Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to keep this quorum call going, and then, after I propound the unanimous consent request, obviously the Senate can proceed in the normal fashion. This should be just a minute. I ask the Senator's indulgence.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, after conferring with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. tomorrow, Senator Brownback be recognized in order to offer an amendment which relates to the appropriations for the District of Columbia; provided further that there then be 40 minutes equally divided between Senators Brownback and Landrieu; further, that following that debate, the amendment be agreed to with no second degrees in order to the amendment; provided that at 12:10, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Kyl amendment No. 2062, with no second degrees in order to that amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to an outstanding Naval Officer, Commander Kevin Brennan, who has served so admirably and faithfully as a liaison to our Appropriations Committee on Defense. I want to recognize his superb service to our Nation and the Navy as he leaves our Nation's Capital to take command of an operational aviation squadron. On behalf of my colleagues on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his dedicated and faithful service in pursuing the best for our men and women of the Navy. As the Navy's primary appropriations matters liaison for aviation and weapons matters, Kevin has been an invaluable asset for the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations, as well as a wealth of knowledge for my personal staff over the past 3\1/2\ years. In addition to providing timely and accurate information on budget matters and emerging war fighting requirements, CDR Brennan has personally escorted my staff and the subcommittee professional staff on numerous trips to review military operations and confirm the health and welfare of our troops, on the front lines as well as when they return home from action. He provided keen insight on matters of national security and naval aviation's current readiness status, and the direct relationship between the two. His perspective on the needs of the Nation with respect to our sea service has provided me with the clarity and detail I needed to make important decisions regarding appropriations for the Department of Defense in pursuing the Nation's global war on terrorism. In addition to the respect for the work Commander Brennan did in representing the Navy, I would like to thank him for his congenial demeanor and great sense of humor that he shared with all of us. It is his same sense of purpose and professionalism that I am confident will enable him to be a tremendous role model for those who serve under his command. It is my honor to recognize Commander Brennan for his distinguished service to our Nation. My wife Lynda and I have the highest respect for those who serve in uniform, and I appreciate and honor all the men and women who have served in the defense of freedom. 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.'' In closing, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in expressing our deep appreciation for the numerous contributions Commander Brennan has made on behalf of our Navy. We wish Kevin, his lovely wife Pamela and their four children continued success and the traditional naval wish of ``Fair winds and following seas'' as he closes out his service to the Congress and continues toward the pinnacle of Naval service, command at sea! BRAVO ZULU shipmate!

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, one of the minor procedural problems we have around here with an emergency clause is this has to go through several layers of clearance. It is not a higher pay grade, it is a different pay grade, it is a different responsibility. The distinguished floor managers are working on that. We have the budget committees and others who have to act on it. I appreciate very much the work of Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye. I hope we will be able to resolve this very shortly. We have two of the best leaders in the Senate handling this bill. Whatever needs to be done I assure my colleagues will be done. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I clarify with the desk that I am shown on the Leahy amendment; it is the Leahy-Bond amendment?

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Nomination Of John Roberts Mr. President, while I have the floor, I will reflect a moment on the vote we took earlier today. This vote has such weight because of its place in our system of government. The Supreme Court is a final voice on the extent of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the demarcation of power between the legislative and executive branch of Government, and the division of power reserved for the Federal Government and the governments of the individual States. As a Member of this legislative body and in a former life as a State Governor, I am acutely aware of the importance of the lines and the consequences when they are broached. As a Member of the Senate, I do not welcome decisions overturning legislative acts that I support, but I frequently work with my colleagues to reject efforts to meddle in State affairs. As a Governor attempting to guide my State, I had to labor through many burdens placed in our way, the State's way, by an intrusive Federal Government. The judicial branch of our Government--most notably the Supreme Court--has been designated by the Constitution as the branch to maintain these divisions of power and referee the tensions between our governments. After observing Judge Roberts during the days of hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, I am convinced the power that comes with the vote of a Supreme Court Justice will be in wise and capable hands. Throughout the strenuous sessions, Judge Roberts' intelligence, patience, and temperament were on full display. Judge Roberts made a convincing case through words and demeanor that he will approach his responsibility with modesty and humility. Also, as Judge Roberts repeatedly reminded his inquisitors, he is not a politician. I commend him on his willingness to remind my colleagues that he was not before Congress to compromise or give hints on how he might vote on a hypothetical case in exchange for confirmation votes; rather, he confirmed repeatedly that the Constitution will be his guide to these questions. I suspect that some of my colleagues have come to rely on the judiciary to advance changes that have no support in the duly elected member of our legislature, State and national; hence, their frustration with Judge Roberts. Judge Roberts has clearly defined views of the role of the judiciary and the role of the legislature, and they do not appear to be blurred. As Judge Roberts put it so well: If the people who framed our Constitution were jealous of their freedom and liberty, they would not have sat around and said, ``Let's take all the hard issues and give them over to the judges.'' That would have been the farthest thing from their mind. As did the Founders, I do not believe State and National legislative bodies are incapable of settling tough and contentious issues. I do not believe it is benevolent or admirable for judges to remove questions from the public realm because they are divisive. Judge Roberts has shown the modesty and respect to refrain from that path. Judge Roberts also has made it clear he finds no place for reflection on the public attitudes and legal documents of foreign lands in the consideration of constitutional questions. They do not and should not offer any guidance as to the words and the meaning of our own Constitution. During his testimony, Judge Roberts displayed a respect for the Constitution and the rule of law as the principles that should guide him when ruling on a case. His view of the role of the judiciary is very consistent with my own. Finally, I believe President Bush has executed his duties in a responsible manner that will serve our Nation well. He interviewed many distinguished and qualified judges and attorneys in the country. He consulted with Members of the Senate. After careful and thoughtful deliberation, President Bush returned to the Senate the name of John Roberts. I am very pleased today that 78 Members of the Senate agreed and confirmed him to the Supreme Court. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join wholeheartedly my National Guard Caucus cochairman, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, in urging the Senate to adopt these emergency appropriations for our National Guard. We have had a lot of talk about emergency responders and people wondered, Did this group do their job? Did that group do their job? As Governor of Missouri for 8 years, I saw the National Guard respond, and respond fully, to every natural disaster we had. We had floods, we had tornadoes, we had some other civil disorders, and the Guard responded. They responded with the equipment they needed. Since that time, I have served in the Senate as cochairman of the National Guard. I have seen the Guard continue to respond to State emergencies time after time after time. When they have been called upon to go abroad as part of the national defense mission, they have done so extremely well. Unfortunately, the men and women of the National Guard, those vital citizen soldiers who volunteer to serve their country, have not been well resourced. It appears when equipment is available the Pentagon obviously takes care, first, of the active. In this situation, we have seen a tremendous drain on equipment--not just from emergencies around the country but from the National Guard's participation and contribution of equipment to our overseas mission. As a result, the equipment readiness in critical areas of the National Guard has fallen to about 34 percent. We are asking the men and women of the Guard to go into situations--whether they be overseas military situations or a vital rescue mission such as New Orleans--without the equipment. Our Guard, along with others, responded and responded promptly to the disaster of the gulf coast. They were in Louisiana. They went proudly. We sent an engineer battalion from Jefferson Barracks in Missouri. They went down there, and they performed admirably. They had one set of trucks, one set of communications equipment, and one set of night vision goggles. The need was great, and they asked for a second of the National Guard engineering units to be deployed. We had to refuse, not because we did not have the personnel ready--we did not have the trucks, we did not have the communication equipment. We absolutely could not respond in that situation because of a lack of equipment. When we read the stories about the National Guard's participation, one gets a better understanding of how effective and how responsive the National Guard is. As the Senator from Vermont said, we have requested that an emergency appropriation be added to the supplemental. I join with him today in asking the Senate to approve as an emergency appropriations measure the money we need. This money is critically important. It includes trucks. The big trucks the National Guard has can drive through flood areas. They can rescue people. They can also go in war zones. They need night vision goggles. You may think night vision goggles are necessary primarily in war. Think about going into New Orleans, which has lost all of its power, all of its lighting, and you are trying to find people who are in grave personal danger because of the rising floodwaters. You need the night vision goggles to see them. Most importantly, think about communications. How do they work with other units, other Federal units, other State units, when they are on a civil mission? When they are under control of the local officials who have the responsibility, who have the local command, how do they communicate with them? They cannot in too many instances. That is why this particular appropriation is so important that we begin resourcing our Guard. We can all be very proud of the Guard in our States. We do not have every Member of the Senate as a member of the National Guard Caucus, but I have not found a Member of this Senate who is not extremely proud of his or her National Guard. They know when the chips are down, when lives are in danger, the Guard can and will respond. The Guard comes to our defense regularly. The very least we can do is make sure we support the Guard when they go in. Not giving them the equipment they need is not an answer. We are not going to send them into harm's way without the equipment to do their job. This is an important amendment. This is a large sum. We, obviously, are very much aware of the needs. This is a pressing need, and the emergencies and the wartime situation we are in compel a response to the needs of the Guard. I thank my colleague from Vermont for offering this, and I urge my colleagues to join in seeing that the National Guard gets the appropriation resources they need. I thank the managers of the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, among the great responsibilities and privileges of being a Member of the U.S. Senate is assessing the qualifications and voting on the confirmation of members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Reflecting upon this vote, one gets a sense of the weight of the responsibility--we will be voting on a replacement for only the 17th Chief Justice in the history of our great country. But this vote is not unique because of its infrequency but because of its place in our system of government. The Supreme Court is the final voice in the land on the meaning of the words of the Constitution as they apply to the extent of the rights guaranteed to individuals by the document. It is the final word on the demarcation of power between the legislative and executive branch of government and it is the voice on defining the power reserved for the Federal Government and the governments of the individual States. As a member of the legislative branch of our national government who was in a former life a State Governor, I am acutely aware of the importance of these lines and the consequences when they are breached. As a Member of the Senate, I do not welcome decisions overturning legislative acts that I support but I frequently work with my colleagues to reject efforts to meddle in state affairs. As a Governor attempting to guide my State, I had to labor through the burdens placed in my way by an intrusive Federal Government. The judicial branch of our government, most notably the Supreme Court, has been designated by the Constitution as the branch to maintain these divisions of power and law making. So it is a great privilege and responsibility to have a role in confirming people who will occupy a place on the court. In this case, confirming the person that will lead that court. After observing Judge Roberts during 3 days of hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, I am convinced the power that comes with the vote of a Supreme Court Justice will be in wise and capable hands. First, throughout this strenuous session, Judge Roberts' intelligence, patience and temperament were on full display and were nothing short of extraordinary. But it was that which he had to say that satisfies me and secures my vote for his confirmation. He made a convincing case through his words and his demeanor that he will approach his responsibility with modesty and humility, which means approaching cases with an open mind and carefully studying the words of Congress or the precedents of the Court on constitutional questions. As Judge Roberts said and I agree, ``a certain humility should characterize the judicial role. Judges . . . are servants of the law, not the other way around.'' Also, as Judge Roberts repeatedly reminded his inquisitors, he is not a politician. In that statement, I am comforted. I commend him on his willingness to remind my colleagues that he was not before Congress to compromise or give hints on how he might vote on a hypothetical case in exchange for confirmation votes. Rather, he confirmed repeatedly that the constitution and the rule of law will be his guide. Judge Roberts made the case that he recognizes that the authority on the division of power between the branches of government and the authority on the division of power in our federalist system of government are contained in the Constitution. It is a positive thing that we are going to confirm a decent person for the Court, but that should not be our guiding principle. Our vote should not rest on whether a future judge will approach cases as a father or a son, on the side of the weak or the strong or with the intent to expand rights or protections. That subjects judicial decision making to subjective standards, compromises impartiality and removes the blinders from justice. Some have argued that this is to dodge a question. Rather, it is an indication that one recognizes that the obligation of the judge is to follow the Constitution rather than his own interests. At one point during the proceedings, the Judge was prodded to comment on a case in which he participated to decide the extent of benefits available under a health plan. To limit or expand the benefits provided under a statute is the job of a legislature, not a judge. Judge Roberts agrees with this important principal. As he stated. ``As far as a Judge is concerned, they have to decide questions according to the rule of law, not their own social preferences, not their policy views, not their personal preferences, but according to the rule of law.'' If the support of a majority of a State or national legislature can be won, a statute can be changed and this concern addressed. I suspect that many of my colleagues, particularly those who will vote against this nomination, have come to rely on the judiciary to advance changes that have no support in legislatures. Hence, their frustration with Judge Roberts. He has clearly defined views of the role of the judiciary and the role of the legislature and they do not appear to be blurred. He has not shown a willingness to approach case guided by a point of view or a subjective standard--that is what is to motivate legislators as they debate on the campaign trail and the floors of congress and statehouses across the country. But as Judge Roberts again put it so well, ``If the people who framed our Constitution were jealous of their freedom and liberty, they would not have sat around and said, `Let's take all the hard issues and give them over to the judges.' That would have been the farthest thing from their mind.'' As did the Founders, I do not believe State and national legislative bodies are incapable of settling tough and contious issues. I do not believe it is benevolent or admirable for judges to remove questions from the public realm because they are divisive. Roberts has shown the modesty and respect for the role of the court and an legislature to refrain from that path. Judge Roberts has also made it clear that he finds no place for reflection on the public attitudes and legal documents of foreign lands in the consideration of constitutional questions. They do not offer any guidance as to the words of our constitution. During his testimony, Judge Roberts displayed a respect for Constitution and the rule of law as the principles that should guide him when ruling on a case. His view of the role of the judiciary is very consistent with that of my own. Finally, I believe President Bush has executed his duties in a responsible manner that will serve our Nation well. He interviewed many distinguished and qualified attorneys an judges in the country to serve on our Nation's highest court. After responsible consultation with members of the Senate and careful and thoughtful deliberation, President Bush returned to the Senate the name of John Roberts. As we have learned, his qualifications to lead the Supreme Court and Federal judiciary are as unquestioned as they are impressive. President Bush was reelected with over 62 million votes, the highest received by a presidential candidate. He is the first candidate in 16 years to win a majority of the popular vote, something not achieved by his predecessor, who incidentally won easy confirmation of both of his appointments to the high court. President Bush resoundingly won the right to nominate someone who he views as fit to serve on the Supreme Court and he won the right to have that nominee considered fairly and impartially. The President also asked for the thoughts and advice of Members of this body as to the pending nomination. When it came time to exercise his responsibility as President, he did so by nominating someone with an impeccable record and extraordinary qualifications. In the execution of his duties, President Bush exceeded any standard to which he should be held. Nonetheless, I suspect that this nomination and the subsequent nomination will not be treated in the manner that President Clinton's nominees were treated, when they received 96 votes. But it should as should the next nominee. Judge Roberts is an outstanding nomination. He will get my support and he deserves the overwhelming support of this body.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Community Partnership to End Homeless Act of 2005. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation because I believe that this bill will greatly assist the Nation's efforts on ending the long- standing tragedy of homelessness. I applaud the hard work of the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee's Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, Senators Allard and Reed for developing this important legislation. As a former member of the Banking Committee, former chair of the VA- HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, and now the current chair of the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, HUD, and Related Agencies (TTHUD) Appropriations Subcommittee, the issue of homelessness has been one of my main priorities. During my tenure on those subcommittees, I have learned a great deal about the causes of homelessness. The causes are varied ranging from the lack of affordable housing to mental or physical ailments to unforeseen economic problems. The good news is that since the Congress first created the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 1987, there has been a great deal of research on homelessness and new approaches have been developed to solve homelessness. The most significant finding is the importance of permanent housing in ending homelessness. Due to this finding, I included a provision in the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act that required HUD to spend at least 30 percent of the homeless assistance grant funds on permanent housing. Re-focusing HUD on permanent housing was something that senators on both sides of the aisle strongly and rightfully support. The 30 percent permanent housing set-aside requirement was established because HUD was not producing enough housing for homeless people. This was a problem because HUD is the only federal agency that provides permanent housing. By 1998, just prior to the enactment of the 30 percent set-aside, only 13 percent of HUD homeless grant funds were being spent on permanent housing. Therefore, the 30 percent set-aside was created to re-balance HUD's homeless programs so that permanent housing was being provided. And, the set-aside has not hurt funding for supportive services since we have continually increased the HUD homeless account and the Administration has worked with other agencies, such as HHS and VA, to ensure that they are providing services to homeless people. In the Senate's fiscal year 2006 TTHUD bill, we have provided a $174 million increase over fiscal year 2005 for the HUD homeless account. The focus on permanent housing was backed by sound research that demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of this approach. By focusing on permanent housing and especially those who were chronically homeless, HUD's programs became correctly focused on those most needy of this assistance, such as disabled homeless veterans. For those reasons, I am extremely pleased and supportive of the bill's provision that requires HUD to use at least 30 percent of funds for permanent housing activities. This provision is probably the most important piece of this legislation. In addition to the permanent housing requirement, I strongly support the bill's provisions that require outcome-based performance evaluations, promote access to mainstream resources for supportive services, and consolidate HUD's competitive grant programs. I especially support the bill's efforts to encourage localities and grantees to participate and use the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), which was initiated by Senator Mikulski and me in the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD and Independent Appropriations Act. I am proud that the vast majority of continuum-of-care grantees have implemented the HMIS. This system is absolutely critical for developing an unduplicated count of homeless people and an analysis of their patterns of use of federal assistance programs. This is a strong bill supported by members on both sides of the aisle. I hope that the Senate and the Congress can pass important legislation because this bill will help eliminate the tragedy of homelessness. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Community Partnership to End Homeless Act of 2005. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation because I believe that this bill will greatly assist the Nation's efforts on ending the long- standing tragedy of homelessness. I applaud the hard work of the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee's Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, Senators Allard and Reed for developing this important legislation. As a former member of the Banking Committee, former chair of the VA- HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, and now the current chair of the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, HUD, and Related Agencies (TTHUD) Appropriations Subcommittee, the issue of homelessness has been one of my main priorities. During my tenure on those subcommittees, I have learned a great deal about the causes of homelessness. The causes are varied ranging from the lack of affordable housing to mental or physical ailments to unforeseen economic problems. The good news is that since the Congress first created the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 1987, there has been a great deal of research on homelessness and new approaches have been developed to solve homelessness. The most significant finding is the importance of permanent housing in ending homelessness. Due to this finding, I included a provision in the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act that required HUD to spend at least 30 percent of the homeless assistance grant funds on permanent housing. Re-focusing HUD on permanent housing was something that senators on both sides of the aisle strongly and rightfully support. The 30 percent permanent housing set-aside requirement was established because HUD was not producing enough housing for homeless people. This was a problem because HUD is the only federal agency that provides permanent housing. By 1998, just prior to the enactment of the 30 percent set-aside, only 13 percent of HUD homeless grant funds were being spent on permanent housing. Therefore, the 30 percent set-aside was created to re-balance HUD's homeless programs so that permanent housing was being provided. And, the set-aside has not hurt funding for supportive services since we have continually increased the HUD homeless account and the Administration has worked with other agencies, such as HHS and VA, to ensure that they are providing services to homeless people. In the Senate's fiscal year 2006 TTHUD bill, we have provided a $174 million increase over fiscal year 2005 for the HUD homeless account. The focus on permanent housing was backed by sound research that demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of this approach. By focusing on permanent housing and especially those who were chronically homeless, HUD's programs became correctly focused on those most needy of this assistance, such as disabled homeless veterans. For those reasons, I am extremely pleased and supportive of the bill's provision that requires HUD to use at least 30 percent of funds for permanent housing activities. This provision is probably the most important piece of this legislation. In addition to the permanent housing requirement, I strongly support the bill's provisions that require outcome-based performance evaluations, promote access to mainstream resources for supportive services, and consolidate HUD's competitive grant programs. I especially support the bill's efforts to encourage localities and grantees to participate and use the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), which was initiated by Senator Mikulski and me in the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD and Independent Appropriations Act. I am proud that the vast majority of continuum-of-care grantees have implemented the HMIS. This system is absolutely critical for developing an unduplicated count of homeless people and an analysis of their patterns of use of federal assistance programs. This is a strong bill supported by members on both sides of the aisle. I hope that the Senate and the Congress can pass important legislation because this bill will help eliminate the tragedy of homelessness. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a man who has served over 36 years in the U.S. Air Force, with the vast majority of that service in the Missouri Air National Guard. CMSgt Charles T. DuBois retired on September 10, 2005, after a long and distinguished record of service to the State of Missouri and the United States. Chief DuBois enlisted in the U.S. Air Force on June 18, 1969, at the height of the Vietnam War. He served in the Air Force until March 12, 1973, and entered the Air National Guard on September 14, 1975. As a member of the 131st Fighter Wing in St. Louis, MO, Chief DuBois has been associated with a unit whose history has spanned over eight decades and whose former members have included the likes of aviation pioneer Charles Lindbergh. Throughout Chief DuBois' service at the 131st, he has seen the unit transition from F-100s to F-4 Phantoms to F-15As, and now upon his retirement, the transition to F-15Cs, the Nation's premier homeland defense and air superiority aircraft. As a crew chief, Chief DuBois was fully qualified on: the B-52D; C-141A; C-124; C-5A; F-100 C, D & F; F-4 C, D & E; and the F-15 A, B, C, and D models. Throughout his career Chief DuBois remained dedicated concomitantly to the vital missions of the Air National Guard and to the paramount commitment of taking care of his family. It is the latter that Chief DuBois will continue to fulfill upon his retirement as a devoted husband, father and son. He and his wife Theresa were married in November of 1977 and have one son, Michael, who serves on my staff as an advisor on, among a number of other issues, the National Guard. Chief DuBois has one daughter, Kristine, who lives and works in northern Virginia. As a dedicated son of someone whom I have had the pleasure and honor to work with when I was Governor of Missouri, GEN Charles H. DuBois and his wife Ruth, ``Terry'' as Chief DuBois goes by in civilian life, remains dedicated to their well-being. The General, or ``Charlie Two Stars'' as I often referred to him, and his lovely wife Ruth, can rest assured they raised a son who has served both his family and the military with honor. The honor in which Chief DuBois has served can be seen in the numerous awards, ribbons and commendations he has been decorated with throughout his career. He has received the Air Force Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal with two devices, the Air Force Achievement Medal with one device, the Joint Meritorious Unit Award for 2 AEF duty tours in Provide Comfort and Northern Watch, and the National Defense Service Medal with two devices for his service during Vietnam and Desert Storm. These accolades represent only a handful of the numerous other State and Federal service medals Chief DuBois has collected during his 36 years of service. As Chief DuBois retired, he was the most senior chief master sergeant in the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard and was the youngest guardsman to make chief when he did so, just like his father who, upon his retirement, was the most senior major general in the Air Force and Air Guard and the youngest at the time to make general. Again, I wish to extend Chief Charles T. DuBois my heartiest congratulations upon his retirement and my sincere thanks for the 35- plus years of service he has rendered to the State of Missouri and the Nation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the tragedy that has befallen the gulf coast region, its impact on families and communities, has been truly staggering. Our thoughts and prayers are with each individual who has been affected by this hurricane. Yet even in our darkest hours and our most difficult days once again we have seen the emergence of an American spirit that takes pride in triumphing in the face of great adversity. The examples of this American spirit are too numerous to document. We have seen examples in every neighborhood, every city, and every state in the nation as Americans all over the country have rallied around those who are most in need. In Missouri, we have opened our doors and welcomed displaced families to our homes, our communities, our churches, our schools, our health centers, and our hospitals. Today, I would especially like to highlight the efforts to bring some of New Orleans' littlest victims to safety in Kansas City. Confronted with no electricity, shortage of supplies and the growing security concerns in the face of looters, the New Orleans Children's Hospital was forced to evacuate and seek safer locations for all of their young patients. In the great spirit of the Show-Me State, the dedicated leadership and staff of Kansas City Children's Mercy Hospital didn't sit back and wait to be asked to help. Instead, Children's Mercy President and CEO Rand O'Donnell picked up the phone and called the CEO of the New Orleans Children's and asked how he could help. Children's Mercy threw open their doors to make room for 24 of these children ranging in age from 3 months to 23 years, from New Orleans Children's Hospital. These patients are being treated for a variety of conditions including asthma, cystic fibrosis, leukemia, kidney failure, and broken bones. With the help of the Missouri National Guard, two C-130 military transport planes transported the patients and family members from New Orleans. The C-130 planes, part of the 139th Airlift Wing in St. Joseph, MO, were already in the region as part of national hurricane relief efforts. Children's Mercy also sent a smaller, fixed-wing aircraft capable of transporting two patients at a time. That plane and the Children's Mercy crew were used to transport a critically ill child to another children's hospital. Children's Mercy and MAST ambulances helped transport the children from the airport to Children's Mercy and Children's Mercy South. About 30 parents and other family members traveled with the patients. I am pleased to report that these children are doing well; in fact some of these children have already been discharged from the hospital. Missouri, no stranger to disaster, wasted no time in showing folks that in difficult times we pull together, sending doctors, transport teams, supplies, and the National Guard to rescue these children and their families. Children's Mercy even arranged for lodging, food and transportation to be provided for the parents and families during their time in Kansas City. Thanks to the generosity and hospitality shown to these families by both the hospital and the community some of these families are considering a permanent relocation to the Kansas City area. I rise today to salute the remarkable work of the staff at Kansas City Children's Mercy and the Missouri Air Guard on behalf of some of the hurricane's littlest victims and their families. In times of trouble, people look for leadership. During a week of great uncertainty, you pulled together as a team and led people from chaos to safety. Together you provided leadership and hope to those who desperately needed it. You were an inspirational example to others seeking to provide help. I have never been prouder to represent you and the State of Missouri.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of our committee. I rise to ask my colleagues in the Senate to think about raising energy costs on American families and workers when we are suffering a significant energy problem. The American people already are struggling with high gasoline prices. The natural gas prices are going to go even higher. Winter is approaching, with heating bills regrettably expected to go through the roof. This, in my view, is no time to hit our families with even more energy price hikes. To borrow a slogan from the other side, those are not family friendly. Supporters of using the Congressional Review Act to overturn EPA's new mercury regulation will not mention the higher energy costs they will bring. The problem is, voting for this motion requires an impossible solution. The technology does not exist to accomplish what proponents want. They want to reduce mercury from coal emissions by 90 percent. The administration wants to reduce it by 70 percent. If I had a magic wand, I would be happy to wave it and support a 90-percent reduction. But I don't. And the hard-working workers and vulnerable families in Missouri and all the other States represented here would not be able to take the higher costs that would come with this. Sponsors claim the technology exists and is used in Europe. But they might not mention the technology is used on municipal waste. The last time I checked, orange peels and coffee grinds were a little different from coal. Sponsors may say the technology is starting to be pilot tested in the United States. What they are testing it on is Eastern coal, Appalachian coal, not Western coal, which is a different chemical makeup. It may still seem like coal to you and me, but it makes extracting tiny amounts of mercury very difficult. Western coal is used overwhelmingly in Missouri, and many of our Western States do not respond to the same technologies pursued by the motion's sponsors. Therefore, generators serving my State of Missouri and many other Western coal States would be forced to shut down their coal plants and switch to natural gas to make electricity. Natural gas prices are three times what they were just a few years ago. Using it to make electricity, one Nobel laureate scientist said, is like burning your antique furniture in your fireplace to heat your home. Manufacturers and employers who depend upon natural gas for a raw material are outsourcing their operations to China and other low-cost natural gas areas. That means Missouri workers and workers in States of my colleagues who make plastics, automobiles, chemicals, and metals will be losing jobs. Do we want to see even more workers hurt? Farmers everywhere are already facing high prices for natural-gas- dependent fertilizer. Terrible drought has struck the Midwest's corn and soybean crops. On top of this, the Midwestern barge traffic is crippled by Hurricane Katrina. Do we want to put more burden on the agricultural sector? Fixed-income seniors have little room in their monthly expenses for higher air-conditioning, power, and heating bills. Do we want to hurt these seniors even more? Our low-income breadwinners must drive long distances from rural or urban low-cost housing to get to their good-paying jobs. Their gasoline bills have imposed a heavy tax. Do we want to hurt these vulnerable families more? We all deserve clean air. We need waters free from contamination. We must have food safety. That is why this President imposed the first mercury emissions cuts in our Nation's history. The last administration had to be sued to take action on mercury. Now President Bush is requiring mercury cuts--70 percent cuts for acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide, 70 percent for smog-causing nitrogen oxides, and 70 percent for mercury. Under the President's Clear Skies plan imposed by regulation, nearly every American city will return to clean and healthy air. They will achieve Federal air quality standards without having to impose their own State or local regulations, killing jobs and hassling citizens. We all care about the environment. Together, by defeating this motion, we can protect the environment, protect family budgets, and protect workers' jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the underlying resolution. We do not need to disapprove this regulation that would move our environmental cause significantly forward. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. President, mercury contamination is a critical environmental health issue. This is why I could not be more disappointed about the Environmental Protection Agency's so-called ``Utility Mercury Reductions Rule'' which was finalized in March of this year. The rule jeopardizes the health of our citizens, which is why I have cosponsored Senate Joint Resolution 20, a resolution that disapproves of the Administration's fatally flawed mercury rule. I will include for the Record a letter signed by 15 States, including Wisconsin, which urges passage of S.J. Res. 20. The need for stringent mercury controls has never been more urgent. We know that mercury is a neurotoxin and that mercury exposure can cause a wide range of neurological problems and developmental delays. EPA's own scientists have discovered that twice as many American children are born at risk from mercury exposure than previously thought and the EPA has reported that 1 out of every 6 women of child-bearing age has so much mercury in her blood that it poses a risk to a developing fetus. These risks should not be overlooked. We are talking about the increased potential for developmental delays, lowered IQ, and attention and memory problems, as well as learning disabilities. In addition to the obvious and enormous emotional and psychological toll of such problems, a recently released peer-reviewed Mount Sinai School of Medicine study found that mercury-related brain development problems in children cost the United States more than $2 billion annually. Despite the well-documented health risks posed by mercury emissions, especially to women and children, the administration has moved forward with this flawed rule. Thirteen million acres of lakes and 760,000 miles of rivers across the country have been contaminated by mercury emissions. In fact, in an attempt to protect their citizens, 45 States across the country have issued fish consumption advisories related to mercury. Anglers are warned against eating the very fish they catch because of widespread mercury contamination. Sadly, every one of the 15,057 lakes in my home State of Wisconsin is under a mercury-related warning, so I understand this problem all too well. And even if Wisconsinites didn't eat the fish they caught inside our State, many of them would still be at risk, according to EPA and Food and Drug Administration warnings, if they decided to consume saltwater species like tuna, shellfish, or swordfish. Given the situation in Wisconsin, I was not surprised when the State joined nine other States earlier this year in a lawsuit to force the administration to scrap the mercury emissions rule. And still, even in the face of widespread mercury contamination of our streams, rivers, lakes, and even oceans, and outcry from many States, the administration refused to reconsider. Unless Congress acts to disapprove the administration's rule, reduction in the amount of mercury emitted will be substantially delayed. Under the Clean Air Act, utilities are required to use the maximum available control technology to reduce mercury emissions by 2008. The rule we debate today--and that I hope we void--would turn that clock back by 10 years to 2018 and then wouldn't even achieve a target reduction of 70 percent. A 70 percent reduction would not be met until 12 years later. Clean air and water are critical to every individual's health and we cannot put off meeting our original deadline. Cost effective pollution control technology exists to limit mercury emissions and companies are already moving forward on installing such equipment. We should encourage this innovation and move forward to quickly reduce the health risks we know to be associated with this neurotoxin. The administration's final mercury rule, with its cap and trade emissions proposal, also falls far short of what the Clean Air Act requires to protect people all across the country. This is in part because, as noted by a National Academy of Sciences study, ``hot spots'' of mercury are the inevitable result of such a cap and trade program. Companies wouldn't be required to control emissions at their source and could instead simply buy their way out of compliance. Although trading programs may work with other pollutants, it will not work with mercury. This flawed approach will lead to highly toxic areas peppered throughout each state instead of across-the-board emissions reduction at each site. I am not only disturbed by the substance of the EPA's mercury rule but also by investigations that have determined that the process by which the rule was drafted was badly flawed and by the failure of EPA to consider all available data. First, in conducting its investigation of the mercury rule making process and prior to finalization of the rule, the EPA's Inspector General reported the rule's development was ``compromised and, therefore, may not represent the lowest emissions level that could be achieved.'' Second, and before the rule was finalized, the Governmental Accountability Office issued a report that severely criticized the EPA's rulemaking process, finding that it violated the Agency's own policy, as well as OMB guidance and presidential executive orders. Finally, the EPA chose to ignore a Harvard study, which had been commissioned by the EPA, that demonstrated substantial public health benefits to a more stringent mercury rule. Taken together, the three process problems are unacceptable and cause for serious concern. Discouragingly, even in the face of these reports and data, the administration forged ahead with its flawed rule. Senate Joint Resolution 20 is the first step in protecting our citizens and the environment from the harm we know follows from mercury emissions. I am saddened that we must take this step, but I hope that we can quickly reverse the administration's rule. Swift action by this body and the House will reassure Americans that we are acting with their well-being in mind, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important resolution. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are all very busily working on appropriations bills, and we are working in committees as individuals and leaders on the terrible tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, and our hearts and our thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims. We know a tremendous amount of work needs to be done, and we are just beginning to see how big it is and how difficult it is going to be. Certainly, the distinguished manager of the bill knows in his own State how terrible this crisis is. But I believe it is important to issue a cautionary message that as we approach the anniversary of 9/11, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are still at war and under attack by those who want to end our way of life and destroy our civilization and terrorize our citizens. I have been asking myself: Are we safe from another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11? Is the Government doing everything it can to protect us? What can we do better? We have heard recently some very ominous warnings from leaders of al-Qaida that they are preparing another terrorist attack. Obviously, we have to maintain the appropriate means of defense, and we have done a good job of making it more difficult for terrorists to strike commercial airlines, but we also know, from having seen the attacks in London in July, that terrorists are looking for soft targets. It is not enough to protect what we know they have attacked in the past. We have to do a better job. I think President Bush was right in saying the best way we can keep our country safe is to carry the war on terror to those countries that harbor terrorists. I heard some discussion recently about whether we should have gone into Iraq. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by Christopher Hitchens in last week's Weekly Standard that lays out in detail, for anybody who is interested, why we had to go into Iraq, why it is the right war. I would incorporate that by reference because that article does a good job of outlining my own beliefs.

Mr. BOND. But more important, we cannot just play defense against the terrorists. We have to collect more and better information. We have to get information on the location and activities of the next attack that is being planned. Unless we do a good job of that, we cannot have a good chance of stopping the next major terrorist attack on the United States. I believe one part of that vital solution is found in a robust USA PATRIOT Act that would continue to provide national security investigators with the tools needed to continue to keep our country safe. The PATRIOT Act has been the subject of national controversy and has undergone many unsubstantiated attacks by its opponents. But the fact is that the PATRIOT Act saved lives, and its original content must be preserved. We need to continue to focus on making sure we have the intelligence and the investigative resources necessary to protect against further attacks. We not only need to make permanent the provisions that are already in law, but we also must modify the current House version to include expanded authorities needed by national security investigators. The men and women who are fighting the war on terror every day here at home say that without the PATRIOT Act, many of our Nation's most important successes would not have been possible. It addressed critical vulnerabilities in the pre-9/11 homeland defense posture. For example, it allowed national security investigators, pending a court's approval, to obtain and use a multiple wiretap to track a suspect's phone communications, even when a terrorist switches, changes, or abandons phones to avoid detection, a common terrorist tactic. Specifically, according to senior law enforcement officials, during the summer of 2002, the act allowed our Nation's law enforcement intelligence communities to break up the Portland Seven terrorist cell. Members of that cell had traveled to Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 to join the Taliban and al-Qaida against the United States. In 2004, the act was used to protect the El Paso Islamic Center. When Jared Bjarnason sent an e-mail threatening to burn the center to the ground if hostages in Iraq were not freed, the FBI used provisions of the PATRIOT Act to identify him as the source of the threat. Without the provisions in that act, it would have taken 30 days to obtain a string of needed search warrants, while the threat of attack was only 3 days away. Why is it that we need to make permanent several of the acts's provisions? Why do we need to modify proposed legislation to enhance further the ability of our Nation's law enforcement authorities? Some may argue: If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. But I am a show-me Missourian, and I can tell you that making permanent these provisions is very important. Terrorism is the operative challenge we face. Over the last 4 years since 9/11, we have seen terrorism and specifically violent Sunni extremists waging war against us and our allies, led and inspired by Osama bin Laden and his lieutenant Ayman Al-Zawahiri. They are not a static, monolithic, or predictable enemy. They do not have a country. They are not identifiable as a nation or a state. They are a combination of stateless hierarchical and formalistic structures, equally lethal and fragmented. Because of the traits in the cultural and religious complexities, they are not predictable, quantifiable, or vulnerable to penetration. We have seen this in the Intelligence Committee, and we know that there is a great danger out there that we must continue to work to avoid. These groups are highly organized and disciplined. They are inspired by bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. They have been led, trained, and funded by graduates of al-Qaida training centers. Our enemy is determined to win. It is committed to victory. We cannot afford just to be hopeful. As CIA Director James Woolsey once said: It is as if we were fighting with the dragon for some 45 years, slew the dragon, and then found ourselves in a jungle of poisonous snakes. The snakes are a lot harder to keep track of than the dragon ever was. The PATRIOT Act is designed to be preventive. We know that the terrorists want to bleed us. Unfortunately, we have seen the blasphemy of Osama bin Laden taking the God of Abraham and claiming: Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah. This videotape was just released. And more recently his deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, released a message saying: The land and interests of the countries which took part in the aggression against Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are targets for us. If you continue your politics against Muslims, you will see, God willing, such horror that you will forget the horrors of Vietnam. This is the same kind of challenge and the same kind of threat we saw before 9/11. This, I am saying, requires us to be even more attuned and prepared for a potential terrorist attack. I also note that in the recent BRAC proposals, we have gotten rid of many of the Air National Guard's air national defense missions. On 9/ 11, the Air National Guard flew 90 percent of the first 400 combat air patrols after the first 24 hours of the attack. We need to rethink our dismemberment of those critical assets. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. We are still facing a danger that we cannot overlook as we deal with the very real and certain tragedies of Katrina. I hope we will be able to continue our efforts to make sure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the kind of resources they need to root out, to ferret out, to discover and, we hope, to defend against future terrorist attacks. I thank the Chair and my colleagues, the managers of the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that addresses an inequity and helps clarify a tax exemption that exists for small property and casualty (P&C) insurance companies under the Internal Revenue Code Sections 501(c)( 15) and 831(b). These small P&C insurers, often originally organized as mutual companies to offer insurance coverage to specific groups, mainly serve rural areas and farming communities that otherwise may not have been able to obtain affordable coverage. This tax exemption helps to provide additional surplus and cash flow for these small companies. The Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, ``2004 Act'', amended the small P&C insurer exemption because there were concerns that certain investment companies offering only a small amount of insurance could use the exemption to improperly shelter investment income from federal income tax. Now, under current law, the exemption applies only to P&C (i.e., non-life) insurance companies if their ``gross receipts'' for the taxable year do not exceed $600,000 and if premiums make up more than 50 percent of those gross receipts. A mutual P&C insurance company also may be exempt if its premiums make up more than 35 percent of its gross receipts and its gross receipts do not exceed $150,000. Additionally, P&C companies that have direct or net written premiums, whichever is greater, exceeding $350,000 but not exceeding $1.2 million, Income Election Limit, can elect to be taxed under a similar tax structure on their net investment income. While the 2004 Act helped to close a potential loophole, the special provisions for small P&C insurers are in need of further clarification or reform. The term ``gross receipts'' is not defined uniformly for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code and the Income Election Limit has not been adjusted for inflation since the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Without a clear definition of the term ``gross receipts,'' many unanswered questions remain with respect to determining whether a small P&C insurance company qualifies for exemption under section 501(c)(15). For example, such a company typically invests a large portion of its assets in government bonds. If the gross proceeds on the sale of an asset are included in the measure of ``gross receipts,'' based on a broad cash-flow definition of gross receipts, the mere maturation of bonds and reinvestment could cause a small P&C insurance company to fall out of the exemption even though there has been no change in the size of the business and even if the company realizes a loss on the sale or redemption. On the other hand, this arbitrary result would not occur if a definition of gross receipts that includes gains from the sale or exchange of assets is used. Such a definition of gross receipts looks to the size of the business in terms of income and overall profitability, which in turn ties into the reason for the tax exemption. If the Income Election Limit is not adjusted to keep pace with inflation, the impact could be severe. Take, for instance, a small P&C insurer in my State that started insuring the local farmers in the late 1980s. Over the ensuing years, the company's client base changed very little, but the insurance premiums increased gradually to keep pace with inflationary pressures. As a result, while the business itself has not grown in absolute terms, its premium base has, therefore resulting in the loss of the elective alternative and simpler tax on investment income. For the farmers and consumers covered by the small P&C insurer, this loss of the tax exemption or a simpler, more limited tax structure is certain to mean higher insurance premiums, leaving the client with the choice of cutting coverage or paying higher costs, neither of which is a preferred option. This is the last thing our agricultural community needs. The legislation I am introducing today addresses both of these concerns. This legislation would add definitional language for ``gross receipts'' clarifying that gross receipts means premiums, plus gross investment income. In addition, the proposal simply increases the Income Election Limit from $1.2 million to $1.971 million, and indexes it annually for inflation. According to the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, this legislation will help hundreds of small P&C insurance companies nationwide. Under this proposed legislation, at least 56 of the 82 small insurance companies in my State will be covered, thereby enabling them to continue providing critical insurance coverage to small businesses across Missouri. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to infuse some fairness into our tax code and at the same time help the thousands of farmers, homeowners, and entrepreneurs covered by small P&C insurers in this country. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with the Finance Committee to see it enacted into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that addresses an inequity and helps clarify a tax exemption that exists for small property and casualty (P&C) insurance companies under the Internal Revenue Code Sections 501(c)( 15) and 831(b). These small P&C insurers, often originally organized as mutual companies to offer insurance coverage to specific groups, mainly serve rural areas and farming communities that otherwise may not have been able to obtain affordable coverage. This tax exemption helps to provide additional surplus and cash flow for these small companies. The Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, ``2004 Act'', amended the small P&C insurer exemption because there were concerns that certain investment companies offering only a small amount of insurance could use the exemption to improperly shelter investment income from federal income tax. Now, under current law, the exemption applies only to P&C (i.e., non-life) insurance companies if their ``gross receipts'' for the taxable year do not exceed $600,000 and if premiums make up more than 50 percent of those gross receipts. A mutual P&C insurance company also may be exempt if its premiums make up more than 35 percent of its gross receipts and its gross receipts do not exceed $150,000. Additionally, P&C companies that have direct or net written premiums, whichever is greater, exceeding $350,000 but not exceeding $1.2 million, Income Election Limit, can elect to be taxed under a similar tax structure on their net investment income. While the 2004 Act helped to close a potential loophole, the special provisions for small P&C insurers are in need of further clarification or reform. The term ``gross receipts'' is not defined uniformly for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code and the Income Election Limit has not been adjusted for inflation since the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Without a clear definition of the term ``gross receipts,'' many unanswered questions remain with respect to determining whether a small P&C insurance company qualifies for exemption under section 501(c)(15). For example, such a company typically invests a large portion of its assets in government bonds. If the gross proceeds on the sale of an asset are included in the measure of ``gross receipts,'' based on a broad cash-flow definition of gross receipts, the mere maturation of bonds and reinvestment could cause a small P&C insurance company to fall out of the exemption even though there has been no change in the size of the business and even if the company realizes a loss on the sale or redemption. On the other hand, this arbitrary result would not occur if a definition of gross receipts that includes gains from the sale or exchange of assets is used. Such a definition of gross receipts looks to the size of the business in terms of income and overall profitability, which in turn ties into the reason for the tax exemption. If the Income Election Limit is not adjusted to keep pace with inflation, the impact could be severe. Take, for instance, a small P&C insurer in my State that started insuring the local farmers in the late 1980s. Over the ensuing years, the company's client base changed very little, but the insurance premiums increased gradually to keep pace with inflationary pressures. As a result, while the business itself has not grown in absolute terms, its premium base has, therefore resulting in the loss of the elective alternative and simpler tax on investment income. For the farmers and consumers covered by the small P&C insurer, this loss of the tax exemption or a simpler, more limited tax structure is certain to mean higher insurance premiums, leaving the client with the choice of cutting coverage or paying higher costs, neither of which is a preferred option. This is the last thing our agricultural community needs. The legislation I am introducing today addresses both of these concerns. This legislation would add definitional language for ``gross receipts'' clarifying that gross receipts means premiums, plus gross investment income. In addition, the proposal simply increases the Income Election Limit from $1.2 million to $1.971 million, and indexes it annually for inflation. According to the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, this legislation will help hundreds of small P&C insurance companies nationwide. Under this proposed legislation, at least 56 of the 82 small insurance companies in my State will be covered, thereby enabling them to continue providing critical insurance coverage to small businesses across Missouri. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to infuse some fairness into our tax code and at the same time help the thousands of farmers, homeowners, and entrepreneurs covered by small P&C insurers in this country. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with the Finance Committee to see it enacted into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, it has been a long road to get here on SAFETEA, and I am pleased to be here. I thank Chairman Inhofe, Senators Jeffords and Baucus, with a special thank you to my staff: Ellen Stein, John Stoody, and Heideh Shahmoradi; Senator Inhofe's staff, Senator Jeffords' staff, Senator Baucus's staff, the help of Senate legal counsel, employees of FHWA, who ran 1661 runs, Ross Crichton, Susan Binder, and Carolyn Edwards, and the staffs of the Banking, Finance, Commerce, and Budget Committees. I might inform my colleagues from Arizona, this includes highways and bridges, mass transit, safety, and other items. I thank particularly my colleague from Arizona for mentioning a bridge across the Mississippi River. We have the largest truck traffic in the Nation coming east and west on Highway 70, the eastern edge of Missouri. If they do not have a bridge, they do not get to Illinois. That is one point people from drier States perhaps do not understand. This bill is one characterized by equity, by safety. Environmental issues are addressed by getting environmental input early on and giving them an opportunity to resolve the problems before money is wasted. It brings the stakeholders to the table earlier. Under the CMAQ provisions, we allow in six States the use of clean-burning biodiesel fuel. My colleagues and staff have worked tremendously hard in moving this bill over the last 2\1/2\ years and I want to highlight some of the key elements of this bill that I am proud of. H.R. 3 achieves several major goals: First, equity--this bill carefully balances the needs of the donor States while recognizing the needs of the donee States. There are many sections in this bill that I am proud of supporting, such as the fact that all donor States will receive an equitable increase to, at the minimum, a 92 percent rate of return by fiscal year 2008. The average rate of growth among States is 30.32 percent and all States will grow at not less than 117 percent over what they received in TEA-21 starting in 2005 ramping up to 121 percent by 2009. I, along with Chairman Inhofe, both Senators Baucus and Jeffords, and our partners on the House side have worked diligently in trying to ensure that the bill remain fair and equitable among all States. There are many States that continue to fall under the $1.00 rate of return, I am one of them. Due to the budgetary constraints as well as balancing the needs of both the donor States with the needs of the donee States, we were unable to achieve any better. Another key component of this bill is safety. This bill goes a long way to saving lives by providing funds to States to address safety needs at hazardous locations, sections, and elements. Safety in this authorization is for the first time given a prominent position, being elevated to a core program. Inadequate roads not only lead to congestion, they also kill people. We average more than three deaths a day in Missouri and I think that a large number of these deaths can be attributable to inadequate infrastructure. Nearly 43,000 people were killed on our roads and highways last year alone. I am glad that the bill reflects the continued commitment to making not only investments in our infrastructure, but also to the general safety and welfare of our constituents. I am hopeful that the level of funding provided toward the safety program and other core programs is a sufficient amount to address the growing needs of all states. The passage of this bill comes at a very critical time, especially for my home State of Missouri. We have some of the worst roads in the Nation, with over 50 percent of its major roads in poor or mediocre condition, requiring immediate repair or reconstruction. Environmental issues are also addressed, such as to ease the transition under the new air quality standards, the conformity process is better aligned with air quality planning, as well as streamlining the project delivery process by providing the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during the environmental review stage. Another accomplishment of our package ensures transportation projects are built more quickly by bringing environmental stakeholders to the table sooner. Environmental issues will be raised earlier and the public will have better opportunities to shape projects. Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move through a more structured environmental review process more efficiently and with fewer delays. This bill also ensures that transportation projects will not make air worse in areas with poor air quality, while giving local transportation planners more tools and elbow room to meet their Federal air quality responsibilities. Transportation planning will be on a regular 4-year cycle, require air quality checks for projects large enough to be regionally significant and reduce current barriers local official face in adopting projects that improve air quality. Another accomplishment in the bill is allowing local areas to spend congestion, mitigation and air quality funds on the purchase of biodiesel fuel. Soybean based biodiesel provides another market for midwestern, including Missouri, farmers. The clean burning fuel reduces smog forming ozone, soot and hazardous air pollutants. Homegrown biodiesel also decreases our dependence on foreign oil. It's a win for the environment, energy security and farmers. Lastly, jobs. We have all heard the statistics and this bill undoubtedly will create jobs. The comprehensive package here before the Senate today is the key to addressing our Nation's needs in infrastructure development and improvement. I am hopeful that other Members of the Senate agree and pass this bill so our State transportation departments can get back in the business of letting contracts.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to honor Dr. Mary E. Clutter who will be retiring in August from the National Science Foundation, NSF. To say that Dr. Clutter has had a distinguished career at the NSF would be an understatement due to her countless achievements in the area of biological science. Today's biological science has not only been assisted by Dr. Clutter but in many respects, it has been defined by Dr. Clutter, and her leadership in this important scientific area. Dr. Clutter personifies the model public servant with a career at the NSF that spanned almost three decades. Dr. Clutter began her career as a temporary program officer at the NSF. Over the ensuing years, she has served with distinction in many important leadership roles at NSF: as the division director of Cellular Biosciences, Senior Science Advisor to the NSF Director, acting deputy director, and assistant director for the Directorate for Biological Sciences. She has served four Presidential administrations beginning with President Ronald Reagan to our current President George W. Bush. As a member of the Senior Executive Service, Dr. Clutter has received numerous awards, including the Meritorious and Distinguished Executive Presidential Rank Awards from Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and William Clinton. During her career, Dr. Clutter has worked to develop a long-term and forward-thinking strategic vision for the biological sciences within NSF covering plant biology, environmental biology, computational biology, biodiversity research, long-term ecological research, and nonmedical microbiology. Further, these areas of research have influenced other scientific research areas and will continue to influence the biological sciences for years to come. In my opinion, Dr. Clutter's most important achievement has come in the area of plant genome research. It is without question that what we now know and will know about plant genome research would not have occurred without Dr. Clutter's vision, leadership, and hard work. In 1997, I asked the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, to create an interagency working group to develop a new national plant genome initiative. OSTP wisely appointed Dr. Clutter to cochair the working group and, under her leadership, a plan for the national plant genome program was born in June 1997. Under the new National Plant Genome Initiative, Dr. Clutter brought together key Government research personnel from NSF, the Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, and others to develop and implement the plant genome program. The plant genome research program at NSF has grown from an initial $40 million in fiscal year 1999 to $95 million today and Dr. Clutter has ensured that every penny has been spent wisely and, with this investment, the United States is the world leader in plant genome research. The plant genome program has already yielded tremendous results that will eventually contribute to better agricultural products that will improve human health and nutrition. For example, Dr. Clutter's leadership has contributed to the completion of the Multinational Arabidopsis Sequencing Project. This project was completed 3 years ahead of schedule and produced the first complete sequence of a higher organism. This work has further contributed to the sequencing work of other plants such as maize, soybeans, and other economically significant crops. With this research, scientists are now beginning to understand the basic mechanisms underlying important plant traits such as cold tolerance, disease resistance, and seed development. Dr. Clutter's leadership has created a new scientific foundation on plant biotechnology that will eventually yield major breakthroughs in our understanding of plants, which will eventually lead to the development of new advances in agriculture, energy, and the environment. I strongly believe that the impressive research being done with plant genomics, led by Dr. Clutter, can eventually be a very powerful tool for addressing hunger in many developing countries such as those in Africa and Southeast Asia. While Dr. Clutter's contributions to plant biology and genomics are extremely distinguished and too numerous to list in this tribute, I do want to emphasize the role she has played in broadening the participation of women and minorities in the fields of science. Countless number of today's scientists and our future scientists have been positively influenced by Dr. Clutter. She has promoted and emphasized international research collaboration between U.S. and foreign scientists and provided opportunities for international research experiences for young scientists. As the former chairman of the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, my staff and I have found Dr. Clutter to be an invaluable resource and ally in advancing plant genome research. I especially enjoyed her professionalism and passion for science, which never waned or wavered during the years I worked with her. Finally, on a personal level, in addition to being a leading intellect, she is warm, engaging, enthusiastic, and has a high tolerance for the less knowledgeable. Dr. Clutter's new liberties are well deserved but her departure will be a major loss to the NSF and the Federal Government. She will clearly be missed by the science community, and I will definitely miss her in this capacity, both as a friend and a public servant. I wish Mary and her family all the best.