[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 132 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11468-S11472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               AVIAN FLU

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is another issue which is timely, 
one that is growing in interest and intensity across America; that is, 
the challenge of avian flu. Public health officials have been worrying 
about this for the last several years. But an avian flu epidemic is not 
yesterday's news. Sadly, it

[[Page S11469]]

may be tomorrow's news. It is our duty to prepare for it today.
  Poultry have been susceptible to various strains of avian flu for a 
long time. Public health officials started to get worried when avian 
flu was noted in Indonesia, Romania, and other countries as well. This 
form of flu may be transferrable to humans. That is what is being 
monitored very carefully.
  Unfortunately, humans do not have a natural resistance to this form 
of the flu. Remember that in previous flu epidemics they usually warned 
that the people who needed flu shots would be children, the elderly, 
and people in a compromised health situation. They are the most 
vulnerable for most ordinary flu strains.
  In this particular case, everyone is vulnerable. None of us have a 
built-in resistance. It is unlike a typical flu that makes you feel bad 
for a few days and then you are back up and going strong. This, sadly, 
attacks fast and hard and kills. Over half of the people who have been 
diagnosed with avian flu around the world perished because of that 
exposure.
  Last week we learned the virus is not just in Asia, but it has been 
found in Turkey and Romania. Romanian officials reacted quickly and 
believe they have done what needs to be done to eradicate the spread of 
flu in their area.
  But Romania's Danube Delta is one of Europe's largest bird reserves. 
Hundreds of thousands of migratory birds are expected to arrive in the 
coming days. It is possible, maybe likely, that some of these birds 
will be carriers of avian flu.
  If this H5N1 flu mutates into a form that transmits easily from 
person to person, we have been told to expect the worldwide pandemic 
that could kill tens of millions of people.
  Dr. Andrew Pavia of the Infectious Disease Society of America said:

       We may sound like we are hyperventilating, but in our heart 
     of hearts we know this is a serious possibility.

  That is why we added $3.9 billion to the Defense appropriations bill. 
If we are going to prepare for a pandemic of avian flu, we cannot wait. 
We have to start now.
  That is why I join my colleague from Illinois, Senator Barack Obama, 
as well as Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and many others in introducing 
the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act, which lays out the 
necessary steps to prepare this country for the flu. It would take 
immediate steps to improve surveillance of this infectious disease so 
we can track it around the world and begin to contain it immediately.
  Second, it expands current research and development at the National 
Institutes of Health to exhaust the possibilities for developing 
effective vaccines and antiviral drugs.
  Third, it creates a Director of Pandemic Preparedness in the 
Executive Office of the President. The Director will oversee the 
response of States and all involved Federal agencies so that we 
coordinate what we do, that we are organized, and we set out to save as 
many lives as possible. We do not want the response of Hurricane 
Katrina to be repeated if we face this avian influenza.
  Avian influence is not a new thing, but it is not yesterday's news. 
An avian flu that develops into a pandemic flu is virtually certain to 
be tomorrow's news. Let's enact the pandemic preparedness legislation 
and move immediately, today, before this Senate goes home, to prepare 
for this possible.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kennedy amendment is the pending 
amendment.


                    Amendment No. 2063, as Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2063), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. MINIMUM WAGE.

       (a) Increase in the Minimum Wage.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than--
       ``(A) $5.70 an hour, beginning 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005;
       ``(B) $6.25 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th 
     day; and
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  This is a modification of our amendment which was to raise the 
minimum wage to $7.25. It seemed to me that in an attempt to try to 
find some common ground with our friends on the other side, we would 
modify this amendment to reflect what had been the position of the 
Republican side the last time we had the debate on the increase in the 
minimum wage and that was $1.10.
  There were other provisions in the Santorum amendment, but the 
overall figure that was included in the alternative amendment to my 
last amendment was $1.10. That is what this amendment effectively does. 
It says that in 6 months after enactment, we would have an increase in 
the minimum wage of 55 cents and then a year after another 55 cents. 
That would be the way it would be phased in over this period of time.
  I will not take a great deal of time again on the Senate floor to 
urge the consideration of the increase in the minimum wage. It has been 
9 years. We have increased our own salaries some six times in that 9-
year period. We have not increased the minimum wage. We know the total 
number of children who have fallen into poverty, the total number of 
families who have fallen into poverty, some 5 million Americans--5 
million Americans have fallen into poverty during the Bush 
Administration. And we saw at the time of the Katrina tragedy the fact 
that so many of our fellow citizens have been left out and left behind, 
lost opportunity, and certainly lost income.
  As I have mentioned many times, the minimum wage applies to men and 
women of dignity. These are men and women who work hard, who try to do 
a job, try to take care of their children. More often than not, the 
minimum wage worker has two or even three jobs, and rarely has a chance 
to spend much time with their family. They are men and women of 
dignity. They are the men and women who clean the great buildings of 
American commerce. They are helpers to schoolteachers in the school 
districts around the country. They work in our nursing homes to look 
after our senior citizens who have in so many instances sacrificed to 
permit their children to have a better and a happier future. Now 
minimum wage workers are looking after our seniors who have done so 
much to make this country the great Nation that it is. So this is about 
men and women of dignity. That is the most important point. They should 
not be held back and should not be held down.
  We have seen that this has very substantial support, as it should. It 
has support in blue States and in red States. It is reflected in votes 
in Florida and also out West in Nevada in these last elections by a 
very substantial margin.
  This is basically a women's issue because 60 percent of those who 
would benefit from a minimum wage increase are women. More than one-
third of those women have children. So it is a children's issue. It is 
a family issue. An increase in the minimum wage is a family issue. It 
is a children's issue. It is a women's issue. It is a civil rights 
issue because so many of the men and women who receive the minimum wage 
are men and women of color.
  Most of all, it is a fairness issue. If there is one thing the 
American people understand it is fairness. The American people believe 
that anyone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, should not 
have to live in poverty. This very small step is to try to address the 
needs and the well-being of these families. That is what this debate is 
really all about.
  As I have pointed out at other times, this has been bipartisan. I was 
here when President Ford supported an increase in the minimum wage. I 
was

[[Page S11470]]

here when President Bush 1 supported an increase in the minimum wage. I 
have been here when we have had bipartisan support for this effort. 
This is an attempt now to basically move, as our amendment did, from 
$5.15 to $7.25, increase it 70 cents a year over a 3-year period to 
effectively cut that in half, to try to reach out to those on the other 
side. Hopefully we can accept this downpayment and let me give the 
assurance that it is just a downpayment and move forward.
  At the appropriate time, we will have a chance to go through some of 
the reasons for the increase. I will mention just a few now. I know 
some of our colleagues desire to speak at 5:15, and when they arrive I 
will yield the floor.
  I will just review what has happened since 2001: the increased cost 
of gasoline; health insurance; housing up 44 percent; increase in 
college tuition. Basically, the increases are making it prohibitive for 
families to be able to own cars or be able to afford health insurance. 
Housing has become prohibitive, and college tuition is out of sight.
  This is what has happened over the period of recent years, that more 
than 41 million Americans--that is 30 percent of our workforce--work 
more than 40 hours a week. Nearly 1 in 5 workers work more than 50 
hours a week. Is that not extraordinary? When one looks at the fact of 
the work habits of the American workforce, 30 percent work more than 40 
hours and 1 in 5 more than 50 hours. More than 7 million Americans are 
working 2 or more jobs, and 259,000 of them hold 2 full-time jobs. So 
Americans are working longer and they are working harder than any other 
industrial nation in the world.
  Productivity has increased dramatically over the period of these last 
years--from 1965 up to the present time, a 115-percent increase in 
productivity. So we have workers working longer and harder. We have 
seen an explosion in productivity, but it is not reflected in any 
increase in the minimum wage. That is troublesome. It should be.
  We have actually seen the purchasing power of the minimum wage 
decrease by some 31 percent. To give our colleagues some idea of what 
has happened to the minimum wage, we see the purchasing power of the 
minimum wage over the period of recent years. These are in real 
dollars, in 2004 dollars. It would have been close to $9 in 1965. Look 
how this has gradually declined to $5.15. We had proposed up to $7.25. 
Now it will just increase $1.10, so it will go to $6.25. This is what 
the issue is about, and we will have an opportunity to address it.
  We have been interested in getting a vote. We understand it is 
germane to the legislation. We only needed 50 votes to be able to pass 
this. We have had that in previous votes, but we have been unable to 
get the consideration for it. In an attempt to move this debate on the 
minimum wage forward, we have made this very significant--and it is 
very significant--adjustment and change in this proposal. Hopefully 
this will result in the willingness to accept it and the beginning of 
the process to make sure many families will be treated more fairly and 
equitably in the future.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Salazar and Mr. Burr are printed in today's 
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, here it is quarter to 6 on the day after 
this bill has come to the floor. We have had two votes on technical 
amendments. We have another technical amendment we can offer. But my 
colleagues have filed about 40 amendments. While there are discussions 
going on over two different minimum wage amendments, we have set those 
aside in order for us to go back to work on other amendments relating 
to this bill. I ask on behalf of leadership on this side and my partner 
that Members who have amendments which they have filed to please come 
forward and offer those they wish to offer, or talk with us about ones 
that might be acceptable.
  The leader said we are going to be here this week until we finish 
this bill. It is my hope, with the tremendous workload we have to 
accomplish, if we are to get out of here prior to Thanksgiving, that we 
move forward on this bill. We will be ready for business tomorrow 
morning. If Members do not come forward, my colleague and I will 
consider asking the bill go to third reading.
  We still have time to deal with another amendment tonight if anyone 
wishes to come in and bring it before us. Otherwise, I would ask all 
our colleagues who want to pursue amendments which they have filed to 
come forward and do so tomorrow.
  It is possible, if they will do so in an orderly manner and tell us 
which ones they do not wish to pursue, we could finish this tomorrow 
night and be ready to move on to the many other challenging pieces of 
legislation and appropriations measures we have to deal with.
  This is an urgent request to Members on both sides who have 
amendments filed to come forward--staff met with us on those 
amendments--and let us know which ones they wish to pursue.
  We are operating on a continuing resolution for all of the important 
agencies covered by this bill. Many of these agencies truly need the 
new appropriations for fiscal year 2006 in which we are operating. Some 
of the provisions we have in this bill will significantly improve the 
operation of the Federal Government.
  It is going to be a very difficult bill to conference because of the 
different parts of it. It is going to take us several weeks to complete 
the conference on the bill. We cannot go to conference until this bill 
is passed. With any amendments that are agreed to after this, we still 
believe this is important for the functioning of the Federal Government 
and the service it provides.
  There is much talk about Amtrak and what we need to do on Amtrak. Let 
us be clear: There are some Amtrak reforms in this bill. They do not go 
as far as we would hope to see in Amtrak legislation which is coming 
out of the Commerce Committee. It should be debated on this floor. But 
it will provide $1.45 billion for the operation of Amtrak and begin to 
reform some of the significant problems we see in Amtrak. For those who 
are interested in improving the operation of the passenger rail 
service, I hope you will join with us in moving forward to completion 
of this bill so we can get the Amtrak funding done and those reforms 
which are included in this bill. The system will work better if this 
measure is passed.
  Similarly, for the Treasury Department, we are funding vitally needed 
resources to stop illicit financing of the terror trade. The Treasury 
has an important responsibility to do that. That is in our national 
interest.
  We have additional funds available to make sure that the taxes 
already on the books and owed are collected.
  Obviously, for housing, there are many important things for taking 
care of the needs of those who need assisted housing.
  The Judiciary has important measures in it as do the other related 
agencies.
  It is time we move forward on this bill. We reported it out of 
committee in July. It is now here on the floor and ready to go. We 
earnestly ask that our colleagues join us and offer amendments, debate 
them, if necessary, and we will vote on them so we can move this bill 
to conference and get on with the business of the Federal Government.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.

[[Page S11471]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2109

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2109.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide the Judicial Branch with certain procurement 
                              authorities)

       Insert the following on page 356, after line 4, and 
     renumber accordingly:
       ``Sec. 408. (a) Section 604 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding section (4) at the end of section 
     ``(g)'':
       ``(4) The Director is hereby authorized:
       (A) to enter into contracts for the acquisition of 
     severable services for a period that begins in one fiscal 
     year and ends in the next fiscal year to the same extent as 
     the head of an executive agency under the authority of 
     section 253l of 41 U.S.C.; and
       (B) to enter into contracts for multiple years for the 
     acquisition of property and services to the same extent as 
     executive agencies under the authority of section 254c of 41 
     U.S.C.; and
       (C) to make advance, partial, progress or other payments 
     under contracts for property or services to the same extent 
     as executive agencies under the authority of section 255 of 
     41 U.S.C.''
       (b) Section 612 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the current language in section (e)(2)(B) and 
     inserting ``such contract is in accordance with the 
     Director's authority in section 604(g) of 28 U.S.C.; and,''
       (c) The authorities granted in this Section shall expire on 
     September 30, 2010.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is an amendment to reform the 
judiciary's ability to procure things. It is a procurement authority. 
The amendment actually establishes greater parity for the judicial 
branch by giving it the same procurement authorities that were given to 
the executive branch through acquisition reform legislation in the 
1990s. We found this saved money. It gives the taxpayers a better bang 
for their buck. They can procure over several years.
  Currently, the judiciary's procurement authority is limited when 
compared to the executive branch. This limitation increases the cost of 
doing business. Specifically, these limitations are on multiyear 
contracting, severable services contracts, and the timing of contract 
payments and, thus, prevent the judicial branch from taking advantage 
of the best prices offered for some goods and services. As an example, 
a typical information technology contract will extend for several 
years. It is far more efficient for the executive branch and it is more 
efficient for the judicial branch to be able to make these contracts 
over several years.
  Simply put, this amendment gives the judicial branch authority it 
should already possess, and I believe makes good business sense for the 
American taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment would extend to the 
judicial branch certain procurement authorities that are parallel with 
the authorities that have already been granted to the executive branch 
and would allow the judiciary to achieve certain cost efficiencies that 
I think we all want.
  This amendment has been cleared by the Judiciary Committee with the 
sunset provision that limits the authority to 5 years.
  I encourage an aye vote from all of our colleagues.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2109) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleague.
  We are still open for business--maybe not for much longer--but I hope 
all Senators will take the fact that we intend to either vote on 
amendments tomorrow or have third reading. It doesn't make any 
difference to us one way or the other. We want to finish this bill.
  I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few 
words while we are contemplating the Transportation appropriations 
bill. A special thanks to our ranking Democrat and chairman of the 
appropriations subcommittee for the work that their staff and others on 
the subcommittee have done.
  One of my primary issues of interest is energy independence. This is 
an issue that, in this Nation today, we all have to be interested in. 
Today, roughly 60 percent of the oil we will use to drive our cars, 
trucks, and vans will be from foreign sources. A lot of the oil is 
controlled by people who, frankly, are not that friendly to us and some 
of whom, I am convinced, would do us ill if they had the opportunity.
  Meanwhile, as we pump more and more money out of our economy into the 
hands of folks in other countries, who may or may not wish us well, we 
need to pause and reflect on the wisdom of that.
  One of the elements in this Transportation appropriations bill is 
money to continue to fund passenger rail service in this country. I 
will talk for a moment about whether that is an energy-efficient 
approach to part of our transportation challenge.
  We are gathered in Washington, DC. Believe it or not, we can move one 
ton of freight by rail from Washington, DC, where we are located, up to 
Boston, MA, using one gallon of diesel fuel by train. Think of that. We 
can move one ton of freight by rail from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, 
by simply using one gallon of diesel fuel.
  In a day and age when almost 60 percent of the oil we use is from 
foreign sources, to be able to have that efficiency using rail--whether 
for freight or, in many cases, by passenger--we are wise to more fully 
utilize that transportation mode.
  Today we were having a hearing in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, where I serve, as does Senator Bond. We were having a 
hearing on the question of whether or not we should make it easier for 
folks to locate a refinery, to build a refinery on military bases that 
have been made available through the BRAC process.
  While we go forward and explore that option, I suggested to my 
colleagues and to those who were witnesses before the committee today 
that we might be wise, as we again try to reduce our reliance on 
foreign oil, to take a look to the south of our country, down to 
Brazil, to see what they are doing to reduce their reliance on foreign 
oil. In Brazil, they have learned how to meet, in an increasing way, 
their need to drive their cars, trucks, and vans not by importing oil, 
not by pumping oil but by growing sugarcane, soybeans, in some cases 
corn, grass, different kinds of grass, and being able to transform 
those crops into fuel for their cars, trucks, and vans. I understand 
now over a quarter of the fuel needs of Brazilians, as they are driving 
around their country today and tonight, are met by the crops they grow.
  I am proud to say, in Delaware, during the time I was privileged to 
be their Governor, we decided to try an experiment with our DelDOT 
vehicles. The experiment was one where we said, Why don't we use a 
combination of soybean oil--we raise a lot of soybeans in Delaware--use 
some of our soybean oil and mix it with diesel fuel and see if it works 
in powering our DelDOT vehicles. It worked fine and it ran well.
  Actually, there were environmental consequences: The air pollution 
consequences were better with the mixture of soybean oil and diesel 
fuel, and we reduced our reliance on oil to some extent.
  That experiment has given way to a broader experiment in our State, 
where we use a combination of soybean oil and diesel fuel to power an 
ever broader number of vehicles that are diesel powered, including farm 
equipment and I believe now some schoolbuses and other larger trucks.

[[Page S11472]]

  We are building a refinery in Delaware today. It is not a traditional 
kind of refinery. We have a big oil refinery along the Delaware River 
in a town called Delaware City. This is a refinery where we are going 
to bring soybeans to the refinery and create, again, a blend of soybean 
oil and diesel fuel to help power those DelDOT vehicles and other 
vehicles normally diesel powered.
  In the next year or so, new EPA requirements for cleaner, leaner, 
low-burning emission diesel engines will be phased in, Tier II 
requirements. As we face those requirements, we will find that diesel-
powered vehicles, which used to belch black smoke pulling away from 
intersections and traffic lights, leaving a huge black plume of 
particulate and pollutants--those days are, at least with respect to 
new vehicles on the road, those days will be gone for the most part 
next year. We will see more diesel-powered vehicles which, in many 
cases in the future, will be clean burning, as lean burning, as low 
emission as our internal gas-powered engines that can take advantage of 
the refinery we are building north of Dover, DE, and other folks that 
are building similar biodiesel refineries in their own States.
  We did a couple smart things in the Energy bill that we enacted early 
this year. They also relate to enhancing our ability to reduce our 
reliance on foreign oil. We have expanded the tax credit for people who 
buy hybrid-powered vehicles, a combination of internal combustion 
engine with the electric motor.
  Under current law, the tax credit for people buying hybrids is about 
$1,000, a flat $1,000. I don't believe it is bigger if you have a 
vehicle that gets 60 miles per gallon as opposed to one that gets 30. 
The tax credit for hybrid-powered vehicles will change on January 1. 
Beginning that day, people who buy a hybrid-powered vehicle, ones that 
are highly energy efficient, get a tax credit worth up to as much as 
$3,400. For hybrid engine vehicles that are less energy efficient, the 
tax credit goes down.
  Similarly, we are going to begin to offer, on January 1 of next year, 
a tax credit--again, a variable tax credit--for folks who buy lean-
burning, clean-burn, low-emission, highly fuel-efficient diesel-fueled 
vehicles.
  The head of Daimler Chrysler in North America, Juergen Schrempp, will 
head up Daimler Chrysler around the world and was here hosting a 
reception off of Capitol Hill and brought with him folks from Daimler 
Chrysler. Vehicles were, in some cases, internal combustion engines and 
other cases diesel powered. He brought with him a concept passenger 
car. They have not built it yet but they are hoping. My hope is that 
they will. The vehicle gets 60 miles per gallon in the city and 80 
miles per gallon on the highway. The combination overall is about 70 
miles per gallon. The vehicle will meet Tier II diesel requirements for 
lower emissions, as well.
  We have seen our friends from GM and Daimler Chrysler create a 
partnership early this year for developing the next generation of 
hybrid-powered vehicles.
  My hope is that one of the concepts they will come up with, one of 
the engines and power systems they will come up with, is something that 
marries together this notion of a low-emissions, highly energy 
efficient diesel-powered engine with an electric engine. It will be a 
diesel hybrid. GM has already introduced that kind of technology quite 
successfully with respect to buses. We have thousands of buses that are 
now roaming the streets of America that are diesel powered but also 
have a hybrid counterpart, too, to provide better efficiency and lower 
emissions.
  I think it would be terrific for consumers and those of us who are 
interested in cleaner air and for those of us who are interested in 
reducing our reliance on foreign oil to take that same concept of a 
diesel engine with an electric hybrid motor--putting them together--and 
being able to introduce that kind of propulsion system in our cars, 
trucks, and vans, as we have--at least by GM--in larger vehicles.
  Nobody in this country should be comfortable with the state we find 
ourselves in today, with this huge and growing reliance on foreign oil. 
We can do better. On behalf of all of us in this country, and 
especially our kids, the folks to whom we are leaving our trade deficit 
and our budget deficit, we have to do better than this.
  About a quarter of our trade deficit is attributable to the cost of 
oil, the importation of oil. We cannot continue on a course, in my 
view, that has $300 billion or $400 billion budget deficits and $600 
billion or $700 billion trade deficits. That is not sustainable. One of 
the ways we can at least take a big bite out of that trade deficit is 
to move toward energy independence, maybe by the year 2020--it would be 
great if we could do it sooner; that may not be realistic--but at least 
by 2020.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time and thank the Chair.


                            notice of intent

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: 
In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby 
give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend 
paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill H.R. 
3058 amendment No. 2078.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it appears that action for the day on the 
Treasury, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies appropriations bill has come to a close. I ask 
once again that our colleagues be prepared to offer amendments tomorrow 
or we will ask to go to third reading.

                          ____________________