Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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, 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 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 Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Howard Radzely, of Maryland, to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

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 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 the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in Dirksen Room 226. The markup will be a continuation of Committee action on S.J. Res. 1, the victims' rights amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

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 ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., Friday, July 25. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 14, the Energy bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of S. 14, the Energy bill. Three fuel standards amendments were offered tonight. Senators are encouraged to come to the floor during tomorrow's session to debate the merits of these important amendments. There will be no rollcall votes tomorrow. The next rollcall vote will occur on Monday at 5 p.m. That vote will be on the nomination of Earl Yeakel to be a U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas. Following the 5 p.m. vote on Monday, the Senate may also vote in relation to any available amendments to the Energy bill.

Mr. BOND

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. If there is no further business to come before the Senate I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess under the previous order.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Seeing no other Senators on the floor seeking recognition, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. About a minute and a half.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Domenici, and Ms. Stabenow, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we continue debate on the Energy bill, there are a number of very important issues and amendments facing the Senate. One is of great interest to me and, frankly, any Senator who has automobile plants or suppliers in his home State. It actually should be of interest to every Senator since it directly affects all American consumers in every State who drive a car, SUV, other vehicle, or even ride in one. It is also of vital interest and a high priority to the Chamber of Commerce, the United Auto Workers, the American Farm Bureau, and a very large, diverse coalition of labor, business, and consumer groups. I refer to Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards. I am a great baseball fan, and I can think of no higher authority than Yogi Berra to quote when I say it is deja vu all over again. I must admit I was holding out hope that the Senate could avoid a lengthy debate this year over the CAFE standards. After all, this body examined fuel economy proposals in great detail during debate on the Democratic Energy bill last year. As some of my colleagues may recall, Senator Levin and I, with the help of others, developed an amendment to strike the job-killing antisafety CAFE provisions offered and proposed by other Members and replace it with commonsense language mandating that the experts at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration set new CAFE standards at the maximum feasible level. The Levin-Bond amendment last year passed on a vote of 62 to 38, obviously including Senators from both sides of the aisle. I am pleased to be offering a similar amendment again this year with Senator Levin, Chairman Domenici, and Senator Stabenow. Members supported our amendment last year because they knew then and I believe they know now that setting fuel economy standards is complicated. Future standards should be based on sound science, and they must take into account a number of important criteria, including the impact on jobs, safety, technology, consumer choice, and many others. They should not be based on a political number, and that is why the Kerry-McCain provision was stripped out of last year's bill. In fact, it was withdrawn for an obvious lack of support. When the Senate debated the Levin-Bond amendment last year, some in the Chamber doubted whether the Bush administration would take CAFE seriously and issue new standards in a timely fashion. The administration did act earlier this year and announced the biggest increase in 20 years in CAFE levels for light trucks and SUVs. Regrettably, proponents of higher CAFE standards are back again this year. Several Senators have developed proposals to increase CAFE standards significantly without regard to the effect on American jobs and the American economy. If I might borrow a line from a recent movie, those CAFE numbers are ``too fast, too furious.'' I did some research on the economic job impact to the automobile industry in Arizona, Illinois, and California. Perhaps the sponsors of the higher CAFE amendments are not familiar with some of data for their home States. Let me provide for the record, in Arizona there are over 75,000 auto-related jobs, including 16,000 directly employed in the industry. In Illinois, there are 311,000 auto-related jobs, including 45,000 directly employed. Lastly, the great State of California has over 462,000 auto-related jobs, including 118,000 direct jobs. Here are a couple of figures on a national scale: 6.6 million, this is the number of Americans employed in direct or spin-off jobs related to the automotive industry. Here is another big one: $243 billion, that is the economic contribution of the industry. In fact, every State is an auto State. Let me show my colleagues this chart. Most people would know that Michigan, Missouri, Indiana, and Ohio are big manufacturing States. But even smaller States--Nebraska, New Hampshire, Delaware, Arkansas--have suppliers and other industries whose success and business profitability are directly related to the bigger manufacturers. Nebraska has 33,700 jobs; Arkansas 46,800; New Hampshire, 27,300 jobs; Delaware has 30,100 jobs. This chart is here for everyone to view. Proponents of arbitrarily higher CAFE standards try to avoid any discussion of the job impact or they just dismiss concerns as being overreactive. But I have heard from a broad array of union officials, technical experts, plant managers, local dealers, and small businesses. They tell me that these proposals could cost jobs, because the only way for manufacturers to meet these unrealistic political numbers is to make significant cuts to light truck, minivan, and SUV production--the vehicles, quite frankly, Americans are demanding. In fact, I had recently read in Roll Call that some of my colleagues here on the floor right now actually drive these bigger SUVs here in Washington, though there may be some fender damage to at least one of them. I have also read the National Academy of Science's report on CAFE standards issued in 2001. Let me share with you a key finding about safety and higher standards: In summary, the majority of the committee finds that the downsizing and weight reduction that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s most likely produced between 1,300 and 2,600 crash fatalities and between 13,000 and 26,000 serious injuries in 1993. If an increase in fuel economy is effected by a system that encourages either downweighting or the production and sale of more small cars, some additional traffic fatalities would be expected. That is the National Academy of Science. I believe that NAS report offers us in the Senate clear guidance and expert scientific analysis as we debate fuel economy standards. CAFE standards which cannot be met by technological improvement have killed roughly 2,000 people a year-- that is almost as many as in the tragedy of September 11--because of what we in Congress have mandated. That is a frightening number. This past April, the Energy Committee debated an amendment by Senator Feinstein to raise the light truck CAFE standard. That could have had negative consequences for pickup trucks for ranchers and farmers across Missouri and in many agricultural States. The amendment would have also negatively impacted soccer moms and dads driving minivans, too, since they are part of the light truck category. The committee soundly rejected the Feinstein amendment 15-7, on a bipartisan vote, including four Senators from the other side of the aisle opposing adoption. I look forward to working with those Senators and others to defeat excessive CAFE amendments to be offered on the floor. I urge and strongly encourage Members who voted for the Bond-Levin amendment last year to do so again this year. It is a commonsense amendment to the Energy bill that will protect jobs, safety, consumer choice, and continue to pursue reasonable, scientifically achievable environmental improvements. I know that some in this Chamber believe our fellow Americans cannot be trusted to make the right choice when purchasing a vehicle. For my part, in choosing between the Government or the consumer making choices, I side with consumers. I do not pretend to know what is best for each of the 16 million Americans who purchase a new vehicle every year. For those who say, ``too bad, we must force Detroit to build more fuel-efficient cars and trucks,'' do you know that under CAFE, it doesn't matter what the companies manufacture and build? It is calculated based on what they buy. There are over 30 vehicles in showrooms that get over 30 miles to the gallon, but guess what: They represent less than 2 percent of sales. In their buying decisions, consumers consistently favor safety, utility, performance, and other characteristics over fuel economy. Do we still have a free society? I think so and I hope so. Higher CAFE standards could lead to downsizing of many popular vehicles. I don't want to tell parents in Missouri, or in any State, they cannot get the SUV or minivan they wanted for their family or business because Congress decided it would be a bad choice. Is that any way to develop sound public policy? Of course not. Last year, I said on the floor that I would be most interested to see the hard data and the solid science which supposedly justifies the higher CAFE standards put forward by some of my colleagues. Mr. President, I never did get a firm answer. Frankly, I doubt one exists. The numbers in these CAFE amendments are political numbers picked out of thin air. Some of my colleagues are trying to indicate that their proposed standards are suggested in the NAS study. I remind my colleagues the National Academy of Science report states the following: The committee cannot emphasize strongly enough that the cost-efficient fuel economy levels are not recommended CAFE goals. Mr. President, automakers are investing billions of dollars in advanced technology research and new products, such as hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, which offer great promise to improve fuel economy and continue to offer the driving public the comfort, safety, and utility they demand. We should be encouraging this type of research. In fact, the President has recognized the importance of advanced technology and has pledged $1.2 billion in fuel cell research funding, so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. We have already voted to accept Senator Dorgan's amendment, which paves the way for production and deployment of 2.5 million hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2020. The Bond-Levin amendment allows the Transportation Department to continue its plans for a multiyear rulemaking to set new CAFE standards in the future. Our amendment includes provisions so that the Government plays its part in addressing vehicle fuel efficiency. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose higher CAFE amendments, which will only hurt consumers and do very little for fuel economy and are not based on sound science. I ask that we save jobs, improve safety for our fellow Americans, and continue to make scientific progress toward greater fuel economy and environmental improvement. Vote ``yes'' on the Bond-Levin-Domenici-Stabenow amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his comments. I regret that he did not apparently gather what I was saying in my remarks because his characterization of my position was untenable. He suggested that we do not want to increase CAFE standards. The amendment that Senators Levin, Domenici, Stabenow, and I prepared on page 4 reads that the Secretary of Transportation shall issue new regulations setting forth increased fuel economy standards for nonpassenger automobiles, among others. We say they shall increase it. But you know something? We say they ought to base it on sound technology and sound science. For example, on page 2, we say when deciding the maximum fees of fuel economy, the Secretary shall consider: ``(1) Technological feasibility. ``(2) Economic practicability. ``(3) The effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy. ``(4) The need of the United States to conserve energy. ``(5) The desirability of reducing United States dependence on imported oil. ``(6) The effects of the average fuel economy standards on motor vehicle and passenger safety. ``(7) The effects of increased fuel economy on air quality. ``(8) The adverse effects of average fuel economy standards on the relative competitiveness of manufacturers. ``(9) The effects of compliance with average fuel economy standards on levels of employment in the United States. These are all points that are very important. But we start off saying, don't push something that is purely political. Make sure there is a technological basis for it. Yes, my colleague is right. We did increase the CAFE achievements, but much of it came through lowering the weight of the vehicles. If my colleagues will listen and pay attention, we have the very frightening statistic from the National Academy of Sciences that those lower weight vehicles, vehicles initially designed for safety, were forced to be downsized, and they caused roughly 2,000 additional fatalities a year in automobile vehicle accidents and some 13,000 to 26,000 serious injuries. That is why we say safety is part of it. That is why we say we need to make sure we can achieve these technologically. We are pushing the technology. My colleague talks about soccer moms. If they want to drive a very small fuel-efficient car, they can. If they want to drive an SUV, they can. We are going to push the technology to make those as efficient as possible. But we are not some kind of dictatorial or authoritarian society that says, no; we will tell you what you can buy. We want to have parents, whether they are soccer moms, baseball dads, granddads who want to take their kids to the ball game, to have the ability to choose the kind of car they want. It is about safety, it is about choice, and it is about jobs. I am very grateful for a letter I have just received dated July 24, 2003, from Alan Reuther, legislative director of the UAW. He says in part: The UAW strongly opposes a number of other CAFE amendments that may be offered by Senator McCain, Senator Feinsten or Senator Durbin. Although taking different approaches, all of these amendments would mandate excessive, discriminatory increases in fuel economy standards that would directly threaten thousands of jobs for UAW members and other automotive workers in this country. In our judgment, fuel economy increases of the magnitude proposed in these amendments are neither technologically or economically feasible. The study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences does not support such increases. Given the economic difficulties currently facing the auto industry, we believe it would be a profound mistake to impose additional burdens on the companies by mandating excessive increases in the CAFE standards. That is why, in summary, the UAW says it strongly supports the Bond- Levin amendment. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.

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. 1351

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know we have been having these hearings and the oversight hearings. We are conducting the investigations. I wonder if the chairman is aware of the fact that I believe the Office of the Inspector General of the CIA is conducting an investigation. I believe the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Panel had jurisdiction. Is it correct that the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, is conducting an inquiry? At my count, at least five different investigations are going on. I wonder if that number is accurate, and does the chairman think that a sixth, which would not start until later on, would add anything?

Mr. BOND. Will the chairman yield for a question?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor.