Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. We would like to have a vote on that amendment. This is an extremely important amendment providing veterans health care. It will be vitally important. I would like to have a recorded vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I was off the floor, and I am not sure whether the chairman asked for a vote on the Bond-Mikulski amendment.

Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that amendment be temporarily set aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Mikulski and ask that it be immediately considered.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota who has an amendment and a longer statement. I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized after me to offer his amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. I believe there will be others who wish to do so. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague from North Dakota. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond-Mikulski amendment. This amendment is simple and straightforward. It would add $1.3 billion to the Iraq and Afghanistan supplemental for veterans' medical care. Our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have my steadfast support, and so do those men and women who fought before them. Our veterans need to know that America is with them, and that we owe them a debt of gratitude. Congress should show that gratitude with deeds, not just words. That means making our troops and our veterans a priority in the Federal checkbook. As the ranking member on the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, my guiding principle for the VA budget is that promises made to our veterans must be promises kept. I believe this means no membership fees or toll charges on veterans to get health care or prescription drugs, and no waiting lines for veterans to get medical care or to get their claims processed. Under a law passed after the Persian Gulf war, VA must give priority to returning troops for immediate medical care. The Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 requires VA to provide 2 years of medical care benefits for returning servicemembers. This law was originally passed to meet the medical care needs of veterans who served in the first Persian Gulf war. The law applies to servicemembers who are in Iraq now. But the VA medical care system is under tremendous stress. During August, I traveled to VA clinics across Maryland. I saw dedicated staff providing quality medical care. But they are stretched to the limit. Nationally, there are over 100,000 veterans waiting longer than 6 months to see a VA doctor. Some veterans are waiting as long as 2 years. The wait for specialty care like spinal cord injury care, blind rehab, and prosthetics can be even worse. The Blinded Veterans Association tells us that there are 2,600 veterans waiting up to 1 year for admission into a blind rehab center. Our veterans didn't stand in waiting lines when they were called up to serve our country. They shouldn't have to stand in line or pay toll charges to get the medical care they deserve. The Bond-Mikulski amendment is necessary to keep our promises to our Nation's veterans by ensuring that soldiers returning from war, and the veterans who fought before them, will get the medical care they deserve. The President's budget proposed a new $250 annual membership fee for veterans, and increased copayments for veterans' prescription drugs and visits to the doctor. Senator Bond and I have worked together on a bipartisan basis this year to reject these proposals. This funding will ensure VA has the resources necessary to meet the needs of our veterans and returning troops. I thank Senator Bond and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BOND. I would be happy to do so. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BOND. Yes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is an amendment that Senator Mikulski and I believe is very important to provide adequate funding for medical care for the Veterans Affairs Department. This amendment provides $1.3 billion in emergency funding for the Department of VA medical care account which truly is an emergency. This amendment addresses the medical care needs of returning servicemembers from Iraq and Afghanistan who will require medical care service from the VA. As many of my colleagues know, the VA cannot currently keep up with the demand of the current veteran population, as illustrated by the tens of thousands of veterans who have been told to wait at least 6 months to get an appointment. Even more distressing is the fact that many of them may have to wait up to 2 full years, and that is unacceptable. If the VA cannot currently help those who are in the system, how will they be able to help those veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan? In the legislation before us today, we have provided emergency funds for the Department of Defense to fight these wars and reconstruction funds to ensure that we win the peace, we secure the peace and bring our troops home. I support these funds. They are vitally needed. I hope we can get them approved when we return. However, I believe we also need to ensure that when our troops do return home, the Government will be there to treat their medical care needs. If we are willing to provide emergency funding to fight the wars, we must be willing to provide emergency funding to meet the medical care needs to treat the injuries and the wounds suffered by our valiant heroes in the wars. In other words, we must ensure that there is a continuum of care for our service members from basic training to deployment to discharge. Let me illustrate the current pressing and urgent needs for these emergency funds. According to a September 2, 2003, Washington Post article, the number of service members wounded in action in Iraq totals 1,124 since the war began in March. This Post article states: The rising number and quickening pace of soldiers being wounded on the battlefield have been overshadowed by the number of troops killed since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1. USA Today, in this past Wednesday's edition, has reported that at least seven times as many men and women have been wounded in battle as those killed in battle. This is a copy of that article, and it is entitled ``Trip Home is Just Start of Road Back.'' I am not going to offer these articles for the Record but I would refer those publications to my colleagues who are interested. We know the wounded are arriving in Washington every week. I point out these numbers do not include military men and women who are returning from Afghanistan and other parts of the world after fighting the war on terrorism. According to the VA, some of our returning service men and women are currently being served through VA-DOD sharing agreements. Others, such as PVT Jessica Lynch, of whom we all know a great deal, are being discharged and turning to the VA for specialized services. This level of demand for VA services has not been foreseen or anticipated. Further, we know that overall demand for VA medical care is not going to lessen. We have already seen the VA medical care system being overwhelmed by the staggering increase in demand for its medical services. Since 1996, the VA has seen a 50-percent increase in growth, or 2 million patients in total users of the medical care system. Moreover, enrollments have increased by some 3.1 million since 1999 alone, and the VA projects that its enrollments will grow by another 2 million patients from a current level of 7 million to 9 million in 2009. This is a historic and unprecedented increase in the level of service. Again, I urge my colleagues to support these emergency funds. At a time of war with thousands of injured troops returning from battle, it is clearly an emergency to include these funds. It is our moral responsibility to ensure that we provide adequate resources to the VA to meet the vital medical needs of our veterans. If these emergency funds are not included in the bill, the VA will have enormous difficulties in treating veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, due to the current backlog of veterans waiting for care. Without those funds, those waiting veterans will wait longer for medical care and the VA will be forced to deny medical care to another 585,000 veterans. I cannot accept these outcomes. I do not believe my colleagues will accept these outcomes. This is medical care they have earned through the risk of life and limb, and all too often their long-term health. I ask my colleagues to think about our service members who have already returned from service, our service members who are continuing to serve and those who want to serve. If we do not provide these funds, what kind of message does this send to those currently fighting overseas and those who will be sent overseas? I hope my colleagues agree with me that we want to tell these men and women that we will not turn our backs on them and that we will keep our promises to them. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I am referring to the distinguished Senator from Delaware--

Mr. BOND. May I ask if the distinguished Senator from Delaware will yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent the vote in relation to the Byrd amendment No. 1794 occur at 3:45 today; provided that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided further that following the vote, Senator McConnell be recognized to offer an amendment. I further ask consent that following the disposition of the McConnell amendment, the next amendment in order to the bill be offered by Senator Biden.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I just came from a very interesting luncheon meeting where we listened to Dr. Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council. He had almost the same thing to say. He said: What President Bush has done is magnificent. Our people are victorious; they are not vanquished. Our failure is that the media is not carrying the stories. The antiwar folks who opposed the war from the beginning are talking about the problems of liberation rather than the success of a free people. He would like to have a chance to tell his story more widely, and I hope he is listened to. He said there are large areas of Iraq where marines are withdrawing, turning the area over to coalition forces from other countries, Macedonia and Spain. He said the Iraqis are in the process of being trained and equipped to go out as police and as military. With the backup of U.S. troops, they will be able to take on more of the responsibilities of defending against armed paramilitary groups and maintaining peace and order. He said this is a tremendous development. They are setting up a free market in Iraq. They are cutting customs rates and tax rates. I would like some of my colleagues to hear what he says about the need for lower taxes. I think that is important as well. It is clear we are in a debate. I gather my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, while we all recognize that $87 billion is a lot of money, they are willing to support the $66 billion to support our troops in Iraq. It costs us more than $4 billion a month to maintain our troops in Iraq, and we cannot, as was just said by my colleague from Massachusetts, cut and run. So what are we going to do to make sure we do not continue to have areas where terrorists are harbored in hostile, tyrannical, authoritarian governments in the Middle East? Well, we are on the path to helping the Iraqis establish a free country. Their ideas of freedom may be different than ours, but basically Iraqis governing Iraqis, providing security for Iraq, and helping us weed out the criminals, the thugs, the paramilitary groups and the terrorists who live over there. Now, $21 billion of the President's request is proposed as a grant to help the Iraqis get on their feet. This is a very important investment. It is a lot of money, but when we look at the costs of 9/11, the cost was horrifying in human terms. Over 3,000 people killed, some of them horrible deaths. It is a day and a picture that none of us will ever forget and we never should forget. These terrorists operated out of safe havens, in countries which were ruled by authoritarian tyrants. We are wiping out those governments. Under President Bush's leadership, we wiped the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. By a vote of 77 to 23, we said clean out the terrorists in Iraq, get rid of the Saddam Hussein government. That is the most important step. Some people want to go back and fight the war. If we want to get back into it and say, why did we go, we can go back into that, but I think it is time we started looking ahead to see what we do. The $21 billion is absolutely essential to give the Iraqis the startup funds, the seed money to build that free and safe country. What do we gain from it? Some of my colleagues say it ought to be in the form of loans or we should not spend that much. Well, what we get for it is the opportunity to bring our troops home sooner, to make sure our troops have the ability to work with Iraqi military and police, so we can use the Iraqi people who understand the country and know the language and know what is going on there as our allies. As I understand it, the pending amendment leaves money in for the troops, but it does not leave money in to restore the electricity, to provide clean water, or to clean up the sewage. There is a lot that has been done in the country already. I hear carping voices saying we did not have any plans for the peace. Well, we had a lot of plans. We had plans to take out Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard and his elite forces before they used gas or biological weapons. We did it. They had plans to protect the oil wells so they could not turn Iraq into a blazing inferno, and we did that. We had plans to help the Iraqis get on their feet. In less than 5 months, virtually all major Iraqi hospitals and universities have been reopened. We cleaned out the weapons caches that were there. There are now 70,000 Iraqis being armed and trained. The first ones are graduating the end of this week. It took 14 months to establish a police force in post-war Germany, 10 years to begin training a new German army. We are way ahead. Commerce is opening up. Five thousand Iraqi small businesses have been opened since liberation. The independent central bank has a new currency announced in just 2 months. Here is a 5 dinar note from the Central Bank of Iraq. The reason I can read it, it is in English. The other side, I will just have to take their word for it. This is the currency they have put out. It took them 3 years in Germany to do it. The Iraqi Governing Council is making decisions. We listened to Dr. Chalabi tell us what they plan to do, how they want to move forward, and how the participation by the United States in this next step is vitally important. To date, our coalition has provided some 8,000 civil affairs projects with their assistance, and we are making progress towards showing the Iraqis and the people in the neighboring countries that there is a better way to do it than to have a Saddam Hussein regime. The issue before us in this pending amendment is whether we cut reconstruction funds by two-thirds. This was similar to an amendment we debated yesterday in the Appropriations Committee. That amendment just cut out two-thirds of the reconstruction funds, left one-third of the reconstruction funds. We defeated that. This one cuts out all of the reconstruction funds. The arguments made there, and I guess I will let the people who want to cut out the reconstruction funds make their arguments here, but they say we ought to go to the donors conference and let the donors decide. What kind of leadership is it for us, on the Senate floor, to take the President's proposal for a $21 billion reconstruction fund and cut it to $5 billion? That is leadership? Is that going to cause other countries to step forward and say we are going to make grants? We want to see a strong, independent, free Iraq. We have to turn on the power. We have to turn on the lights. As of yesterday, I believe we were back up to the power generation of the pre-war era, 4,400 megawatts. That still only supplies about 60 percent of Iraq. We are trying to get the power restored. We are trying to get the water clean so people do not get sick. We are trying to get the sewage cleaned up so they can go about the business of building a civilized government. Some are saying we can use the oil revenues to collateralize. Well, that does not really work because there is no government in Iraq that can sign a loan. They cannot take out a loan at the World Bank. They have not established a constitution, which is a necessary precedent for making an international loan. If we called it a loan, Ambassador Bremer, our representative on the provisional governing authority, would have to sign it. It would be our loan. We would be making that loan. They have over $200 billion of debts outstanding that I hope they will never pay. The interest on those loans would be more than swallowed up by the projected oil revenues. So they are in a position where there is no practical way that they can repay that. Once we get them up and started and they get a government, then they can go to the World Bank and get loans pledged against future oil revenue, and they can get the capital, but we have to get them over that first hump. Unless and until we do that, there is no government, there is no security. The Iraqis are not controlling their destiny. We cannot expect them to carry new burdens of debt. They are going to have enough trouble as it is. And we hope to get the oil production up--6 million barrels a day. That is what Dr. Chalabi said. But it is going to require $38 billion of new investment to do it. That is where the collateral will be pledged to get the Iraqi oil production up. Do we want to go in and say the reason we came to Iraq was for your oil? That is not why we went. That is not why we went. We went to stop the production of weapons of mass destruction. The previous administration, President Clinton's administration, and our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, said that, time after time. We went in to stop weapons of mass destruction, to bring some order out of a country that had been terrorized by a ruthless tyrant over the years. Do we want to go in now and tell the people of the Middle East that it really was about oil? We want a claim on your oil? That would be extremely shortsighted. That is not a sound investment in peace. When you take a look at the cost of our maintaining troops over there, the cost of another terrorist attack, the cost we are going to have to face if we do not bring peace and stability to a couple of major countries in the Middle East--Afghanistan and Iraq--we are going to spend a lot more time and shed a lot more American blood before we can see an end to this terrorist war. President Bush said the war against terrorism will be a long one. Unfortunately, he was correct. We are going to have to ``bear any burden, pay any price.'' I believe a well-known Democratic President once said that; I think he was from Massachusetts. We have to carry on the battle to show the people of the Middle East that there is a better way to protect our people from terrorist attacks. There is no question that the battle against terrorism is being fought in Baghdad. There are a lot of questions about what went on before. There will be a report coming out of our Intelligence Committee on that. I can't go into it, will not go into that until a report is issued. But I can tell you right now, when you apply the ``show me'' test that we take in Missouri, the battle against terrorism is going on in Baghdad. It is like a roach motel. All the terrorists are coming into Baghdad. We have our best trained, we have our best equipped, we have our best prepared troops. We are working to get the best intelligence possible so we can destroy the terrorist cells, kill the terrorists, capture them as many as we can. We are fighting the battle in Baghdad rather than Boston or Boise or Baldwin, MO, or Burlington, NC. This is unfortunate, where we have to continue the battle on terrorism. But we are doing it on their territory and our terms. They started this war on our territory on their terms. This is a mark of genius. This is tremendous leadership that this administration has shown. I am proud that three-quarters of this body supported the President when he said we needed to go in and clean out this nest of vipers, this fountainhead of weapons of mass destruction with the potential of nuclear weapons. We have won the war against Hussein's government. Now we need to win the peace. I am convinced we can win the peace. But I believe, as Ambassador Bremer said to us in the Appropriations Committee, as Secretary Rumsfeld said, this $21 billion is the best hope we have of assuring we win the peace in Iraq. Winning the peace in Iraq is vitally important. We can't walk away now and leave Iraq to fester and let the Baath Party back in again, the remnants of the Republican Guard, the terrorist organizations who threatened their neighbors, oppressed their own people, and threatened our well-being and safety over the years. We cannot let them back in. This $21 billion is the best investment we can make to bring our troops home, to win the peace. I hope we will have a strong vote not to try to cut the peace element out of the appropriations bill, moneys that are necessary to make sure we can have our troops there, protect our troops, and maintain order against the terrorists who are in Iraq. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Oct. 1, 2003] Don't Play Politics On Iraq (By Jim Marshall) My first trip to a combat zone occurred in 1969. I was a 21-year-old staff sergeant, naive as hell, a freshly trained Army Ranger who had left Princeton University to volunteer for ground combat in Vietnam. I vividly recall feeling way out of step with my Ivy League colleagues. Well, that same out-of-step feeling is back. But this time it's about Iraq and involves some of my professional colleagues, political leaders and activists who are carelessly using words and phrases such as ``quagmire,'' ``our failure in Iraq,'' ``this is just another Vietnam,'' or ``the Bush administration has no plan.'' I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality. Our news coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths, mistakes and setbacks suffered by coalition forces. Some will attribute this to a grand left-wing conspiracy, but a more plausible explanation is simply the tendency of our news media to focus on bad news. It sells. Few Americans think local news coverage fairly captures the essence of daily life and progress in their hometowns. Coverage from Iraq is no different. Falsely bleak Iraq news circulating in the United States is a serious problem for coalition forces because it discourages Iraqi cooperation, the key to our ultimate success or failure, a daily determinant of life or death for American soldiers. As one example, coalition forces are now discovering nearly 50 percent of the improvised explosive devices through tips. Guess how they discover the rest. We not only need Iraqi tips and intelligence, we need fighting by our side and eventually assuming full responsibility for their internal security. But Iraqis have not forgotten the 1991 Gulf War. America encouraged the Shiites to rebel, then abandoned them to be slaughtered. I visited one of the mass graves, mute testimony to the wisdom of being cautious about relying on American politicians to live up to their commitments. For Iraqis, news of America's resolve is critical to any decision to cooperate with coalition forces, a decision that can lead to death. Newspaper start-up ventures and sales of satellite dishes absolutely exploded following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. With this on top of the Internet, Iraqis do get the picture from America--literally. Many in Washington view the contest for the presidency and control of Congress as a zero-sum game without external costs or benefits. Politicians and activists in each party reflexively celebrate, spread and embellish news that is bad for the opposition. But to do that now with regard to Iraq harms our troops and our effort. Concerning Iraq, this normal political tripe can impose a heavy external cost. It is too soon to determine whether Iraqis will step forward to secure their own freedom. For now, responsible Democrats should carefully avoid using the language of failure. It is false. It endangers our troops and our effort. It can be unforgivably self-fulfilling. Democratic candidates for the presidency should repeatedly hammer home their support, if elected, for helping the Iraqi people secure their own freedom. It is fine for each to contend that he or she is a better choice for securing victory in Iraq. But in making this argument, care should be taken not to dwell on perceived failures of the current team or plan. Americans, with help from commentators and others, will decide this for themselves. Instead of being negative about Iraq, Democratic presidential candidates should emphasize the positive aspects of their own plans for Iraq. Save the negative attacks for the issues of jobs and the economy. Iraqis are far less likely to support the coalition effort if they think America might withdraw following the 2004 election. Finally, no better signal of our commitment to this effort could currently be provided than for Congress to quickly approve, with little dissent or dithering, the president's request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course no one wants to spend such a sum. But it is well worth it if it leads to a stable, secular representative government in Iraq, something that could immeasurably improve our future national security.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise to make some remarks about the supplemental appropriations measure before us. I was struck by the concerns of my colleague from Massachusetts about how bad things are in Iraq. In case some of my colleagues missed it, there was a very telling op-ed piece in this morning's Washington Post by Representative Jim Marshall, a freshman Democrat from the Third District of Georgia. He went to Princeton and left to go to Vietnam. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart as a Ranger. He attended Boston University Law School and in 1995 was mayor of Macon, GA. He is in the House. He had a very urgent plea. He said: ``Don't play politics on Iraq,'' directed at his Democratic colleagues. He said he had heard all of these political charges, using the words and phrases such as ``quagmire,'' ``our failure in Iraq,'' ``just another Vietnam,'' or ``the Bush administration has no plan.'' He said: I went to Iraq a couple weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality. Our news coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths, mistakes and setbacks suffered by coalition forces. I think this op-ed is worth reading. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this op-ed be printed in the Record after my remarks for the edification and elucidation of my colleagues.

Mr. BOND. Who I understood made this statement to the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I so amend the request.

Mr. BOND. Will the Senator from Delaware yield for a question.

Mr. BOND. I am taken with the world view and the view of the peace by the Senator from Delaware, but when he talks about the United Nations, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I wonder if he recalls this discussion with the Secretary of State: Last week you engaged in tireless diplomatic efforts to seek such unity against Iraq. Oddly, other members of the Security Council continue to indulge the fantasy that Saddam would suddenly begin listening to reason. Members of Congress do not share that delusion. We look forward to receiving the President's recommendations with regard to the need to use force to contain, if not destroy, Iraq's capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. Is my colleague familiar with that?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Retirement Security Advice Act of 2003, introduced by my good friend from Wyoming, Senator Mike Enzi. I do so because this bill holds important implications for small businesses in this county and for the millions of Americans they employ. In 1996, we created the Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees (SIMPLE) as a pension-plan option for small firms in this country. The goal was a simple one: provide a pension plan with low administrative costs for employers so they can offer pension benefits to encourage employees to save for their retirement. I am pleased that these plans have become quite popular, and together with the other pension simplifications and improvements enacted since then, they have contributed to better access to pension benefits by small businesses and their employees. Greater retirement savings, however, have raised new and complex issues for many employees who have seen their pension accounts grow substantially. As a member of both the Senate Small Business Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, I have heard many constitents raise difficult questions in this area: What are appropriate investments for my personal circumstances and risk tolerance? Should I buy stocks, bonds, annuities, or something else? How should I diversify my investments? When should I modify my investment mix? And so on. The importance of these questions has increased substantially in light of recent high-profile business failures and economic downtown. Gone are the days of the momentum market where any dollar invested seemed to grow with little effort or no risk. The return to more cautious investing has left employees who participate in employer-sponsored pension plans in a real dilemma--hire an outside investment advisor or go it alone in most cases. Why? Current pension rules effectively preclude most employers from offering investment advice to their employees. In fact, recent estimates are that only about 16 percent of participants have access to investment advice through their pension plan. In today's complex investment environment that is simply too little help for employees who are trying to manage their retirement security. Senator Enzi's bill addresses this situation in a responsible way. For most businesses, and particularly small firms, the logical place to look for an investment advisor would be the company that manage's the plan's investment options or an affiliated firm. Under Senator Enzi's bill that option would now be available, opening the door for countless businesses to offer this important benefit at a low cost to their employees who participate in the company's pension plan. In addition, by allowing more businesses to offer investment-advice benefits, the bill creates an opportunity for increased competition among investment advisors, which can lead to better advice products and lower costs overall. Senator Enzi's bill, however, does not simply change the rules to help the business community. It also includes critical protections for the plan participants. Investment advisors must satisfy strict requirements concerning their qualifications, and they must disclose on a regular basis all their business relationships, fees, and potential conflicts of interest directly to the participants. In addition, and arguably most importantly, the investment advisor must assume fiduciary liability for the investment advice it renders to the employee participants in the plan. In short, if the investment advisor does not act solely in the interest of the participant, it will be liable for damages resulting from the breach of its fidicuary duty. Together, the bill's provisions provide substantive safeguards to protect the interests of the plan participants who take advantage of the new investment-advice benefit. Some have contended that a better alternative is to force small businesses to engage an independent third party to provide investment advice. I disagree. The result would simply be the same as under current law. Cost is a real issue for small businesses seeking to offer benefits like pension plans and related investment advice--hence, the genesis of the SIMPLE pension plan. As under the current rules, if the only option is a costly outside advisor, the small firm will not offer the investment-advise benefit. As a result, we would not move the ball even a yard further--employers would still be left to their own devices to figure out the complex world of investing or they would have to seek out and hire their own advisor, which few have the wherewithal to do. More to the point, nothing under the Enzi bill prevents a business from engaging an independent advisor if the employer deems that the best alternative. The standard under the Enzi bill for selecting the investment advisor is prudence; the same criteria that the employer must exercise under current law when selecting the company that manages the pension plan and its investment options. If a prudent person would not hire or retain the investment advisor, then under the Enzi bill, the employer should not do so either or face liability for breach of fiduciary duty. Again, additional protection for the plan participants. In my assessment, investment advice is an increasingly important benefit that employers want and need. Morover, small businesses in particular need the flexibility to offer benefits that keep them competitive with big companies as they seek to hire and retain the very best employees possible. And when we talk about small businesses, we are not dealing with an insignificant employer in this country. In fact, according to Small Business Administration data, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers and provide 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs annually in this country. The Retirement Security Advice Act provides a carefully balanced and responsible solution to this situation. Most importantly, it provides a solution that employers will actually use to offer the investment advice sought by their employers who struggle to put money aside in the hopes of having a nest egg that someday will provide them with a comfortable retirement. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill and look forward to working with my colleague from Wyoming to see it enacted into law.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Retirement Security Advice Act of 2003, introduced by my good friend from Wyoming, Senator Mike Enzi. I do so because this bill holds important implications for small businesses in this county and for the millions of Americans they employ. In 1996, we created the Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees (SIMPLE) as a pension-plan option for small firms in this country. The goal was a simple one: provide a pension plan with low administrative costs for employers so they can offer pension benefits to encourage employees to save for their retirement. I am pleased that these plans have become quite popular, and together with the other pension simplifications and improvements enacted since then, they have contributed to better access to pension benefits by small businesses and their employees. Greater retirement savings, however, have raised new and complex issues for many employees who have seen their pension accounts grow substantially. As a member of both the Senate Small Business Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, I have heard many constitents raise difficult questions in this area: What are appropriate investments for my personal circumstances and risk tolerance? Should I buy stocks, bonds, annuities, or something else? How should I diversify my investments? When should I modify my investment mix? And so on. The importance of these questions has increased substantially in light of recent high-profile business failures and economic downtown. Gone are the days of the momentum market where any dollar invested seemed to grow with little effort or no risk. The return to more cautious investing has left employees who participate in employer-sponsored pension plans in a real dilemma--hire an outside investment advisor or go it alone in most cases. Why? Current pension rules effectively preclude most employers from offering investment advice to their employees. In fact, recent estimates are that only about 16 percent of participants have access to investment advice through their pension plan. In today's complex investment environment that is simply too little help for employees who are trying to manage their retirement security. Senator Enzi's bill addresses this situation in a responsible way. For most businesses, and particularly small firms, the logical place to look for an investment advisor would be the company that manage's the plan's investment options or an affiliated firm. Under Senator Enzi's bill that option would now be available, opening the door for countless businesses to offer this important benefit at a low cost to their employees who participate in the company's pension plan. In addition, by allowing more businesses to offer investment-advice benefits, the bill creates an opportunity for increased competition among investment advisors, which can lead to better advice products and lower costs overall. Senator Enzi's bill, however, does not simply change the rules to help the business community. It also includes critical protections for the plan participants. Investment advisors must satisfy strict requirements concerning their qualifications, and they must disclose on a regular basis all their business relationships, fees, and potential conflicts of interest directly to the participants. In addition, and arguably most importantly, the investment advisor must assume fiduciary liability for the investment advice it renders to the employee participants in the plan. In short, if the investment advisor does not act solely in the interest of the participant, it will be liable for damages resulting from the breach of its fidicuary duty. Together, the bill's provisions provide substantive safeguards to protect the interests of the plan participants who take advantage of the new investment-advice benefit. Some have contended that a better alternative is to force small businesses to engage an independent third party to provide investment advice. I disagree. The result would simply be the same as under current law. Cost is a real issue for small businesses seeking to offer benefits like pension plans and related investment advice--hence, the genesis of the SIMPLE pension plan. As under the current rules, if the only option is a costly outside advisor, the small firm will not offer the investment-advise benefit. As a result, we would not move the ball even a yard further--employers would still be left to their own devices to figure out the complex world of investing or they would have to seek out and hire their own advisor, which few have the wherewithal to do. More to the point, nothing under the Enzi bill prevents a business from engaging an independent advisor if the employer deems that the best alternative. The standard under the Enzi bill for selecting the investment advisor is prudence; the same criteria that the employer must exercise under current law when selecting the company that manages the pension plan and its investment options. If a prudent person would not hire or retain the investment advisor, then under the Enzi bill, the employer should not do so either or face liability for breach of fiduciary duty. Again, additional protection for the plan participants. In my assessment, investment advice is an increasingly important benefit that employers want and need. Morover, small businesses in particular need the flexibility to offer benefits that keep them competitive with big companies as they seek to hire and retain the very best employees possible. And when we talk about small businesses, we are not dealing with an insignificant employer in this country. In fact, according to Small Business Administration data, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers and provide 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs annually in this country. The Retirement Security Advice Act provides a carefully balanced and responsible solution to this situation. Most importantly, it provides a solution that employers will actually use to offer the investment advice sought by their employers who struggle to put money aside in the hopes of having a nest egg that someday will provide them with a comfortable retirement. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill and look forward to working with my colleague from Wyoming to see it enacted into law.