Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, here it is quarter to 6 on the day after this bill has come to the floor. We have had two votes on technical amendments. We have another technical amendment we can offer. But my colleagues have filed about 40 amendments. While there are discussions going on over two different minimum wage amendments, we have set those aside in order for us to go back to work on other amendments relating to this bill. I ask on behalf of leadership on this side and my partner that Members who have amendments which they have filed to please come forward and offer those they wish to offer, or talk with us about ones that might be acceptable. The leader said we are going to be here this week until we finish this bill. It is my hope, with the tremendous workload we have to accomplish, if we are to get out of here prior to Thanksgiving, that we move forward on this bill. We will be ready for business tomorrow morning. If Members do not come forward, my colleague and I will consider asking the bill go to third reading. We still have time to deal with another amendment tonight if anyone wishes to come in and bring it before us. Otherwise, I would ask all our colleagues who want to pursue amendments which they have filed to come forward and do so tomorrow. It is possible, if they will do so in an orderly manner and tell us which ones they do not wish to pursue, we could finish this tomorrow night and be ready to move on to the many other challenging pieces of legislation and appropriations measures we have to deal with. This is an urgent request to Members on both sides who have amendments filed to come forward--staff met with us on those amendments--and let us know which ones they wish to pursue. We are operating on a continuing resolution for all of the important agencies covered by this bill. Many of these agencies truly need the new appropriations for fiscal year 2006 in which we are operating. Some of the provisions we have in this bill will significantly improve the operation of the Federal Government. It is going to be a very difficult bill to conference because of the different parts of it. It is going to take us several weeks to complete the conference on the bill. We cannot go to conference until this bill is passed. With any amendments that are agreed to after this, we still believe this is important for the functioning of the Federal Government and the service it provides. There is much talk about Amtrak and what we need to do on Amtrak. Let us be clear: There are some Amtrak reforms in this bill. They do not go as far as we would hope to see in Amtrak legislation which is coming out of the Commerce Committee. It should be debated on this floor. But it will provide $1.45 billion for the operation of Amtrak and begin to reform some of the significant problems we see in Amtrak. For those who are interested in improving the operation of the passenger rail service, I hope you will join with us in moving forward to completion of this bill so we can get the Amtrak funding done and those reforms which are included in this bill. The system will work better if this measure is passed. Similarly, for the Treasury Department, we are funding vitally needed resources to stop illicit financing of the terror trade. The Treasury has an important responsibility to do that. That is in our national interest. We have additional funds available to make sure that the taxes already on the books and owed are collected. Obviously, for housing, there are many important things for taking care of the needs of those who need assisted housing. The Judiciary has important measures in it as do the other related agencies. It is time we move forward on this bill. We reported it out of committee in July. It is now here on the floor and ready to go. We earnestly ask that our colleagues join us and offer amendments, debate them, if necessary, and we will vote on them so we can move this bill to conference and get on with the business of the Federal Government. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleague. We are still open for business--maybe not for much longer--but I hope all Senators will take the fact that we intend to either vote on amendments tomorrow or have third reading. It doesn't make any difference to us one way or the other. We want to finish this bill. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it appears that action for the day on the Treasury, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations bill has come to a close. I ask once again that our colleagues be prepared to offer amendments tomorrow or we will ask to go to third reading.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is an amendment to reform the judiciary's ability to procure things. It is a procurement authority. The amendment actually establishes greater parity for the judicial branch by giving it the same procurement authorities that were given to the executive branch through acquisition reform legislation in the 1990s. We found this saved money. It gives the taxpayers a better bang for their buck. They can procure over several years. Currently, the judiciary's procurement authority is limited when compared to the executive branch. This limitation increases the cost of doing business. Specifically, these limitations are on multiyear contracting, severable services contracts, and the timing of contract payments and, thus, prevent the judicial branch from taking advantage of the best prices offered for some goods and services. As an example, a typical information technology contract will extend for several years. It is far more efficient for the executive branch and it is more efficient for the judicial branch to be able to make these contracts over several years. Simply put, this amendment gives the judicial branch authority it should already possess, and I believe makes good business sense for the American taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, and related agencies bill is now back on the floor. At 11 o'clock it is my understanding that by previous order we will go to consideration of the DC appropriations bill, which will be included as a separate part of this legislation because the House has the two functions of DC and Treasury, Transportation, HUD as one bill. Those, it is my understanding, will be conferenced separately but at the same time so that the final conference report will bring back Treasury, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and the District of Columbia appropriations. The important thing to note is my partner and colleague in this effort, the ranking member, the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray and I, have asked our colleagues to bring to the floor the amendments they wish to offer for this T-T-H-U-D or TTHUD bill. We will be having a vote on the pending amendment, the Kyl amendment, at 10 minutes after 12. The amendment relates to the cost-of-living increase for Members of Congress. It is important to note that both sides agree we want to move quickly. We want to know what amendments there are. We are seeking a time deadline for filing those amendments so our staff can go to work on them. We believe there will be time this evening for staff to consider them. It is possible we will be able to take some of these amendments and conclude this bill sometime this week. It is very important we get this moving because we are now in the new fiscal year. We are operating on a continuing resolution and we have many important items in this bill and the DC bill that need to be put into law so we are operating on fiscal year 2006 appropriations for the year. As my colleague was kind enough to mention yesterday, there was an athletic contest in Houston last night in which Albert Pujols managed to keep the St. Louis Cardinals alive. I am currently in a good mood and ready to accept as many amendments as possible. While I have great hopes for continued success, this is the best time to catch me in a good mood. And the Senator from Washington is in a good mood. This is the time to bring the amendments forward. We will be happy to work with our colleagues to try to find ways to accept as many amendments as possible. In any event, I know there will be some amendments that will require votes. We would like to have them brought to our attention as soon as possible in order for us to set a schedule enabling us to finish this bill, we hope well before the end of this week. We have many other important measures to work on and we will have to have a number of votes. We look forward to having those amendments before us. This is an urgent request to my colleagues who have amendments to the TTHUD bill to bring them to the floor and to share them with the managers on both sides of the aisle. With that, I thank my colleagues and ask that they bring those amendments down. Seeing no other speakers wishing to take the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a business meeting on October 18, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., to consider a bill, S. ----, to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, to make technical corrections.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on October 18, 2005 at 2:35 p.m., to conduct a legislative hearing on S. 1772, the Gas Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, to markup the following nominations: 1. William F. Tuerk, Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, VA. 2. Robert J. Henke, Assistant Secretary for Management, VA. 3. John M. Molino, Assistant Secretary of Policy and Planning, VA. 4. Lisette M. Mondello, Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, VA. 5. George J. Opfer, Inspector General, VA. The markup will take place in the Reception Room off the Senate Floor, the Capitol following the first rollcall vote of the Senate after 1 p.m.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 18, 2005, at 10 a.m., to mark up S. 1562, ``Safe and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2005,'' and an original bill entitled ``FHA Asset Disposition Act of 2005,'' for purposes of reporting the text of both bills to the Senate Budget Committee as Title II for reconciliation purposes. Immediately following the markup, the Committee will conduct a hearing on ``The Future of the National Flood Insurance Program.''

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time on this side in morning business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is very interesting to hear this speech on energy. There were a couple of things my colleague from Illinois said that I agree with. No. 1, energy prices are a real problem. No. 2, LIHEAP needs to be reviewed by the appropriate Labor-HHS appropriations subcommittee. No. 3, the good things we are doing in ethanol and biodiesel need to continue. No. 4, maybe he did not say it on the floor, but he and I both agree on the St. Louis Cardinals. That is about the extent of the things I could find on which we agree. Let me go through a few of them. First, all of us are paying more at the gasoline pump. This is having a conservation impact. People are driving less. Everybody is thinking about how they can take fewer trips. Certainly we are in our family. I believe the statistics show that people are conserving more. Talk about turning back your heat during the winter, we are one of those families--I think it is 57 percent of the families in the United States--who heat with natural gas. That thermostat is not going to go down a couple of degrees; it is going to go down more than that. We are going to be pulling out the sweaters. There are some people who cannot do anything about it. There are workers who have to travel on jobs. There are small businesses that are trying to keep their businesses going. There are famers who have to keep up with those prices. This is a real concern for our economy. For small businesses that will be hit by increased costs of energy for operating their business, my colleague seems to want to add a minimum wage increase. When your margins are being squeezed by energy costs, what happens if the minimum wage goes up? Those young people, the people just starting out in the business, the people who might be getting minimum wage--and it is down around 6 percent of workers these days--are probably going to be the ones let go. The people who need to get a start in the process, who need to get a job, are the ones who are going to lose their jobs because the minimum wage is going to put a further squeeze on the profits of small businesses. To see a requirement that they pay a higher cost for entry-level workers is either going to eliminate existing jobs or certainly stifle the creation of new jobs. For those people on minimum wage, for those families, we have the earned-income tax credit; we have all forms of assistance and this is proper. We need to help those people get started because a significant number, an overwhelming number of those starting with the minimum wage get a 10-percent increase at the end of the first year. They have to learn to work, and that is how they get started. Let's go back to the problems we have with energy. We have real problems in energy that came about even before Katrina and Rita hit our refineries and hit the gulf coast. We concentrated our petroleum production mainly in the gulf coast region around Texas and Louisiana. Why? Because too many people said, No, you can't drill here. In other places where we have oil and gas, they are being prohibited from drilling. People say we can't drill for natural gas off the coast, and I say, Why not? We have to do so in an environmentally sound manner. We have to protect the environment. But siting a natural gas rig 15 miles out in the sea, if it is done in an environmentally sound way, is not threatening the way of life of people along our coast. The occupant of the chair and I happen to come from a State where we mine a lot of lead. Lead mining is environmentally difficult. Everybody knows the problems lead can cause, but lead is absolutely critical in many of the goods we produce, computers, and other things. So we produce much of the lead in the United States because we have 90 percent of the lead that exists in the United States. I have told some of my friends who do not want to drill for natural gas in their States or off their shores, we in Missouri would be happy to trade you our lead for your natural gas. You can mine for the lead and we will be happy to pump the natural gas. Natural resources have to be developed where they are found. Ten years ago, we passed a bill authorizing the opening up of that small portion, and only a fraction of that small portion, set aside in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for the development of natural resources. When ANWR was set up, there was a portion set aside specifically for the development of natural resources. To the west of there in Prudhoe Bay, they are producing oil in substantial amounts. The best estimates we have heard is that if we had gone ahead, if the President 10 years ago had not vetoed the opening up of ANWR, we would be getting over 900,000 barrels of oil a day from the ANWR. That is not going to solve all of our problems, but it is certainly a start. Regrettably, it is a lot more than even our farmers can produce in terms of ethanol and biodiesel. We need to pursue every area. That includes conservation. That includes new sources. That includes developing additional resources that we have in the United States. Right now, because we are busily engaged in a bill that primarily doesn't have anything to do with energy--and I remind my colleagues this is the TTHUD appropriations bill. We are talking about appropriations for Treasury, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development. My colleague and I are looking forward to having amendments on that bill and also the Judiciary and related agencies. There is a hearing going on in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I would love to be there because the chairman has proposed a bill to fast-track permitting for refineries. It can take up to 20 years to get a refinery built. It is too costly. Our refinery capacity for petroleum products has been stretched to the limit. When Katrina and Rita knocked out those facilities, we found ourselves in a terrible shortage. We need to streamline the process, go through all the steps but do so in an orderly manner so we can bring more refineries online in an efficient and environmentally friendly way. Incidentally, what we need to do in that fast-track permit is to fast-track permitting of coal liquefaction and coal gasification. We are sitting on a 250-year supply of energy in the form of coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Coal has been a problem because, when you burn it as we have in the past, it produces sulfur, nitrous oxides, carbon, and mercury. But the coal we have in the Midwest, while it is high in sulfur, is high in Btu, and it can be turned into gas or turned into diesel fuel or aviation fuel in a way that removes almost all, if not all, of the pollutants. We need to get coal refineries putting online plants to replace the natural gas that is being burned in utility boilers. Wasting natural gas in utility boilers has come home to roost. Twenty-five years ago, I heard Glenn Seaborg, a Nobel Prize winner, talking about energy. He said there are some people who want to burn natural gas in combustion boilers to produce energy. He said using natural gas for that purpose is similar to taking your most prized piece of antique furniture and throwing it in the fireplace to keep you warm. That is a bad use. But environmental policies without considering energy impacts forced most of the new electric generating plants in the last decade to come online on natural gas. All those who are heating with natural gas are paying the price now. We can get a replacement for that natural gas by using gasified coal, but we need to do so pretty darned quick. We need to open up areas for the production of natural gas. One of the things we should remember is that the natural gas problem, the crisis we face, is not only brought about by constriction and restriction on the ability to produce the natural gas that exists off our coasts, in our Federal land, in the resource-producing areas set aside when ANWR was developed, but we are also facing a natural gas crisis because we have forced utility companies to burn natural gas to produce electricity. We need to be smarter and replace that natural gas with coal gas. We also have had hysteria over nuclear power. Nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly, cheapest way to produce electricity. Thanks to the Energy bill we passed, we are moving ahead to develop new nuclear power. Our nuclear power facilities are getting old. There has never been a death; they are the safest means of energy production we have. Look at France, not an area we normally cite as an example, but 80 percent of their electricity is generated by nuclear. We need to go back to development of the new style, safe nuclear powerplants, and bring them online as quickly as we can. My colleague had some interesting ideas. I am not surprised the leadership of the other party would come forth with taxes and windfall profits and ideas such as that, that might sound good, unless you study economics. Then you wonder, when was it that we passed a law making profits illegal? We do have laws. We have laws against restraint of trade. We have laws against price fixing, that say you cannot gain a profit by agreeing with your competitor to fix prices. We have unfair competition laws on the books at the FTC, and many States do, about price gouging. But profits, No. 1, are taxed and, No. 2, are supposed to be providing the investment we make in the new facilities, for example to produce more oil and gas and coal, to refine it and to deliver it to market. Profiteering--I am not exactly sure at what level making a profit is improper or illegal. I have spent a lot of time as a lawyer on legal cases coming out many years ago on the windfall profits tax, and I found for law firms, litigating windfall profits is a multiyear endeavor with more funds expended on lawyers than recovered. It is not an easy process and not one for which I would argue. Also, the suggestion has been made that we ought to establish higher CAFE standards. We have had that debate. We have had that debate a number of times. If I remember correctly, a bipartisan majority got behind something called the Bond-Levin or the Levin-Bond amendment, which said we need to increase our fuel efficiency standards, but we should not make the same mistakes we made originally. Yes, when we passed CAFE standards, one of the ways the CAFE standards were met were car companies building lighter weight cars, 1,000 or 2,000 pounds lighter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said between 1,600 and 2,000 people a year are killed on the highways solely because of the lighter cars. Yes, more cars are being imported, consumers are seeing more cars coming in from abroad, and they are demanding more fuel-efficient cars, such as hybrid cars, and that is good. But we passed a law mandating the NHTSA to increase the fuel standards as rapidly as technology will permit them to increase those standards without endangering the lives of the passengers by making lighter weight vehicles. So we do have an agency looking out for safety, looking out for the technical advances. Technology has already warranted their increasing the fuel mileage on light trucks and other autos. If you want to, I guess my colleagues on the other side could come out and pass a law banning hybrids, saying you cannot buy an SUV, you can't buy a small truck. Maybe you would have to get a permit if you were a farmer. That is the way they did it in the Soviet Union. You only got a truck if the government decided you needed a truck. I am not sure we want to go down that path, saying we are going to tell you what kind of truck you can have, and if you have a large family and want to be able to transport them to school, to church, to health care, to see other family members, the Government is going to decide how big a car or how big an SUV you can have. If they want to debate that I would be happy to do that. But as long as we are selling cars and trucks that consumers want, I think pushing the technology as fast as we can is a responsible way to get there. Yes, I also agree we ought to consider LIHEAP increases to help low- income seniors. That is good. We need to push ethanol and biodiesel. The occupant of the chair was successful in getting the amendment adopted that mandated 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels be used by 2012. All of these things are important. I believe we must get a good refinery bill fast-tracking refineries. In the meantime, as we think about all these energy problems, I hope my colleagues will come forward with their amendments to this bill, as I mentioned a long time ago, the Treasury, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Judiciary. Let us see if we can't get some amendments on this bill and move forward with that. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are back on the Treasury-Transportation- Housing and Urban Development bill. The minority Member, my partner, Senator Murray, and I are ready to do business. I understand we are waiting for final negotiations from both sides on the potential two votes that we hope will be ready to be put forward early this afternoon. As soon as we know something about that and can reach an agreement, we will advise all Senators. In the meantime, the Kennedy amendment on minimum wage is pending. We expect there will be an alternative amendment which will be proposed, and that will be voted on right after or right before the Kennedy amendment. We ask all Members who have an amendment they want to file to please bring it in, and we hope we can work it out with them. If it is something that can be accepted, we would like to do so because we need to finish this bill--the sooner the better. The leaders have advised us that we will be in this week and weekend until we finish the bill. My personal preference would be to finish it this week and not on Friday afternoon or Saturday. It would be very helpful if they would bring in those amendments. Very shortly, we will be conferring with leadership on both sides to establish an agreed-upon deadline for filing all first-degree amendments. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment, the Kennedy amendment, be temporarily set aside.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is rather technical, but it has to do with public housing authorities and their ability to use future Section 8 vouchers on project-based assistance needs. As many know, in the past public housing was constructed when the assistance was tied to the project rather than to an individual. That enabled the public housing authority or other entity to get financing to build the units and then receive the income from the Federal housing assistance. Right now, there is a process for refining the allocation of Section 8 vouchers to public housing authorities so they do not have unused Section 8 vouchers. That has been a good thing because that means the money for housing assistance goes to those who most need it. However, the problem arises when public housing authorities need to put aside or shelve some of the needed Section 8 certificates or vouchers allocated to them in order to provide a basis of funding for construction of additional housing. In some areas--I know in my State and across the country--we can hand out all of the Section 8 vouchers we want for people needing housing assistance, and they do not do much good because there is not housing available. So we have to have the flexibility for the public housing authorities to take some of the vouchers allocated to them and say: We will commit them to this project in order to build the housing we need. This amendment includes funding for the projected use of Section 8 project assistance needs of public housing agencies. Normally, for developing housing within the project-based assistance, PHA would shelve the needed vouchers for the 1- to 3-year development timeline for an assisted project. Under the current approach for funding vouchers designed to assure that there were no Section 8 certificates wasted, the projected funding needs related to project-based vouchers would not be funded, thus removing the incentive or the ability to develop Section 8 housing, regardless of need. We believe this amendment will ensure that the planned use of project-based vouchers is funded without prejudice, thus allowing the local public housing authorities in communities across the country to develop project-based assisted housing where there is not otherwise housing needed for the people who are homeless, who need better shelter in the area.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. I thank all of my colleagues. If any colleagues have compelling statements related to this issue which may be important in their States, we are happy to have those added to the Record with this vote. Again, we await the arrival of others with amendments on which we can work. I suggest the absence of a quorum.