consent that time during a quorum call run off the 
time of the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is often said, I think accurately, that 
what differentiates human beings from most other animals, most other 
mammals, is the extraordinary ability of human beings to learn from 
experience. Yet on the floor of the Senate this afternoon we have heard 
eloquent statements opposing this current amendment that indicate that 
experience is of no value to some Members and to some of their 
arguments.
  Mr. President, 25 years ago the predecessors of the opponents to this 
amendment repeatedly stated on the floor of the Senate, as well as in 
the hearing rooms of the Senate, that to require more fuel-efficient 
automobiles and small trucks was to endanger the safety and the lives 
of the American people and to sentence them to driving in subcompacts 
and sub-subcompacts.
  There are only two differences between the circumstances of the 
argument in 1974 and the circumstances of the argument in 1999. The 
first of those differences is that all of the arguments of those who 
opposed setting higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and 
small trucks made in 1974 were proved dramatically to be in error. At 
one level, the most important of those arguments was that people would 
no longer have choice; they would all be forced into smaller 
automobiles. Here it is 25 years later. We know that is not the case. 
The requirements imposed in 1974 were, for all practical purposes, 
completely met within a period of 6 years, and the course has been 
essentially flat since that day.
  Every single day of the week, every year, 7 days a week, 365 days a 
year, the people of the United States save 3 million gallons of 
gasoline. Multiply 3 million gallons by $1.50 a gallon. That is $4.5 
million. They pollute the air less; they spend less money; they 
contribute less to our international trade deficit that continues to 
grow year after year. And, second, our highways are far safer now than 
they were then. Traffic deaths per million miles driven have declined 
by more than 50 percent in the years since those fuel efficiency 
standards were imposed on the American people. Yet we hear some of the 
same arguments being made over and over again.

  But there is another difference between the argument in 1999 and the 
argument in 1974. In 1974, the Senate was debating whether or not to 
allow specific new standards to go into effect. In 1999, we are arguing 
whether or not to allow the Federal Government to engage in a 
proceeding that determines whether or not new and more fuel-efficient 
standards are appropriate and achievable. So in addition to ignoring 
history and experience, the opponents have to say that they oppose 
knowledge, that they oppose even a vitally important study of if and 
how much fuel efficiency standards can be improved, consistent with 
safety and consistent with the economic well-being of the American 
people.
  While I have not heard every word that has been stated on this floor 
in opposition to this bill, it does seem to me there is at least a 
minor difference. There does not seem to have been a claim that more 
fuel-efficient cars will not benefit the environment that is to say, to 
cause us to have cleaner air and fewer emissions into our air. Whatever 
the debate was in 1974, that is not a statement now. Nor has any one of 
our opponents stated that it is a poor idea to save the American people 
millions of dollars a day in their bill for motor vehicle fuel. Nor 
have they made any statement that somehow or another our huge trade 
deficit, largely caused by imported petroleum products, is a matter to 
which we as Americans should be indifferent.
  Almost all of their argument has been on the safety issue. But it has 
been on the safety issue in the teeth of the experience of the American 
society, and it has been on the safety issue in the teeth of the 
proposition that if we carry out the policies contained in this 
amendment, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, we are not 
automatically going to impose new fuel efficiency standards. We are 
simply going to go into an orderly process to determine whether or not 
new standards are feasible and, if so, how strict they should be and, 
if so, how long it should take to implement them.

[[Page S10916]]

  I find it breathtaking that Members of the Senate should say, no, we 
don't want that knowledge. We are not even willing to wait until some 
specific standards are proposed and specific knowledge gained to debate 
whether or not the imposition of those standards is worthwhile.
  No, we want the Senate to vote to stay ignorant, not even to learn 
what good public policy might be and what any of the offsets to that 
good public policy might be as well.
  Mr. President, I am not a great fan of the current national 
administration, but I do not think anything irrevocable is going to 
take place in the next year, in any event, and certainly not over the 
objections of the Congress of the United States. But I am not so 
mistrustful of a group of professionals that I am willing to say even 
to this administration we should not allow them to examine this issue. 
Incidentally, this freeze has gone through Republican administrations, 
as well as Democratic administrations, in any event.
  No, there are only two arguments being made against this amendment. 
The substantive argument is that we should ignore history and believe 
arguments in 1999 that were made in 1974 and shown to be entirely 
invalid in 1974; and second, the proposition that we should remain 
ignorant, that this is not important enough, not significant enough to 
the American people that we should even begin a process of determining 
whether or not we can clean up our air, make our cars more fuel 
efficient, become less dependent on foreign oil, and at the same time, 
increase the safety standards in our automobiles.
  The debate is neither more complicated nor less complicated than just 
that. It should be understood by everyone, and I plead with my 
colleagues in this body to allow this process to go forward and to 
debate a real proposal, not a theoretical set of objections that were 
invalid in 1974 and are equally invalid in 1999.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution on fuel economy standards. This resolution has been 
controversial in my state, and I believe its effect on automobile fuel 
economy standards has been misunderstood by some. I want to make my 
position clear: though I will vote in favor of this resolution, I have 
reservations about some of the language it contains, reservations I 
made known to the amendment sponsors.
  My vote today is about Congress getting out of the way and letting a 
federal agency meet the requirements of federal law originally imposed 
by Congress. I will support this resolution because I am concerned that 
Congress has for 5 years now blocked the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, NHTSA, part of the Federal Department of 
Transportation, from meeting its legal duty to evaluate whether there 
is a need to modify fuel economy standards by legislative rider since 
Fiscal Year 1996. The resolution simply says the Senate should not 
recede to Section 320 of the House bill.
  I believe that the outcome of any assessment of fuel economy 
standards needs should not be pre-judged. I am concerned that the 
wording of this resolution needlessly fails to be fully neutral. It 
tips too far toward saying that the result of an assessment should be a 
quote increase unquote in fuel economy standards. I have made no 
determination about what fuel economy standards should be. NHTSA is not 
required under the law to increase fuel economy standards, but it is 
required to examine on a regular basis whether there is a need for 
changes to fuel economy standards. NHTSA has the authority to set new 
standards for a given model year taking into account several factors: 
technological feasibility, economic practicability, other vehicle 
standards such as those for safety and environmental performance, and 
the need to conserve energy. I want NHTSA to fully and fairly evaluate 
all the criteria, and then make an objective recommendation on the 
basis of those facts. I will expect them to do that, and I will respect 
their judgement. After NHTSA makes a recommendation, if it does so, I 
will then consult with all interested parties--unions, environmental 
interests, auto manufacturers, and other interested Wisconsin citizens 
about their perspectives on NHTSA's recommendation.
  However, just as the outcome of NHTSA's assessment should not be pre-
judged, the language of the House rider certainly should not have so 
blatantly pre-judged and precluded any new objective assessment of fuel 
economy standards. Section 320 of the House bill states:

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available to 
     prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations pursuant to 
     title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act 
     (49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.) prescribing corporate average fuel 
     economy standards for automobiles, as defined in such title, 
     in any model year that differs from standards promulgated for 
     such automobiles prior to enactment of this section.

  The House language effectively prevents NHTSA from collecting any 
information about the impact of changing the fuel economy standards in 
any way. Under the House language, not only would NHTSA be prohibited 
from collecting information or developing standards to raise fuel 
economy standards, it couldn't collect information or develop standards 
to lower them either. The House language assumes that NHTSA has a 
particular agenda, that NHTSA will recommend standards which can't be 
achieved without serious impacts, and uses an appropriations bill to 
circumvent the law's requirements to evaluate fuel efficiency and 
maintain the current standards again for another fiscal year. I cannot 
support retaining this rider in the law at this time.
  The NHTSA should be allowed freely to provide Congress with 
information about whether fuel efficiency improvements are possible and 
advisable. Congress needs to understand whether or not improvements in 
fuel economy can and should be made using existing technologies. 
Congress should also know which emerging technologies may have the 
potential to improve fuel economy. Congress also needs to know that if 
improvements are technically feasible, what is the appropriate time 
frame in which to make such changes in order to avoid harm to our auto 
sector employment. I don't believe that Congress should confuse our 
role as policymakers with our obligation to appropriate funds. Changes 
in fuel economy standards could have a variety of consequences. I seek 
to understand those consequences and to balance the concerns of those 
interested in seeing improvements to fuel economy as a means of 
reducing gasoline consumption and associated pollution.
  I deeply respect the views of those who are concerned that a change 
in fuel economy would threaten the economic prosperity of Wisconsin's 
automobile industry. Earlier this year I visited Daimler Chrysler's 
Kenosha Engine plant and I met with union representatives from the 
Janesville GM plant. In those meetings I heard significant concerns 
that a sharp increase in fuel economy standards, implemented in the 
very near term, will have serious consequences. I want to avoid 
consequences that will unduly burden Wisconsin workers and their 
employers. In the end, I would like to see that Wisconsin consumers 
have a wide range of new automobiles, SUVs, and trucks available to 
them that are as fuel efficient as can be achieved while balancing 
energy concerns with technological and economic impacts. That balancing 
is required by the law. At its core this resolution does not disturb 
that balance, but I wish the language had been more neutral, so that 
all concerned could be more confident that the process is neutral. In 
that spirit, I fully expect NHTSA to proceed with the intent to fully 
consider all those factors.
  In supporting this resolution, I take the position that the agency 
responsible for collecting information about fuel economy be allowed to 
do its job, in order to help me do my job. I expect them to be fair and 
neutral in that process and I will work with interested Wisconsinites 
to ensure that their views are represented and the regulatory process 
proceeds in a fair and reasonable manner toward whatever conclusions 
the merits will support.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in support of the 
Gorton-Feinstein sense-of-the-Senate resolution which would allow the 
Department of Transportation to evaluate and update the Corporate 
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. For the past four legislative 
sessions, a rider has been attached to the transportation bills to 
prevent evaluations of CAFE. This year, 31 Senators signed a letter to 
President Clinton urging him

[[Page S10917]]

to support their efforts to increase CAFE standards. We are not here 
today to raise the standards but merely to allow the Department of 
Transportation to consider the potential benefits and costs of existing 
or future CAFE standards.
  CAFE standards were originally enacted in response to the oil crisis 
of the 1970s and were adopted in 1975 to reduce oil consumption. 
Currently the standard for new passenger cars is 27.5 miles per gallon 
and for light trucks is 20.7 miles per gallon. CAFE standards have had 
the effect of making cars and trucks more energy efficient than they 
would have been without the standards. As such, energy efficiency, 
decreased oil consumption, and global climate change are intertwined.
  Global climate change is an issue that has been quite contentious in 
international and domestic circles alike, however, the undeniable 
scientific truth exists that the burning of fossil fuels and emissions 
from mobile sources results in the emission of numerous greenhouse 
gases: the major contributor being carbon dioxide. A study on the 
impacts of CAFE has the potential to lessen the impact of automobile 
emissions into the environment based on the directly proportional 
relationship of a cars' miles per gallon and the amount of carbon 
dioxide emissions produced. The Department of Energy reported in 1997 
that transportation accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. oil 
consumption and comprises about one-third of U.S. carbon dioxide 
emissions. The increase in sales of less fuel efficient SUVs and light 
trucks has and will continue to result in growing energy consumption 
and related emissions in the transportation sector. CAFE standards are 
regarded by many as an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
from automobiles.
  The bottom line today is that the emissions of greenhouse gases must 
be reduced. We must develop industrial practices and means of 
transportation which are less dependent on fossile fuels. Allowing a 
reevaluation of CAFE standards is one way to start.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support 
for the bipartisan effort to remove yet another anti-environment rider 
from an important appropriations bill. This rider, which is attached to 
the House Transportation Appropriations bill, would prohibit the 
Department of Transportation from even considering an increase in the 
corporate average fuel economy standard (CAFE). This rider would 
prevent DOT from evaluating, in any way, the cost-effectiveness and 
pollution-prevention dividends that could result from requiring greater 
fuel efficiency from cars and trucks.
  I am particularly concerned with this anti-CAFE rider, in part, 
because it is another in a long line of riders designed to limit our 
government's ability to consider meaningful, appropriate, effective, 
and economical strategies to combat local and regional air pollution as 
well as global climate change.
  More than 117 million Americans live in places where smog makes their 
air unsafe to breathe. Nearly one-third of this pollution, which 
aggravates respiratory diseases, especially among vulnerable groups 
such as children, asthmatics, and the elderly, is emitted from car and 
truck tailpipes.
  Cost-effectively protecting people's health by improving local air 
quality requires that we consider each of the sources that contribute 
to the pollution problem. It just makes sense that any efficient, fair, 
and reasonable pollution prevention strategy should consider all 
sources of pollution, including vehicles.
  There are many ways to address pollution from cars and trucks. For 
example, more rigorous emissions limits are currently being proposed by 
the Environmental Protection Agency. Efficiency standards represent 
another approach. The original CAFE standards have helped keep fuel 
consumption nearly 30 percent lower than if CAFE had not been 
implemented. Efficiency standards led to dramatic improvements in other 
sectors as well, such as major appliances. The purpose of the clean air 
resolution is not to mandate one approach over another but to allow the 
Administration to explore the benefits and costs of all the options.
  From a global perspective, there is a growing scientific and 
international consensus that air pollution, largely caused by burning 
fuels such as coal and oil, is causing changes in the earth's climate. 
I believe that America has a moral obligation to meet the tremendous 
challenge of climate change head on rather than leaving a bigger 
problem for our children and grandchildren.
  As the world's biggest emitter of the pollution that contributes to 
climate change, the United States has the responsibility to lead the 
international community toward a solution. And because our cars and 
trucks currently represent nearly one-third of America's greenhouse gas 
emissions, and projections suggest that our miles driven will increase 
by roughly 2% a year through the next decade, vehicle emissions are a 
big part of a giant challenge.
  A recent report by the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Council 
for an Energy Efficient Economy, and several other groups, found 
enhanced CAFE standards to be an essential part of a comprehensive 
strategy to address global climate change. The study found that 
increased CAFE standards could be part of a plan to achieve a 10% 
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions while creating 800,000 jobs and 
saving $21 billion annually in reduced oil imports.
  Improving the gas mileage of the cars and trucks we drive would 
provide many other benefits to both the consumer and the country. 
Whereas less money spent at the pump means more money in Americans' 
pockets, less money spent at the pump also means less dependence on 
unpredictable imported oil.
  Unfortunately, there is an active misinformation campaign underway 
opposing the clean air resolution and CAFE standards. Chief among the 
claims is that the CAFE standards we have had for the last 25 years 
kill people. This is a ludicrous argument underpinned by contorted 
misinterpretations of long-since refuted assumptions. One simple 
observation puts CAFE opponents faulty logic to rest: since CAFE 
standards were adopted in 1973, the number of deaths per mile driven 
have been cut in half. The increased safety of our vehicles is largely 
attributable to material and design improvements that increase fuel 
efficiency at the same time they improve acceleration, braking, 
handling, durability and crashworthiness.
  Finally, I would alert my colleagues to a poll released yesterday 
regarding fuel efficiency standards. The poll, which was conducted by 
the Mellman Group for the World Wildlife Fund, indicates that 72% of 
sport utility vehicle (SUVs) owners believe that minivans and trucks 
should be held to the same efficiency standards as passenger cars. In 
addition, nearly two-thirds SUV owners support Congressional action to 
require equitable emissions requirements for cars and light trucks.
  The clean air resolution introduced today by Senators Gorton, 
Feinstein, Bryan, and Reed ensures that enhanced CAFE standards are on 
the menu of options when the Department of Transportation considers the 
implications of vehicle efficiency for local, regional, and global air 
pollution, consumer protection and satisfaction, and energy security. I 
encourage my colleagues to support the clean air resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan if he wants to make a response to 
my friend from Washington, and then I would like to ask the Senator 
from Washington after such time as the Senator from Michigan speaks 
that I might be reserved a little time.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I have been informed we have Members on 
our side who still want to speak, so I have been holding our remaining 
time for them. I do not want to put the Senator from Washington and the 
Senator from Nevada in the position of exhausting all of their time 
before we have rebuttal. I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 minutes and the Senator 
from Washington has 11 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. BRYAN. May I inquire, if the Senator is not going to go forward, 
as I understand the unanimous consent

[[Page S10918]]

agreement, when we are in a quorum call, all of the time is charged to 
our side. I certainly am not trying in any way to preempt the comments 
the Senator wants to make, but if we go back into the quorum call, it 
seems we will have it charged to our side.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, rather than sitting here doing nothing, 
will the Senator from Michigan allow the Senator from Nevada to speak 
and it be charged against the time both are not using equally?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I will make some comments then. I wanted to clarify the 
amount of time we have, and we will see if other Members come down. Let 
me do the following: I will suggest the absence of a quorum and suggest 
the time be taken off my time while I prepare to make these comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will make some brief remarks in 
response to some of the comments that have been made by the Senator 
from Washington and others, as well as to elaborate on some of my 
earlier remarks today.
  First, I point out that with respect to the safety issues, the 
question is not whether on a cumulative basis there have been fewer 
fatalities since the implementation of CAFE standards. The question is 
what the consequence is or the correlation is between fatalities and 
CAFE standards.
  Since 1975, on a variety of fronts, safety efforts have gone forward 
to protect passengers and drivers in motor vehicles ranging from the 
introduction of airbags to State laws which require the use of 
seatbelts, primary laws that require the use of seatbelts to the 
introduction of countless child safety and passenger protection 
activities and child safety seats. One cannot draw that correlation.
  What one can, of course, do is follow the studies of USA Today and 
the National Academy of Sciences that try to determine what the direct 
effects of CAFE have been, and those effects are quite clear. As the 
Senator from Missouri and my counterpart, my colleague from Michigan, 
have indicated, the conclusion is the direct consequence of CAFE 
standards has been an increase in fatalities since 1975 of an estimated 
46,000 people who lost their lives as a consequence of CAFE standards 
because of the lighter vehicles and the less safe vehicles that CAFE 
has fostered.
  Mr. President, I note the Senator from Ohio is here. He wishes to 
speak, and I yield up to 5 minutes to him.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan. I join 
in his comments. We have heard talk on the floor about the environment. 
I want to talk, though, about another aspect of this, and it is the 
aspect my friend from Michigan has just been talking about. That is the 
question of highway safety.
  I vehemently oppose this amendment. We are dealing with a question of 
lives. The basic facts are that heavier cars, heavier vehicles are 
safer, and the statistics are absolutely abundantly clear.
  I will share some statistics with the Members of the Senate so 
everyone knows exactly on what we are voting.
  An analysis by the Insurance Institute shows that cars weighing less 
than 2,500 pounds had 214 deaths per million vehicles per year. That is 
almost double the rate of vehicles that weigh 4,000 pounds or more. For 
vehicles that weigh 4,000 pounds or more, the death rate was 111 per 
million. For cars weighing less than 2,500 pounds, that was 214 deaths 
per million. It is double, absolutely double the figure.
  The reality is that the majority of car fatalities in this country 
today occur in single vehicle crashes. To determine what costs lives 
and what does not, it is essential and important to look at single car 
weights and death rates.
  I share another statistic with my colleagues, again, to emphasize 
what we are saying.
  This is not just an ``environmental issue.'' This is not just an 
``easy environmental vote.'' This is a question of life and death that 
we can measure.
  Among utility vehicles, the results are even more pronounced. For 
those weighing less than 2,500 pounds, the death rate per million was 
83. That was almost double the rate of 44 for cars weighing 4,000 
pounds or more. So again, under 2,500 pounds for utility vehicles, the 
death rate was 83 per million; but for cars weighing 4,000 pounds or 
more, it was only 44 per million. Again, it is double the rate.
  In the lightest utility vehicles, the occupant death rate was 199; 
again, in this case, more than 3 times the rate of 65 for utility 
vehicles weighing 4,000 pounds or more.
  In conclusion, I join my colleague from Michigan. He is absolutely 
correct. This vote is about a lot of different things. I am sure we can 
talk about the environment, we can talk about many things, but the one 
thing we know is that lighter vehicles mean more people die; heavier 
vehicles mean more people live. It is as simple as that.
  So if the Congress makes this decision and says we should 
artificially mandate and tell the American consumer, you need to be 
driving in lighter cars because Washington knows best, when we do that, 
when the arm of the Federal Government comes in and does that, it is 
not an academic exercise. It is not just the freedom to choose a car or 
a vehicle that people lose; what we lose are human beings.
  Make no mistake about it. If this resolution prevails, ultimately, 
through the Congress, more people will die. The statistics are 
absolutely abundantly clear. And that is exactly what this vote is 
about. It is not an academic exercise. It is not an academic vote. It 
is not a free environmental vote one way or the other. This is about 
people living. This is about people dying.
  I thank my colleague from Michigan and yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent that Arthur Menna, a 
congressional fellow on my staff, be given floor privileges for the 
remainder of the debate on the Transportation appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma such time as he may 
consume on this issue.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan, 
Senator Abraham, as well as Senator DeWine from Ohio, for their 
statements. They are exactly right. I do not need to repeat their 
statements, but I think it is vitally important that they prevail in 
beating this amendment.
  I hope my colleagues will pay attention. This is not an esoteric 
amendment. As the Senator from Ohio said, there are lives at stake. Do 
we really think we can have a big increase in the corporate average 
fuel economy standards mandated on sport utility vehicles without 
having economic consequences?
  There are going to be consequences. Vehicles may cost more. It is 
quite likely they will have to reduce the weight of the vehicles. The 
vehicles will not be as safe.
  We are superimposing Government wisdom on manufacturers and on 
consumers. The sales of these vehicles are going quite well because 
consumers want them. Nobody is forcing them to buy them. Yet if we come 
up with a Government-mandated higher fuel economy standard, presumably 
with the idea that this is going to be more fuel efficient, it may make 
the vehicles more expensive. It may make the vehicles more unsafe. It 
may cost lives. It

[[Page S10919]]

has significant economic consequences on families.
  So I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment that is pending. I 
again compliment my friends and colleagues, including Senator Levin, as 
well as Senator Abraham and Senator DeWine, for their excellent 
statements.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I might inquire of the Chair, how much 
time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's side has 11 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. BRYAN. If I might inquire of the Senator who controls the time--
we have approximately 11 minutes left--would the Senator from 
Washington be amenable to allowing the Senator from Nevada to use, say, 
6 minutes?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes. The Senator from Washington will be delighted if the 
Senator takes that time.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. President, I understand that in the most famous debating 
institution in the world, and in the history of civilization, 
differences of opinion can arise on matters of public policy. That is 
what this place is all about. But I have to tell you, I find the amount 
of hysteria engendered by this issue to be absolutely astonishing.
  In a series of ads put out by the industry, we have one now that 
talks about: ``Farming's tough enough with healthy-size pickups. 
Imagine hauling feed barrels around in a subcompact.'' That implies 
that this amendment we are proposing will be antithetical to the best 
interests of America's farmers.
  We have an ad involving the soccer moms and dads: ``This picture is 
brought to you by a fantastic soccer team and a minivan just big enough 
to handle them.'' The clear inference is, if we allow the Department of 
Transportation to examine these standards, some soccer moms are not 
going to be able to take their kids to soccer games.
  Then we have an ad: ``As a small business owner, my truck and I are 
joined at the hip. An increase in CAFE would put both of us out of 
business.''
  May I say, with great respect to our friends on the other side of the 
aisle, many of whom are good friends I greatly respect, this is utter 
nonsense. This is just plain nonsense.
  I will repeat, as I did earlier, the thrust of what this resolution 
does. It mandates no standard, no increase. The resolution simply says 
the issue of CAFE standards should be permitted to be examined by the 
Department of Transportation so that consumers may benefit from any 
resulting increase in the standards as soon as possible. It is 
permissive only; it mandates nothing.
  During the time 1989 to 1995, when this technology gag rule was not 
in effect, during those 6 years, there was no increase in CAFE 
standards for automobiles, and with respect to light trucks it was 1 
percent. So I think that is a pretty clear indication that nobody is 
going to rush to judgment.
  The other thing that needs to be understood, it seems to me, is the 
Department of Transportation has some very comprehensive guidelines 
they must consider in any review. Among those factors are: Is it 
technically feasible? Is the technology there? The economic 
practicability, the effect of other Federal motor vehicle standards on 
fuel economy, and the need of the Nation to conserve, all of which 
would be open to the rulemaking process in which the industry and their 
supporters would have an ample opportunity to respond.
  Let me try to respond briefly to the safety issue. And my friend from 
Michigan has indicated to me he would allow me to engage him in a 
colloquy for a couple questions. I appreciate his courtesy, as always.
  From 1970 through 1999, the highway fatality rate in America has gone 
down. At the same time, fuel economy is up. That is at the same time 
that many more vehicles are on the highway, with a great amount of 
additional traffic congestion. The average motorist is driving more 
each year.
  So the notion that somehow this is anathema to health and safety 
standards simply, in my judgment, does not bear out scrutiny. Indeed, 
an objective study by the General Accounting Office concluded that the 
unprecedented increase in the proportion of light cars on the roads 
since the 1970s has not increased the total highway fatality rate.

  I think the safety issue is somewhat of a red herring. We are all 
concerned about safety. Nobody on the floor is going to advocate that 
the industry make and sell a product which is unsafe, and one would 
have to assume that the industry itself would not put such a product on 
the market.
  Let me also point out that with respect to the fuel achievements we 
have had in terms of increased efficiency from 1974 to the 1989 
timeframe, 86 percent of those improvements were as a result of new 
technology. This information comes to us from the Center for Auto 
Safety. It seems to me the clear and compelling evidence is that safety 
and fuel economy standards are not mutually exclusive. We can do both.
  All we are saying is that those who choose to purchase sport utility 
vehicles, my son and daughter-in-law being two, should have the same 
right as other motorists who select other passenger vehicles to derive 
the benefits of improved technology. I have great confidence in what 
the industry can do, notwithstanding the prophecy of doom they forecast 
in 1974 that everybody would be driving around in a sub-subcompact or a 
vehicle the size of a Maverick or a Pinto. Indeed, the industry did 
some astonishing things and doubled the fuel economy. Today's Lincoln 
Town Car gets better fuel economy than the smallest product that the 
Ford Motor Company manufactured in 1974.
  If I could engage my friend from Michigan in a couple of questions. 
He is a distinguished lawyer, a graduate of Harvard Law School. I ask 
him: Is there anything in this resolution, in the opinion of the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, that in any way mandates an 
increase in these standards. We may disagree in terms of whether the 
technology is available.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Nevada has 
expired.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his confidence in my 
legal skills. As I read the sense-of-the-Senate resolution which has 
been proposed, it says, in its concluding section, the resolution 
section:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the issue of CAFE 
     standards should be permitted to be examined by the 
     Department of Transportation.

  And then in subsection (2):

       The Senate should not recede to section 320 of this bill, 
     as passed by the House of Representatives, which prevents an 
     increase in CAFE standards.

  Now, if we do not include that provision, if the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution were to prevail and that were to be the ultimate outcome and 
section 320 as contained in the House version of the legislation were 
to not survive the conference and the final resolution of the 
legislation, it is my understanding that we would then revert back to 
the process which is in the law otherwise, which, by my understanding 
of it, mandates that the Department of Transportation, under 49 USC 
subtitle 5 part (c) section 32902, required that the Department of 
Transportation set CAFE standards each year at ``the maximum feasible 
average fuel economy level.''
  I believe that is what would happen at the Department of 
Transportation. The Secretary of Transportation is not authorized to 
just study CAFE. He must act by regulation to set new CAFE standards 
each year. That has not happened because of the moratorium which has 
been imposed over recent years, since 1995. Prior to the CAFE freeze in 
1994, the administration began rulemaking on new CAFE standards. On 
April 6 of 1994, again, in the last year--I don't want to take all the 
Senator's time; I will try to be quick--the proposal referenced 
feasible higher CAFE levels for trucks of 15 to 35 percent above the 
current standard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. My sense, reading the history of this, is that is where 
the starting point would be. I believe, in effect, if we do not have 
this, if this is not in place, that that would be the mandated effect.
  Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator from Michigan yield a few minutes of his 
time so I may follow up with a question?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. How much time do we have?

[[Page S10920]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 5 minutes. The 
Senators from Washington and Nevada have 3.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. What I would propose is that by unanimous consent, the 
Senator from Nevada be able to make further inquiry without reducing 
his time below 3 minutes or my time below 5 minutes, a reasonable 
amount of time.
  Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator from Washington is agreeable, I think that 
is fair.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. That would leave 5 minutes and 3 minutes for summation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. Would the Senator not agree that before any increase could 
be effected by the Department, that the Department is, under the 
current law, required to consider four factors: the technical 
feasibility, the economic practicability, the effect of other motor 
vehicle standards on fuel economy, and the need of the Nation to 
conserve energy? Would not the Senator agree that that is part of the 
law as well?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Obviously, the law sets forth criteria that are to be 
employed. I don't have those in front of me. I will accept the 
contention of the Senator from Nevada that those are the criteria. The 
question is whether a prejudgment as to the outcome is already 
ordained. In my judgment, the positions that were already in process in 
1994, prior to the implementation of the moratorium, suggest that those 
decisions 5 years ago had already essentially resulted in a preliminary 
decision to increase the standards by 15 to 35 percent. If, in effect, 
the moratorium does not go forward, I believe we would, indeed, be 
moving a process that will mandate this kind of increase.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator for his answer. We obviously have 
reached a different conclusion.
  I point out to my friend and colleague from Michigan that we had 
precisely the situation in 1989 to 1995. The technology gag rule was 
not in effect and, indeed, no increase was made during that period of 
time with respect to automobile standards. And only a very modest 
increase was made with respect to the light truck standards.
  I hope that will give some comfort to him and to those who have 
raised some concerns that this is not a mandate but simply permissive 
in nature.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Michigan and yield the floor but 
reserve the remainder of the time that is allocated to our side.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does this Senator from Michigan have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 1 minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  Let me quickly comment on the question of highway deaths. The study 
of USA Today is that 46,000 people have died in crashes that would have 
survived in larger cars. I have not heard that fact disputed. We have 
seen a chart which shows that there are fewer highway deaths and that 
we have better fuel economy, but that chart doesn't show the two are 
causally connected.
  Indeed, the fewer highway deaths may come from seatbelts, a greater 
effort on the anti-alcoholism campaign, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, 
a number of other causes. But the outside figure, not the auto 
industry, not the unions, not the supplier, not the insurance industry, 
which opposes this amendment, the outside survey done by USA Today says 
46,000 people lost their lives who would not have lost their lives but 
for this CAFE approach.
  When we look at the resolution, we don't see any reference to safety. 
We don't see any reference to the discriminatory impact on domestics 
that have a different mix in their fleets. We only see a reference to 
fuel. That is the one factor at which this resolution looks.
  Then at the end it makes it very clear what it is driving at--talking 
about driving. This resolution is aimed at one thing: to increase CAFE 
standards. This isn't just ``let's have a study, look at the impact on 
safety, look at the discriminatory impact on domestic production.'' 
This isn't just let's have a study. This is the sense of the Senate 
that the Senate should not recede to a House provision which prevents 
an increase in CAFE standards, not which prevents a study. This 
resolution, by every single provision in its whereas clauses, is 
driving us towards an increase in CAFE standards, without consideration 
of safety impacts or the discriminatory impact on domestic production.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. There are other opponents on my side who wish to speak. 
Let me summarize with a few concluding remarks.
  I want to first reiterate what my colleague from Michigan, Senator 
Levin, has said. A chart that shows the correlation between increases 
in CAFE and decreases in fatalities is not based on a study that 
relates the two. The studies that do relate the two, particularly as he 
said, the outside study by the National Academy of Sciences, suggest a 
contrary finding. In fact, the implementation of CAFE standards has led 
to approximately 46,000 lost lives as a consequence of the lighter 
vehicles being in our fleets.

  The second point I make relates to the broader point that also was 
made earlier by my colleague from Michigan. Higher CAFE standards are 
going to affect American manufactured products, but not necessarily the 
products of our competitors from overseas. Hence, the same kind of 
vehicles, with virtually the same types of fuel efficiency levels, as 
well as the same types of emission levels, will be purchased by the 
same market that wants and craves these vehicles today. The only 
difference will be the kind of difference we saw back in the late 1970s 
and early 1980s and throughout much of the decade of the 1980s when we 
found the foreign imports' share of the American market continuing to 
go up, at the expense of American domestically manufactured products, 
and ultimately at the expense of American autoworker jobs.
  In summation, this is simple to me: Do we want to put at risk the 
safety of people who will be purchasing sports utility vehicles, light 
trucks, and others by making a change in CAFE standards? I hope the 
answer is no. Do we want to risk the jobs of American autoworkers? I 
speak not just for those autoworkers in Michigan, who tend to be on the 
front lines, but many other people in this country who are working in 
related industries and whose jobs are affected by the sale of 
domestically manufactured automobiles. Do we want to put at risk all of 
these jobs? I don't think so. Do we want to risk the investments made 
by the auto companies in new, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and the 
significant investments that we have made in the partnership for a new 
generation of vehicles? Do we want to derail those efforts as a result 
of this type of action?
  In my judgment, we should say yes to more safe vehicles; we should 
say yes to American autoworkers; we should say yes to the technological 
advances that have been and are continuing to be made. That is 
ultimately how we are going to have more fuel-efficient vehicles. If we 
say yes to all of those, then, in my judgment, we must say no to this 
amendment because to have a Washington bureaucracy made up of unelected 
individuals who impose upon this very significant sector of our economy 
these kinds of standards, the likely outcome will be exactly the 
opposite of what I have proposed today. I think it will hurt our 
economy and the American automobile industry, although it may help the 
automobile industries of other countries. I think it will make the 
vehicles that come about as a result of higher standards less safe, as 
the studies that we have cited here today demonstrate.
  So for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Gorton-Bryan-Feinstein amendment.
  Before I conclude, I ask that a letter produced by the United Auto 
Workers be printed in the Record at this point as an expression of 
their views on this issue, which are consistent with those my 
colleagues and I on this side of the issue have been offering here 
today.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page S10921]]


         United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 
           Workers of America,
                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 1999.
       Dear Senator: When the Senate considers the FY 2000 
     Transportation Appropriations bill, we understand that 
     amendments may be offered to eliminate or modify the current 
     moratorium on increases in fuel economy standards for autos 
     and trucks (commonly known as CAFE, the Corporate Average 
     Fuel Economy standards). The UAW strongly opposes such 
     amendments and urges you to vote against them.
       The UAW supported the CAFE standards when they were 
     originally enacted. We believe these standards have helped to 
     improve the fuel economy achieved by motor vehicles (which 
     has doubled since 1974). This improvement in fuel economy has 
     saved money for consumers and reduced oil consumption by our 
     nation.
       However, for a number of reasons the UAW believes it would 
     be unwise to increase the fuel economy standards at this 
     time. First, any increase in the CAFE standard for sport 
     utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks would have a 
     disproportionately negative impact on the Big Three 
     automakers because their fleets contain a much higher 
     percentage of these vehicles than other manufacturers. 
     Second, any increases in CAFE standards for cars or trucks 
     would also discriminate against full line producers like the 
     Big Three automakers because their fleets contain a higher 
     percentage of full size automobiles and larger SUVs and light 
     trucks. The current fuel economy standards are based on a 
     flat miles per gallon number, rather than a percentage 
     increase formula, and are therefore more difficult to achieve 
     for full line producers. Taking these two factors together, 
     the net result is that further increases in CAFE could lead 
     to the loss of thousands of jobs at automotive plants across 
     this country that are associated with the production of SUVs, 
     light trucks and full size automobiles.
       The UAW believes that additional gains in fuel economy can 
     and should be achieved through the cooperative research and 
     development programs currently being undertaken by the U.S. 
     government and the Big Three automakers in the ``Partnership 
     for a New Generation of Vehicles''. This approach can help to 
     produce the breakthrough technologies that will achieve 
     significant advances in fuel economy, without the adverse 
     jobs impact that could be created by further increases in 
     CAFE standards.
       Accordingly, the UAW urges you to oppose any amendments 
     that seek to eliminate or modify the current freeze on 
     increases in motor vehicle fuel economy standards. Thank you 
     for considering our views on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alan Reuther,
                                             Legislative Director.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, first point. I regret that the Senators 
from Michigan believe that the automobile industry located in that 
State and the magnificent workers who are employed there are unable to 
compete with foreign automobile companies when we try to make our 
automobiles more fuel efficient. In fact, they have shown their 
magnificent ability to compete, and to compete very well, in the past 
decade. I am certain that they would continue to do so.
  Second, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution simply asks the 
conference committee members from the Senate to reject a House 
provision that says that nothing can take place. It certainly does not 
say that the conference committee cannot condition the moving forward 
of the Department of Transportation on future CAFE standards in any way 
it would like to do so. But the net effect, as I have said before, of 
the House position, supported by the opponents of this amendment, is 
that we need to put our heads in the sand; we don't need to study--as a 
matter of fact, we should be prohibited from studying whether or not we 
can improve the fuel efficiency of our automobiles and small trucks, 
improve the quality of our air, reduce the cost of fuel to the average 
American consumer, reduce our trade deficit, all consistent with the 
safety of our drivers and of the passengers in our automobiles.
  I, for one, am convinced that we can do so. But more than that, I am 
convinced that we ought to determine whether or not we can do so, and 
the opponents of this amendment simply say we should not even try.
  Mr. President, that is a terribly pessimistic attitude toward the 
technological ability of the people in the industries of the United 
States, and one that I don't think the Senate of the United States 
should accept.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1677. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. WARNER (when his name was called). Mr. President, on this vote I 
have a live pair with the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee. If he 
were present and voting, he would vote ``yea.'' If I were permitted to 
vote, I would vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I withhold my vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 275 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Collins
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                   PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR--1
                             Warner, against
                                     

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Breaux
     Chafee
     Daschle
     McCain
  The amendment (No. 1677) was rejected.
  Mr. THOMAS. I move to reconsider the last vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1658

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). There are now 2 minutes 
equally divided on the Helms amendment. Senator Helms has yielded back 
his time.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North 
Carolina had yielded back his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I note I support the resolution and yield back the 
remainder of the time on this side as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the 
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1658. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Chafee), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), and the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) would vote ``aye.''

[[Page S10922]]

  The result was announced, yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 276 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Breaux
     Chafee
     Daschle
     Domenici
     McCain
     Wellstone
  The amendment (No. 1658) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, during this discussion of the 
Transportation appropriations bill, I've been reminded of a piece of 
Senate history--the push to break the railroad companies' iron grip on 
railroad rates by setting up the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was 
a fierce battle that pitted the public's interest against the economic 
and political might of the railroads, a clash that was ultimately won 
by those favoring regulation, resulting in the passage of the Hepburn 
Act in 1906.
  One powerful voice for consumer interests in those days belonged to 
Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr., of my home state of Wisconsin, one 
of the greatest Senators ever to hold the office. It's fitting that his 
portrait now hangs in the Senate Reception Room outside of this chamber 
along with four other legendary Senators--Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, 
John C. Calhoun, and Robert Taft.
  A fearless champion of the American people in the face of the 
powerful influence of special interests, La Follette did not hesitate 
to speak out against the railroad companies. In fact, he did so during 
his first speech in the U.S. Senate in April of 1906, when La Follette 
broke the unwritten rule that freshman Senators did not make floor 
speeches.
  And La Follette didn't just make any floor speech--he delivered an 
oration that lasted several days and covered 148 pages in the 
Congressional Record.
  During those remarks, La Follette addressed the power of the railroad 
monopolies and declared:

       At no time in the history of any nation has it been so 
     difficult to withstand these forces as it is right here in 
     America today. Their power is acknowledged in every community 
     and manifest in every lawmaking body.

  La Follette's battle with the railroad industry came to a head in the 
summer of 1906, when he embarked on a speaking tour around the country. 
When visiting the states of his colleagues, he took the unprecedented 
step of reading the roll call, name by name, of votes on amendments he 
had proposed earlier that year to make railroad regulation more 
responsive to consumer interests. This ``Calling of the Roll'' became a 
trademark of La Follette's speeches, and its effect on his audiences 
was powerful. When these constituents discovered that their 
representatives were voting against their interests as consumers and in 
favor of the railroads, they were outraged. According to the New York 
Times,

       The devastation created by La Follette last summer and in 
     the early fall was much greater than had been supposed. He 
     carried senatorial discourtesy so far that he has actually 
     imperiled the reelection of some of the gentlemen who hazed 
     him last winter.

  In 1906, La Follette Called the Roll on amendments affecting the 
railroad industry, and today, in the spirit of that effort, I'd like to 
Call the Bankroll on the railroad industry, which today is composed of 
a handful of companies that monopolize the various regions of the U.S. 
rail system.
  In 1906, Congress saw the need to regulate the railroad monopoly. 
Today, rapid consolidation in the industry has left us with four Class 
I railroads, two in the East and two in the West. This merger mania has 
resulted in reduced competition and another virtual monopoly for the 
railroad companies. For rail customers and consumers today, this is 
sure to lead to higher costs and less attention to providing good 
service, just as it did at the turn of the century. But the railroad 
companies are resisting any change, and backing up their point of view 
with almost $4 million dollars in PAC and soft money contributions in 
the last election cycle alone.
  During 1997 and 1998, the four Class I railroads gave the following 
to political parties and candidates:
  CSX Corporation gave more than $600,000 in unregulated soft money to 
the parties and nearly $275,000 in PAC money to federal candidates;
  Union Pacific gave more than $600,000 in soft money and more than 
$830,000 in PAC money;
  Norfolk Southern gave more than $240,000 in unregulated money to the 
parties and almost a quarter million to candidates;
  Burlington Northern Sante Fe gave more than $445,000 in soft money 
and nearly $210,000 in PAC money.
  Mr. President, I Call the Bankroll on the railroad industry today 
because I'm deeply concerned about how little has changed since La 
Follette called the roll so many years ago. In 1907, a year after the 
passage of the Hepburn Act, Congress passed the Tillman Act, finally 
enacting campaign finance legislation that had been under consideration 
since an investigation a few years earlier of insurance industry 
contributions to the political parties. The Tillman Act banned 
corporations from making political contributions in connection with 
federal elections, and yet today the railroad companies and thousands 
of other corporations are giving millions of dollars--totally 
unregulated--to the political parties.
  At the beginning of the century, we banned corporate spending in 
connection with federal elections, but today that spending is rampant, 
ruling our political system and ravaging our democracy. At the 
beginning of the century, special interests used money as leverage to 
win legislation in their favor. Today, with all the historic changes 
this century has brought, this fact is more true, and more destructive 
to the people's confidence in our government, than ever.
  But just as Congress had the power to pass the Tillman Act in 1907, 
Congress has the power today to pass legislation to curb the influence 
of money in politics by shutting down the soft money loophole. It's 
time to put an end to the unregulated contributions that were outlawed 
nearly 100 years ago. It's time to pass McCain-Feingold and consign 
soft money to the dustbin of history.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                            pipeline safety

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to request a colloquy with my 
colleague from Washington state, Senator Gorton.
  On June 10, 1999, 277,000 gallons of gasoline leaked from an 
underground pipeline in Bellingham, Washington. It ignited and 
exploded. Three people were killed: an 18-year-old young man and two 
10-year old boys. This is a tragedy.
  The Office of Pipeline Safety, the National Transportation Safety 
Board, the FBI, the EPA and state agencies have spent the last four 
months trying to determine why this happened. We still don't know the 
direct cause and may not know for some time.
  I wish I could say this was an isolated instance, but I can't. Recent 
pipeline accidents have occurred in other places. In Edison, New 
Jersey, one person died when a natural gas pipe exploded. In Texas, two 
people lost their lives when a butane release ignited. In fact, last 
November the owner of the pipeline that exploded in Bellingham had an 
accident in another part of my state that took six lives.
  These pipelines are potential threats. There are some 160,000 miles 
of pipelines in the U.S. carrying hazardous materials. Many of these 
pipes run

[[Page S10923]]

under some of our most densely populated areas; under our schools, our 
homes, and our businesses.
  I am disappointed that this year the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee did not adequately fund the Office of Pipeline Safety, the 
authority governing interstate pipelines. I tried to get the 
appropriations in this year's bill to the level requested by the 
President. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so. It is my hope we can 
increase funding in next year's appropriations.
  I am also committed to strengthening OPS's oversight of pipelines and 
commitment to community safety in next year's reauthorization of OPS.
  I will be working with Senator Gorton, who is on the committee, to 
ensure greater OPS effectiveness and oversight of the industry.
  I also want to point out U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney 
Slater's prompt attention to this issue. Immediately following the 
accident, he met with me and granted my request to have a full-time OPS 
inspector stationed in Washington State. He has also been very helpful 
and informative as we've progressed through the investigation phase. I 
thank him. I know he will continue to work with us in the future on 
OPS's appropriations and next year's authorization.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank my colleague from Washington state. She has been 
out front on this issue, and I commend her for her persistence.
  I look forward to working with Senator Murray during the 
reauthorization of the federal Office of Pipeline Safety, a piece of 
legislation in which I will fully engage when it comes before the 
Senate Commerce Committee next year. While the interstate 
transportation of hazardous materials in above and underground 
pipelines has proven to be the safest and most cost-effective means to 
transport these materials, the Bellingham tragedy has once again 
alerted us to its tragic potential. During the OPS reauthorization 
process I intend to ensure that the federal law and the federal agency 
are performing their jobs of ensuring that tragedies like the one in 
Billingham are not repeated. I will work closely with Chairman McCain, 
the majority leader, and my Democratic colleagues to make this a top 
priority next year.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague. I will also continue to push for 
reform. We must take a long hard look at the effectiveness of OPS's 
oversight activities; review ways to develop new technologies for 
detecting pipeline defects; consider the effect of aging pipelines on 
safety; review industry's influence on the regulation of pipelines; and 
focus on our training and testing procedures for inspectors and 
maintenance workers. I also intend to look at ways to treat 
environmentally sensitive and highly populated areas, recognizing the 
multitude of safety and ecological problems operating pipelines in 
these places can create.
  Finally, I will work to strengthen communities' ``right to know,'' so 
people are aware when there are problems with the pipelines that 
threaten their neighborhoods.
  Mr. GORTON. I share the Senator's concerns and I am certain we will 
deal with those questions and ideas in the context of reauthorization 
legislation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on an aspect of 
the Transportation appropriations bill that I think deserves mention 
during this debate. It's a factor that influences legislative debate, 
but one that we consistently sidestep in our discussions on this 
floor--money in politics.
  Well, Mr. President, I'm trying to change that with what I call the 
Calling of the Bankroll. When I Call the Bankroll on this floor, I 
describe how much money the various interests that lobby us on a 
particular bill have spent on campaign contributions to influence our 
decisions here in this chamber. I have already Called the Bankroll on 
several bills; for instance, when I discussed the contributions of the 
high tech industry and the trial lawyers during debate on the Y2K bill, 
and, more recently, when I pointed out the contributions of the managed 
care companies and the pharmaceutical industry, among others, during 
the debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  And now, we come to the fiscal year 2000 Transportation 
appropriations bill, as it relates to the airline industry, which has 
been battling against another bill of rights. While in June the airline 
industry unveiled its own Passengers' Bill of Rights, it falls far 
short of what was outlined in other pending Senate legislation, 
including the Airline Passenger Fairness Act, of which I am a proud 
cosponsor. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, 
Senator Wyden, for his leadership on this issue, and his commitment to 
giving airline passengers across the country a real bill of rights. I 
am proud to be a co-sponsor of both amendments offered by my friend 
from Oregon.
  The Airline Passenger Fairness Act establishes a national policy to 
provide consumers with a basic expectation of fair treatment by 
airlines and to encourage airlines to provide better customer service 
by outlining minimum standards. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act 
would ensure that passengers have the information that they need to 
make informed choices in their air travel plans.
  But, Mr. President, there is a serious obstacle facing supporters of 
a comprehensive Passengers' Bill of Rights--the PAC and soft money 
contributions of the airline industry.
  The six largest airlines in the United States--American, Continental, 
Delta, Northwest, United and US Airways--and their lobbying 
association, the Air Transport Association of America, gave a total of 
more than $2 million dollars in soft money and more than $1 million 
dollars in PAC money in the last election cycle alone.
  Northwest was the largest soft money giver among these donors, giving 
well over half a million dollars to the political parties in 1997 and 
1998. Mr. President, you may remember that Northwest Airlines made 
headlines across the country earlier this year when they left thousands 
of passengers stranded on snow-clogged runways in Detroit, leaving some 
of their customers without food, water or working toilets for more than 
eight hours.
  Mr. President, according to the Department of Transportation, 
consumer complaints about air travel shot up by more than 25 percent 
last year. Those complaints run the gamut from erratic and unfair 
ticket pricing; being sold a ticket on already oversold flights; lost 
luggage; and flight delays, changes, and cancellations.
  We can and should address these problems, Mr. President. The American 
people are demanding change; as legislators, we should respond.
  But we have yet to do anything concrete in this Congress to guarantee 
airline passengers the rights they deserve.
  The American people can't help wondering why, Mr. President, so today 
I offer this campaign finance information to my colleagues and the 
public to help to present a clearer picture of the influences 
surrounding this aspect of the Transportation appropriations bill, and 
the influence of those with a stake in the debate on a comprehensive 
Passengers' Bill of Rights.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 
to proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________