Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, one of the most important issues we may face all year is an issue we are going to be working on this week, and that is the urgent supplemental appropriations to continue and, we hope, wind up our efforts in Iraq. I know there are many different views. I think a little historical perspective may be in order. Some people are even questioning why we are in Iraq. I run into people in my home State who think, as some of the German media apparently does--I saw a report today--that September 11 was just a conspiracy of the United States, and that we really were not under a terrorist attack. Well, we have known for some time the dangers that terrorism present to the world and to those of us here in America. It was very clear back in 1998: One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line. President Clinton, February 4. Then again on February 17: If Saddam rejects peace, we have to use force. Our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. President Clinton, February 17. And even better, here is a quote from a day later: Iraq is a long way from here but what happens there means a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue State will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. So stated by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 18. Well, after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, President Bush very forcefully outlined a program to deal with terrorists. He said: We are going to bring terrorists to justice or we will bring justice to the terrorists. He pointed out that we would no longer permit States to harbor terrorist groups, to provide safe havens for terrorists who need the opportunity and the time and the money and the financing to build their terrorist operations through which they could strike the United States. Well, during the 1990s we did not respond--Khobar Towers, our embassy bombings, USS Cole. We treated them as isolated instances when, in fact, they were part of a terrorist scheme. You cannot retaliate against a suicide bomber. You have to deal forcefully. That is why President Bush said we will go after the terrorists, wiping out terrorists where we find them and undoing the governmental structure which protects them. Well, we have been successful. Magnificent military efforts in Afghanistan disbanded the Taliban. A magnificent, unbelievable effort in Iraq totally shredded the Saddam Hussein government of tyranny and authoritarianism, a government of rape and poisoning of their own citizens. But now we face what President Bush said is going to be an ongoing battle, a continuing battle, the battle against terrorism itself--not just this particular Government or location. We have before us a request from the President of the United States for $87 billion. Most of it, about $67 billion, is to protect our troops and to keep them there and to keep them safe. Another $21 billion will help the Iraqi people build a country free after 30 years of terrorism, torture, and repression and to develop their own military, their own police force, their own security, their own justice system so they can be safe and start to rebuild the economic structure of their country. Now, $87 billion is a lot of money. Make no mistake about that. That is really a huge sum. But last week we had extensive hearings with Secretary Rumsfeld, General Myers, and representatives of the State Department and the Department of Defense. I asked them, What was the cost of 9/11? How much did it cost? We know it cost 3,000 lives or more in the Twin Towers, in the field in Pennsylvania, and here at the Pentagon, and that is a huge tragedy. But when you take a look at the monetary side, the best estimates are a couple hundred billion dollars because we did not deal with terrorists before they dealt with us. They struck us on our territory, on their terms. The President of the United States came to the Senate and, by a vote of 77 to 23, the Senate authorized him to wage war in Iraq. We did that. We won. But the terrorists are there. The terrorists come back into Baghdad like a roach motel. All the low life, the hideous assassins, the suicide bombers are coming back. And we are fighting with them, we are dealing with them there. We need $66 billion. It costs well over $4 billion a month to keep our troops there. The people of Iraq, in response to opinion polls, have clearly said, by an overwhelming majority, that they want us there because they see the difference that has happened in their country. They know with the Baath Party still functioning, remnants of the Republican Guard, al- Qaida, and other terrorist groups coming in there, they are not safe unless they have a security shield. Right now, we are that security shield. And we are doing some good things as well. One of the things Secretary Rumsfeld pointed out was the tremendous progress we are making to help Iraq get back on its feet so it is safe. In less than 5 months, virtually all major Iraqi hospitals and universities have been reopened. They are taking down huge caches of weapons that have been stored away by the Saddam government and by terrorists. Mr. President, 70,000 Iraqis have been armed and trained and will be graduating into the military, and 40,000 Iraqi police are conducting joint patrols with coalition forces. A new Iraqi council has appointed government cabinet members. Iraqi municipal councils are functioning in almost all towns and villages, and some 8,000 civil affairs projects have been undertaken by our troops. Now we need to do something more. We need to win the peace, and this $21 billion is the best investment we can make in winning the peace. Because only when we have won the peace and put in place an Iraqi military and police force and government that is able to protect itself can we safely bring our troops home and not worry about having to go back 5 or 10 years later, after they have rejuvenated their chemical and biological weapons programs and perhaps achieved the goal of nuclear explosives. We will not have to go back again and do what we just did. The terrorists are firing at our troops over there. The war on terrorism is going on in Baghdad. But make no mistake about it, they are not just shooting at our soldiers and innocent Iraqis and Iraqi police; they are shooting at American public opinion because their greatest hope is they can sow discord in the United States and force a pullback of our forces before the peace is won, to allow all those horrible terrorists to regroup and come together and launch another attack against their neighbors, against those who have been friendly with us, and, yes, against the United States. I hope we will have a good, vigorous debate. I hope we can move quickly to pass the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Let's vote on it up or down. Let's get it moving and support our troops, but let's also get it moving so we can win the peace. Right now, with our forces over there, the battle in the war on terrorism is focused on Baghdad. It is tragic it has to be anywhere, but we have carried the battle to them. Because of the strong leadership of this administration, we are fighting the battle of terrorism in Baghdad--not in Boston or Boise or Ballwin, MO or Belton, MO. I believe that reports from our troops in the field, who say, ``Yes, this is dangerous, this is deadly, but we would rather be fighting them here than on our homeland,'' are right on. The people who are over there know what their mission is. They know how important their contributions are to safety and security, not just in Iraq, and in their neighborhood in the Middle East, but to our own safety, our own well being. Mr. President, 62 percent of the Iraqis in Baghdad, according to a Zogby poll, believe the hardships they have faced since the war have been worth it to rid the country of Saddam Hussein, his evil sons, and the brutal regime. That is an incredible vote of confidence for what the United States has done. In a different poll, when asked how long U.S. troops should remain in the country, two-thirds of the Iraqis said the U.S. troops should stay at least another year. I am afraid those numbers are higher than we would get in the Senate right now, but it tells you what we are doing is important for them as well as for us. We want them to have a secure and peaceful country, but we want them to be able to enforce the law, to confront paramilitary troops with their own forces. That is what the $21 billion goes for. It is a lot of money, but if it gets our troops out just 5 months sooner, it will save us that much in supporting our own military. And we all know it will save us much more in exposure of our fighting men and women to the terrorist attacks that are now going on in Baghdad. I hope we can move effectively and quickly. Let's have some up-and- down votes. Let's get on with it. We are at war. The President said all along that the war on terrorism is going to be a long war. But we have a chance to gain a major foothold. I hope we can move this emergency supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill revitalizes existing SBA programs and brings to life new pilot programs, all of which promote the demands and growth of the small business community. I commend the chair, Senator Snowe, for passing this bill through the Small Business Committee with unanimous support. Upon final passage of this bill, we will take a giant step toward improving and refining the SBA and its programs. With the new provisions that enhance agency record-keeping and realign program operations under a more appropriate department, it is clear that agency accountability and oversight will be strengthened. In addition, small businesses will benefit from improvements in the leading programs, greater access to capital, new innovations in the entrepreneurial programs, expansion of procurement programs, and improved training and assistance provisions. According to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, small businesses represent more than 99.7 percent of all employers, employ more than half of all private sector employees, and generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually. Given these statistics and the difficult financial times we face in today's economy, I urge Congress to continue to nurture the needs of the small business community. We must show enthusiastic support for this bill, which I am confident will provide the SBA with greater tools to keep pace with the ever-changing global economy and to serve the small business community in a more effective and efficient manner. To act otherwise could jeopardize this Nation's much needed job growth and innovation. Before I yield the floor, I refer to an important small business program titled the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Contracting Program, or as it is commonly referred to, the HUBZone program. This small-business program was one of my personal priorities as former chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee. It was established in 1997 with the intent to create jobs in severely economically distressed communities, both rural and urban. In addition, the HUBZone program provides a Federal contracting preference as an incentive for small businesses to locate in these low-income areas. The jobs created by the HUBZone program bring money to those blighted areas and create a demand for more goods and services, which leads to the creation of more small businesses and increased commerce in the area. Little by little, the community's economic base is reborn. Today, there are over 8,378 small businesses that are HUBZone certified, and the Government has procured approximately $1.7 billion in HUBZone contracting this year. The SBA reports that in FY 2001, each dollar spent on the program yielded a return of $288 in contract awards and as a result, the program helped to create 12,782 jobs in the United States, approximately 8,974 of which were located in distressed areas. Based on FY 2001 procurement statistics, HUBZone firms increased employment 33 percent to 50 percent as a result of contract awards. Nearly 50 percent of HUBZone firms increased capital expenditures as a result of receiving contracts in FY 2001. As our economy struggles during these difficult times, this vital program will continue to bring jobs to our Nation's inner cities, poor rural counties, and Indian reservations. I urge Congress to support the HUBZone program in its current form along with the new amendments provided in the Senate's version of the SBA Reauthorization Act of 2003. Any additional changes not supported by the full Senate Committee on Small Business could seriously undermine the original intent of the program. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the small business community. I encourage my colleagues to support Senator Snowe and S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I oppose the Dorgan Resolution, S. 17, which would block the entire Federal Communications Commission's ruling revising the rules on media ownership. Since the FCC issued this ruling on June 2, 2003, a multitude of interest groups have proclaimed that this decision represents a serious blow to democracy in America as we know it. To say that this claim is a gross exaggeration is a huge understatement. While I do not agree with every element of the FCC ruling, I must admit that I believe it would be short sighted to block the ruling entirely. I also think that every stakeholder who is concerned about this ruling should look at the facts that prompted the FCC to make this ruling. Furthermore, I believe it is imperative that one examine the actual facts in the ruling in order to dispel some of the myths that have surfaced with regard to it. In its ruling, the FCC incrementally increased the national TV ownership limit from 35 percent to 45 percent. What this says is that one company can own TV stations reaching no more than 45 percent of U.S. TV households. It does not mean that one company can own up to 45 percent of all TV stations across the country. In addition, the ruling does not even say that a company can own stations whose programs reach 45 percent of the viewing public or market share. For example, Newscorps, Fox, the second largest owner of stations currently owns 37 or 2.8 percent of the 1,340 commercial stations across the country. Under the new 45 percent cap set forth in the FCC ruling, Newscorps would be able to acquire, at best, another five stations nationwide. In light of this information and in light of the court mandates, the FCC action on this issue hardly represents a massive increase. The FCC promulgated this increase in response to several court decisions striking down specific limits on the number of broadcast entities that one company may own. Since 1998, the FCC has lost five out of five cases that challenged its previous media ownership rules. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ``carries with it a presumption in favor of repealing or modifying the ownership rules (Fox v. FCC).'' In the Fox v. FCC decision, which was handed down in February 2002, the court ruled that the FCC's action--on broadcast ownership limits-- was ``arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law'' because ``it failed to give an adequate reason for its decision'' to keep the 35 percent cap. In the same case, the court ruled that the commission ``provided no analysis on the state of competition in the television industry to justify its decision to retain the national cap.'' The court in its remanding decision ordered the FCC to rethink its rules on media ownership. Another aspect of the FCC ruling involved the modification of the FCC's rules relating to newspaper/broadcast cross ownership and radio- television cross ownership. In its ruling, the FCC replaced these rules with a new set of cross media limits. It is important to understand that the FCC did not totally repeal the 28-year-old newspaper/broadcast ownership ban in all markets; it simply modified its rule with newer broadcast/cross ownership regulations to reflect the changing circumstances of today's diverse media marketplace. Under the new FCC rules, in small markets with three or fewer TV stations the ban will continue to be enforced. In mid-sized markets, with 4 to 8 TV stations, limited cross ownership is allowed. In diverse and competitive markets with 9 or more TV stations, the ban is lifted entirely. This is the major decision in the FCC ruling that I support, and it is the main reason that I cannot support the Dorgan resolution. Simply put, the previous rule supporting the cross ownership ban is outdated given the current diversity and multiple sources of news information in today's media marketplace. When the broadcast/newspaper cross ownership provisions were adopted in 1975, the three television networks of the time held more than 90 percent of the viewing audience and only 17 percent of households subscribed to cable TV. However, due to the technological revolution of the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of news and information sources with the widespread availability of cable TV, satellite and the internet as well as substantial increase in the number of radio and TV stations, magazines, and free weekly newspapers. Yet, despite the availability of these new media sources, many groups are still objecting to this modest change in media cross ownership. They feel that this modification will drastically reduce the quality news and diversity of voices in the media. I believe there is strong evidence to refute this claim. Unlike other ownership rules, the FCC has actual historical data on what the effect of relaxing this ban will have on the media market. That is because there are already 49 media cross ownership entities that were grandfathered prior to the implementation of this ban in 1975. Some of these cross ownership entities are in major markets such as New York, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Tampa, and Milwaukee. All of these existing cross ownership entities have had practically no adverse impact on competition. In the past 23 years, there has been no major court case, FCC, FTC, or Department of Justice, DOJ, action objecting to any of these grandfathered cross ownership media entities. Furthermore, the FCC informs me that no entity has ever challenged a license renewal of a TV station owned by a newspaper in the last 25 years. Two recent studies, one by the FCC and one by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, also found that co-owned newspaper/broadcast combinations provide higher quality and more news and informational programming than other broadcast stations. In light of this evidence, I feel that the FCC's ruling on newspaper/ broadcast cross ownership needs to be preserved, and therefore, I oppose the Dorgan resolution. As stated previously, I do not agree with every aspect of the FCC ruling. I do not support the new method by which the FCC will utilize to define a local radio market. This new definition has resulted in many companies that own multiple radio stations exceeding the new station caps. While the FCC did grandfather all existing combinations to ensure that these radio companies would not be forced to divest stations that they legally acquired, it imposed harsh restrictions on the transferability or resale of these newly non-compliant radio station clusters. Under the new market definition, those radio clusters that no longer comply with local radio market limits may only be sold intact to small businesses. If a ``small business buyer'' cannot be found, a cluster owner must break up his or her cluster and sell the stations individually. I believe that this strict resale provision unfairly penalizes certain radio broadcasters, who acquired their stations in good faith under the previous ownership framework. By narrowing the eligible market of buyers, this resale provision would prevent a radio cluster seller from receiving fair-market value on his or her investment. If most companies are prohibited from bidding on a cluster, the prices offered in these transactions will be considerably smaller than otherwise. I also believe this resale provision will only make bigger radio conglomerates stronger because it will result in the immediate breakup of clusters that directly compete with these conglomerates. I intend to petition the FCC for reconsideration of these new local radio rules set forth in the FCC order. However, I do not believe that the entire FCC order should be disapproved, and that is why I oppose the Dorgan resolution.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill revitalizes existing SBA programs and brings to life new pilot programs, all of which promote the demands and growth of the small business community. I commend the Chair, Senator Snowe, for passing this bill through the Small Business Committee with unanimous support. Upon final passage of this bill, we will take a giant step toward improving and refining the SBA and its programs. With the new provisions that enhance Agency recordkeeping and realign program operations under a more appropriate department, it is clear that Agency accountability and oversight will be strengthened. In addition, small businesses will benefit from improvements in the lending programs, greater access to capital, new innovations in the entrepreneurial programs, expansion of procurement programs, and improved training and assistance provisions. According to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, small businesses represent more than 99.7 percent of all employers, employ more than half of all private sector employees, and generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually. Given these statistics and the difficult financial times we face in today's economy, I urge Congress to continue to nurture the needs of the small business community. We must show enthusiastic support for this bill, which I am confident will provide the SBA with greater tools to keep pace with the ever-changing global economy and to serve the small business community in a more effective and efficient manner. To act otherwise could jeopardize this Nation's much-needed job growth and innovation. I refer to an important small business program titled the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Contracting Program, or as it is commonly referred to, the HUBZone Program. This small-business program was one of my personal priorities as former chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee. It was established in 1997 with the intent to create jobs in severely economically distressed communities, both rural and urban. In addition, the HUBZone program provides a federal contracting preference as an incentive for small businesses to locate in these low-income areas. The jobs created by the HUBZone Program bring money to those blighted areas and create a demand for more goods and services, which leads to the creation of more small businesses and increased commerce in the area. Little by little, the community's economic base is reborn. Today, there are over 8,378 small businesses that are HUBZone certified, and the Government has procured approximately $1.7 billion in HUBZone contracting this year. The SBA reports that in fiscal year 2001, each dollar spent on the program yielded a return of $288 in contract awards and as a result, the program helped to create 12,782 jobs in the U.S., approximately 8,974 of which were located in distressed areas. Based on fiscal year 2001 procurement statistics, HUBZone firms increased employment 33 percent to 50 percent as a result of contract awards. Nearly 50 percent of HUBZone firms increased capital expenditures as a result of receiving contracts in fiscal year 2001. As our economy struggles during these difficult times, this vital program will continue to bring jobs to our Nation's inner cities, poor rural counties, and Indian reservations. I urge Congress to support the HUBZone Program in its current form along with the new amendments provided in the Senate's version of the SBA Reauthorization Act of 2003. Any additional changes not supported by the full Senate Committee on Small Business could seriously undermine the original intent of the program. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the small business community. I encourage my colleagues to support Senator Snowe and S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, home health care is an important part of Medicare in which seniors and the disabled can get basic nursing and therapy care in their home. I rise today to urge the Senate Medicare conferees to stand firm against provisions in the House passed prescription drug and Medicare reform bill, H.R. 1, that would make further cuts in the Medicare home health benefit by reducing the home health inflation update and imposing a new copayment on home health beneficiaries. Home health care is convenient, but much more importantly, patients love it. I have seen this first hand as I have had the privilege of visiting with many of my constituents who rely on this benefit. They love home health care because it is the key to fulfilling what is virtually a universal desire among seniors and those with disabilities--to remain independent and within the comfort of their own homes despite their health problems. Since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, BBA, no other group of Medicare patients and providers have endured as many difficulties. This is a big claim, given the many horror stories we've heard about the Balanced Budget Act. But absolutely nobody has suffered like home health patients and home health agencies. True reform means more than just ratcheting down payments to providers and services to patients. Since 1997 Medicare home health spending has been reduced by over 40 percent and the number of beneficiaries by 1.3 million, or about a third. Forty percent of the agencies in my State have closed down or quit serving Medicare patients. In a move to modernize the Medicare program, Congress eliminated the home health copay in 1972 to encourage the provision of health care in the home rather than in more costly institutions. With all the cuts in home health care that have occurred since 1997--including the loss of venipunc- ture, blood drawing, as a qualifying service, the imposition of per beneficiary limits under the interim payment system, cuts in the market basket inflation update, a ``15 percent'' cut in October of last year, and the loss of the 10 percent rural add on in April of this year-- MedPAC has recently confirmed an alarming trend toward greater use of nursing home care. The reimposition of a home health copayment now would be a step backward that would exacerbate this recent trend. Home health beneficiaries already must pay the Part B deductible and a 20 percent copay for preparation of a home health plan of care and ongoing home health care oversight by a physician. Over half of home health patients come directly from the hospital and must pay the Part A deductible of over $800 in order to receive the home health benefit. Often they and their families must pay out of pocket for personal care services to assist with activities of daily living. Our Nation's dedicated home health providers--and you know they are dedicated if they have stuck with it through the difficulties of the last few years--deserve to be left alone and given a rest. They, and the patients they serve, deserve to be left alone to recover from the post-BBA chaos. They deserve to be left alone in order to adjust to a new home health payment system. In passing the Senate prescription drug and Medicare reform legislation, S. 1, the Senate wisely chose to forgo further cuts in the home health benefit. I urge my colleagues on the Medicare conference committee to oppose the provisions in H.R. 1 that would further cut and destabilize the home health benefit.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I join with friends and family in recognizing the efforts and dedication of Mr. Martin Begien, an outstanding American, and a true patriot to American democracy on what will be his 75th birthday, November 15. Martin, since joining the Republican Party, has helped bring quality candidates to run for political office and in turn continues to participate in the American political process. Martin's successful political participation is indicative of his career as a whole. Martin Begien's impressive educational career began at the exclusive Andover Academy in Andover, MA, and Yale University in New Haven, CT, and continued with his service in the U.S. Army. Martin went on to maintain an illustrious professional career that ultimately lead to his serving as senior partner at David L. Babson and Company, Inc., one of the oldest investment counseling firms in the United States. Martin has always combined exceptional professional and organizational skills, untiring initiative, and unlimited compassion to accomplish both major, and simply thoughtful, tasks for the Republican Party. Martin has always generously given of himself a genuine love and concern of others without hesitation or expectation of reward. Martin's endearing attitude and hard work earned him the respect and admiration of Mitt Romney, Governor of the State of Massachusetts. I stand with Martin's wife Kate, his friends and family, and all those whose lives are richer for having known Martin Begien to commemorate and recognize his 75th birthday on the 15th day of November, 2003.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the outstanding achievements and public service of Mr. William E. Johnson. I have had the honor of working with Bill over the years. This month Bill will be honored for his 40 years of dedication and service to the citizens of Audrain County and the State of Missouri. As a pioneer for home health in Audrain County, Bill was instrumental in the Audrain City-County Health Unit establishing a home health agency in 1963 which has since expanded to include four more home health units. Bill has also taken a considerable leadership role in home health care serving as president of the Missouri Alliance for Home Care, MAHC, from 1981 to 1982 and as a member of the board of MAHC for 9 years between 1977 and 1988. There is no question that he has been an innovator in the field of home health care in Missouri. While Bill continues to display tireless commitment to home health care, which includes serving as administrator for the Audrain City- County Health Unit for the last 35 years, his generosity and hard work for the health and well being for the citizens of Audrian County and Missouri expands well beyond that of home health care. In addition to being a leader in the inception of the Rural Health Administrators, serving on the Partnership Council of the Department of Health/Local Health Department and serving on the Partnership Council Environmental Committee he has been active in the Department of Health and Senior Services, the Meals on Wheels program and as a member of the Audrain County Human Development Corporation since 1965. Today I ask the Senate to join me in honoring Bill's distinguished career in public health and public service.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I raise a point of order under section 504 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 that the amendment exceeds discretionary spending limits specified in this section and is not in order.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as Co-Chairman of the Senate Beef Caucus, I recognize and commend Ms. Myra Hyde for a decade of service on behalf of America's cattlemen. Mr. President, for 10 years, Ms. Myra Hyde has served as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association's director of environmental issues where she diligently worked on land use, conservation policy, and property rights issues. This month, she leaves the cowboys for the administrative pastures at the Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. Hyde's contribution to progressive and responsible conservation policies and practices are known by those who work with her as well as those who have had the unenviable task of locking horns against her in the notoriously rough and tumble debate on resource management. She is a proud Texan, which is a compliment even outside of Texas. Let me conclude by saying that those she leaves behind will sorely miss her expertise, honesty and sense of humor. Ms. Hyde has been a true friend of America's cattlemen as well as many of us serving here in Congress. She will be of great value as a servant of the public at Interior. On behalf of the caucus, we wish Myra good luck and ask her keep in mind the challenges faced by the hard working people who endeavor to feed the people of our nation and much of the world.

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. 1416

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of General Peter J. Schoomaker (Ret.), USA, for appointment as Chief of Staff, U.S. Army and appointment to the grade of general; and Lieutenant General Bryan D. Brown, USA, for appointment as Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command and appointment to the grade of general.

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 July 29, 2003, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Consumer Awareness and Understanding of the Credit Granting Process.''

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the nominations of Joe D. Whitley to be General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security; and Penrose C. Albright to be Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security for Plans, Programs, and Budget, Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 29 at 9 a.m. to examine climate history and its implications, and the science underlying fate, transport, and health effects of mercury emissions. The hearing will be held in SD 406 (hearing room).

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on ``Iraq: Status and Prospects for Reconstruction--Resources.''

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 29, 2003, to begin immediately following a 9:30 a.m. hearing, to consider the nomination of Joel David Kaplan to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to highlight the unique role that the DOE's Office of Science plays in supporting basic research in the physical sciences.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have used 7 minutes of my time. I intend to yield the remaining 3 minutes to my colleague from Missouri.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think Senators are all aware, now, that if you are serious about doing something positive regarding fuel efficiency and safety standards but avoiding something negative for jobs, safety, and consumer choice impact, you should vote yes on the Levin-Bond CAFE amendment to the pending Energy bill. I am only going to make this speech one time, not three times as those on the other side do, as we drag it out. I want to point out, again, a similar amendment was agreed to last year on a vote of 62 to 38, supported on both sides of the aisle. As I said on the floor a few days ago, Members supported our amendment because they knew then and I hope they know now that setting fuel economy standards is complicated. Future standards should be based on sound science and take into account important criteria: Jobs, technology, consumer choice, and many others, but also safety--safety which has been compromised by the politically set lower CAFE standards of the past. They should not be based on the political numbers. I urge my colleagues to oppose the higher, politically set CAFE numbers included in the Durbin and Feinstein amendments. There are a lot of people who are very strongly supportive of the Bond-Levin amendment--farmers, union members, soccer moms, small businesses. The United Auto Workers wrote to us specifically urging defeat of the Durbin and Feinstein bills. The Chamber of Commerce also did. Not often do you see the UAW and Chamber teamed up, in opposition, but the people who have proposed these unreasonable standards have managed to achieve it. I spent a lot of time on this floor talking about the impact of excessive CAFE standards, and I think it is important to talk about the hard industry data, economic impact, and the National Academy of Sciences report. After listening to the debate of the last few years, it is clear there are many myths. The first myth is automakers take advantage of an SUV loophole. Fact: During the creation of the program in 1975, Congress recognized, because of their utility, different standards should be set for light trucks and passenger cars. While light trucks feature more amenities than their predecessors and provide more than 50 percent better fuel economy than their 1970 counterparts, they remain fundamentally trucks. They satisfy consumer needs for safety, passenger cargo space, towing ability, and off-road capability. Second myth: Only Congress can increase CAFE standards. The other side has floated the old canard that our amendment ignores CAFE standards. Fact No. 1, the Bond-Levin amendment requires increasing CAFE standards to the maximum extent feasible as far as the technology will permit. Fact No. 2, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority and expertise to change fuel economy regulations, and a few months ago it announced the biggest increase in 20 years in CAFE levels for light trucks and SUVs. The agency has already announced its intention to set new CAFE standards starting in 2008. The difference is they are going to use science and technology and not force the use of smaller cars that kill people on the road more frequently. Another myth is that automakers need to use more technology in their vehicles to increase full economy. Fact: The auto industry utilizes world-class technology across product lines. The average automobile contains 40 to 50 microprocessors and has far more power than the computers used for the Apollo mission to the Moon. Engineers and scientists for the big three domestic manufacturers and their international competitors have focused on developments in advanced technology to produce cleaner, more full- efficient vehicles along with a host of safety advancements. In addition, my colleague from Illinois has said the National Academy of Sciences has a huge number that can be achieved. If you will read that NAS study, I ask my colleagues to focus on the part of the NAS report which states ``The committee cannot emphasize strong enough that the cost-efficient fuel economy levels are not recommended CAFE goals''--not recommended CAFE goals. Let us stick with science. Proponents of higher CAFE standards try to avoid any discussion of the job impact or just dismiss concerns as overreacting. But we have heard, as I have said, from union officials, technical experts, plant managers, local dealers, and small businesses. They tell me the only way for manufacturers to meet these unrealistic political numbers is to cut back significantly on producing light trucks, minivans, and SUVs, or to make them significantly smaller. Look at this. This is a picture of a Ford F-250 series pickup truck. It is a workhorse. You buy this truck because you have a job to do, whether it is farming, construction, hauling, or any number of other legitimate needs. It weighs somewhere between 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight or less than 10,000. It is currently not covered by CAFE as it is configured to do more than haul people. Under the Durbin proposal, these vehicles would be swept into the CAFE program to the detriment of everybody. They would become CAFE-constrained with several bad outcomes. First, you tell this rancher or farmer that he will need to get a golf cart with a little wagon to carry one bale of hay at a time or you tell other farmers, ranchers, and construction workers they won't be able to buy these vehicles, and then you explain to the workers in the automobile industry how they will have jobs. Did you know the average compensation by employees in the auto industry was $69,500 in 2001? This figure is 60-percent higher than the average U.S. job. Those would be the jobs we would lose because they could no longer make this machine. Furthermore, as I have stated before, mandating politically set CAFE standards in the past has led to reduced weight, which, according to the National Academy of Sciences in the year they studied it, killed between 1,300 and 2,600 people a year on the road. That is roughly 2,000 people a year. These are reasons to support the Bond-Levin amendment. I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Missouri.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the minority whip for his words. Obviously, there are times when other discussions have to go forward on the floor, and it was clear that the Senator from California had time. There will be many other areas of accommodation, setting aside amendments, to move on to the electricity amendment, for example. We appreciate the cooperation of both sides of the aisle. I simply urge those who are not committed to the energy meeting to bring their positions to the floor and let us hear them.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have conferred with the minority whip. Some of our colleagues are in a meeting of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I urge those who have time who are not on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to follow the distinguished Senators from Michigan and take their time and express their views so we may get on with this debate. We hope to have votes on these very important amendments.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, obviously, I do not have the time the Senator from Illinois has, but I do want to point out that the National Academy of Sciences says: The committee cannot emphasize strongly enough that cost efficient fuel economy levels are not recommended CAFE goals. The National Academy of Sciences also said that when the politically driven fuel economy numbers were imposed in the seventies and eighties, somewhere roughly approximating 2,000 deaths a year occurred on the highways due to smaller cars. Talk about the production of automobiles in auto-related industries in Missouri and Illinois, even in New Mexico: 21,000 in New Mexico; 16,000 in Rhode Island; 221,000 in Missouri; 331,000 jobs in Illinois. I previously submitted for the Record a letter from the United Auto Workers saying it would endanger the jobs of their members. Furthermore, we also know it does not relate to consumer choice. Thirty cars on the road today get more than 30 miles per gallon, and they represent only 2 percent of the sales. Consumers do not want them. Unless we have to tell people what they have to drive, we are not going to get them to drive around in these cars unless and until we get the technology to produce more fuel efficient cars. We have seen NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, make the most significant increase in fuel economy with their light truck standards which are going into effect. We mandate in the Bond- Levin amendment that the maximum feasible technology be utilized to increase standards in the future. Let's get real. Let's talk about what is technologically feasible, what will continue jobs, get better fuel economy, not risk the lives of the drivers on the road and their families, and also not throw out of work the very wonderful American men and women who are making these automobiles in my State and others. I urge my colleagues to reject the Durbin amendment and support the Bond-Levin amendment.

Mr. BOND. Is there time for debate after that on the Bond-Levin amendment?

Mr. BOND. There will be time allotted for those of us on the other side prior to the Durbin amendment--who has the last minutes on that, I ask the managers?