Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend and colleague Senator Mikulski to introduce today the Environmental Enforcement and Security Act (EESA) of 2004. This bill will increase substantially enforcement of our Nation's environmental laws, increase environmentally related homeland security, and further protect our Nation's water supply from terrorist attack. Our families and environment deserve communities free from intentional violators of environmental laws and terrorists who would attack our drinking water supplies. With this dramatic new commitment to environmental enforcement and drinking water security, we will tell those who would intentionally harm us that we are coming after them. The environment and health of our communities need vigorous prosecution of intentional violations of our Nation's environmental laws. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Criminal Enforcement program investigates the most significant and egregious violators of environmental laws that pose a significant threat to human health and the environment. However, the number of EPA Criminal Enforcement Special Agents has remained constant for the last several years. In addition, in our post-9/11 world, EPA Special Agents are needed for homeland security duties to detect, investigate and respond to terrorist threats involving chemical or biological hazards. EPA Special Agents support the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. EPA Special Agents are members of FBI Counter-Terrorism Response Teams and Evidence Response Teams. However, with this new post-9/11 need to respond to the threat of terrorism, some are concerned that environmental violations may not be receiving the attention they deserve. A recent report by the EPA Inspector General, an internal review by the EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program, and various media accounts tell how EPA needs more resources to meet both its environmental and homeland security duties. Our bill responds to these calls with a dramatic new commitment to EPA's enforcement program. My bill will put 50 new EPA Criminal Enforcement Special Agents on the environmental beat. EESA will also provide for 80 Special Agents to support homeland security duties. With our bill, we will no longer need to make a choice between protecting our homeland and protecting our environment. With out bill, those who would intentionally hurt our families and communities through environmental harm will know that we are sending the manpower and resources needed to come after them. We are also sending local communities new funding to protect our drinking water supplies. Every family and every business needs clean and safe drinking water. Every mother needs to know that when she turns on the tap in her kitchen sink, clean and safe water will come out. That is why our bill devotes $100 million for additional drinking water security protections. EESA will send grant funds directly to water systems to protect against terrorist attack with fencing, intruder detection, access control and water monitoring. The need is great, but the federal government will attempt to do its share. Our bill will also enhance EPA's ability to protect the environment and human health in several other ways. EESA will double the number of enforcement trainers and triple EPA's enforcement training budget. EESA funds will train Federal, State and local inspectors, law enforcement agents and prosecutors with the training they need to pursue environmental violations. Our bill will also improve the environment by doubling compliance assistance funds to fill gaps in enforcement coverage, reach regulated facilities not visited by inspectors, and help the regulated community, especially small businesses, to understand EPA's complex and extensive regulatory requirements. Our bill will also make EPA's enforcement actions more efficient and targeted by fully funding a strategic enforcement targeting program. EESA will enhance EPA's ability to target its enforcement actions to where the environment needs them most. Strategic targeting will also improve EPA's ability to identify and respond to increased noncompliance with environmental laws. Our Nation's environmental laws exist to protect our families, our communities and our natural resources. Those who would intentionally violate our environmental laws deserve the full force of the government to stop them. Our families and communities also deserve our most vigorous efforts to protect them from the specter of terror. Chemical and biological threats represent one of the most sinister means for men to terrorize each other. We will send our homeland security agencies the environmental expertise and personnel they need to confront these threats. We will also send our local communities new help for additional drinking water security protections. Our environment deserves no less, our families deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to support passage and funding of the Environmental Enforcement and Security Act of 2004.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague. I thank my colleague from Nevada, particularly, for talking about the importance of the FSC/ETI bill because today jobs are a critical need in our country. Yes, we see signs that the economy is recovering, but we are not seeing the growth in jobs. Now the unemployment rate is down to 5.6 percent. Obviously, we all would like to see it lower. There are a number of steps that we can take, and I think passing a good highway bill is one such step. There are a number of steps that would be very harmful if we took them. I think, as we talk about jobs and the very volatile subject of insourcing and outsourcing, we need to understand what this is all about. I was interested this weekend when I read an old story that apparently had been in the papers in Missouri for some time, but it was rerun in my hometown paper. When Missourians call a toll-free number about their food stamps or welfare benefits, the response comes from India. The State of Missouri has contracted with a call center operator. It is about a $6 million annual contract, which I guess was the best contract at the time that Missouri could get. They signed the contract, and now those jobs have been outsourced to India. This is something we hear a lot about. People are complaining about outsourcing. A very interesting figure was in the Wall Street Journal maybe 10 days or so ago which talked about both sides: jobs going overseas and jobs coming back. And they came up with the startling figure that--I think it was for 2003--there was $74 billion worth of outsourcing. The United States spent $74 billion outsourcing to other countries, but at the same time insourcing came to $131 billion, so that is a $54 billion net increase in investment in jobs in this country. We have done a little work and found out there are about 105,000 Missourians who have jobs with foreign companies in the State. I met with the officials from the fine Webster University in St. Louis. They have done some outsourcing. They have three campuses in China that provide long-distance learning to people throughout Southeast Asia. I can't tell you how many people, as I have made trips overseas to promote export of Missouri products and services, have told me they are getting their degree from Webster University. The question of outsourcing and insourcing has two sides. It is absolutely important to not do any harm to jobs that are coming into this country. But most importantly, we must make sure we don't do anything in Government that forces jobs out of this country. The FSC/ ETI bill is vitally needed. We need to pass it. We need to get conferees appointed on the Workforce Investment Act. We need to train people so they will have the jobs. I also focused this week on a battle we had on the energy bill. Carl Levin and I were successful in getting bipartisan support for the Bond- Levin amendment which imposed reasonable standards for increasing fuel economy in autos, vans, and light trucks. We were fighting against something that, as you look at it, would possibly have led to a significant decline in U.S. jobs. The Kerry-McCain amendment would have significantly increased CAFE standards, and this could have penalized full-line manufacturers. Those manufacturers--Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, General Motors--have plants in Claycomo, Hazelwood, Fenton, Wentzville, MO, where working families have good jobs in the auto industry that were put at risk. I was very interested to go back to my files and find some letters from the UAW. In one, dated February 26, 2002, President Steve Yokich wrote urging support for the Bond-Levin proposal, saying the Hollings- Kerry proposal discriminates against the big three auto companies. On the second page, it says: The UAW continues to support improvements in CAFE that are economically and technologically feasible, and are structured in a manner that is fair and even-handed towards all companies. But we strongly oppose changes such as the Hollings-Kerry proposal that call for increases that are excessive and are structured in a manner that would discriminate against the Big Three automakers or facilitate the outsourcing of small car production to other countries. Such proposals would result in serious job losses for thousands of UAW members and other automotive workers. We have to be careful as we look at regulatory efforts that might drive jobs out of the country. Alan Reuther wrote on March 13, 2002, saying the Kerry-McCain amendment would mandate an excessive discriminatory increase in fuel standards that would directly threaten thousands of jobs for UAW members and other automotive workers in the country and would enable the big three auto companies to outsource their small car production to other countries, resulting in the loss of additional jobs. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. The last time I spoke on this, I pointed out there were a number of other things we have done that really do endanger jobs. I mentioned the small engine proposal where, fortunately, we were able to stop the California Air Resources Board from mandating the use of catalytic converters on small engines for lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and chainsaws that would have forced the closure of plants in the United States that make those small engines and in all likelihood outsourced 22,000 American jobs to China. I also talked about asbestos litigation which has driven much of the refractories business out of the United States because of the excessive burden of the asbestos claims. We need to move on a good asbestos reform bill to pay those who are truly sick and stop the jackpot justice for plaintiffs' attorneys who seek to sue anybody who has had anything to do with asbestos, whether plaintiffs are sick or not. Finally, natural gas is a major source of outsourcing right now. Not only does it hit homes that heat with natural gas with high bills; it puts heavy costs on farmers who use fertilizer coming from natural gas. The artificially inflated demand Congress has mandated and the artificially constrained supply Congress has mandated have pushed the cost of natural gas so high that many natural gas producing industries have had to move their operations to other countries where the demand is not artificially inflated and the supply is not curtailed. We are outsourcing jobs because of our policy on natural gas. We have forced natural gas use in electric generating boilers which is not an effective use of that valuable commodity. We need a good energy bill. We need to stop the filibusters and get an energy bill done. We need to move forward on the asbestos litigation reform bill. We need to move forward on the FSC/ETI bill. All of these are being filibustered or stopped or delayed, and we need to get about it. We need to get the Workforce Investment Act. We need to appoint conferees so we can train these people. One of the great needs is for more workers with scientific engineering and technological backgrounds because those are the jobs of the future. We need to train them. Senator Mikulski and I need money in the VA-HUD bill to increase the National Science Foundation so they can develop more student interest in basic science and get more minorities and women involved. We have a lot of challenges to meet the changing needs of the job force in the 21st century. Rather than bloviating about one part of the problem, we need to fix the entire problem. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, might I ask for 10 minutes after the Senator completes his remarks?

Mr. BOND. I propound a unanimous consent request I be recognized for 10 minutes following Senator Ensign.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Any pregnant woman will tell you that all she wants is for her baby to be born healthy. A pregnant mother can take her vitamins, follow the instructions of her doctor, and do everything in her power to deliver a healthy baby. But, no amount of prenatal care can protect her unborn child from the hands of a violent criminal. This question before us is simply--when a violent crime is committed against a pregnant woman--is there one victim or two? Pregnant women who have been harmed by criminal violence and their families know that there are two victims. In a letter to the sponsors of this bill, the family of Laci and Conner Peterson, whose lives were brutally ended, requested that the bill before us today be referred to as ``Laci and Conner's Law in their memory.'' The Peterson family can, better than any of us, express the impact of this terrible loss. They wrote, ``As the family of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, this bill is very close to our hearts. We have not only lost our future with our daughter and sister, but with our grandson and nephew as well.'' No one can tell the Peterson family that there was only one victim. The Peterson family mourns for two lives that were brutally ended. There is no question that the criminal responsible should be accountable for the loss of both lives. When pregnant women suffer at the hands of violent criminals I urge my colleagues to protect both victims under Federal law.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this morning I heard the minority leader talking about a couple of books that have been written, one by Mr. O'Neill and one by Mr. Clarke. It appears there is an effort in the Senate to use the September 11 Commission and its work as an effort to point fingers, to say--in this instance, by the minority leader-- somehow President Bush and his administration were responsible for the September 11 attack. I took a post on the Senate Intelligence Committee this past year because I believe the most important thing we can do to safeguard the United States and our citizens from further terrorist attacks is to figure out how to improve the intelligence-gathering system. There is no question there were flaws, there were holes in the intelligence system, that we did not get as good intelligence as we should have. Some of those were legislatively mandated. We had walls between the CIA and the FBI that prevented them from sharing information. We took those down in the PATRIOT Act. We had problems with inadequate funding for intelligence, particularly human intelligence. We found a lot of areas with sophisticated electronic surveillance and aerial surveillance. While they could tell us the movements on the ground and pick up conversations, they were not good at knowing what was going on. We did not have the sources we needed inside of the countries and even inside of the terrorist organizations themselves to find out what should be done. I hope the focus of this body when we talk about intelligence is not on what political advantage we can gain. I have seen some of Senator Kerry's political advisers say we are going to carry the battle for the White House to the floor of the Senate. When we start talking about intelligence and trying to bring that in as part of the political campaign, we are not serving the needs of this country and its intelligence service well. There is much we need to do and there are lots of votes in Congress we ought to debate. The joint inquiry into September 11 has identified a number of systemic problems which contributed to the intelligence community's failure to prevent the September 11 attacks. There was a lack of comprehensive counterterrorist strategy, a lack of information sharing among intelligence agencies, and even a lack of military response to al-Qaida and others. There have been problems for a number of years, predating the Bush administration, I might add. When Mr. Clarke points to the Bush administration in his book and claims there were all kinds of failures and faults on behalf of the Bush administration, those people who look at his previous statements, read his testimony, and listen to the other testimony, tend to believe there was a lot of fiction going into the writing he put into that book. He has made unfounded statements that are contradicted in a number of other places where he has made comments. The article that appeared in the New Yorker on March 24, by Jane Mayer, in an interview at Mr. Clarke's home in Arlington, VA, July 28, 2003: Richard Clarke, the country's first counterterrorism czar told me--the writer, in an interview at his home in Arlington, Virginia--that he wasn't particularly surprised that the Bush Administration's efforts to find Osama bin Laden had been stymied by political problems. He has seen such efforts fail before. Clarke, who retired from public service in February . . . served every President since Ronald Reagan. . . . Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director, George Tenet, President Bush and, before him, President Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden. Nonetheless, Clarke said their best efforts were doomed by bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with Pakistan. Those efforts were clear if you listen to some of the testimony. I will try to refer only to the testimony that is being made in public before the joint terrorism, joint September 11 inquiry. There were grave concerns raised. There were concerns raised about whether it was appropriate for the United States, as has been suggested by some, perhaps in 2001, to launch an attack on Afghanistan. Given the reluctance some seem to have about launching an attack on Iraq, to think we could muster votes or muster international support for launching an attack on Afghanistan to disband the Taliban is a stretch beyond reason. Furthermore, we know by June of 2001, 16 of the 19 terrorists who carried out the tragic airplane bombings on September 11 were already in the United States. Even had we been able to take out bin Laden, which is no easy task, we would not have stopped the terrorist cells already in the United States planning the attacks. There is a very good article in today's Washington Times by Jack Kelly, national security writer for the Pittsburgh, PA Post-Gazette, a former marine, Green Beret, and deputy assistant secretary for the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He notes Mr. Clarke's charge that worries about al-Qaida took a back seat to concerns about Iraq and ballistic missile defense have been effectively countered by Dr. Condoleezza Rice, security adviser. He notes the very first foreign policy strategy adopted by the Bush administration in early September prior to the attack was a plan to compel the Taliban in Afghanistan to stop providing sanctuary to al-Qaida, but that was a program that would take a long time to carry out. Mr. Kelly goes on to say: The thrust of Mr. Clarke's complaint is that Mr. Bush failed to do in eight months what President Clinton failed to do in eight years. But all he has to offer is a continuation of the ``law enforcement'' approach to terrorism that failed to deter the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993; the bombing of the Khobar Tower barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996; the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. He goes on to say, it is no wonder that Mr. Bush wanted a new approach, a different approach. As President Bush told Dr. Rice, it was time to stop swatting flies and to go after al-Qaida and its support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article from Cal Thomas and Jack Kelly be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BOND. There are those who say the President was totally focused on Iraq and he was unaware of the dangers of al-Qaida. Well, that is just totally false. Was he focused on a regime change in Iraq? Did Mr. O'Neill say he was focused on a regime change in Iraq? Perhaps. If so, it was because this Congress in 1998 passed a very strong resolution warning about the dangers of Iraq and saying its weapons of mass destruction--which had not been accounted for, and particularly after the U.N. had been moved out--posed a great danger and that we should pursue a policy of regime change. This was stated. This was the policy of the Clinton administration, clearly stated by President Clinton; Secretary Albright; Secretary Cohen; his National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger. Well, when you go beyond that, it is not unusual the new administration would have that as a top concern. But to say they did not have a plan, they were not concerned about al-Qaida, has absolutely nothing to do with reality. I think you are going to find out as you look at the testimony before the Joint Commission--and I hope we will have a report that will be declassified coming out of the Intelligence Committee which will also deal with these and other questions, not, as I emphasized before, in an effort to point fingers, but as an effort to find out what we need to do to get the kind of intelligence system we need. If one is interested in pointing fingers and reading books, the minority leader has talked about Mr. O'Neill's book, talked about Mr. Clarke's book. I would urge my colleagues to also read a book written by Richard Miniter called ``Losing bin Laden.'' Mr. Miniter, in that book, talks a great deal about Mr. Clarke's role and the frustrations apparently Mr. Clarke and others had because the Clinton administration was either unwilling or did not have the will to take strong action to deal with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Now, I do not think that is a necessary basis for our actions in this body. I do not think that is a constructive matter for us to be totally consumed in debating. Certainly, we did not have the intelligence we needed, and there were extenuating circumstances why the Clinton administration did not take action, did not accept the offer of Sudan, did not move against suspected locations of al-Qaida. Those can be debated by historians. But for some people to come to the floor and say after 9/11 President Bush was focused solely on Iraq is absolute nonsense. When you listen to the testimony, it is clear when the attack occurred, the questions were raised. Everybody thought it was probably al-Qaida. They asked questions. Was it Hamas? Was it Hezbollah? Was it Iraq? Within a day or so, the conclusion the intelligence community came to was it was, in fact, al-Qaida. So when the President and his staff retired for the planning conference, they had one map on the wall. It was a map of Afghanistan. It was a map of the Taliban-controlled country of Afghanistan, which was harboring the terrorist Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida. They developed a plan. They formulated the plan, and they attacked. They attacked and they disbanded the Taliban forces, and they drove Osama bin Laden away from his training camps. We are still pursuing him. I think you will hear in testimony, if people are asked, that all of the available resources have been focused on capturing Osama bin Laden. It think it is clear when you look at the mountainous regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, this is not an easy area to track someone down, particularly when that person has the support of a terrorist organization in a very hostile country. We note that it took 5 years to find the bomber of the Atlanta Olympics in North Carolina. That should have been friendly territory. But now the good news is, the Pakistanis are working with us, and we are continuing the effort to capture al-Qaida and al-Zawahiri, who is the mastermind behind it. We have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We are slowly but surely taking down the leadership of al-Qaida, as we have taken down the leadership of Saddam Hussein's regime. I think it is clear when you look at what Dr. Rice has done--and I do not need to apologize for Dr. Rice. I think if you listen to her testimony, read the comments she has written, you will see she, through her work, has earned the high reputation and distinction she has received as a valued National Security Adviser. As a matter of fact, Dr. Rice requested in January of 2001 that Mr. Clarke present her with ideas to address the al-Qaida threat. The administration acted on the ideas it made since: weaponization of the Predator; increased funding to Uzbekistan, a front-line state opposed to al-Qaida. Yet to say we did not go forward with an attack on Afghanistan at the time was clear because there was not the sufficient foundation readily developed by that time. The President has never ignored al-Qaida. But the President and the administration were legitimately concerned about the threat posed by Iraq, which we know Iraq had sponsored terrorism, attacked its neighbors, used chemical weapons, violated 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors, circumvented sanctions to acquire billions of dollars to fund its illegal activities, and continued to try to shoot down over 1,000 times United States and United Kingdom aircraft that were patrolling the no-fly zone. Based on all that information and the intelligence provided to those of us in Congress, 78 Senators--and I was one of them--voted to use force for a regime change in 1998. When senior advisers and the President met at Camp David on September 15, 2001, the Director of Central Intelligence said there was no evidence Iraq was responsible. That is when the President focused, in that time, on al-Qaida. There is so much to be done to improve our intelligence. I would hope we could leave our political battles for the campaign trail. I have lots to say about some of the votes of our colleague who is running for President. That is not going to help us with this battle on terrorism. We need to use the 9/11 Commission and the work of the Intelligence Committee to develop a sound policy for combating terrorism with good intelligence. I yield the floor. exhibit 1 [From the Washington Times, Mar. 24, 2004] The Blame Game . . . With Misfires (By Cal Thomas) At least two things should raise suspicions about the motive of Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism adviser to four presidents, whose name, face and book were all over the newspapers last weekend and on ``60 Minutes'' Sunday night. One is that Mr. Clarke's book, in which he accuses the Bush administration of not heeding ``warnings'' from the Clinton administration about possible terrorist attacks by al Qaeda, was available only to journalists and not to those in the administration on the receiving end of Mr. Clarke's criticism. So says an administration spokesman with whom I spoke. The other red flag that should make us cautious about Mr. Clarke's assertions is that his former deputy, Rand Beers, is now an adviser to the presidential campaign of John F. Kerry. Part of Mr. Kerry's campaign strategy is to persuade the public President Bush has failed to effectively fight the war on terror. Mr. Clarke is right about one thing. He admits ``there's a lot of blame to go around [for September 11, 2001], and I probably deserve some blame, too.'' Yes, he does, and he can begin with the first World Trade Center bombing and continue with the bombing of the USS Cole and the attack on the American Embassy in Tanzania, all of which occurred on the watch of President Bill Clinton, whom Mr. Clarke was advising. Was Mr. Clinton not listening to Mr. Clarke's advice? Did Mr. Clinton ``do a terrible job on the war against terrorism,'' the charge he levels against President Bush, who was in office less than nine months prior to September 11, 2001? Responding to Mr. Clarke's allegations, senior administration official told me Mr. Clarke is engaged in a ``flagrant effort to avoid responsibility for his own failures.'' He added, ``The Clinton administration never gave the Bush administration a plan that included the possibility of hijacked airplanes used as missiles to be flown into buildings. Most of their advice was general in nature.'' Even if it had specifically warned the Bush people, he said, it probably would not have prevented September 11, which was well on its way to execution by the time the Bush administration took office. The official confirmed press reports that al Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay are providing ``good stuff that's reliable'' and are helping locate wanted suspects still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does he think there is a possibility Osama bin Laden will be captured or killed this year? ``There are a lot of military and CIA people who are surprisingly optimistic he will be found this year,'' he said. Even so, he noted, capturing or killing Osama, while gratifying will be mostly ``symbolic,'' because others among ``the death worshippers'' will take his place. The senior official thinks press reports of nuclear suitcase bombs are exaggerated but he cannot rule out the possibility. Where was Mr. Clarke while all these threats were developing? He was the chief adviser to President Clinton on terror. The Clinton administration approached terror as a law enforcement problem, not a national threat, which is precisely the strategy Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry would pursue were he to become president. At least that is the strategy he says he will employ today. Who knows what he'll propose tomorrow or next week? The ineffective response to terrorism by the Clinton administration encouraged the terrorists to go for broke with such high-profile targets as the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Capitol or White House. We know it was only because of the bravery of passengers on the fourth plane, which crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, that the horror was not greater. If Mr. Clarke wants to cast blame for September 11, he should look in a mirror. It was he, not the Bush administration, who controlled the power, strategy and direction of U.S. policy toward terrorism for the last decade. That we were hit hard on September 11, 2001, was not the fault of George W. Bush, but William Jefferson Clinton and his chief adviser on terrorism, Richard Clarke.

Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I would like to commend Mrs. Sieglinde Kurz on her outstanding career as a public servant. Mrs. Kurz received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Fontbonne College, in St. Louis, MO in 1961 and her Masters Degree in Health Care Management from Northwestern University, in Evanston, IL in 1976. I have worked with Mrs. Kurz on numerous occasions and I have always been impressed by her consummate professionalism. Her selfless attitude and intense work ethic have consistently led her to do great things within the field of veterans' health care. Mrs. Kurz began her career with the Department of Veterans Affairs in November 1965 as a research chemist in renal hypertension research at the St. Louis VA Medical Center. During her illustrious government career, Mrs. Kurz was the administrative assistant to the Associate Director in Hines, IL; Associate Director of the VA Medical Center in Tomah, WI; Associate Deputy Regional Director for the Northeastern Region in Albany, NY; Associate Director of the VA Medical Center in Marion, IL; Director of Construction Project Coordination and Budget at VA Headquarters in Washington, DC; and Director of the VA Medical Center in Marion, IL. She left the Marion VA Medical Center to accept the position of Director at the St. Louis VA Medical Center. Mrs. Kurz served as the Director of the St. Louis VA for 5 years and 8 months, a term spanning from May 1998 thru January 2004. The St. Louis VA is one of the largest and most complex facilities in the nation and it has steadily improved under her guidance. Mrs. Kurz provided leadership for this dual division hospital by facilitating care for more than 36,000 veterans annually. The primary service area of metropolitan St. Louis includes 9 counties in Missouri and 14 counties in West Central Illinois. During her tenure in St. Louis she led a care team of 1900 full time employee equivalents. Mrs. Kurz's stellar career includes a number of achievements. As a leader in the field of health care management she served as a mentor for executive career field director trainees and VHA Health Care management trainees. She also achieved the status of diplomat in the American College of Healthcare Executives. Mrs. Kurz was listed as one of the top female directors in the Missouri Hospital Association Newsletter, Summer 2003 Edition, and in Who's Who Among Top Executives in 1998-1999. In 1999, during her tenure as Director of the St. Louis VA Medical Center, she was recognized with the Vice-Presidential ``Hammer and Scissors'' award for her efforts in piloting the first Department of Veterans Affairs Canteen Integration. During her time at the St. Louis VA, Mrs. Kurz worked tirelessly to improve veterans' access to care and she opened three new health clinics. She also supported her employees by providing educational opportunities for mid-level managers through programs such as mini-MBA. She promoted an open policy that allowed staff at all levels to communicate through employee and supervisory forums. After 37 years of government service, Mrs. Kurz retired on January 31, 2004, having devoted countless hours to the welfare of American Veterans. On behalf of all veterans in the St. Louis area, I would like to thank her for her tireless efforts and wish her well in her retirement.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is my distinct privilege to rise today to pay special tribute to the one of the world's foremost physiologists, Dr. Norman Borlaug. Dr. Borlaug is widely credited as the father of the 1960s Green Revolution, a movement that has continued to cure hundreds of millions of people around the globe from starvation. It is very likely that Dr. Borlaug is directly responsible for saving more lives than anyone else in the twentieth century. Born in Cresco, IA on March 25, 1914, Dr. Borlaug was raised on livestock farm before attending the University of Minnesota as a biology student and a member of the University's wrestling team. After graduation, in addition to being inducted to the University's Hall of Fame for his wrestling record, Dr. Borlaug carefully balanced teaching while successfully working on the development of several new strains of disease-resistant wheat. The new strand of wheat went on to be widely utilized in Mexico, Pakistan, and India and led to dramatic increases in food production, in turn earning Dr. Borlaug the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. The Dallas Morning News attests his lifelong dedication to physiology to growing up among the food shortages of the Great Depression: ``The sight of farm failures, sheriff's sales and hungry children would stay with him and influence his choices for the rest of his life.'' Dr. Borlaug added in his own words, ``I saw all that unfold. And I think that had something to do with how things turned out.'' Dr. Borlaug has certainly earned the right to slow down after his many years of hard work, but he continues, even at age 90, to a be a leader in the development and implementation of new technologies, in effect, ensuring the world's most needy adequate food supplies. He often travels to Asia and Africa, Europe and Latin America to help the public understand the value and potential of new biotechnology, while respecting and preserving the environment. In addition to his efforts globally, Dr. Borlaug is helping farmers make a living by leading the fight against wealthy and well-fed anti-technology protectionists in Europe. Some would rest after a Nobel Peace Prize and many others would certainly take the opportunity to reward themselves and their family-- deservedly--by answering lucrative offers from the private sector. In a world where 800 million children are hungry and even more live on less than one dollar a day, Dr. Borlaug has never stopped fighting, teaching, inventing, or caring. It is clear that Dr. Borlaug is inspired by the rewards his efforts yield for others. Missouri's renowned plant scientist, George Washington Carver words are appropriate when used to describe Dr. Borlaug: ``No individual has any right to come into the world and go out of it without leaving behind him distinct and legitimate reasons for having passed through it.'' So very few of a talented world, billions strong, have met this test to the extent that Dr. Borlaug has. He has selflessly and tirelessly developed his gifts from God on behalf of millions and billions of desperate people he does not know, and who will never know whom to thank. I also thank Mrs. Borlaug and the rest of the Borlaug family, on the behalf of the people of the State of Missouri, America, and throughout the world, for sharing Norman's attention for all these years. Dr. Borlaug will soon gain status as the world's youngest 90 year old. I speak for all in thanking him for his lifelong dedication to agriculture and I sincerely wish him a happy birthday. The world owes Dr. Borlaug endless amounts of gratitude and we will look forward to celebrating his achievements again on his 100th birthday.

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. I hope not further away.

Mr. BOND. Right. Amendments Nos. 2850, 2697, and 2715, En Bloc

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I today join with my constituents in recognizing the 20th Anniversary of Daughters of Sunset. For the last 20 years, the Daughters of Sunset have been instrumental in mini-outreach initiatives in and around the Sikeston, MO area. The membership is a unique group of women dedicated to maintaining a clean and safe community for all. The organization has been successful in its school and summer lunch programs for needy children, community cleanup and revitalization efforts, fire and natural disaster assistance, and transportation programs to aid the sick and elderly. The Daughters of Sunset have also been responsible for assisting the homeless and destitute as well as convey sympathy to bereaved families. The Daughters of Sunset also have provided 41 academic scholarships, and have publically recognized the efforts of outstanding community leaders in and around Southeastern Missouri. Today, past participants of the organization carry on the tradition of the Daughters of Sunset and continue to participate in communities throughout Missouri, and all over the country. It is my great honor to recognize the community participants that comprise the Southeast Missouri Daughters of Sunset on this, the twentieth anniversary of the organization. On behalf of the people of State of Missouri, I look forward to 20 more years of leadership and outstanding civic participation from the Daughters of Sunset.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, yesterday we began our discussion on outsourcing--a subject well worth discussing because it is of great concern. I am sorry I didn't have a chance to hear all of the discussions because I think we need to address all of the issues related to the needless outsourcing of U.S. jobs abroad. It is a problem in my State as it is in many others. I imagine I am not the only Member of this body who has been confronted with workers who have lost their jobs, and many more who feel that the loss of their job is likely. They raise these concerns about outsourcing and jobs going abroad. Yesterday I heard a lot of strong rhetoric about how bad it was, but I didn't hear a discussion of the many complicated issues that go into outsourcing. I did not hear a thorough discussion of how effectively we can remedy the problem. As a matter of fact, the chairman of the Finance Committee raised the question that perhaps one of the remedies being proposed might put us in violation of the World Trade Organization rules with the possible imposition of much broader penalties on other U.S. workers not directly affected. I think it is time we begin a discussion of this complicated issue. I hope we have hearings on it. I hope we have discussions on it because I think the people of America need to understand what it is like as we live in a true world economy. I want to look first at what I consider to be a real problem of outsourcing; that is, governmentally enforced outsourcing. You say, What? The Federal Government and State governments are threatening to drive jobs out of the United States? Do we realize that? In this body last year, I led a debate in which there were strong opinions on both sides. I don't think I need to remind my colleagues of the debate over the regulation proposed by the California Air Resources Board that proposed to require all small engines--the engines we have in weed trimmers, in lawnmowers, leaf blowers and chainsaws--would have to have catalytic converters. This was a very contentious debate. I thank my colleagues who supported me and who helped us prevent the imposition of this rule nationally outside of California. We talked about some of the dangers--the danger that 1,100-degree catalytic converters would start fires. Grass burns at 500 degrees. The danger of a small engine with a 1,100-degree catalytic converter is great. But there was a more direct danger. If that California regulation had gone nationwide, then the companies set up to manufacture small engines would not have been able to manufacture them in their existing facilities. They told us--and outside experts agreed--that they would have to rebuild these facilities. Where would they rebuild the facilities? They would rebuild the facilities in China because they could do it so much more cheaply and use less expensive labor in China to turn out the engines. Some of them are now produced in China, and they would have moved all of the small engine production to China. I was in Poplar Bluff, MO, last Saturday night. I was thanked by the 1,100 employees of Briggs & Stratton in Poplar Bluff. I was thanked, and my colleagues in this body and in the House were thanked, because we took steps to stop the California Air Resources Board from sending a regulation nationwide that would have cost them their jobs. Not just 1,100 jobs at Poplar Bluff in Missouri, a total of 5,000 jobs in Missouri would have moved offshore. They would have been outsourced. Nationally, more jobs in Wisconsin, almost as many jobs in Kentucky, jobs in Alabama, jobs all across the Midwest, a total of 22,000 American jobs would have been outsourced by that governmental regulation if this body, at my request, and the other body at the request of Congresswoman Emerson, had not been able to say you are not going to impose those restrictions outside the State of California. I thank my colleagues on behalf of the workers in Missouri and around the Nation whose jobs were not outsourced. But then we have another problem. Do you know what is driving jobs offshore now? A shortage of natural gas. Natural gas prices have run way up because of governmentally enforced provisions. The natural gas crisis we have in the United States is a governmentally enforced shortage, a governmentally enforced hike. Many low-income families find their natural gas bills going through the ceiling. All of us who heat with natural gas see our natural gas bills going up. Worse, men and women who work in industries that use natural gas-- chemical and related industries--are seeing their jobs move offshore because the producers of those goods have to go to other countries where they have abundant natural gas supplies, where the natural gas supply has not been constrained by governmental action and not been enhanced by governmental mandate. We have been sitting around here and we cannot get an energy bill through that would tap the absolutely essential natural gas resources in the Presiding Officer's State of Alaska--and, I might add, ANWR, too. We have natural gas, but we cannot use it. Why? Because governmental regulations say we cannot drill here or there; we have not been able to build a pipeline. Why have natural gas prices gone up? We have mandated electric utilities not to use abundant coal but to use natural gas. Natural gas should not be used to fire electric generating boilers. It has too many other uses. There was an article last week in the Wall Street Journal by Russell Gold talking about how natural gas costs hurt United States firms: The root of higher natural-gas prices is a federal policy that promotes use of the relatively cleaner-burning fuel without providing incentives or means for natural-gas companies to increase production. So while demand soared in recent years, especially from a raft of new gas-fired power plants, producers have struggled with supply. Most North American gas fields are years past their prime, and environmental restrictions prevent drilling on many of the most promising areas. He has summed it up well. We have a crisis in natural gas prices and natural gas supply and in outsourcing of natural gas-using industries because of government policy. The farmers in my State have to use fertilizer. The ``n'' in the three-numbered fertilizer most farmers use or the anhydrous ammonia comes from natural gas, and they see tremendously high prices. I believe in a little bit of 13/13/13 and the prices jumped in that small sack I buy. When you are buying tons and tons of this, it cuts into farmers' profits and raises their costs. Do you know what I think. We have all these impact statements, environmental impact statements, but maybe what we need is a jobs impact statement. Before we pass one of these good ideas or before some agency of government comes up with a new regulation, maybe they ought to have to do an impact on the jobs it would cost or create. I would like to have some of my colleagues who have been so vocal and persuasive and vociferous in arguing against outsourcing to have a chance to vote on whether we ought to have a jobs impact statement. That seems to make a lot of sense to me. Maybe we can do something. I will be working on that. I may offer that for this body's consideration. But I tell you something else that is causing outsourcing and that we have not done anything about. We cannot move forward on asbestos litigation reform. There are 3,000 or 4,000 people who are tragically sick because of asbestos, but the asbestos trial lawyers have filed class action suits with 700,000 plaintiffs. That struck home for me because I live in northeast Missouri. My hometown of Mexico, MO, used to call itself the saddle horse and fire clay center of the world. Saddle horses are three- and five-gaited horses. Rex McDonald, trained by Tom Bass, is one of the leaders. Unfortunately, we are no longer the fire clay or refractory center of the Nation. We had thousands and thousands of people employed in making high-temperature and abrasive-resistant bricks that line steel furnaces and petroleum-cracking furnaces that line the Navy boilers. That used to be the major industry. But it turns out that some time ago there was some asbestos used in the mortar that held the refractory's products together. So all of those companies have 700,000 lawsuits filed against them. Most, if not all of them, have been forced into bankruptcy because of asbestos litigation. Their buyers have come in and picked up the customer lists and the recipes and moved the production to Canada to supply our basic industry needs. The most basic industry, basic for steel, for aluminum, for petroleum products, has been driven largely to Canada to get away from asbestos litigation. We are not taking the steps we need to allow us to bring back into the United States the production of one of the most basic elements of heavy industry. That is one thing maybe we can work on. Maybe we can pass an asbestos bill--we should have done so a long time ago--to care for those who are really sick, but also to cut off frivolous claims that do nothing but line trial lawyers' pockets. Tort reform is another thing we need to address to keep businesses productive so they can hire workers. I tell you one other thing. I have a particular interest because the Senator from Maryland and I chair the appropriations subcommittee that appropriates funds for the National Science Foundation. We are seeing a tremendous shortage of scientists and engineers. We are just not finding enough United States students who want to follow a science or engineering curriculum. With the increasing developments in science and technology and engineering, we have to be turning out more scientists. We need more money. I make a plea for more money for the National Science Foundation budget so we can increase the incentives the National Science Foundation is using, along with science centers and educational institutions through the country, to train more scientists and engineers and technicians. Yes, we need to train more people in community colleges. That is very important because if we do not train them, other countries, such as India, with tremendous reservoirs of engineers are turning out top quality engineers. If we do not have the engineers to do the work that is needed, that work is going to go to India. We need to do something about it. And we ought to begin moving. In a growing competitive and interdependent global economy, as any economist will explain, there are increasingly greater flows of trade, capital, and labor. Outsourcing apparently has been occurring wherever freedom has existed because private businesses will seek to increase efficiency and provide better products at a lower cost by focusing resources on what they do better than everyone else. This has occurred in the United States in the previous half century, as the United States employment grew from 45 million to 130 million jobs. I was one who thought I would always buy an American car. I thought I had been doing so. But do you know something. More and more American cars have foreign-made parts and foreign-made components. At the same time, more foreign companies are coming into the United States. You have to do a lot of research to find out which car has more and which car has less U.S. components. The auto industries are employing people at good wages in the United States at high-tech jobs, while lower-tech jobs are done overseas. But the American consuming public has demanded the best quality automobiles. So it is difficult, when you go out and try to buy American, to find out what is truly American. Those eggs have been scrambled, and it is difficult to unscramble them. But as much a problem as outsourcing and foreign trade is, I want to give you some good news. There are some in this body who voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement and have now roundly condemned it. But on Monday of this week, the Governor of Missouri proudly announced--and I congratulate the State--that Missouri exports grew by 6.5 percent in 2003. From his release, it says Canada and Mexico were top importers of Missouri products. Canada imported $3 billion of products; Mexico imported $748 million of products. Not bad. Those are two countries I believe are in NAFTA. But more interestingly, the Governor goes on to say: More than 75,000 jobs in the state were directly tied to industries that export to other countries. . . . Also, the top 10 exporting industries paid higher average annual wages, at $41,894, than the statewide average wage of $33,600. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that release be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, as businesses and our economy restructure--a natural occurrence of the business cycle--workers in our country have done better overall. ``Overall,'' however, does not mean everyone has done better. Many have not, and those are the people for whom the overall benefits of restructuring or even the so-called temporary nature of the unemployment is of little comfort because they want to work and provide for their families but they do not have a job. Yesterday afternoon, the Senator from New Jersey was very loudly and strongly decrying the outsourcing of jobs, and he made, I believe--I did not hear all of his statement--a very compelling case. At the same time, the firm he was associated with announced last fall it intended to establish an Indian unit with 250 employees working on operations in technology. Now, how does that square with not outsourcing? That is something perhaps we should discuss in a hearing or further debates. But I just came across an interesting article from Tom Friedman, certainly not with a Republican base, but I think a very good New York Times international analyst. He was talking about interviews he had with an Indian who was a founder of 24/7's customer call center. He said: How can it be good for America to have all these Indians doing our white-collar jobs? The reply was: All the computers are from Compaq. The basic software is from Microsoft. The phones are from Lucent. The air- conditioning is by Carrier, and even the bottled water is by Coke, because when it comes to drinking water in India, people want a trusted brand. On top of all this . . . 90 percent of the shares . . . are owned by U.S. investors [including U.S. pension funds]. This explains why, although the U.S. has lost some service jobs to India, total exports from U.S. companies to India have grown from $2.5 billion in 1990 to $4.1 billion in 2002. What goes around comes around, and also benefits Americans. Mr. Friedman concludes his article quoting the Indian gentleman saying: It's unfair that you want all your products marketed globally, but you don't want any jobs to go. And Mr. Friedman replies: He's right. Which is why we must design the right public policies to keep America competitive in an increasingly networked world, where every company--Indian or American-- will seek to assemble the best skills from around the globe. And we must cushion those Americans hurt by the outsourcing of their jobs. But let's not be stupid and just start throwing up protectionist walls, in reaction to what seems to be happening on the surface. Because beneath the surface, what's going around is also coming around. Even an Indian cartoon company isn't just taking American jobs, it's also making them. Those are Mr. Friedman's comments. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that op-ed be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, there are many ways to address the needless outsourcing of jobs. One of the things we could do is to have the Government impose even more restrictions on the private sector. However, in many cases that is not the solution; it is the problem. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is a relationship between high employment restrictions and high unemployment. CRS says: . . . the four largest countries with the most protection (Germany, France, Italy, and Spain) had the highest unemployment rates of any country. CRS cites the ``unintended effect of making firms reluctant to take on new workers'' is the result of the protectionist policies. Interesting comments on this came from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who was President Clinton's Secretary of Labor. On November 2, 2003, in the Washington Post, he said, in a headline: ``High-Tech Jobs Are Going Abroad! But That's Okay.'' What is he talking about? How did he say that? Man, that sounds bad. That sounds as bad as some of the statements we have heard out of economists in this administration. I will submit the whole thing for the Record, but at the end of it he said: So why don't I believe the outsourcing of high-tech work is something to lose sleep over? He says: First, the number of high-tech jobs outsourced abroad still accounts for a tiny proportion of America's 10-million-strong IT workforce. . . . Second, even as the number of outsourced jobs increases, the overall percent of high-tech jobs going abroad is likely to remain relatively small. Next: Outsourcing also poses quality-control problems. Next: As smart U.S. companies outsource their more standard high- tech work, they're simultaneously shifting their in-house IT employees to more innovative, higher value-added functions, such as invention, creation, integration, key R&D and basic architecture. . . . There's no necessary limit to the number of high-tech jobs around the world. . . . In conclusion, this former Secretary of Labor says: . . . it makes no sense for us to try to protect or preserve high-tech jobs in America or block efforts by American companies to outsource. Our economic future is wedded to technological change, and most of the jobs of the future are still ours to invent. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the article by Robert Reich be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, as we have this debate, it is impossible to observe one nearly ignored reality. Despite whether we often or always disapprove of corporate decisionmakers, it is impossible to be for employees while being against employers. We cannot be unrestrained in our desire to impose additional costs on employers and expect there not to be harmful consequences to employees. One would not know it by listening to some of the Presidential wannabes, but when you put more burdens on employers, they respond. They respond to punitive taxation, regulation, and litigation. They will outsource. They will move away. They will respond positively to incentives. We hope the incentives of the underlying subject of the bill before us today to provide tax relief for exports will help us get more jobs in this country. In my State, governmental regulations, State and Federal, are being used by some to try to prevent a foreign firm from investing $400 million in a plant that will employ 200 high-paid workers in a poor area. They are trying to stop insourcing. We are in year 3 of environmental assessments to see if the plant can meet all the EPA, Corps of Engineers, and State standards. If we keep piling on burdens, this firm can conduct operations in Thailand. I am afraid that option may be becoming more attractive every day. As I said, the trial lawyers have litigated the refractory business out of Missouri. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, we have the most expensive legal system in the world, yet filibuster after filibuster keeps us from reforming the system. Tort taxes, for which America is famous, are estimated to have been over $230 billion in 2002, 13 percent higher even than the costs in 2001. Who pays for these skyrocketing costs? The tort lawyers pocket their 40 percent, but employers, employees, and consumers contend with those costs. We are not upgrading the locks and dams on the Mississippi River that are the vital lifeline to make sure we can use the farm productivity of the Midwest to ship grain to export markets around the world, export markets that are bringing up prices and restoring economic well-being to the agricultural sector. We need to invest in our infrastructure. Let me add highways. Highways are very important to growing jobs. I wouldn't want to leave the Chamber without saying that. There is much work to be done. Some apparently think that highways are too expensive: ignoring the greater expense of decay and inefficiency. A good highway bill has passed the Senate, but is bogged down and may not emerge from the House. We spend $60 million over 12 years studying whether our 70-year-old dilapidated locks on the Mississippi River should be modernized--a study that has resulted in nothing but red tape, congestion, and delay, without resolution. While failing to respond to the obsolescence of our Nation's most important inland waterway and artery to the world's markets, we are at risk of outsourcing corn and bean production to other countries. This quagmire has been excellent news for South American farmers who are winning market share as fast as we are losing it. On the Missouri River, another key waterway, the U.S. Department of Interior proposed in 2000 to end water transportation and increase flood risk for downstream businesses and landowners so they could experiment with pallid sturgeon habitat. Our farmers and other shippers who are struggling to compete look to government for more efficient transportation options. Instead, government uses it regulatory power to consign farmers and other employers to the mercy of a higher-cost transportation monopoly. More good news for foreign farmers courtesy of the U.S. Federal Government. Farmers and businesses in my State routinely raise issues related to high energy costs. We need to be encouraging domestic production of energy. Instead we discourage it. Rather than safely developing renewable resources at home and oil in Alaska, we import oil from the Middle East. We had an energy bill that promoted all forms of domestic energy production but could not overcome a filibuster. So we are outsourcing midwestern farm jobs and Alaskan energy jobs to Saudi Arabia by Congressional obstruction. The Wall Street Journal featured an article recently noting how some firms were ``off-shoring'' in response to dramatic increases in natural gas necessary to fuel their operations. Then there is the tax burden on U.S. businesses. According to some estimates, the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax burden in the world--second only to Japan. Most small businesses are taxed as individuals and are subject to the top marginal rates. Consequently, according to election-year Democrat rhetoric, these small businesses and corporations are ``the rich'' and next week we will see numerous attempts to raise their taxes. Again, Congress can't stick it to the employers and claim to be deeply concerned about employees. We don't always like what corporations do--and I troubled by what seems like a herd mentality when it comes to outsourcing of many jobs--but businesses exist because Americans voluntarily purchase their products, Americans own them, Americans run them, Americans work for them. No one advocates a business environment free of regulation, but we cannot continue to be oblivious to the costs that we, little-by-little, heap upon our employers. If we want them to hire people and do so in the U.S.--and I certainly do--why don't we prove it. Why don't we resist raising their taxes next week? Why don't we end the filibuster on legal reform or ``tort tax'' reform? Why don't we end the filibuster on an energy bill? Why don't we modernize our infrastructure? Why don't we recognize that by working with businesses, we can reduce pollution rather than reduce American jobs.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his request. Before the distinguished minority assistant leader leaves the Chamber, I want to say I appreciate the good work of the majority leader and the minority to try to resolve this roadblock. What we have before us is a false choice posited by the Senators from Arizona and Connecticut. It does not matter how much they try to hold hostage the extension of the highway bill to keep these people working, there is no guarantee--and they cannot guarantee--that the House would accept whatever they put on. They can hold this body hostage, and they have shown their willingness and ability to do so, but should they be able to add an amendment to the highway extension, or now that we have passed the bill on extending the 9/11 Commission, it still has to go to the House. The action of the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday was not unanimous. There are many other issues that should be debated about that bill, but I was not here to object and no one objected to passing the bill from this body to extend the 9/11 Commission. It is important to realize this Commission was set up a long time ago. They knew their deadline was May 27, and if one were to ask the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, who appointed members of the Commission, I believe he said at the time that the problem with commissions is we give them a lot of time and a lot of money and they do not always come up with the deadline. They have had this time. They have had extensive hearings. Now the question is whether the House will accept the proposal that the Senate has adopted to extend the 9/11 Commission for 2 more months. This body cannot hold hostage the other body. What the Senators from Arizona and Connecticut are doing is seeking to hold hostage the whole highway program in the United States. If they hold that hostage, there is no assurance that even next week there will be agreement by the House to take a bill with the 9/11 Commission. TEA-21's current extension expires on Sunday. If we fail to extend this, there will be a shutdown of any further contract authority for Federal aid highway projects and a shutdown of payments for work already contracted for by the States and performed by contractors. This means no further projects can be approved or awarded. It also means that not only the Federal Highway Administration but also the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Administration, as well as the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, will cease operation. The Federal Highway Administration said that 2,925 employees will be furloughed. These are not just employees in Washington but Federal employees in every State office throughout the Nation, including those in the States of Arizona and Connecticut. This also does not even include the many contractors that will be affected by the shutdown. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration employees would also be furloughed affecting about 630 Federal employees. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration would stop operation. This action would put out of work 1,078 employees, and that does not even include the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. All told, 4,633 people will not be able to report to work on Monday, March 1, if this bill is held hostage to a proposition that may or may not be acceptable sometime or any time by the House of Representatives. Not only are we talking about people's livelihoods, we are shutting down the Federal agencies, which will have an adverse consequence for our Nation's highways, motor carrier safety, and consequentially for the condition and operation of our Nation's surface transportation system. The Federal Transit Administration will be affected without passage of this extension. This is a time when the States are reaching the most intense quarter of the fiscal year for announcing construction projects. States, particularly those that have seasonal construction award periods, and others that have work immediately prepared to go to bid, will be effectively stopped from making further awards or bid lettings that have not been previously approved. Construction and other contractors will suffer economic loss with the potential for smaller operators to suffer substantial economic hardship. Many of the businesses and many of the operations involved are small businesses that would effectively be cut off from their ability to be paid for their work if we refuse to do this extension. Jobs will be lost in the private sector. Immense harm could happen. It is not possible to calculate immediately the actual job impacts for shutdown outside the workforce, but there was a survey, AASHTO's August 2003 survey, which emphasized that perhaps 90,000 jobs could be lost if we went to a short-term extension. An extension is bad enough, but a complete disruption of the program when there are crucial job needs across the country will have an economic impact on the families directly, and on the economy. Another major problem if we fail to extend it is that further debts will not be paid. In the absence of an extension, the Government will not have authority to continue to reimburse States for projects for which expenditures by States have already been made. This has caused a cashflow crisis, since States are obligated to pay contractors with or without reimbursement from the Federal Highway Administration. Some States depend on Federal aid funds to pay bond debt service, and the highway trust fund will be charged interest under the Cash Management Improvement Act. We need the extension to stop playing politics with people's jobs in this most important legislation. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have the pleasure of serving both as chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a member of the Transportation/Treasury Appropriations Committee. I want to join with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee in emphasizing the urgency of adopting this technical correction as soon as possible. I also want to join with the majority leader and commit myself to seeing to it that this correction is enacted into law in the next few weeks.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2627

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Yes, we agree that this is the amount we consider to be included in the SAFETEA authorization bill for the ferry boat discretionary program.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, going to the doctor for a checkup is hard enough these days between juggling family and work schedules. Few of us get all the checkups and screenings we need. Making matters worse, more and more doctors are closing their practices or limiting the services they offer. They are doing so because they cannot afford the increasing costs of medical malpractice insurance which they are required to carry. According to the American Medical Association, 19 States are in a full-blown medical liability crisis, including the home State of the occupant of the chair and mine. In Missouri, physicians' average premium increases for 2002 was 61 percent on top of increases the previous year of 22 percent. What happens? Well, 31 percent of the physicians surveyed by the Missouri State Medical Association said they were thinking about leaving their practice altogether. Almost one in three physicians in Missouri considered leaving their practice because they cannot afford the exorbitant medical malpractice insurance cost caused by the lawsuits brought--some frivolously, and many of them, I assume, against doctors. Doctors who have practiced for years in Missouri are closing their doors. But this is not just a problem for doctors. They are well educated. They can move elsewhere and resume their practice, as difficult and unfair as that is. The real damage and pain is being felt by the patients. Last summer we considered a comprehensive bill, S. 11, the Patients First Act. Unfortunately, the motion to proceed was not successful. Because this issue is so critical to the health care of all Americans and because the crisis continues to grow, inaction should not be an option because the outcome of considering the same comprehensive reform bill again is clear. Today we have narrowed our focus on the health care needs of women and babies. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists last year said: An ailing civil justice system is severely jeopardizing patient care for women and their newborns. Across the country, liability insurance for OB/GYNs has become prohibitively expensive. Premiums have tripled and quadrupled practically overnight. In some areas, OB/GYNs can no longer obtain liability insurance at all, as insurance companies fold or abruptly stop ensuring doctors. When OB/GYNs cannot find or afford liability insurance, they are forced to stop delivering babies, curtail surgical services or close their doors. The shortage of care affects hospitals, public health clinics, and medical facilities in rural areas, inner cities and communities across the country. It is a real problem in Missouri. A survey conducted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in August of 2002 said 55 percent of their members from Missouri have been forced to change their practice, retire, relocate, decrease surgery, stop practicing obstetrics, decrease the number of deliveries, and decrease the number of high-risk obstetric care. Last year, Missouri lost a total of 33 obstetricians. I want to share with you a few examples. A St. Joseph, MO, practice, the only practice in Northeast Missouri to accept Medicaid, lost one-third of its doctors after the insurance company would no longer offer insurance to OB/GYNs. St. Joseph now has only seven OB/GYNs serving its population. A Missouri doctor who has been in private practice for 3 years experienced a 400 percent increase in his liability premiums over the past 3 years and received a quote for $108,000 in 2004. This OB/GYN is considering quitting obstetrics in order to find affordable insurance. A gynecological oncologist in Missouri left a group practice and eliminated a rural outreach clinic because of rising professional medical liability premiums. ``Women with gynecologic cancers in Ste. Genevieve, Carbondale, and Chester now have to drive over 100 miles to see a gynecologic oncologist and receive the care they deserve,'' said the doctor. An OB/GYN in St. Ann, MO, was forced to close his practice last year because of medical liability costs that rose 100 percent. The practice had delivered about 400 babies a year. Twelve doctors at the Kansas City Women's Clinic used to serve women in both Missouri and Kansas. But, because of rising medical liability insurance rates, the clinic could not find a single company that would offer them a medical malpractice insurance policy they need for their office in Missouri. I should say parenthetically, I have been approached by some lawyers who practice medical malpractice plaintiff cases, and they said: The problem is the insurance companies are making too much money. It is not the lawyers. That is strange when the insurance companies can't even stay in business. They can't stay in business because of the lawyers. As a result at the end of 2002 they closed their doors to their Missouri patients. There were over 6,600 visits a year in their Missouri office. Now, these women must either travel to Kansas to see their OB/GYN or find a new doctor elsewhere in Missouri. Two Kansas City, inner city OB/GYNs who serve low-income, high-risk patients had to sell their practices to their hospital in order to continue to see patients in Missouri. Excessive litigation has created an environment that forced two doctors--committed to serving some of the most vulnerable women in Kansas City--out of business. They are no longer in independent practice. One OB/GYN practice in Missouri had to take a $1.5 million loan to pay the malpractice insurance for this year. That does not even include the cost of the tail coverage. Other doctors in Missouri are considering going without insurance for their tail coverage because they simply can't afford the premiums. Women are having a hard time getting the care they need and communities are losing their trusted doctors. We have a health care system that is in crisis in Missouri. The bill before us today, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act is narrowly crafted to protect access to prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care for women and babies by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the delivery of OB/GYN services. This bill will protect the right of an injured patient to recover fair compensation while at the same time prevent clear lawsuit abuse. The bill protects the right of injured patients to receive full economic damages that cover the out-of-pocket expenses that a victim might incur due to a doctor's negligence, such as hospital costs, doctor bills, long-term care, other medical expenses, and lost wages. This bill also includes a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, with deference to existing and future State caps. This bill maximizes the amount of awards received by injured patients by limiting attorney's contingency fee to a reasonable, sliding scale. Too often large percentages of an injured patient's award go to attorneys, leaving the patient with less money for their medical care and other needs. Injured patients are entitled to an overwhelming amount of their award after settling or winning a lawsuit. Currently, lawyers in many States can take up to 40 percent of all awards and settlements, robbing the injured patients of their award. We think by protecting injured patients by limiting lawyers to 15 percent of any payment over $600,000 makes good sense. These are just a few of the many vital reforms contained in this bill. I urge my colleagues to protect access to quality health care for women and babies and support the Healthy Babies, Healthy Mothers Access to Care Act. We cannot afford to have OB/GYNs to continue closing their practices, reducing the number of babies they deliver or eliminating care for high-risk patients, the uninsured, and the underinsured because of excessive frivolous lawsuits brought by plaintiff attorneys.