[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 75 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5188-S5215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2001--Continued


                           Amendment No. 3440

(Purpose: To condition the use by the FAA Airport Office of non-safety 
 related funds on the FAA's completion of its investigation in Docket 
                             No. 13-95-05)

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3440 on behalf of 
Senator McCain and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3440.

  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, insert the following:

     SEC.  . ADDITIONAL SANCTION FOR REVENUE DIVERSION.

       Except as necessary to ensure public safety, no amount 
     appropriated under this or any other Act may be used to fund 
     any airport-related grant for the Los Angeles International 
     Airport made to the City of Los Angeles, or any inter-
     governmental body of which it is a member, by the Department 
     of Transportation or the Federal Aviation Administration, 
     until the Administration--
       (1) concludes the investigation initiated in Docket 13-95-
     05; and
       (2) either--
       (A) takes action, if necessary and appropriate, on the 
     basis of the investigation to ensure compliance with 
     applicable laws, policies, and grant assurances regarding 
     revenue use and retention by an airport; or
       (B) determines that no action is warranted.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides of the aisle. I have talked to Senator Lautenberg about it. I ask 
for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment? If not, 
without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3440) 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the Transportation 
Appropriations bill for accepting my amendment that would prohibit the 
Department of Transportation from making any airport grant to the Los 
Angeles International Airport until the Federal Aviation Administration 
concludes an investigation into illegal revenue diversion at the 
airport. The exception to this prohibition would be if such grants were 
required to ensure public safety. The investigation at issue here has 
been going on for more than five years without resolution, and American 
taxpayers deserve to know whether their money has been used for illegal 
purposes.
  The investigation of revenue diversion about which I am concerned 
involves the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles International 
Airport, LAX. Unfortunately, this airport has served as the poster 
child for the problem of illegal revenue diversion for as long as I 
care to remember. In this case, a complaint was filed with the FAA in 
1995 about the transfer of $59 million from LAX to the city. Despite 
the fact that the DOT's Office of Inspector General has periodically 
contacted the FAA to inquire about the status of a decision by the FAA 
on the complaint, no decision has been forthcoming. As the Inspector 
General stated in a recent memo to the FAA on this subject, 5 years 
should be more than sufficient time for the FAA to consider the facts 
in the case and render a decision.
  If there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent to print the 
Inspector General's memo in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCAIN. It is with a deep sense of frustration that I am 
compelled to act on this matter. As many of my colleagues know, I have 
been fighting against the illegal diversion of airport revenues for 
purposes that do not serve the aviation system. In fact, four years ago 
I spearheaded the legislative effort in the Senate to strengthen the 
laws against such revenue diversions.
  Because we have a national air transportation system with 
considerable federal investment and oversight, funded in large part by 
the users of the system, it is critical that airports or the bodies 
that control them do not use monies for non-airport purposes. We cannot 
allow airports to receive federal grant dollars on the one hand, and 
spend other airport revenues for non-aviation purposes. This type of 
shell game results in the misuse of the underlying grant. That is one 
of the principal reasons there are laws against diversions of airport 
revenues. Unfortunately, many cities that control airports see them as 
sources of cash that can be tapped for popular purposes.
  Another reason that revenue diversion is harmful is that our Nation's 
airports are meant to be self-sustaining. By keeping monies generated 
by airports at those airports, we ensure that an important part of the 
national transportation system is kept strong. If airports are used to 
generate cash for local jurisdictions, the airport itself will suffer 
from the loss of resources. Even worse, air travelers will be 
effectively double taxed--once through federal aviation excise taxes, 
and a second time through the higher air fares that airlines will 
charge when their costs of maintaining the airport go up.
  I stress that I am not advocating a specific result in this matter, 
and I trust that whatever decision or course of action the FAA may take 
will be made in the best interests of the country. In that vein, my 
amendment would allow grants to be made once the investigation is 
concluded, even if the determination is made that no action is 
necessary.
  Again, I seek no preferential treatment for any of the parties in 
this matter. I desire only that this investigation be conducted 
appropriately, fairly, and in a timely manner. The delays that have 
occurred so far are just not acceptable.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for accepting my amendment.

                               Exhibit 1


                            U.S. Department of Transportation,

                                                     May 10, 2000.


                               memorandum

     To: Jane F. Garvey, Federal Aviation Administrator
     From: Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General
     Subject: Action: Complaint by Air Transport Association 
       Concerning Los Angeles International Airport

       The Air Transport Association (ATA) requested the Inspector 
     General's assistance in expediting resolution of ATA's formal 
     complaint to FAA over the transfer of revenues from Los 
     Angeles International Airport (Airport) to the City of Los 
     Angeles (City). The complaint, filed in March 1995 pursuant 
     to FAA's Investigative and Enforcement Procedures (14 CFR 
     Part 13), questioned the transfer of about $59 million from 
     the Airport to the City. These funds were the proceeds from 
     sale of Airport property to the State of California 
     Department of Transportation for construction of the Century 
     Freeway. The ATA considered the transfer to be a prohibited 
     revenue diversion in violation of Federal regulations and 
     grant assurances.
       In May 1996 we issued a Management Advisory Memorandum 
     (Report Number R9-FA-6-011) to your Associate Administrator 
     for Airports discussing issues which FAA needed to consider 
     in its deliberations on the merits of the ATA complaint. We 
     pointed out the land sold to the State of California was used 
     for aeronautical purposes, was purchased by the Airport, and 
     severance damages associated with the sale should be paid to 
     the Airport. In a June 1996 reply to our memorandum, FAA 
     agreed to consider our information and make the memorandum a 
     part of the Record of Decision on the complaint.
       Over the past several years we have periodically contacted 
     your Office of Associate Administrator for Airports to 
     inquire as to the status of a decision by FAA on the ATA 
     complaint. However, no decision on the complaint has been 
     forthcoming.
       On Apri 26, 2000, we informed the Acting Associate 
     Administrator for Airports of the ATA request and she 
     promised to look into why it was taking so long to resolve 
     this complaint. Five years has elapsed since ATA filed its 
     complaint. This should be more than sufficient time for FAA 
     to consider the facts in the case and render a decision.
       Please advise us as to when FAA expects to render a 
     decision on the ATA complaint. If

[[Page S5189]]

     the decision is not forthcoming in the near term, please 
     provide the estimated date of completion and an explanation 
     for further delays.
       If you have any questions, or would like additional 
     information, please contact me at (202) 366-1959, or my 
     Deputy, Raymond J. DeCarli, at (202) 366-6767.

  Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk 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 that Senator 
Lautenberg be recognized for 5 minutes before we proceed to vote on the 
Allard amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that following the 
vote, I be recognized to offer an amendment; following the disposition 
of that amendment, the bill then be read a third time and the Senate 
then proceed to the vote on passage of the bill, as amended. I further 
ask unanimous consent that following that vote, the Senate then insist 
on its amendments and request a conference with the House; further, 
that Senator Gorton then be immediately recognized in order to make a 
motion to instruct conferees relative to CAFE.
  Further, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 hours equally 
divided in the usual form for debate on the motion, divided in the 
usual form, with an additional 15 minutes under the control of Senator 
Levin, 15 minutes under the control of Senator Abraham, and 15 
additional minutes for the proponents of the motion, with no amendments 
to the motion in order.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following that time, the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the motion and that the Chair then be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure that 
everyone understands the minority.
  We are doing our best to be cooperative here. But the original 
arrangement was that we would be able to spend some time on the Defense 
authorization bill. Under this agreement that will be entered shortly, 
we will be very lucky to finish a vote on the CAFE instructions to 
conferees by 7 o'clock tonight. That is an inappropriate time for us to 
begin some very serious deliberations that we have on a matter relating 
to Cuba, to abortion, and to military hospitals.
  So I want the majority to be put on notice that we expect, next week, 
to have adequate time to go into these issues, and others. There has 
been a gentlemen's understanding between the two leaders that we would 
do half and half. We just haven't been getting our half over here on 
the authorization matters. We hope there will be something done next 
week to allow us to do that. Otherwise, we could have some problems.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 3430

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to talk about this Allard 
amendment because it gives an appearance of reserving $12.2 billion for 
deficit reduction. I support that goal, and I am not going to oppose 
this amendment. But I really want to make it clear that, as a practical 
matter, this amendment has no meaning. Nobody should fool themselves 
into believing otherwise.
  The current budget rules already protect budget surpluses by 
establishing limits on discretionary spending and by requiring offsets 
for all new mandatory spending or tax cuts. These rules require across-
the-board cuts if Congress raids any surplus by exceeding the spending 
caps or by violating the so-called pay-as-you-go rules. So this 
amendment doesn't add any new protections to those already in law, nor 
does it change the provisions in current law that require all surpluses 
to be used to reduce our public debt.
  The amendment claims to promote debt reduction by depositing $12.2 
billion into a trust fund that generally is used for receipts of gifts 
from foreign countries, the proceeds of which are automatically 
dedicated to debt reduction.
  Well, that sounds good. I don't think it is going to do any harm. But 
it doesn't change anything, realistically. It is an intragovernmental 
transfer, taking from one end of the Government and giving it to 
another. It doesn't affect the bottom line, and it doesn't add any 
protections that don't already exist.
  I point out, also, that we are on a course to reduce publicly held 
debt by a lot more than $12.2 billion this year. Under the budget 
resolution, all of the roughly $150 billion Social Security surplus, 
and more than $12 billion of the non-Social Security surplus, is 
already devoted to debt reduction. So there is roughly a $160 billion 
reserve for debt reduction already.
  The Congressional Budget Office is expected to add another $30 
billion to $40 billion in their re-estimate to that total within the 
next few weeks. So while we are on track to reduce the debt by 
potentially $200 billion this year, including perhaps $50 billion from 
the non-Social Security surplus, this amendment stands for the bold 
proposition that we should commit at least $12.2 billion for debt 
reduction. Again, it is likely that we are going to have a $200 billion 
debt reduction this year. So I don't understand, and I am not quite 
sure why we are doing this or why we have to define $12.2 billion as 
directed to debt reduction.
  In sum, the amendment claims it is going to reduce debt by a lot less 
than we are already on track to reduce, and it doesn't have any 
practical effect. Perhaps it will make some folks feel good, and I am 
not going to object to its adoption; but this is an exercise that is 
unnecessary and doesn't accomplish really anything. But we are all in 
the process of saluting debt reduction, and this is just another 
salute, I guess.
  I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back whatever time we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is now 
on agreeing to the Allard amendment No. 3430.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

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

                                NAYS--3

     Byrd
     Hollings
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Domenici
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 3430) was agreed to.

[[Page S5190]]

  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.


                                  waas

  Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield for a brief colloquy?
  Mr. SHELBY. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for yielding. I want to commend the 
chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for 
developing this legislation. I understand the constraints of the 
allocation given the subcommittee and I believe he and the gentleman 
from New Jersey have done a great job in developing a bill the entire 
Senate can support.
  As a general aviation pilot I also want to specifically thank the 
Senator for his recognition throughout the legislation of the role of 
general aviation in the national air transportation system. As the 
report correctly noted, ``the FAA should not let the perfect be the 
enemy of the good'' and although for example the WAAS program is 
struggling, the legislation notes the number of satellite based 
applications that can be deployed here and now to enhance aviation 
safety.
  As you move to conference, would the Chairman be willing to work with 
me on language for inclusion in the Statement of Managers to enhance 
direction to the FAA in this particular regard? Increasing the number 
of GPS approaches, developing databases and GPS corridors through Class 
B airspace will immediately improve safety for thousands of general 
aviation pilots.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator for yielding and for his kind words 
regarding our legislation. We would be pleased to work with the Senator 
and I support the thrust of his request.
  His request tracks very closely with the subcommittee's philosophy 
regarding FAA modernization. Funds provided in this bill for next 
generation navigation should not be used solely to protect programs 
which our bill report details are struggling to various degrees but to 
deploy the immediate benefits of satellite based technologies as 
quickly as possible.
  I thank the Senator for his interest and look forward to working with 
him.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.


         USE OF SMALL DUMMIES IN THE NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to ask my distinguished friend, the Senator 
from Alabama, about committee report language on the Fiscal Year 2001 
Transportation Appropriations bill that affects the use of small 
dummies in the New Car Assessment Program, or NCAP. Let me quote from 
the relevant section of the report:

       The Committee denies the request to expand NCAP by using 
     small size dummies in crash tests. The Committee believes 
     that test devices should be required for use in safety 
     standards compliance testing before being considered for 
     inclusion in NCAP.

  As my good friend knows, the National Highway Transportation Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) currently conducts crash tests using dummies 
that meet a standard for full-grown adult men, and I am concerned that 
this report language would prevent the public from learning how new 
cars would perform in crashes involving occupants of all sizes--smaller 
adults and children.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator from California for the opportunity 
to clarify the committee's intent with respect to the committee's 
response to NHTSA's request to test the ``feasibility of using the 5th 
percentile dummy'' as indicated in the budget justification. The 
committee intended with this report language to ensure that NCAP would 
be expanded to include small size dummies until those dummies are 
certified for use in crash tests conducted to verify compliance with 
federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am very supportive of the 
expanding the number of crash test dummies to more accurately simulate 
the diverse height and weight of vehicle occupants. The intent was not 
to prevent the agency from using small dummies nor to prevent NHTSA 
from acquiring test data essential. To the contrary, the committee 
provides additional funding in the relevant Research and Analysis 
contract program.
  I want to underscore how important it is for members of the committee 
and the entire body to have accurate and consistent information from 
NHTSA in order to proceed with expanded NCAP tests. Indeed, the 
committee has received conflicting information from NHTSA regarding the 
readiness of small size dummies for use in crash tests.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his answer, and I agree that it 
is essential that safety dummies used in the NCAP program in fact 
provide adequate and reliable data to consumers and automobile 
manufacturers alike. I appreciate that there has been some confusion 
with respect to certification of the so-called small 5th percentile 
dummy, but I now have information from NHTSA which indicates that the 
dummy has been thoroughly tested and certified through the appropriate 
rulemaking process.
  Would he under these circumstances commit to making every effort in 
the conference committee on the Transportation bill to change that 
specific report language to reflect this information from NHTSA?
  Mr. SHELBY. I assure the Senator from California that I will continue 
to consult with NHTSA regarding the design and reliability of the small 
size dummies. I believe it is critical that these dummies be 
satisfactorily developed in time for compliance testing associated with 
the new advanced air bag rule in 2004.


                 national planning and research program

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as the Senator from Alabama is aware, 
this bill includes funding for a number of transit planning and 
research grants under the National Planning and Research Program. The 
Committee report that accompanies the bill identifies a number of 
individual research projects, including several university based 
projects, and the amount of federal funding to be provided for each. I 
commend the Chairman and the Subcommittee for their support for 
University based research into transit and related transportation 
matters. I would inquire of the Chairman whether he was aware of 
Jackson State University's transportation research capabilities and 
their plan to establish an institute at the University to utilize the 
disciplines of information technology, engineering, environmental 
science, public policy and business to provide technical and other 
assistance to transportation planners, local governments and others 
involved in multimodal transportation?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am advised that the Senator from 
Mississippi did bring this matter to the Subcommittee's attention and 
requested the Subcommittee's consideration for funding. As the Senator 
from Mississippi knows, the subcommittee considered a number of 
requests for research projects that could not be funded within the 
allocations. However, I share the Senator from Mississippi's view that 
the research program proposed by Jackson State University would make an 
important contribution to multi-modal transportation research.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Chairman's response, and 
I hope he will work in conference to provide funding for the Jackson 
State University Transportation Institute.


                             bus facilities

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate H.R. 4475, the 
fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Act for transportation. Included in the 
Senate Committee Report is the statement: State of Michigan buses and 
bus facilities: Despite unanimous supported agreements among the 
Michigan Public Transit Association, its members, and the Michigan 
Department of Transportation that Section 5309 bus funds to Michigan 
transit agencies be distributed through MDOT, designations of funds to 
individual transit agencies continue to be sought and proposed apart 
from the agreement. The Committee directs that any fiscal year 2001 
discretionary bus funds for projects in Michigan be distributed through 
MDOT in accordance with the MPTA-MDOT agreement.
  I have spoken with many local jurisdictions who do not agree that 
there has been an agreement that all money would go to the Michigan 
Department of Transportation and that there would be no specific 
earmarks.
  I have a letter here from the President of the Michigan Public 
Transit Association which states that it was understood by MPTA that 
Michigan

[[Page S5191]]

transit systems be allowed to pursue their own individual earmarks. I 
have requested such earmarks from the Committee. I ask consent that 
this letter be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of this 
colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Michigan, and he is correct, 
there is language in the Committee Report which directs that any fiscal 
year 2001 discretionary bus funds for projects in Michigan be 
distributed through MDOT in accordance with the MPTA-MDOT agreement.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask that you consider in conference our specific 
requests as well as the overall allocation of $70 million for Bus 
Grants for Bus Dependent States.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I assure the Senator from Michigan that specific 
requests will be carefully considered.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                   Michigan Public


                                          Transit Association,

                                       Lansing, MI, June 15, 2000.
     To: Michigan Congressional Delegation
       In regard to FY 2000-01 Section 5309 earmarks to the State 
     of Michigan, the Michigan Public Transit Association is in 
     support of both the State's priority list for earmarks as 
     provided to the Michigan Congressional Delegation, and will 
     support any individual earmarks that Michigan areas have 
     requested. There is no agreement that says that the State of 
     Michigan will get all the earmark funds. We understand that 
     the State of Michigan has submitted a priority list in which 
     certain facility projects will receive the first priority, 
     and bus replacement needs in Michigan will receive the second 
     priority. The Michigan Public Transit Association supports 
     Michigan Department of Transportation identification of needs 
     and has agreed to the prioritization. We furthermore 
     understand that transit systems will be asking for special 
     earmarks for projects and we are supportive of all the 
     requests. We urge the Michigan Congressional Delegation to 
     secure the largest possible earmark to the State of Michigan, 
     and to provide individual earmarks at the highest possible 
     levels to transit systems in Michigan.
       The above is what was agreed to between Michigan public 
     transit systems and the Michigan Department of Transportation 
     at meetings held in January and February of this year. It is 
     clearly our understanding that transit systems in Michigan 
     are allowed to pursue their own individual earmarks at the 
     same time as we are supportive of the State receiving funds 
     and distributing them in accordance with their agreed to 
     priority list.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Peter Varga,
                                                        President.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. President, I would like one moment to ask Senator 
Shelby, chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, a 
brief question. Mr. Chairman, would you agree that the Jamaica 
Intermodal Project in Jamaica, Queens, New York is eligible to receive 
bus funds along with the other projects listed in the Committee report?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would agree.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of 
Transportation and Related agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2001.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
and the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for 
bringing us a balanced bill within necessary budget constraints.
  The Senate-reported bill provides $15.3 billion in new budget 
authority (BA) and $19.2 billion in new outlays to fund the programs of 
the Department of Transportation, including federal-aid highways, mass 
transit, and aviation activities. When outlays from prior-year budget 
authority and other adjustments are taken into account, the bill totals 
$14.0 billion in BA and $48.0 billion in outlays.
  The Senate-reported bill is exactly at the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation for budget authority, and the bill is $310 million in 
outlays under the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  I thank the chairman for the consideration he gave to New Mexico's 
transportation priorities.
  Mr. President, I support the bill and urge its adoption.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record spending 
comparisons of the Senate-reported bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            H.R. 4475, TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS, 2001 SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                                   [Fiscal year 2001, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               General               Mass
                                                               purpose  Highways    transit   Mandatory   Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\-----------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority...........................................   13,281  ........  ..........       739    14,020
  Outlays....................................................   15,663    26,920      4,639        737    47,959
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...........................................   13,281  ........  ..........       739    14,020
  Outlays....................................................   15,973    26,920      4,639        737    48,269
2000 level:
  Budget authority...........................................   12,536  ........  ..........       721    13,257
  Outlays....................................................   14,635    24,338      4,569        717    44,259
President's request \2\:
  Budget authority...........................................   13,911  ........  ..........       739    14,650
  Outlays....................................................   15,661    26,677      4,646        737    47,721
House-passed bill \2\:
  Budget authority...........................................   13,735  ........  ..........       739    14,474
  Outlays....................................................   15,948    26,920      4,639        737    48,244
               SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...........................................  .......  ........  ..........  .........  .......
  Outlays....................................................     -310  ........  ..........  .........     -310
2000 level:
  Budget authority...........................................      745  ........  ..........        18       763
  Outlays....................................................    1,028     2,582         70         20     3,700
President's request:
  Budget authority...........................................     -630  ........  ..........  .........     -630
  Outlays....................................................        2       243         -7   .........      238
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...........................................     -454  ........  ..........  .........     -454
  Outlays....................................................     -285  ........  ..........  .........    -285
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although the President's request, House-passed, and Senate-reported versions of this bill all include $1.254
  billion in BA for the mass transit category, there is no such allocation to compare it to, so those amounts
  are omitted.
\2\ For comparison purposes, outlays for the highways and mass transit categories for the President's request
  and the House-passed bill are adjusted by the same amounts as the Senate-reported bill to reflect the
  difference between CBO's estimate of outlays for implementing TEA-21 and OMB's calculation of the the TEA-21
  caps for those categories.
 
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions.

                           denver metro area

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I seek recognition to raise an issue of 
importance to my home state of Colorado with the distinguished chairman 
of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Shelby.
  I commend my friend and colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, for 
his effective leadership on this important Transportation 
Appropriations bill. I take this opportunity to call to his attention a 
matter of highway safety in the increasingly congested Denver Metro 
area, particularly the I-25 ramps project near downtown Denver.
  I-25 is the most congested highway artery in the State of Colorado 
and has more accidents per miles driven than any other traffic corridor 
in the State. All of the ramps in this project area are separated by 
inadequate distances. Funds for this project would increase these 
distances and therefore increase safety.
  The amount of traffic directed onto the 17th Avenue and 23rd Avenue 
ramps off of I-25 is expected to grow to a point that would overwhelm 
the already unsafe traffic volumes on these ramps.
  I am concerned that even today, the ramps are substandard and could 
be considered unsafe. Under the design recommendations of the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the 
minimum safe distance between an ON and OFF ramp is 1,600 feet. These 
ramps are only 435 and 750 feet apart.
  The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for these ramps is 40,800 yet the 
current ramps are designed for only 12,000 ADT. These ramps are 
currently at 340 percent over capacity and they can't handle more 
traffic without funding for this project.
  I have been working with the Subcommittee on Transportation 
Appropriations to help the Denver Metro area and Colorado and very much 
appreciate the Chairman's assistance. A key priority for me is to 
improve highway safety in Metro Denver through this ramps project. 
Because of the budget constraints, however, the subcommittee was not 
able to include the project at this time. Will the Chairman be able to 
assist my efforts in seeking this funding as we move towards 
Conference?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thank the Senior Senator from Colorado 
for raising the issue of highway ramps to improve safety on the roads 
in the Metro Denver area. Based on the Transportation Subcommittee's 
review of highways across the country, it is clear that Colorado, 
especially the Denver Metro area, has one of the fastest growth rates 
in the country and has specific transportation needs.
  I support the Senator's request for assistance on the particular 
highway project he mentions, and will be happy to work with him to 
identify funding for this important safety and capacity project as we 
move towards Conference.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to voice my concerns about Section 
335 of the Transportation Appropriations bill.

[[Page S5192]]

This section flatly bans the Department of Transportation from even 
considering any reform of the commercial drivers' Hours of Service 
(HOS) regulations, which limit the time that drivers spend behind the 
wheel of large trucks and buses. The provision shuts off all funding 
for DOT current and future efforts to ensure drivers receive adequate 
rest. This sweeping ban on any further consideration of HOS regulations 
goes too far.
  Section 335 would not even give DOT a chance to try to address 
concerns that have been raised about its proposed regulations. DOT 
would be prohibited from holding public hearings on the changes 
(several are planned for this month alone) or from even talking with 
drivers, law enforcement groups, and highway safety groups about the 
proposed changes. The measure also halts efforts to enhance HOS 
enforcement through on-board recorders--one of the National 
Transportation Safety Board's ten most wanted safety improvements.
  The ban on any consideration of HOS reform also contradicts Congress' 
recent action to improve truck safety. Just last year Congress mandated 
the creation of a new truck safety agency within DOT, the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration. It is FMCSA's proposal to change the HOS 
regulations which has led to the ban in section 335 of the 
Transportation Appropriations bill. Moreover, in 1995, the Congress, 
through the medium of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination 
Act (ICCTA), directed DOT to study the HOS regulations and suggest 
reforms. DOT and FMCSA have done so. The result of their efforts should 
not be the foreclosing of all debate on new driver safety rules.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate continues to debate this 
year's Transportation Appropriations bill, I am pleased to again 
express my support for high-speed passenger rail. Efficient high-speed 
passenger rail has many benefits: it helps to relieve some of our ever-
increasing traffic congestion, it provides increased mobility for both 
business and personal travel, and it reduces pollution of the air we 
breathe. I have long supported a truly intermodal and effective 
transportation system and high-speed rail is a vital link in that 
chain.
  Federal assistance is essential for the development of transit 
systems such as high-speed rail. The Federal Government has long had a 
major role, of course, in funding America's transportation network, 
from construction and maintenance of the interstate highway system to 
providing mass transit assistance to local governments. I believe the 
federal role is important because we need a coherent, responsible 
national transportation policy.
  But I believe it is appropriate that state and local officials have 
the greatest role in making the important decisions about where our 
transportation money is spent, because they are the people who deal 
with the demands on all the elements of the transportation system on a 
daily basis. The great thing about high-speed passenger rail is that it 
incorporates the best of both worlds.
  The Federal Government should be the partner of state and local 
government in transportation, where there are local, state and national 
interests. While it is crucial that we provide adequate funds for high-
speed rail, it is also important for the Federal Government to support 
high-speed rail in other ways. To this end, I urge the Federal Railroad 
Administration to further develop its outreach activities to help 
promote awareness of high-speed rail as a viable option for providing 
dependable intercity transportation.
  I am committed to supporting a sound national transportation 
infrastructure and to developing thoughtful, fair transportation policy 
that reflects the changing needs of our Nation and respects the role of 
state and local government as the main decision-makers. High speed 
passenger rail fits the bill.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, as we vote today on the Transportation 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, I want to draw the attention 
of my colleagues to a remarkable achievement in the Atlanta region of 
my home state of Georgia. But first let me thank Chairman Shelby and 
our Ranking Member, Senator Lautenberg, for their assistance on my 
state's transportation priorities in this bill.
  The bill provides assistance for a number of alternative 
transportation projects, from water taxies to eliminating high-hazard 
grade crossings on the proposed Atlanta to Macon commuter rail line. We 
have direction to the Federal Railway Administration and funding to 
extend the agency's high-speed rail transportation plan from Charlotte, 
North Carolina, to Macon, Georgia. We have important funding to make up 
for a shortfall in funding to complete a regional transit study for 
metropolitan Atlanta, so that this fast growing region--whose motorists 
drive the longest distance of any metro area--can plan for a region-
wide system of seamless intermodal transportation. We have the Georgia 
Regional Transportation Authority, GRTA, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid 
Transit Authority, MARTA, the Georgia Department of Transportation, 
Chatham Area Transit, and the Southern Coalition for Advanced 
Transportation on the eligibility list for bus funding. In addition, 
MARTA is eligible for New Starts mass transit rail funding. And, the 
maglev program to provide high-tech, high-speed fixed guideway service 
between Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Atlanta would receive $3 million to 
continue pre-construction planning in this Senate bill.
  These are important projects, especially in light of the unanimous 
decision yesterday by the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority to 
approve the Transportation Improvement Program, TIP, for the Atlanta 
region. This was a remarkable event given the intense process that has 
been underway the past 12 weeks in Atlanta, culminating a two-year 
effort to submit a fiscally constrained, air quality conforming plan to 
the U.S. Department of Transportation for approval. As many of my 
colleagues know, the Atlanta region has been called the ``poster-child 
of urban sprawl.'' The region is in a conformity lapse, and, as a 
result, new highway and transit construction dollars are frozen until 
the Federal Government approves a plan that conforms with the Clean Air 
Act and the requirements of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century.
  The Atlanta region has developed and submitted a plan that has been 
under the closest scrutiny of any metropolitan region of the country. 
No other region has had to fulfill the requirements set forth by the 
Federal transportation agencies for not only local financial 
commitments, but to adopt a land-use strategy that would support the 
major public transportation investments called for in the TIP. In 
regard to these requests, let me remind my colleagues that the counties 
in my state are very protective of their home rule powers and rightly 
so, and Federal directives on local control issues are difficult to 
swallow.
  Nevertheless, officials from the Atlanta Regional Commission, ARC, 
which is the metropolitan planning organization for the region, and 
from the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, GRTA, our new 
regional agency established to implement the ARC's plan, worked with 
the Federal agencies to craft a process to ensure that the 
transportation alternatives in the TIP are successful. This 3-year TIP 
makes a very strong investment in alternative transportation. Half of 
the $1.9 billion plan is devoted to mass transit, bicycle, pedestrian 
and air quality improvement projects and only 10 percent is devoted to 
new capacity for single-occupant vehicles.
  Even more important, the ARC and the GRTA are pledged to work 
together to implement a land use strategy that links the regional 
development plan with this transportation improvement program. This is 
an historic linkage of land-use guidelines with transportation 
improvements. The Atlanta Regional Development Plan calls for land use 
policies that strengthen town centers, foster transit-oriented 
development, encourage new development to be more clustered in portions 
of the region where new opportunities exist, protect environmentally 
sensitive areas, support the preservation of stable, single-family 
neighborhoods and encourage best development practices.
  For the first time, these high-sounding goals are not just left to 
gather dust on a shelf. They are the guideposts for the region's 
transportation program. The GRTA resolution calls

[[Page S5193]]

the regional development plan ``an integral part of fulfilling its 
responsibility to manage land transportation and air quality. . . .''
  Mr. President, I would like to point out that these plans for mixed-
use and transit-oriented development do not mean that the GRTA is going 
to mandate high-density housing throughout the region. That could not 
be farther from the truth. What this plan sets out is that where 
opportunities exist along certain transportation corridors the counties 
should allow the free market to step in and build higher-density 
housing and commercial development that would attract support for 
transportation alternatives, such as express buses or commuter rail 
lines.
  Let me state that many local governments have submitted written 
promises that they will do their part in implementing the TIP. Even 
more important, everybody is now fully aware of what will be expected 
of them. For that reason--and because the GRTA has pledged to use its 
influence to put the program into action--I believe moving forward is 
the right thing to do. I urge the Department of Transportation to move 
this plan forward. It is time to put solutions that improve air 
quality, reduce traffic congestion and provide transportation choices 
on the roads and railways in Atlanta.
  Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the full 
text of the GRTA resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Resolution of the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority


                           resolution 00.6.1

       Whereas, on May 10, 2000, the Georgia Regional 
     Transportation Authority (GRTA) adopted a resolution relative 
     to the Transportation Improvement Program for FY 2001-FY 
     2003;
       Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that GRTA approves the 
     Atlanta Region Transportation Improvement Program, FY 2001-FY 
     2003, and further resolves:
       Land Use: Be it further resolved that GRTA finds the 
     policies and best development practices approved by the 
     Atlanta Regional Commission Board on May 24, 2000, and 
     described in ``A Framework for the Future: ARC's Regional 
     Development Plan,'', October, 1999 to be an integral part of 
     fulfilling its responsibility to manage land transportation 
     and air quality; and
       Be it further resolved that GRTA will use its resources and 
     authority to cause the implementation of the policies and 
     practices as described in ``A Framework for the Future: ARC's 
     Regional Development Plan,'', October, 1999, and assumed and 
     required by the RTP and the ARC Land Use Strategy commitments 
     approved by the ARC Board on May 24, 2000, and
       Funding/Projects: Be it further resolved that GRTA finds 
     the prioritization, in cooperation with ARC and local 
     governmental jurisdictions, of planning, funding and 
     implementation of local and regional public transit (bus, 
     rail, vanpool, carpool, and supporting infrastructure, such 
     as a regional network of high-occupancy vehicle lanes), 
     travel demand management programs and projects, and streets 
     safe for walking and bicycling are important to fulfilling 
     its responsibility to manage land transportation and air 
     quality; and
       Be it further resolved that GRTA adopts the jurisdiction-
     specific transportation funding assumptions detailed in the 
     RTP/TIP and will use its resources and authority to cause the 
     fulfillment of these local commitments assumed and required 
     by the RTP/TIP, and
       Cooperating Local Government Status: Be it further 
     resolved, that GRTA's designation of cooperating local 
     governments requires that the region's jurisdictions make 
     satisfactory progress on the land use, fiscal and other 
     assumptions and requirements of the RDP, RTP, TIP and the ARC 
     Land Use Strategy commitments approved by the ARC Board on 
     May 24, 2000, as well as regional and jurisdictional 
     transportation and air quality goals, performance measures 
     and targets established by GRTA, and
       Be it further resolved that GRTA will establish regional 
     and jurisdictional transportation and air quality goals, 
     performance measures and targets prior to the next process to 
     update/amend the TIP.
       Environmental Justice: Be it further resolved, GRTA's 
     approval of future TIPs require compliance of the TIP with 
     all federal, state, and GRTA statutory and regulatory 
     requirements for addressing the issue of environmental 
     justice.
       Speed Study: Be it further resolved, that GRTA, EPD, GDOT, 
     and ARC will perform a comprehensive vehicle speed study for 
     peak and non-peek traffic to address air quality 
     considerations in support of the State Implementation Plan 
     (SIP) for the non-attainment area to be completed by October 
     1, 2000.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern 
about a rider that has been attached to the Transportation 
Appropriations bill in Congress for the past four years. The language 
of this rider prevents the Administration from even considering an 
increase to our nation's Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE. This 
rider was a bad idea when it was first introduced four years ago, and 
it is a bad idea today. This rider appears yet again in the FY2001 
House Transportation Appropriations bill. I would like to voice my 
opposition to this rider and express my support for Senator Gorton's 
Motion to Instruct Conferees, which he is offering with Senators 
Feinstein and Bryan, that opposes the CAFE freeze.
  Aside from my personal conviction about the importance of improved 
CAFE standards, I am troubled by this provision for another fundamental 
reason: this rider bars the Administration from considering--even 
discussing--making our cars more efficient. This Administration should 
be making decisions in light of all possible information, not being 
asked to forgo critical policy analyses simply because they are not 
allowed to freely evaluate different options.
  Substantively, this rider forces the nation to bypass a critical 
opportunity to make our fleet of cars more efficient. The efficiency of 
our cars, or said another way, the number of miles our cars can travel 
on one gallon of gasoline, is important for a great number of reasons. 
First, because of recent and continuing increases in the price of fuel, 
we have felt firsthand the bite of high prices at the pump. The best 
answer to reducing the amount of money we spend each month on gasoline 
is to make our cars more efficient. We know this approach will work, 
because the doubling of fuel economy between 1975 and the mid 1980s 
saved new car purchasers an average of $3,000 in fuel over the lifetime 
of the car, at today's prices. The Union of Concerned Scientists 
estimates, for example, that if we were to raise light truck fuel 
economy to 27.5 miles per gallon, the most popular Sports Utility 
Vehicle in the country--the Ford Explorer--would go from traveling 19 
miles to the gallon to traveling 34 miles to the gallon. We could 
achieve this for $935 in established technology, and the SUV owner 
would save thousands of dollars over the lifetime of the car.
  Second, we need to raise CAFE standards for the sake of our national 
security. The United States imports more than half of its oil from 
foreign countries, and this dangerously limits our independence and 
potentially our options in times of turmoil. The dramatic rise in oil 
prices in recent months should be a reminder of how overly-dependent we 
are on OPEC, and how vulnerable we are to OPEC cartel pricing. We must 
raise our domestic fuel economy in order to reduce this dependence. 
According to the Sierra Club, raising CAFE standards would save more 
oil than we import from the Persian Gulf and off-shore California 
drilling combined.
  Third, there are critical environmental gains to be made from 
improving the fuel economy of our vehicles. There have been a number of 
reports in recent weeks about the reality of global warming. A Federal 
Government study released earlier this week, requested by Congress four 
years ago, reports that global climate has become approximately one 
degree hotter over the past century, and many scientists believe that 
this warming trend will continue as humans continue to burn fossil 
fuels. This trend will cause very real and significant changes to our 
weather and climate patterns, fundamentally altering the way of life in 
some geographic areas. A recent study at NASA's Ames Research Center 
reported that the ozone layer is not recovering as fast as was 
previously thought, potentially due to greenhouse gas emissions. A 
report by Environment Canada and Parks Canada shows that some national 
park glaciers could disappear in 20 years due to global warming. These 
and other significant reports come on the heels of one another to warn 
us that global warming is real and that we need to pay serious 
attention to the problem.
  The first, very important step we must take to curb greenhouse gas 
emissions is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we consume in our 
vehicles. Improving the CAFE standards to 45 mpg for cars and 34 mpg 
for light trucks would save this country 3 million barrels of oil per 
day and prevent

[[Page S5194]]

hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 from entering the 
atmosphere every year. Carbon dioxide is the major contributor to 
greenhouse gas emissions and to the subsequent warming of our climate. 
We must, I repeat we must, take this step and raise CAFE standards.
  Since the 1980s, partly due to our nation's increasing use of light 
trucks, or Sports Utility Vehicles, the corporate average fuel economy 
of our fleet of vehicles has declined. According to EPA's 1999 Report 
on Fuel Economy Standards, there have been no improvements in fuel 
economy for light trucks in 19 years. This is particularly dismaying 
when we consider that over half the passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. 
now fit into the category of light trucks. We know we can do better and 
that the technology already exists. Using state of the art engine 
refinements; optimized transmission control; high strength, ``ultra-
light'' steel techniques, and lower rolling resistance tires, auto 
manufacturers should be able to improve fuel economy drastically.
  For all these reasons, we must move back toward improving the fuel 
economy of the vehicles in the United States. It saddens me that some 
of my colleagues would like to prevent this discussion from even taking 
place. The first step in the right direction is to uphold the Gorton/
Feinstein/Bryan motion and oppose the freeze on CAFE standards. From 
there, we will be able to discuss appropriate measures to improve upon 
our vehicles, for so many reasons that make good sense.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to thank the distinguished 
Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, 
Senator Shelby, and Ranking Member, Senator Lautenberg, for their 
diligence and patience in moving this vital legislation forward. The 
difficulty of crafting such a comprehensive appropriations bill is 
considerable and they deserve congratulations. While I plan to vote for 
this bill, I would like to state my reservations about one particular 
provision--Section 335--which would preclude the Secretary of 
Transportation from expending any FY 2001 funds on the completion of a 
Federal rule pertaining to motor carrier ``Hours of Service.'' As my 
colleagues prepare for conference with their House counterparts, I hope 
they will recede to the House on this particular provision.
  Mr. President, Secretary Slater recently wrote to the Appropriations 
Subcommittee stating his opposition to such a provision. The Secretary 
points out, rightly I think, that heavy trucks are a major source of 
accidents on our roadways. Driver fatigue often plays a major role in 
these accidents.
  I feel that since the Department has not yet begun responding to 
comments on its ``Hours of Service'' Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it 
is premature to terminate DOT's review. Highway Safety is one of 
Congress' foremost transportation priorities, as evinced by the recent 
creation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
  Mr. President, it is because highway safety is so important that I 
ask my colleagues to drop this provision in conference. I have attached 
a copy of Secretary Slater's letter, and ask unanimous consent to have 
it printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              The Secretary of Transportation,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2000.
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am advised that the Transportation 
     Subcommittee may add a very damaging provision to the pending 
     DOT Appropriations Bill, effectively barring the Federal 
     Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) from acting on 
     comments from the public and affected industries on one of 
     the most critical safety challenges we face--fatalities 
     involving heavy trucks on our nation's highways and the need 
     to update our ``Hours of Service'' rules for ensuring 
     adequate rest for commercial drivers.
       Heavy trucks are involved in almost 15 percent of all fatal 
     highway crashes. I challenged the FMCSA last year to cut 
     fatality levels in half by 2009. We cannot accomplish this 
     without addressing the problem of operator error, and we know 
     that fatigue is a critical factor in crashes. The 60-year-old 
     rules for driver Hours of Service should be modernized. Also, 
     new technology, such as on-board recorders may play a role in 
     reducing the crash/fatality rates.
       We have just proposed changes in a Notice of Proposed 
     Rulemaking to change the Hours of Service rules. This 
     proposal emphasizes rest and is science-based. We do not even 
     have the benefit of full comment at this point, yet some are 
     advocating that Congress intervene and prohibit analysis of 
     the information and views we receive. This would be utterly 
     contrary to the action Congress just took in December 1999 to 
     set up the FMCSA as a free-standing safety regulatory agency.
       We have heard from industry representatives about the pace 
     of the rulemaking, and I am prepared to extend the comment 
     period for 90 days to allow interested members of the public 
     more time for in-depth analysis of the proposal's details and 
     to clarify matters that have arisen since the proposal was 
     issued May 2. However, I am not prepared to stop moving 
     forward on an issue that has not been substantially addressed 
     in 60 years and that promises so much in safety improvement. 
     If the Subcommittee adds the amendment, it will signal an end 
     to our efforts to address driver fatigue. I therefore 
     strongly oppose the amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Rodney E. Slater.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the motion to 
instruct conferees to reject the provision in the House version of the 
fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill that freezes 
implementation of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.
  As my colleagues have stated, the House bill would, for the sixth 
year in a row, block the Department of Transportation from studying 
ways to improve CAFE standards for vehicles in the United States.
  Mr. President, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 
latest report to Congress states that cars sold in the United States in 
1999 averaged 28.3 miles per gallon, down from 28.7 miles per gallon in 
1998. Light trucks, which now make up about half of new passenger 
vehicles sold, averaged 20.7 miles per gallon, down from 20.9 in 1998.
  What a shame that in an era of great technological innovation, all of 
the fuel economy gains from technological improvements over the last 
twelve years have been erased by the proliferation of larger, heavier, 
gas-guzzling vehicles.
  As Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater said of the CAFE freeze in 
his June 8 letter to Chairman Shelby, ``Because this prohibition has 
been in place in recent years, the Department has been unable to fully 
analyze this important issue. The average fuel economy of passenger 
cars and light trucks has decreased almost 7 percent since 1987. In 
fact, the average miles-per-gallon for 1999 was the lowest since 1980. 
CAFE is a significant policy issue that should be addressed 
analytically and not preemptively settled through the appropriations 
process.''
  With fuel prices high and rising, it is especially critical that we 
improve CAFE standards. Lax fuel economy standards have allowed SUVs 
and other light trucks on the road today to be 30 percent less 
efficient than cars on average. This fuel economy gap caused Americans 
to spend $21.4 billion more for gasoline last year than if these trucks 
were as efficient as cars. SUV and light truck drivers in my state of 
Rhode Island paid an extra $55 million at the pump last year due to 
this gap in fuel efficiency standards.
  Meanwhile, as overall fuel efficiency goes down, our nation continues 
to import over 55 percent of its crude oil, putting us at the mercy of 
the OPEC cartel. We owe it to the drivers in the Northeast who are 
paying over $1.70 for a gallon of gas, or those in the Midwest paying 
over $2.00 per gallon, to take a serious look at cutting our 
consumption of foreign oil by improving CAFE standards.
  Nevertheless, the CAFE freeze rider has been inserted into the House 
DOT spending bill every year for the past 5 years, and 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.
  Shouldn't we at least give the Department of Transportation the 
chance to study this issue? Isn't it time to lift the gag order that 
has been placed on our ability to consider the costs and benefits of 
higher CAFE standards? I believe the answer is clearly yes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important motion.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Fiscal Year 2001 Transportation 
Appropriations bill now before the Senate

[[Page S5195]]

contains, in my opinion, a very damaging and potentially dangerous 
provision. This provision would effectively bar the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) from acting on comments from the 
public and other interested parties on the critical need to revise the 
so-called Hours of Service rules, which regulate, among other things, 
the number of continuous hours commercial drivers are permitted to be 
on the road.
  Over 5,300 people are killed and 127,000 are injured each year as a 
result of truck-related crashes, and research shows that truck driver 
fatigue is a contributing factor in 30 to 40 percent of all truck-
related fatalities. Moreover, the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
finds that fatigue is directly related to 15 percent of all fatalities 
involving heavy trucks.
  There are both good and not-so-good parts to DOT's proposed changes 
to the Hours of Service rule. While I am very concerned that the 
proposed rule contemplates increasing the number of continuous driving 
hours from 10 to 12, it would also require the use of electronic on-
board recorders for long haul and regional truckers, and it would 
require commercial drivers to follow the 24-hour circadian rhythm cycle 
as opposed to the currently permitted 18-hour cycle. This is important 
because all authoritative studies show that the human body best resets 
its ``clock'' when following the circadian rhythm cycle.
  In response to requests from groups on all sides of this issue, DOT 
recently extended the comment period on the proposed rule by another 90 
days. Nevertheless, language in the Transportation Appropriations bill 
would bring the entire rulemaking process to a halt.
  Mr. President, not only is it wrong for this body to insert itself in 
this way in the preliminary stages of a proposed rulemaking process, I 
am concerned that that this provision will set highway safety 
initiatives back by decades. Only by keeping the rulemaking process 
alive can the existing 60-year-old Hours of Service rules ever be 
meaningfully reformed.
  I understand that the House Transportation Appropriations bill 
contains no such provision, and it is my strong hope that this 
provision will be rejected in Conference Committee.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2001 
Transportation Appropriations bill, and I compliment the Chairman of 
the Subcommittee, Senator Shelby, and the Ranking Member, Senator 
Lautenberg, for the outstanding job that they have done on this 
measure.
  Their recommendations, which were approved by a unanimous vote of the 
Appropriations Committee, are the best that could be done within the 
very tight 302(b) allocation that was provided to the Subcommittee. I 
am hopeful that we will be able to provide increased funding for the 
Transportation Subcommittee, as the bill proceeds through the Senate 
and its conference with the House. As is usual for the Transportation 
Subcommittee, the programs and activities contained in this bill are 
funded in as fair and balanced a way as one could expect. I am proud of 
the work of the managers of this bill. Very importantly, the bill 
continues to fully fund the highway spending levels set forth in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty-First Century, TEA-21. As 
members will recall, when that landmark legislation was debated and 
enacted two years ago, I joined with Senator Gramm of Texas as well as 
Senators Warner and Baucus, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, to provide some $26 billion in additional 
highway spending over the six-year life of that measure. In so doing, 
we put the ``trust'' back into the Highway Trust Fund. We assured the 
American people that the full amount of the gasoline taxes that they 
pay at the gas pump, and which go into the highway account of the 
Highway Trust Fund, will be spent on construction and rehabilitation of 
our Nation's highway and transit systems. Unfortunately, for the second 
year in a row, the Administration's budget proposed that a large 
portion of these Highway Trust Funds be used for non-highway purposes. 
Fortunately, the managers of this bill, Senators Shelby and Lautenberg, 
found a way to reject the Administration's proposal and to continue, in 
full, the commitments made to the American people; namely, that all of 
the gasoline taxes that they pay will be fully spent, each year, for 
the purposes for which those taxes were collected. I am grateful to the 
managers of the bill for having the wisdom and the courage to reject 
the Administration's ill-conceived proposal for a second year in a row. 
I hope the Administration will get the message that this Congress is 
not interested in going back on the commitments it made and that the 
President signed into law in TEA-21, to keep the ``trust'' in the 
Highway Trust Fund.
  Mr. President, I note that this will mark the last occasion upon 
which Senator Lautenberg will serve as the Ranking Member of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. During his tenure as 
Chairman and Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg 
has always been very cooperative with me in my role as Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee. He was no less 
cooperative when I served as Majority and Minority Leader of the 
Senate. He has demonstrated the courage to take a stand for what he 
believes in, throughout his Senate career, even when the votes were not 
there. He has performed a tremendous service to his State, as well as 
to his Country on many critical issues. He has worked tirelessly on a 
broad range of transportation issues throughout his service on the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. These accomplishments 
range from improvements in Amtrak service, to ensuring that there are 
sufficient resources for the FAA, Coast Guard, mass transit and highway 
safety programs. When it comes to transportation issues, Senator 
Lautenberg has always been in the forefront. He has always fought 
valiantly to protect the lives of the American people. He was the 
author of the smoking ban on airplanes. He was the author of the 
Minimum Drinking Age Act. His tireless battle against drunk-driving, 
which began with that Act, has now brought us to this appropriations 
bill, which includes a provision establishing a national intoxication 
threshold of point-zero-eight (.08) blood alcohol content. The Senate 
will miss Frank Lautenberg. We will remember him with great fondness.
  The one disservice, however, that he performed for his Nation, and 
for the Senate, and for the Appropriations Committee, was his decision 
not to run again. I am sorry that he made that decision. I talked with 
him about the matter several times. I told him that it was simply not 
good for the Country. I don't say that because he is a Democrat--I say 
that because this man is a Senate man. This man has rendered great 
service. I greatly regret his decision--and I told him so, and I urged 
him to rethink it, because he renders the kind of service that our 
Country needs. I salute him for his Senate service. And, I say again, 
we are going to miss this man--Frank Lautenberg.
  Mr. President, I urge all Members to support the Fiscal Year 2001 
Transportation Appropriations Bill now before the Senate.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my concerns over a 
provision included in this legislation that would effectively prevent 
the Department of Transportation (DOT) from continuing its work to 
fulfill a statutory directive to revise its regulations that limits the 
driving and duty time of truck and bus drivers.
  The federal hours of service regulations were established in 1937. 
Yet, despite the vast technological advancements and dramatic changes 
in the motor carrier industry, those rules have remained largely 
unchanged after more than 60 years.
  Due to the growing safety concerns stemming from truck driver fatigue 
and other factors, the National Transportation Safety Board has 
repeatedly called for the Department to develop new hours of service 
rules that reflect current research on truck and bus driver fatigue. 
Further, the ICC Termination Act of 1995 required the department to 
issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) addressing 
motor carrier hours-of-service regulations by March 1996 and a final 
rule by March 1999.
  Unfortunately, the Department failed to meet the time frames as 
required under the law. The ANPRM was not

[[Page S5196]]

issued until November 1996. It wasn't until April of this year that the 
Notice of Proposed rule was issued--a proposal not embraced by industry 
or safety advocates.
  As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, which has jurisdiction over most federal transportation 
policy, I believe it critical to allow and actually require the 
Department to continue its work to develop sound new rules governing 
motor carrier operators. I fully recognize the DOT's regulatory 
proposal is not acceptable in its current form. Moreover, the public 
needs sufficient time to analyze the proposal and the Department must 
clearly evaluate and understand its implications before a final rule 
can be issued. But the Appropriations Committee approach which prevents 
the DOT from doing anything in this area is simply wrong.
  Section 335 of the Transportation Appropriations bill would prohibit 
DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) from using 
any funds to ``consider or adopt any proposed rule'' contained in the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued on April 24, 2000 or to 
``consider or adopt'' any ``similar'' rule.
  I will not and am not defending the DOT's regulatory proposal. But I 
do not think that preventing any further work in this area is sound 
judgement on our part. If the provision in this bill is allowed to 
stand in conference, it will effectively prevent any changes to the 
more than 60-year-old truck driver rules.
  We must urge the DOT to move forward with reasoned regulations in 
lieu of the depression era regulations that today continue to dominate 
a technologically driven industry. The safety of the traveling public 
is at stake.


                           Amendment No. 3454

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3454:
       At the appropriate place, insert:
       Sec.  . Hereafter, the New Jersey Transit commuter rail 
     station to be located at the intersection of the Main/Bergen 
     line and the Northeast Corridor line in the State of New 
     Jersey shall be known and designated as the ``Frank R. 
     Lautenberg Transfer Station''; Provided; That the Secretary 
     of Transportation shall ensure that any and all applicable 
     reference in law, map, regulation, documentation, and all 
     appropriate signage shall make reference to the ``Frank R. 
     Lautenberg Transfer Station''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will try to be really brief. My 
colleagues have said much about what Senator Lautenberg has contributed 
to the country, to the Senate, and his persistent advocacy on behalf of 
the State of New Jersey. I will not repeat all those things that have 
already been said about our distinguished colleague. What I would like 
to share with the Senate today is a more overlooked but important 
perspective in Frank Lautenberg.
  Senator Lautenberg is appropriately characterized as a Democrat. I am 
appropriately characterized as a Republican. You might think we would 
have a difficult time working together in managing the Transportation 
appropriations bill. Make no mistake, we have our differences, as we 
all do. But in the 4 years that I have shared the responsibility of 
managing this bill with Senator Lautenberg, holding hearings on 
Transportation appropriations issues, working to improve transportation 
safety, working to improve the efficiency of transportation programs, 
and working to develop recommendations that reflect the will of the 
Senate and the priorities of our colleagues, I have found Frank 
Lautenberg to be thoughtful, decisive, reasonable, and professional. I 
could not ask for more from a ranking member.
  I could talk about his accomplishments when he chaired this 
subcommittee in years past, his advocacy on behalf of Amtrak and the 
Coast Guard, about his legislative accomplishments to ban smoking on 
airline flights and to shape highway reauthorization bills, about his 
love of aviation, about his significant place in shaping Transportation 
authorization and appropriations bills during his tenure in the Senate, 
about his vision for improving transportation services, not just in his 
State of New Jersey but more broadly for the entire Northeast region of 
the United States.
  But that would not give the full measure of his contribution. 
Equally, if not more important, is his commitment to making the process 
here work, to applying pressure in his own way to get the issues before 
the Senate and the Congress that are timely and that are relevant.
  Many have said the Senate will miss Senator Lautenberg, that New 
Jersey will miss his influence, and that the country will miss his 
leadership on transportation issues. That is all true. But what I will 
miss most is his friendship, his advice and support on the 
Transportation Subcommittee on which he has labored so long.
  I would like to see Senator Lautenberg honored in an appropriate way 
as he departs his service to the Senate and to the Nation's 
transportation system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
very generous and appropriate gesture on behalf of Senator Lautenberg. 
Over the last months, I have had occasion to meet around the country 
with people who are concerned about transportation. To a person, they 
all voluntarily offer up the degree to which they are going to miss 
Senator Lautenberg who has been an extraordinary champion for public 
transportation and for aviation, as the chairman said.
  Most important, speaking parochially for a moment, it is not easy to 
champion the rail system in a country that has been dominated by 
automobiles and our love affair with autos and highways. In all his 
years here, Frank Lautenberg has been the single strongest advocate of 
making certain we have an alternative form of transportation.
  In the Northeast particularly, we will have an accelerated rail link 
between New York and Boston and ultimately Washington that is due 
almost solely to his persistent annual guarantee that the funding is 
there.
  That is an enormous legacy. We do not always get an opportunity in 
the Senate to have that kind of niche where your vision is 
singlehandedly implemented. Senator Lautenberg has done that with great 
commitment and great perseverance.
  I thank him on behalf of everybody in New England who depends on that 
system to get to work, to travel, to meet their families, and to enjoy 
affordable opportunity to travel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know our colleagues are waiting to 
vote. I will not take more than a moment. I add my voice and 
congratulate the Senator from Alabama for his amendment. This amendment 
will be adopted unanimously, as it should. It is in recognition not 
only of the great contribution Senator Lautenberg has made to this 
subcommittee and to transportation policy but to the country at large 
on policies that go way beyond transportation, whether it is tobacco or 
gun safety. Whether it is an array of issues foreign or domestic, 
Senator Lautenberg has provided an insightful voice, a courageous 
voice.
  As Democratic leader, it has been an honor and high pleasure for me 
to have worked with him. I am proud to have had that opportunity. I 
congratulate him on his extraordinary service to his country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I add my voice as well and compliment Frank 
Lautenberg for his accomplishments. I commend him for his fine service 
in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3454.
  The amendment (No. 3454) was agreed to.

[[Page S5197]]

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third 
reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill (H.R. 4475), as amended, pass? The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     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
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The bill (H.R. 4475), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  [The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future 
edition of the Record.]
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, is 
recognized.


                      Motion to Instruct Conferees

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] moves that the 
     conferees on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill 
     H.R. 4475 be instructed, and are hereby instructed, not to 
     accept section 318 of the bill as passed by the House of 
     Representatives.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  Yesterday, both Senator Bryan and I came to the floor to discuss this 
motion, the reasons for dealing with corporate average fuel economy 
standards in this fashion, and to give a preview as to our reasons for 
this vitally important motion.
  Twenty-five years ago, in 1975, the Congress--an enlightened 
Congress, I may say--passed a certain set of requirements demanding 
that automobiles and small trucks on average from each manufacturer 
meet certain fuel efficiency standards; that is to say, that they get 
better gas mileage and, not at all incidentally, provide less pollution 
into the atmosphere of the United States.
  That statute was passed, of course, in the aftermath of the oil 
boycott on the part of Arab countries and a steep rise in gasoline 
prices.
  Though I am quite conservative and often critical of government 
regulation, I know of few, if any, regulatory regimes of the United 
States that were more successful. In a period of a little more than 5 
years, the average fuel efficiency of automobiles in the United States 
for all practical purposes doubled. That proposal was passed, 
incidentally, over arguments that were not similar to the arguments 
that are made against this motion today but identical to the arguments 
made against this motion today.
  We were told by the Ford Motor Company that the passage of such 
standards would mean everyone would be driving a Maverick or something 
smaller than a Maverick. Chrysler and General Motors followed suit. The 
people of the United States would not be able to buy the kinds of 
automobiles they were accustomed to driving and those that they were in 
fact driving at the present time.
  Well, those predictions were so dramatically off kilter that the 
largest regular passenger cars manufactured today get better gas 
mileage than the Maverick about which they were speaking in the year 
1975.
  Curiously enough, however, in spite of this huge success, a success 
that literally saves 3 million gallons of gasoline a day in the United 
States, for at least the last 10 years, the House of Representatives, 
in its appropriation bill for the Department of Transportation, has 
prohibited not only the promulgation of new corporate average fuel 
economy standards but even their study and proposal on the part of the 
Department of Transportation.
  The Senate, in each of those years, has been wiser. It has included 
no such prohibition. Regrettably, however, the Senate has without 
exception receded to the House position on this issue in each and every 
year of the last decade or two. As a consequence, the average fuel 
economy of our overall fleets has been decreasing rather than 
increasing.
  Last year, the distinguished Senator from California, Mr. Bryan from 
Nevada, and I introduced a sense-of-the-Senate resolution stating that 
we should not keep our heads in the sand any longer; We ought to allow 
these studies to go forward. We ended up with roughly 40 votes, a 
substantial and credible vote, but obviously not a majority vote of the 
Senate. What has happened during the course of the last year, Mr. 
President? Well, the most obvious occurrence has been a vast increase 
in the retail price of gasoline for each and every American consumer.
  A year ago, we were at the end of roughly a year of abnormally low 
gasoline prices. The reaction earlier this year on the part of OPEC was 
to get that cartel together, cut back on production, and thus hugely 
drive up the price of gasoline. Our Secretary of Energy was sent, hat 
in hand, around the world to plead with OPEC countries to please 
produce more gasoline, please don't punish Americans by driving up 
retail gasoline prices so high. This is what we in the United States 
were reduced to--pleading with OPEC countries for a greater degree of 
production.
  Well, they agreed to a little bit more. Prices dropped for a month or 
so, although nothing comparable to the increase that had preceded it. 
Now they are on the rise again. I believe it was Monday that the 
Washington Post indicated that retail prices for gasoline in the 
Midwest, where there are certain air pollution requirements, have gone 
up 30 to 50 cents a gallon in the course of 6 or 8 weeks. The same 
report indicated that we had 3 straight weeks of gasoline price 
increases all over the country, to the point where they are higher than 
ever before. Predictions are that they will hit $2 a gallon well before 
this year is over. Perhaps even more significant than this punishment 
of the American people with higher gasoline prices is the increased 
dependence the U.S. has on foreign sources of oil. Way more than 50 
percent of our oil is produced overseas now, which, of course, subjects 
us to the effectiveness of the OPEC cartel.
  That is the first thing that has taken place. The second thing is 
this: We were accused last year in the debate with mandating new 
corporate efficiency standards when we didn't know what they would be, 
and when they

[[Page S5198]]

would ignore completely the safety of automobiles that were produced 
and driven in the U.S. Curiously enough, that, too, was a major 
argument made 25 years ago: More people will be killed on the highways 
because we will be driving these tiny little Mavericks and subcompact 
automobiles.
  But do you know what has happened? Death rates on our highways, per 
hundred million miles driven, have dropped by more than 50 percent. 
Why? Because the big three automobile manufacturers' technology and 
imagination is far more efficient than their lobbying and the points 
they make during the course of political campaigns. They have made 
automobiles safer both because there has been a demand and because 
there have been mandated requirements through the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration for airbags, side impact matters, and a 
wide range of other safety devices. It is far safer to drive with the 
cars that we have today, which are twice as fuel efficient as those in 
the mid-1970s, than it was before these standards were adopted.
  Nevertheless, it is our view that safety is an appropriate 
consideration. So you have a different proposition before you this year 
than you had last year. All we are asking--so it is a very important 
request in this motion--is that the Senate not agree to a House 
prohibition that says you cannot study, propose, or promulgate new 
corporate average fuel-efficient standards for automobiles. To say that 
we can't study that in light of the technological changes in the last 
20 years--it is incredible that anybody in the Senate would argue for 
such a proposition. No study? No proposal? No knowledge about what we 
are doing?
  I will be one of the conferees that will be appointed as soon as this 
debate is over and this voice vote is taken. Mr. President, because the 
House, of course, will maintain its position, my view is that not only 
an appropriate compromise but an appropriate course of action will be 
to permit the Department of Transportation study and propose new 
corporate average fuel efficiency standards. I think they ought to be 
studied. I think they ought to be proposed. I think they ought to 
consider safety as well as fuel efficiency. But I do think it quite 
appropriate that they be brought back here to this body into the House 
of Representatives before they be promulgated. So I will accept as a 
compromise with the House a prohibition against promulgating new 
standards until next year's Transportation appropriations bill has been 
deliberated, passed, and signed, obviously by a new President of the 
United States.

  We will not be running the risk of a runaway Federal agency by any 
stretch of the imagination. What risks will we be running? We will run 
the risk that we will vote on something we understand. We will run the 
risk that standards will be proposed that will increase the efficiency 
of our automobiles and lower the cost of gasoline for every American 
purchaser of a new car and help clean up our air--important 
considerations that are specific in nature and brought to us because 
they cannot be promulgated until we have had another chance to vote on 
them. I think it takes a great deal of imagination to say the United 
States of America, through its Department of Transportation, cannot 
engage in such a study and such a proposal.
  The arguments you will get on the other side you already have in a 
Dear Colleague letter, one that says, gee, we made our cars more 
efficient in 1975, and now we drive more. I don't think that is a 
criticism. I think that is a praise of better gas mileage. Of course, 
oil consumption has increased in 25 years. We have more people. We have 
better roads. And we have better automobiles. It may very well be that 
will be the case, if we have even better gas mileage. But to say we 
ought to cause people to stop driving because gasoline is too expensive 
and we are not going to do anything about it is, at the very best, a 
bizarre argument.
  The second is, of course, the very argument that there will no longer 
will be any choice--that cars will have to be so small that people 
won't be able to choose small trucks or SUVs. The Ford Motor Company 
has already told us it can greatly increase the fuel efficiency of 
SUVs. We know they can do this in the future, as they have in the past. 
I repeat that it is perfectly appropriate to say we will bring these 
standards back here to us with their actual impact before we actually 
pose them.
  Finally, they argue that we are doing so well already with creating 
more efficient cars that we shouldn't undercut that kind of research 
going into a new generation of engine by having some kind of mandate. 
True. We have. In fact, I chaired another appropriations subcommittee, 
the Subcommittee on Interior, which finances the studies for a new 
generation of vehicles. I do so with great enthusiasm. But I also note 
that while these studies have gone on, the automobile manufacturers 
have done nothing to actually increase their average fuel economy on 
the road.
  This proposal is not only not inconsistent with the studies that are 
going on with the cooperation of the Federal Government and the 
automobile manufacturers, but they are totally consistent with them. We 
are saying: Do a better job for Americans. Don't tell us that we will 
see future Secretaries of Energy every time the OPEC countries are 
moved to demand more money going hat in hand around the world. Use 
American technological genius to do the job that you did from 1975 
until 1980. Produce a more efficient automobile. Don't make it less 
safe, make it more safe; the way you did then.
  To use the old expression, if you fool me once, shame on you; fool me 
twice, shame on me. They attempted to fool our predecessors in 1975. 
They didn't succeed. They were wrong in every single argument they made 
in 1975. If we let them fool us twice with the same arguments, shame on 
us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Missouri such 
time as he might require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for 
yielding time to me to speak on a very important issue.
  In the 1970s, Congress sought to regulate fuel economy for various 
vehicles in the United States, and recently, as a result of the 
continuation of that program, there has been an effort to continue to 
escalate the amount of fuel economy that is demanded from companies 
that produce automobiles. Since CAFE was enacted, we have had a weight 
reduction in cars of about 1,000 pounds per car. That is the way you 
get better fuel economy--carry less, and reduce the weight of the car 
in order to get better fuel economy.
  I point out that there are some very serious consequences of reducing 
the weight of a car by a thousand pounds. I indicate that one of those 
serious consequences has been highlighted in USA Today in a major 
feature article from July 2 of last year, ``Death by the Gallon.''

       A USA Today analysis of previously unpublished fatality 
     statistics discovers that 46,000 people have died because of 
     the 1970's-era push for greater fuel efficiency which has led 
     to smaller cars--

  Read, ``lighter cars.''
  For a number of reasons, I think it is in our best interest not to 
force our auto manufacturers to produce lighter and lighter cars--
46,000 people represents 46,000 families. I think we want to be a part 
of a voice that says don't make it riskier to drive on the highways.
  There are a number of individuals who would say: This kind of 
statistical analysis isn't the right thing. They say fuel economy has 
gone up, and the number of fatalities on our highways has gone down. 
Therefore, it must be that cars are safer in spite of the fact that 
they are lighter. Very frankly, that is a pretty primitive sort of 
analysis, and it is misleading. It is not correct.
  I have in my hand a letter addressed to me from the Harvard Center 
for Risk Analysis. I will ask unanimous consent it be printed in the 
Record. I would like to read from the letter. Here is what this letter 
says:

       There are many powerful forces at work that have produced 
     the overall decline in the traffic fatality rate: increasing 
     rates of safety belt use, less drinking and driving, and a 
     growing share of miles traveled on relatively safe Interstate 
     highways, to name a few of those important forces.

  Here is important language:

       It would be easy for these favorable forces to mask or 
     conceal any adverse safety effects

[[Page S5199]]

     of CAFE in overall data. In fact, our national times series 
     analyses published in 1989 (Journal of Law and Economics, 
     vol. 32, April 1989, pp. 112-3) show that, once these 
     favorable effects are controlled for in a national time-
     series model, the average weight of the vehicle fleet is 
     significantly and NEGATIVELY associated with the fatality 
     rate. In other words, more vehicle weight (less fuel economy) 
     is associated with a smaller fatality rate.

  In other words, more vehicle weight and less fuel economy is 
associated with a smaller fatality rate.
  Conversely, the more weight you have in the vehicle, the lower your 
fatality rate, and the more weight you take out of the vehicle, the 
higher your fatality rate.
  Those who have suggested that this 46,000 number is not a reliable 
number simply are simplistically interpreting the data.
  When you control for factors such as the reduction in drunk driving, 
when you control for the factors such as airbags and seatbelts, when 
you control for factors such as the increased number of miles driven on 
interstate highways, we still have to live with the fact that 46,000 
people have died because we have mandated that vehicles be made lighter 
and unsafe. It is clear that this is a tremendous human toll to pay.
  Due to higher gasoline prices, there are those who would argue that 
if we suddenly have lighter vehicles, the fuel savings will remediate 
the problem that we have no energy policy in the United States. I think 
that is less than realistic.

  We need an energy policy in the United States. We need to have the 
opportunity to develop our own energy resources. Trying to get a few 
more miles per gallon on the highway and lightening our vehicles even 
further, subjecting more people to the fate of the 46,000 who have 
already died, is not going to solve the problem we have energy-wise 
around the world. We will solve the problem when we decide that America 
will make a commitment to some of its own energy and energy 
independence.
  I rise today to oppose this motion that instructs the conferees on 
the part of the Senate to fight the position expressed in the House of 
Representatives. The House of Representatives measure properly 
recognizes that to take additional weight out of vehicles as a result 
of a mandate for additional corporate average fuel economy is unwise.
  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency that 
administers CAFE, found increasing the average weight of each passenger 
car on the road by 100 pounds saves 300 lives annually. Rather than 
decreasing, we might be able to increase and save lives.
  A number of studies have been conducted to determine the actual 
effect of CAFE standards on highway safety. The Competitive Enterprise 
Institute found that of the 21,000 car occupant deaths that occurred 
last year, between 26 and 4,500 in just 1 year were attributable to the 
Federal Government's new car fuel economy standards. That is not 
consequential; 4,500 is nearly 100 people per State on average who die 
in car accidents because Congress is mandating weight be taken out of 
cars.
  I ask unanimous consent to have two letters printed in the Record on 
which I will now comment.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Harvard Center for Risk Analysis,

                                        Boston, MA, June 13, 2000.
     Senator John Ashcroft,
     Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

   Correcting Misinformation About Fuel Economy Regulation and Safety

       Dear Senator Ashcroft: During the recent House discussions 
     of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulation, there 
     was a widely distributed letter dated May 18, 2000 by the 
     American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and 
     the Center for Auto Safety (CAS). I am concerned that this 
     letter contains some misleading statements about an important 
     issue: The potential adverse effects of fuel economy 
     regulation on the safety of motorists. The purpose of my 
     letter is to correct the misinformation and offer a different 
     perspective. I have enclosed a copy of the ACEEE/CAS letter 
     in case you have not seen it.
       There are a variety of claims in the ACEEE letter about 
     energy savings, jobs, and technology that I am in no position 
     to evaluate. However, I have published the critical peer-
     review science on the CAFE-safety issue and thus am in a 
     strong position to offer insight into the safety risks of the 
     CAFE program. I have four specific concerns about the ACEE 
     letter.
       Concern #1. A chart accompanying the ACEEE letter shows 
     that the U.S. traffic fatality rate has steadily declined 
     form 1970 to 1998 (CAFE started in 1975), a period when motor 
     vehicle fuel economy improved substantially. The inference 
     drawn from the chart, that improved fuel economy did not 
     compromise the safety of motorists, is misleading.
       There are many powerful forces at work that have produced 
     the overall decline in the traffic fatality rate: increasing 
     rates of safety belt use, less drinking and driving, and a 
     growing share of miles traveled on relatively safe Interstate 
     highways, to name a few of those important forces. I would be 
     easy for these favorable forces to mask or conceal any 
     adverse safety effects of CAFE in overall data. In fact, our 
     national times series analyses published in 1989 (Journal of 
     Law and Economics, vol. 32, April 1989, pp. 112-3) show that, 
     once these favorable effects are controlled for a national 
     time-series model, the average weight of the vehicle fleet is 
     significantly and negatively associated with the fatality 
     rate. In other words, more vehicle weight (less fuel 
     economy) is associated with a smaller fatality rate.
       Another important factor that ACEEE does not mention (with 
     regard to safety) is that the light truck fleet grew rapidly 
     in the post-CAFE period (particularly post-1985), and these 
     light trucks tend to be larger, heavier, and more crashworthy 
     than the passenger cars they displaced in the market. Thus, 
     one of the reasons for the declining traffic fatality rate 
     from 1985 to the present was the growing size and weight of 
     the light-duty vehicle fleet, which is increasingly dominated 
     by light trucks (minivans, cargo vans, pick-up trucks and 
     sport-utility vehicles). Although some of these light trucks 
     have serious safety issues associated with them (e.g., 
     rollover risk for certain smaller SUVs), there is no question 
     that the size of these vehicles offers more crashworthiness 
     for the occupant than does the average passenger car (even 
     holding constant optional safety features).
       Since CAFE regulation was applied only to new vehicles and 
     was applied more stringently to new passenger cars than light 
     trucks, we would not expect CAFE to have a noticeable effect 
     on the fatality rate for all vehicles (old and new, light 
     trucks and cars) on the road, the overall data presented by 
     ACEEE. When direct comparisons were made of fatality and 
     injury rates in new passenger cars downsized due to CAFE and 
     old passenger cars unaffected by CAFE, it was clearly shown 
     that the downsizing of cars increased the fatality and injury 
     risks to the occupants of the downsized cars. These data were 
     published by the Highway Loss Data Institute and the 
     Insurance Institute for Highway Safety over ten years ago.
       When Dr. Robert Crandall of Brookings and I analyzed 
     fatality rates with and without CAFE regulation, controlling 
     for other relevant safety variables, we estimated that CAFE 
     regulation (from 1975 to 1985) was responsible for about half 
     of the 1,000-pound decline in the average weight of new 
     passenger cars, which resulted, once the entire car fleet was 
     regulated, in 2,200 to 3,900 additional fatalities to 
     motorists per year in the USA. To the best of my knowledge, 
     these findings have never been disputed in the peer-reviewed 
     scientific literature.
       Concern #2: The ACEEE letter asserts that the growing sales 
     of small cars in the 1975-1985 time period were attributable 
     to recession, oil prices and other market factors rather then 
     CAFE regulation.
       Dr. Crandall and I addressed this question explicitly in 
     our 1989 study. In our economic analysis of the car market, 
     we found that the average new passenger car became about 
     1,000 pounds lighter during this period. About half of the 
     weight reduction was due to market forces; the other half was 
     due to CAFE regulation.
       Concern #3: The ACEEE letter asserts that the Insurance 
     Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has a history of ``shoddy 
     analysis'' on the subject of CAFE and safety.
       I feel compelled to come to the scientific defense of IIHS 
     by simply noting that IIHS has a strong scientific reputation 
     throughout the world and, although I sometimes disagree with 
     their inferences, I have always found IIHS's scientific 
     work--on this topic as well as on other safety topics--to be 
     meticulous and analytically competent. I would urge you and 
     your colleagues to give a fair hearing to the analyses 
     prepared by IIHS.
       Concern #4: The ACEEE letter suggests that automakers, in 
     the future, can make light trucks more fuel efficient without 
     reducing their size or weight through technological 
     enhancements. This statement may be correct but it is 
     misleading because the CAFE program does not require or 
     encourage automakers to favor technological enhancements over 
     downsizing and weight reduction.
       Reducing the size and weight of a light truck generally 
     reduces the cost of producing the vehicle. Making the kinds 
     of engineering changes recommended by ACEEE will generally 
     increase the cost of producing a light truck, a point that 
     ACEEE acknowledges. The CAFE program is designed to let 
     automakers choose how to comply with tighter CAFE 
     requirements, and you can be sure that there will be ``bean 
     counters'' in Detroit and Japan who would prefer to comply 
     with tighter CAFE rules by reducing vehicle size and weight 
     rather than adopting costly engineering changes.
       The regulatory history of CAFE shows that automakers, when 
     confronted with tough

[[Page S5200]]

     CAFE rules, respond with a mix of downsizing, weight 
     reduction, and engineering innovations. For example, from 
     model year 1974 to 1990, a period of improving new car fuel 
     economy, the average ``shadow'' (length times width) of a new 
     car declined by 16% and the average weight of a new car 
     declined by 20%. Engineering improvements such as front-wheel 
     drive and computerized fuel injection systems also increased 
     rapidly. Although automakers ``could'' have complied 
     primarily or even exclusively with engineering improvements, 
     there is nothing about the design or enforcement of the CAFE 
     program that discouraged vehicle manufacturers from reducing 
     vehicle size and weight as part of their compliance strategy. 
     This compliance issue is discussed in more detail in my 
     published critique of the ``Bryan bill'' of ten years ago (JD 
     Graham, ``The Safety Risks of Proposed Fuel Economy 
     Legislation,'' Risk: Issues in Health and Safety, vol. 3(2), 
     Spring 1992, pp. 95-126.) If tougher CAFE rules are now 
     applied to light trucks, there is no reason to believe that 
     downsizing and weight reduction will be ignored by automakers 
     (especially since they represent a cost-SAVING compliance 
     strategy.
       It should also be noted that the letter by ACEEE touts 
     weight reduction (e.g., through lighter steel materials) as a 
     compliance strategy without acknowledging the safety risks of 
     lighter materials. For example, an SUV may be more likely to 
     rollover if it is constructed with lighter materials, and the 
     driver of a vehicle that crashes into a guardrail is 
     generally safer with more vehicle mass than less vehicle mass 
     (assuming the guardrail is somewhat flexible or penetrable). 
     Heavier vehicles do pose more risk to other motorists in two-
     vehicle crashes but the government's studies have 
     demonstrated that making small cars heavier will have seven 
     times more safety benefit than making light trucks lighter 
     (and hence less aggressive in two-vehicle crashes).
       In summary, any discussion of tighter CAFE standards should 
     include a serious, careful evaluation of the potential safety 
     risks. Although safety risks are important, they should not 
     dictate the final policy choice since they need to be 
     weighted against the benefits of enhanced fuel economy, some 
     of them cited in the ACEEE letter.
       Senator Ashcroft, I certainly hope that these thoughts are 
     helpful. If you should use any of these comments in the 
     policy debate, be careful to attribute the comments to me 
     personally rather than to my Center or University. Please do 
     not hesitate to contact me if you or your staff should have 
     any questions or desire any additional information. You may 
     also be interested to know that we have a working group at my 
     Center looking into these issues, exploring new policy 
     approaches that may save both energy and lives. We will 
     certainly keep you in touch as we make progress on this 
     complex regulatory issue.
           Sincerely,
                                            John D. Graham, Ph.D.,
     Professor and Director.
                                  ____

                                           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 1989 Harvard University/Brookings Institution study 
determined that the current CAFE standard of 27.5 miles per gallon is 
responsible for between a 14 and 27 percent increase in the annual 
traffic deaths, since the new car fleet must be downsized in order to 
meet stricter standards.
  Further, the 1992 National Academy of Sciences study concluded that 
the downsizing of automobiles due to fuel economy requirements has a 
direct impact on passenger safety. The 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.''
  Stunning advances are being made to improve safety in other respects. 
To give away those advances by imposing lighter and lighter vehicles 
raises very, very, very serious and troubling questions.
  The most troubling conclusion from the study that was conducted by 
the National Academy of Sciences: ``it may be inevitable that 
significant increases in fuel economy can occur only with some negative 
safety consequences.'' The National Academy of Sciences study also 
said, ``the CAFE approach to achieving automotive fuel economy has 
defects that are sufficiently grievous to warrant careful 
reconsideration of the approach.''
  The National Academy of Sciences says careful reconsideration of this 
entire approach ought to be undertaken. If the National Academy of 
Sciences is suggesting we need to carefully reconsider this approach, I 
am not sure we ought to be in the business of extending the approach or 
enlarging that approach. These standards are killing people, yet there 
are those who want to make the standards even tougher, even more 
deadly.
  Based on experience and the research, increasing CAFE standards to 40 
miles per gallon, which is less than the proposal supported by the 
President and the Vice President, would cause up to about 57,00 deaths 
a year. At some point, I hope we will get the attention of policymakers 
and ask ourselves if we really want to sacrifice, on this altar of fuel 
economy, that many lives a year.
  Of course, that is included in this special USA Today report. Mr. 
President, 46,000 people is equivalent to an entire town, such as 
Joplin, MO, in my home State. The deaths of 46,000 people would wipe 
out the entire town of Blue Springs, MO, or all of Johnson and 
Christian Counties in Missouri.
  The average gas mileage for passenger vehicles 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 am not sure 
46,000 lives are worth it for improved fuel efficiency.
  There are a number of alternatives to lightening vehicles for fuel 
efficiency. Some of the alternatives are in the process of being 
developed in the capitals of the automotive industry, whether in 
Detroit or other sections around the country. They relate to fuel 
cells. They relate to combination strategies. They relate to large 
flywheels that capture the momentum of a car as it stops, and as that 
momentum is captured in the flywheel it is regained as the car is 
started again. There are many things that are being done.
  Some in the automotive industry say if we mandate additional fuel 
economy standards immediately, the research resources which are 
supporting the development of these new technologies will have to be 
shifted back over into weight reduction techniques immediately to meet 
demands. So instead of moving toward long-term changes in efficiency, 
we get to the short run,

[[Page S5201]]

which loses more lives and impairs our ability to develop the kind of 
fuel cell technology, the kind of combined energy technologies that 
result in safer and more efficient cars.
  I asked the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for an opinion on 
raising CAFE standards and the impact on highway safety. The Institute 
said: 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 letter stated: The more safer vehicles the 
manufacturer sells, the more difficult it becomes to meet CAFE 
standards.

  The idea of elevated CAFE requirements is at war with the idea of 
safe occupancy in the automobile. The simple idea or notion that says 
fatalities have been going down while weight has been going down in 
cars, therefore it must be safer to be in lighter cars, is a simple 
notion, but it is an incorrect notion. It ignores the other factors. It 
ignores factors such as seatbelt use, airbag deployment, divided 
highways, the kinds of things highway design has done to elevate safety 
standards.
  I make one thing very clear: I am in favor of promoting cleaner air. 
I believe we must be responsible environmentally. However, there is a 
level at which we ought to consider the risk to human lives. The reason 
we want clean air is that dirty air impairs the health and well-being 
of human beings. So the reasons we are pursuing are the same. We want 
to save people who might be included in these gruesome statistics of 
46,000 people dying. While I want to have cleaner air, I don't think it 
is necessarily done by putting people on the altar of lighter vehicles 
and having them lose their lives when we can find other ways of 
achieving that.
  Consumers are not choosing smaller cars. They look at convenience. 
They look at safety. They look at where their children are going to be 
riding, and how they will get there. They are buying larger cars. 
Safety is one of the three main reasons people purchase SUVs. Small 
cars are only 18 percent of all vehicles on the road, but they account 
for 37 percent of vehicle deaths. You have to think about that for a 
moment. That is a startling statistic. Small cars are only 18 percent 
of the vehicles on the road. Yet they account for 37 percent of the 
vehicle deaths--or that was the figure in 1997. I doubt if the data has 
significantly changed.

  Some people argue that the reason the small cars are troublesome is 
because they get into wrecks with bigger cars; they are getting into 
accidents with SUVs. Frankly, the facts do not support that claim. 
Based on figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Board, only 1 
percent of all small car deaths involved collisions with mid-size or 
large SUVs--1 percent. One percent of their accidents, yet their 
fatality rate is 37 percent; in spite of the fact they are only 18 
percent of the cars on the road, 37 percent of all the traffic deaths.
  Car-buying experts have said that only 7 percent of new vehicle 
shoppers say they will consider buying a small car. According to this 
source, 82 percent who have purchased small cars say they will not buy 
another.
  Safety-conscious consumers--certainly my constituents in Missouri--
understand the need for safety and are buying larger vehicles. But now 
Washington wants to tell residents in my State what kind of car they 
can buy. Washington wants to increase the level of risk, basically, 
that will attend driving those cars. The lighter the car, according to 
the National Academy of Sciences and the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Board, the higher the risk.
  We fight drunk driving. We mandate seatbelt use. We require 
manufacturers to install airbags. Yet today we are being asked to tell 
the House we will not accept their policy of providing for Americans 
the opportunity of choosing cars that are heavy enough to be safer. We 
want to mandate, somehow, that we take additional pounds out of cars.
  I was stunned by the data developed by our own agencies that said if 
you add 100 pounds, you save 300 lives. I suppose it is not 
scientifically correct to say if you took 100 pounds out, you would 
lose 300 lives--maybe you would. You might lose more. I would hate to 
be the person who had to make up the list of the 300 names, or of the 
thousand names, or however many names there are, of the lives that 
would be lost because we refused to adopt an approach which says: We 
have gone far enough with the Federal mandates on weight reduction and 
fuel economy. We should allow what is already happening in the 
automotive industry, a tremendous surge of research and technology, 
much of it spurred by our own incentives and initiatives, to develop 
alternative technologies which can provide for the transportation needs 
that we have with greater efficiency, without putting so many people at 
risk.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this motion, the motion which would 
instruct the conferees not to accept section 318 of the bill as passed 
by the House of Representatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield such time to the distinguished senior Senator 
from California as she may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to join the 
Senator from Washington in this debate. I have just listened to the 
comments of the distinguished Senator from Missouri. I must say I 
profoundly differ with them. But let's for a moment say the Senator is 
correct. Then what is the fear of doing a study to take a look at the 
safety implications of SUVs and light trucks in single and multicar 
accidents? If the other side is so sure they are correct, they have 
nothing to worry about from a study being done. So why the gag order 
that prevents the Government from looking at this?
  I submit to you, Mr. President, in direct debate with the Senator, 
that as fuel economy standards have gone up, fatality rates per million 
miles traveled have actually decreased. That decrease is rather large. 
I wish I had a big chart, but you can kind of see it here. These are 
the fuel economy on-road miles per gallon going up, and here are the 
fatality rates to the year 2000 actually going down.
  Second, Ford Motor Company, by 2003, will have on the market a hybrid 
SUV which will get 40 miles per gallon. And Ford says that its 2003 
version of its Escape sports utility vehicle will get twice that of 
other small SUVs, four times that of big ones. This comes from 
technology, from a hybrid powerplant, a small gasoline engine coupled 
to an electric motor. This SUV will get 40 miles to the gallon. Let me 
read a statement by the National Highway Traffic Safety Board:

       Collisions between cars and light trucks account for more 
     than one half of all fatalities in crashes between light duty 
     vehicles. More than 60 percent of all fatalities in light 
     vehicle side impacts occur when the striking vehicle is a 
     light truck. SUVs are nearly three times as likely to kill 
     drivers of other vehicles during collisions than are cars.

  According to a study by the National Crash Analysis Center, an 
organization funded by both the Government and the auto industry:

       Occupants of a SUV are just as likely as occupants of a car 
     to die, once the vehicle is involved in an accident.

  The explanation, of course, is that SUVs have high rollover rates; 62 
percent of SUV deaths are in rollover accidents, but only 22 percent of 
car deaths are in rollover accidents. So you cannot say that the SUV/
light truck is a safe vehicle, even as a heavier vehicle. The 
statistics do not support it.
  Let me also say that Ford Motor Company itself, which depends on SUVs 
for much of its profit, has acknowledged that they cause serious safety 
and environmental problems. Let me quote from the New York Times:

       In its first corporate citizenship report issued at the 
     company's annual shareholders' meeting here, Ford said that 
     the vehicles contributed more than cars to global warming, 
     emitted more smog-causing pollution, and endangered other 
     motorists. The auto maker said that it would keep building 
     them because they provide needed profit, but would seek 
     technological solutions to the problems and look for 
     alternatives to big vehicles.

  So here is a major American manufacturer admitting that SUVs are not 
safer.
  Let me finally, on this point, quote a GAO report:

       The unprecedented increase in the proportion of light cars 
     on the road that occurred between 1976 and 1978, and 1986 and 
     1988, did not have the dire consequences for safety that 
     would be expected if fatality rates were simply a function of 
     car weight. Not only did the total fatality rate decrease, 
     but the fatality rate for small cars, those at the greatest 
     risk, if it is assumed that heavier cars

[[Page S5202]]

     are inherently safer than lighter cars, also declined 
     sharply.

  So why be afraid of the study? If those who say safety is a problem 
are so sure, let's take a good look at it. Let's have unbiased sources 
take a look at it.
  The reason I feel so strongly is because I do believe that global 
warming is a real and vital phenomenon; that it is taking place all 
across the land, and that the largest single thing we can do to reduce 
global warming is to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide.
  By putting the same fuel efficiency standards on SUVs and light 
trucks as are on sedans, we essentially remove 240 million tons of 
carbon dioxide each year from the atmosphere.
  This year's House Transportation appropriations bill once again 
contains the provision which prevents this issue from even being 
considered. This is the seventh consecutive year this gag order has 
appeared. Why are they so afraid of a study?
  If you add to what the Senator from Washington said--and I think he 
is absolutely correct--that we are witnessing a new phenomenon this 
year in increasing gasoline prices which have exacerbated our Nation's 
dependence on OPEC and foreign oil, this policy does not make sense 
from another viewpoint. It costs the consumer more. Frankly, I am 
surprised there is this resistance. Since last year's debate, gasoline 
prices reached $2 per gallon in many parts of my State, and they are 
approaching $2.50 through much of the Midwest. This should harden our 
resolve to take a look at the situation.
  Today, the United States, with only 4 percent of the world's 
population, consumes 25 percent of the world's energy. Our CO2 
emissions from vehicles alone exceed the total CO2 emissions of carbon 
dioxide from all but three other countries in the world today.
  My State of California is the third largest consumer of gasoline in 
the world, behind only the United States and Japan and ahead of 
virtually every other country. So California has a huge stake in this. 
We use more gasoline than China, Germany, and Russia. The situation is 
made worse by this loophole. SUVs and light trucks, which are as much 
passenger vehicles as station wagons and sedans, are only required 
today to have 20.7 miles per gallon per fleet versus 27.5 miles per 
gallon for automobiles.
  I am an SUV owner. I own three Jeeps. I love my Jeeps, but I do not 
see why they should not be just as fuel efficient as the sedan we also 
drive. At today's prices, light truck and SUV owners are spending an 
additional $25 billion a year at the pump because of this loophole. If 
SUVs simply achieve the same fuel economy standards as automobiles, 
consumers would save hundreds of dollars a year and thousands of 
dollars over the life of a vehicle.
  As this chart shows, the typical SUV burns about 861 gallons of fuel 
each year. The average gasoline price, if it is at $1.50 cents a 
gallon, costs consumers $1,290 a year. At $2, the cost increases to 
more than $1,700.
  If we simply close this SUV loophole and require these vehicles to 
meet the same standards as automobiles, SUVs would burn 213 fewer 
gallons of gasoline a year. That is a savings of 1 million barrels of 
oil a year, and it is a savings of 240 million tons of carbon dioxide 
going into the air. It is also a savings for the consumer of $318 each 
year. At $2, the savings is $420 a year. The real clincher is the 
pollution argument, and that is, the savings of 240 million tons of CO2 
from going into the air and creating a greenhouse effect that warms the 
Earth.
  We also know that raising CAFE standards is the quickest and most 
single effective step we can take in this direction. I happen to 
believe global warming is real. I took a day and went to the Scripts 
Institute of Oceanography in San Diego and had a briefing. What I heard 
there doubly convinced me it is a real phenomenon.
  The weather is getting hotter, and the ten hottest years on record 
have all occurred since 1986; 1980 to 1999 was the hottest 20-year 
period ever recorded, and 1998 was the hottest year in recorded 
history. Yesterday the temperature in San Francisco, a usually very 
cold city, was 104 degrees.

  The Earth's average temperature has risen 1.3 degrees in the last 100 
years, and computer models predict an increase of 2 to 6 degrees over 
the next century. Because of our temperate climate, the increase in the 
United States will be on the high end of that figure; meaning we will 
gain about 6 degrees in temperature over the next century.
  What does that mean? That means warmer weather in my State will make 
water even more scarce. It means it will destroy certain agricultural 
crops. It means it will lead to more frequent and intense Sierra forest 
fires and serious flooding at certain times of the year.
  In normal winters, our water gets stored in snowpacks until the 
spring when it is needed for drinking and farming, but warmer winters 
would cause significant amounts of winter precipitation to change from 
snow to rain, becoming runoff or, worse, floods into low-lying flood-
prone areas, such as Sacramento. Drought conditions will worsen in the 
southern and central valley parts of my State, destroying water-
dependent crops, such as rice, cotton, and alfalfa.
  According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sea 
levels could rise 2 feet over the next century, further flooding low-
lying areas, and greatly increasing the penetration of salt water into 
the California delta, the source of drinking water for 22 million 
people.
  That is why I am concerned. It is a legitimate reason to be concerned 
and it is doubly legitimate if you know something that is doable and 
can be done with no adverse impact, is, in fact, being done by some 
manufacturers and foreign manufacturers, and this Congress will not 
even take a look at what effect it would have on pollution, what effect 
it would have on safety. It is an ostrich syndrome par excellence.
  Mr. President, 117 million Americans live in areas where smog makes 
the air unsafe to breathe. Asthma of children is on the uptake, and 
roughly half of this air pollution is caused by cars and trucks.
  If we increase fuel efficiency, we consume less gasoline. This 
decreases smog and air pollutants. Given all these facts, I cannot 
figure out why anyone would not want to at least study whether CAFE 
standards should be updated. For 7 years there has been a gag order: Do 
not even take a look; both sides are certain. Senators Gorton, Bryan, 
and myself on one side; Senators Abraham, Levin, and Ashcroft on 
another. Let's settle it. Let's take a look. Let's have an independent 
study. Let's see who is right. It does not bother me to do that. I do 
not understand why it bothers anyone else.
  Half of all new vehicles sold in this country are SUVs and light duty 
trucks, and this is what makes this so compelling. This becomes then a 
stranglehold on energy efficiency, and it has produced an American 
fleet with the worst fuel efficiency since 1980. We are going backwards 
because of it. We are polluting the air more because of it. We are 
contributing to global warming more because of it.
  The United States saves 3 million barrels of oil each day because of 
the current fuel efficiency standards. Closing the SUV loophole adds 1 
million additional barrels. That is a total savings of 4 million 
barrels of oil each day.
  Last year, opponents of our amendment argued that boosting CAFE 
standards would lead to increased traffic fatalities, layoffs, and 
higher sticker prices. If our opponents again are so sure of their 
arguments, what is the harm of allowing the Department of 
Transportation to study the costs and benefits of higher CAFE 
standards?
  Last year, I listened to some of my colleagues cite their concerns 
again about traffic safety. Based on what we heard today, I believe it 
is naive to think that bigger cars are simply safer.
  I was going to buy a bigger car not too long ago. I watched the crash 
tests. I saw this expensive, heavy sedan crumple up like an accordion. 
I decided not to buy it; it was not safer.
  The New York Times recently reported on tests conducted by the 
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to demonstrate 
the propensity of SUVs to roll over. Here is a particularly poignant 
quote from the article:

       Because it is taller, heavier and more rigid than a car, an 
     SUV or pickup is more than twice as likely to kill the driver 
     of the other vehicle in a collision. Yet partly because these 
     so-called light trucks roll over so often, their occupants 
     have roughly the same chance of dying in a crash.


[[Page S5203]]


  So not only is an SUV driver more apt to kill someone else, but that 
same driver is not any safer. I think this should be disturbing to 
anyone who gets into any moving vehicle.
  With regard to job losses in the domestic auto industry, opponents of 
our amendment fail to offer any empirical evidence. A recent study by 
the nonpartisan American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 
concludes that the consumer savings at the pump would actually 
translate to a net increase of 244,000 jobs nationwide, with 47,000 of 
these new jobs occurring in the auto industry. Let me repeat: The 
projections are, it will not mean a loss of jobs; it will mean a gain 
of jobs. And that gain of jobs has translated into a net increase of 
244,000 jobs nationwide and 47,000 in the auto industry.
  I remember when automakers told us they could not make cars safer; 
they could not meet the original CAFE standards; they could not add 
seatbelts or catalytic converters; But they did. They said regulations 
and mandates would drive them out of business, but they did not.
  These same arguments have been recycled for decades.
  In 1974, a representative for Ford Motor Company testified in front 
of Congress that the implementation of CAFE standards would lead to a 
fleet of nothing but sub-Pinto-sized automobiles. Of course, that did 
not happen. Our Nation's fleet of vehicles are as diverse as ever and 
probably more diverse. The largest sedans and station wagons today get 
far better fuel economy than the 1974 Pinto. It is really a tribute 
both to the industry and to that industry's ingenuity. It is also a 
tribute to the CAFE or fuel efficiency program.
  One of the reasons that, for a while, the American automobile 
manufacturers lost their cutting edge in the 1970s was their reluctance 
to do the research and development necessary to build innovative new 
vehicles. But I am very proud to say that today's car companies are far 
more efficient and innovative and have the technology to increase the 
fuel economy of light duty trucks and SUVs to much higher levels than 
achieved by today's automobiles.

  I am disappointed that the automotive companies continue lobbying for 
this gag order. To me, it is like pushing things back into the 1970s, 
where the Japanese made all the advances, and the American industry 
refused to change its models, to move with the times, to put in the 
research and development that is necessary to build a better 
automobile. I thought those days were behind us.
  What do we have to lose by allowing the Department of Transportation 
to simply do their job and determine whether it makes sense to increase 
CAFE standards?
  Let me just touch on a couple of the safety fallacies.
  Again, in fact, vehicle fatality rates have been cut in half since 
CAFE standards were introduced. I pointed that out in the beginning. 
Only by stretches of fallacious logic do opponents contrive higher 
death rates to the CAFE standards.
  Let me give you some of these fallacies:
  First, the CAFE standards imply smaller vehicles.
  The answer: Higher CAFE is achieved by technology improvement, not by 
downsizing.
  Secondly, that lighter vehicles imply higher fatalities.
  The answer: Crashworthiness is determined not by size or weight but 
by design. Today's compacts are safer than large cars of 20 years ago.
  And finally, unbalanced risk assessment.
  The answer: Studies based on harm to small-car occupants neglect the 
risks that larger vehicles impose or inflict on others.
  So I am hopeful that because of the increase in fuel prices, because 
of the added cost to the consumer by the gag order, by the fact that 
every consumer, if this were to come to pass, would save $318, with an 
average cost of $1.50, and $504 with a higher cost a year, we can 
clearly make a showing that a study is necessary at this time.
  I thank the Chair and also the Senator from Washington.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the opponents are absent for the time 
being, discussing what is at least a possible settlement of this 
matter. As a consequence, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I might 
need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, we are obviously in the midst of an 
ongoing discussion that has been held on a number of occasions here 
over the issue of CAFE standards and this motion, obviously, to 
instruct the Senate conferees to either modify or strike the moratorium 
on CAFE standards in the House bill.
  I rise to speak in opposition to this motion to instruct.
  Let me begin, first, by outlining the case against raising corporate 
fuel economy standards, or CAFE. Then what I would like to discuss is 
what would actually happen as a matter of law if the CAFE freeze were 
lifted.
  First, increased CAFE requirements would cost American auto workers 
their jobs.
  They put American automobile manufacturers at a competitive 
disadvantage vis-a-vis foreign manufacturers. Let me explain what I 
mean by this.
  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 minivans, sport utility vehicles, and light 
trucks. To meet increased CAFE requirements, automakers must make 
design and material changes to their vehicles. Those changes cost 
money. They force American manufacturers to build cars that are 
smaller, less powerful, less popular to consumers, and, as I will 
indicate in a moment and as several of the preceding speakers have 
noted, less safe.
  In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences found that raising CAFE 
requirements to 35 miles per gallon would increase the average 
vehicle's cost by about $2,500. 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 automakers, and that means 
they will continue to place an uneven burden on American automobile 
workers.
  The American auto industry accounts for one in seven U.S. jobs. 
Steel, transportation, electronics, literally dozens of industries 
employing thousands upon thousands of Americans depend on the health of 
our auto industry. It is not just people in Michigan or people in Ohio; 
it is people across our Nation whose livelihoods are linked to the 
success of the American automobile manufacturing industry.
  In their letter of June 7, the United Auto Workers wrote:

       * * * 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.

  In a June 9 letter, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
writes: The CAFE program has not helped manufacturers reduce U.S. 
consumption of gasoline.

       Instead, it has created competitive disadvantages for the 
     very companies that provide job opportunities for millions of 
     Americans.

  I ask unanimous consent the full text of these letters be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
           Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2000.
       Dear Senator: When the Senate considers the FY 2001 
     Transportation Appropriations bill, we understand that 
     amendments may be offered, including the Gorton-Feinstein-
     Bryan clean car resolution, to eliminate or

[[Page S5204]]

     modify the current moratorium on increases in the 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'' (PNGV). 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. PNGV is working. This spring, 
     PNGV achieved one of its major goals with the introduction of 
     a supercar concept by each of the Big Three automakers.
       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.
                                  ____

                   International Brotherhood of Teamsters--AFL-CIO
                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2000.
       Dear Senator: The United States Senate may soon be asked to 
     vote on a provision that currently prevents the Department of 
     Transportation from increasing the Corporate Average Fuel 
     Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks. 
     Opponents of this provision argue that higher standards will 
     benefit consumers and help the U.S. reduce oil imports and 
     gasoline consumption. We disagree, and urge you to vote 
     against any amendments to eliminate or modify the current 
     moratorium on these standards.
       Many observers feel CAFE is a case of good intentions gone 
     awry. The law's original purpose was to improve automotive 
     fuel economy, and in so doing, cut our nation's dependence on 
     foreign oil. Unfortunately, although fuel economy for cars 
     and trucks has risen substantially over the past 25 years, 
     our reliance on imported oil has not declined. In fact, our 
     nation's dependence on imported oil has risen to more than 55 
     percent today from 35 percent in 1975 when the law was 
     passed. By any measure, CAFE has not delivered the benefits 
     it promised.
       Even worse, CAFE produces serious side effects when it 
     comes to American jobs. Rather than creating a level playing 
     field for all manufacturers, the CAFE system has actually 
     worked against U.S. manufacturers and autoworkers. The law 
     gives small car manufacturers a competitive advantage. Of 
     course, these manufacturers are primarily foreign-based, and 
     they import many of the cars and light trucks that they sell. 
     In addition, this situation has provided an incentive for the 
     Asian automakers to enter the mid-size and large car market 
     segments at the expense of the traditional U.S. auto 
     companies.
       Domestic autoworkers need to be able to build the larger 
     cars and trucks American consumers want. Today, American 
     consumers are demanding the safety and utility of trucks, 
     including vans, mini-vans, sport utility vehicles and pick-
     ups--a market in which U.S.-based manufacturers and 
     autoworkers produce eight out of ten vehicles. Increases in 
     light truck CAFE standards would erode the dominant position 
     of U.S. manufacturers and autoworkers in this market segment. 
     It would also adversely affect the jobs of Teamsters, who 
     transport materials, components and finished vehicles across 
     the country.
       Increasing vehicle fuel economy is a laudable goal. But the 
     CAFE program has not helped manufacturers achieve that 
     objective, and it has not reduced U.S. consumption of 
     gasoline. Instead, it has created competitive disadvantages 
     for the very companies that provide job opportunities for 
     millions of Americans. Consequently, we respectfully urge you 
     to oppose any amendment to strike or modify the current 
     moratorium on increasing CAFE standards for light trucks.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael E. Mathis,
                          Director, Government Affairs Department.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. In addition, raising CAFE standards will cost lives. On 
the issue of vehicle safety, for a number of years, 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 estimates that between 2,700 and 
4,500 drivers and passengers die every year as a result of CAFE-induced 
auto downsizing. Last year, 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 lives. 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 1980s,'' 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 SUVs have higher centers of gravity and so 
they are more prone to rollovers. If SUV and truck weights are reduced, 
thousands more will die.
  On the safety issue, two additional items: First of all, it is true 
that since CAFE standards came into effect, the overall death rates on 
our roads have gotten better. However, this fails to note some pretty 
significant information. We have had safety belts and airbags, a 
variety of other safety devices included and, in some cases, mandated 
for usage in automobiles and other vehicles. Our roads have gotten 
better. For all these reasons, the overall cumulative effect in terms 
of safety has been better over the last 25 years. But the studies that 
have specifically focused on the impact of CAFE standards, the impact 
of lighter vehicles, the impact of less crash-resistant vehicles has 
shown that the problem in terms of CAFE is not to make cars and 
vehicles more safe but to make them less so. That is the bottom line.
  Moreover, in relationship to SUVs in particular, these are vehicles 
that are more crash prone. Therefore, the notion of making them less 
safe as a product of a CAFE reform effort would be a strike at the 
heart of the safety of the American motorist.
  In addition, increased CAFE standards reduce consumer choice. CAFE 
averages are determined by the buying pattern of the American public. 
U.S. automakers are challenged by the current CAFE standards because 
the American consumer has demonstrated time and again a preference for 
minivans and SUVs, even though alternatives that are more fuel 
efficient are readily available. We don't need Government mandates to 
force automakers to produce fuel-efficient cars. If consumers want 
vehicles which get better gas mileage no matter what the cost of 
gasoline, they have a wide choice of vehicles from which to choose.
  If, as the supporters of new CAFE standards contend, consumers crave 
more fuel-efficient vehicles, then more small cars and vehicles would 
be purchased. It is supply and demand. Yet despite a variety of choices 
for fuel-efficient vehicles which get as much as 40 to 50 miles per 
gallon, these vehicles account for less than 1 percent of total vehicle 
sales. Why? The answer is simple: The public demands the convenience of 
vehicles with a larger carrying capacity and vehicles that are safer. 
These vehicles, minivans, and SUVs are the class of vehicle that will 
be eliminated should new CAFE standards be enacted, and the livelihood 
of the thousands of Americans employed in the production of such 
vehicles will be threatened.

  The Americans Farm Bureau writes:

       Full size pickups are the tools of the agricultural trade 
     and they do, indeed, haul everything from bales of hay to 
     farm equipment to livestock feed on an every day basis. 
     Higher CAFE standards would almost inevitably lead to less 
     powerful engines and weaker frames and suspension or even the 
     elimination of some full size truck models.

  We should continue to let the market, not the Government, choose the

[[Page S5205]]

types of vehicles produced by American automobile manufacturers. 
Consumers will suffer if their choices are narrowed. Automakers and 
their employees will suffer if they are forced to make cars the public 
simply does not want.
  Again, on the choice issue, this is precisely what happened when the 
CAFE standards were first adopted. In a statement before the Consumer 
Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, Dr. Marina Whitman of 
General Motors noted:

       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 the 
     conversions was $130 million. But the plants were closed 
     because demands for those cars did not develop during the 
     period of sharply declining gasoline prices.

  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 
won't buy. In either case, the real victims are American workers and 
American consumers. Proponents of CAFE argue that it will reduce U.S. 
dependence on foreign oil and gasoline consumption. Since the program 
was enacted 25 years ago, the U.S. fleet average fuel economy has more 
than doubled. However, U.S. oil imports have risen from 36 percent to 
over 50 percent, and gasoline consumption has increased during that 
very same timeframe.
  Thus raising CAFE will not reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but 
it will reduce job opportunities, consumer choice, and the automobile 
safety we presently enjoy.
  Mr. President, let me explain why the entire CAFE issue itself is 
almost obsolete. In just a few years, American automobile workers, 
working individually as well as through partnerships with Government, 
academia, and suppliers, will be bringing to the market advanced fuel-
efficient technologies--cars powered by electric, hybrid electric, 
clean burn, and fuel cell engines, and other promising new 
technologies. Toyota became the first manufacturer to mass produce a 
hybrid electric passenger car, the Prius, which will be on sale in the 
U.S. later this year. Several companies, such as Volkswagon, are 
already selling vehicles that utilize advanced technology to achieve 40 
to 50 percent greater fuel efficiency than conventional gasoline-
powered vehicles without sacrificing performance.
  American automobile manufacturers are close behind. They continue to 
invest almost $1 billion every year in research to develop more fuel-
efficient vehicles, and those efforts will soon bear fruit. In fact, 
just today, GM announced it will offer a fuel-efficient SUV capable of 
handling ethanol-based fuel. As we heard from previous speakers, the 
Ford Motor Company is in the process of bringing forth vehicles which 
will be hybrid fuel efficient within just a few years.
  Clearly, there already exists fierce competition among automakers to 
market more fuel-efficient vehicles. So why should we even consider 
turning to the punitive and disruptive methods of Federal mandates 
through CAFE standards to increase fuel efficiency for American 
vehicles. This is going to happen, Mr. President. The market will drive 
it, and it will be done in the most efficient fashion if we allow the 
companies to do what they are already in the process of accomplishing, 
instead of grabbing control in Washington and once again dictating 
through a bureaucracy the way America ought to do business.
  Since 1993, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles has 
brought together Government agencies and the auto industry to conduct 
joint research, research that is making significant progress that will 
breach the gap to real world applications after 2000. By enhancing 
research cooperation, PNGV is helping our auto industry develop 
vehicles more easily recyclable, have lower emissions, and can achieve 
up to triple the fuel efficiency of today's mid-size family sedans--all 
this while producing cars that retain performance, utility, safety, and 
economy.
  Mr. President, we are making solid progress--progress toward making 
vehicles that achieve greater fuel economy without sacrificing the 
qualities consumers demand or the safety we should all expect, progress 
that will render CAFE requirements obsolete.
  Mr. President, I want to address the contention that lifting the CAFE 
freeze will simply allow the Department of Transportation to study the 
need to raise CAFE standards. Of course, that sounds rather benign on 
its face, and a study alone is something we do often around here. But 
the way the rules and the law are currently set up, that is simply not 
the case. As a matter of law, lifting the freeze will lead to higher 
CAFE standards on sports utility vehicles and light trucks. Public Law 
94-163, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, requires the 
Department of Transportation to set CAFE standards each year at--get 
this, Mr. President--the maximum feasible average fuel economy level.
  The Secretary is not authorized to just study CAFE. The Secretary 
must act by regulation to set new CAFE standards each year. The last 
year prior to the CAFE freeze--1994--the administration began 
rulemaking on new CAFE standards. DOT's April 6, 1994, proposal 
referenced feasible higher CAFE levels for trucks of 15 to 35 percent 
above the current standard. Since 1995, Congress has refused to allow 
DOT to unilaterally increase the standards, as it has in the past.

  We have recognized that it is our duty as legislators to make policy 
in this important area of economic and environmental concern. I believe 
that very strongly. I think it ought to be the Congress that steps up 
to the responsibility of making these kinds of determinations, which 
have such overriding and such pervasive impact on the economy of 
virtually every one of the 50 States.
  Now, however, the proposal before us would move us back in the 
direction of delegating these critical economic decisions to the 
bureaucracy, the Department of Transportation. The automobile industry 
is a critical component of our overall economy. Indeed, the future of 
our economic growth depends on the continued health of the automobile 
manufacturing sector. That is why I believe that we in Congress should 
make the policy decisions related to CAFE, not regulators at the 
Department of Transportation, or anywhere else.
  In summary, raising CAFE standards for light trucks and SUVs will 
cost American jobs. It will undermine our automobile industry's global 
competitiveness. It will compromise passenger safety. It will reduce 
consumer choice, and it will not reduce America's dependence on foreign 
oil sources. Nor, in my judgment, as I think some of our colleagues who 
will soon be speaking will indicate, will it make that much of an 
impact with respect to fuel efficiency. Therefore, I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this motion to instruct the conferees to strike the 
CAFE freeze provision.
  I yield the floor and withhold the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if the Senator from Michigan wants to 
speak, I will not ask for a quorum call.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am prepared to go.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator may go ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the CAFE law, which the House of 
Representatives very properly has kept on the shelf--is a bill with 
many flaws. I am just going to focus briefly on a couple of those 
flaws.
  First, the CAFE law, as it is written, and which would be put back 
into force, does not allow for the consideration of some very highly 
relevant factors that should be considered in the regulatory process. 
One of these is safety. Senator Ashcroft--and I believe Senator 
Abraham--have also made reference to analyses of losses of life that 
have resulted from lighter vehicles.
  There has been a study and analysis, which has been referred to at 
some length, by USA Today which shows that 46,000 people have died 
because of the CAFE law who otherwise would not have died. I want to 
read very briefly from this article:

       . . . in the 24 years since a landmark law to conserve 
     fuel, big 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.

  This is according to the USA Today's analysis of crash data since 
1975, when

[[Page S5206]]

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was passed.
  The Energy Policy and Conservation Act 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 
versus 14 in 1975. But the cost has been roughly 7,700 deaths for every 
mile per gallon gained, the analysis shows.
  These figures can be disputed, although this is a very lengthy and 
very objective analysis in the USA Today of July 2, 1999.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at 
this time.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       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 Braggs, 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, big 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.
       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 
     driveways,'' 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.
       ``Improved 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, says 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.

[[Page S5207]]

     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 CO{-2 , 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 CO{-2  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 
     CO{-2 .
       ``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 CO{-2  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.
       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 
     weighs 2,000 pounds, for a '99 Civic, at 2,500 pounds.
       Conversely, the researchers 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 by 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 want car 
     shopping with teen-age 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have heard already one speaker contest 
some of the facts that are set forth in the USA Today article. But it 
seems to me that, at a minimum, it is relevant to discuss the question 
of safety, to study the question of safety, to look at whether or not 
there are additional traffic deaths that result from lighter cars. 
Surely, at a minimum, any law which seeks to regulate in this area 
should look at the kind of analysis which has been done-which shows 
46,000 people have died.
  Now, I am not an expert in this area. I don't know if 46,000 people 
have died or not. I do know that serious objective analysis by serious 
objective people have reached that conclusion and the CAFE law, which 
would be triggered into effect unless this freeze is continued, as the 
House of Representatives proposes, doesn't allow for consideration of 
safety.
  It seems to me that any regulatory process should look at all of the 
costs and all of the benefits before we regulate. But when we look at 
the CAFE laws that would be put back into effect unless the position of 
the House of Representatives is adopted, they require that at least 18 
months before the beginning of each model year, the Secretary of 
Transportation shall prescribe by regulation--this isn't optional, this 
is mandatory--shall prescribe by regulation a standard which shall be 
the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the manufacturers 
can achieve in that model year.
  None of the four or five factors listed in the law that should be 
considered on decisions on maximum feasible average fuel economy has to 
do with safety. It seems to me that kind of a narrow approach, which is 
just focused on some of the factors which should go into the regulatory 
process, is not the kind of approach which a proper regulatory process 
should adopt.
  I emphasize that the CAFE law isn't a study. This is a mandate.
  No. 1, every year there must be a decision by the Department of 
Transportation as to the maximum feasible average fuel economy level 
for the model year, and it is mandatory.
  No. 2, it does not provide for consideration of highly relevant 
factors.
  I have no problem myself with a study that looks at all the relevant 
factors. Quite the opposite. I think it is perfectly appropriate, 
provided we don't prejudge the outcome of the study and lift the freeze 
before we find out what the outcome of the study is. I don't have any 
problem with a study that looks at all of the factors objectively and 
then makes a recommendation.
  I have plenty of problems with telling any agency of this Government 
that, based on a restricted list of relevant factors, they should 
mandate something every year on the automobile manufacturers. That 
excludes this current law. This CAFE law excludes highly relevant 
factors that should be considered.
  That is point No. 1.
  At the top of the list of considerations is the question of safety.
  In addition to that, we have in this law which, in my judgment, 
unfairly discriminates against the U.S. automobile industry. That 
includes both the manufacturers and the people who manufacture parts.
  I would like to give one example of what I mean.
  Take two vehicles. These are two sport utility vehicles--the GM 
Sierra and Toyota Tundra. Both of these vehicles are about the same 
weight. One of them is slightly more fuel efficient than the other; 
that is, the GM Sierra. But the way the CAFE law is designed it has 
absolutely no impact on the imports. It has a huge impact on domestic 
manufacturers.
  Because of the way the CAFE law is written, even though the GM 
vehicle is slightly more fuel efficient than the Toyota vehicle, Toyota 
can sell 309,000 of those Tundras without any penalty. GM can't sell 
one of its vehicles without a penalty.
  It seems to me that this kind of disparate impact has to be looked 
at. No study worth its salt, and no study that is worthy of being 
called objective or fair, could ignore the disparate impact which the 
CAFE law has added. If it is put back into effect, it will continue to 
have a discriminatory effect on the American automobile manufacturers 
because of the way it is designed. It doesn't look at each vehicle 
weight class. Instead, it looks at the manufacturer and its total 
fleet.
  The result is that you have some manufacturers producing vehicles no 
more efficient than other manufacturers that have absolutely no 
effective limit on what they can sell--you have the other 
manufacturers--and it is the American manufacturer--that are 
discriminatorily impacted because of the nature of their fleet. The 
American-made vehicles are just as fuel efficient, or perhaps slightly 
more fuel efficient. Yet they have to pay the price in terms of loss of 
market share. They have to pay a penalty. They have no room to sell 
vehicles the same weight as the imports can sell with no effective 
limits whatsoever.

  People can give the arguments on the other side of this issue. That 
is fair enough. But the problem is--if I am right, and I believe I am 
right--that the discriminatory impact on the

[[Page S5208]]

American manufacturers and parts producers cannot be taken into 
consideration as part of the annual CAFE imposition. That is not on the 
list of things that go into the definition of ``feasible average fuel 
economy'' because the Secretary is told that he or she must prescribe 
the ``maximum feasible average fuel economy,'' and then defines it in 
such a way that it excludes the discriminatory impact of the CAFE law 
on American manufacturers.
  The CAFE law is flawed in many ways. It has some very negative 
consequences, in my judgment, and in the judgment of others in terms of 
safety, loss of life and discriminatory impact on American automobile 
manufacturers and parts producers.
  One other thing: Not only do the imports have this huge amount of 
room to sell their heavy vehicles while General Motors, using this 
particular analysis, cannot sell any without penalty, but they can also 
bank so-called ``credits'' under the CAFE law. Because they can bank 
credits--again, we are comparing vehicles that are the same weight 
where the GM vehicle is slightly more fuel efficient--then because of 
the way in which the law is designed, Toyota could sell 1.6 million of 
those vehicles without any penalty; General Motors, none.
  This is the original 309,000 that I made reference to, and these are 
the addition of so-called ``banked credits.''
  There are many discriminatory, disparate, and, I hope, unintended 
consequences of CAFE. But I wasn't here in the early seventies when 
this law was drafted. I can only say I hope the consequences which I 
described are unintended.
  The better approach to this entire issue, it seems to me, is for 
Government and the private sector to cooperate in a partnership for a 
new generation of vehicles. That is what is now underway. That 
partnership is producing some extraordinarily positive results.
  That research approach-that voluntary cooperative partnership- 
harnesses the ingenuity and the energy of business, partially funded 
with the Government, to achieve the policy goal which we all want--
which is more fuel-efficient cars, and cars that are also safer. And we 
don't want at the same time to unfairly damage the American automobile 
industry.
  How much time does this Senator have left on his 15 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. The better alternative for increasing SUV and light truck 
fuel economy from both an environmental and equity perspective is 
aggressive investment in fuel efficiency research projects. The 
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, PNGV, provides an example 
of the pay-off from programs that harness the energy and ingenuity of 
government and business to achieve this policy goal.
  The goal of PNGV is to improve national manufacturing 
competitiveness, implement technologies that increase the fuel 
efficiency of and improve emissions for conventional vehicles, and 
develop technologies for a new class of vehicles with up to 80 mpg 
without sacrificing the affordability, utility, safety, and comfort of 
today's midsize family sedans.
  For the five years that this program has existed (it is currently in 
its sixth year), the average annual government contribution has been 
about $250 million per year. The average annual private sector 
contribution by the Big Three has been in excess of $900 million per 
year.
  PNGV fuel-efficient technologies, such as lightweight materials, 
advanced batteries, and fuel cell and hybrid electric propulsion 
systems, are already appearing on experimental concept vehicles shown 
by automakers at recent auto shows.
  Under PNGV, U.S. automakers will have production-ready prototypes by 
2004. Some of the technology from this aggressive research will be 
transferable to the light duty truck fleet.
  I urge Members to vote against this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from 
Nevada, Mr. Bryan, desires.
  Mr. BRYAN. 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. BRYAN. 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. BRYAN. Mr. President, I realize this debate has raged on for some 
period of time this afternoon. I will simply make a couple of points in 
support of the motion to instruct conferees.
  Fuel economy affects Americans in a very practical way. We have seen 
in recent weeks the escalating prices of gasoline, prices that have 
caused Americans who come to the gas station real sticker shock. These 
are some of the numbers we have seen: $1.54 a gallon on the east coast; 
in my own part of the country, $1.59. Those numbers appear to be going 
up.
  The effect of this is to require American families who are dependent 
upon automobiles for transportation--that is most of the people who 
live in a western State, such as my own in Nevada --to have less 
spendable income for other family needs and requirements. If it is 
possible to reduce the amount of money they spend by increasing fuel 
economy--that is, getting more miles to the gallon--it makes sense for 
every family, not only in my own State, but across the Nation.
  We are proposing lifting the gag rule, to strip the blindfold off, to 
unplug our ears, and simply allow the Department of Transportation to 
examine the technology of the past 25 years--because it has been 25 
years since we have applied new fuel economy standards in America--and 
see if we can't get better fuel economy and still leave a full range of 
vehicle choice to American consumers.
  I find it hard to believe that is not a win-win for everyone. It is a 
win for the consumer. It is a win for the American automobile industry. 
It is a win for the economy. Not only do we get better fuel economy and 
save costs for the American motorist, but we can also help to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil.

  We are held vulnerable and hostage to a certain extent. We see that 
every time OPEC tweaks up or tweaks down the production quotas with an 
instantaneous response in the market. That is what has happened with 
respect to these increases.
  OPEC recognizes how vulnerable we are. We import 54 percent of the 
oil consumed in this country; 40 percent of that is attributable to the 
automotive sector. OPEC knows, because of our dependence on imported 
oil, if they can get their own act together to impose some production 
restraints, they reduce their production, the cost to the consumer who 
is filling up his or her car with gasoline is going up. If we can be a 
little less vulnerable by reducing the amounts of oil we import, won't 
that be a good thing?
  That is precisely what occurred in the 1970s. We were vulnerable 
then, as we are now, to events that occurred. We had the embargo, the 
fall of the Shah of Iran, and our economy was sent into a tailspin. 
Indeed, economically, the 1970s were a very difficult time for our 
country, as people who lived during that era will recall.
  By passing the CAFE legislation of 1975, we reduced the amount of oil 
we consumed each and every day by some 3 million barrels. We are 
suggesting fuel economy standards are beginning to decline.
  If one looks at the recent numbers, one will see that after two 
decades of progress, fuel economy averages are declining. In 1975, we 
got less than 14 miles per gallon on average. That peaked during 1988, 
1999, and it has declined. The reason it is declining is that Americans 
are choosing to purchase trucks and sport utility vehicles. That is 
their choice. Light trucks and sport utility vehicles make up nearly 50 
percent of the market.
  Shouldn't we be able to look at the technology of the last 25 years 
and apply that and see if we might not get fuel economy that would make 
it possible for Americans to drive light trucks, sport utility 
vehicles, and get better fuel economy? Is there anything wrong with 
that? I am hard pressed to come up with an argument in opposition to 
that.
  Here is what we have. From the time I was a child, I have been 
infatuated with the automobile. I have shared on this floor on many 
occasions the excitement I experienced as a youngster each new model 
year, going down to

[[Page S5209]]

the local dealership, peering in the dealership, and wondering what 
that year's model was going to be.
  If I have been improvident in terms of my expenditures, probably in 
no area is that more evident than I have loved automobiles. I have 
purchased them, and I love them. So I do not speak as a Senator who has 
an antipathy to the automobile. I love my cars. I am very dependent, 
and I recognize most Americans are as well.
  I say with great respect that this is an industry that has almost a 
Pavlovian response when it comes to suggestions that technology ought 
to be applied to improved fuel efficiency or some aspect of 
technology. The auto industry had fought us for decades on airbags. I 
am privileged to join the distinguished Senator from Washington on this 
issue. He and I were instrumental in the conference of the 
reauthorization of the highway bill a decade ago to get that 
legislation requiring airbags. Today, many Americans survive auto 
accidents, and of those who have had injuries, their injuries are much 
less than might have been expected but for airbags.

  The industry resisted catalytic converters and the industry resisted 
tenaciously in the 1970s this legislation that we called Corporate 
Average Fuel Economy.
  I realize that is ancient history, but is it? One gets a sense of 
deja vu on the floor when one listens to the arguments against even 
permitting the examination of new CAFE requirements. The motion to 
strike simply deletes reference to a rider that has been added to the 
Transportation appropriations bill each and every year since 1995 that 
says that the Department of Transportation may not consider moving 
forward on new fuel economy standards.
  The sponsors of this action do not seek to establish a numerical 
standard but simply to say let the Department of Transportation examine 
the technology and see if a new standard could be imposed that would 
enable us to apply technology, reduce the number of gallons of gas we 
need to operate our vehicles, save consumers money, reduce our 
dependence on imported oil, and also to clean up our air.
  These are public policy issues. One is reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil. Another is reducing the trade imbalance, which every 
economist will tell you is a point of vulnerability in an economy which 
has extraordinarily performed in 112 consecutive months of economic 
expansion--without precedent in American history. But continued trade 
deficits of this magnitude are a problem. About a third of those trade 
deficits are attributable to the amount of oil we import. We could 
reduce our dependency.
  There is not an American city of any size that is not concerned about 
air pollution. Most scientists will tell you, whether or not they have 
fully subscribed to the global warming theory, that it is not a good 
thing for us to continue to pump as much carbon dioxide into the 
atmosphere as we are. With better fuel economy, we would reduce those 
emissions as well.
  What is the response? Unfortunately, the industry has chosen to 
invoke scare tactics. In farm country they are telling America's 
farmers they may not be able to get and use a pickup truck. For those 
recreationists who tow vehicles, whether they are boats or horse 
trailers, they are saying they may no longer be able to participate in 
this particular avocation--whether it is boating or horseback riding--
because we are not going to be able to build a vehicle that will pull a 
trailer, that will allow them to transport their boat to the lake, or 
their horse to an event where they want to race or show that horse.
  They are telling others it will be impossible for us to produce the 
sport utility vehicles that they love, whether they love them for 
comfort, convenience, or to get out on the back trails of America and 
do a little off-road driving. They will not be able to do that as well.
  Does this sound familiar? Those arguments, cast in the context of the 
1970s, were the arguments that were advanced by the auto industry then. 
I must say, if the past is prologue, this would be a classic example.
  In the testimony on the CAFE legislation in 1974, the Ford Motor 
Company testified as follows, referring to CAFE, which would have and 
did ultimately double the fuel economy that automobiles get, from less 
than 14 to more than 27 miles per gallon, in a decade.

       This proposal would require a Ford product line consisting 
     of either all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles--

  Ford's smallest vehicle in the 1970s--

       or some mix of vehicles ranging from a sub-sub-compact to 
     perhaps a Maverick.

  That was a small vehicle as well, slightly larger than the Pinto. 
That was 1974. All one need do is change the words ``sub-Pinto-sized 
and Maverick,'' and add in there ``light trucks and sport utility 
vehicles,'' that we would not be able to offer those if this proposal 
were advanced, and we would have the contemporary argument, the 
argument that is made in the year 2000.
  Chrysler Motors said:

       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 sub-
     compact-size cars. . . .

  Does the resonance sound familiar to any of us? It was a pretty 
familiar line of argument.
  And General Motors said:

       This legislation would have the effect of placing 
     restrictions on the availability of 5- and 6-passenger cars.

  Nobody wanted that. Those were all tactics that the industry employed 
to frighten the American public. I am sure none of the sponsors, in 
1974--and I was not a Member of this body--intended to deprive 
Americans of vehicle choice. I do not think anybody had in mind to 
prevent American families from purchasing station wagons or four-door, 
full-size, six-passenger sedans. I can assure you, the distinguished 
Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the distinguished Senator 
from Washington, Mr. Gorton, we do not. We do not preclude or attempt 
to preclude it. In fact, some of us own sport utility vehicles and we 
want the element of choice. All we are saying is please give us an 
opportunity to look at the technology that would be available. Those 
owners of those sport utility vehicles, if we could get 4 or 5 or 10 
miles per gallon more, would pay a lot less when they go to fill up at 
the gas pump.

  I say to my colleagues, whether you believe there is a precise number 
you can achieve, in terms of increased fuel economy--and some have 
indicated we could double that once again--or whether you believe 
improvements more incremental and modest are possible, under the 
current legislation, it will be impossible for us to do so because of a 
rider that restrains our ability to do so. That simply does not make 
much sense.
  So all we are asking for is an opportunity for the Department of 
Transportation to examine that technology. One would have to be a neo-
Luddite to believe that in 25 years, a quarter of a century in which 
more technology advancements have occurred than in any 25 years of 
recorded history, of recorded civilization, that somehow the auto 
industry is not able to take advantage of some of those technology 
improvements.
  So we simply ask for this opportunity. I hope my colleagues will 
support our position. I know as I speak, there are some discussions 
occurring off the floor that may lead to a compromise. I hope such a 
compromise will be possible. But it is a compromise that ought to let 
the technology, not the politics of scare and fright, dictate what a 
public policy for America ought to be. If we can improve that, and 
reduce the cost that motorists have to use their cars for work or 
recreation, if we can make America less dependent on imported oil, if 
we can ease the balance of payments that creates a potential threat to 
future economic expansion, if we can reduce the amount of carbon 
dioxide that goes into the atmosphere, would that not be a good thing? 
Wouldn't Americans--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, 
libertarians--embrace that concept? Wouldn't the far left and the far 
right move to the political center and say, yes, that makes sense?
  I believe it is possible. All we seek is the opportunity to let 
American technology try. I suppose, if I have a quarrel with my friends 
in the auto industry, it is that they have less confidence than I do in 
themselves and their ability. Let me say, what they did from 1975 to 
1987 was extraordinary. They doubled fuel economy--doubled it. And they 
doubled it at the same time they provided a full range of vehicle 
choice.

[[Page S5210]]

  By the early 1990s, the largest automobile built by the Ford Motor 
Company--the largest automobile--got better fuel economy than the 
smallest Ford automobile produced in 1975, the little Pinto. That is 
something about which to rejoice. I say congratulations.
  I am proud as an American that that kind of technology was possible, 
and I simply say to an industry that in 1974 believed it could 
accomplish nothing: Have confidence in yourself. Let all of those 
entrepreneurial juices flow, and we know, when given a chance, American 
industry produces technological marvels that are the envy of the world; 
give us that chance. That is what we ask of our colleagues.
  I reserve the remainder of my time, as we are working on 
negotiations. How much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Gorton has 15 minutes; the opponents 
have 38 minutes.
  Mr. BRYAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have only a relatively short period of 
time left. The distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, 
is coming to speak on our side of this issue, so I will make only one 
or two points briefly.
  I listened with great interest to each of the opponents to my motion. 
It seems to me, as was the case a year ago, that they emphasized 
overwhelmingly the impact of new fuel efficiency standards on 
automobile safety. In fact, those arguments would have been entirely 
persuasive if this were a proposal requiring lighter automobiles and 
small trucks. It, of course, is not. It is a proposal to allow a study 
of whether or not corporate fuel economy standards should be increased.
  My view, and that of my distinguished colleagues from California and 
Nevada, is that this can be accomplished without downsizing automobiles 
or small trucks. Interestingly enough, many of the comments on the part 
of the opponents to our motion in effect said so, that great technical 
strides have been made in this connection, strides that we encourage.

  But I simply want to make it clear that the goal of the proponents of 
this motion is to end the prohibition against even studying whether or 
not we should improve these fuel efficiency standards. To that end, 
there have been very serious negotiations in the course of the last 
hour or so among members of the contending parties, and it is at least 
possible we will be able to reach an agreement that will be approved on 
the part of all of those who have debated this issue here today.
  I have every hope that that is the case because it will allow us to 
go forward with studies but will see to it that Congress plays the 
significant role--that it is playing right here today--in being 
permitted or required to take action before any new fuel efficiency 
standards become the law of the land.
  With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk 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. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the Gorton-Feinstein 
motion to instruct. This states that the House CAFE freeze rider ought 
not to be accepted by the Senate in conference.
  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 did not often travel through congested 
urban and suburban areas. But all that has changed.
  Today, light trucks--the category that includes SUVs and minivans--
represent half of all vehicles sold. They produce 47 percent more 
global warming pollution than do cars. Each light truck goes through an 
average of 702 gallons of gas per year. That compares to 492 gallons 
per year for cars. Goodness knows what is happening now as we look at 
these prices, recognizing that our consumption of fuel is way above 
what it had been, importing more from what at times are very unfriendly 
sources. We are just on a consumption kick that is affecting our way of 
life but particularly our environment. I will talk more about that in a 
minute.
  Even with the tremendous increase in the number of SUVs, the Senate 
continues to accept the House's CAFE freeze rider. By the way, just as 
a note of explanation, CAFE refers to the gas consumed and the 
emissions by the vehicles about which we are talking. We are talking 
about CAFE standards; that is, to try to have the amount of fuel 
consumed reduced and to try to reduce the emissions that are affecting 
our environment and the quality of our air.

  The result of the House's CAFE freeze has meant serious consequences 
for American families' pocketbooks, jobs, and the environment. There is 
a myth floating around that CAFE standards hurt the American family. 
The truth is, sensible CAFE standards helps our families. It is a 
simple concept. If your car or your SUV uses less gas, you save money 
and you do less harm to the environment in which your families live. 
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. 
That translated into $30 billion of savings in America for families to 
spend on items other than gas.
  Jobs are also an important part of this discussion. The opposition 
keeps insisting that CAFE standards are going to hurt employment, 
particularly in the auto industry. 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 a quarter of a million 
jobs, 244,000 in this country, including 47,000 in the auto industry.
  Another benefit of CAFE standards is in fighting the most daunting 
environmental challenge of our time: global warming. Passenger cars, 
SUVs, and light trucks accounted for 18 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions in 1998. It is a major contributor to the problem of global 
warming. A recent National Academy of Sciences study finds that global 
warming trends are undoubtedly real. In December, a British 
Meteorological Office study said that 1999 was the fifth warmest year 
on record and that 7 of the hottest 10 years on record occurred in the 
1990s. That tells us something. It tells us we ought to get our heads 
out of the sand and do something about it. That 10 years in the 1990s 
was the hottest decade of the millennium, also this winter.
  I traveled to the South Pole in January because I wanted to see what 
we were doing about trying to protect ourselves against negative 
environmental change. When you see this beautiful ice continent and 
recognize the contribution it makes to the entire global environment 
and you hear the water rushing off as the ice melts--a condition that 
is not supposed to exist; it is supposed to stay hard ice; 70 percent 
of the world's fresh water supply is stored in the ice there--it is a 
very bad sign.
  If we look at our families and our world, we say: What is happening? 
If that continues to mix with the saline, it is a terrible and ominous 
sign to which we should pay attention.
  In Australia, a continent thousands of miles away from Antarctica, 
the Australians pride themselves in recreational water sports, things 
of that nature. Children going to the beach in Australia today have to 
wear hats. They have to wear full-body bathing suits because of the 
high incidence of skin cancer. Australia today has the highest 
incidence of skin cancer of any advanced country in the world. It is a 
terrible tragedy; it has such grim warnings attached to that.
  We still are not paying proper attention. This winter, two gigantic 
icebergs, collectively about two-thirds the size of New Jersey--one the 
size of

[[Page S5211]]

Rhode Island and another the size of Delaware--broke off from 
Antarctica. One day we are going to see an iceberg the size of the 
State of Texas. Then everybody is going to say: Woe be unto us. Why 
didn't we pay attention when our environment was deteriorating 
literally in front of our eyes? Why didn't we pay attention when it was 
predicted that water levels would rise, that temperatures would rise, 
that a place like New York City could almost have tropical type 
weather?

  We just saw that in a report the other day. When are we going to pay 
attention to the alarm we hear sounding off day after day? We choose to 
ignore that threat and say: Go on, spend it, use those big vehicles and 
burn as much gas as you want and issue as much contamination as you 
want. It is our problem, and it is our responsibility.
  Scientists project a rise in sea level of 4 to 12 inches on the mid-
Atlantic coast in the next 30 years--not 100 years, not 50 years, 30 
years away. My little grandchildren who were in the gallery today will 
be 35 years of age. That is hardly old. That is when it looks as if we 
will be experiencing the worst of what ignoring the consequences of 
this process will mean.
  Scientists also tell us higher seas will lead to greater storm 
surges, more coastal damage, even from relatively modest storms.
  CAFE is essential for fighting this danger. A recent analysis shows 
that CAFE standards could be raised to over 40 miles per gallon for new 
cars and light trucks by 2010. This would result in emissions 
reductions of 396 million metric tons of carbon dioxide below business-
as-usual projections, which is 6 percent of our current emissions.
  I don't like to get into those kinds of astronomical figures because 
they don't always mean much. When we think of 396 million metric tons 
of carbon dioxide, that is a lot. But when we think of the poor air 
quality days, where it is hard for those who are elderly to go out and 
conduct normal travel and normal exercise, normal living, it makes it 
difficult for them to breathe and be as active as they like. We have 
few other opportunities for attacking global warming as dramatically 
and as cost-effectively as controlling auto fuel efficiency.
  I urge my colleagues to think about this problem, to be able to say 
to their constituents: Yes, we are concerned. We want you to have the 
comfort. We want you to be able to have the cars you prefer to drive. 
You are spending your hard-earned money. But let's make them as 
efficient as we can.
  It is something our geniuses in the automobile industry--and they are 
geniuses; they have built an incredible population of vehicles and 
conveniences--can make better. We have seen all kinds of samples of 
that. If we encourage them and know that everybody is going to be in 
the same competitive bind or competitive environment, they will do it.
  I ask our colleagues to vote in favor of the Gorton-Feinstein motion. 
We have few other opportunities for attacking global warming as 
dramatically and as cost-efficiently as controlling auto fuel 
efficiency.
  I will take a minute more, and I ask that my colleague from Louisiana 
be just a little more patient. I beat her to the microphone. That is 
what happens. It wasn't a foot race, but it was just a coincidence of 
circumstances.
  Since I have been in the Senate 18 years, many wonderful things have 
happened. I have seen the benefit of things we have done legislatively 
have an impact on folks back home. Whether it is no smoking in 
airplanes or mentoring programs or drug control programs in public 
housing or computers in schools--I come out of the computer industry--
all have a direct effect.
  The health programs we have and the education programs have been 
terrific. Today, I was personally rewarded by an expression of 
friendship and appreciation, led by Senator Shelby from Alabama. He is 
my colleague, a Republican. He used to be a Democrat. We are still 
friends, even though his party affiliation changed. He did something 
today that both shocked and humbled me. He asked that a new facility 
being built in New Jersey, a railroad terminal, a railroad station, 
where all of the railroads in New Jersey--and we have a lot of rail 
passenger lines--come together so that people can choose an option for 
going to New York City or for going to Newark Airport or for going to 
the beach for recreation or commuting between cities in New Jersey--he 
asked it be named for me, and I am, indeed, grateful. I was surprised, 
nevertheless flattered.
  Comments by Senator Byrd and Senators John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Barbara 
Mikulski, and Tom Daschle were all laudatory. I was pleased to have two 
of my children and grandchildren in the balcony. It was a coincidence 
because they live a distance away, in the State of Florida. They were 
here to see their grandfather. One of my grandchildren, who is 5 years 
old, said, ``Are they doing anything down there?'' I said, ``Perhaps 
you would not notice it, but they are.'' So they were here to see it. 
It was a happy moment for me and my family. I am grateful to my 
colleagues who voted for it. There was no objection when it was 
offered.
  While I will miss this place, I will leave it with so many fond 
memories of opportunities to serve that are rewarded in much more 
specific ways than having a naming process attached to it. No one has 
ever exemplified that more thoroughly and more deeply than has Senator 
Robert Byrd, who sits in the Chamber at this moment, who is always 
talking about the nobility of the service we perform here, about the 
opportunity we have to give something back, showing our appreciation 
for being in this country, for being in this democracy, for being able 
to be in the position that we are to do the things we do.
  So I am grateful. With that, I know I will make the Senator from 
Louisiana grateful by yielding the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from New 
Jersey how much we are going to miss his service and his leadership. I 
know several of my colleagues spoke earlier today on naming the train 
station after him. It was very appropriate; he has been such a leader 
in the area of transportation, particularly mass transportation, 
particularly in regard to how those transportation methods affect our 
environment. I was happy to join my colleagues today in doing that. I 
have really enjoyed working with him in my time here. I thank the 
Senator for the great service he has rendered to Louisiana. He has been 
a good friend to us when we have come to this floor and to meetings 
about things important to our State and our region of the country.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleague from 
California for offering this motion. The motion instructs the Senate 
conferees to the Transportation Appropriations bill to reject the anti-
environment CAFE rider.
  This anti-environment rider has been included in the Transportation 
bill for the past four years. The rider prohibits the Transportation 
Department from even looking at the need to raise the nearly decade old 
CAFE standards.
  The existing standards have saved more than 3 million barrels of oil 
per day. We know that raising the CAFE standards is possible and would 
save more oil. For example, requiring sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and 
other light trucks to meet the same standard that applies to passenger 
cars would save approximately 1 million barrels of oil per day.
  Because SUVs are coming to dominate the new car market, we must make 
this change. But under the CAFE rider, the Transportation Department 
can't even think about it. They can't even study it.
  Instead of moving forward to raise CAFE standards, what do some want 
to do to relieve our dependence on foreign oil? Some propose opening 
the California coasts to offshore oil drilling. Others propose opening 
up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
  Why put our natural heritage at risk when we know we could save oil 
by making modest changes to CAFE standards?
  It's good energy policy and good environmental policy.
  Mr. President, raising CAFE standards is one critical step toward 
restoring sanity to our energy policy. In addition to this step, I have 
been advocating several other proposals.
  First, we need to invest more in energy efficiency and renewable 
energy. Over the past five years, Congress has appropriate 22 percent 
less than requested by the President for energy efficiency and 
renewable energy.

[[Page S5212]]

  Second, we need vigorous enforcement of the anti-trust laws on oil 
companies. For several years I have been concerned about the practices 
of the oil companies on the West Coast and in my State of California. 
Several times I have called on the FTC to investigate possible anti-
trust violations.
  Just this week, the government began investigating the dramatic jump 
in gasoline prices in the midwest. There is apparently no external 
justification for these huge price spikes.
  Third, we should place a moratorium on oil company mergers. By 
definition, mergers mean less competition and less competition means 
higher prices.
  Fourth, we should prohibit the export of Alaska North Slope crude 
oil. The GAO reported that the lifting of the ban in 1995 increased the 
price of crude oil by about a dollar per barrel.
  I hope that my colleagues will join with me in supporting this CAFE 
motion. It is good energy policy and good environmental policy.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to address an 
issue today that means an awful lot to Montanans. That issue is the 
very right to have access to a choice of cars and trucks that will meet 
the rigorous needs of rural life. I don't know how many of those 
listening today have driven in Montana, but it is a much different 
story than driving in more densely populated states. CAFE standards 
have a huge effect on Montanans in a lot of different ways that many 
people here today would not understand.
  Today, some of my colleagues have cited statistics about the impact 
of large vehicles harming occupants of smaller vehicles. This is 
extremely unfortunate, but large vehicles are not a luxury. For many of 
us they are a necessity. Just as 18 wheeled diesel trucks keep our 
country's goods moving on our interstate system, large vehicles are a 
necessity to keep our rural economies alive. Hauling a heifer to market 
just is not feasible in a Geo Metro.
  Now, in the Washington, D.C. area, there are many more small, 
economical cars on the road than there are in Havre, Montana. But, I 
have to remind you that in Montana we have winter for a large part of 
the year. A long, cold winter with plenty of snow and ice. It is the 
kind of weather that makes 4-wheel drive a life saving device. When you 
are driving your family down the road in the middle of December and the 
weather is miserable and cold, you want to be confident you will all be 
safe. This generally means a sturdy vehicle with four-wheel drive. 
It'll help you stay on the road, which is important considering it 
could be a very long time before you see anyone else, and the nearest 
town could be 80 miles away. If you are unfortunate enough to slide off 
of a two-lane road in the black of night it is nice to know your family 
will be protected. This is the reality in parts of Montana, as hard as 
it is for some of my colleagues in the Senate to imagine.
  Similarly, when you live in an area of Montana that is geographically 
isolated, and there are very few that are not, you need to be prepared 
to buy more than one bag of groceries at a time. Maybe you need to buy 
a month's worth of groceries, and feed for the animals, and fence 
posts, any other odds and ends you might need and bring them all home 
at the same time. How you will fit that all into a little car is a 
mystery. You'd better leave the kids home, that's for sure
  Besides that fact that stricter CAFE standards could hurt rural 
Montanans and the general safety issues that concern me, I think there 
is more at stake here. We are basically telling consumers that they 
have no right to choose the car they want to drive. This isn't right. 
In recent years, the American automobile industry has made great 
strides in developing better cars in every possible way. On the whole, 
our cars are becoming safer, and cleaner than ever before. This 
ingenuity is what makes American industry great.
  We have done a good job of making sure the manufacture of automobiles 
is consistent with the environmental goals we want to reach. But to 
step aside and allow federal regulators to enact a blanket policy that 
punishes those people who use large vehicles as a necessity of every 
day life, and stifle the right to choice for rural consumers, is the 
wrong approach.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I support the Senate motion to instruct the Conferees 
on fuel economy standards. This issue has been controversial in my 
state, and I believe its effect on automobile fuel economy standards is 
not well understood.
  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 support this motion because I am concerned that Congress 
has for more than 5 years blocked the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), part of the federal Department of 
Transportation (DOT), 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 motion instructs the Conferees not recede 
to Section 318 of the House bill.
  As I made clear last year, 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. 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 318 of the House bill, identical to last 
year's language, 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.
  The NHTSA should be allowed 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. I have heard strongly

[[Page S5213]]

from my state 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. I fully expect NHTSA to proceed with 
the intent to fully consider all those factors.
  In supporting this motion, 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. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished minority whip be permitted to proceed for a unanimous 
consent and that I then be accorded the floor immediately following.
  Mr. McCAIN. For how long?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For 4 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding an agreement is worked out so we do 
not need a vote.
  Mr. GORTON. That is correct. We are prepared to implement that 
agreement now, if we have permission.
  Mr. REID. We have a unanimous consent agreement that has been worked 
on all day that is now ready to be entered, next week.
  Mr. GORTON. That is also correct.
  Mr. REID. Could we proceed with either one of the two unanimous 
consent agreements?
  Mr. GORTON. With the permission of the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it may be my remarks will be shorter. If 
they take a brief period of time, I am happy to let that go forward, 
with the understanding that I will have the floor immediately after.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Massachusetts that people literally 
have been waiting all day. We need something on the record indicating 
there will be no votes.
  Mr. KERRY. I am happy to accommodate my colleagues. It will probably 
be shorter if they start and do it rather than talk about doing it.


               Motion to Instruct Conferees, As Modified

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have at the desk a revised motion to 
instruct the conferees on the Transportation appropriations bill. I ask 
unanimous consent it be in order to consider it and it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the motion be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion is as follows:

       I move that conferees on the part of the Senate on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill (H.R. 4475) be instructed, and are hereby 
     instructed, to accept section 318 of the bill as passed by 
     the House of Representatives, but to authorize the Department 
     of Transportation, pursuant to a study by the National 
     Academy of Sciences in conjunction with the DOT, to 
     recommend, but not to promulgate without approval by a Joint 
     Resolution of Congress, appropriate corporate average fuel 
     efficiency standards;
       Provided, however, that any such study shall include not 
     only those considerations outlined in 49 USC section 32902(F) 
     but also the impact of any such proposal on motor vehicle 
     safety, any disparate impact on the U.S. automotive sector, 
     and the effect on U.S. employment in the automotive and 
     related sectors, and any other factors deemed relevant by the 
     National Academy of Sciences or the committee of conference.
       The National Academy of Sciences shall complete its study 
     no later than July 1, 2001, and shall submit the study to 
     Congress and the Department of Transportation.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, essentially we have had a debate over the 
refusal to allow anybody in the Transportation appropriations bill to 
be used to study, propose, or promulgate new corporate average fuel 
economy standards. The proponents of the original instruction have 
stated they did not wish for the Department of Transportation to be 
authorized to promulgate any such new rules without the consent of 
Congress or without another vote in Congress but that they felt it 
inappropriate to prevent studying what technology now permits us to do 
with respect to such standards.
  This revision simply allows the House provision to go into effect 
with respect to the old 1975 law. However, it also tells the conferees 
to authorize a study by the National Academy of Sciences in conjunction 
with the Department of Transportation that by July 1 of next year will 
recommend but will not promulgate, without approval by a joint 
resolution of Congress, appropriate corporate average fuel economy 
standards.
  It also expressly states that they shall consider safety--which was a 
major part of the debate here--and the impact on the automobile and 
manufacturing business in the United States.
  It will last only, of course, for the fiscal year 2001 because this 
is an appropriations bill, but we hope by that time we will have 
something that we can debate that will be real in nature rather than 
just theoretical.
  I ask unanimous consent my motion be considered a motion for me, for 
my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Mr. Bryan; the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein; and the three Members who have debated 
against this, both Senators from Michigan, and the Senator from 
Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to be clear that this language 
instructs the conferees to accept section 318 in the House bill. Those 
are the words in this motion.
  In addition, one of the specific factors in the study we look at is 
``the disparate impact, if any, on the U.S. automotive sector.'' Then 
it issues the words, ``and any other factors deemed relevant by the 
National Academy of Sciences or the committee of conference.''
  My question to the Senator from Washington is whether or not in his 
judgment the fairly lengthy list of factors which are relevant to this 
question, which are set forth in Senate bill 2685, a bill which was 
introduced, I believe, by Senators Ashcroft and Abraham, myself, and a 
number of others, whether in his judgment those factors would be 
included as being relevant in any study?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I answer my friend from Michigan that I 
believe the widest range of considerations should be a part of this 
study, including, of course, those that the Senator from Michigan has 
set forth, and for that matter anything else the National Academy of 
Sciences considers to be relevant.
  Mr. LEVIN. And the answer specifically is what?
  Mr. GORTON. The answer to the question was yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have the floor. I have imposed upon my 
friend from Massachusetts. This was supposed to be just a brief dialog 
while we entered a unanimous consent request. He only requested 4 
minutes and he has yielded to get this done. We have now taken 8 or 9 
minutes. I don't think that is fair.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent following the statement of the 
Senator from Massachusetts, after his 4 minutes, we then return to 
consideration of the motion to instruct, and that I be permitted to 
speak at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I wonder if we could enter the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. LEVIN. Has this motion been adopted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No motion has been adopted.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest this motion be agreed to if there is no further 
debate.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I object.
  Mr. LEVIN. And the speech of the Senator from Michigan, relative to 
the motion, be inserted prior to adoption of the motion.
  Mr. BRYAN. I ask my colleague to suspend. We have run into a couple 
of

[[Page S5214]]

potential language issues that I need a couple of minutes to explore. I 
can assure my colleague it is not my purpose to delay, but there are 
some language changes here that we need to check out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the right 
to reclaim the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I had a feeling my 4 minutes was going to 
be shorter than their 4 minutes. But here is what I am willing to do. I 
want to try to accommodate my colleagues. I think it is important. I 
know how important these critical moments are. You want to try to make 
it work when you can.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I know we want to move as quickly as 
possible to the digital signature, e-signature legislation. Obviously, 
we have to finish the action on the proposed motion to instruct. My 
comment on the proposal submitted by the Senator from Washington is 
that I think it moves in a very positive direction.
  I have introduced legislation in the Senate for the past several 
Congresses, attempting to establish what I consider to be a more 
appropriate way of considering issues related to corporate average fuel 
economy. Specifically, I feel the current considerations are not broad 
enough. We do not take into account--as I indicated in my speech 
earlier today--the impact on employment in the United States and, more 
specifically, in the automotive industry. We do not take into account 
safety; we do not take into account similar factors that matter to the 
people I represent.
  The proposal is to have a study conducted by the National Academy of 
Sciences that would look specifically at those considerations, as well 
as many others that the Academy or the conference committee would 
recommend--as the Senator from Washington indicated in the colloquy 
with my colleague from Michigan--and other criteria that we have 
included in legislation that I have introduced in this and previous 
Congresses.
  The other thing which I have always felt is relevant to this process 
is how the role of Congress should be enhanced. I mentioned this 
earlier today in my remarks. I believe something as directly 
significant to the economy of the United States as the automobile 
industry, and specifically the CAFE standards' impact on that industry, 
are issues that Congress ought to have an ultimate role in addressing. 
I am happy the provisions here would subject any changes--at least in 
this fiscal year--to the approval of Congress by a joint resolution. I 
think that makes a lot of sense, because that would put the elected 
officials of this country--not the unelected bureaucrats of this 
country--in the position of making the significant determinations that 
will impact our economy.
  For both those reasons I think this approach makes sense for this 
fiscal year. It keeps intact the freeze which we have had in recent 
years, so there will not be an increase or change in corporate average 
fuel economy standard generated through the process that has existed 
under United States Code. But at the same time, it does provide those 
who wanted a study the opportunity to have one conducted by the 
National Academy of Sciences. It also gives Congress a much more direct 
role in any changes that might occur during the upcoming year. And it 
does, I think, acknowledge the very important criteria beyond simply 
the question of appropriate levels of fuel economy--criteria like 
safety, criteria like employment. Criteria that relate to our economy 
would also be taken into consideration.
  So I believe this makes sense as now submitted to this body. I hope 
we can quickly act on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion, as 
modified.
  The motion, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair appoints 
Mr. Shelby, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. 
Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Byrd, Ms. 
Mikulski, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Inouye conferees on 
the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada had a question 
about the duration of the motion that was just agreed to. It probably 
would have been better to have stated that it expires on September 30, 
2001, as does the entire bill on that date. I know he wished my 
assurance and the assurance of the people on the other side, Senator 
Levin, that it is our intention, and we will make that clear in any 
final conference committee report that this is a 1-fiscal-year 
provision only and that the entire provision expires at the end of 
fiscal year 2001.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. To be 
sure, we are saying the entire provision, as I understand the 
observation of the Senator from Washington, all the language 
incorporated in this motion will expire September 30, 2001.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BRYAN. May I ask the Senator one other question?
  Mr. GORTON. Certainly.
  Mr. BRYAN. There was some discussion about the use of the words 
``recommend'' and ``proposed.'' Can the Senator state his intention 
with respect to that language?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Michigan asked we use ``recommend'' 
rather than ``proposed.'' I think it is a distinction without a 
difference. The operative language here is nothing can go into effect 
unless Congress has approved it. Whether it comes in the form of a 
recommendation from the Department of Transportation or proposal from 
the Department of Transportation, Congress has to approve it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BRYAN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Perhaps our recollection is different, but I am not sure 
it makes a major difference. My recollection is in the original draft 
of this motion, the Senator from Washington had used the word 
``recommend.'' I may be wrong on this, but this is my recollection, 
which I have shared with my good friend from Nevada so we are all 
straight with each other, as we always are.
  The word at some point was changed to ``proposed,'' and then a number 
of us on this side of the issue urged the word ``recommend" be used 
instead of ``proposed'' to avoid any implication that this was a 
proposed rulemaking. That was the reason that word did have some 
relevance. There is no intention here that there be a proposed 
rulemaking which be authorized in any way by this motion. The word 
``proposed'' could create an implication which was unintended, whereas 
the word ``recommend'' does not have that implication.
  That was my recollection. If I am wrong on that, then I certainly 
want my friend from Nevada to know historically that was my 
recollection, and that is what I represented to him.
  Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate the explanation of the Senator from Michigan. 
I say with great respect, I believe and I recall--and I may be in error 
as well--that the language ``proposed'' was originally offered by my 
friend from Michigan. I know he has a different recollection, and we 
are not, obviously, going to resolve it. I know he has been acting in 
good faith, and I know he knows I have been asking in good faith.
  Mr. LEVIN. That question, of whether the words ``recommend" or 
``proposed,'' in any event, was explicitly discussed among all of us 
who were involved in this revised motion, and it was important to those 
of us who opposed the original motion that the word ``recommend'' be 
used for the reason I just gave.

  If the recollection of the Senator from Washington is the word 
``proposed'' originally was made by me, if in fact that is true, so be 
it. That is not my recollection. Nonetheless, it did become an issue in 
discussion whether the word be ``proposed" or ``recommend,'' and it 
became important to those of us opposing the motion that the word 
``recommend'' be used to avoid that implication which everybody said 
was not intended.

[[Page S5215]]

  Mr. GORTON. In one minor respect, the senior Senator from Michigan is 
in error. My own handwritten first draft said ``proposed.'' I simply 
acceded to the recommendation of the Senator from Michigan that we use 
the word ``recommend.''
  Clearly, what we are speaking about is the promulgation of a rule, 
and nothing can be promulgated by the Department of Transportation 
without approval of a joint resolution of Congress. So whether it 
recommends or proposes, they are going to have to come here before any 
rule takes place.
  In connection with my earlier answer, all of these bars are off in a 
year. We will be right back here next year, I hope maybe not debating 
the same issue. I hope we may have been able to reach a conclusion on 
it.
  Finally, the point of all these words, what we are now doing is 
instructing our conferees to a conference with the House of 
Representatives, and it is the words and the requirement that come out 
of that conference committee, of course, that will govern actual future 
action.
  My intention as a member of that conference committee, and perhaps 
the only one in this colloquy who is a member of that conference 
committee, will be to see to it that we have a very thorough study of 
this subject. I hope, like my colleagues from Michigan, that it will 
recommend stronger corporate average fuel economy standards, but I am 
willing to listen to the experts in that connection. If it does, I will 
support them in this body, but if something else happens, we will be 
debating this issue again next year. The law that applies to corporate 
average fuel economy standards today will apply when this fiscal year 
is over once again, and the same kind of rulemaking will take place 
then.

  I hope I have not spoken too long on this subject, but I think we 
ought to get on with it now and do the job that needs to be done.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to indicate I was actually 
speaking on the floor at the time that the initial exchange of 
documents took place, but from the point at which I concluded my 
remarks and began discussing this issue with the Senator from Michigan 
and the Senator from Washington, it was certainly my understanding that 
the intention, and certainly our side's intention, in urging the word 
``recommend'' be employed was to make precisely the distinction which 
my colleague from Michigan just indicated. Certainly there was an 
important element to that change from my point of view, as I know there 
was from his.
  I am hopeful as the process moves forward that it will do so in the 
constructive way we have outlined. We ought to make clear a rulemaking 
procedure is where ``a proposed set of rules'' would be the term of art 
used. For a study, which is what we intended here--a recommendation is 
different from the proposal that might stem from an actual rulemaking. 
That is my interpretation of the discussions in which I at least took 
part.

                          ____________________