Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. The school district and the parents and everybody associated with it are still in great shock. They feel that they may have had a much better opportunity to prevent that had they been advised. That is why I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa and the chairman of the committee, particularly my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, for getting that records provision in there. The teachers who have been on the front line, some stated to me, and, frankly, with fear in their eyes, ``If a child is coming in who has a record of violent behavior, at least let us know, at least let us know.'' To me, that is just--I mean, that is an unanswerable, that is an unanswerable position. There is no reason why we should not let them know. The State of Missouri has made significant changes in the policy for transfers within the State. Our State has the tremendous distinction of bordering on eight other States, including Senator Harkin's State of Iowa. About everything in the Midwest, we border on them. When a student comes in from another State, or when a student from our State goes to another State, it is only fair that the teachers and the administrators know if there is a problem. Frankly, it probably is a help for the students who have no problem because they are not treated with suspicion. If a student is without problems, it is a help to know that as well. But I do commend the committee and the occupant of the chair, who has taken an active role in this, particularly my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, on crafting a bill that deals with these provisions. I hope that you will be able to take and accommodate the provisions for funding that Senator Gregg and I support. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I want to share with my colleagues some concerns and views on this very important piece of legislation, S. 717, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. I express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the committee for the good work he and the ranking member and the entire committee have done on this bill. We all know that since the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, tremendous improvements have been made in the lives of millions of children with disabilities, providing them with a full array of outstanding educational services to meet their individual needs. Mr. President, going back about a year before that, in the State of Missouri, when I was Governor, we passed our Special Education Act in 1974, one of the first major pieces of legislation adopted during my first term as Governor. House bill 474 was an effort at the State level to assure that children with disabilities received educational opportunities and received educational services that were designed to meet their abilities and to compensate for any difficulties or deficiencies they might have. I think it is clear that we have come a long way. Clearly, there was much that needed to be done, and many of those children, with grave needs, were not being taken care of, they were not being served, and certainly they have a right to be served. I think as we move through this bill, preserving the rights of special-needs children to a free appropriate public education so that they can become productive and responsible citizens is an absolutely essential goal that we must keep in mind. I have had the opportunity to hear from many, many groups in Missouri who are concerned about how this bill is being carried out, how IDEA is being implemented. Without dissent, there is unanimous agreement that the goals are worthy, the objectives are right, the need is there, more needs to be done. Unfortunately, because of the way the law has been carried out, the way it has been interpreted, there are disruptions to classrooms, there is needless danger to other students and to teachers in the classroom, and there is also a shortage of funds to carry out the worthwhile objectives of this act. As I traveled throughout Missouri over the last couple of weekends when I was home, I talked with school superintendents, principals, school board members, special education directors, parents and others who are concerned, and the two top concerns that were mentioned just about every place I went was safety and discipline for all students in the public school system. The number of instances where there have been serious disruption and violent acts on students was hair raising. There was a lot of interest and focus in the St. Louis area on a tragic murder that occurred in one of the schools. A young woman was brutally beaten to death. It turns out that the young man who commited the crime was a young man with disabilities. He had transferred into that school district from another school district where he had been cited many times for bad behavior. The receiving school district did not know anything about his past activities because they did not know about his behavioral problems. So the first thing they requested was that they get information on a student's past activities, if there has been discipline, what the discipline had been and why the discipline was administered. Second, they told me some hair-raising stories about children with disabilities who committed violent acts. In one classroom, in a commercial art class, a young man picked up a knife and stabbed a fellow student several times and told the school administrators that since he qualified under a certain specific section of the act, they couldn't do anything to him, that they could only take him out of the classroom for 10 days, and then he would be back in there. They told me about another student, one of two students, who had been apprehended for selling drugs. The one student who did not have a disability was expelled for 175 days. The other student, a year later, was still in the classroom. His parents had retained an attorney, which the school district was paying for, and they carried on the process. A year later, that student who sold the drugs was still in the classroom. Earlier, I introduced legislation, the School Security Improvement Act of 1997, which is designed to do a couple of things: No. 1 is to create a safe learning environment for all children. We have to continue to provide support and assistance for disabled students, but where there is a clear-cut example of behavior that is incompatible with a decent learning environment, the schools have to be able to take some action. One principal told us, ``You cannot learn in chaos. A child cannot learn in chaos. A teacher cannot teach in chaos.'' When they have students with disabilities whose violent acts have been judged to be a manifestation of their disability and they have to come back into the classroom after 10 days, other students live in fear, teachers are apprehensive about the impact on their class and, according to the teachers, the administrators, the parents, the job of education comes to a halt. The measure that I introduced, the School Security Improvement Act of 1997, will eliminate the double standard that currently exists between special education and general education children. All children, disabled or not, should receive the same discipline for the same behavior. I believe this is appropriate wherein the behavior of the child is not related to the disability. Children must learn that there are consequences for violating the rules. Good education means discipline and standards of conduct. If there is a violent act that is a manifestation of the disability, if it is a dangerous act, if it is a violent act, then that child ought to be put in a learning situation where there will not be a danger to fellow students of committing a similar act. In addition, this measure would require schools to include in the record of a child with a disability a statement of any disciplinary action taken against the student, and that should be available for a student transferring within a State or from State to State, so that the receiving school will know if there are problems with the student who has come to them. The record issue, as I indicated previously, has been brought to the forefront because of the tragic murder of a young woman in north St. Louis County. This measure that I have proposed will enable the school administrators to remove dangerous children with disabilities who pose a threat to the safety of others from the classroom and make temporary alternative placements to ensure that the safety of all students is secure until a more appropriate placement is determined. In addition, the current IDEA provision requiring local school districts to reimburse attorneys fees incurred by parents who elect to initiate litigation has had what, unfortunately, is a predictable result of encouraging litigation and of driving up special education costs. It appears that the dispute-resolution procedures have become extremely adversarial and costly. Studies have found that the amount of special education litigation has dramatically increased in recent years. Too often, the litigation can be used as a fishing expedition to threaten districts with protracted litigation. The practice serves to reduce district funds available to meet the needs of students with disabilities, and we clearly need reforms of the dispute-resolution process to ensure that scarce educational funds are used for educational services for the children for whom they were intended. But because of the explosion of litigation in this area, educational services for students are put at risk. Under the measure I introduced, local school districts would be permitted to provide alternative education placements to children who threaten the safety of others. For some children, it is absolutely appropriate to remove them swiftly and permanently from the regular classroom setting. And under the law that I proposed, school officials would be permitted, on their own authority, to discipline dangerous and unruly students. Again, the measure I introduced would give the school districts the authority and flexibility to ensure that the students and the personnel are provided educational and working environments that are safe and orderly. Finally, I point out that when the Federal Government enacted IDEA, it promised to fund 40 percent of the national average per-pupil expenditure. Today, the Federal Government funds only 7 percent. That is why I am very pleased today to join with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, to provide in this legislation explicit direction to Congress to fund fully IDEA. I congratulate the committee and its leadership for having made so many necessary reforms in the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I hope we can take the next very important step and assure the funding. Congress only recently has come up with 7 percent of the funding rather than 40 percent. Last week, a major network news story featured a story on a school in my home State in Maryville, MO. The Maryville R-II School District did not have the revenue to repair its deteriorating classrooms. After six unsuccessful attempts to pass local bond issues, the district was able to pass a bond issue to renovate the schools. The Maryville school district spends approximately $434,800 on special education, of which $68,200 is Federal funds, all of which is spent on mandates. If the district were not bound by the paperwork requirements and other costly mandates of the law, they would have more money to improve their facilities and their classrooms. The skyrocketing costs of our special-needs children being served by IDEA places local school districts in a bind with little assistance from the Federal Government. An Economic Policy Institute study on school funding found that new money for education went disproportionately to fund deficits in special education funding caused by increasing requirements for services coupled with the Federal failure to meet its promised commitment. We have been in this body in an effort sometimes called devolution, sometimes called enhanced federalism, more often, in my view, called the commonsense approach of letting the level of Government which delivers the service make the decisions. Over the last few years, it says we ought to be allowing the school district if it is an educational decision, or the water district if it is a water-related problem, or the justice system if it is a justice problem make the decisions of how it works. We need to be providing more resources and less good ideas to local governments. That is particularly important in this field with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I can tell you that the goals and the objectives are understood, they are strongly felt by the people who serve in the school system and who support the school system, but they have too many requirements that prevent them from getting the job done. That is why I think we need to provide some flexibility for local school districts. We need to reestablish and restore to local school districts, to school administrators, and others the ability to use common sense in maintaining discipline and order and safety in the classroom. We also in this body need to step up to the plate and make sure that we come through with the funding that is needed to carry out these mandates. When I talked with the school principals, administrators, and teachers, I said, ``After what you have told me, we need to give you some freedom to do these things.'' They said, ``Well, how about a little money to help us with the burdens you put on us?'' I said, ``That makes sense.'' They said, ``Look, to handle these children with disabilities who are violent, we need to have the resources to provide them the alternative education which is appropriate for them and which will not subject their fellow students to risks.'' It is going to be more expensive, and there is not the money there yet. I am hoping that if we can increase the funding that is needed for these services, we are going to see not only order and discipline and conduct restored in the normal classrooms but a much higher quality of educational services delivered to the children with disabilities. Again, I commend and thank the committee for making the many reforms it has done in this bill. And I say that the School Improvement Security Act of 1997, which I described briefly, most of which is very significantly incorporated in this measure--I have been advised that the following organizations strongly support the provisions of it: The Missouri School Boards Association, the Missouri Association of Elementary School Principals, the Missouri Association of Secondary Principals, the Missouri State Teachers Association, the Missouri Federation of Teachers & School Related Personnel, the Fort Zumwalt School District. I think, I say to the chairman, that we could get a list a half-mile long of organizations in my State that are behind you in the efforts to reform and reauthorize this measure. I know they are going to be behind Senator Gregg's and my efforts to get more funding. So I congratulate you on the measure. We look forward to working with you. We want to see if there is a way that we can provide the funding that is so badly needed for this very important service and for the well-being of the entire educational system in our country. I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished managers of the bill. I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Iowa. As I hope I indicated in this case, the Christine Smetzer tragedy was not a case where a student was kept in the classroom as a result of IDEA. I think I attempted to point out that the past disciplinary records of the student had not been transferred.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Section 417 authorizes loans to local governments to carry on existing local government functions of a municipal operation character or to expand such functions to meet disaster-related needs. My understanding is that this would include emergency education operating needs. emergency drinking water needs

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I wish to talk about yet another sign of the decline of American culture. What ever happened to the family hour? This is the complaint I have heard from many moms and dads in Missouri. It wasn't so long ago that parents could sit down with their school age and even preschool children to watch television from 7-8 p.m. and not be worried about the content of the programs. For many years, the major television networks voluntarily ran programs during the first hour of prime time that were considered family friendly, that is, without profanity, violence, or adult themes. Shows like ``Happy Days,'' ``MASH,'' ``The Waltons,'' ``Little House on the Prairie,'' and ``The Cosby Show'' gave us wonderful family entertainment in the evening, not to mention the fact that they were great revenue producers for the networks. Now, however, if you turn on the television at that time, you are met with images so graphic, so sexual, or so violent, that you have to channel flip to keep your children from seeing them, or have them leave the room, or turn the television off. The Media Research Center here in the Washington area will issue a report later today on the content of family hour programming. Last year they found that vulgar language was used commonly during the first hour of prime time. They found that sex outside of marriage was portrayed during the family hour eight times more often than sex within marriage. Mr. President, American families have enough forces working against them--struggling to make ends meet, competing priorities, not enough time together--not to be able to relax together during the evening and enjoy a television program that isn't violent, or graphic, or full of profanity. That is why I am joining with many other Senators and Congressmen to ask Hollywood television executives to bring back the family hour. We're not mandating this. We're not passing a law to force it. We're simply putting a little polite pressure on the networks to ask them to think about American families when they set their programming. Now, they may take the line that it is up to parents to make sure they monitor their children's TV watching. And I agree. But, what we are saying is, give parents some good choices. Give us programming that we can watch together, as a family.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Oversight of SBA's Finance Programs--Part II.'' The hearing will be held on May 15, 1997, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing the School Security Improvement Act of 1997. This legislation will make some needed reforms to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. The goal of this act is to preserve the rights of students with disabilities while granting local school districts more flexibility to discipline violent and disruptive students. This legislation also focuses on reducing litigation and unnecessary attorneys' fees. Last week, I traveled through my home State of Missouri to discuss this measure with school district superintendents, principals, school board members, special education directors, and parents. The top two concerns mentioned, without exception, were safety and discipline of all students in the public school system. The rising incidences of school violence and current inflexible Federal mandates have made IDEA reform a high priority issue for educators and parents around the country. Current law prohibits removal of a disabled child from the classroom for more than 10 days--even if he or she becomes violent, commits a crime, or threatens other children--unless permission is granted by a parent. IDEA has created a separate category of students that are not bound by the rules of conduct required of their students, even when their behavior is not related to their disability. My primary concern is creating a safe learning environment for all children. In attempting to provide good education services to disabled students, which I fully support, we have unfortunately created a situation where some kids can hide behind their disability in displaying some outrageous behavior. For instance, I know a case where a young man who sold drugs at school was still in the classroom a year later, even though his crime was not related to his disability. What does that say to other kids, particularly when for them the same crime would bring an automatic 1-year expulsion? In another horrendous case, a student stabbed a classmate with scissors and was back in the classroom in just 10 days. The School Security Improvement Act of 1997 will eliminate the double standard that currently exists between special education and general education children. All students, disabled or not, should receive the same discipline for the same behavior. I believe this is appropriate when the behavior of the child is not related to their disability. Children must learn that there are consequences for violating the rules. Good education demands discipline and standards of conduct. In an effort to ensure that the students, teachers, and school employees remain safe within the educational environment, this bill requires schools to include in the records of a child with a disability a statement of disciplinary action taken against the student and allows intrastate and interstate transfer of records from one district to another. The records issue has been brought to the forefront because of several instances when disabled students have caused serious problems and school officials were unaware that the student had a record of similar activities in other schools. I believe that all students with disabilities need and deserve access to educational services to meet their individual needs. However, in those occasional circumstances when a student becomes so violent or dangerous, and their behavior significantly disrupts the educational process and they become a danger to themselves or others, or create an environment in which learning cannot occur, then the rights of others in the school to have a safe and effective learning environment must take precedence. The School Security Improvement Act of 1997 will enable school administrators, those who are closest to the problem, to remove dangerous students with disabilities who pose a threat to the safety of others from the classroom and make temporary alternative placements to ensure the safety of all students until a more appropriate placement is determined. When these students are able to behave appropriately, they will be returned to the classroom. The current IDEA provision requiring local school districts to reimburse attorneys' fees incurred by parents who elect to initiate litigation has had the predictable result of encouraging such litigation and of driving up special education costs. The dispute- resolution procedures has become extremely adversarial and costly. Studies have found that the amount of special education litigation has dramatically increased in recent years. Sadly, some parent attorneys seem encouraged to use due process, as a fishing expedition or to threaten districts with protracted litigation over non-issues as a tactic to force school districts to comply with parental demands. This practice only serves to reduce district funds available to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Clearly, we need reasonable reforms to the dispute-resolution process to ensure that scarce educational funds are used for educational services for our children. I firmly believe that children with disabilities must be guaranteed a free appropriate education. Yet no school district should have to cut services to any student so it can pay attorneys' fees. But, because of the explosion of litigation in this area, educational services for all students are being endangered. Under the School Security Improvement Act of 1997, local school districts will be permitted to provide alternative educational placement for children who threaten the safety of others. For some children, it is absolutely appropriate to swiftly and permanently remove them from the regular classroom setting. The law should not prohibit local school officials from acting on their own authority to discipline dangerous and unruly students. The School Security Improvement Act will give local school districts the authority and flexibility to ensure that the students and the personnel are provided educational and working environments that are safe and orderly. Mr. President, when the Federal Government enacted IDEA, it promised to fund 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure. Today, the Federal Government funds only 7 percent. My bill contains a provision expressing a sense of the Senate that the Federal portion of educating students with disabilities should be fully funded. In recent years, costly regulations have dramatically increased, placing a tremendous strain on local school districts. The time and money spent on Federal mandates must be reduced, so that more time and resources can be spent in the classroom on school children. This money will help students by easing the financial burden on local school districts. I know the feelings run high on this issue. We have a difficult job when it comes to balancing the needs of those with special needs with our responsibility to educate all children in the classroom, free of violence and disruption. I look forward to the upcoming reauthorization of IDEA and working with my colleagues in this effort to come up with a commonsense approach to improve our Nation's schools.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I ask consideration of my colleague to interrupt for a procedural question?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have a number of technical amendments and things that I will need to insert, and I will need a brief time period sometime between now and lunch. I wondered if the distinguished colleague from South Carolina would indicate if there is a time when I may do that.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I extend my sincere thanks to the distinguished colleague and fellow Budget Committee Member from South Carolina. Mr. President, as we begin the discussions today about the emergency supplemental appropriations measure, I thought it would be very important to touch on some of the important issues in this bill that reflect the spending items in the budget of the VA-HUD Independent Agency Subcommittee on which I serve. The full committee appropriations recommendation includes for the emergency supplemental $3.5 billion for disaster relief for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. In the committee report we have recommended $2.5 billion more than the President's request of $979 million. The amount recommended represents FEMA's current estimate of what is needed to meet the requirements of all disasters currently on the books, and those disasters projected to occur in the balance of fiscal year 1997. Approximately $1.1 billion of the funds provided are for disasters projected to occur based on the 5-year historical average cost of disaster relief. The funds recommended, coupled with the $2 billion currently available in FEMA's disaster relief fund, would enable FEMA to meet fully all of the fiscal year 1997 and prior year commitments. Certainly our hearts go out to the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and other areas stricken by disasters this year. I join with others in commending FEMA for the work that it has done to respond quickly to disasters. For those of us who live in States which have been struck by disasters, we sincerely appreciate the dedicated men and women of FEMA and their ability to respond quickly to those needs. Having said that, I must notify my colleagues that FEMA's disaster relief expenditures are out of control. The subcommittee has been paying the price time and time again for FEMA's largess. It is as if we had a tanker truck that arrived to put out the fire. It puts out the fire but it leaves all of the valves open. So the water continues to spill out even after the fire is done, and that is what we are funding. We are filling up a tanker truck that still has the valves open. I commend the people for getting the truck there when the fire starts. But we need to get a handle on how much continues to run out after the fire is put out. In the past 2 years, including this legislation before us today, we have cut almost $12 billion from other VA-HUD programs--principally low-income housing--to pay for FEMA disaster relief. Yet we have learned that these funds have gone to rebuild stadiums, golf courses, yacht harbors, and to replace fully, without any State cost share-- partially damaged university hospitals, such as over $400 million in Federal repair costs by FEMA for the UCLA hospital because of the Northridge earthquake. Let me make that point again. Mr. President, we have spent $400 million in Federal repair costs for the UCLA hospital, a very important facility, a revenue-generating facility, and one which, frankly, has a lot more reserves than the U.S. Government. In the past 2 years, hundreds of millions of dollars have paid for snow removal. There has not been a Federal disaster declaration for snow removal since 1979. I think there is little accountability in the program, and entirely too much discretion to waste taxpayers' dollars. I also point out to my colleagues that we wouldn't need a supplemental for FEMA today if in 1996 the President's Chief of Staff had not recommended a $1 billion rescission from FEMA during the negotiations on the final bill last year. We knew these funds would be needed, but instead, following the administration's recommendation, Congress rescinded these funds to pay for administration priorities in other areas. Moreover, equally disturbing is that to offset these FEMA costs, as well as an additional $100 million requested by the President for CDBG, community development block grant emergency funding, the bill would rescind over $4 billion from the programs and activities within the jurisdiction of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee, including $3.65 billion from unobligated HUD section 8 contract reserves. The rescission of $3.65 billion in unobligated section 8 contract reserves places the renewal of section 8 contracts for fiscal year 1998 in jeopardy. As the people at HUD know full well, the cost of section 8 contracts will skyrocket over the next few years. In particular, the VA-HUD fiscal year 1997 Appropriations Act appropriated $3.6 billion to cover the cost of renewing expiring section 8 contracts for fiscal year 1997. The costs of renewing all section 8 contracts for fiscal year 1998, one year later, a total of $1.7 million expiring contracts, many of which are for the elderly and disabled, will require an appropriations of some $10.2 billion in budget authority for fiscal year 1998. The cost of expiring section 8 contracts rises to $11.9 billion in fiscal year 1999, $13.7 billion in fiscal year 2000; $15.l billion in fiscal year 2001, and $16.4 billion in fiscal year 2002. Just to go back, in the current year we had to find budget authority for $3.6 billion. For the coming year, $10.2 billion, almost a threefold increase, going up to $11.9 billion, up to $13.7 billion, up to $15.1 billion, up to $16.4 billion. My colleagues will have a right to ask. Are we paying out that much more because we have that many new section 8 contracts? The answer is no. The answer is no. The answer is that in the past we have provided multiyear contracts for the section 8 program, 20-year contracts, and they built in all of the budget authority--the commitment to spend--in prior years. Because of the budgetary constraints, we have been shortening those. I think the direction from the Budget Committee is they want to get those down to 1 year. That means that we have to pick up the budget authority--the overall obligation to spend the money--in each appropriations cycle. We have begun these ongoing programs that have built up. We have been spending the money on the programs. But the budget authority was appropriated in prior years. All that budget authority has expired. So we get almost a threefold increase in the budget authority required from the current year to that required for the next year just to keep the same people in the same section 8 houses. We have done a great deal through this subcommittee working with the authorizing committee to reform HUD. Just recently HUD announced that they were carrying forward a demonstration program to deal with some very significant problems in excess subsidies for multifamily houses-- the market-to-market portfolio reengineering process. We are doing all of that. But just to maintain our commitments requires new authority. I am very pleased that the budget agreement recognizes--the President and the leaders of Congress recognize--that additional budget authority and some outlays have to go into section 8. But given all of that, we are looking at these tremendous increases in the section 8 requirements each year in the budget. Yet, suddenly HUD, abruptly on April 17, found that it had $5.8 billion in unobligated and excess section 8 contract reserves. I think that is a rather cynical act. They know that we are going to have to spend all of this money. Yet, they offered up the budget authority that was in there already appropriated for them to fund FEMA obligations. When I met with Secretary Cuomo and his staff on March 12, they told me there was probably less than $1 billion in section 8 reserves on hand. The previous year, then Chief of Staff, Mr. Katz, testified that HUD estimated in fiscal year 1996 there was only about less than $.5 billion in excess section 8 contracts reserves. Nevertheless, on April 17 of this year, in the middle of supplemental appropriations, HUD wakes up and finds not only $3.5 billion in excess unobligated section 8 reserves but it indicates that it will revise its section 8 contract reserve requirements so that there is in excess of $5.8 billion in unobligated reserves. It is a big jump from $460 million to $5.8 billion. That is a big problem, and, once again, it focuses our intention on the questions about management of HUD, an agency which the General Accounting Office has in the past designated as a troubled agency, the only department in the U.S. Government to have that dubious distinction. The bottom line is that I still have little confidence in HUD's ability to estimate the amount of excess section 8 contract reserves, or its ability to manage the programs. I do know, however, that there is a vital need to fund the section 8 program next year; that 1.7 million families are depending upon the renewal of section 8 contracts to preserve affordable and decent housing, and many of these are elderly and disabled. For that reason, the supplemental appropriations we are proposing would require HUD to recapture all excess unobligated section 8 reserves and preserve these funds in an account to help this committee fund the section 8 contract renewals next year. That, I think, is critical, Mr. President. I honestly do not know how much section 8 assistance is unobligated in section 8 contract reserves, and, unfortunately, I don't believe HUD knows. I know that some PHA's, public housing authorities, have section 8 contract reserves and some don't. Mostly, I find it difficult to believe that HUD has audited 3,400 PHA's between March 12 and April 17 to determine, all of a sudden, that there was some $5.8 billion in excess reserves. I have been a defender of HUD and a defender of the role of the Federal Government as a provider of housing and community development assistance. Yet, my support has been justified on the belief that the department is capable of reform and is capable of providing a meaningful contribution to housing and the community development needs of the Nation. I will not belabor these issues today other than to say that we are confident that HUD has been shaken once again. We hope that the secretary and his new management team, with the assistance he is bringing in from the outside, will be able to implement a fiscal management system which will avoid these surprises and give the agency and the Congress some idea of how much is out there, what the obligations are, and how much we have built up. I believe strongly that Federal commitment to section 8 housing must be preserved. Renewing these section 8 contracts is an existing commitment to low-income families in need of affordable, safe, secure housing. But HUD has to be reformed. We cannot find surprises of found money as Congress takes on the serious task of reforming the budget. Mr. President, I said that we would have some technical amendments that we will offer before the 2:30 deadline. Those are currently being reviewed at the staff level. In consultation, we may be able to get an agreement on them. So I will not offer those at this moment. But we will submit those amendments as soon as they are ready, and prior to the 2:30 deadline. I yield the floor. I express my thanks to my distinguished colleague from South Carolina. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing the School Security Improvement Act of 1997. This legislation will make some needed reforms to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. The goal of this act is to preserve the rights of students with disabilities while granting local school districts more flexibility to discipline violent and disruptive students. This legislation also focuses on reducing litigation and unnecessary attorneys' fees. Last week, I traveled through my home State of Missouri to discuss this measure with school district superintendents, principals, school board members, special education directors, and parents. The top two concerns mentioned, without exception, were safety and discipline of all students in the public school system. The rising incidences of school violence and current inflexible Federal mandates have made IDEA reform a high priority issue for educators and parents around the country. Current law prohibits removal of a disabled child from the classroom for more than 10 days--even if he or she becomes violent, commits a crime, or threatens other children--unless permission is granted by a parent. IDEA has created a separate category of students that are not bound by the rules of conduct required of their students, even when their behavior is not related to their disability. My primary concern is creating a safe learning environment for all children. In attempting to provide good education services to disabled students, which I fully support, we have unfortunately created a situation where some kids can hide behind their disability in displaying some outrageous behavior. For instance, I know a case where a young man who sold drugs at school was still in the classroom a year later, even though his crime was not related to his disability. What does that say to other kids, particularly when for them the same crime would bring an automatic 1-year expulsion? In another horrendous case, a student stabbed a classmate with scissors and was back in the classroom in just 10 days. The School Security Improvement Act of 1997 will eliminate the double standard that currently exists between special education and general education children. All students, disabled or not, should receive the same discipline for the same behavior. I believe this is appropriate when the behavior of the child is not related to their disability. Children must learn that there are consequences for violating the rules. Good education demands discipline and standards of conduct. In an effort to ensure that the students, teachers, and school employees remain safe within the educational environment, this bill requires schools to include in the records of a child with a disability a statement of disciplinary action taken against the student and allows intrastate and interstate transfer of records from one district to another. The records issue has been brought to the forefront because of several instances when disabled students have caused serious problems and school officials were unaware that the student had a record of similar activities in other schools. I believe that all students with disabilities need and deserve access to educational services to meet their individual needs. However, in those occasional circumstances when a student becomes so violent or dangerous, and their behavior significantly disrupts the educational process and they become a danger to themselves or others, or create an environment in which learning cannot occur, then the rights of others in the school to have a safe and effective learning environment must take precedence. The School Security Improvement Act of 1997 will enable school administrators, those who are closest to the problem, to remove dangerous students with disabilities who pose a threat to the safety of others from the classroom and make temporary alternative placements to ensure the safety of all students until a more appropriate placement is determined. When these students are able to behave appropriately, they will be returned to the classroom. The current IDEA provision requiring local school districts to reimburse attorneys' fees incurred by parents who elect to initiate litigation has had the predictable result of encouraging such litigation and of driving up special education costs. The dispute- resolution procedures has become extremely adversarial and costly. Studies have found that the amount of special education litigation has dramatically increased in recent years. Sadly, some parent attorneys seem encouraged to use due process, as a fishing expedition or to threaten districts with protracted litigation over non-issues as a tactic to force school districts to comply with parental demands. This practice only serves to reduce district funds available to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Clearly, we need reasonable reforms to the dispute-resolution process to ensure that scarce educational funds are used for educational services for our children. I firmly believe that children with disabilities must be guaranteed a free appropriate education. Yet no school district should have to cut services to any student so it can pay attorneys' fees. But, because of the explosion of litigation in this area, educational services for all students are being endangered. Under the School Security Improvement Act of 1997, local school districts will be permitted to provide alternative educational placement for children who threaten the safety of others. For some children, it is absolutely appropriate to swiftly and permanently remove them from the regular classroom setting. The law should not prohibit local school officials from acting on their own authority to discipline dangerous and unruly students. The School Security Improvement Act will give local school districts the authority and flexibility to ensure that the students and the personnel are provided educational and working environments that are safe and orderly. Mr. President, when the Federal Government enacted IDEA, it promised to fund 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure. Today, the Federal Government funds only 7 percent. My bill contains a provision expressing a sense of the Senate that the Federal portion of educating students with disabilities should be fully funded. In recent years, costly regulations have dramatically increased, placing a tremendous strain on local school districts. The time and money spent on Federal mandates must be reduced, so that more time and resources can be spent in the classroom on school children. This money will help students by easing the financial burden on local school districts. I know the feelings run high on this issue. We have a difficult job when it comes to balancing the needs of those with special needs with our responsibility to educate all children in the classroom, free of violence and disruption. I look forward to the upcoming reauthorization of IDEA and working with my colleagues in this effort to come up with a commonsense approach to improve our Nation's schools.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on April 26-28, 1997, more than 1,200 students from 50 States and the District of Columbia will be in Washington, DC to compete in the national finals of the We the People. * * * The Citizen and the Constitution Program. I am proud to announce that the class from Westminster Christian Academy will represent Missouri. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals by winning local competitions in their home State. The distinguished members of the team representing Missouri are: David Bradsher, Christopher Brown, Russell Bruch, Jessica Cozad, Tony Culella, Josh Darr, Elizabeth Erkmann, Lauren Gray, Joshua Hamer, Matthew Harris, Angela Heirendt, Joshua Hendricks, Sarah Henning, Rachael Higby, Charles Hinderliter, Valerie Hopkins, Shauna Kruse, Nina Langenberg, Taylor Long, Stacey McDowell, Mark Pollitt, Kelly Reed, Jordan Reinwald, Christine Shoemaker, Anna Suh, and Megan Turner. I shall also recognize their teacher, Ken Boesch, who also serves as district coordinator for the program, and Terry Taylor, the State coordinator, who also contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the team reach the national finals. The We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution Program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 3-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. Now in its 10th academic year, this constitutional studies program has had more than 75,000 teachers and 24 million students participate nationwide at both the elementary and secondary school levels. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers. The We the People * * * program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective on the significance of the U.S. Constitution and its place in our history and our lives. I wish these students the best of luck in the national finals and look forward to their continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President I will vote against ratification of the Chemical Warfare Convention. I came to this decision, not because I am against doing away with chemical weapons, we all are. I will vote against ratification because amendments which I believe were critical to ensuring our safety and security were stricken rendering the convention more dangerous to our well being than one which would include those conditions, even if it means having to renegotiate the convention. Of the outstanding amendments which were debated through out the day today, I believe those covering Russian ratification and their compliance with previous treaties, the rejection of inspectors or inspections by states with a history of violating non-proliferation treaties or which have been designated by our State Department as sporting terrorism, striking article 10 of the treaty and amending article 11, and having our intelligence agencies certify that the treaty would be credibly verifiable were critical to making the treaty worthwhile. The fact that the President suggested we could withdraw from the convention if there were a compelling reason to do so, was a placebo which carried little viable meaning. I believe that it would not only be more difficult to withdraw from the convention once we ratify it, it would be much more dangerous to world stability if we were to withdraw after obligating ourselves to a flawed treaty. And so, I must, in good conscience, vote not to ratify.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 495, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 1997. In the wake of World War I, nations from all around the world came together to sign the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Having witnessed the horrible effects of poison gas in battle, this agreement banned its use in interstate conflict. However, at the time no provisions were made in U.S. law to establish criminal or civil penalties pertaining to such weapons. Today, for the first time, legislation has come to the Senate floor that provides criminal and civil penalties for the unlawful acquisition, transfer, or use of any chemical or biological weapon and gives domestic law enforcement authorities the needed legal basis to enforce prohibitions on chemical weapons activities within the United States. Most importantly, in light of recent domestic terrorist attacks and the actual release of Sarin gas in a Tokyo subway, S. 495 allows the death penalty for the use of chemical or biological weapons that leads to the loss of life. From the international perspective, this legislation conditions continued United States aid to Russia for chemical and biological weapons dismantlement and destruction upon Russia demonstrating that it is abiding by existing agreements in this area. It urges enhancement of multilateral regimes to control trade in chemical and biological weapons-related materials, while requiring that the United States continue strengthening chemical and biological defenses, particularly in terms of equipment and training. Finally, S. 495 establishes, for the world, U.S. policy on the use of riot control agents and permits the use of tear gas for such things as the rescuing of downed pilots. The Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 1997 augments existing international norms and agreements by establishing a framework for U.S. sanctions against nations which use chemical or biological weapons and by directing the Secretary of State to convene an international negotiating forum for the purpose of reaching an agreement on the enforcement of the 1925 Geneva Protocol which bans the use of chemical weapons in war. I wish to point out that supporting S. 495 is not in conflict with the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Instead it complements the CWC by reducing the threat of acts of terrorism and armed aggression against the United States involving chemical and biological weapons. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and take a step toward making our country safer with a comprehensive plan that provides realistic and practical measures to combat the dangers of these repugnant weapons.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to designate the U.S. post office building located at Bennett Street and Kansas Expressway in Springfield, MO as the ``John Griesemer Post Office Building.'' John Griesemer was a true example of an American patriot. He loved, supported, and defended his country. John Griesemer was born in Mount Vernon, MO, and raised on a dairy farm in Billings, MO. After he graduated from high-school, he attended the University of Missouri--Columbia and in 1953 graduated with a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering. He then entered the Air Force as a first lieutenant, engineering officer. After being discharged from the military in 1956, he went back home to Missouri to work in the family business. He was president and director of the Griesemer Stone Co. until his death in 1993. John Griesemer didn't just work for the family business though. He also started two of his own businesses: the Joplin Stone Co. and Missouri Commercial Transportation Co. as well as serving as president of Springfield Ready Mix, director of Boatmen's National Bank, and president of the Springfield Development Council. In addition to his business interests, John Griesemer was a devoted family man. He and his wife, Kathleen, had five children and John took an avid interest in their lives holding various positions with the Boy Scouts of America and his church. In 1984, John made his life even busier. He was asked by President Reagan to serve on the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors. He even served as president of the board in 1987 and 1988. John Griesemer is an example to us all. He possessed the qualities of perseverance, determination, and strength that allowed him to successfully manage a busy work and service schedule with a very busy family life. I urge my colleagues to act quickly and pass this bill by unanimous consent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to designate the U.S. post office building located at Bennett Street and Kansas Expressway in Springfield, MO as the ``John Griesemer Post Office Building.'' John Griesemer was a true example of an American patriot. He loved, supported, and defended his country. John Griesemer was born in Mount Vernon, MO, and raised on a dairy farm in Billings, MO. After he graduated from high-school, he attended the University of Missouri--Columbia and in 1953 graduated with a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering. He then entered the Air Force as a first lieutenant, engineering officer. After being discharged from the military in 1956, he went back home to Missouri to work in the family business. He was president and director of the Griesemer Stone Co. until his death in 1993. John Griesemer didn't just work for the family business though. He also started two of his own businesses: the Joplin Stone Co. and Missouri Commercial Transportation Co. as well as serving as president of Springfield Ready Mix, director of Boatmen's National Bank, and president of the Springfield Development Council. In addition to his business interests, John Griesemer was a devoted family man. He and his wife, Kathleen, had five children and John took an avid interest in their lives holding various positions with the Boy Scouts of America and his church. In 1984, John made his life even busier. He was asked by President Reagan to serve on the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors. He even served as president of the board in 1987 and 1988. John Griesemer is an example to us all. He possessed the qualities of perseverance, determination, and strength that allowed him to successfully manage a busy work and service schedule with a very busy family life. I urge my colleagues to act quickly and pass this bill by unanimous consent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today, I rise in strong support of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, which would prevent Federal funds and Federal programs from promoting and paying for the practice of assisted suicide. We must send a clear signal that Federal tax dollars should not be used for a practice which is neither universally permitted nor accepted, and one which is clearly immoral and unethical. Many people may be wondering, ``Why do we need Federal legislation to prohibit the use of Federal funds for such an abhorrent practice?'' Let me take a few moments to lay out the reasons. Both the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco have struck down State laws that criminalized assisted suicide in the States of New York and Washington on the grounds that the laws violate the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. In January of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court entered this emotional debate by hearing oral arguments on the aforementioned cases. A highly anticipated decision is expected within the next couple of months. The plaintiffs are contending they have a constitutional right to physician assisted suicide. If these circuit court decisions are upheld, then there would be a nationwide constitutional right to assisted suicide, euthanasia, and mercy killing and the issue of whether Federal funding, under Medicare, Medicaid, title XX, and other programs, for such an action would immediately be at hand. Moreover, Oregon has passed the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which makes it legal for physicians to prescribe lethal doses of drugs in certain circumstances. Although a preliminary injunction blocking the law's enactment has been granted, Oregon's Medicaid director and Health Services Commission chair have both said that once assisted suicide is legal, the State would begin subsidizing the practice under Oregon's Medicaid plan. The Health Care Financing Administration has said that killing patients is not a proper form of treatment and therefore should not be covered under Medicare. I am, of course, pleased that we have those administrative interpretations out there. But there are others who are prepared to go to court to fight for a different interpretation. A March 6 Reuters newswire story quotes Hemlock Society spokeswoman Dori Zook as saying, ``Obviously, we feel that Medicaid and Medicare should be used for assisting suicide.'' All it takes is for one district court judge to concur with that belief. Federal law uses broad language in determining what Federal programs will and will not pay for. For instance, Medicare pays for services that are ``reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury.'' If just one judge agrees with the Hemlock Society and believes that assisted suicide is appropriate medical treatment, then Federal tax dollars could fund assisted suicide in a State where the practice is legal. If the Supreme Court were to rule that there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide, euthanasia advocates will certainly bring suit for it to be considered just another medical treatment option that must be eligible for funding under Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal programs. We need this legislation to prevent this from happening. And it is not too soon to do so. Far too often, Congress reacts to problems. Today, however, we have an excellent opportunity to be pro- active, not simply reactive. We do not want to wait until the money is already flowing and then try to stop it. We want to stop it before it even starts. On a related note, it is imperative that we focus this debate on how we, as a decent society, can support and comfort life instead of promoting destructive practices such as euthanasia and assisted suicide. We must work together to ensure the provision of compassionate care for dying persons and their families. We must practice effective pain management, encourage patient self-determination through the use of advance directives, promote the utilization of hospice and home care, and offer emotional and spiritual support when necessary. Five Catholic health care systems and the Catholic Health Association of the United States have set out to achieve these goals and have formed Supportive Care of the Dying: A Coalition for Compassionate Care. The coalition, including Carondelet Health System, Daughters of Charity, Franciscan Health System, PeaceHealth, Providence Health System, and CHA, is developing comprehensive delivery models, practice guidelines, and educational programs--all with the goal of promoting appropriate and compassionate care of persons with life-threatening illnesses and their families. These are the goals our Nation must strive for and support. We must promote death with dignity and respect, and not death by the draconian means of assisted suicide. Let me close with a quotation from an eminent bioethicist at Georgetown University who believes that assisted suicide, and therefore the funding of assisted suicide, tears down the moral structure of our society. He has written that rules against killing ``are not isolated moral principles, but pieces of a web of rules that form a moral code. The more threads one removes then the weaker the fabric becomes.'' And indeed, assisted suicide is a form of killing, and if we allow for the federal funding of this horrific act, then we risk minimizing the importance of life. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Oversight of SBA's Non- Credit Programs.'' The hearing will be held on April 24, 1997, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey or Liz Taylor at 224-5175. committee on rules and administration

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Oversight of SBA's Finance Programs.'' The hearing will be held on May 1, 1997, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on Monday, April 21, 1997, the Kansas City MO Chamber of Commerce will honor the 1997 Top 10 Small Businesses of the Greater Kansas City area. The Chamber is an association of almost 3,000 businesses across the 10-county bistate area whose members employ approximately 240,000 people in the Greater Kansas City area. This honor is part of the Chamber's award-winning Small Business Week activities, which are among the country's largest Small Business Week celebrations. The Top 10 Awards are given in recognition of the economic contributions of small businesses which make up more than 90 percent of the Greater Kansas City metropolitan area. These 10 businesses alone contributed $104 million in annual sales and employed more than 840 people in 1996. Nearly 700 companies were nominated, but only 10 can earn the honor of small business of the year. Of the 10, the Greater Kansas City Chamber will select its 11th annual Small Business of the Year, at its luncheon on April 25, 1997. The Small Business of the Year will receive the ``Mr. K'' award, named for Ewing Marion Kauffman, one of the country's best entrepreneurs. This year's Top 10 recipients are, Accommodations by Apple, Inc., Gould Evans Affiliates, Hermes Landscaping, Inc., Arthur Clark Holding Inc., Boulevard Brewing Co., The Corridor Group, Inc., Courtney Day Inc., DARCA Inc., Data Systems International Inc., and Galvmet Inc. When Ewing Kauffman observed that, ``Surprisingly, of all of the motivational aspects that there are, once a person has food, clothing, and shelter, the most motivating force in the world is appreciation. * * * we don't express appreciation as much as we should.'' I can only speculate that he was thinking of businesses such as these. As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, it gives me great satisfaction to see my home State thriving in the small business community and I would like each honoree to know how much I appreciate their hard work and commitment to excellence. I congratulate these companies not only for this honor, but also for the outstanding community service they provide to the Greater Kansas City area. They are an inspiration to all small businesses not only in this area, but around the country, and I applaud them.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Tennessee, who is next in line and allowed me to go first. I commend my distinguished colleague from New Mexico for his great leadership on this issue. He has within his hands the needed mechanism to get to tax relief, and that is what I want to address very briefly here today. I follow up his point about the cost of the complexity of today's Tax Code by saying we in the Small Business Committee have figures indicating that computing taxes, figuring out taxes, takes 5 percent of the revenues of small business. That is not paying the taxes. That is just figuring out how much they are. Mr. President, each year the American Tax Foundation computes what they call ``Tax Freedom Day,'' the day of the year when the average American can quit working to pay Federal, State, and local taxes and start working for herself or himself. Last year it was May 7. This year it will be May 9. This means each day you have worked since the new year has been simply to pay your tax bill for the new year and you still have 3 weeks to go. If that does not make you happy, I do not know what will. The American people take too much of their hard earned income to pay for Uncle Sam's spending habits. Why is the tax burden on families so high? Because Uncle Sam spends too much. It is that simple. Congress has not balanced the budget since 1969. The cumulative effect of all that deficit spending is a tax burden for most families that exceeds what they pay for food, clothing, housing and automobile costs combined. We need to fix that. We are trying to balance the budget so we can reduce the tax burden for families with children, small and home-based businessowners, family farmers, and frankly, everybody else who is taking part in the economy. The first step in bringing tax relief to middle-class America, however, is to bring Government spending under control. A balanced budget means a healthier economy, more Government revenue and less need for taxes. As you fill in the amount of tax paid line on your 1040 form this year or as you write out your check to the IRS, think about ways you could use even a portion of that tax money and remember who is trying to balance the budget and who is not because balancing the budget and getting spending under control is the first step toward tax relief. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to recognize homeschoolers in the State of Missouri. They are a part of the ongoing commitment to quality education for Missouri's youth. Home educators make an effort to give their children a chance for success in today's ever-changing society by personally guiding the education of their children and ensuring that all facets of their children's development are included in scholastic endeavors. Homeschoolers establish one-on-one relationships with their adult mentors and develop interpersonal skills with all age groups through apprenticeship opportunities and involvement in civic and community organizations. Home education in Missouri has enjoyed considerable success in recent years because of the tremendous support received for countless citizens who realize the significance of family participation in the educational process. The State of Missouri has resolved to commend the efforts of home educators by designating May 4-10, 1997, Home Education Week. I applaud the home educators for their commitment to quality education and taking the time to be directly involved in their children's education.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today in my hometown of Mexico, MO, a very dear lifelong friend, Tim Hagan, will be buried. Lowell Lambert ``Tim'' Hagan, III, owner of Hagan Clothing Co., died Sunday after a long battle with cancer, and will be sadly missed by his family and all of us who were privileged to be counted among his friends. Tim was a tremendous businessman and community leader. Born and raised in Mexico, MO, Tim developed a lifelong reputation as ``doer''. He successfully ran the family clothing business, and was involved in numerous community organizations, including the Rotary Club, the Mexico Chamber of Commerce, and the Mexico Country Club. Out of compassion for those less fortunate, he was the former president of the Audrain County Cerebral Palsy Society, and for 6 years was chairman of the Missouri National Multiple Sclerosis Hope Chest Campaign. Because of his understanding of the daily challenges small business owners face, Tim was chosen to be part of the Missouri delegation for the White House Conference on Small Business in 1995. That conference was one of the most successful in history, in that some of the ideas generated by Tim and others to create small business jobs and opportunities have been acted on by Congress and many others are now being discussed. Tim also felt that the education of our children and youth was particularly important to securing a good future, and was instrumental in bringing the Technical College to Mexico. That contribution will benefit the youth of Audrain County for years to come. His presence and spirit in the community will also continue to be felt for many years in that his own son, John, will continue to run the fourth generation family business. Tim shared with his friends a love of his Irish ancestry, though his love was more frequently and forcefully expressed as a lifelong Democrat. Even in the last days of his illness, he and I engaged in many spirited, but good natured political debates. Our culture is quick to glorify the here and now, the ``flash in the pan'' celebrities, the ``cause'' of the day. By that measure, Tim Hagan stood apart. While he was known in the community as a ``feisty Irishman'' with unfailing energy, he was also a builder. He spent his entire life making life better for his family, his employees, his church, and his community. His love for others knew no racial or social boundaries. We will miss him terribly. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial by Joe A. May in yesterday's Mexico Ledger be printed in the Record.