[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10908-10919]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume H.R. 4475, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4475) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, is recognized to offer an amendment.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 90 
minutes, equally divided, and that there be no

[[Page 10909]]

second-degree amendments in order in regard to this amendment I intend 
to send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we hope we can work something out on the 
time. I have spoken to Senator Voinovich, and we want to cooperate as 
much as we can. We have a couple of Senators we need to check this 
with. We have not been able to do that, so at the present time I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. It would be my suggestion, Mr. President, that Senator 
Voinovich go ahead and offer his amendment. As soon as we get word on 
whether or not we can accept the unanimous consent request, we will 
interject ourselves and try to get that entered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. 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. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, noting the objection, in discussing 
this amendment, I am going to proceed to give my statement and I will 
send my amendment to the desk following my remarks and the remarks of 
my colleagues.
  Mr. President, when I first introduced S. 1144, the Surface 
Transportation Act, more than a year ago, I did so thinking that our 
State and local governments should have the maximum flexibility 
possible in implementing Federal transportation programs.
  I still firmly believe that our State and local governments know best 
which transportation programs should go forward and at what level of 
priority.
  As the only person in this country who has served as President of the 
National League of Cities and Chairman of the National Governors' 
Association, and one who has worked with the State and local government 
coalition, which we refer to as the Big 7, I have great faith in State 
and local governments, and I believe they should have maximum 
flexibility in determining how best to serve all of our constituents.
  I think one of the best examples of how state and local governments 
work to benefit our constituents is what we have been able to do with 
the welfare system in this country when we let the States and local 
governments take it over.
  That is why I am offering this amendment today--to give our State and 
local governments the flexibility they need to make some key 
transportation decisions that will best suit their needs.
  The amendment I am offering will give States the ability to use their 
Federal surface transportation funds for passenger rail service, 
including high-speed rail service.
  This amendment is identical to section 3 of S. 1144. It allows each 
State to use funds from their allocation under the National Highway 
System, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, and the 
Surface Transportation Program for the following: acquisition, 
construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventative 
maintenance for intercity passenger-rail facilities as well as for 
rolling stock.
  As my colleagues know, under current law, States cannot use their 
Federal highway funding for rail, even when it is the best 
transportation solution for their State or region. Since States are 
assuming a greater role in developing and maintaining passenger and 
commuter rail corridors, I think it makes sense that States be given 
the most flexibility to invest Federal funds in those rail corridors.
  Part of being flexible is making sure we consider all of our options. 
It is similar to the 4.3-cent-per-gallon gas tax repeal effort that we 
faced in the Senate this past April. High gasoline prices exposed that 
we have no national energy policy. With prices currently over $2 per 
gallon in several areas in the Midwest, the fact that we still have no 
national energy policy is now really being felt by the American public.
  With the need for a national energy policy plainly evident, we need 
to put all our options on the table. We need to look at expanded rail 
transportation, conservation, exploration, alternative fuels, and so 
on. We need to put all of the right ingredients together that will make 
for a successful transportation policy.
  In addition to the high gas prices, I think the Senate should 
recognize the fact that there is an appeal pending in the Supreme Court 
of the United States of America on the issue of the Environmental 
Protection Agency's new proposed ambient air standards for ozone and 
particulate matter. If the Supreme Court overrules the lower court's 
decisions that those new standards are not justified, then we will find 
throughout the United States of America many communities, including 
communities in my State--where we have achieved the current national 
ambient air standards in every part of our State--that will be in 
nonattainment. If the new standards are implemented, we will need more 
tools to deal with the pollution.
  With the need for a national energy policy plainly evident, we need 
to put all of our options on the table. We need to look at expanded 
rail transportation and conservation and all the rest.
  As States are more able to turn towards passenger rail service as a 
safe, reliable, and efficient mode of transportation, we will relieve 
congestion on our Nation's highways. With fewer cars on the road, 
contributions to air quality improvements and lower gas consumption 
will be realized.
  Again, the idea behind my amendment is simple. States understand 
their particular transportation challenges better than the Federal 
Government. I believe it is the States' right and obligation to use 
whatever tools are available to efficiently meet the transportation 
needs of their citizens. In this instance, the Federal Government 
should not stand in their way but work as a partner to give them the 
flexibility they need to develop a successful policy.
  S. 1144 had 35 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. This particular 
amendment we are offering today is endorsed by the National Governors' 
Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of 
Cities, the Council of State Governments, the National Conference of 
State Legislatures, the National Association of Rail Passengers, and 
the Friends of the Earth.
  I have yet to convince some of my colleagues that this amendment will 
give our States and localities the latitude they need to make proper 
and cost-effective transportation decisions.
  First and foremost, this amendment does not mandate that any portion 
of a State's highway dollars be used for rail. If a State wants to use 
all their highway dollars the same way they have been doing for the 
past few years under TEA-21, then they will be able to do that. It does 
not establish a percentage of how much is set aside for rail. If a 
State wants to use highway dollars for rail, then the State decides the 
amount to meet the particular needs. Governors will have to work with 
legislators to decide if they want to use it for rail and how much can 
be used for rail.
  So often when we talk about such issues--``the Governors are going to 
use this money for rail''--my colleagues and I know that Governors 
recommend and the legislatures then decides whether they are going to 
follow the recommendations. In my State, looking back on my years as 
Governor, I think Ohio probably will not use this flexibility 
provision. But the fact is, it ought to be available to any State if it 
thinks it is in its best interest.
  There is very strong support from outside the Beltway for each 
State's right to spend its Federal transportation funds on passenger 
rail. States

[[Page 10910]]

understand their particular transportation challenges better than the 
Federal Government and therefore should be given the flexibility to use 
their highway dollars for rail transportation. There are no mandates on 
the States to do this. It is totally at the discretion of the States.
  We face a historic opportunity today to provide the States with the 
flexibility they need to meet their growing transportation needs. I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
to be offered by my distinguished colleague from Ohio. People in my 
region of the country in the South are usually known for their position 
in favor of States rights. This is not just a transportation issue; 
this is a States rights issue. This amendment is not a mandate. It is 
not a threat to highways or the Highway Trust Fund. It would not change 
any Federal transportation formulas. It requires not a penny in new 
spending. What it does do is to give States the option to spend Federal 
transportation funds on intercity passenger rail. What this amendment 
does do is give States the opportunity to make transportation spending 
decisions based on their own local needs.
  Mr. President, part of my State is in a transportation crisis. Metro 
Atlanta has the worst traffic congestion of any southern city, and our 
drivers have the longest commute in the Nation. Due in large part to 
the exhaust from nearly three million vehicles, Atlanta's skies are in 
violation of national clean air standards. For two years now, Federal 
funds have been frozen for new transportation projects. The bottom 
line? Metro Atlanta's congestion and pollution problems are now 
threatening our most valuable selling point: our quality of life.
  The good news is that the best transportation minds in the State have 
rallied around Metro Atlanta's transportation crisis. These movers and 
shakers are not afraid to redraw the maps. The result is a new 
transportation plan that is going to meet our air quality goals, and 
that plan devotes 60 percent of Georgia's transportation dollars to 
rail. Georgia has dramatically reformed its transportation focus: from 
moving cars to moving people, from promoting sprawl to promoting smart 
growth.
  As the folk song says, ``the times they are a-changing.'' We're about 
to witness a rebirth of rail in Georgia, rivaled only by the days 
before General Sherman when Atlanta was the undisputed railroad hub of 
the Southeast. And key to this vision is intercity rail. The amendment 
before us, if adopted, will be a Godsend to my state. Let me state loud 
and clear, this amendment will be a Godsend not just to Georgia, for 
Atlanta's commuter congestion is mirrored in countless highways across 
America. One viable solution to two of the 21st century's most 
challenging and frustrating problems, smog and gridlock, may very well 
be found in a renaissance of rail, not just in my home State, but 
throughout this great Nation.
  For those States which see rail as key to their transportation 
future, we should at least give them another option for financing their 
intercity rail investments. Our amendment will do just that. It will 
give states whose highways and skyways are clogged with traffic not a 
mandate, but a chance to use their CMAQ, National Highway System, and 
Surface Transportation Program funds on passenger rail if they want to.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the bipartisan measures before us. 
The National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the 
Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities and the 
National Council of State Legislatures are all on record in support of 
providing flexible funding for passenger rail. This is States' rights 
legislation, and it's the right legislation for a balanced 
transportation system in the 21st century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this measure. I 
yield myself 10 minutes in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit.
  Mr. BOND. There is no time agreement? I thank the Chair. I will take 
such time as I require then.
  Mr. President, my colleague from Ohio has offered an amendment which 
I believe takes us down the wrong tracks, very far in that direction. 
He has offered an amendment that would allow our precious highway 
resources to be used for Amtrak.
  My colleague from Georgia has talked about the sad situation in 
Georgia where their highway funds are frozen because the courts have 
overturned a previous policy of the Federal Government to allow highway 
transportation projects to continue. I urge his and my other 
colleagues' support of my measure on conformity that would allow needed 
highway construction to go forward.
  As to this amendment, many would argue this is an issue of States 
rights. That is just not the case. I am a former Governor. One would be 
hard pressed to find anyone in this body who is a stronger States 
rights advocate than I am. I intend to continue to be so. There will be 
those who will try to convince us this is anti-Amtrak. That is not the 
case. As Governor of the great State of Missouri, I was the one who 
ensured that my State provided its own resources in an effort to help 
subsidize Amtrak.
  This is an issue of a dedicated tax for a dedicated purpose. We told 
the American people we were going to put the trust back into the trust 
fund. This is an issue of Congress upholding its end of the agreement 
with the American people.
  It has just been 2 years this month since the Transportation Equity 
Act of the 21st century--better known as TEA-21--was signed into law. 
In my opinion, the most historic and the most important provision of 
TEA-21 was the funding guarantee that I authored with our late friend, 
Senator John Chafee, with the assistance and the guidance of the Budget 
and Appropriations Committees. Some called that provision RABA, or 
revenue aligned budget authority. Up here, it is often called the 
Chafee-Bond provision. In Missouri, we call it the Bond-Chafee 
provision. But the whole intent of that measure was very clear. We have 
a dedicated tax that was imposed on the American people for the purpose 
of highway improvement and safety issues. We lose too many lives in my 
State and in every State in this Nation because of inadequate highways. 
Over 30 percent of the deaths on our highways nationally are a result 
of inadequate highway and bridge conditions.
  We told the American people for the first time we were going to allow 
them to trust the trust fund; that when they put the money in when they 
bought the gas at the pumps, we would put it back for highway trust 
fund purposes. That is what the funding must be spent on under the 
guarantee--highway improvements and safety issues. Because of the 
guarantee, our road and bridge improvements are financed on a pay-as-
you-go basis.
  We drive on the road. We buy the gas. We pay the tax. We build better 
roads and safer roads to protect our citizens, to provide convenience 
and safety, to get rid of the pollution that comes from congestion, and 
to assure sound economic growth in our communities and in our States.
  I don't think this debate should even occur. It should not even be an 
option for us to decide whether or not we will use the highway trust 
fund money for other purposes. How soon we forget. We made those 
decisions just 2 years ago in TEA-21. Do we want to reopen the whole 
highway funding and highway authorization measure again? Let's not 
start down the path of reopening TEA-21. We made accommodations. We 
made changes. We made compromises. We included other projects and other 
activities such as transit in TEA-21. We made a deal--not just with us 
but with the taxpaying American public.
  Earlier this year, the administration proposed to divert funding 
coming from the highway trust fund to Amtrak and other purposes. At 
that time, my colleague from Ohio, I, and countless

[[Page 10911]]

other Senators made it clear that we opposed the administration's 
attempt to rob the highway trust fund. I had an opportunity to discuss 
this with Secretary Slater at our Transportation appropriations hearing 
and suggested to him that ``this dog won't hunt.'' This dog isn't a 
much better hunter either.
  I don't believe that the people in my State who pay the taxes or in 
the States of my colleagues who pay the taxes are going to be excited 
about this. This amendment is similar to the previous effort by the 
administration to divert funding. It takes us down the path of diluting 
our highway funding for purposes other than highways and highway 
safety.
  I have a simple question for my colleagues to think about: Why are we 
talking about using our highway funds for Amtrak and not using our 
transit funds for Amtrak? I personally think transit funds would be 
more appropriate if it fit into the transit plan. OK. Let them use 
transit funds because that is essentially what Amtrak is; it is a form 
of transit. It should not be competing with the scarce dollars to build 
safe highways, roads, and bridges.
  I remind my colleagues that we have a transportation infrastructure 
crisis on our hands. Two years ago, Governors, commissioners, highway 
departments, city officials, and everyday Americans told us we were not 
investing enough in our highway infrastructure. They let us know that 
the deterioration of our highways and bridges was having a tremendous 
impact on their local and State economies and, more importantly, on the 
safety of their citizens. We are still not getting enough money into 
highway improvements. The latest I heard, and to the best of my 
knowledge, no State in the Nation has even 80 percent of its highways 
up to a standard the Department of Transportation regards as fair. 
Every State, to my knowledge, has at least a 20-percent deficit in 
adequate highways, roads, and bridges.
  These are just some of the reasons so many of us fought to ensure 
that we would keep our commitment to the American people regarding the 
highway trust Fund.
  We increased spending on our Nation's highway infrastructure because 
our needs were much greater. I know with absolute certainty that the 
needs identified just 2 years ago have not gone away, and they are not 
going to go away if we continue to divert money and if we try to divert 
money from the highway trust fund. These needs still exist.
  We told the people of America we would put trust back into the trust 
fund: Trust us. Trust us to spend your highway taxes that go into the 
highway trust fund for highway trust fund purposes.
  The National Highway System was part of the grand national scheme. 
This was a national scheme to ensure that people in any State in the 
Nation could travel to any other State in the Nation and be safe on a 
National Highway System. That is what this is all about. This isn't 
about States having their own little, independent highway programs with 
four-lane highways that end in a cornfield at somebody's border. This 
is about having a National Highway System where there is safe transit 
on interstate highways.
  Trust fund taxpayers in my State, and your State, and every other 
State, expect when they pay the money in, it will go to assure that 
when they drive in their State or in any other State, they will be 
driving on safe highways; they will not be putting themselves and their 
loved ones and their families at risk from unsafe highway conditions.
  To my donor State colleagues--those of us whose states pay more into 
the highway trust fund than they get out--think about this for a 
minute: You have highway needs in your State. Yet under this proposal, 
you would see the highway trust fund dollars your citizens put into the 
highway trust fund going into Amtrak. That is not keeping faith with 
the commitment we made in the highway trust fund.
  Let's talk about States rights. I have often thought that maybe we 
really ought to do a States rights approach to this and let the States 
have all the money they raised. You want to talk about States rights. 
Let's keep the highway trust fund dollars in each State as they are 
contributing. That is States rights.
  We agreed in TEA-21 that we were going to have a trust fund for a 
National Highway System--not a national Amtrak system. We are providing 
funds in this bill for Amtrak.
  We know that improvements and repairs to our highway system will help 
improve driving conditions, will reduce driving costs to motorists, 
will relieve congestion, and will reduce the number of accidents and 
fatalities. The cost of repairing roads in poor condition can be about 
four times as great as repairing roads that are in fair condition. We 
have to keep our roads in at least fair condition. Our Nation's roads 
and bridges are at a high level of deterioration.
  A recent headline in the Capital City newspaper in Missouri said that 
my State of Missouri ranks seventh nationally in poor bridges. We need 
to do something about those bridges; they are dangerous. The highways 
are dangerous and we need to do something about them.
  Look at the other side. This is not an issue of trying to deny Amtrak 
resources. Senators Shelby and Lautenberg included in the underlying 
Transportation bill, which I support, $521 million for Amtrak's capital 
program. I have supported that. That is $521 million for Amtrak for 
capital. That $521 million provided is consistent with the 
administration's request, and it is consistent with the so-called 
glidepath level of Federal funding agreed to by the administration and 
Amtrak.
  We continue these huge Federal subsidies, even though Amtrak's 
financial situation is precarious at best. According to the Senate 
report, the Federal Railroad Administration has said that Amtrak ended 
the 1999 fiscal year with a net operating loss of $702 million.
  Since 1971, Amtrak has received over $23 billion in Federal funding 
for operating and capital expenses. Despite Amtrak's efforts to improve 
and its new business plan, it is still not clear whether or not Amtrak 
will reach self-sufficiency. I said that I support the appropriation 
for Amtrak in the underlying bill. I have used Amtrak. I am happy to 
work with my colleagues in the Senate, my former fellow Governors, and 
others, to see that we put money into Amtrak. But this issue is not 
about Amtrak. This is an issue about keeping our commitment to the 
taxpaying citizens of our States and of this country, whom we told we 
were going to put the ``trust'' back in the highway trust fund.
  I strongly oppose the Voinovich amendment because it violates that 
promise. We can't even keep a promise for 2 years. We said we were 
putting the ``trust'' back in the highway trust funds. That is what the 
highway trust fund is all about. I think this amendment violates the 
agreement made during TEA-21, and I strongly urge my colleagues to 
oppose the Voinovich amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Ohio please send his 
amendment to the desk.


                           Amendment No. 3434

 (Purpose: To provide increased flexibility in use of highway funding)

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich], for himself, Mr. 
     Cleland, Mr. Roth, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3434.

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

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

     SEC. 3__. FUNDING FLEXIBILITY AND HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS.

       (a) Eligibility of Passenger Rail for Highway Funding.--
       (1) National highway system.--Section 103(b)(6) of title 
     23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(Q) Acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and 
     rehabilitation of, and preventative

[[Page 10912]]

     maintenance for, intercity passenger rail facilities and 
     rolling stock (including passenger facilities and rolling 
     stock for transportation systems using magnetic 
     levitation).''.
       (2) Surface transportation program.--Section 133(b) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (11) the following:
       ``(12) Capital costs for vehicles and facilities, whether 
     publicly or privately owned, that are used to provide 
     intercity passenger service by rail (including vehicles and 
     facilities that are used to provide transportation systems 
     using magnetic levitation).''.
       (3) Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
     program.--Section 149(b) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended in the first sentence--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) if the project or program will have air quality 
     benefits through acquisition, construction, reconstruction, 
     and rehabilitation of, and preventative maintenance for, 
     intercity passenger rail facilities and rolling stock 
     (including passenger facilities and rolling stock for 
     transportation systems using magnetic levitation).''.
       (b) Transfer of Highway Funds to Amtrak and Other Publicly-
     Owned Intercity Passenger Rail Lines.--Section 104(k) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Transfer to amtrak and other publicly-owned intercity 
     passenger rail lines.--Funds made available under this title 
     and transferred to the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation or to any other publicly-owned intercity 
     passenger rail line (including any rail line for a 
     transportation system using magnetic levitation) shall be 
     administered by the Secretary in accordance with subtitle V 
     of title 49, except that the provisions of this title 
     relating to the non-Federal share shall apply to the 
     transferred funds.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by 
     striking ``paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (1) through (3)''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that with respect to Senator Voinovich's amendment on passenger 
rail flexibility, the vote occur on or in relation to the amendment at 
11 a.m. today with the debate until 11 divided in the usual form. I 
further ask consent that no amendments be in order to the amendment 
prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am on the side of the Senator from 
Ohio. I don't know what the agreement is as to who has jurisdiction 
over the time, but I believe----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio controls half of the 
time, and the manager or his designee controls the other half.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 20 minutes for the Senator from Ohio 
and 17 minutes for the opposition.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Ohio whether he 
would be willing to yield me 7 minutes?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I would be more than happy to do so.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio and the 
Senator from Rhode Island for taking the lead on this important 
amendment this year. As a former Governor and mayor, they can both tell 
you firsthand about the need for State and local governments to have 
flexibility to make the best use of their transportation dollars as 
they see fit.
  I find this kind of fascinating. Here we are and we talk about States 
rights and doing what the States need and the States know what their 
requirements are. Yet repeatedly when I have introduced this same 
amendment without the help--hopefully, it will change now because I 
have a former Republican Governor who has done the job. He is here in 
the Senate. I have stood up on the floor since 1991 introducing this 
amendment and I have been told that the Governors don't want this, or 
that this is inconsistent with the Republican philosophy, or whatever.
  Now we have a Governor from one of the largest States in the United 
States who has done the job--and he obviously did it very well--who 
says, along with a former mayor from one of our smaller States but with 
more concentrated cities, that this is a flexibility that will help. 
Why should you be put in a position as a Governor when, in fact, you 
are able to, by the way, have flexibility with this money and to decide 
how you want to use your highway money, and you decide you want to put 
a bus route on, you can do it? Why can't you use the railroad? This 
sacrosanct principle I always hear from my friend from Missouri I find 
fascinating. What is the difference between a bus and a railroad? It is 
not a road. Guess what. It is on a road. The cement and asphalt guys 
like that a lot. They don't like the idea that we would make it better 
for our constituents and Governors have the choice and flexibility.
  We are not asking for more money; we are asking for flexibility. I 
would think it is just common sense. The record shows that the Senate 
has gone on record time after time--in 1991, 1995, and 1997--in favor 
of this same proposal before us today in the Voinovich amendment. Time 
and again, the language has been dropped in conference with the House, 
which is why we are here again today.
  In addition to the same common sense, we are also here to restore 
balance to the way our transportation dollars are spent. Once again, 
the highway lobby, which is not content to consume its own large share, 
is trying to keep Amtrak from having a little bit of a share of the 
leftovers that go on after other modes of transportation have been 
taken care of. I guess we will have that business to deal with today.
  First, the issue is common sense. Under current law, States are 
permitted to make their own choices to use the money for certain 
Federal transportation programs for mass transit, hike and bike trails, 
driver education, and even snowmobile trails. This is not a very 
restrictive list, Mr. President. In fact, there is only one kind of 
transportation that Governors and mayors aren't allowed to consider; 
that is, inner-city passenger rail.
  Isn't that funny? They are going to give the folks in Minnesota, as 
we should, the ability for the Governor to decide he wants to spend 
highway money for snowmobile trails. Well, that is his business. They 
need that, according to the people in Minnesota. We don't need it in 
Delaware. We need rail. As my friend, and the leader on this subject 
for the entire time he has been here, the Senator from New Jersey, 
says--and one of my greatest regrets is that he is leaving voluntarily, 
and I mean that sincerely. He has one of the few logical voices in this 
debate. He and I come from States that if you widen I-95, it will 
accommodate the reduction of rail transportation and you are going to 
take up the bulk of my State. It would take another seven lanes. Look, 
I don't tell the folks in Missouri what they need. I don't tell the 
Governor of Missouri that he should or should not build more roads. Why 
can't you let the Governor of the State of Delaware decide whether or 
not it is better for us to have rail transportation between Wilmington 
and Newark, DE, instead of having to build another lane on I-95?
  We all know why Amtrak is off the list. It is politics, pure 
politics. It has nothing to do with good public policy or a principle 
of federalism. What sense does it make to go out of our way to tie our 
Governor's hands when it comes to inner-city transportation? It makes 
no sense. That is why the Senate has supported this language time and 
again--unanimously, in some cases, in the past, and with strong 
bipartisan support. Here is what is at stake when you think about this 
little proposition: A little balance in our transportation spending.
  Mr. President, last year Amtrak received $571 million in Federal 
funding. The highway system got $53 billion; and $20 billion of that 
was over and above the gas tax and users' fees that make some folks 
believe they are paying their own way. Again, $20 billion. We are 
talking $571 million for Amtrak.
  I am not here to argue against full funding of the highway system. 
However, a lot of places such as the Northeast corridor are not going 
to be able

[[Page 10913]]

to add another lane to I-95. We have to have another option for our 
transportation dollars. That is all this amendment does. It gives, 
along with every other State, an option we need to keep intercity 
transportation and rail systems viable. That includes States in the 
Midwest, West, and South, which is why S. 1144, the bill on which this 
amendment is based, is cosponsored by 36 Senators including, I note 
with interest, the distinguished majority leader.
  The simple notion of balance says we ought to give all the parts of 
our transportation system the resources they need and we should give 
our citizens the full range of transportation choices that citizens in 
every other advanced economy in the world can now take for granted. It 
is time to stand up for this language. There is no principled argument 
on Federalism.
  I thank my friend from Ohio for his leadership, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this is one of these 
issues that gets convoluted. Unfortunately, in my role as the chairman 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I must object to this 
authorizing amendment to the appropriations bill. I join several of my 
distinguished colleagues, including my ranking member, Senator Baucus, 
in this regard.
  I point out upfront I am a cosponsor of S. 1144. I support State 
flexibility. I support a cost-effective rail system that is efficient. 
And I encourage Amtrak to move towards privatization. The States do 
have an interest in developing passenger rail. I want the States to 
have that flexibility, which is why I cosponsored S. 1144.
  Rail funding flexibility is a complex subject central to the so-
called TEA-21 legislation which was debated and negotiated over many 
months in the last Congress. This issue is squarely in the jurisdiction 
of the authorizing committee, not the Appropriations Committee. We have 
had this fight many times before. The majority leader has spoken 
eloquently on this matter time and time and time again. We basically 
render the authorizing committees powerless, useless. What is the 
purpose?
  I have spent days and days and days and weeks and weeks in an effort 
to resolve a matter that deals with buses, an amendment or some 
language that would be acceptable so we could vote for this. If we had 
done that, perhaps we wouldn't be here now. Instead, we are now faced 
with a decision. I have to oppose something that in essence I support, 
but for some language that would deal with the problems the bus 
companies have.
  This is an authorizing committee matter. Time and time again we 
legislate on appropriations bills, and time and time again the 
authorizing committees become useless. Since it has been reported, I 
have spent several months working on substantive amendments to this 
bill. This bill has holes. On behalf of rail flexibility and the 
railroads, I have tried my best to get around the holes, to no avail.
  This provision requires more thought, more consideration, better 
timing. Members of the Environment and Public Works Committee have a 
difference of opinion on this amendment. I respect that. That is the 
way the process works. I have no problem with people having their own 
views, and I am sure they don't have a problem with me having mine. We 
ignore the authorizers' concerns if we shove this through on an 
appropriations bill. The House appropriations bill had another version 
of rail flexibility, and it was struck by a point of order.
  I am very concerned about continuing Amtrak competition with 
intercity bus service, which is why I have spent with my staff on the 
committee weeks and weeks negotiating, working, trying to come up with 
language that would be acceptable. Rail service will prosper if it is 
integrated with feeder bus service. That is how rail will prosper. The 
rails have limits as to where they can go. Feeder buses have more 
flexibility. That enhances the rail.
  Not included in this amendment is a specific prohibition against 
these funds being used for Amtrak operating subsidies. Not included in 
this amendment is any mechanism to prevent below-cost pricing that 
damages existing bus service. And not included in this amendment is any 
mechanism to ensure rail and bus service are integrated. This amendment 
in its current form leaves many holes in this important policy, without 
protecting the buses or the State government from the influence of 
Amtrak.
  Balanced intercity transportation is important. This amendment cannot 
strike the right balance, I regret to say. I ask my friends in the 
Senate to keep this provision in the jurisdiction of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee where it belongs. If you are on the 
committee, do what I am doing, even though in essence, with the 
exceptions I noted, I support S. 1144. Keep this matter in the 
jurisdiction of the committee where it belongs.
  We will continue our hard work on making it good legislation for all 
the competing interests. If this provision goes on the appropriations 
bill, my committee cannot work on negotiations in conference. All who 
worked so hard to craft this, going back to when my predecessor was 
chairman of this committee, Senator John Chafee, when the process 
began, S. 1144 was marked out of committee and put on the Senate 
calendar. The idea behind that is, if there is a conference on this 
bill with the House Members of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, which brought the bill out, we would have a right to 
conference. We are not even going to be in the conference now. We are 
totally shut out of the process.
  I say to my colleagues, I don't care where you are on the issue 
itself--whether you are for rail, bus, no rail flexibility, total rail 
flexibility--the right thing to do here is to support a rule XVI point 
of order because it is legislating on appropriations. Senator Lott has 
spoken about that issue over the past several weeks. I encourage my 
colleagues to support the rule XVI point of order. I am not sure who 
yet will raise that point of order. I may do it, Senator Baucus may do 
it. We will talk about that. The point is, the rule should be raised 
and will be raised. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule XVI 
point of order to this legislation on appropriations bills.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Ohio to yield 
me 5 minutes.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Ohio and congratulate him 
for his foresight. He is among the best to know what to do in a 
situation such as this, having served as a Governor of Ohio and mayor, 
as we earlier heard from our friend from Delaware.
  We are simply asking for flexibility to use certain highway funds for 
mass transit investments. I think that is a pretty good idea. The 
Voinovich amendment merely extends that flexibility to include Amtrak 
expenses.
  We do not have much new here, except to make certain that if a 
Governor, if a State, if the people in that State choose to use some of 
the highway money they are going to have on rail, they have an 
opportunity to do so. I, frankly, think it is an appropriate local 
decision. We often have disputes here about whether we are invading 
States rights, seizing their prerogatives. This one surprises me 
because what I hear from the opponents, largely, is: Well, my people 
have put money into the trust fund from the gasoline taxes and we want 
it spent on highways.
  I can tell you, coming from New Jersey, we don't get very much of a 
return on the money we send down here. As a matter of fact, I am 
embarrassed to tell some of my constituents that we have among the 
lowest--perhaps the lowest--return on money we send to Washington. So 
we understand the concerns there. But this is in the national interest. 
As we hear the discussion, we say it should be to guarantee a National 
Highway System. The highway system is getting by far the lion's share. 
If a State says it would also like to be investing in intercity rail 
service, I think it ought to be able to do it.
  Some say all the money going to rail, to Amtrak, is largely in the 
Northeast

[[Page 10914]]

corridor. That may be a fact of life because most of the people in the 
country are squashed into that little area, the Northeast quadrant of 
the United States. But also, as we look at plans, there are plans to 
take trains from Chicago to St. Louis. If the investments are properly 
made there, we will knock about 2 hours off the trip from Chicago to 
St. Louis. I assume that is an important route. It is a Midwest route, 
Chicago to St. Louis, MO--that is a pretty busy area, too. And there is 
congestion there: Been there, done that; I have seen it myself. Traffic 
on the highways is bottled up.
  We are clogging the airlanes to such a point they cannot function. 
There was an article in the paper the other day about runway 
incursions. They are way up, 27 percent in just 5 months this year. 
That is an ominous thing to think about. We are always concerned about 
airplanes falling out of the sky. Our system is fundamentally safe, but 
runway incursions happen for a couple of reasons, not the least of 
which is it is just too crowded. There are too many airplanes fighting 
for the same space to land or to take off or for slots to permit their 
passengers to disembark.
  We are looking at a situation now, as we heard from the Senator from 
Delaware, where we cannot put anymore concrete down without recognizing 
there is a terrific consequence to that. We talk about urban sprawl; we 
talk about consuming all the land that is under us. We know one thing 
is true: Rail is an efficient way to go. So we ought to say, OK, I will 
butt out of your business. If the Governor of Missouri or Governor of 
Illinois or the Governor of New Jersey chooses to use some of their 
highway funds on intercity rail and convinces their legislature to do 
that, we ought to agree. We ought to do it. That is usually the cry 
here: Let the States decide. As much as possible, I would like to see 
them do that.
  What we see here is an excellent opportunity to present a States 
rights issue and allow the decisions to be made at the local scene 
where they are going to have the greatest impact. I hope we are going 
to see full support for this amendment. This is a matter of direct 
choice.
  I yield the floor and encourage all my colleagues to support the 
amendment the Senator from Ohio has wisely offered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield to the Senator 5 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this has an intriguing, alluring, siren 
call: Let the Governors and State legislatures divert it. It sounds 
good on the surface. But like a lot of issues, let's stop and think 
about the actual consequences.
  First of all, when we passed the last highway bill, even though we 
increased the amount of dollars to go from Federal gasoline taxes into 
the trust fund, back out to the States for highway construction, we all 
knew we had not even begun to fully take care of our Nation's roads, 
highways, and bridges. And we have not. The Department of 
Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, has done study 
after study that shows we only meet one-half of our Nation's needs--
one-half.
  Some of you saw on television last night the report about all the red 
lights, people caught up in traffic. We know about the potholes. We 
know about roads and bridges and highways that are not up to snuff. 
What do we also know? We also know that our highways, as good as they 
are, are not as durable and as lasting as, say, some European highways, 
German highways.
  Why is that? That is because so much more research and development 
and expense in dollars goes into that highway system to make those the 
best in the world. We have problems. We think we have a good highway 
system--it is good, but the Department of Transportation has concluded, 
from study after study, we are only halfway there, even with ISTEA that 
we passed a couple of years ago. So anybody who thinks we should start 
diverting money from the highway fund better think twice about whether 
or not we are keeping up with our Nation's highway needs. The answer is 
that we are not.
  Second, the highway program is trusted by Americans. Why is that? 
Basically because Americans know the Federal gasoline tax, as well as 
the State gasoline tax, goes into highway construction and maintenance 
and that is it. A few years ago, we decided to divert 4.3 cents, which 
was the additional tax we put on for highways, the gasoline tax, away 
from general revenues in the trust fund. We wanted to restore the trust 
in the highway trust fund. We did that. So basically all Federal 
gasoline taxes go in the highway trust fund and a small percent, half a 
cent, go into mass transit. The rest goes into the highway trust fund. 
Americans know that. They know where their dollars are going. That 
gives Americans confidence.
  Not along ago, the suggestion was made to repeal the 4.3 cents. That 
was during a time when gasoline prices were going up. It sounded like a 
good idea, repeal 4.3 cents of the Federal gasoline tax, get those 
highway taxes down, get those gasoline taxes down. A siren song? Sounds 
good on the surface. What happened? We thought about it a little more 
and realized it was not a very good idea and we decided not to do that. 
We wanted to keep the 4.3 cents in the highway trust fund, knowing in 
the long run that is much more in our national interest.
  This trust is very important. I can see this as the beginning of a 
slippery slope, giving Government discretion to take money out of the 
fund for Amtrak. Then what is next after that? We start to nibble away 
at the trust.
  One other point, the highway system in America is a National Highway 
System.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask to proceed for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the Senator another 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire only has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the 3 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will take 2.
  This is a National Highway System. What does that mean? President 
Eisenhower saw this. It was his conception. As a young soldier, he 
traveled across America and realized the highway system needed help. 
That means we know, as we travel across the country, that the highways 
in Montana, New Jersey, Ohio--highways around the country are all in 
pretty good shape. It is a National Highway System. What is going to 
happen? I have the highest respect for my friends from New Jersey and 
Delaware. What is going to happen in those States which are 
essentially, by comparison, Amtrak States? They are not highway States; 
they are Amtrak States. We know what is going to happen. Those 
Governors and legislators are going to say we are going to take money 
out of the highway trust fund. Because we don't have as many highways 
in our State, we are going to Amtrak.
  What are Americans going to think when the highways in those States 
start to deteriorate? It is no longer a National Highway System. The 
same thing about Amtrak. One Governor says Amtrak; the one next-door 
says, no, not Amtrak. It gets to be quilt work, gets to be patchwork, 
it gets to be confused, and we do not have a national system anymore.
  I think we need to expand Amtrak. I am a strong Amtrak supporter--
very strong. But the way to do it is not here on the floor saying 
Governors decide what a national Amtrak program is. The way to do it is 
for the Congress of the United States to do its business and come back 
with a national Amtrak program. That is the way to do it.
  We have a budget surplus here. Let's talk about Amtrak in the context 
of how we put a national Amtrak program together, and not say Governors 
do this and do that and sometimes some States will have a little more 
highway money.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to not succumb to this 
siren song because in the long run, it is going to hurt us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

[[Page 10915]]


  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2 
minutes to speak on this amendment.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I object. I want to know----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SHELBY. What does the Senator want to know?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I want to know on whose time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 8 minutes remaining for the 
proponents.
  Mr. SHELBY. I asked unanimous consent that I be given time. It is on 
nobody's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking to put off the 11 
o'clock vote then by unanimous consent?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I was not going to comment on this 
provision today, as I am trying to expedite consideration of the 
transportation appropriations bill and did not want any statement by me 
to delay the conclusion of the Senate's consideration of the measure.
  However, since I heard the chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee and the ranking member of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee come out in opposition to this measure, I could not 
miss the opportunity to stand with them in opposition to include this 
provision on the Transportation appropriations bill. Often we find 
ourselves in disagreement on individual amendments, so when the chance 
arises to be on the same side with them, I did not want to miss the 
chance.
  Further, I do believe that in this particular instance flexibility is 
a dangerous tool to be giving Amtrak. It is one thing to grant special 
dispensation in the case of increasing service or in unique 
circumstances, but my concern here is that Amtrak will use the 
provision to leverage State to shift badly needed highway dollars to 
simply maintaining already failing Amtrak service.
  This is one of those circumstances of needing to be careful what you 
wish for--many States may find the they have fewer highway dollars and 
the same Amtrak service at the end of the day if this provision were to 
pass.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this provision on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of the things that is a little bit 
disturbing to me is that there is a feeling in the Senate that somehow 
Governors control their States: The Governors are going to do this; the 
Governors are going to do that. The Governors are unable to do anything 
unless they have the support and involvement of their State 
legislatures.
  I was a Governor from a donor State and fought for ISTEA and TEA-21. 
When I came in, we were at 79 cents. We are up to 90\1/2\ cents. I know 
how important money is for transportation. This is not an issue of 
Amtrak. I keep hearing Amtrak. I do not like Amtrak, and if we had the 
flexibility in my State, I am pretty sure we are not going to spend any 
money on rail. But I think the Governors should have an opportunity to 
have the flexibility to decide--with their legislatures--what is in the 
best interest of their people in dealing with their transportation 
problems.
  There is one other issue that needs to be taken under consideration 
when talking about transportation, and that is the environmental policy 
of the United States. We are in a situation today where we have high 
gas prices. We are in a situation today where we need to put together 
an energy policy. Frankly speaking, rail ought to be part of the 
consideration in deciding that energy policy.
  Some of the same people who are objecting to Governors having 
flexibility on rail supported welfare reform. I remember when we were 
down here lobbying for welfare reform. They said: If you give it to the 
Governors, it will be a race to the bottom. But, we got the job done. 
Some of the same people opposed to this are big advocates of giving 
Governors the opportunity to spend education dollars. That is what this 
is about. This is not about Amtrak. It is about flexibility. It is 
about States rights. It is about federalism.
  The only reason I offered the amendment today is that I could not get 
a unanimous-consent agreement to bring up the bill, S. 1144, and it was 
stuck with a hold on it. With all due respect to the chairman, for whom 
I have the highest regard and understanding--and who was a cosponsor of 
this legislation, this issue of flexibility needs to be aired. We ought 
to have a vote on it. We ought to give the Governors the opportunity to 
have this flexibility.
  To characterize the amendment as for rail or against--that is not the 
case. I am not here for that. I am here for flexibility for the 
Governors who have a big responsibility, and they ought to have an 
opportunity with their State legislatures to decide how they are going 
to spend this money. If they want to spend it on rail and debate it, 
fine. If they do not want it, let them decide that.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield to the Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I support his 
amendment, and I want to reiterate how important this will be to our 
State. Because of ISTEA, our State gets a huge amount of money for road 
building. The Governors make that decision. We are desperately short in 
terms of help for rail in many parts of our State. In fact, in some of 
the rural areas they are looking for rail help now which they were not 
several years ago.
  As I understand the Senator's amendment, it will simply allow each 
Governor to make that choice so that in my State of New York, if 
Governor Pataki decides he has enough, or at least a higher priority 
than the bottom of the rung in terms of his highway decisions and wants 
to put some of this money into passenger rail service, he will be 
allowed to do it. It is simply his decision, no mandate, and will not 
affect any other State if this amendment is adopted. And that would 
apply in each of the States; am I correct in assuming that?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. That is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Ohio, there 
are approximately 2 minutes remaining. We had an understanding that we 
would share some time. Does the Senator need the 2 minutes? If he does, 
I will step aside.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will try to take only 1 minute.
  This is not a new idea. This has been in Senate bills before, 
including ISTEA and TEA-21, and it passed with those bills. It died in 
conference. There was another influence working over there that 
prevented us from exercising our will and our judgment about what ought 
to happen.
  With all due respect to my colleagues who oppose this, we have done 
this before, and we ought to have a clear opportunity to do it again.
  The Senator from Ohio was so clear in his presentation. It is simply 
allowing the governments within the States to make decisions about how 
they use their highway funds. If they think they are servicing their 
public better by permitting them to invest in intercity rail, then, by 
golly, we ought to let them do it. It is better for the highway people. 
Those who advocate investing more in highways, how about getting more 
cars off the roads? Doesn't that help the highway people? Doesn't that 
help clear up congestion? I think so.
  I understand the jurisdictional dispute. I am on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, and I greatly respect the chairman. He was very 
clear in what he said. He does not oppose the idea, but he opposes the 
idea of doing it here.
  It is here, and it is now, I say to the Senator, and we have to take 
the opportunity as it exists. I hope my colleagues will support this.
  I yield whatever time remains back to the Senator from Ohio. How much 
time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A little less than 30 seconds.

[[Page 10916]]


  Mr. VOINOVICH. I reserve my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
and has 1 minute.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority 
leader, an amendment was inadvertently left off the list of eligible 
amendments in order to the bill. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that a Murkowski amendment on an Alaska railroad be added to the list. 
This has been agreed to by the minority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I make a point of order 
that the pending amendment is legislating on an appropriations bill in 
violation of rule XVI. I ask my colleagues to stand with me so that we 
can put a stop to this practice of legislating on appropriations bills.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I raise a defense of germaneness and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The Chair submits to the Senate the question, Is the amendment No. 
3434 germane? The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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. Allard). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Coverdell
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Domenici
     Rockefeller
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 46, the nays are 
52. The judgment of the Senate is that the amendment is not germane. 
The amendment falls.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am going to increasingly call attention to 
the disorder that prevails in this Senate.
  As I sat here and listened to this crowd in the well, I wondered to 
myself: Can you imagine Norris Cotton being in that well? Can you 
imagine George Aiken being in the well at that time? Can you imagine 
Senator Dick Russell being in the well? Can you imagine Lister Hill 
being there?
  I don't know what the people who visit as our guests in the galleries 
think of this institution. It resembles the floor of a stock exchange. 
I can understand that once in a while people have to go in the well and 
ask a question. But we are supposed to vote from our seats. I do not 
know how many Senators know that, but there is a regulation providing 
that Senators shall vote from their seats. I urge the leadership on 
both sides to insist that that be done. I always try to vote from my 
seat. It doesn't present any problem for me, voting from my seat. I 
realize that some Senators don't get an opportunity to talk to one 
another until they come to the rollcalls, but we have a vast area 
outside the Chamber or in the Cloakrooms where they can do that.
  So I am going to urge the joint leadership to insist that Senators 
vote from their desks. If Senators will look on page 158 of the Senate 
Manual under ``Senate regulations'', they will find this regulation. 
May I ask the Chair to read that regulation to the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. ``Votes Shall Be Cast From Assigned Desks.''
  ``Resolved, that it is a standing order of the Senate that during yea 
and nay votes in the Senate, each Senator shall vote from the assigned 
desk of the Senator.''
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: If I or another 
Senator insists on that regulation being enforced, is it the Chair's 
intention--and I am not being personal about this, but will the Chair 
enforce that regulation, if a Senator asks that it be done?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the duty of the Chair to enforce all the 
rules and regulations of the Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  I hope Senators heard the Chair. For those who are not here, I hope 
they will read it. I urge that the joint leadership insist on that 
regulation. Otherwise, I am going to insist on it. One Senator can 
insist on it. As I understand from what the Chair has said in his 
response to my parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, it is the Chair's 
duty to enforce the regulations.
  I don't say this with any animus, but I am concerned about how the 
Senate appears to visitors during roll call votes. Perhaps other 
Senators may not be quite so concerned, but I am because it seems to be 
getting worse.
  I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, following the previous agreement, all 
amendments had to be filed by 11:30. I think it is a little past 11:30. 
We should now have all of the amendments.
  At this time, I would like to review with my ranking member, Senator 
Lautenberg, all amendments that have been filed.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, may we have order, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair calls for order in the Senate.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President,


                           Amendment No. 3439

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve should be used to address high crude oil and gasoline 
                                prices)

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins), for herself and Mr. 
     Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 3439.

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

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

     SEC. 3__. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING USE OF THE STRATEGIC 
                   PETROLEUM RESERVE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) since 1999, gasoline prices have risen from an average 
     of 99 cents per gallon to $1.63 per gallon (with prices 
     exceeding $2.00 per gallon in some areas), causing financial 
     hardship to Americans across the country;
       (2) the Secretary of Energy has authority under existing 
     law to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through time 
     exchanges (``swaps''), by releasing oil from the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve in times of supply shortage in exchange for 
     the infusion of more oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     at a later date;

[[Page 10917]]

       (3) the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries 
     (``OPEC'') has created a worldwide supply shortage by choking 
     off petroleum production through anticompetitive means;
       (4) at its meetings beginning on March 27, 2000, OPEC 
     failed to increase petroleum production to a level sufficient 
     to rebuild depleted inventories; and
       (5) the Secretary of Energy should implement a swap plan at 
     times, such as the present, when prices of fuel have risen 
     because of cutbacks in the production of crude oil.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that if the President determines that a release of oil from 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve under swapping arrangements 
     would not jeopardize national security, the Secretary of 
     Energy should, as soon as is practicable, use the authority 
     under existing law to release oil from the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve in an economically feasible way by means of 
     swapping arrangements providing for future increases in 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve reserves.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my 
distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, to offer a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that addresses perhaps what is the most 
pressing transportation problem facing America today; that is, the 
outrageously high cost of gasoline. Retail gasoline prices have 
skyrocketed over the past months to a nationwide average of $1.63 per 
gallon. In my hometown of Caribou, ME, a gallon of regular unleaded gas 
costs $1.68. And that's if you pump your own. In the Midwest, gasoline 
prices have exceeded $2 a gallon. Yesterday, gasoline futures hit a 
9\1/2\-year high on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Yet, just last 
year, gasoline prices averaged only 99 cents per gallon. What a 
difference a year can make.
  This past March, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson assured the 
nation that we would enjoy declining gasoline prices over the spring 
and summer and promised that we would not see gasoline prices at $2 per 
gallon. Unfortunately, $2 is exactly what many Americans now pay for a 
gallon of gas.
  These high prices are the result of steadily increasing crude oil 
prices which, in turn, have been caused by OPEC's anticompetitive 
activity. Since the second quarter of 1999, OPEC has cut production by 
over 3 million barrels per day in a deliberate attempt to raise prices. 
Well, the strategy has worked. Although OPEC countries sold 5 percent 
less oil in 1999, their profits were up 38 percent. And the profits 
keep rolling in.
  Early last fall, Senator Schumer and I began warning the Clinton 
administration that OPEC's production squeeze would have far-reaching, 
detrimental impacts on our economy. At that time, oil prices already 
were beginning to rise, and U.S. inventories were falling. Throughout 
the winter, Mainers and all Americans who heat with oil suffered from 
the highest distillate prices in a decade.
  The administration's lack of a response has been as perplexing as it 
is disappointing. Last winter, Secretary Richardson admitted that the 
``Federal Government was not prepared. We were caught napping.'' This 
is an astonishing explanation for the administration's lack of 
leadership. And now it's time for the administration to wake up.
  The administration's ``energy diplomacy'' policy has proven to be a 
failure.
  On March 27, the OPEC nations agreed to increase production, but at a 
level that still falls well short of world demand. At the time, 
Secretary Richardson proclaimed that the administration's policy of 
``quiet diplomacy'' had worked and forecast price declines of 11 to 18 
cents per gallon by mid-summer. Thus far, exactly the opposite has 
occurred. Gasoline prices are up some 12 cents per gallon since the 
OPEC announcement. Now predictions are not so rosy. As the Department 
of Energy's Energy Information Administration candidly noted in its 
June 2000 short-term energy outlook, ``we now recognize that hopes for 
an early peak in pump prices this year have given way to expectations 
of some continued increases in June and possibly July.''
  Moreover, the EIA's June report warns that OPEC's anticompetitive 
scheme could place us next winter once again in the midst of another 
diesel fuel and home heating oil crisis. The report predicts that world 
oil consumption will continue to outpace production throughout this 
year resulting in, and I quote, ``extremely low inventories by the end 
of the year, leaving almost no flexibility in the world oil system to 
react to a cutoff in oil supplies somewhere or an extreme cold snap 
during next winter.''
  It is past time for this administration to shift gears from quiet 
diplomacy to active engagement. The oil crisis we have faced for over a 
year underscores the fact that this administration has no energy 
policy, much less one designed to address the needs of America in the 
21st century. Americans deserve a long-term, sustainable, cogent energy 
policy. But, in the short term, they also deserve some price relief. 
The amendment Senator Schumer and I have offered would do just that.
  The amendment is straightforward. It addresses the sense of the 
Senate that the Secretary of Energy should use his authority to release 
some oil from our massive Strategic Petroleum Reserve through time 
exchanges, or ``swaps.'' The immediate commencement of a swaps policy 
would bring oil prices down while providing a buffer against OPEC's 
supply manipulations. Moreover, a well-executed swaps plan could, over 
time increase our reserve from its current level of 570 million 
barrels, at no cost to taxpayers.
  Mr. President, the swaps approach advocated by our amendment would 
also give the administration leverage it has refused to bring to bear 
on the OPEC cartel. Quiet diplomacy has not worked. OPEC already has 
broken a commitment it gave to Secretary Richardson to increase 
production further if crude oil prices hit the levels they have reached 
over the past month. OPEC is scheduled to meet again on June 21 in 
Vienna. We need to show OPEC that we will not sit idly by as the cartel 
manipulates our markets and gouges us at the pump. The amendment 
Senator Schumer and I have offered is designed to send a strong signal 
to OPEC nations and to provide relief to the American consumer.
  Mr. President, I am aware this amendment is subject to a procedural 
point of order, and therefore, Senator Schumer and I will be 
withdrawing it. Nevertheless, it is a very important issue.
  I commend the Senator from New York for his leadership in working on 
this issue for so many months. We will continue our efforts. We are 
writing, once again, to the President, to urge him to immediately 
implement a swap plan as proposed by our amendment.
  For the sake of all Americans who have felt the squeeze of 
skyrocketing oil and gas prices, we sincerely hope that the time has 
finally come for the administration to heed our call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Maine for 
her leadership and her comradeship on this issue.
  We have been working for a long time. We are not going to rest until 
something is done. If what we propose is not the right course, come up 
with some other strategy. But clearly, as the Senator says so 
correctly, something is not working.
  The bottom line is simple. Last year, the Senator from Maine and I 
predicted home heating oil prices would go through the roof. We were 
told by the Energy Department and others: Oh, no, don't worry. You are 
being alarmist.
  Unfortunately, for many of our constituents and millions of Americans 
in other States, home heating oil prices went through the roof.
  Then in the early winter, we said: Now, gasoline could go to $2 a 
gallon this summer if nothing is done. We had studied how much oil OPEC 
was putting out. We looked at rural demand. We looked at the fact that 
our former friends, or friends who had always been helpful--Mexico and 
Norway, non-OPEC Members that expanded the supply of oil--would not 
help anymore.
  They said, as the Senator from Maine indicated, let's try some quiet 
diplomacy. We are not the fount of all wisdom. Why not?
  On March 27, when the OPEC members met, they said they were going to 
prevent oil from going to $28 a barrel

[[Page 10918]]

on the spot market. And if it went over $28 a barrel for more than 30 
days, they would release additional oil and bring the price back down. 
In fact, they set a range, not just a ceiling. There was also a floor, 
$22 to $28. It was high but within the bounds of being livable for the 
consumers in our States who, if nothing was done, would pay $1,000 more 
each year for gasoline and home heating oil. That number is no 
different than for most of the constituents of my colleagues from other 
States.
  If we look at what Chairman Greenspan is doing in raising interest 
rates, he cites oil pressure on the economy as one of the great 
problems we face. He said if OPEC will do this on its own, maybe that 
is a better way.
  Oil has been above $28 for more than 30 days and the OPEC nations are 
saying they are not going to do anything.
  Maybe swapping SPR reserves, as we are urging in the bipartisan 
letter we are releasing today, signed by about a dozen of our 
colleagues, as well as ourselves, is not the only way to go, but nobody 
has presented a better alternative.
  If we were to release a relatively modest amount of oil from the SPR, 
prices would come down, the fragile unity that OPEC has shown would be 
broken, and there would be new cheating on OPEC's part, and the price 
would come down further.
  We have 570 million barrels of oil sitting there. If we were to 
release, say, a million barrels of oil for a 45-day period, it would 
not deplete the reserve. Figure it out using simple mathematics. It is 
less than 10 percent of the reserve. Furthermore, because the market is 
what is called ``backwardized,'' we could actually require that we 
would lock in a price, that we could buy oil next April at $25 a 
barrel. It is simple arithmetic.
  If we sell at $31 and we can buy it back next April by buying futures 
on the oil market for $25, not only do we achieve our main goal, which 
is to bring the price of oil back down and help the consumers 
throughout the country who are paying through the nose for gasoline, we 
could also actually make some money. The Government, for once, would be 
behaving as a private business. That is not our goal, but that would be 
a side benefit.
  Here we are. Everything that has been said has not worked. Home 
heating oil did go through the roof. The price of gasoline is, in parts 
of the country, already above $2 a gallon. The average, as of 
yesterday, was $1.60-something in the rest of the country. And mark my 
words, heating oil next year, if we do nothing, will be much higher 
than it was last winter, when our constituents in the Northeast and 
Middle West faced unprecedented home heating oil bills.
  So this resolution--I wish the point of order didn't lie against it; 
it does--is what is needed. I agree with my friend and colleague from 
Maine we ought to withdraw it. But make no mistake about it; this 
policy is the only policy left on the table. To those who say it may 
not work--which is the only argument left. They first told us it was 
not legal, but it was, as we proved. They had done it three times 
before. They told us it was unnecessary. Prices show it is necessary. 
Now they are saying it may not work. Guess what. It cannot be worse 
than what is happening now.
  So I strongly urge my colleagues, if they cannot vote on our 
resolution because of this point of order, to sign the letter Senator 
Collins and I have authored and continue to make our case that swapping 
oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the best policy we have to 
bring the all-too-high cost of energy down and keep our economic 
prosperity on track.
  With that, I will yield to the Senator from Maine to conclude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  Ms. COLLINS. Is the Senator from Michigan seeking to be heard on this 
resolution?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me congratulate the Senators from 
Maine and New York for this resolution. Because it is a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution which might be ruled not to be germane or appropriate 
on this bill for technical or procedural reasons, I understand they 
will be withdrawing it. I am sorry that is what they must do under our 
rules, or need to do under our rules, because this resolution of theirs 
really addresses one of the most critical issues my constituents in 
Michigan are facing. I know the Senator's constituents in Maine are 
facing it, and the constituents of the Senator from New York. All of 
our constituents are facing these skyrocketing prices which have no 
rational explanation--except that the oil companies have decided they 
are going to gouge us pricewise, although their own prices of oil per 
barrel have not gone up nearly as much as have the prices that they are 
charging us.
  We have had two agencies of this Government that have said there is 
no logical or rational explanation for the huge increase in gas prices. 
The Federal Trade Commission should investigate this matter. I have 
asked them to investigate this matter because of the possibility of 
anticompetitive practices on the part of the oil and gas industry. That 
is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission. Their 
staff, indeed, is required to undertake that inquiry.
  What is going on here is intolerable. It is not a reflection of the 
price of oil per barrel. The prices at the pump have gone up far more, 
proportionally. In the absence of that kind of explanation, and in the 
presence of the kind of skyrocketing prices we are facing at the pump, 
as the Senator from Maine said--in the Midwest, in my State, now over 
$2 a gallon--I think the signal which is being sent by this resolution 
is a very important one. The letter they are sending I hope will get 
the signatures of every Member of this body. I have already sent the 
President a similar letter urging the withdrawal of some oil from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the later swap of oil back into that 
reserve. I intend to sign this letter again because I think the more of 
us who ask this administration to withdraw oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve the better, and the more likely they would do so.
  I commend the two Senators for their action. I intend to forcefully 
join with them in their letter and to continue my own efforts, as 
previously indicated both with the Federal Trade Commission to obtain 
their investigation for potential anticompetitive practices, as well as 
the withdrawal issue by the Department of Energy, because I believe 
that is one of the ways we can fight back against the OPEC monopoly.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Michigan will yield, I commend him 
for his remarks and also commend the Senators from Michigan and Maine 
for what they have done and their leadership on this issue. This is a 
critically important issue in the Midwest. It is certainly an important 
issue in the State of Illinois. I have been back to my State and I can 
tell you virtually every single group I have met with--labor, business, 
education, ordinary families--all bring up this issue as the first 
concern because it hits them in the pocketbook. Families trying to 
drive back and forth to a job, small businesses that depend on the cost 
of fuel for profit--they are all concerned. I commend the Senator from 
Michigan for the comments he has made.
  I have listened to the oil companies and their explanations about why 
these prices have gone up, but I have to tell you they just don't wash. 
They don't make sense. When you explore them and look to them you say: 
Sure, that might account for a 2-cent increase or a 5-cent increase. 
But in the Chicagoland area, it is not uncommon to find gasoline at 
$2.29 a gallon and higher, for the lowest cost gasoline. That does not 
explain it away.
  Frankly, I think the oil companies are coming up with excuses. In the 
past, they have come up with excuses and, frankly, we have to go 
further. I think the Senator from Michigan is correct; the Federal 
Trade Commission has a responsibility here. Next Tuesday, the chairman 
of that Commission

[[Page 10919]]

is going to meet with the Illinois delegation to talk about this. I 
hope they take the Senator's suggestion and go forward with this 
investigation. At this time I think we need to have the oil companies 
in for honest answers so families and businesses across America 
understand what is behind this.
  I commend the Senator from Michigan, as well as the Senator from 
Maine, and all those who have shown leadership on this issue. It is 
really a matter of the quality of life for a lot of families and 
businesses in the Midwest--across the Nation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Illinois for his comments. As 
always, he has his finger on the pulse of his constituents. That is the 
No. 1 issue with the people of Michigan at the moment, the skyrocketing 
price of gas at the pump. There is not even a close second. This is the 
first, second, and third issue on the minds of the people of Michigan 
and the Midwest, and obviously other parts of the country as well. We 
have to hold the oil companies accountable. We have to put as much 
pressure on them as we can. Withdrawing oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve is one of the ways in which we can fight back against 
these skyrocketing prices.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized, 
Senator Abraham.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I first thank the Senator from Maine for 
her steadfast efforts to raise these issues over a fairly lengthy 
period of time now. I also think we should, perhaps, review some of the 
recent history. As my colleague from Michigan just indicated, it is 
clearly not just in Maine or Michigan but across the country, in almost 
every part of the country, the No. 1 issue on people's minds today--
what it costs to fill up one's automobile or sports utility vehicle 
with gasoline.
  In my case, like many other fathers with young children, we have a 
minivan. When we go to the pump now, it is somewhere between $40 and 
$50 to fill up our tank. There seems to be a pattern in our region--
Michigan, Illinois, and some of the other States in the Great Lakes--
that have driven the prices even higher than the national average. I 
share the concerns my colleague from Michigan and colleague from 
Illinois have expressed with respect to why this is affecting uniquely 
our State. I have asked the Secretary of Energy to meet personally on 
this issue to find out what insights he provides.
  I think a few other issues need to be discussed. First, I think the 
points that have been raised with respect to releasing some of the 
petroleum in our strategic reserve make sense. This is a way to make an 
immediate impact, to have an immediate impact on the supply of oil 
which, in turn, will relate to the price. There are a lot of things we 
can do that will have a long-term impact, but the short-term impact is 
fairly limited.
  No. 1, we can tap the reserve. No. 2, we can suspend, as we have on 
several occasions tried to vote to do, the Federal gasoline taxes to 
reduce some of the costs the consumers are paying.
  But I think there is an issue we need to talk about as well, that has 
more of a long-term consideration to it, and that is the dependency of 
our country on foreign sources of energy. The fact is, even if you 
level out the prices for the Great Lakes, if the problems in our region 
were to be resolved in such a fashion that we simply returned to the 
approximate level of the rest of the country, we would still be paying 
substantially higher prices than we did a year ago. There is no 
question the reason for that is the OPEC nations' decisions with 
respect to supply is the cause of these higher prices. While I think we 
should investigate whether it is the oil companies or anyone else who 
may be taking advantage of the supply situation in some inappropriate 
way, I think we must try to wean ourselves from the dependency we have 
on foreign energy sources.
  I believe we have a responsibility as a Congress to work on issues 
related to this.
  I believe the administration has a responsibility, which it has not 
fulfilled in over 7 years in office, to provide us with a long-term 
energy policy that prevents dependency from getting any worse. In the 
1970s, when we had an energy crisis that led to lines at the fuel 
pumps, that led to shortages, we were only 35-percent dependent on 
foreign energy. Today, we are 55-percent dependent. At the current 
rate, we will hit 60 percent in the near future.
  There is no question that if we place ourselves in that position, we 
will be at the mercy of the decisionmaking of foreign countries with 
respect to our energy costs. I do not think we want to be in that 
position as a nation. I do not think we want to have our Energy 
Secretary, irrespective of to which administration he or she might 
belong, be forced to go hat in hand, as Secretary Richardson recently 
was required to do, to persuade foreign countries to give America a 
little bit more of a supply. The only way to address that is to change 
policies at home that allow for domestic production to increase that 
will permit us to tap into alternative energy sources and to conserve 
more energy.
  That, I believe, ought to occupy as much attention as anything else 
we do in this area. To address the long-term needs, in my judgment, is 
the top energy policy on which we should right now be focused as a 
Congress and as a nation.
  We need a multifaceted approach. In the short run, the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve can give us immediate relief on some of the prices. I 
believe we should, again, consider suspending the gas tax as another 
way to do that for the short run. Until and unless we demonstrate as a 
nation a commitment to increasing our own domestic production, we are 
going to send a signal to these other nations that they are going to 
have the leverage they can use when they wish to make more profits for 
themselves at our expense, and instead of American consumers being in 
charge, it will be foreign oil ministers who make those decisions.
  That is wrong. I intend to fight that, and I intend to be back on the 
floor as much as it takes on these issues until we begin to focus on 
that aspect of the problem.
  Let's say the national average in the region--which does not include 
Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois--if that average fuel price was the price 
in my State, $1.50 to $1.60 a gallon, it would still be too high, in my 
opinion. The only way it is going to change is if we address the long-
term issues as well.
  I thank the Senator from Maine for her amendment and her efforts. I 
look forward to working with her on this issue. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                      Amendment No. 3439 Withdrawn

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan. He is 
absolutely right in that we need to pursue a long-term energy policy 
for this Nation, as well as to provide short-term price relief by 
tapping our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  I thank all my colleagues who have supported and have spoken out in 
support of this resolution, but particularly my primary sponsor of the 
legislation, Senator Schumer of New York. Since a point of order will 
lie against the amendment, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________