Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to a very significant milestone for our nation's oldest and one of the largest service organizations, B'nai B'rith, which was founded on New York City's lower east side in October 1843. Its name, meaning ``Children of the Covenant,'' reflects a commitment to unify Jewish people everywhere in service to their community and the world. On September 7th, in my home state of Michigan, the Great Lakes Region of this great organization will celebrate the B'nai B'rith anniversary and mark its many achievements in helping others, advocating freedom and democracy, and combating racism and bigotry.

Over the years, B'nai B'rith has been steadfast in meeting challenges on many fronts. Motivated in part by core Jewish values such as loving- kindness to others and peace and justice in the world, it has acted on a fundamental belief that all people should be treated with dignity and respect. Its members have answered the call to stand against racism, persecution, and violence against Jews and others, while working to protect basic human rights and preserve justice. B'nai B'rith has taken a leadership role during pivotal times in our history. Its members have worked to steer our nation on the right path to the benefit of all Americans. They opposed General Ulysses Grant during the Civil War when he attempted to expel Jews from several states. They urged President Theodore Roosevelt to take action in 1903 with the Czar of Russia to denounce anti-Semitic violence. And in 1913 after the lynching of B'nai B'rith member Leo Frank in Atlanta, B'nai B'rith leaders were moved to organize the Anti-Defamation League to battle bigotry.

Now as an international organization, B'nai B'rith is represented in 58 countries around the world. It has a full-time presence at the United Nations and the European Union in Brussels. It has the proud history of having initiated many programs and services, from disaster relief, to feeding the hungry, to medical research, to housing for the low-income elderly, to Jewish education, to a premier Youth Organization and an effective campus outreach for thousands and thousands of Jewish college students. B'nai B'rith helped bring war criminals to justice, has worked tirelessly for Jewish security around the world, and has helped to strengthen the land of Israel. After more than a century and a half of innovation and activism, B'nai B'rith is stronger than ever and continues to make an important and meaningful contribution around the world.

B'nai B'rith can be proud of its dedication to preserve Jewish heritage and promote values that inspire individuals to act in goodwill and to shape their communities for the betterment of all. We as a nation have benefitted from their extraordinary contributions both here and abroad, and I am sure that my Senate colleagues join me in paying tribute to B'nai B'rith for 160 years of superior performance in serving the needs of generations of Americans and people of nations around the world.

Madam President, this morning's newspapers brought the welcome news that the administration is finally waking up to the need to seek greater international support for and participation in our stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq by seeking a new U.N. Security Council resolution. There has been a tragically long overdue recognition of the importance of doing so.

While this welcome news was attributed to an unnamed administration spokesman, hopefully some named spokesman will soon confirm it. The delay in arriving at this new approach, along with too much lone- ranger, bring-them-on rhetoric, will make the effort to internationalize the situation in Iraq more difficult and perhaps more costly in terms of the conditions exacted by the international community for its participation.

The word games that have been played by administration officials who have stated that they would ``welcome'' the participation of troops of other nations but refused to request that participation have also not been helpful.

While the need to internationalize this effort and obtain a U.N. mandate has been apparent to many of us from the beginning, the recent report of the Congressional Budget Office, requested by Senator Byrd, concerning the difficulty of sustaining a large U.S. military force in Iraq reinforces the need to reach out to the U.N. for support in this effort. There will not and should not be any need to compromise with respect to command and control of U.S. troops. There is ample precedent for the nation that provides the bulk of military forces to provide the senior military commander and for the senior military commander to exercise overall command of all the troops participating in a U.N.- mandated mission.

A recent example of that approach was the case of East Timor, where Australia led a coalition of the willing pursuant to a U.N. resolution and provided the senior military commander for the operation. Once circumstances permitted it, the Australians turned over control to a U.N. blue helmeted peacekeeping force. The first gulf war was an earlier example where one nation, the United States, led a coalition of the willing with U.N. sanction. There will, however, be a need for compromise with respect to the control of civilian reconstruction and political development of Iraq. We should be willing to agree to a reasonable sharing of decisionmaking with respect to the physical and political reconstruction of Iraq. If we are willing to do so, Germany and Russia will proudly go along and France would then have little choice, I believe, but to go along as well.

Statements by administration officials, when we went to the U.N. before the war, which denigrated the importance of U.N. support and the work of U.N. inspectors, were counterproductive to acquiring U.N. backing at that time. We must avoid a repetition of that attitude. Given the pressures that have been brought to bear that were necessary to get the administration to seek support from the international community, I am afraid it will be necessary to keep the pressure on the administration to make the appropriate compromises to work out a new U.N. resolution.

Yesterday, three more U.S. soldiers lost their lives in Iraq, two due to hostile action and one in an accident. While internationalizing the effort in Iraq will not prevent all loss of life in the future, it should help to reduce the risks and ease the burdens on U.S. forces and will help convince Iraqis of international backing and support for our military presence there, and hopefully will increase the sharing of intelligence that is so critical to stopping terrorists in other attacks.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the bills before the Senate to implement the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore free-trade agreements are being considered under fast track procedures. This means debate is limited and amendments are not in order. Senators can only vote yes or no. I opposed fast track because we should not limit the ability of Congress to improve trade agreements which may not, as some in the past have not, represent the best interest of the American worker, American farmer, or U.S. industry.

Although the U.S. International Trade Commission found the impact of a FTA with Chile and Singapore would be minimal on the U.S. economy, the U.S.-Chile and the U.S.-Singapore free-trade agreements are widely considered likely to lead to more open markets. Singapore's market is currently quite open with respect to consumer and industrial goods and imposes no tariffs on most of these products. Any remaining tariffs will be eliminated upon entry into force of the agreement. Chile's tariffs average 6 percent and they will be eliminated quickly in the agreement. For example, 85 percent of consumer and industrial goods trade becomes duty free immediately upon the entry into force of the U.S.-Chile FTA, with most of the remaining tariffs eliminated within 4 years.

Of particular interest to U.S. auto makers is Chile's commitment to eliminate its domestic tax of 75 percent on luxury automobiles over 4 years. The United States also made significant gains in opening the service sector market in both countries.

These agreements do have shortcomings. For instance, they lack a requirement to strive to achieve the core ILO labor standards that were contained in the U.S.-Jordan FTA, and instead only require each nation to enforce its own laws. They also have separate dispute settlement rules that place arbitrary caps on the enforceability of the labor and environment provisions of the agreement. This is in contrast to the U.S.-Jordan FTA which treated all commitments in the agreement to identical dispute settlement mechanisms. However, the weaker labor and environment commitments and enforcement is not as great a concern as might otherwise be the case because the laws of Chile and Singapore essentially reflect core internationally recognized labor rights. Such language would be a concern, however, if contained in future agreements with countries with lesser labor and environmental standards.

Each trade agreement should be judged on its own merits. While the provisions for Chile and Singapore may be acceptable for Chile and Singapore, the language of these agreements would clearly not be acceptable for trade agreements with countries with weaker labor laws or environmental standards. The U.S.-Jordan agreement, with its stronger labor and environment commitments and enforcement provisions, is the more acceptable model for future agreements with countries with weaker standards.

Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Pryor holds extreme views on a range of issues, has engaged in inflammatory rhetoric when expressing those views,

and has exhibited a questionable commitment to separating politics from the law.

Mr. Pryor has led Alabama's efforts to challenge Federal power and argue that the State should be immune from violations of Federal law. He has filed briefs challenging Congress' authority to enact parts of the Family and Medical Leave Act; he has argued against Congress' authority to protect disabled people from discrimination; and during Mr. Pryor's tenure as attorney general, Alabama was also the only State to file an amicus brief opposing the Government in a case limiting Congress' authority under the Clean Water Act.

Our country is built upon tolerance for a diversity of faiths yet Mr. Pryor has also shown little respect for the important constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

As an appellate court judge, Mr. Pryor would be required to follow precedents established by the Supreme court. But Mr. Pryor has openly shown disdain and indeed personally attacked individual justices. For instance, he stated, ``I will end my prayer for the next administration: Please God, no more Souters.''

There are just too many indications that Mr. Pryor would be unable to separate his politics from the law. Just listen to what Former Republican Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods said about Mr. Pryor. Mr. Woods described Pryor as ``probably the most doctrinaire and the most partisan of any attorney general [he had] dealt with in eight years, so people would be wise to question whether or not [Pryor is] the right person to be non-partisan on the bench.''

The majority brought this nomination to the floor and immediately filed a cloture petition, not allowing for adequate debate on Mr. Pryor's controversial nomination. I think that is wrong Wrong for the Senate. Wrong for our Federal courts. And wrong for the country. For these reasons, I oppose cloture on Mr. Pryor's nomination.

Mr. President, last week U.S. district court judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York found in the case of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Acusport, Inc. et al. ``clear and convincing evidence'' that some gun manufacturers are guilty of ``careless practices.''

The NAACP filed the lawsuit against gunmakers and wholesalers for what they argued were negligent firearms distribution practices. The NAACP lawsuit did not seek financial relief but sought injunctive relief to force the gun industry to take meaningful steps towards safer business practices.

Judge Weinstein's decision was a broad condemnation of current business practices in the gun industry. Judge Weinstein said ``the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that defendants are responsible for the creation of a public nuisance and could, voluntarily and through easily implemented changes in marketing and more discriminating control of sales practices of those to whom they sell their guns, substantially reduce the harm occasioned by the diversion of guns to the illegal market and by the criminal possession and use of those guns.''

Although Judge Weinstein did not grant the NAACP the relief it sought, the gun industry should take no consolation in this result. In fact, relief was denied only because the court found that all New Yorkers suffered from the same kind of injuries from gun industry misconduct suffered by members of the NAACP.

The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that recently passed the House and that has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee would shield negligent and reckless gun dealers from many legitimate civil lawsuits like the NAACP case. Certainly, those in the industry who conduct their business negligently or recklessly should not be shielded from the civil consequences of their actions. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize a great organization from my home State of Michigan. On August 14, 2003, people will gather to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Saginaw Bay Area, Inc. I am pleased to pay tribute

to the members of Big Brothers Big Sisters for their years of dedication and service to the community.

Big Brothers Big Sisters volunteers provide stability for area youth by mentoring children and organizing exciting activities. The tools of warmth, human interest, and personal friendship are used to improve the health, education, and personal welfare of participants. The nonsectarian, multiracial agency holds an annual Easter egg hunt, Halloween and Christmas parties, as well as a variety of community enrichment activities in the Saginaw Bay area.

In 1952, 18 individuals united to form the board of directors for Big Brothers after receiving a grant from the Optimist Club of Saginaw. With the opening of a new office in Bay City in 1973, the organization officially changed its name to Big Brothers of Saginaw Bay Area, Inc.

In 1966, the Woman's Council of Saginaw recognized the need for a Big Sisters program. The following year the Altrusa Club, a community service organization, sponsored and organized the project, and soon after, a local Big Sisters program was established. The two organizations joined forces on September 1, 1982, to form Big Brothers Big Sisters of Saginaw Bay Area, Inc., saving an estimated $15,000 to $20,000 in operating expenses annually. This money is used to enrich the lives of approximately 725 young people in Saginaw and Bay Counties.

I take great pride in recognizing the efforts of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Saginaw Bay Area as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. I have no doubt that this organization will continue to enrich the lives of local children. I know my Senate colleagues will join me in saluting the accomplishments of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Saginaw Bay Area and in wishing the group continued success in the future.

Mr. President, I am introducing today, with Senator Collins, the National Highway Borders and Trade Act. As a resident of the State of Michigan, the primary gateway for U.S.-Canadian trade, I am familiar with the pressures being placed on our Nation's highways, especially the major trade corridors. Six years ago Congress recognized the need for highway programs dedicated to interregional and international trade corridors. Since then the funds provided under the Borders and Corridors programs have helped make improvements to thousands of highway miles.

Although much progress has been made in improving transportation efficiencies, the Nation's freight infrastructure needs additional improvements. Increased international trade has put strains on the highway system that carries 70 percent of the total goods shipped in the United States and the total freight traffic is expected to more than double by the year 2020. When the Federal Highway Administration studied border crossing times for trucks in 2001 it found that some trucks experienced delays of over 83 minutes. These delays pose significant obstacles to industries dependent on just-in-time deliveries.

The National Highway Borders and Trade Act of 2003 will help reduce border crossing times and improve the highway corridors important for international and interstate commerce. Although there are only fifteen land border States, the goods that arrive via those States eventually travel to every one of the contiguous U.S. States plus Alaska. So our bill will benefit all 50 States.

The National Highway Borders and Trade Act reflects the growth in international trade and highway traffic being experienced by many States. It would increase funding for these programs and authorize $400 million a year for 6 years for the combined programs. To ensure more stability and predictability for states' border region projects, it would make the existing borders program half formula based and half discretionary.

The National Highway Borders and Trade Act also clarifies which other roads are eligible for funding to help State transportation departments plan for and manage highway commercial traffic in borders regions. Using he definition of ``borders region'' adopted by international law, roads that go through any border region would be eligible for funding.

Eligibility for funding under the Borders program will also be broadened to include certain projects in Canada or Mexico, something that many State departments of transportation have been urging for some time. By placing inspection stations and other facilities in our neighboring countries, we can more efficiently manage border traffic and check for dangerous materials before vehicles enter our country. This will also help facilitate establishing reverse customs inspection at certain border crossings.

Our bill will also help to relieve congestion and delays at the border. According to the Federal Highway Administration, congestion at border crossings can lead to long delays. The lost productivity from this congestion has a negative impact on the Nation's economy. It also causes environmental problems in the border regions. We need to get people and commerce across the borders more quickly and with greater safety.

The bill would also focus the corridors program on roads connecting to a land border and expand it to allow for funding for road connectors to water ports that accept international trade.

These changes will increase the number of eligible roads but also preserve the purpose of the program as facilitating international trade. Water ports play a very important role in international trade. For many sectors of the economy the vast majority of their supplies travels through these ports. The growth in truck traffic at the intermodal ports is taking a toll on the connecting highways. Many of these intermodal road connectors are in a state of severe deterioration.

Through TEA-21, 41 States have received funding from the corridors program. Because goods imported from Canada and Mexico end up in virtually every place in the U.S., improving the Borders and Corridors program will benefit every State and the nation's economy as a whole. Our bill will grant eligibility to roads in all 50 States.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing today, with Senator Collins, the National Highway Borders and Trade Act. As a resident of the State of Michigan, the primary gateway for U.S.-Canadian trade, I am familiar with the pressures being placed on our Nation's highways, especially the major trade corridors. Six years ago Congress recognized the need for highway programs dedicated to interregional and international trade corridors. Since then the funds provided under the Borders and Corridors programs have helped make improvements to thousands of highway miles.

Although much progress has been made in improving transportation efficiencies, the Nation's freight infrastructure needs additional improvements. Increased international trade has put strains on the highway system that carries 70 percent of the total goods shipped in the United States and the total freight traffic is expected to more than double by the year 2020. When the Federal Highway Administration studied border crossing times for trucks in 2001 it found that some trucks experienced delays of over 83 minutes. These delays pose significant obstacles to industries dependent on just-in-time deliveries.

The National Highway Borders and Trade Act of 2003 will help reduce border crossing times and improve the highway corridors important for international and interstate commerce. Although there are only fifteen land border States, the goods that arrive via those States eventually travel to every one of the contiguous U.S. States plus Alaska. So our bill will benefit all 50 States.

The National Highway Borders and Trade Act reflects the growth in international trade and highway traffic being experienced by many States. It would increase funding for these programs and authorize $400 million a year for 6 years for the combined programs. To ensure more stability and predictability for states' border region projects, it would make the existing borders program half formula based and half discretionary.

The National Highway Borders and Trade Act also clarifies which other roads are eligible for funding to help State transportation departments plan for and manage highway commercial traffic in borders regions. Using he definition of ``borders region'' adopted by international law, roads that go through any border region would be eligible for funding.

Eligibility for funding under the Borders program will also be broadened to include certain projects in Canada or Mexico, something that many State departments of transportation have been urging for some time. By placing inspection stations and other facilities in our neighboring countries, we can more efficiently manage border traffic and check for dangerous materials before vehicles enter our country. This will also help facilitate establishing reverse customs inspection at certain border crossings.

Our bill will also help to relieve congestion and delays at the border. According to the Federal Highway Administration, congestion at border crossings can lead to long delays. The lost productivity from this congestion has a negative impact on the Nation's economy. It also causes environmental problems in the border regions. We need to get people and commerce across the borders more quickly and with greater safety.

The bill would also focus the corridors program on roads connecting to a land border and expand it to allow for funding for road connectors to water ports that accept international trade.

These changes will increase the number of eligible roads but also preserve the purpose of the program as facilitating international trade. Water ports play a very important role in international trade. For many sectors of the economy the vast majority of their supplies travels through these ports. The growth in truck traffic at the intermodal ports is taking a toll on the connecting highways. Many of these intermodal road connectors are in a state of severe deterioration.

Through TEA-21, 41 States have received funding from the corridors program. Because goods imported from Canada and Mexico end up in virtually every place in the U.S., improving the Borders and Corridors program will benefit every State and the nation's economy as a whole. Our bill will grant eligibility to roads in all 50 States.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on June 10, 1903, 26-year-old Giovanni Castellano married 21-year-old Santa Basile in Milazzo, Italy. Less than 2 months later, on July 24, the newlyweds boarded the S.S. Lahn steamship headed for the United States of America. On August 5, 1903, Giovanni and Santa Castellano set foot on American soil at Ellis Island, starting a new chapter in the American dream.

The story of the Castellano family in many ways reflects the typical American immigrant experience. Giovanni and Santa settled in New York City and presided over the development of a large family. The first generation born in America included Joseph, Jenny, Vincent, Florence, Faye, Steve, and Anthony. The members of this generation in turn had families of their own, and so on. As the new century gets underway, the fourth generation of American Castellanos begins grade school.

The first generation of the Castellano family tended to marry other Italian Americans, the likes of Carizzo, Cambria, and Fidele. Reflecting U.S. immigration patterns, there was the occasional McElligot. Over time, the genealogy of the Castellano family came to reflect the diversity of America. Ullmann, Cinotti, Burk, Garcia, Anchustegui, and Pray are just some of the names that may be found on the family tree now.

Many members of the Castellano family have stayed in New York but others have moved throughout the United States. One hundred years of history have brought the Castellano family literally from sea to shining sea--from New York, Maryland and Washington, DC, to Colorado, New Mexico, and California.

While many in the first generation of the Castellano family received only a grade school education, succeeding generations have graduated from community colleges, State universities, private colleges, and the Ivy League. The Castellano family has spawned teachers, stockbrokers, delivery drivers, restaurateurs, soldiers, lawyers, doctors, dentists, bricklayers, and other professions; some have worked in business, some have worked in public service. They have served their country in both peace and in World War II, Vietnam, and Somalia.

Next week is the 100th anniversary of Giovanni and Santa's entry into the United States through Ellis Island--the beginning of the American dream for one family. Congratulations to the Castellano family; may the dream go on for all Americans.

Reserving the right to object.

We object.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond-Levin amendment. I ask that Senator Mikulski be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond-Levin amendment and in opposition to the Durbin amendment. I will take about 8 or 9 minutes to lay out some of the differences between the two amendments. There are some very key differences.

First, our amendment, the Bond-Levin amendment, employs positive incentives to promote the leap-ahead technologies which are so critical if we are going to make significant improvements in fuel economy. We do this in a number of ways right in this amendment, including the research and development part of this amendment where we authorize a significant increase in the funds for the Department of Energy to develop advanced hybrid vehicles, where we provide significant funds for the Department of Energy to work collaboratively with industry to research and develop clean diesel technologies, and a number of other ways.

In a separate amendment, dealing with the tax side, there will be an effort made to provide some additional incentives in that area as well.

In the body of the Bond-Levin amendment, we will be promoting the leap-ahead technology development by using the purchasing power of the Government to buy the hybrids which are going to be made available in the next few years. Since Government purchases a significant number of vehicles, it is essential that we use that purchasing power to acquire those new vehicles which will create a demand for those vehicles and help to commercialize them as well.

We require the Government purchase of hybrid trucks for our fleet of light trucks that are not covered by the Energy Policy Act. So there is no conflict between what we do in this bill and the Energy Policy Act itself.

There is another major difference between our approach and the approach in the Durbin amendment. What we do is we direct NHTSA, the Department of Transportation, to raise the fuel economy standards but we do not pick an

arbitrary number to be reached. Instead, we set forth a series of factors which we want NHTSA, the Department of Transportation, the agency that has the expertise to do this and has done this and has been given that responsibility historically to set these standards, we lay out a number of criteria which we want them to consider, including what technologies might be available, which are emerging, what will be the cost of those technologies, what are the safety considerations, what are the job considerations, what are the air quality considerations, what will be the savings in terms of fuel, including imported oil. A whole host of criteria are set out which they should consider but which are not at all considered by selecting an arbitrary number and simply plugging that into a law.

To pick one factor which is real, and that is the safety factor, the National Academy of Sciences, in its report, found that in just the 1- year study, which was 1993, the effect of CAFE, which was already in law, was the death of between 1,300 and 2,600 people. They also found that between 13,000 and 26,000 additional moderate to critical injuries occurred because the CAFE standard which had been put in law resulted in down weighting and downsizing of vehicles.

Should we consider safety? Should someone consider safety? I would hope so. Should that be a factor which should be looked at in the rulemaking process? I would hope so, among all the other factors.

Saving fuel is important, and our amendment does that. It will lead to fuel savings but we do it in a very different way. Instead of selecting an arbitrary number, a very high number in the Durbin amendment, 40 miles per gallon, we direct NHTSA to use the various relevant factors to reach a conclusion, not just what is technologically achievable regardless of cost but what is the cost, what is the cost benefit, and all the other factors, including safety and impact on jobs.

There is another major difference between our approach and the Durbin amendment. It is not just that the Durbin amendment picks a number, a very high number, for this new CAFE standard, but in doing so, it uses the current structure. That so-called CAFE structure limits the production and sale of domestic SUVs of the same efficiency as imported SUVs, on which it has far less impact.

This is a critical issue. It is an issue which is not adequately understood by colleagues because it is very complicated. The very fundamental CAFE structure, because it was designed to look at the entire fleet instead of dividing the fleet into different classifications by weight, has an inherently discriminatory impact on those companies which have traditionally produced the larger vehicle. It has favored the imports because those companies have tended to produce the lighter weight vehicles, the vehicles at the lighter end of the continuum.

I quote the National Academy of Sciences because they have made a statement which I hope all of our colleagues would pause to consider before voting for the Durbin amendment. This is what they said in a January 2002 report:

. . . one concept of equity among manufacturers requires

equal treatment of equivalent vehicles made by different

manufacturers.

Now the key words:

The current CAFE standards fail this test.

This is something which is so fundamental to American jobs that it is critical all of us take some time to read that portion of the National Academy of Sciences study and to fully soak in its impact as to what it is saying. Equal treatment of equivalent vehicles made by different manufacturers is not achieved by CAFE.

By piling an arbitrary number on that CAFE structure, as the Durbin amendment does, it worsens the situation. The equivalent vehicles of equal efficiency are treated differently depending on the manufacturer, and the difference works against the domestic manufacturer; that is, jobs which are lost with no benefit to the air at all.

There is no reason I can conceive as to why we would want to say it is OK to drive a 17-miles-per-gallon imported SUV, but it is not OK to drive a 17-miles-per-gallon domestic SUV. It does nothing for the air to reach that result. Yet that is what the current CAFE structure leads to.

I have one other quote from the National Academy of Sciences report.

A policy decision to simply increase the standard for

light-duty trucks to the same level as for passenger cars

would operate in this inequitable manner. Some manufacturers

have concentrated their production in light-duty trucks while

others have concentrated production in passenger cars. But

since trucks tend to be heavier than cars and are more likely

to have attributes, such as four-wheel drive, that reduce

fuel economy, those manufacturers whose production was

concentrated in light-duty trucks would be financially

penalized relative to those manufacturers whose production

was concentrated in cars. Such a policy decision would impose

unequal costs on otherwise similarly situated manufacturers.

I don't understand why we would even think about treating similar vehicles of similar fuel efficiency in a different way, particularly when that works against the domestic manufacturers.

The Durbin amendment compounds this problem by raising the SUV level, at least in the case of the minivans and SUVs themselves, to the same requirement as standard vehicles. In doing so, it compounds the problem, the discriminatory effect, of the CAFE structure. I hope for that reason and the other reasons I have mentioned that we will defeat the Durbin amendment and adopt an alternative approach which focuses more on positive incentives to achieve fuel economy, which is what the Bond-Levin approach does and which also focuses more on the rulemaking authority, the efficiency, the experience, and the fairness of the Department of Transportation that would look at all of the factors which should go into the rulemaking rather than picking an arbitrary number.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, our amendment will increase full efficiency but in positive ways by giving incentives to purchase vehicles, by having the Government buy the vehicles which are leaps ahead in technology, and by having the Government be more involved in joint research and development. By the way, we don't add criteria which must be met. We add criteria which we want the Department of Transportation to consider.

Is there anyone who doesn't want the Department of Transportation to consider--consider--technological feasibility or safety or economic practicability or the effect on jobs?

These are not hurdles which must be jumped. These are simply relevant facts which we want NHTSA to consider. For the life of me, I cannot understand why all of us would not want NHTSA to consider those relevant facts.

Mr. President, last week I spoke about a report, released by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, that identified a list of 10 ``bad apple'' gun dealers. According to data released by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosives, the dealers cited in the Brady Campaign report were the source of thousands of guns traced to criminal activity. Earlier this week, despite the startling information contained in the Brady report, the House of Representatives included an amendment in the Commerce, Justice, and State Departments appropriations bill which would not only make reports like the Brady Campaign's much more difficult to produce but also might cripple the ability of the ATF to enforce the nation's gun safety laws against firearms dealers who supply guns to criminals.

The House amendment would prohibit the public release of information related to the importation and production of firearms. This means that the only reliable national information available as to how many guns are produced in a given year, as well as type, caliber, and manufacturer, would no longer be available to the public. Further, the amendment would prohibit the public release of information related to multiple handgun sales. Under current law, dealers are required to notify the ATF of the sale of two or more handguns to the same person within 5

business days. Eliminating the availability of this data would make it even more difficult to monitor the activities of reckless gun dealers. In addition, the amendment would prohibit the release of information related to crime-gun tracing requests.

The amendment would also prohibit the ATF from issuing a rule requiring Federal Firearm Licensees to submit to a physical inventory. A physical inventory recently revealed that a Tacoma, WA, gun dealer could not account for the sniper rifle used by the Washington, D.C. area sniper and more than 200 other guns in its inventory. The amendment would also require the immediate destruction of records of approved firearms purchases and transfers generated by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The retention of these record has assisted law enforcement officials in trying to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals, as well as identifying gun trafficking patterns.

I believe this provision could shield reckless and negligent gun dealers from public scrutiny and weaken the ATF's oversight and enforcement authority. It will hopefully be rejected here in the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Christo Artusio, a Fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Energy bill debate.

Madam President, I am speaking this afternoon in support of the pending Bond-Levin amendment relative to fuel efficiency in our automobiles and how we achieve that fuel efficiency.

Our amendment will increase fuel economy in automobiles. It will protect the environment. It will decrease our dependence on foreign oil. But it will do this in a way that will not harm the U.S. economy or put hard-working Americans out of work.

Our amendment achieves the goal of better fuel economy with greater reliance on positive incentives to advance leap-ahead technologies such as hybrids and fuel cells. That includes promoting these technologies with greater increases in joint research and development and Government purchases.

Our amendment requires the Department of Transportation to increase the CAFE standard. It is a mandate, but the key difference between our amendment and some of the alternatives is that our mandated increase will be left up to the Department of Transportation and will not be just an arbitrarily determined number on the part of the Senate.

Let me go through some of the goals and how we achieve those goals in the Bond-Levin amendment.

First, we need to improve fuel economy. We can, and we should, do it in a way that protects the environment, that diminishes our dependence on imported oil, and that allows the U.S. economy and our domestic manufacturing industry to thrive.

Those goals are not in conflict with each other. We can improve fuel economy, but we can do it in a way that does not harm domestic manufacturing and the U.S. economy if we do it right. And that is a big ``if.'' If we do it wrong, we could have a very negative effect on jobs and the American economy. And, as a matter of fact, if we do it wrong, we not only can damage the American economy, but we could see little improvement in the environment, given the way in which the current structure of fuel economy mandates is set up.

It is a discriminatory structure that has discriminated against domestics in ways that were probably unforeseen

when this structure was adopted 30 years or so ago, but nonetheless it has had that effect.

What we do is ensure that fuel economy will be improved. But we do not set an arbitrary standard. We require the agency that has the expertise and the experience to set an increased fuel economy standard for both trucks and for light vehicles.

This is not the place, on the Senate floor, to make a complex decision that should involve a whole host of factors: What is achievable technologically, what is the cost, what are the safety impacts, what are the impacts on American jobs, and a whole host of other factors that need to be considered before a new fuel economy standard is set. That should not just be seized out of the air arbitrarily and put into law on the Senate floor. That ought to be done by an agency that has the expertise and experience to do it, that looks at all of the factors that should go into the decision, and then does it in an usual, regulatory way with notice and comment.

The second part of our three-part policy is to increase funding for research, development, and demonstration of new, advanced, clean and fuel-efficient vehicles. We provide $50 million. We would authorize that in funds for the Department of Energy to develop advanced hybrid vehicles. And that would be a significant increase.

Hybrids run on both gasoline and electricity and are far more fuel efficient than conventional vehicles. We would provide an increase in funds for the Department of Energy to work collaboratively with industry to do some research and develop clean diesel technologies. It would be a significant increase in what is otherwise provided.

Because diesel engines are much more fuel efficient than gasoline engines, furthering clean diesel will help reduce gasoline consumption. And because diesel vehicles must meet very stringent emissions standards in the very near future, this will not be detrimental to the environment. Again, diesel vehicles are subject to the new clean air standards. These emissions standards must be met by diesels. If we can advance clean diesel technology, we will be saving gasoline because they are more fuel efficient than gasoline.

The third part of our policy harnesses the purchasing power of the Federal Government. In order to try to get the vehicles we are talking about--including hybrids and fuel cell vehicles--commercially adopted onto the roads, we have to use the purchasing power of the Federal Government. So we would require the Federal Government, when it is purchasing vehicles, to purchase hybrid trucks for its fleets of light trucks that are otherwise not covered by the Energy Policy Act.

Using hybrid trucks in Federal fleets will improve the fuel efficiency of the Federal fleet because hybrids are far more fuel efficient than conventional gasoline vehicles. And, at the same time, we would be creating a significant and reliable market for hybrid trucks. This is not buying vehicles that are otherwise not needed. This would be a requirement to purchase vehicles that the Federal Government is buying but to require that we buy the hybrids so we can help create the market that is so essential for the auto industry in order to have confidence that the vehicles will be purchased when they produce them.

In a related amendment, not part of the Bond-Levin amendment--I will be offering an amendment to the energy tax amendment which will come from the Finance Committee--we will be providing tax incentives to help advance the purchase of clean vehicles and clean fuel.

Our tax amendment--again, this is not part of Bond-Levin; it will be offered as an amendment to what is offered by the Finance Committee-- would increase the tax credit available to consumers who purchase hybrid vehicles and provide a new tax credit for fuel-efficient lean- burn vehicles, to help push these vehicles into the marketplace. We would also extend the period of time for tax incentives for fuel cell vehicles for 3 additional years, from 2011 to 2014.

We would also provide tax credits for consumers who buy heavy-duty diesel vehicles that are significantly cleaner than what is required by law.

Finally, we would provide producers with tax credits for purchasing ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel which the next generation of diesel vehicles would need to meet the upcoming round of extremely low emission standards.

I want to spend a few more minutes discussing the fuel economy part of our amendment. Clearly, we all want to improve fuel economy. That is a goal all of us share. But how we increase it is absolutely critical. Our amendment increases it by requiring the Department of Transportation to increase CAFE. However, rather than setting an arbitrary number for fuel economy on the floor of the Senate, we require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, to conduct a rulemaking process to increase fuel efficiency. The resulting rules will apply to both passenger cars and light trucks. Pickup trucks, minivans, and SUVs are included in the definition of light trucks.

But rather than legislating an arbitrary number, what the Bond-Levin amendment does is to tell NHTSA--the agency designed to do this--to rationally take into account a number of important considerations when setting a new standard: safety; consumer choice; the need for oil independence; the need for fuel savings; any unfair or competitive disadvantage that is created or continued by use of the CAFE system; impact on jobs; and a number of other factors. If NHTSA fails to act in the required timeframe under our amendment, Congress can consider legislation under expedited procedures to mandate an increase in fuel economy standards.

If we fail to set fuel economy standards in a deliberate manner, if we just do it arbitrarily by adopting a number in the Senate floor, we create a further competitive disadvantage to domestic manufacturers.

From its inception, CAFE has given an unfair competitive advantage to foreign manufacturers, not because they have more fuel efficient technologies; they do not. I emphasize that because there are folks who do believe that foreign cars are more fuel efficient than domestic cars. In the same category of cars, the same weight classifications, they are not. American-made cars are at least comparable in terms of fuel efficiency, and in many cases they have superior fuel efficiency to foreign-made models in that same weight class, the ones with which they compete.

It is because foreign manufacturers have historically focused more on smaller cars and smaller trucks than American manufacturers that they have that advantage. It is not because their vehicles are more technologically advanced or more fuel efficient in the same weight class. The reason this has worked this way is that the CAFE system, when it was designed, gave an advantage to manufacturers by looking at the entire fleet of cars rather than dividing the fleet into comparable size vehicles or comparable weight vehicles. Any automaker that built primarily small cars found it easy to meet the CAFE standard, while the manufacturers that built the full line of cars, including five-and six- passenger cars that American families have traditionally bought, found it much more difficult to meet the fleet average requirement of CAFE. So the fleet average does not reflect the efficiency of comparably sized vehicles.

In looking at the fleets as a whole, there is a built-in bias against domestic manufacturers although, again, domestically built vehicles are at least equally fuel efficient, pound for pound, in the same weight classification, as are the imported vehicles.

Foreign car manufacturers have been able to expand their production of larger cars and pickup trucks, minivans, and SUVs under the fleet average methodology that is called CAFE.

CAFE did not constrain them. The historic focus of those manufacturers on small vehicles gave them the headroom to sell large numbers of larger vehicles while still meeting the CAFE requirements for the fleet average; again, not because they are more fuel efficient.

So CAFE has had an unfair discriminatory impact against U.S. jobs because of how it was designed. I hope that was an inadvertent design and not an intended consequence when CAFE was designed many decades ago, but it has been the consequence. It is utterly amazing that we would tolerate the continuation, much less the expansion, of that consequence without considering the impact of all the factors that go into CAFE.

The proposals that have been supported by some in the Senate to provide an arbitrary increase in CAFE standards do not solve the problem of unfair competitive disadvantage. Instead, that arbitrary selection of a number would make it worse. Manufacturers who have traditionally produced smaller vehicles would have considerably less difficulty meeting the new standards than domestic manufacturers would.

The National Academy of Sciences recognizes this in its 2001 report. In talking about the current CAFE system, the National Academy of Sciences said the following:

. . . one concept of equity among manufacturers requires

equal treatment of equivalent vehicles made by different

manufacturers. The current CAFE standards fail this test.

The National Academy went on to say the following:

A policy decision to simply increase the standard for

light-duty trucks to the same level as for passenger cars

would operate in this inequitable manner. . . .those

manufacturers whose production was concentrated in light-duty

trucks [that is SUVs, minivans, and pickups] would be

financially penalized relative to those manufacturers whose

production was concentrated in cars.

Well, domestic manufacturers have a high concentration in light truck production, and they will be unfairly disadvantaged by this approach. Yet that is the approach advocated by some of our colleagues.

The competitive disadvantage of increased CAFE standards on domestic manufacturers is an important factor, but it is ignored in CAFE amendments that just set arbitrary standards. This competitive disadvantage for domestic manufacturers is not some abstract issue, this is an American jobs issue.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the automotive sector to the American economy. The automotive manufacturing sector alone is directly responsible for over 2 million jobs, and there are about 10 million people who are employed in fields directly related to motor vehicles.

Advocates of setting an arbitrary higher CAFE standard assert that the economic impact of CAFE will be minimal.

They claim that lost auto industry jobs will be offset by jobs created elsewhere. If they are wrong--and I believe they are--the potential negative impacts are massive.

According to the National Academy of Sciences report on the impacts of the CAFE program, union membership has fallen from 1.4 million members in 1980 to only 670,000 by the year 2000. U.S. automakers are losing jobs and market share partly due to the arbitrary CAFE program. In the last 20 years, this hemorrhaging of over 700,000 U.S. jobs was countered by the creation of only 35,000 jobs in assembly plants built in the United States by foreign-owned manufacturers. That is a National Academy of Sciences finding from their report.

Over the last 4 years alone, the big three have lost 34,000 jobs.

That is an 11-percent loss of jobs in just 4 years. There is a better way than just an arbitrary increase by the Senate in the CAFE number. We can achieve our shared goals of decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing carbon dioxide emissions by developing innovative, new technologies that will, hopefully, ultimately eliminate or significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels that create those emissions.

Our approach, the Bond-Levin amendment, and a separate tax amendment that will be offered, would require an increase in fuel economy by NHTSA but require consideration of all the factors relevant to any increase and not simply derive an arbitrary figure on the floor of the Senate. We would ramp up public-private cooperative investment in research and development of advanced vehicle technologies. We will use the purchasing power of Government to speed up the commercial production of these technologies. And, again, in a separate amendment, we would use tax credits to provide powerful incentives for the purchase of advanced clean technology vehicles.

I have been a supporter for a long time of developing fuel cell vehicles. The Administration's FreedomCAR and FreedomFuel programs are a good step but they are not sufficient to move us forward quickly to a hydrogen future. So we offered an amendment in last year's Energy bill that pushed the development of hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure.

This year, provisions such as these are already incorporated in the underlying bill. The amendment that will be offered separately to the tax section of the bill would extend the fuel cell vehicle credits provided in the finance package from 2011 to 2014.

We must lay the groundwork for the development of a hydrogen future. We also need to focus on the immediate future and provide incentives for efficient hybrid vehicles and clean diesel vehicles. Hybrid vehicles, which draw power from both electric motor and an internal combustion engine, can be up to 100 percent more efficient than conventional vehicles. Clean diesel vehicles, which new regulations make just as clean vehicles running on gasoline, also provide important efficiency gains that are important, especially in light and heavy-duty trucks.

The Department of Energy has calculated that if diesel were used in only 30 percent of potential light truck applications by the year 2020, it would reduce U.S. crude oil imports by 700,000 barrels per day. Clean diesel increases fuel economy by 20 to 40 percent and decreases current engines' carbon dioxide emissions by that same percentage.

We must put the pieces in place today that will lead to revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technology tomorrow. If we take this approach, we will do far more to make this Nation less dependent on foreign oil and far more to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases than we will ever accomplish with increased CAFE standards. The incremental gains are so costly to achieve and but use the resources that otherwise would be used for leap-ahead technologies that would achieve so much more.

Currently, auto companies around the world are working on longer term, breakthrough technologies that will provide potentially dramatic increases in vehicle fuel economy. This research work--on projects such as fuel cells, advanced batteries, and hybrid technologies--requires substantial resources.

These resources should be invested in leap-ahead technologies. The more we spend on the very marginal increases in technology, which would be at great cost required, we are going to be misusing the resources this Nation should be placing on the leap-ahead technologies.

Technology changes require very long times to be introduced into the manufacturer's product lines. Any policy that is implemented too quickly and too aggressively has the potential to adversely affect manufacturers, their suppliers, their employees, and consumers. If the automakers are required to focus so much on dramatic near-term improvements in vehicle fuel economy, resources will have to be diverted from those promising longer term projects and from providing the amenities desired by American families.

The Bond-Levin approach preserves the appropriate balance between development of near-term technologies for fuel economy improvement and the development of promising longer term projects. We use greater incentives; we use partnerships; we rely less and less on these arbitrary mandates. Where a mandate is appropriate, the agency with expertise, the agency with experience, the agency that would use all of the relevant factors in the determination of that new mandate would be the one that would be given the responsibility to increase those fuel standards. That is our approach. It is a positive approach toward greater energy efficiency, and it does so in a way which does not cost jobs--important jobs, manufacturing jobs in this country.

Amendment No. 1386, As Modified

Mr. President, I send a technical modification to the Bond-Levin amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, it is truly appropriate that Senator Reid be the principal cosponsor of this amendment because this is an issue which he has raised over the years with great passion, great feeling. This would just as appropriately be a Reid-Levin, et al., amendment as well as my offering it on our behalf.

Young men and women are putting their lives on the line for us and our country while some corporations have stiffed our country, renouncing their citizenship, going through phony reincorporations in Bermuda or other tax-haven countries to avoid paying taxes. This process is called corporate inversion. It is one of the abuses about which we all know as a shell headquarters being opened up in a tax haven, while all the benefits of living in America remain, all the benefits we would hope to provide in this bill--for instance, protection, homeland security, police, fire, port security. They take advantage of all the other services which are provided to these particular corporations. But because a shell headquarters has been opened up for a few of these corporations in Bermuda, they have avoided paying taxes.

They continue to use our roads and our law enforcement, our education system. They use our free trade laws. But then they avoid paying taxes by opening up a post office box and a computer in a tax haven.

One of the colleagues of ours who was most deeply involved in trying to correct this was Paul Wellstone. He said: If they want to make that decision, we haven't yet stopped them from gaining the tax benefits, but at least let's not give them government contracts while they are doing this type of activity. And when he was alive, our dear friend and colleague Paul Wellstone offered an amendment such as the one Senator Reid and I are offering today that was adopted. It was modified in conference so that it came back in such a weakened state that there are still some loopholes in it which need to be closed.

That is what this amendment does. Basically what this amendment does is provide that the language of the amendment will apply to the subsidiaries of the fake corporations in Bermuda or elsewhere so that we get to the actual corporation which has remained in America and that we also apply this to new contracts to corporations which have already inverted, as the word goes. We obviously would not in any way attempt to affect existing contracts. We don't intend to do that. We don't do that. In fact, we can't do that in any event under the Constitution.

What we do believe, as Paul Wellstone passionately believed, is we don't have to provide advantages through contracting with these companies, if they have chosen to abandon this country and to take the unpatriotic course of creating these phony headquarters and a tax haven while they are still here, in fact, enjoying all of the services of this country.

To reiterate, while young men and women are putting their lives on the line for us and for our country, some corporations are stiffing our country, renouncing their citizenship, and going through phony reincorporations in Bermuda or other tax haven countries to avoid paying taxes. This process, called a corporate inversion, is one of the most egregious of all of the tax haven abuses that we know about--just a shell headquarters being opened up in a tax haven, but all of the benefits of living in America continue. These corporations continue to use our roads, use our law enforcement, use our education system, use our markets and use our free trade laws, among other things, but they avoid paying billions in taxes by setting up a post office box and a computer in a tax haven. One of the architects of these inversions warned that for companies planning on doing this, patriotism was going to have to take a backseat to profits--boy did she have that right.

Inversions are unfair to the taxpayers who are left holding the bag and unfair to the U.S. companies that are doing the right thing by not inverting but who nevertheless are at a competitive disadvantage because of these sham moves. Last year, Senator Wellstone tried to do something about this problem, and we in the Senate agreed with him. Senator Wellstone introduced an amendment to the Homeland Security Act which prohibited inverters and their subsidiaries from entering into homeland security contracts with the government. We adopted the amendment. Why, Senator Wellstone wondered, should those that renounce their citizenship to avoid paying taxes--and who nonetheless receive all of the benefits of being U.S. citizens--get rewarded further through homeland security contracts? Why would we continue to permit inverters to take advantage of the competitive edge their sham moves have provided them for as long as they've been inverted? Why should good corporate citizens that do not engage in this egregious behavior continue to be penalized for doing the right thing and staying in the U.S.? There were no good answers to these questions last year when we passed the Wellstone amendment, and there are no good answers to these questions today.

Unfortunately, the Wellstone provision came back from conference so watered down that, when it was passed as part of the Homeland Security Act, it actually did nothing. All of those who engaged in these specious inversion transactions in past years can still enter into homeland security contracts--the current prohibition in the law only applies to future inverters, not those that did so previously. This in reality means that the law applies to no one, because no one is going to invert in the future in light of Senator Grassley's statements that the tax benefits sought from future inversions won't be recognized. The competitive advantage these inverters enjoy vis-a-vis every other U.S. company therefore remains undisturbed.

The gutted version of the prohibition also only prevents the foreign ``parent'' corporations, i.e., the paper Bermuda companies, from entering into homeland security contracts with the government. This, too, does nothing, because the U.S. ``subsidiaries,'' actually the main company but because of the inversions called subsidiaries, are actually the ones entering into the contracts with the government. Prohibiting the shell parents from entering into homeland security contracts therefore has no impact whatsoever on

inverted companies or the homeland security contracts they wish to receive.

My amendment would correct these two glaring loopholes in the current law, neither of which would exist had we stuck with the Wellstone amendment which we passed last year.

First, this amendment would prohibit those that inverted in the past from receiving future--and I stress the word future--homeland security contracts in fiscal year 2004. The existing law lets inverters continue to take advantage of the competitive edge they enjoy over other U.S. companies by letting them enter into future homeland security contracts. We therefore continue to reward these companies for their decisions to invert on paper to a tax haven.

Second, this amendment, consistent with the Wellstone amendment, would apply the prohibition on fiscal year 2004 homeland security contracts to the subsidiaries of the foreign ``parent'' corporations. As I mentioned, the current law prohibits only the foreign parent from entering into homeland security contracts. This does nothing because the U.S. ``subsidiaries'' are actually the ones entering into the contracts with the government. This amendment would correct that obvious problem.

That is the entire amendment. There is nothing new here: Both of these changes are identical to what we all agreed was the right solution just last year. Those that have engaged in these inversion pretenses should not continue to be rewarded for their egregious conduct to the detriment of their U.S. competitors and the U.S. public at large.

This provision is not retroactive. It does not affect existing contracts. It refers exclusively to future homeland security contracts, i.e., to contracts entered into in the future. We are not asking companies to provide any refunds for past contracts or to break existing homeland security contracts. It is solely meant to apply to contracts in the future, on a going forward basis, not those in the past.

Failure to correct this problem will continue to give companies that entered into these sham deals a significant competitive edge over the other U.S. companies out there. Listen to what some U.S. companies who compete with inverters have said. Stanley Tools of New Britain, CT, a tool manufacturer that itself contemplated inverting prior to changing its mind and doing the right thing, stated: ``Not only are we disadvantaged against our foreign competitors, but two of our major U.S. competitors have a significant advantage over Stanley Works because they have already reincorporated [in Bermuda].'' Conair Corporation of East Windsor, NJ, a personal and healthcare products manufacturer, stated: ``Our competitors have registered in Bermuda and evade paying a great deal of American taxes which makes it very difficult and unfair for Conair to operate in an environment where people are price-conscious of the products they are buying.''

It is a fact that U.S. companies that compete with these inverters are at a competitive disadvantage because of the tax and other benefits that inversions provide. Failure to act now will continue to skew the playing field against the U.S. companies who have chosen to remain in the U.S. and pay their taxes like the rest of us.

Inverted companies have received unjustified benefits of moving their P.O. box to Bermuda. These ill-begotten gains have meant years of lower U.S. taxes while competitors pay taxes, giving inverters a competitive edge over other U.S. companies. As a result of their fake move to a tax haven, these companies have had the best of all worlds for far too long, all to the detriment of their U.S. competitors, the U.S., and the public as a whole.

The solution for these companies is easy--come back home. No headquarters, jobs or operations would need to be moved since it was all a paper transaction in the first place. That is their decision but it is ours as to whether we will give them more contracts.

Companies that entered into these transactions knew this could happen. Laws change all the time, and these inverters knew that some may not be pleased with their decision to put profits ahead of patriotism. They weighed the risks at the time and decided that renouncing their U.S. citizenship was the way they wanted to go. That was their choice, and they made it. The choice we have now is whether we want to continue to reward unpatriotic companies that enjoy all the benefits of being in the U.S.--our police, roads, security provided in this bill but don't pay their share of the countless benefits they receive year in and year out.

We should not continue to reward the inversion pretense. It is unfair to the U.S. companies forced to operate on an uneven playing field, and it is unfair to the rest of our taxpayers who pay their fair share. Let's do what we intended to do when we passed Senator Wellstone's amendment last year.

I understand this amendment may be accepted. I haven't had a chance to talk to our good friend from Mississippi. I don't know that for sure. I ask him at this time whether or not the rumor mill is correct that, in fact, this might be accepted.

Mr. President, I greatly appreciate my good friend's words, as always, and his counsel.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on another matter, this is an amendment which I had intended to offer but will not. I want to spend about 2 minutes discussing the formula which is in the bill before us relative to the distribution of the homeland security first responder grant funds. Typically bills have what is called a small State guarantee. That is not unusual. What is unusual in this bill is that the guarantee, the set-aside for small States, is so unusually high. That means other States with larger populations have less funds available to them because of the small State guarantee. It is deeply troubling to those of us who are from larger States, be it California, New York, Ohio, Illinois, or many others. Due to this small state minimum, many other States do not receive what we consider to be an equitable or fair portion of the funds that are in here.

There has been great debate over the level of funding because of this small State guarantee. The leading organization that analyzes Federal grants, the Federal Funds Information for States, FFIS, has stated the structure ``of the three quarters of 1 percent guaranteed minimum as a base represents a departure from traditional small State minimums which are typically half of 1 percent or less.''

There is an authorization bill moving along, which has come out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which is the Homeland Security first responder grant authorization bill. It also has the same formula in it, three quarters of 1 percent. Again, this is a rare and unusual formula. But this is not the time, in my judgment, to force the resolution of this issue. Better it be resolved on the authorization bill, which is on the calendar, so we will address it at that time. I know feelings run deep in all of our States on this issue. Those of us, however, who represent more populous States really believe this particular formula is overreaching. It is almost unprecedented, prior to the Homeland Security agency coming into effect.

We will save the debate on my amendment or other amendments similar to it for a different day. I thank those Members of the Senate who have worked so closely with me on this amendment. Senators from many of the populous States who believe very strongly about the issue have worked closely with me on it. I simply tell them I hope this decision meets with their approval. It seems to me the wiser course, rather than on an appropriations bill where there are some

technical problems with this, is to raise it instead on an authorization bill. Hopefully by then all of us can come together and figure out a more traditional way of protecting the small States with some kind of a minimum guarantee. I will not offer the amendment tonight.

I thank my cosponsors, including Senators Boxer, Feinstein, New York Senators, my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, and other Senators who have been very supportive. Senator Voinovich and I, for instance, in the Governmental Affairs Committee, worked on an approach to this that is somewhat different than the amendment I was going to offer. I know how deeply Senator Voinovich feels about this formula, and I welcome his support on a related amendment.

I see the good Senator from Texas on the floor. I will yield to her because she has been very deeply involved as well. She and I have had some very productive conversations about the subject. She and many other States believe very strongly as I do about it. I thank her and all others who have been supportive of trying to resolve this in a fair way.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Amendment No. 1364

Mr. President, the Humane Society of the United States, HSUS, has recently brought to my attention a matter that I want to share with my colleagues. According to this prestigious organization, the Canadian government provides millions of dollars of subsidies to the sealing industry every year. These subsidies facilitate the slaughter of innocent animals and artificially extend the life of an industry which has ceased to exist in most developed countries.

In 2001, a group of independent veterinarians traveled to observe the seal

hunt. What they witnessed was shocking to all who are concerned about the humane treatment of animals. The images are difficult to envision but harder to believe: skinning of live animals and the dragging of live seals across the ice using steel hooks.

Few would argue that this industry still serves a legitimate purpose. A number of years ago, an economic analysis of the Canadian sealing industry concluded that it provided the equivalent of only 100 to 150 full-time jobs each year. In addition, the analysis found that these jobs cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $30,000 each. The report concluded that when the cost of government subsidies provided to the industry was weighed against the landed value of the seals each year, the net value of the sealing industry was close to zero.

There is little about the Canadian sealing industry that is self- sustaining. The operating budget of the Canadian Sealers Association continues to be paid by the Canadian government; their rent each month is paid by the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador; seal processing companies continue to receive subsidies through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; Human Resources Development Canada, and other federal funding programs for staffing and capital costs. The sealing industry, through the Sealing Industry Development Council and other bodies, receives assistance for product research and development, and for product marketing initiatives, both overseas and domestically. All the costs of the seal hunt for ice breaking services and for search and rescue, provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, are underwritten by Canadian taxpayers.

Many believe that subsidizing an industry that only operates for a few weeks a year and employs only a few hundred people on a seasonal, part-time basis is simply a bad investment on the part of the Canadian government. The HSUS has already called upon the Canadian government to end these archaic subsidies and instead work to diversify the economy in the Atlantic region by facilitating long-term jobs and livelihoods.

The clubbing of baby seals can't be defended or justified, and Canada should end it just as we ended the Alaska baby seal massacre 20 years ago.