Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill revitalizes existing SBA programs and brings to life new pilot programs, all of which promote the demands and growth of the small business community. I commend the chair, Senator Snowe, for passing this bill through the Small Business Committee with unanimous support.

Upon final passage of this bill, we will take a giant step toward improving and refining the SBA and its programs. With the new provisions that enhance agency record-keeping and realign program operations under a more appropriate department, it is clear that agency accountability and oversight will be strengthened. In addition, small businesses will benefit from improvements in the leading programs, greater access to capital, new innovations in the entrepreneurial programs, expansion of procurement programs, and improved training and assistance provisions.

According to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, small businesses represent more than 99.7 percent of all employers, employ more than half of all private sector employees, and generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually. Given these statistics and the difficult financial times we face in today's economy, I urge Congress to continue to nurture the needs of the small business community. We must show enthusiastic support for this bill, which I am confident will provide the SBA with greater tools to keep pace with the ever-changing global economy and to serve the small business community in a more effective and efficient manner. To act otherwise could jeopardize this Nation's much needed job growth and innovation.

Before I yield the floor, I refer to an important small business program titled the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Contracting Program, or as it is commonly referred to, the HUBZone program. This small-business program was one of my personal priorities as former chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee. It was established in 1997 with the intent to create jobs in severely economically distressed communities, both rural and urban. In addition, the HUBZone program provides a Federal contracting preference as an incentive for small businesses to locate in these low-income areas. The jobs created by the HUBZone program bring money to those blighted areas and create a demand for more goods and services, which leads to the creation of more small businesses and increased commerce in the area. Little by little, the community's economic base is reborn.

Today, there are over 8,378 small businesses that are HUBZone certified, and the Government has procured approximately $1.7 billion in HUBZone contracting this year. The SBA reports that in FY 2001, each dollar spent on the program yielded a return of $288 in contract awards and as a result, the program helped to create 12,782 jobs in the United States, approximately 8,974 of which were located in distressed areas.

Based on FY 2001 procurement statistics, HUBZone firms increased employment 33 percent to 50 percent as a result of contract awards. Nearly 50 percent of HUBZone firms increased capital expenditures as a result of receiving contracts in FY 2001. As our economy struggles during these difficult times, this vital program will continue to bring jobs to our Nation's inner cities, poor rural counties, and Indian reservations.

I urge Congress to support the HUBZone program in its current form along with the new amendments provided in the Senate's version of the SBA Reauthorization Act of 2003. Any additional changes not supported by the full Senate Committee on Small Business could seriously undermine the original intent of the program.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the small business community. I encourage my colleagues to support Senator Snowe and S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I oppose the Dorgan Resolution, S. 17, which would block the entire Federal Communications Commission's ruling revising the rules on media ownership.

Since the FCC issued this ruling on June 2, 2003, a multitude of interest groups have proclaimed that this decision represents a serious blow to democracy in America as we know it. To say that this claim is a gross exaggeration is a huge understatement.

While I do not agree with every element of the FCC ruling, I must admit that I believe it would be short sighted to block the ruling entirely. I also think that every stakeholder who is concerned about this ruling should look at the facts that prompted the FCC to make this ruling. Furthermore, I believe it is imperative that one examine the actual facts in the ruling in order to dispel some of the myths that have surfaced with regard to it.

In its ruling, the FCC incrementally increased the national TV ownership limit from 35 percent to 45 percent. What this says is that one company can own TV stations reaching no more than 45 percent of U.S. TV households. It does not mean that one company can own up to 45 percent of all TV stations across the country. In addition, the ruling does not even say that a company can own stations whose programs reach 45 percent of the viewing public or market share.

For example, Newscorps, Fox, the second largest owner of stations currently owns 37 or 2.8 percent of the 1,340 commercial stations across the country. Under the new 45 percent cap set forth in the FCC ruling, Newscorps would be able to acquire, at best, another five stations nationwide. In light of this information and in light of the court mandates, the FCC action on this issue hardly represents a massive increase.

The FCC promulgated this increase in response to several court decisions striking down specific limits on the number of broadcast entities that one company may own. Since 1998, the FCC has lost five out of five cases that challenged its previous media ownership rules. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ``carries with it a presumption in favor of repealing or modifying the ownership rules (Fox v. FCC).''

In the Fox v. FCC decision, which was handed down in February 2002, the court ruled that the FCC's action--on broadcast ownership limits-- was ``arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law'' because ``it failed to give an adequate reason for its decision'' to keep the 35 percent cap. In the same case, the court ruled that the commission ``provided no analysis on the state of competition in the television industry to justify its decision to retain the national cap.'' The court in its remanding decision ordered the FCC to rethink its rules on media ownership.

Another aspect of the FCC ruling involved the modification of the FCC's rules relating to newspaper/broadcast cross ownership and radio- television cross ownership. In its ruling, the FCC replaced these rules with a new set of cross media limits. It is important to understand that the FCC did not totally repeal the 28-year-old newspaper/broadcast ownership ban in all markets; it simply modified its rule with newer broadcast/cross ownership regulations to reflect the changing circumstances of today's diverse media marketplace.

Under the new FCC rules, in small markets with three or fewer TV stations the ban will continue to be enforced. In mid-sized markets, with 4 to 8 TV stations, limited cross ownership is allowed. In diverse and competitive markets with 9 or more TV stations, the ban is lifted entirely.

This is the major decision in the FCC ruling that I support, and it is the main reason that I cannot support the Dorgan resolution. Simply put, the previous rule supporting the cross ownership ban is outdated given the current diversity and multiple sources of news information in today's media marketplace.

When the broadcast/newspaper cross ownership provisions were adopted in 1975, the three television networks of the time held more than 90 percent of the viewing audience and only 17 percent of households subscribed to cable TV. However, due to the technological revolution of the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of news and information sources with the widespread availability of cable TV, satellite and the internet as well as substantial increase in the number of radio and TV stations, magazines, and free weekly newspapers.

Yet, despite the availability of these new media sources, many groups are still objecting to this modest change in media cross ownership. They feel that this modification will drastically reduce the quality news and diversity of voices in the media. I believe there is strong evidence to refute this claim.

Unlike other ownership rules, the FCC has actual historical data on what the effect of relaxing this ban will have on the media market. That is because there are already 49 media cross ownership entities that were grandfathered prior to the implementation of this ban in 1975. Some of these cross ownership entities are in major markets such as New York, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Tampa, and Milwaukee.

All of these existing cross ownership entities have had practically no adverse impact on competition. In the past 23 years, there has been no major court case, FCC, FTC, or Department of Justice, DOJ, action objecting to any of these grandfathered cross ownership media entities. Furthermore, the FCC informs me that no entity has ever challenged a license renewal of a TV station owned by a newspaper in the last 25 years. Two recent studies, one by the FCC and one by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, also found that co-owned newspaper/broadcast combinations provide higher quality and more news and informational programming than other broadcast stations.

In light of this evidence, I feel that the FCC's ruling on newspaper/ broadcast cross ownership needs to be preserved, and therefore, I oppose the Dorgan resolution.

As stated previously, I do not agree with every aspect of the FCC ruling. I do not support the new method by which the FCC will utilize to define a local radio market. This new definition has resulted in many companies that own multiple radio stations exceeding the new station caps. While the FCC did grandfather all existing combinations to ensure that these radio companies would not be forced to divest stations that they legally acquired, it imposed harsh restrictions on the transferability or resale of these newly non-compliant radio station clusters.

Under the new market definition, those radio clusters that no longer comply with local radio market limits may only be sold intact to small businesses. If a ``small business buyer'' cannot be found, a cluster owner must break up his or her cluster and sell the stations individually. I believe that this strict resale provision unfairly penalizes certain radio broadcasters, who

acquired their stations in good faith under the previous ownership framework.

By narrowing the eligible market of buyers, this resale provision would prevent a radio cluster seller from receiving fair-market value on his or her investment. If most companies are prohibited from bidding on a cluster, the prices offered in these transactions will be considerably smaller than otherwise.

I also believe this resale provision will only make bigger radio conglomerates stronger because it will result in the immediate breakup of clusters that directly compete with these conglomerates.

I intend to petition the FCC for reconsideration of these new local radio rules set forth in the FCC order. However, I do not believe that the entire FCC order should be disapproved, and that is why I oppose the Dorgan resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill revitalizes existing SBA programs and brings to life new pilot programs, all of which promote the demands and growth of the small business community. I commend the Chair, Senator Snowe, for passing this bill through the Small Business Committee with unanimous support.

Upon final passage of this bill, we will take a giant step toward improving and refining the SBA and its programs. With the new provisions that enhance Agency recordkeeping and realign program operations under a more appropriate department, it is clear that Agency accountability and oversight will be strengthened. In addition, small businesses will benefit from improvements in the lending programs, greater access to capital, new innovations in the entrepreneurial programs, expansion of procurement programs, and improved training and assistance provisions.

According to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, small businesses represent more than 99.7 percent of all employers, employ more than half of all private sector employees, and generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually. Given these statistics and the difficult financial times we face in today's economy, I urge Congress to continue to nurture the needs of the small business community. We must show enthusiastic support for this bill, which I am confident will provide the SBA with greater tools to keep pace with the ever-changing global economy and to serve the small business community in a more effective and efficient manner. To act otherwise could jeopardize this Nation's much-needed job growth and innovation.

I refer to an important small business program titled the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Contracting Program, or as it is commonly referred to, the HUBZone Program. This small-business program was one of my personal priorities as former chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee. It was established in 1997 with the intent to create jobs in severely economically distressed communities, both rural and urban. In addition, the HUBZone program provides a federal contracting preference as an incentive for small businesses to locate in these low-income areas. The jobs created by the HUBZone Program bring money to those blighted areas and create a demand for more goods and services, which leads to the creation of more small businesses and increased commerce in the area. Little

by little, the community's economic base is reborn.

Today, there are over 8,378 small businesses that are HUBZone certified, and the Government has procured approximately $1.7 billion in HUBZone contracting this year. The SBA reports that in fiscal year 2001, each dollar spent on the program yielded a return of $288 in contract awards and as a result, the program helped to create 12,782 jobs in the U.S., approximately 8,974 of which were located in distressed areas.

Based on fiscal year 2001 procurement statistics, HUBZone firms increased employment 33 percent to 50 percent as a result of contract awards. Nearly 50 percent of HUBZone firms increased capital expenditures as a result of receiving contracts in fiscal year 2001. As our economy struggles during these difficult times, this vital program will continue to bring jobs to our Nation's inner cities, poor rural counties, and Indian reservations.

I urge Congress to support the HUBZone Program in its current form along with the new amendments provided in the Senate's version of the SBA Reauthorization Act of 2003. Any additional changes not supported by the full Senate Committee on Small Business could seriously undermine the original intent of the program.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the small business community. I encourage my colleagues to support Senator Snowe and S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003.

Mr. President, home health care is an important part of Medicare in which seniors and the disabled can get basic nursing and therapy care in their home. I rise today to urge the Senate Medicare conferees to stand firm against provisions in the House passed prescription drug and Medicare reform bill, H.R. 1, that would make further cuts in the Medicare home health benefit by reducing the home health inflation update and imposing a new copayment on home health beneficiaries.

Home health care is convenient, but much more importantly, patients love it. I have seen this first hand as I have had the privilege of visiting with many of my constituents who rely on this benefit. They love home health care because it is the key to fulfilling what is virtually a universal desire among seniors and those with disabilities--to remain independent and within the comfort of their own homes despite their health problems.

Since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, BBA, no other group of Medicare patients and providers have endured as many difficulties. This is a big claim, given the many horror stories we've heard about the Balanced Budget Act. But absolutely nobody has suffered like home health patients and home health agencies. True reform means more than just ratcheting down payments to providers and services to patients.

Since 1997 Medicare home health spending has been reduced by over 40 percent and the number of beneficiaries by 1.3 million, or about a third. Forty percent of the agencies in my State have closed down or quit serving Medicare patients.

In a move to modernize the Medicare program, Congress eliminated the home health copay in 1972 to encourage the provision of health care in the home rather than in more costly institutions. With all the cuts in home health care that have occurred since 1997--including the loss of venipunc- ture, blood drawing, as a qualifying service, the imposition of per beneficiary limits under the interim payment system, cuts in the market basket inflation update, a ``15 percent'' cut in October of last year, and the loss of the 10 percent rural add on in April of this year-- MedPAC has recently confirmed an alarming trend toward greater use of nursing home care. The reimposition of a home health copayment now would be a step backward that would exacerbate this recent trend.

Home health beneficiaries already must pay the Part B deductible and a 20 percent copay for preparation of a home health plan of care and ongoing home health care oversight by a physician. Over half of home health patients come directly from the hospital and must pay the Part A deductible of over $800 in order to receive the home health benefit. Often they and their families must pay out of pocket for personal care services to assist with activities of daily living.

Our Nation's dedicated home health providers--and you know they are dedicated if they have stuck with it through the difficulties of the last few years--deserve to be left alone and given a rest. They, and the patients they serve, deserve to be left alone to recover from the post-BBA chaos. They deserve to be left alone in order to adjust to a new home health payment system.

In passing the Senate prescription drug and Medicare reform legislation, S. 1, the Senate wisely chose to forgo further cuts in the home health benefit. I urge my colleagues on the Medicare conference committee to oppose the provisions in H.R. 1 that would further cut and destabilize the home health benefit.

Madam President, I join with friends and family in recognizing the efforts and dedication of Mr. Martin Begien, an outstanding American, and a true patriot to American democracy on what will be his 75th birthday, November 15. Martin, since joining the Republican Party, has helped bring quality candidates to run for political office and in turn continues to participate in the American political process. Martin's successful political participation is indicative of his career as a whole.

Martin Begien's impressive educational career began at the exclusive Andover Academy in Andover, MA, and Yale University in New Haven, CT, and continued with his service in the U.S. Army. Martin went on to maintain an illustrious professional career that ultimately lead to his serving as senior partner at David L. Babson and Company, Inc., one of the oldest investment counseling firms in the United States.

Martin has always combined exceptional professional and organizational skills, untiring initiative, and unlimited compassion to accomplish both major, and simply thoughtful, tasks for the Republican Party. Martin has always generously given of himself a genuine love and concern of others without hesitation or expectation of reward. Martin's endearing attitude and hard work earned him the respect and admiration of Mitt Romney, Governor of the State of Massachusetts.

I stand with Martin's wife Kate, his friends and family, and all those whose lives are richer for having known Martin Begien to commemorate and recognize his 75th birthday on the 15th day of November, 2003.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the outstanding achievements and public service of Mr. William E. Johnson.

I have had the honor of working with Bill over the years. This month Bill will be honored for his 40 years of dedication and service to the citizens of Audrain County and the State of Missouri.

As a pioneer for home health in Audrain County, Bill was instrumental in the Audrain City-County Health Unit establishing a home health agency in 1963 which has since expanded to include four more home health units. Bill has also taken a considerable leadership role in home health care serving as president of the Missouri Alliance for Home Care, MAHC, from 1981 to 1982 and as a member of the board of MAHC for 9 years between 1977 and 1988. There is no question that he has been an innovator in the field of home health care in Missouri.

While Bill continues to display tireless commitment to home health care, which includes serving as administrator for the Audrain City- County Health Unit for the last 35 years, his generosity and hard work for the health and well being for the citizens of Audrian County and Missouri expands well beyond that of home health care. In addition to being a leader in the inception of the Rural Health Administrators, serving on the Partnership Council of the Department of Health/Local Health Department and serving on the Partnership Council Environmental Committee he has been active in the Department of Health and Senior Services, the Meals on Wheels program and as a member of the Audrain County Human Development Corporation since 1965.

Today I ask the Senate to join me in honoring Bill's distinguished career in public health and public service.

Mr. President, as Co-Chairman of the Senate Beef Caucus, I recognize and commend Ms. Myra Hyde for a decade of service on behalf of America's cattlemen. Mr. President, for 10 years, Ms. Myra Hyde has served as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association's director of environmental issues where she diligently worked on land use, conservation policy, and property rights issues. This month, she leaves the cowboys for the administrative pastures at the Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service.

Ms. Hyde's contribution to progressive and responsible conservation policies and practices are known by those who work with her as well as those who have had the unenviable task of locking horns against her in the notoriously rough and tumble debate on resource management. She is a proud Texan, which is a compliment even outside of Texas.

Let me conclude by saying that those she leaves behind will sorely miss her expertise, honesty and sense of humor. Ms. Hyde has been a true friend of America's cattlemen as well as many of us serving here in Congress. She will be of great value as a servant of the public at Interior. On behalf of the caucus, we wish Myra good luck and ask her keep in mind the challenges faced by the hard working people who endeavor to feed the people of our nation and much of the world.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1416

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

Mr. President, I think Senators are all aware, now, that if you are serious about doing something positive regarding fuel efficiency and safety standards but avoiding something negative for jobs, safety, and consumer choice impact, you should vote yes on the Levin-Bond CAFE amendment to the pending Energy bill.

I am only going to make this speech one time, not three times as those on the other side do, as we drag it out. I want to point out, again, a similar amendment was agreed to last year on a vote of 62 to 38, supported on both sides of the aisle.

As I said on the floor a few days ago, Members supported our amendment because they knew then and I hope they know now that setting fuel economy standards is complicated. Future standards should be based on sound science and take into account important criteria: Jobs, technology, consumer choice, and many others, but also safety--safety which has been compromised by the politically set lower CAFE standards of the past. They should not be based on the political numbers. I urge my colleagues to oppose the higher, politically set CAFE numbers included in the Durbin and Feinstein amendments.

There are a lot of people who are very strongly supportive of the Bond-Levin amendment--farmers, union members, soccer moms, small businesses. The United Auto Workers wrote to us specifically urging defeat of the Durbin and Feinstein bills. The Chamber of Commerce also did. Not often do you see the UAW and Chamber teamed up, in opposition, but the people who have proposed these unreasonable standards have managed to achieve it.

I spent a lot of time on this floor talking about the impact of excessive CAFE standards, and I think it is important to talk about the hard industry data, economic impact, and the National Academy of Sciences report. After listening to the debate of the last few years, it is clear there are many myths.

The first myth is automakers take advantage of an SUV loophole. Fact: During the creation of the program in 1975, Congress recognized, because of their utility, different standards should be set for light trucks and passenger cars. While light trucks feature more amenities than their predecessors and provide more than 50 percent better fuel economy than their 1970 counterparts, they remain fundamentally trucks. They satisfy consumer needs for safety, passenger cargo space, towing ability, and off-road capability.

Second myth: Only Congress can increase CAFE standards. The other side has floated the old canard that our amendment ignores CAFE standards.

Fact No. 1, the Bond-Levin amendment requires increasing CAFE standards to the maximum extent feasible as far as the technology will permit.

Fact No. 2, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority and expertise to change fuel economy regulations, and a few months ago it announced the biggest increase in 20 years in CAFE levels for light trucks and SUVs. The agency has already announced its intention to set new CAFE standards starting in 2008.

The difference is they are going to use science and technology and not force the use of smaller cars that kill people on the road more frequently.

Another myth is that automakers need to use more technology in their vehicles to increase full economy.

Fact: The auto industry utilizes world-class technology across product lines. The average automobile contains 40 to 50 microprocessors and has far more power than the computers used for the Apollo mission to the Moon. Engineers and scientists for the big three domestic manufacturers and their international competitors have focused on developments in advanced technology to produce cleaner, more full- efficient vehicles along with a host of safety advancements.

In addition, my colleague from Illinois has said the National Academy of Sciences has a huge number that can be achieved. If you will read that NAS study, I ask my colleagues to focus on the part of the NAS report which states ``The committee cannot emphasize strong enough that the cost-efficient fuel economy levels are not recommended CAFE goals''--not recommended CAFE goals.

Let us stick with science.

Proponents of higher CAFE standards try to avoid any discussion of the job impact or just dismiss concerns as overreacting. But we have heard, as I have said, from union officials, technical experts, plant managers, local dealers, and small businesses. They tell me the only way for manufacturers to meet these unrealistic political numbers is to cut back significantly on producing light trucks, minivans, and SUVs, or to make them significantly smaller.

Look at this. This is a picture of a Ford F-250 series pickup truck. It is a workhorse. You buy this truck because you have a job to do, whether it is farming, construction, hauling, or any number of other legitimate needs. It weighs somewhere between 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight or less than 10,000. It is currently not covered by CAFE as it is configured to do more than haul people. Under the Durbin proposal, these vehicles would be swept into the CAFE program to the detriment of everybody. They would become CAFE-constrained with several bad outcomes.

First, you tell this rancher or farmer that he will need to get a golf cart with a little wagon to carry one bale of hay at a time or you tell other farmers, ranchers, and construction workers they won't be able to buy these vehicles, and then you explain to the workers in the automobile industry how they will have jobs.

Did you know the average compensation by employees in the auto industry was $69,500 in 2001? This figure is 60-percent higher than the average U.S. job. Those would be the jobs we would lose because they could no longer make this machine.

Furthermore, as I have stated before, mandating politically set CAFE standards in the past has led to reduced weight, which, according to the National Academy of Sciences in the year they studied it, killed between 1,300 and 2,600 people a year on the road. That is roughly 2,000 people a year.

These are reasons to support the Bond-Levin amendment.

I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Missouri.

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

I thank the minority whip for his words. Obviously, there are times when other discussions have to go forward on the floor, and it was clear that the Senator from California had time. There will be many other areas of accommodation, setting aside amendments, to move on to the electricity amendment, for example.

We appreciate the cooperation of both sides of the aisle. I simply urge those who are not committed to the energy meeting to bring their positions to the floor and let us hear them.

Mr. President, to clarify, is there time after the vote on the Durbin amendment for debate on the Bond-Levin amendment?

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

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

Mr. President, obviously, I do not have the time the Senator from Illinois has, but I do want to point out that the National Academy of Sciences says:

The committee cannot emphasize strongly enough that cost

efficient fuel economy levels are not recommended CAFE goals.

The National Academy of Sciences also said that when the politically driven fuel economy numbers were imposed in the seventies and eighties, somewhere roughly approximating 2,000 deaths a year occurred on the highways due to smaller cars. Talk about the production of automobiles in auto-related industries in Missouri and Illinois, even in New Mexico: 21,000 in New Mexico; 16,000 in Rhode Island; 221,000 in Missouri; 331,000 jobs in Illinois.

I previously submitted for the Record a letter from the United Auto Workers saying it would endanger the jobs of their members.

Furthermore, we also know it does not relate to consumer choice. Thirty cars on the road today get more than 30 miles per gallon, and they represent only 2 percent of the sales. Consumers do not want them. Unless we have to tell people what they have to drive, we are not going to get them to drive around in these cars unless and until we get the technology to produce more fuel efficient cars.

We have seen NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, make the most significant increase in fuel economy with their light

truck standards which are going into effect. We mandate in the Bond- Levin amendment that the maximum feasible technology be utilized to increase standards in the future.

Let's get real. Let's talk about what is technologically feasible, what will continue jobs, get better fuel economy, not risk the lives of the drivers on the road and their families, and also not throw out of work the very wonderful American men and women who are making these automobiles in my State and others.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Durbin amendment and support the Bond-Levin amendment.

Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators

Bunning, Voinovich, and Nickles be added as cosponsors.

I thank my colleagues for a very strong vote. With the Senator from Michigan and other cosponsors, we ask for your support of this measure.

As I indicated in my earlier remarks, there is strong support by the United Auto Workers which believes, as I do, and which I hope a vast majority of this body does, that we can move forward to make progress that is economically feasible to assure better fuel economy while not sacrificing safety and not sacrificing jobs but making it clear that we are going to use the technology to build on the most significant advance in fuel economy in 20 years that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has just promulgated for light trucks.

Let us continue to move forward with CAFE based on sound science and not political numbers. I urge my colleagues to support the Bond-Levin amendment.

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

Mr. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 2003, for a hearing on U.S. Army policies on the award of the Combat Medical Badge, and on pending legislation relating to VA-provided health care services including the following:

S. 613, a bill to authorize a construction project at the former Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center, Aurora, CO;

S. 615, a bill relating to the naming of a VA outpatient clinic in Horsham, PA;

S. 1144, a bill relating to the naming of a VA medical center in Chicago, IL;

S. 1156, the proposed ``Department of Veterans Affairs Long-Term Care and Personnel Authorities Enhancement Act of 2003'';

S. 1213, section 2, a section of a bill relating to eligibility of U.S.-resident Filipino veterans for VA health care benefits;

S. 1283, a bill to require advance notification of Congress regarding any action proposed to be taken by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the implementation of the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services initiative of the Department of Veterans Affairs; and

S. 1289, a bill to name the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis, MN, after Paul Wellstone.

The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 29, 2003, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security be authorized to meet to conduct a joint hearing on ``The L1 Visa and American Interests in the 21st Century Global Economy'' on Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in SD226.

Panel I: Patricia Fluno, former Siemens Technologies employee, Lake Mary, FL; Michael W. Gildea, Executive Director, Professional Employees Section, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC; Beth R. Verman, President, Systems Staffing Group, Member, National Association of Computer Consultant Businesses, Bala Cynwyd, PA; Daryl R. Buffenstein, General Counsel, Global Alliance Personnel, Atlanta, GA; Austin T. Fragomen, Jr., Chairman, American Counsel on International Personnel, Washington, DC; and Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, Adjunct Professor, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, New York.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

About a minute and a half.

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

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

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. 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.

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.