[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.
____________________