Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Utah for relinquishing the rest of the time, and I join my colleague in strong support of S. 397, the gun liability bill. But I also wanted to address a topic that continues to draw much heat and discussion here on this floor and in the media. In the heat of political rhetoric over Iraq and the administration's prosecution of the global war on terror, much has been lost and not all the facts are being presented in the matter. Unfortunately, some are quick to exploit the situation in Iraq and the global war on terror and, by extension, the brave men and women prosecuting these conflicts as cannon fodder in their attacks on the President from the media and others. These folks hope to undermine the administration's credibility with a keen eye on gaining political advantage. However, in the end, those efforts serve only to undermine the noble efforts of our Armed Forces, the men and women of our intelligence community who take the fight to the enemy every day. Most damning, however, is that we have yet to see those who strongly criticize the President's policies present any comprehensive, workable or viable alternatives. This kind of politicizing only serves to erode the morale of the men and women in the field who do the heavy lifting. It is nothing short of shameful when these warriors' leaders in Congress bicker about nonsubstantive issues while they in the field are united and committed to the missions of freedom and keeping our country safe. The armed conflicts in which our young men and women sacrifice so much should be the topic of thoughtful debate. However, there is no place for this kind of posturing in the business of war because it merely emboldens the enemy and belittles the efforts of our troops. Let's look at the facts. Some argue there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Look at the facts. In late 1994 or early 1995, Saddam Hussein met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum. In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwah against the United States, two al-Qaida members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then bin Laden. ``One reliable source reported bin Laden's having met with Iraqi officials, who `may have offered him asylum'.'' These are quotes from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report published in July 2004. I do not think one could argue that these facts are either agenda- driven or biased. These facts demonstrate that prior to the 9/11 attacks, al-Qaida and bin Laden himself maintained contacts with the Iraqi regime and that the Iraqis even offered to harbor bin Laden. Accordingly, a categorical denial that ``Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11'' cannot be made responsibly. Next contention: Iraq had and has nothing to do with the global war on terror. That is flat dead wrong. Hardly anyone can refute the fact that Iraq has become the gathering place for Sunni extremists who wish to wage war against the United States. From their optic, the terrorists have a plethora of targets with the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. They are also motivated to combat our policy of fostering a pluralistic, open, and democratic government in Iraq. True meaning. Instead, the terrorists wish to distort Islam's true meaning, wage an unholy war against Iraq's Shi'a, and induce a sectarian civil war during the aftermath of which the terrorists would like to establish a Taliban-like state in Iraq. These same terrorists are also motivated by their desire to evict U.S. forces not only from Iraq but from the Greater Arab Middle East, and they view our mission in Iraq as an act of occupation when it is a battle of liberation. The battle is one of hearts and minds; a battle, however, that the Iraqi people are determined to win, along with our assistance, as demonstrated by the 58-percent voter turnout in January, where they elected a new national government, and also by the continuing willingness of Iraqis-- to face the danger of terrorist suicide attacks--to sign up to serve to keep the peace. But terrorism is not a new phenomenon in Iraq. Chief among the terrorists in Iraq today, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was known to have been in Baghdad since at least mid-2002. You might ask, how can a terrorist of Zarqawi's notoriety operate, let alone live, in a Stalinist police state such as that of Saddam's Iraq, without the former regime's knowledge, if not consent. The answer is simple. Saddam knew Zarqawi was there, undoubtedly. When asked about Iraq's al-Qaida relationship by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, on February 5, 2003, the vice chair of our Senate Intelligence Committee agreed that his presence in Iraq before the war was troubling. He said, ``The fact that Zarqawi is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least substantial connection between Saddam and al-Qaida.'' However, long before Zarqawi descended upon Iraq, Abu Nidal, the secular Palestinian terrorist leader and founder of the Abu Nidal organization, lived in Iraq from 1998 until he died in 2002. Over the years, that organization carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people, including hijacking of Pan Am flight 373 in Karachi in 1986 and the assassination of a Jordanian diplomat in Lebanon in 1994. Abu Nidal was arguably the world's most ruthless terrorist until the rise of Saddam Hussein. He lived and flourished in Saddam's Iraq for 4 years. In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwait authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects led by two Iraqi nationals. Finally, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted in the United States for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath the World Trade Center in 1993, arrived in Baghdad during July of 1994. Upon his arrival, Yasin traveled freely and received both a house and a monthly stipend from the Iraqi Government during his stay. Next contention: Iraq did not present a danger to the United States at the time we commenced Operation Iraqi Freedom. Listen to the people who looked at the situation. During a July 28, 2004, Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, the former head of the Iraq survey group who went in and looked at the situation in Iraq after we occupied it, Dr. David Kay, noted, ``It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than in fact we thought it was even before the war.'' He went on to say, ``I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein. This may be one of these cases where he was more dangerous than we thought.'' The head of the Iraqi survey group. Next contention: Iraq would have supplied WMD to terrorists. During that same hearing Dr. Kay added, ``After 1998, Iraq became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection, and in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made Iraq a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated.'' The 9/11 Commission during the 1990s found: Bin Ladin sought the capability to kill on a mass scale. Bin Ladin's aides received word that a Sudanese military officer who had been a member of the previous government cabinet was offering to sell weapons grade uranium. After a number of contacts were made through intermediaries, the officer set the price at $1.5 million which did not deter Bin Ladin. Al-Qaida representatives asked to inspect the uranium and were shown a cylinder about 3 feet long and one thought he could pronounce it genuine. Al-Qaida apparently purchased it, and it turned out that it was not a legitimate one. Given al-Qaida's demonstrated desire to acquire WMD and the Iraqi Government's likelihood of sharing WMD technology or actual devices with anyone for the right price, no one can dispute that the liberation of Iraq from Saddam's dictatorial and corrupt regime was a prudent offensive strike in the war on terror. Finally, some would argue Iraq is a quagmire and not winnable. But listen to the troops. They say otherwise. These are the boots on the ground, the soldiers, the marines. During a recent trip to Iraq, journalist Michael Graham spoke to more than 100 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, with different ranks and duties, at their forward operating bases, and they overwhelmingly had the same things to say about the war in Iraq. And he went on to say that these 100 American troops made the following points: We believe in the mission. We are making progress. The Iraqis are making progress too. We are going to win. I believe that says it all. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of his article be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. BOND. I believe that article says it all. Michael Graham's sampling of U.S. military personnel was random, varied, not controlled by the Pentagon. The sample may be small, but 100 troops believe in the war in Iraq and that we are going to win. History teaches us that the first casualty of war is truth. The first casualty of political battles can often be the men and women fighting the real battles while executing our Nation's policies. Let us not debase the memories of those who have laid such a sacrifice on the altar of freedom with meaningless finger-pointing exercises. Let's speak with truth about the issues and facts at hand.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Handing Over the Mic Troops talk from Iraq (By Michael Graham) I just spent a week in Iraq and Kuwait cultivating a skill that I, as a talk-show host, have found nearly impossible to master: shutting up. Turns out, it was easier than I thought, at least in Iraq. When you're listening to a 20-year-old kid from Indiana tell how he earned his second Purple Heart, speechlessness is the natural reaction. I was there as part of the much-maligned ``Truth Tour'' organized by Move America Forward, a conservative group based in California. According to reports in the mainstream media, I was part of a ``propaganda'' junket paid for by the Pentagon to buy some desperately needed positive coverage of the unwinnable military quagmire. All I can say is: If this was a junket, it was the worst-run junket in the history of public relations. My radio station and I had to pay all my expenses, I slept on a bare cot in a tent in the desert, and at some locations the only available ``food'' (and I use that term under protest) were MREs--which stands for ``Meals Ready to Eat . . . assuming you've already eaten both shoes and most of your undergarments.'' This alleged ``junket'' failed in another way, too. The Pentagon didn't control what went out over the airwaves. Then again, neither did I. I left it all up to the soldiers. I traveled about Iraq from Camp Victory at the Baghdad International Airport to Camp Prosperity on the very edge of the Red Zone, then down the Baghdad Highway to Camp Falcon, and on to the Command Headquarters in the heart of the city and, eventually, to the deserts of Kuwait and Camp Arifjan. And everywhere I went, I flipped on my mic, sat back, and let the troops tell their story. These soldiers weren't stooges from Public Affairs or handpicked flag wavers foist on me by media handlers. I found some in the mess hall, others working security checkpoints; others sought me out because they have family living in the D.C. area where my radio show is broadcast. The least fortunate were the soldiers in Humvees stuck with ``tourist duty,'' four friendly but serious young men who got stuck with a couple of bonehead radio hosts riding along on patrol. In all, I spoke to more than 100 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, with different ranks and different duties at their FOBs (forward operating base), and yet they overwhelmingly had the same things to say about the war in Iraq: ``We believe in the mission.'' ``We're making progress.'' ``The Iraqis are making progress, too.'' And, perhaps most important of all: ``We're going to win.'' I expected to hear this sort of positive assessment from General George Casey, commander of operations in Iraq, when I interviewed him at his headquarters deep inside the International Zone. When he pointed out that, one year ago, there was just one standing battalion in the Iraqi army, but there are 107 battalions today, he was doing his job of supporting the war. And I expected it from Lt. General Steve Whitcomb, commanding general of the 3rd Army, as he talked about successfully moving more than one million gallons of fuel across Iraq every day, despite the best efforts of the insurgents. Generals are supposed to be gung ho. It comes with the pay grade. But I heard the same, positive assessments from 23-year-old sergeants from New Iberia, La., and from PFCs from Wisconsin and Alabama. I heard it from Lieutenant Li, whose Humvee had been hit by IEDs so many times he'd lost count. I heard it from Airman Truong, who was born in Vietnam and had recently returned to his native country to marry. Two weeks after ``I do,'' Airman Truong was headed back to Kuwait to do his duty for his adopted country. Again and again, from ``white-collar'' soldiers working in the relative safety of Camp Victory at the Baghdad airport to the ``real'' soldiers patrolling Route Irish (a.k.a the ``Highway of Death''), I heard that America and their Iraqi- army allies are winning the war against the insurgents. I was told again and again by the soldiers themselves that their (our) cause is just, the strategy is working, and the enemy they fight represents evil itself. In other words, I heard things seldom heard on CBS or read in the pages of the New York Times. It was only a week, and I have my obvious Bush-supporting, troop-cheering biases, but how much closer can a reporter get to delivering unspun, bias-free objective reporting than live-mic broadcasting instantly back to the states? No edits or filters or editorial meetings. Just the young men in the hot desert telling what they've seen, what they've heard, and what they now believe based on those experiences. Isn't it at least significant that not one in 100 thought invading Iraq was a mistake? Was it mere coincidence that a random selection of 100 soldiers all believe their mission is worthwhile? Should we detect the hand of the Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy in the fact that the vast majority of the troops find the media coverage of the war ignorant, harmful, or both? I'm proud to say that, for a week, the soldiers had their say. If I were the editor of a major daily newspaper or a national network, I would be concerned that what they said is so contrary to what I am printing or broadcasting. But the mainstream media don't need to hear from the soldiers. They already know that the war was a terrible mistake, that the world would be safer if we'd left Saddam in power, and that there is no chance for victory in Iraq. Me, I'm not so smart. I like to let the guys on the ground tell their story. I believe it is completely possible that they know something that I--and the New York Times editorial page--do not.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Tom Dorr to be confirmed as Under Secretary for USDA Rural Development. He is a product of rural America from the greater northern-Missouri area often referred to as Iowa. He is a farmer, a businessman, and a tireless innovator who understands and holds true to the values that embody the very essence of life in rural America. Having had the privilege to meet with Mr. Dorr on several occasions, I have been impressed with his mind, his insight, his leadership, his passion, and his vision which is critical to the future of rural communities in Missouri and throughout the nation. Mr. Dorr has lead USDA Rural Development's renewable energy efforts, from increasing value-added agricultural ventures to ensuring that our farmers, ranchers and rural businesses have access to capital needed to improve their energy efficiency and create new energy systems. He understands it is an effective way for utilizing our Nation's natural resources, and it is critical for the security of our country. Most importantly, Tom Dorr has worked to build coalitions amongst Government agencies to share their expertise and resources to bring to the table a wider array of Government resources that can ensure that our Nation's renewable energy needs are met. We need his continued focus and leadership. Tom Dorr has come to my home state of Missouri and met with community leaders and seen first hand how USDA Rural Development investments are making a difference. He has listened to our leaders, and he will use that insight to help him direct future rural development activities. Mr. Dorr understands that rural development doesn't happen in Washington, it happens in the community and he understands that the future innovative thinking. With this confirmation process, he will never have to prove his patience and determination in any other way. I believe he is the creative and active force that is needed to ensure that rural America anticipates and seizes the opportunities of a rapidly-evolving future and I urge his approval.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Missourians, I extend my warmest congratulations to my good friends the Hazelbakers on Jen Jen's naturalization as a U.S. citizen. As this family is aware, the freedoms we share in this country are not to be found elsewhere in the world. To maintain these freedoms, we must exercise the responsibilities that are incumbent with these liberties. As the English philosopher John Stuart Mill said, ``The worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it.'' Already an important figure in her community and active in this country's political process, I am confident that Jen Jen will serve her new home well and I am proud to welcome her. We send best wishes for success in Jen Jen's future endeavors. We also wish this warm family continued success, happiness, and prosperity.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. The Senator from Minnesota is correct. This is an important issue and I am committed on addressing with Senator Coleman on the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, and I look forwarding to working with Senator Coleman in ensuring that this is done.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the recently passed S. Res. 134, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995, the largest single mass execution in Europe since World War II. In has been 10 years since the war in the Balkans has dominated international headlines. The September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States and the resulting war on terror have taken center stage and rightly dominated our foreign policy. But the 40,000 Bosnians living in the St. Louis area saw the ugly face of terrorism in Srebrenica in July 1995, when approximately 8,000 Muslim men and boys were massacred, and hundreds of women and children were tortured and raped in an area that was supposedly under the protection of the United States. Tens of thousands were evicted from their homes and forced to flee their homeland. As a direct result of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, more than 40,000 Bosnian immigrants now live in the St. Louis area. In fact, it is a privilege for the City of St. Louis to be the home of more Bosnians than anywhere in the world outside Bosnia. Our Bosnian immigrants are productive, peaceful citizens who are making vital contributions to the revitalization of the city and adding ethnic diversity that enriches our community. But as they rebuild their lives, they still bear the emotional scars as victims of genocide and the evils of ethnic cleansing. It is a solemn 10 year anniversary the world will commemorate in July. As we remember the victims of Srebrenica with this resolution, we also reiterate our support for efforts to identify victims of this massacre through DNA matching and allow families a sense of closure that comes with the opportunity to appropriately commemorate and bury their loved ones. The victims of this genocide also deserve our efforts to put international pressure on those responsible for this terrible tragedy, including Serbian political leader, Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic, and bring them to justice. As we join with our new Bosnian immigrants to commemorate the Srebrenica massacre, it is my hope that we will commit ourselves once again to oppose the evil of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will allow for the continued expansion of non-primary hub airports across the country. The simple fact of the matter is that demand for commercial air service in and out of many of these smaller non-primary hub airports is far exceeding the current operational capacity at these airports. Expanded airfield and terminal capacity at these airports are desperately needed to meet the growing demand for air service in these high growth communities. The Springfield/Branson Metropolitan Area in Southwest Missouri is a classic example of one of these high growth communities where demand for air service is exceeding the current operational capacity of area's primary regional airport. The city of Springfield is the economic hub for 26 Missouri Counties with a population of approximately 1 million people. Over the last 10 years, the population of the Springfield area has increased by more than twice the annual growth rate experienced by the State of Missouri. The Springfield metropolitan workforce has grown by more than 27 percent the past 10 years, and is projected to grow by 18 percent over the next ten years. Annual regional tourism accounts for over 2.2 million visitors in Springfield and over 7 million annual visitors to the booming Branson area. Because of the tremendous growth in this region, demand for an air service in and out of the Springfield/Branson Regional Airport is soaring. The current airport is experiencing great difficulty in trying to keep up with the growing demand for air service in this region. The capacity at the current airport is virtually at its maximum. The FAA has already approved the Springfield Regional Airport Master Plan and completed an environmental assessment for this plan. So far, the FAA has invested over $7 million in the planning and design for this project. Further funding for this project will be needed to fund the expansion of air-side apron, runways, taxiways and limited eligible components of the terminal. In order to ensure that this essential project goes forward and that previous Federal tax dollars are not wasted, I am introducing legislation that will clarify the status of the Springfield Regional Airport as a non-hub primary airport. This legislation states that if the status of a non-hub primary airport changes to a small hub primary airport at a time when the airport has already received FAA discretionary funds for a terminal development project--and this project is not yet completed--then the project shall remain eligible for funding from the discretionary fund and the small airport fund to pay costs allowable under section 47110(d) of Title 49. Such an airport project will remain eligible for these funds for three fiscal years after the start of construction of the project, or, if the Secretary determines that a further extension of eligibility is justified, until the project is completed. This legislation will ensure that the ongoing expansion projects of smaller airports across the country will continue in order to accommodate the growing demand for additional airfield and terminal capacity at these airports.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will allow for the continued expansion of non-primary hub airports across the country. The simple fact of the matter is that demand for commercial air service in and out of many of these smaller non-primary hub airports is far exceeding the current operational capacity at these airports. Expanded airfield and terminal capacity at these airports are desperately needed to meet the growing demand for air service in these high growth communities. The Springfield/Branson Metropolitan Area in Southwest Missouri is a classic example of one of these high growth communities where demand for air service is exceeding the current operational capacity of area's primary regional airport. The city of Springfield is the economic hub for 26 Missouri Counties with a population of approximately 1 million people. Over the last 10 years, the population of the Springfield area has increased by more than twice the annual growth rate experienced by the State of Missouri. The Springfield metropolitan workforce has grown by more than 27 percent the past 10 years, and is projected to grow by 18 percent over the next ten years. Annual regional tourism accounts for over 2.2 million visitors in Springfield and over 7 million annual visitors to the booming Branson area. Because of the tremendous growth in this region, demand for an air service in and out of the Springfield/Branson Regional Airport is soaring. The current airport is experiencing great difficulty in trying to keep up with the growing demand for air service in this region. The capacity at the current airport is virtually at its maximum. The FAA has already approved the Springfield Regional Airport Master Plan and completed an environmental assessment for this plan. So far, the FAA has invested over $7 million in the planning and design for this project. Further funding for this project will be needed to fund the expansion of air-side apron, runways, taxiways and limited eligible components of the terminal. In order to ensure that this essential project goes forward and that previous Federal tax dollars are not wasted, I am introducing legislation that will clarify the status of the Springfield Regional Airport as a non-hub primary airport. This legislation states that if the status of a non-hub primary airport changes to a small hub primary airport at a time when the airport has already received FAA discretionary funds for a terminal development project--and this project is not yet completed--then the project shall remain eligible for funding from the discretionary fund and the small airport fund to pay costs allowable under section 47110(d) of Title 49. Such an airport project will remain eligible for these funds for three fiscal years after the start of construction of the project, or, if the Secretary determines that a further extension of eligibility is justified, until the project is completed. This legislation will ensure that the ongoing expansion projects of smaller airports across the country will continue in order to accommodate the growing demand for additional airfield and terminal capacity at these airports.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise briefly to say thank you, congratulations, and best wishes to an outstanding person, a truly remarkable jurist. That is, of course, Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her retirement today. A lot of people can say many good things about her service on the Court, her interpretation of the Constitution. We have heard many discussions about the wise judgment she has made. I reflect a little bit as a personal acquaintance. Going back over 30 years when I visited my parents in Arizona, I had the opportunity to get to know John and Sandra Day O'Connor. We played a lot of tennis together. Incidentally, they are both very good tennis players. John has a great, somewhat wacky sense of humor. Sandra Day O'Connor is a truly wonderful, remarkable, warm human being. She wouldn't tell the stories publicly, but there are a number of stories her friends know about the extra measure of kindness she showed to people in need, people who are very ill, people who were suffering. She went out of her way quietly and demonstrated a human kindness and compassion that was significant. As has already been outlined, she had a great record, great educational record, a record of great service. When I met her, she was majority leader of the Arizona State Senate. I was Governor of Missouri. We were recruiting people to run for Governor of Arizona. I thought Sandra Day O'Connor would make a great Governor of Arizona. I made it my cause to recruit her on behalf of the Republican Governors Association to run for Governor. Then one day she told me, I have decided I am going to take a seat on the bench. I am going to become a judge. In one of those famous comments that lives with you forever, I said: Sandra Day O'Connor, it is a dead-end job being a judge in Phoenix, AZ. I was dead flat wrong. When I welcomed her to Missouri to address the bar association as Madam Justice of the Supreme Court, needless to say she took great delight in relating that wonderful advice I had given her to run for the Governor of Arizona. We have been very pleased to have her back several times, and as far as I can tell she has never failed to mention that story. I mention that story only to say she was right, once again, and she has contributed honorably and significantly to the judicial service of this Nation. I can only say on behalf of those who were her constituents, as Americans, and those who know her as a friend, we wish you the very best. We go forward with our deep gratitude for all you have contributed and our very best wishes for health, happiness, and a long life. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1052, As Amended

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes. I rise to address some of the lingering questions regarding Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE standards. I was hoping this debate would not be necessary because we have debated it, we have resolved it, we have set a process in place, and it is working. Obviously, we are here again. We have been through this CAFE debate in the 107th and 108th Congresses, and with the Durbin amendment before us we get to go through it once again in this Congress. Surely, my colleagues remember that both of the previous CAFE amendments in the last two Congresses were soundly defeated. Why were they? Because Members of this body realize that CAFE is a complex issue that requires thought and scientific analysis, not just political rhetoric. The Bond-Levin amendment that was passed in 2003 by a vote of 66 to 30 requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, to increase CAFE standards as fast as technology becomes available. It is a scientific test based on science, not politics. We must recognize at the beginning that the Durbin amendment costs lives, costs U.S. jobs, and deprives consumers of their basic free will to choose the vehicle that best fits their needs and the needs of their families. Neither the lives of drivers or passengers on our Nation's highways nor the livelihood of autoworkers and their families should be placed in jeopardy so Congress can arbitrarily increase infeasible and scientifically unjustified standards for fuel efficiency. Any fuel efficiency standard that is administered poorly, without a sound scientific analysis, will have a damaging impact on automobile plants, suppliers, and the fine men and women who build these vehicles. There have been many arguments that a large increase in CAFE standards is needed to pressure automakers to invest in new technologies which will consistently increase automobile fuel efficiency. Automobile manufacturers already utilize advanced technology programs to ensure the improvement of fuel efficiency, the reduction of emissions and driver and passenger safety, and they are being pushed to do so by NHTSA regulations. Auto manufacturers are constantly investing capital in advanced technology research by the integration of new products, such as hybrid electric and alternative fuel vehicles and higher fuel efficiency vehicles. So far, the auto industry has invested billions of dollars in developing and promoting these new technologies. Diverting resources from further investments in these programs in favor of arbitrarily higher CAFE standards would place a stranglehold on the technological breakthroughs which are already taking place. Alternative fuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol, and natural gas, have continuously been developed to service a wide variety of vehicles. The automotive industry continues to utilize breakthrough technology which focuses on the development of advanced applied science to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles, while at the same time producing innovative safety attributes for these vehicles. Furthermore, modifications need time to be implemented. According to the National Academy of Sciences: Any policy that is implemented too aggressively (that is, too much in too short a period of time) has the potential to adversely affect manufacturers, suppliers, employees and consumers. The NAS further found that no car or truck can be prepared to reach the 40 miles per gallon or 27.5-mile-per-gallon level required for fleets within 15 years. The Durbin amendment would require it in 11. That makes it clear that if we try to shove unattainable standards down the throats of automakers, the workers and the companies, we will have a problem. What will we have achieved by doing so? There is the false perception that the Federal Government has done nothing to address CAFE standards. Nothing could be further from the truth. On April 3, 2003, NHTSA set new standards for light trucks for the model years 2005 through 2007. These standards are 21 miles per gallon this year; 21.6 next year; and 22.2 the following year. This 1\1/2\-mile-per-gallon increase during this 3-year-period more than doubles the last increase in light truck CAFE standards that occurred between 1986 and 1996. This recent increase is the highest in 20 years. In addition, by April 1 next year, NHTSA will publish new light truck CAFE standards for model year 2008 and possibly beyond. Most stakeholders expect a further increase in CAFE standards for these years as well. It is important to understand that NHTSA is doing this, utilizing scientific analysis as a basis for these increases. We must proceed with caution because higher fuel economy standards, based on emotion or political rhetoric, not sound science, can strike a major blow to the economy, the automobile industry, auto industry jobs, and our Nation. Highway safety and consumer choice will also be at risk. Letting NHTSA promulgate standards is the appropriate way to do it, and that is what almost two-thirds of the Members of this body decided when we brought the last Levin-Bond amendment before us. In an April 21 letter this year, Dr. Jeff Runge, Director of NHTSA, said: The Administration supports the goal of improving vehicle fuel economy while protecting passenger safety and jobs. To this end, we believe that future fuel economy must be based on data and sound science. Those advocating arbitrary increases may try to avert any discussion of the impact on jobs or dismiss the argument. However, I have heard from a broad array of union officials, plant managers, local automobile dealers and small businesses who have told me that unrealistic CAFE standards cut jobs because the only way for manufacturers to meet these numbers is to make significant cuts to light truck, minivan and SUV production. But these are the same vehicles that Americans continue to demand and American workers produce. On June 17, this month, I received a letter from the UAW regarding CAFE amendments, such as the Durbin amendment, which speaks volumes about the detrimental impact that further CAFE increases could have on the automotive industry. The letter states that: the UAW continues to strongly oppose these amendments because we believe the increases in CAFE standards are excessive and discriminatory, and would directly threaten thousands of jobs for UAW members and other workers in this country. It further states: In light of the economic difficulties currently facing GM and Ford, the UAW believes it would be a profound mistake to require them now to shoulder the additional economic burdens associated with extreme, discriminatory CAFE standards. This could have an adverse impact on the financial condition of these companies, further jeopardizing production and employment for thousands of workers throughout this country. However, the UAW does strongly support the newly introduced Bond- Levin amendment requiring NHTSA to continue the rulemaking efforts to issue new fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, based on a wide range of factors such as technological feasibility and the impact of CAFE standards. I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment by Senator Schumer and Senator Kyl to prevent cancer patients from getting the cancer medicine they need. Both Senator Schumer's first- degree amendment and Senator Kyl's second-degree amendment would strip provisions we put in the Energy bill to ensure cancer patients continue to have a reliable and affordable source of cancer medicine. We cannot do this to our cancer patients. Cancer is a scourge that affects millions of people across the Nation in each of our States and in many of our families. Cancer will strike over a million people this year, 30,000 in my home State of Missouri, and cancer will kill 12,000 Missourians this year. Cancer takes our mothers and fathers. Cancer takes our spouses, our children. But many people beat cancer. Section 621 of the Energy bill will help people beat cancer. Cancer patients beat cancer with nuclear medicines, also known as medical isotopes, to diagnose and treat their cancer. Doctors use slightly radioactive forms of iodine, xenon, and other substances to help them find and diagnose breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and other cancers. Doctors also use nuclear medicines to treat cancer patients fighting non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, thyroid cancer, and relieve cancer symptoms such as bone pain. Andrew Euler, seen here, is a boy from the small town of Billings, MO, in my home State. Drew was 8 years old when cancer struck him. Drew's parents described the day the doctors told them that their son had cancer as the most horrific experience of their lives. The Eulers learned that cancer is the leading cause of death among children like Drew under 15 years of age. Thyroid cancer will strike 23,000 Americans this year and take the lives of 1,400 children and adults. With the help from the fine cancer doctors at Washington University in St. Louis, Drew underwent surgery and received doses of nuclear medicine in the form of radioactive iodine to treat his cancer. Drew, I am happy to say, is now cancer free, living a normal teenage life of basketball, skateboarding, and swimming. Having good doctors and access to medicine is a blessing too many take for granted. Drew and many others across the country are alive today because of the nuclear medicine administered after his surgery. Section 621 of the Energy bill, which Senator Burr and I authored, will ensure that cancer patients like Drew can continue to get and afford the cancer medicine they need. This provision is needed because the Atomic Energy Act requires industry to change the way they make nuclear medicines. The law requires a shift from highly enriched uranium, HEU, to low enriched uranium, LEU. I have no problem with the switch. Indeed, our energy provisions encourage this switch. What I have a problem with is that current law makes no accommodation for supply disruptions or affordability. That means cancer patients might not get their medicine. Currently, law was written that way to address fuel for nuclear reactors but is now being applied to nuclear medicine. It would force a premature switch in the nuclear medicine production process before we have a feasible and affordable alternative. That would mean cancer patients could not get the medicine they need at prices they could afford. Section 621 still requires a production changeover but not before we know that patients will retain affordable access to their medicine. Unfortunately, well-meaning stakeholders want to strip this cancer medicine provision from the bill. Opponents of this provision somehow think that making the cancer medicine that helped cure Drew will help terrorists build a bomb, but that is simply not the case. The nuclear medicine production process is highly regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Raw material shipments of HEU are conducted under strict Government requirements, including armed guards. These shipments go to Canada and back because no U.S. reactor is designed to make medical isotopes. We send HEU because that is the only raw material target that the Canadian reactor can accept. In the post-9/11 world, we are obliged to take this concern seriously, check it out, and see whether it is valid. I can assure my colleagues that the concern is not one we have to worry about. Homeland security is fully protected in the production of nuclear medicines. No one has to take my word for it. We wrote to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ask them whether the shipment of HEU to Canada endangers homeland security. The NRC said it did not. Indeed, they said: The NRC continues to believe that the current regulatory structure for export of HEU provides reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and the environment will be adequately protected and that these exports will also not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. The full response is for official use only, so I cannot describe it on the Senate floor. This has been cleared. I will be happy to share the full response with any Senator who wishes to see it. There are other smaller issues raised by stakeholders that are addressed in our provision. The section only applies to nuclear medicine production, not reactor fuel. It allows HEU so long as there is no feasible and affordable alternative. Once the Department of Energy finds that a feasible and affordable alternative exists, then the switch occurs and the provision sunsets. These provisions sound reasonable because they are the outcome of a compromise. Section 621 represents a compromise reached in the Energy bill in the last Congress. Indeed, this section has garnered nothing but unanimous approval as it has gone through the committee process. The Energy Committee approved it unanimously during their markup. My colleagues on the Environment Committee approved this section unanimously last Congress and again this Congress. Members of the medical community support this provision and strongly oppose attempts to strike it such as the Schumer and Kyl amendments. These groups include: The National Association of Cancer Patients, American College of Nuclear Physicians, American College of Radiology, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, National Association of Nuclear Pharmacies, and Society of Nuclear Medicine. Of course, Drew Euler supports this provision. He is alive today because of nuclear medicines. Drew got the medicine he needed. I hope the Senate will act today to ensure that cancer patients continue to get the medicine they need. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Schumer and Kyl amendments. I yield such time as remains to my colleague from North Carolina.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up the Bond-Levin amendment, as described by the distinguished acting floor manager of this bill.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, pursuant to the order, I ask that that amendment be set aside.

Mr. BOND. This is very important to know because 1 out of every 10 jobs in our country is dependent on new vehicle production and sales. The auto industry is responsible for 13.3 million jobs, or 10 percent of private sector jobs. Auto manufacturing contributes $243 billion to the private sector, over 5.6 percent of the private sector compensation. Every State in the Union is an auto State. Let us take a look at that chart. The occupant of the chair is from North Carolina. That has 158,000. The State of Illinois has 311,000. My State has 221,000. The State of Michigan has 1,007,500. I have heard it said that we should not worry about these jobs. The proponents of the amendment to increase it say that it is not going to do any harm. But if you adopt this amendment you can kiss tens of thousands of good, high-paying, American, union manufacturing jobs goodbye. I am not willing to do that to the 36,000 men and women working directly in the automotive industry, nor to the over 200,000 men and women who work in auto-dependent jobs in my State. But it is not just jobs. It is safety. According to the National Academy of Sciences: Without a thoughtful restructuring of the program . . . additional traffic fatalities would be the tradeoff if CAFE standards are increased by any significant amount. You see, we have learned in the past that when you have politically inspired CAFE increases which cannot be achieved with technological means, the only way of achieving them is by making the cars lighter, 1,000 pounds to 2,000 pounds lighter. Do you know what. More people die in those smaller cars than in the full-size cars that they replace. Since it began, we are running about 1,500 deaths a year. In August of 2001, the NAS issued a report which found that between 1,300 to 2,600 people in 1993 alone were killed in these smaller automobiles. It is not just smaller automobiles hitting larger automobiles--43 percent of those deaths were in single-car accidents. My colleague from Illinois has suggested we disregard these statistics as estimates. These are not estimates, these are dead people. These are people who died from politically inspired CAFE. That is what we are talking about. Excessive CAFE standards pressure automobile manufactures to reduce the weight for light trucks, completely do away with larger trucks used for farming and other commercial purposes. My colleague from Illinois mentioned golf carts--yes, golf carts would comply. But certainly the pickup trucks that a lot of farmers in my State drive would not make it. If an increase in fuel economy is brought about by encouraging downsizing, weight reduction, or more small cars, it will cause additional traffic fatalities. The notion that people's lives and safety are hanging in the balance because of unwarranted CAFE increases should cause all of us some concern. The ability to have a choice of the vehicle assures the safety of one's family. It should not be a sacrifice that must be made in favor of arbitrary fuel efficiency standards. I don't want to tell the people in my State or any other State they are not allowed to purchase an SUV because Congress decided it would not be a good choice. That sounds like the command and control economy of the Soviet Union. Another very important point is the impact of increased CAFE standards on consumer choice and affordability. Despite the record high cost of gasoline sales, light truck sales have continued to skyrocket. In the past 25 years, sales of light trucks have almost tripled. In March of 2005, full-size pickup trucks occupied three of the top five sales positions, including the No. 1 and 2 spots. From these numbers and from these charts it is obvious that consumers consistently favor safety, utility, performance, and other characteristics over fuel economy. The only way to stop sales of these vehicles would be to enact Soviet-style mandates, declaring that auto manufacturers could no longer produce light trucks and SUVs, and consumers could no longer buy them. Some people in this body apparently believe our fellow Americans cannot be trusted to make the right choice when purchasing a vehicle. As far as I am concerned, when you get down to having the Government making the choice or the consumer making the choice, I am with the consumer. Just how arbitrary would these CAFE cost increases be to consumers? The CBO last found that raising fuel standards for cars and trucks by 4 miles per gallon could cost consumers as much as $3.6 billion. I also have a copy of a recent letter that was sent to Chairman Domenici and Majority Leader Frist from a consortium of agricultural organizations which states that ``recent studies indicate that an aggressive increase in CAFE standards for light trucks could add over $3,000 to the purchase price per vehicle. It is signed by the National Cattlemen's Association, the National Corn Growers, the American Farm Bureau, National Milk Producers and the National Association of Wheat Growers among others. They oppose these arbitrary increases because they believe they will have a negative impact on consumers, and translate directly into a narrower choice of vehicles for America's farmers and Ranchers, who depend on affordable and functional light trucks to perform the I daily rigors of farm and ranch work. I submitted this letter for the Record. Finally, I must to dispel the myth that CAFE increases reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. According to the American International Automobile Dealers: Despite the claims of CAFE advocates, experience shows that CAFE does not result in the reduction of oil imports. The import share of U.S. oil consumption was 35% in 1974. Since that time, new car fuel economy has doubled but our oil imports share has climbed to almost 60%. In that 30 year time frame, the consumption of gasoline has increased and not decreased. The bottom line is that after 30 years of CAFE standards, our nation is more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. I believe that there are other better ways to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil than massive increases in CAFE standards. These include promoting the development and use of alternative fuels such as ethanol, bio-diesel and natural gas. We should pass legislation that encourages the development of advance fuel technology such as hybrid and fuel cell vehicles that utilize hydrogen and other sources of energy. We should also focus on increasing domestic supplies I of energy that include oil and natural gas. We must talk about what is technologically feasible and what will produce better fuel economy, while continuing to preserve and produce jobs, and not risk the lives of drivers and their families on our nation's roads. We must continue to ensure the safety for parents and their children, and we must not throw out of work the wonderful American men and women who are making these automobiles in my state and across the entire nation. In light of this, Senator Levin and I have reintroduced an amendment that was `` adopted by the Senate in the previous two Congresses, which maintains the authority of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--subject to public comment--to determine passenger auto standards based upon the ``maximum feasible'' level. Under the Bond- Levin Amendment, determinations to this feasibility level include the following factors: No. 1. Technological feasibility; No. 2. Economic Practicability; No. 3. The effect of other government motor vehicle standards on fuel economy; No. 4. The need of the nation to conserve energy; No. 5. The desirability of reducing U.S. dependency on foreign oil; No. 6. The effects of fuel economy standards on motor vehicle safety, and passenger safety; No. 7. The effects of increased fuel economy on air quality; No. 8. The adverse effects of increased CAFE standards on the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers; No. 9. The effects of CAFE Standards on U.S. employment; No. 10. The cost and lead time required for the introductions of new technologies; and No. 11. The potential for advanced hybrid and fuel cell technologies. Every factor, which I have just mentioned, must play a major role in the consideration of setting future fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. The Bond-Levin amendment provides for these impacts and leaves it to the experts at NHTSA to develop viable standards based on this criteria and sound scientific analysis. The Bond-Levin amendment also extends the flexible fuel or ``duel fuel'' credit to continue to provide incentives for automakers to produce vehicles that are capable of running on alternative fuels such as ethanol/gasoline blends. So far these incentives have been successful in putting more than 4 million alternative fuel vehicles on our nation's roads. This will be another positive step in helping our Nation reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Again, this debate is about safety, jobs, consumer choice and sound scientific analysis. I urge my colleagues to oppose the arbitrary and unscientific Durbin amendment, and to support the Levin-Bond 2nd degree amendment. I yield to my colleague from Michigan--how much time does he want?

Mr. BOND. I so yield, Mr. President.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan. I would say that, No. 1, NHTSA has said they will consider basing light-truck standards on vehicle weight or size, as the Senator from Delaware suggested. The Senator from Illinois was downplaying the CAFE increases by NHTSA, but he just talked about them. The difference between the 1.5-mile-per-gallon increase that NHTSA ordered for light trucks--and they did order it--and what he is proposing is that NHTSA's was based on science and technology. With that, Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Missouri.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Missouri. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Talent, and the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. BOND. I reserve my time. Dr. DURBIN. In the interest of picking up a few more votes, I yield back all my time.

Mr. BOND. I yield back all my time as well.