Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. This follows closely the story we found when on a codel with my colleagues, Senators Bayh and Obama, in Iraq in January. We talked to our people, military and civilians. We had a great meeting with President Talabani and top-elected Sunni and Shi'a officials at the time who all pledged they were going to work together for a unity government. Now that the President and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have formed a Cabinet, this is one more significant step. It is a big step, and it has been completely overshadowed by the killing of al-Zarqawi. But for the long term, this formation of a government is one more step that is vitally important. I am delighted the President was there to highlight it. It doesn't mean the violence is over. The killing of al-Zarqawi was widely celebrated by our troops abroad and at home because they knew this ruthless butcher was the face, the media darling of al-Qaida in Iraq. There is a supreme irony that he went out with his spiritual adviser. Good time to have your spiritual adviser with you. For al- Zarqawi, he and his spiritual adviser are going to find out at the same time just how good the spiritual advice Sheik Rahman gave him was. We know his loss will be a significant loss because of his ability to play the media with his ruthless killings. But we know he will be replaced. They are bringing up another successor to him already. Let us hope that successor has the same short shelf life that al-Qaida's operation commanders, such as Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Faraj al- Libi, and Hamza Rabia, have had. They have all been captured or killed. We hope we will be able to continue that effort. We hear some of our colleagues from the other side saying what a few in the media are saying, that we need to bring our troops home immediately. We have sorrowful parents who are very much concerned about their children going into harm's way. They want them brought home immediately. Let me speak to that directly. As a father of a son who was in Iraq and is preparing to go back, I can tell you that it is not without a good bit of concern that we see our young people going into harm's way. But we are very proud of them. We are very proud of them to know that they are willing to stand up and take the risk of going to war to defend our freedom and peace and security in the world. They are doing a good job. Yes each death of an American soldier or marine or airman is a tragedy. As a parent, you suck in a little wind and say a prayer when you hear about them. But these brave young men and women who are volunteers go there because they know they have a higher mission. By carrying the fight to the terrorists, they help make our country safer. It is no accident that our country has not had a major attack since September 11, not only because of homeland security but because of the strong efforts we have taken in Afghanistan and Iraq to disrupt terrorist strongholds, the safe havens for terrorists. Our young men and women over there are in harm's way. But they are not afraid of taking the risk of war. Let me tell you what they really fear. They fear that a lack of political will in this body and in the United States will cause a premature withdrawal of our troops before the Iraqi Government has adequate military and police in place to provide the security that country needs to continue to grow and flourish and be safe from terrorism. They worry that if we bring our troops back before the Iraqi military and police are able to secure the country, there will be chaos--chaos which fosters the rejuvenation of terrorist groups, chaos which will permit a form of state-sponsored terrorism, preparation of chemical and biological weapons that could be used against us, so the next 9/11 might be with a weapon of mass destruction. They know there is a danger that violence between the factions, the Shi'a and the Sunnis, could engulf Iraq and maybe the rest of the Middle East. They want to complete their mission. They didn't go there and take the risk and make the sacrifice and see some of their colleagues lose their lives and have to take inventories of their personal belongings and send them home. Yet they fear the lack of political will to continue and succeed in the necessary battle more than they fear the dangers of the battlefield. If we walk away, the sacrifices of these brave men and women will have been in vain. We have to complete the transformation and the transition in Iraq to a functioning government of national unity, able to defend the country against terrorists and insurgents. I hear some of my colleagues talking about how tragic the activities were in Haditha. They have seized on reports of horrible incidents. They are presuming the American soldiers are guilty without having a hearing. They want to set up a 9/11-type commission. What a tragedy it would be if we were to follow the political game plan to make guilty parties out of soldiers who have not even had their day in court in order to win political points against the Department of Defense and the President. As we all well know, these events will be thoroughly investigated. If there was wrongdoing, it will be prosecuted. We prosecuted the out-of- line soldiers who were at Abu Ghraib. We don't tolerate those things. We don't tolerate misconduct. Our military justice system will prosecute any who are guilty. But please, let us not jump to the conclusion that they are presumed guilty because of reports of outrageous actions. There are other sides to the story. Let the normal process work. There could be hearings in the appropriate committees, the Armed Services Committee or the Appropriations Committee, if they are warranted. But to set up another commission now is a dangerous political game and one I hope we will not accept. Instead of demanding more commissions, we should be demanding that the facts come out. If any wrongdoing took place, those who did it will be punished accordingly. There are those who want to continue to take cheap shots at the administration over anything that goes wrong in the war. When you have wars, unfortunately, things go wrong. There is no guaranteed success rate. It is not an unbroken path of success. We need to look at what went on in Haditha. The negative news reports will continue, and we expect the news media, when there are negative things, to report on them. But we would hope they would also report on the positive things that are done. If we had followed the advice of all the naysayers earlier this year who dominate our television with their defeatist political rhetoric, we would not have seen free elections in Iraq, a unity government, or the elimination of al-Zarqawi. He would be running free, plotting his next attack and seeking to reach out beyond Iraq to neighbors, possibly in the United States. Thankfully, we did not pull out of Iraq. Iraq is a much different place, a much more hopeful place because America and its brave men and women are committed to making the world a safer place. I sincerely and deeply urge my colleagues not to let our troops down, not to bring them home because parents are concerned about them. We value and honor their service. Let them do their jobs and let the process of the military justice system go forward before we jump to the conclusion that American soldiers are guilty because we don't happen to agree with the war or the efforts they are making. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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 today to honor LTG Daniel James III who recently retired as Director, Air National Guard. To say that General James has had a distinguished career at the National Guard Bureau would be an understatement due to his unmatched success in formulating, developing, and coordinating all policies, plans, and programs affecting more than 106,000 Guard members throughout the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The general personifies the model commander with a career in the military that spanned almost four decades. He earned his commission as a distinguished graduate of the University of Arizona's ROTC program in 1968. The general is a command pilot with approximately 4,000 hours in fighter and trainer aircraft. A combat veteran with two Distinguished Flying Crosses, General James completed two Active-Duty tours in Southeast Asia, logging 500 combat hours as a forward air controller and F-4 Phantom aircraft commander. Prior to becoming ANG Director, General James was the Adjutant General for Texas National Guard headquarters. In June of 2002, he was appointed to the position as Director, Air National Guard. In closing, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in expressing our deep appreciation for the numerous contributions Lieutenant General James has made on behalf of our brave service men and women. It is my honor to recognize the general for his distinguished service to our Nation. Recalling our national anthem, to our veterans and Armed Forces, I say, we would not be ``the land of the free'' if we were not also ``the home of the brave.'' We wish Daniel and his family continued success as he closes out his service to the Air Force and the people of this grateful Nation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, 5 years ago Congress took steps to end the death tax. Now the American people expect us to finish the job. We need to end permanently the tax that punishes American values of savings and investment and of building small businesses and family farms and ranches. The death tax punishes the American dream--making it virtually impossible for the average American family to build wealth across generations. The death tax is anti-savings, anti-family, and anti-investment. It is quite simply un-American. If we don't act now, the death tax will come back in just a few years. Under current law the death tax is phased out in 2010 but comes back in full force in 2011. That is a ridiculous and untenable policy. The death tax should be completely and permanently repealed now in order to make the Tax Code fairer and simpler and to eliminate the harmful drag this tax has on the economy. According to the Small Business Administration, more than 70 percent of all family businesses do not survive through the second generation, and 8 percent do not make it to a third. The death tax is one of the leading causes of the dissolution of small businesses. It hits those who own small businesses and family farmers the most. When faced with the death tax, farmers and ranchers are in an especially tough spot with most of their assets tied up in land and buildings, livestock and equipment. This gives them little flexibility when settling estates. Unlike an investor with a stock portfolio, they can't simply sell off a block of stocks and move on. We can all understand budget shortfalls due to a multitude of national and international events. But it is wrong to argue that we can shore up the budget by imposing a death tax on hard-working farmers and small business owners who are the backbone of the American economy. In reality, the death tax collects little revenue, less than 1.5 percent of Federal revenue. According to the CATO Institute, compliance with the death tax costs the economy about what the Treasury collects. A recent study analysis in 2005 by professors at Carnegie Mellon University suggest that repeal would cause a net increase in Federal revenues through dynamic growth effects and increased capital gains receipt. The Wall Street Journal has reported that repealing the death tax would create an extra 200,000 jobs per year. Debate usually focuses only on the taxes that estates actually pay, ignoring the real costs this tax imposes on owners of small businesses and family farms. These include estate-planning costs, compliance costs at death, and overall economic growth. Americans are paying millions of dollars every year to lawyers and accountants just hoping their children will not have to sell off the family business to pay the death taxes. Most small businesses and ranches will not be viable if the children have to sell off half to pay the tax. That money would be much better spent creating jobs, upgrading family farms, or saving for retirement or a child's college education. Eliminating the death tax is a matter of fairness. When folks work their entire lives to build up and pass on a business or family to their children, the kids should not get hit with a huge tax when they die. That is just not the American way. Americans overwhelmingly agree that it is wrong to tax property and earnings that have already been taxed before. Polls consistently show over 70 percent of Americans support repeal. Let's have the courage to separate death and taxes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Today, I and Senator Jim Talent introduce the Easement Owners Fair Compensation Act of 2006. This bill will right a wrong done to property owners from whom the government took property without compensation. It will also ensure that future property owners are treated fairly when the government seeks to take their property through eminent domain. In 1992, the federal government confiscated property owned by 102 St. Louis County, Missouri residents through the Federal Rails to Trails Act. The taking imposed an easement on their property for a public recreational hiking/biking trail. A trail easement was established on their property on December 20, 1992. After twelve years of bureaucratic fighting and delay, the Justice Department admitted the government's takings liability and agreed to pay the property owners $2,385,000.85 for their property, interest and legal fees. However, two days before the U.S. Court of Claims was scheduled to approve the compensation agreement, the U.S. Federal Circuit issued the Caldwell decision regarding a rails-to-trails takings case in Georgia. That decision established the statute of limitations for rails-to- trails claims as the date of notice of interim trail use, not the date the trail easement was imposed on the property, as previously assumed. Under the new date, the statute of limitations on the St. Louis County takings claim had expired. The Justice Department accordingly sought dismissal of the claims without payment and the Court of Claims judge agreed. This bill is a Senate companion to H.R. 4581 introduced by Representative Akin and cosponsored by Representatives Carnahan and Emerson. The legislation sets the statute of limitations as beginning on the date an interest is conveyed. It also allows for reconsideration of past claims dismissed because of this issue. Without this bill, we will allow the wrong committed by the federal government to stand. The federal government took private property, admitted it owed the property owners over $2,000,000, and then refused to pay because of a technicality. That is no way to treat our citizens. That is no way to run a rails-to-trails program. That is no way to encourage future recreational hiking and biking. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I take this opportunity to honor the life of Bob Duvall, not only out of great respect for his contributions to technology advancements in the defense industry but also for all of those who have played a key role in the strength of our Armed Forces and Nation's security. Warfighters and commanders among all service groups have directly benefited from his engineering contributions. Mr. Duvall passed away on May 24, 2006. He was 61. Mr. Robert L. Duvall, III, was born in Cheverly, MD, on October 8, 1944 and grew up in the suburbs of Washington, DC. His father was an electrical engineer for the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company and inspired him to pursue a career in engineering. In 1967, he graduated from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, with a degree in electrical engineering and subsequently went to work at Hughes Aircraft Company in California. Mr. Duvall furthered his education with a master's degree in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California in 1975. After Mr. Duvall's placement within the defense industry, his technical expertise expanded to include a variety of disciplines, including circuit design, optics, infrared technology, optoelectronics, and systems integration. It was within the infrared technology and laser systems integration sector that his contributions made the most notable and recognized impact to the military capability of the United States. Early contributions and developments during his 20-plus years with Hughes Aircraft led to innovation in Naval and Air Force laser pointing and tracking technology. His contributions are better known for supporting the U.S. Army's Second Generation Forward Looking Infrared, FLIR, developments in the early 1990s. Mr. Duvall's pioneering efforts with Hughes Aircraft and subsequently his current position as vice president of advanced technology at DRS Technologies have indeed made a difference for our present generation of warfighters. Our sons and daughters enter into battle with the decisive ability to ``own the night'' and precisely target and defeat the threat because of the incredible contribution he made as a member of our defense industry. There is no doubt Mr. Duvall contributed directly to the saving of many lives and the avoidance of great loss because of his efforts and expertise. Mr. Duvall is survived by his wife Shirley and his two children Mark and Michelle. Their loss should not be felt alone and should not be remembered alone. It is indeed with great respect and admiration for his contribution to our Nation's defense that we pause today to recognize Mr. Robert L. Duvall, III. His effort will have a lasting effect on many, and no doubt others lives will continue because of him.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, June 27, 2006 marks the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the Sisters of Mercy in St. Louis, MO. Founded in Dublin, Ireland, in 1831 by Mother Catherine McAuley, the Sisters have dedicated themselves to serving the sick, poor, and uneducated, particularly women and children. In 1856, at the request of St. Louis Archbishop Peter J. Kenrick, six Sisters of Mercy journeyed by train and boat from New York to St. Louis, arriving on June 27, 1856, to open St. Francis Xavier Parish School. During their first year in St. Louis, in addition to opening this new school, the Sisters visited the sick, poor, and jailed; started a Sunday school program for African-American women and girls; began an industrial school for children with one parent; and opened an orphanage. Despite many challenges including lack of money, food and clothing, the Sisters persevered with determination and faith. They expanded their ministry during the Civil War, visiting war prisoners at the hospital and jail. Growing enrollment at St. Francis Xavier School necessitated the opening of a new school in 1871. The Sisters of Mercy have continued the focus on education in St. Louis. Over the past 150 years since their arrival in St. Louis, more than 177 Sisters of Mercy have served in more than 20 parish elementary schools and 5 high schools in Missouri. These schools include Christ the King School in University City, Mercy High School in University City, St. Joan of Arc School in South St. Louis, Annunciation School in Webster Groves, and Mercy Junior College in Webster Groves. Recognizing the ever-growing health care needs of the community, in 1871 the Sisters converted the old St. Francis Xavier School to an infirmary. The hospital struggled financially because many patients were unable to pay, but the Sisters never turned patients away due to lack of funds. Instead, Sisters even sacrificed their mattresses and bedding to accommodate patients. To meet the increased need for their health care services, the Sisters moved the hospital to two other St. Louis sites before relocating to its current location on South New Ballas Road in 1963. While better known for their work in education and health care, the Sisters have served the people of the St. Louis metropolitan area in numerous other ministries including working with immigrants, providing spiritual direction, hosting groups at their conference and retreat center, and serving the poor. Since their 1856 arrival, the Sisters of Mercy have continuously served the residents of St. Louis and its surrounding areas. They overcame many obstacles to carry on their services and today we recognize their dedication with our deepest gratitude and respect. It truly has been a Journey of Service. Cities/municipalities in St. Louis where Sisters of Mercy have served/lived and currently serve/live: Creve Coeur, Frontenac University City, Chesterfield, City of St. Louis, Webster Groves, and Washington, MO.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I rise today to recognize Wendy Buehler, president of Life Skills, on the anniversary of her 25th year of leadership and service to individuals with developmental disabilities. Life Skills, a nonprofit charitable group, has served Missourians with disabilities since 1964. Today they continue to connect individuals with disabilities to the greater community of St. Louis. Over 1,400 children and adults have been assisted by Life Skills, enabling them to live in their own homes, seek and hold jobs, and make lasting ties to the city of St. Louis. For over three decades, Wendy Buehler has provided leadership and service to Life Skills. Starting out as a direct support staff person, she has steadily provided compassion and leadership, leading to her current role as president of the organization. Wendy Buehler has remained committed to providing supported employment services so people with developmental disabilities have the skills necessary to secure and retain meaningful and competitive employment. Wendy Buehler's commitment to helping individuals with disabilities live quality and independent lives provides a lasting service for all of Missouri. Having a disability can pose many challenges for individuals to live independently as part of the greater community. Wendy Buehler has worked to ensure Missourians with disabilities have the resources they need to live their lives as healthy and as independently as possible. Today I recognize Wendy Buehler for her dedication and commitment to the disability community of the State of Missouri.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I rise today to speak in honor of the 150th anniversary of Stupp Bros., Inc., from the great State of Missouri. Five generations of the Stupp family in Missouri have devoted themselves to the success and innovation of this homegrown St. Louis business. On this milestone in the history of Stupp Bros., Inc., I commend the company leaders and employees for their contributions to the worldwide business community. In 1856, the city of St. Louis was a tremendous boomtown and the bustling inland port at the seat of the Mississippi River for pioneers heading westward. Thousands of immigrants flocked to the city from Italy, Ireland, and Germany in search of a better life for their families. One German immigrant named Johann Stupp settled in St. Louis. There he founded J. Stupp and Bro., Blacksmiths, a shop focused primarily on repairing tools and machinery parts. Like many Missourians at the time, Stupp became deeply involved in the Union effort as the Civil War unfolded. During the conflict, Stupp assisted the work of James Eads in crafting a fleet of ironclad gunboats for use in battle by the Union Army. Shortly following the war, the blacksmith shop faced hard times. Yet with the aid of his sons George, Peter, and Julius, Stupp rebuilt the business as Stupp Bros. South St. Louis Iron Works, receiving a charter of incorporation from the State of Missouri for building and repairing iron and steel structural work. After Johann Stupp passed away in 1915, the Stupp brothers continued to manage the company with great success. Recognizing the fast changing and ever-modernizing world in which they lived, the Stupp brothers reorganized the company's services to keep up with the needs of a rapidly growing United States. Like their father during the Civil War, the Stupp brothers supported World War I by fabricating parts for Liberty ships. In World War II, the Stupp Bros. received the Army Navy E-Award for its construction of 176 LCTs, which landed allied troops on beaches throughout the world in the defense of freedom. During much of the 20th century and still today, the Stupp Bros. family of companies has provided bridge fabrication, structural steel for commercial buildings, custom-made piping for oil and gas, steel line pipe coatings, and community banking services. Some of their accomplishments have been designing carrying structures for the Department of Defense to protect missiles from attack, building two straddle-carrier transporters to assist the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, for the ``moon shot,'' and completing a 796 mile natural gas pipeline spanning from northwest Texas to Illinois. Despite its impressive contributions to the country during both war and peace time, the mark of Stupp Bros. is nowhere greater than in the city of St. Louis. As the Kiel Center took shape in 1933, Stupp Bros. provided the steel for its construction. Later in 1978, the Stupp Bros. fabricated over 7,000 tons of steel for the First National Bank highrise building in the downtown area. Perhaps of most interest to me, given my particular fondness for the St. Louis Cardinals, is that Stupp Bros. fashioned the floodlighting and electronic scoreboard for Sportsman's Park, the original Busch Stadium. Recognizing its responsibility to the community, Stupp Bridge has also been a civic contributor to the greater community. In 1951, the company launched a charitable trust to be known as Stupp Bros. Bridge and Iron Co. Foundation Trust. Over the last 50 years, the foundation has generously provided millions of dollars in contributions to local and national charities. One of its most notable actions is the establishment of a scholarship program which supports the college education for the son or daughter of a Stupp employee. The story of Stupp Bros., Inc, is one of American determination, innovation, and service. For 150 years, the company has been a staple among the St. Louis business and industry community. Today, under the leadership of Robert P. Stupp, John P. Stupp, Jr., and R. Philip Stupp, Jr., Stupp Bros. continues to leave its mark upon the landscape of our State. On behalf of all Missourians, I extend my best wishes and warmest regards to the Stupp Bros., Inc., family of companies, and especially to their dedicated employees and company leaders for their 150 years in the great State of Missouri.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, elections are the heart of democracy. They are the instrument for the people to choose leaders and hold them accountable. At the same time, elections are a core public function upon which all other Government responsibilities depend. If elections are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk. Americans are losing confidence in the fairness of elections. We need to address the problems of our electoral system. Those are the words of the cochairmen of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former President Jimmy Carter. Most people know Jimmy Carter, the former President. I happen to know him as a Governor. We served together. We also know him as a lion in the world of free and fair elections. He has traveled the globe, faced down dictators, watched over petty potentates, all in the name of free and fair elections. He believes we need a real voter identification. We took steps in the HAVA to make sure that somebody who had a right to vote was not unjustifiably denied that right by being refused an opportunity to vote at the polls. That is why we supported it, and it was a great idea to have a provisional ballot. But you can lose your vote just as surely and as effectively when somebody who is not eligible to vote casts an illegal vote that cancels your vote. That is a silent and more insidious way of losing your vote--if your vote is canceled by an illegal vote cast by someone who is not eligible to vote or somebody who has voted more than once. My colleague from Illinois has raised the question of why we need it because there isn't any vote fraud. That is a monumental announcement from somebody who comes from a State that has Chicago in it, but I think that St. Louis has outdone Chicago. In the 2000 election we had people filing to keep the polls open because they had been denied the right to vote. It turns out when they looked into the situation, the first plaintiff had trouble voting because he had been dead for 14 months. They said: The real plaintiff is a guy whose name is very similar. That plaintiff had voted earlier that afternoon in St. Louis County. But when we started looking into voter fraud in St. Louis, news reports were rife with fraudulent voting. Thousands of votes were apparently cast by dead people, or with fraudulent addresses, large numbers voting from vacant lots, dozens of people voting from a single-family residence. Voter fraud was so bad in the elections that even a very liberal newspaper in St. Louis carried a cartoon showing St. Louis voting. Here is the voting booth. Here is a casket where people were trying to vote in St. Louis. You can accept voting in these two places, but the coffin is not a place you expect people to cast a vote from. How would a picture identification requirement help the situation? As you can imagine, a picture of a dead person would certainly be noticeable. Assuming the dead person was not the one actually voting, there would be a mismatch between the voter and the photo. I don't imagine that opponents of this amendment actually are fighting to have dead people vote, but that is the result when they block amendments such as this. Another result is seen in this registration card. I suppose I shouldn't keep it up too long because somebody will want to copy the address and send Ritzy Mekler a campaign solicitation. Why does Ritzy's registration matter? How would a picture identification address her situation? A picture identification of Ritzy Mekler would instantly have indicated the problem because Ritzy is a 13-year-old cocker spaniel.

Mr. BOND. These are not isolated instances. The Missouri Secretary of State conducted an investigation after the 2000 vote and found significant voter fraud. Subsequent criminal proceedings confirmed that fraud is still a problem and must be monitored in Missouri. A 2004 report by Missouri's State auditor found over 24,000 voters registered who were either double registered, deceased, or felons. These are problems we want to clean up, and a voter identification requirement will help us. The amendment we have before us requires voters to present identification for the 2008 election. It will be the same requirement that citizens face every time they take the train or fly on an airplane. It will be the same requirement they face when cashing a check. For those concerned that some voters need help getting a picture ID so they can vote, I agree 100 percent. This amendment will also provide new grant funds to States so that everyone who needs an ID can get one free of charge. There should be no barriers to voting in this country. There also should be no barriers to a free and fair election. We will not be alone in this requirement. Voters in nearly 100 democracies use a photo identification card. Maybe that international experience is what helped convince President Carter that this was an important idea. So important that the Commission on Federal Election Reform he cochaired included this recommendation. That commission's executive director note that polls indicated that many Americans lack confidence in the electoral system, but that the political parties are so divided that serious electoral reform is unlikely without a strong bipartisan voice. That is why President Carter joined in the election reform effort, and that is why I urge my colleagues to join this effort--so that we can restore faith in our elections, so that we know that citizens who have the right to vote are voting, so that even new citizens who were immigrants have a free and fair election to vote in. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I definitely don't want to preempt the manager from his comments, but if there is additional time, I would like another 5 minutes after the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Texas have made their comments.

Mr. BOND. Fine. That is most gracious.

Mr. BOND. Sure.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, who are very generous. I should have stated at the beginning that I very much support the provision that Senator Specter and Senator Kennedy put in the underlying bill. There were similar provisions in Leader Frist's bill, in the Protecting America's Competitive Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. Amendment No. 4071 Mr. President, this underlying bill provides that U.S. advanced STEM degree graduates--that is science, technology, engineering, and math-- get up to 1 year after graduation to be placed with a U.S. company in their field of study. It will make sure they can find a place to work, and then get permanent residency to process their applications. It will allow U.S. companies to keep U.S. graduates to the benefit of U.S. jobs. And it will make our country much more competitive with other countries with the same reform now attracting high-tech workers to our detriment because they go overseas. The amendment I have offered ensures that we do not leave a portion of these students behind. The underlying bill says it applies to students on F-visas. We include those same types of students on J- visas. There are a significant portion of J-visa students studying in my State, pursuing advanced studies in biology, biomedical engineering, and, particularly in my State, genetic engineering and plant biotechnology. They are Ph.Ds. They come to pursue and complete their post-doctorate studies at leading universities in Missouri and across the Nation. In Missouri, J-visa holders make up 10 percent of our University of Missouri advanced STEM degree students. At Washington University in St. Louis, they make up 25 percent. I think every Senator will have J-visa STEM students at universities in their States. There is no substantive reason not to include them in the underlying bill. I assume it was merely an oversight. When you bring in these workers, as I was saying earlier, American manufacturing workers are getting good jobs because they have the science and the math, the technology that is enabling them to produce 21st century products and to do the kind of work that 21st century science enables them to do. It is becoming increasingly clear that if American workers are not supporting high-tech products in demand today, they are losing their jobs. As a recent book by Tom Friedman, ``The World Is Flat,'' explains, those high-tech jobs can go anywhere in the world and be linked up by computer. So Americans need to be using cutting-edge technology. Whether it is some of our basic activities--extracting raw materials efficiently or producing record harvests--we need to use the technology that is being developed. And with today's and tomorrow's innovations and inventions, they are going to have to come from students who are studying at our universities. Right now, foreign students are earning 30 percent of today's U.S. doctorates in engineering, 50 percent in math and computer sciences. We are lucky to have them in the U.S. because the number of U.S. citizens enrolling in science and engineering is way down. It dropped 14 percent in total from 1993 to 2000; 32 percent in math, 25 percent in engineering. Amendment No. 4101 Mr. President, I reiterate my support for the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas. I am very proud to support her SAFE Visa Program amendment because I do think the system she has laid out is one that is appropriate in a much broader field. I would like to see this measure in the bill because I think when the conferees start looking at how we deal with guest workers, they are going to want a commonsense solution. That solution is to say, you can come for 10 months. We want to make it possible for you to come here and work, knowing you can come back and forth freely, knowing you are not locked in here, so you can go home and see your family and so you can take money home; and when you finish work here, you will have that portion of Social Security taken out of your paycheck as your own savings account. This will be a tremendous boom for them, and enable them to go back to their villages or cities, or wherever they came from, and be able to provide for themselves and their families, and also, we hope, invigorate the economies of those communities from which they came. So I am very proud to support the Senator from Texas, and I urge my colleagues to join with her in supporting the amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am proud to be a supporter of the Hutchison amendment. This is a model for the way things should work for seasonal workers. I hope this construct is one that could be agreed to, perhaps, in conference with broader application. Many of the criticisms of the current system with which I agreed are addressed by this amendment. Workers come to America to fill jobs unwanted by Americans, but they are staying and they are not going home. Workers who declared an intent to leave, instead, are requesting permanent residency and a path to citizenship. This is not the way things used to be when workers came to the United States, worked a spell, and then returned to their foreign homes and families. The Hutchison amendment returns to those days. Workers have to apply for the program from outside. They come in for 10 months to work and then must return home for 2 months. They cannot bring their family for the temporary work, and they may not apply for renewal within the United States or for permanent residency. I am also delighted Senator Hutchison has taken the suggestion to ensure that enough visas remain midyear for cooler States, such as Missouri, where our seasonal agricultural work does not begin until the late spring or after. Many Missourians claim to me that past programs allowed all visas to be issued in waiver States at the beginning of the season, and that left out the northern States. I heard these concerns, and Senator Hutchison accommodated them, for which I am grateful. I hope this amendment is agreed to as a model in conference for the seasonal work program. I also use this opportunity to talk about a modest little amendment I have, No. 4071. Senator Gregg is a cosponsor of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent additional cosponsors be added, including Senator Hutchison, Senators Alexander, Allen, Burns, Coburn, Sununu, and Warner.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have an amendment, No. 4071, for the benefit of America's workers, America's universities, and America's economy. While we rightfully have spent a lot of time in the debate so far discussing low-skilled, undocumented workers, I want to spend some time discussing our vital need for legal, high-skilled, high-tech workers. America's workers face a battle for their jobs. They are the finest workers in the world. American workers grow, harvest, and mine some of the world's highest quality and most plentiful raw materials. American manufacturing workers made the U.S. a global giant, turning back fascism, and lifting millions into the middle-class. American workers are not just out in the fields or on the assembly line. They are in the storefront serving customers. They are in the backrooms placing orders and balancing books. They are on the streets delivering wares. They are on the floors stocking products. And who do all these workers count upon? What does every company need to compete and succeed in today's modern economy? They all need high technology, innovation, and invention. It has become increasingly clear that if American workers are not supporting high tech products in demand today, they are losing their jobs. If Americans are not using cutting edge technology to extract raw materials efficiently, or produce record harvests, they are losing their jobs. If American workers are not part of innovative companies making the next new gadget or gizmo, they are losing their jobs. Where will tomorrow's innovations and inventions come from? Where does the brainpower needed to make a cell phone smaller, a plasma TV bigger, or digital camera clearer come from? Where does the know-how to make disease-resistant crops, infection-killing drugs, and cars and power plants emitting only water come from? These are the products that will cause new orders--the products that will stock shelves and bring in customers--the products that most importantly will provide new, plentiful, good-paying jobs. They will come from our best and brightest, our engineers, our scientists. They will come from our mathematicians. They will come from our technology experts, full of new ideas and know-how. They are among us even now--at our universities across the Nation. They are in physics class. They are in computer science class. They are doing their papers, their thesis, their dissertations. They are graduating with their masters degrees and their PhDs. They are completing their post-doctoral work. And they are vital to every worker in the Nation. They call these people STEM students--for science, technology, engineering, and math. They form the lynchpin of our high-tech economy. Without them, there is no innovation, no invention. Who are these STEM students? Increasingly, many STEM students graduating from U.S. universities are from other countries. We can all picture them. Engineering students from India, science majors from China. Foreign students are earning 30 percent today's U.S. doctorates in engineering, 50 percent in math, and computer sciences. We are lucky to have them because the number of U.S. citizens enrolling in science and engineering is way down. From 1993 to 2000 it dropped 14 percent in total, 32 percent in math, and 25 percent in engineering. U.S. undergraduate programs in science and engineering report the lowest retention rates among all disciplines. Less than half of all U.S. undergrads who attempt engineering or science majors complete a degree in one of these subjects. American companies are calling, regardless of the student's home country. The companies of every manufacturing worker, every accountant, every stockperson, every salesman, are vying for our STEM graduates. Employers hiring international students from Missouri universities last year included: Cisco Systems, Intel, Honeywell, Proctor & Gamble, Black & Veetch, Emerson, Cummins, and Deere among others. And what are we doing with many of our international students? We have put so much money into them, with tuition grants, loans and fellowships. We have poured so much time into their instruction, tutoring, and study. What are we doing with this vital resource? We are kicking many of them out of the country. We are giving them insufficient time for U.S. companies to place them. We are requiring them to leave for 2 years before coming back. We are hurting their employment chances by putting their long-term residency in doubt. All of these are ways that our antiquated visa system is out of touch with the needs of our 21st century economy. This at the very time American workers need them the most--at the very time American workers are struggling to meet the 21st century economy, we are undercut by outdated student visa rules. At the same time, China and India are exploding with new engineers and scientists. Last year, according to Fortune Magazine, China graduated over 600,000 new engineers, India 350,000, and the U.S. only 70,000. China is pouring government funds into research and development. They recently decided to double such funding to 2\1/2\ percent of their GDP. India just boosted R&D by 10 percent. The result as the Wall Street Journal recently portrayed: ``Low Costs, Plentiful Talent Make China a Global Magnet for R&D.'' Foreign-invested R&D centers in China more than tripled from 4 years ago. U.S. companies such as Procter & Gamble, Motorola, IBM, and others are opening research centers in China. Motorola now has 16 R&D offices in five Chinese cities, with accumulated investment of about $500 million. Emerson, based in my home State in St. Louis, MO, a global leader in electronics engineering and technology, recently established four R&D centers in Asia--three in China and one in India. What are we doing to counter this tidal wave? Many would say we need to invest in U.S. research and students--produce more U.S. scientists and engineers. I would agree Wholeheartedly. I have long supported doubling the budget of the National Science Foundation. I am a cosponsor of the Protecting America's Competitive Edge Act. It calls for more investment in U.S. science and research funding and education. But it also recognizes that encouraging more U.S. kids to go into science and math is not enough. It won't produce enough scientists and engineers. Our U.S. employers will not get the brainpower they need by this alone. The National Academy of Sciences that produced the recommendations on which the PACE legislation is based said as much. They document America's high-tech needs in their report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.'' A section of that report addresses the need of U.S. universities to get international STEM students--the need of U.S. employers to get international STEM students--the need for us to change our visa rules to allow us to keep our STEM graduates here at home, to the benefit of U.S. workers and the U.S. economy. A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted this need. It begins with: ``Last year, Stanford University awarded 88 PhDs in electrical engineering, 49 of which went to foreign-born students. U.S. business would like to hang on to these kind of prized graduates and not lose them to the world.'' And so I am thrilled that the Judiciary Committee, under Senator Specter's fine leadership along with Senator Kennedy, included provisions trying to answer this call. Similar provisions were included in Leader Frist's bill and in the Protecting America's Competitive Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor along with 61 of my colleagues. We seek to provide an answer to U.S. workers losing out on good- paying jobs in manufacturing, raw material supply, distribution, advertising, sales, and administration when their employers can't get the high-tech innovators and inventors they need to compete with foreign companies in the 21st century economy. We seek to answer taxpayers who are sending billions of dollars to U.S. universities to fund research and student education, only to see the product of that hard work and money, U.S. university graduates from other countries, forced to leave the country to the benefit of foreign competitors. We seek to update U.S. immigration laws to meet the needs of 21st century educators and workers. S. 2611's underlying provisions update visa requirements so that U.S. universities can get the students they need and U.S. companies can get the U.S. STEM graduates they need. It provides U.S. advanced STEM degrees graduates up to 1 year after graduation to be placed with a U.S. company in their field of study. This will stop these valuable U.S. graduates from being forced out of the country before they have time to be placed with a U.S. company needing their expertise. It will also make the U.S. competitive with other countries with the same reform now attracting talented high-tech workers to America's detriment. It also makes U.S. advanced STEM degree graduates placed with a U.S. company eligible for permanent residency and gives them the time they need to process their application. This will allow U.S. companies to keep U.S. graduates to the benefit of U.S. jobs and the economy. Again, it will also make the U.S. competitive with other countries with the same reform now attracting talented high-tech workers to our detriment. With my amendment I want to ensure that we do not leave a portion of these valuable STEM students behind. It ensures that in addition to the advanced STEM degree students on F- visas, we also include those same types of students on J-visas. Most advanced STEM degree students come to the U.S. on an F-visa. This is the primary student visa. But many may not know, including those who advocate and practice in the immigration arena, that many advanced STEM degree students also come to the U.S. on J-visas. What's the difference with these students? Nothing really when you look at who they are. They are STEM students pursuing advanced studies in biology, biomedical engineering, and similar disciplines. They are PhDs and they come to pursue and complete their postdoctoral studies at leading universities across the nation. In Missouri, J-visa holders make up 10 percent our University of Missouri advanced STEM degree students. At Washington University in St. Louis they form 25 percent of the advanced STEM degree student body. I think every Senator in this body will have advanced STEM degree students on J-visas at universities in their states and thus will benefit from this amendment. There is no substantive reason to include advanced STEM degree students on F-visas and not on J-visas. Indeed, I think it may have been just an oversight. My amendment applies strictly to advanced degree STEM students on J- visas. Other persons on J-visas in the U.S. for other reasons will not qualify for this program. So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I am thankful for the support of Senator Gregg, along with Senators Allen, Alexander, Coburn and Sununu cosponsoring this amendment. It is a modest set of provisions, but its impact will be great. Our workers need this amendment, our universities need this amendment, the Nation's competitiveness in the 21st century needs this amendment. This amendment I am not calling up now because I understand it will be included--I hope it will be--in the managers' package. I will tell my colleagues what it does and also alert many Members who are interested in it because it will keep our best and brightest students from abroad, the science, technology, engineering, and math students who come here for postgraduate degrees, in the United States. Right now, there is a provision in the bill for the F-visa students to stay here, but it omits the J-visa students. American students who come from overseas and study in our institutions, which we proudly support, ought to be making their contributions to the well-being of the economy, to the knowledge and the skill base. I believe these students, if they want to stay here, ought to be given the opportunity to stay here. Right now, under the J-visa system, you come in and you can be working postdoctorate in a science area which is exploding and creating the jobs of the future, and then the J-visa system says you have to go home for 2 years. By the way, they go home for 2 years, and guess what. They have started a business there, they have hired people in their country, and instead of having their skills, knowledge, and expertise that was gained in the United States put to work here, they are putting it to work in other countries. It does not say they have to stay here, but right now, the current system says you have to go home. We put a lot of money into training these great students. They are a wonderful resource. I have visited many colleges in my State, and I have talked to the master degree student, doctorate degree, and postdoctorate international students working there. They want to stay here. And, reasonably, the universities want them to stay here because they form a tremendous support base for the universities. These are people who not only can earn a good living for themselves, but their scientific know-how, their technical, managerial, engineering, and mathematical skills can provide opportunities to put all of these workers with their skills into the hiring of workers in the United States. Regrettably, too many American students are choosing not to go into science, engineering, and mathematics. If there is time before 2:45, after Senator Hutchison completes her statement, I ask to utilize that time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to table the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe most of us strongly support deploying the National Guard to our borders. I appreciate very much the sentiment and the direction this amendment goes. Unfortunately, it limits their ability and puts limitations on the time and on the mission the Guard provides. When you are sending troops into a difficult assignment, whether it is war or not, we should not be saying the Guard can only stay so long, the Guard can only do this or the Guard can only do that. The President has outlined how he wishes to use the Guard. I support that. I believe it is a bad idea for Congress to say how we should be using our troops, whether it is in national security or homeland defense. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the effort the Senator from Nevada is making. The problem is, some on the training missions may have to spend longer than that. They may want to spend longer than that. It may have the effect of having a different percentage of the Guard used for more than 15 days. It specifies limits on it. I believe that while we support the general purpose of using the Guard, Congress should not be putting limitations on how it is used. I disagree with my colleague.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague Senator Akaka and I are introducing legislation today to reauthorize the National Dam Safety and Security Program. The goal of this program, administered by FEMA, has been to advance dam safety in the United States and prevent loss of life and property damage from dam failures at both the Federal and State programmatic levels. Over the last several months we have seen in both my home State of Missouri and my colleague's State of Hawaii, how critically important proper regulation, inspection and safety training is for maintaining our Nation's dams. The National Dam Safety Program Act provides much needed assistance to State dam safety programs, which are responsible for regulating 95 percent of the 80,000 dams in the U.S. The States receive training assistance for their dam safety engineers and State grant assistance based on the number of dams in the State. The National Dam Safety Program, currently administered by FEMA within DHS, expires in September 30, 2006 and needs to be reauthorized. I am proud to introduce this legislation along with my colleague Senator Akaka in order to strengthen the protection of our citizens and critical infrastructure from dam failures through the Dam Safety and Security Program.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague Senator Akaka and I are introducing legislation today to reauthorize the National Dam Safety and Security Program. The goal of this program, administered by FEMA, has been to advance dam safety in the United States and prevent loss of life and property damage from dam failures at both the Federal and State programmatic levels. Over the last several months we have seen in both my home State of Missouri and my colleague's State of Hawaii, how critically important proper regulation, inspection and safety training is for maintaining our Nation's dams. The National Dam Safety Program Act provides much needed assistance to State dam safety programs, which are responsible for regulating 95 percent of the 80,000 dams in the U.S. The States receive training assistance for their dam safety engineers and State grant assistance based on the number of dams in the State. The National Dam Safety Program, currently administered by FEMA within DHS, expires in September 30, 2006 and needs to be reauthorized. I am proud to introduce this legislation along with my colleague Senator Akaka in order to strengthen the protection of our citizens and critical infrastructure from dam failures through the Dam Safety and Security Program.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, local housing agencies in my State are also facing these rising energy costs. The Housing Authority of Springfield experienced a 28-percent increase in utility costs this winter during the city's second warmest January and the warmest February in recorded history. This utility increase represents an approximate 6-percent increase in the public housing agency's operating budget. As the Senator mentioned, many core programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction are facing deep cuts in the fiscal year 2007 budget request, and at this point, I am not certain what our allocation will be for the fiscal year. The Senator raises an important concern, and I will take a serious look at how these unbudgeted costs may be addressed so that local agencies can continue to manage their operations responsibly.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak as in morning business for 8 minutes to introduce a measure.