Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to comment on the overall policies we are working on today. While this bill we are debating, the underlying bill, is a generic drug bill that came out of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, we all know that ultimately we are going to be talking about Medicare and prescription drug coverage. We all recognize the lack of prescription drug coverage demonstrates clearly Medicare has not kept up with the rapid advances in medical care, placing ultimately the health care security of too many seniors at risk. When Medicare was created in 1965 to provide health care for our Nation's elderly and disabled, prescription drugs were not included as part of the program's benefits. At that time, that made sense because pharmaceuticals played an extremely minor role in the world of medicine. In the last 35 years, medical practice has changed dramatically and prescription drugs have become a vital part of health care. In the last decade or two, we have seen a pharmaceutical revolution. Hundreds of amazing new drugs have been developed to treat and manage all different kinds of diseases and medical conditions. Those of our population who suffer from these diseases have benefited greatly. More and more these days prescription drug are keeping Americans of all ages out of hospitals, enhancing the overall quality of life and, yes, keeping people alive. Hundreds of drugs that were unknown decades ago play a critical role keeping our seniors healthy, active, and alive. Yet many of our most vulnerable citizens are seniors who have trouble affording prescription drugs because their Government- provided Medicare coverage has failed to keep pace with medical progress. In addition to being exposed financially to the cost of needed drugs, seniors without prescription drug insurance do not benefit from the lower prices that most third-party buyers--such as insurers, hospitals, and pharmacy benefit managers--are able to negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers. As a result, seniors without drug coverage must pay the highest retail price for needed medication. That is a situation we must change. It is time to modernize our Medicare system and to add a prescription drug benefit to protect the health care security of our seniors. The Medicare Program needs to be updated to reflect the past 35 years of medical progress. The millions of Americans who rely on Medicare for their health care deserve no less. Fortunately, over the past few years the debate in Washington has shifted from whether or not to provide a prescription drug benefit to how to best craft a program to provide seniors with the best prescription drug coverage possible. Now is the time to act to include prescription drugs as part of an overall health security package for our seniors. An issue this important deserves debate and serious consideration. How can we consider a serious import issue such as this without the benefit and expertise of the Finance Committee? I have heard the structure and process of this debate described aptly as one of mutually assured destruction, or ``mad.'' This issue is too important to too many seniors for this debate to be treated in this manner. Because of the terms of this debate, any drug proposal that passes ultimately must have strong bipartisan support, because 60 votes will be needed to pass it. Is that truly ``mad''? I hope not. But I sense that, without the benefit of the Finance Committee working on this, we may be in a very difficult situation. Some watching may ask how did we get into the situation where a prescription drug bill will require 60 votes to pass rather than a simple majority. The answer is simple. The first reason is because the majority leader has decided to bring a bill straight to the floor and bypass the committee process entirely. This is a troubling pattern. The farm bill, the energy bill, the trade bill all bypassed the committee structure--a mad process. This action is troubling to me because I understand there was one proposal with the votes to pass in the Finance Committee, the so-called tripartisan bill. But the committee was not allowed to act on this important issue. That is a shame. How in good conscience can we consider the largest addition to Medicare since its inception without the thoughtful input of the committee with jurisdiction over the Medicare Program? That does not make any sense. That is mad. The second reason 60 votes are necessary is because we have no budget. For the first time since 1974 we have no budget in the Senate. This is one of the consequences of not having passed, or even, for that matter, considered a budget on the floor. Because there is no budget, we are operating under the budget guidelines passed last year that would spend about $300 billion over 10 years to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Therefore, any prescription drug plan brought to the floor must be within the $300 billion or it is subject to a budget point of order. This is another problem with the scheme under which we are operating. We will be considering shortly the largest expansion of an entitlement program in the history of our Nation. We bypassed a committee, we have not had a hearing on it, we have not had a markup, the Congressional Budget Office has not scored it, and we will be bringing the bill straight to the floor. Mutually assured destruction. This is mad. It is a recipe for disaster and inaction. What is most troubling to me is the real losers. If the Senate is unable to pass a prescription drug benefit, it will be our seniors. The seniors are the ones who will be forced to endure another year without the safety net that a Medicare prescription drug benefit could and should provide. Enough about my concerns about the process. As we look forward to this debate, there are a number of fundamental principles that need to be outlined as we consider various prescription drug options. These are fundamental elements to any serious, responsible, bipartisan prescription drug benefit. First and foremost, a prescription drug benefit must be permanent, it must be affordable, and it must be immediate. Seniors need help now. With the high cost of prescription drugs, they cannot continue without that assistance. They are hurting today. Seniors often make painful choices between buying food and buying prescription drugs. Seniors need action and results on this issue--not an election year issue in November. Seniors want, need, and, quite frankly, deserve the stability of a permanent drug benefit. One of my most serious concerns with the majority leader's bill is the fact it will sunset after only a few years. A prescription drug benefit that sunsets after 2010, just a few years after it finally begins, is simply not good enough. Medicare is an entitlement program and seniors deserve permanent benefits they can count on today, tomorrow, 10, 12, 15 years from now. A hollow benefit, with temporary relief that sunsets after 5 or 6 years, does not provide adequate health care security for seniors. Think about the lunacy of the situation we are in. We seem to be unintentionally on a track of telling seniors they had better die in 2010. We passed elimination of the death tax, but we did not make it permanent, so we tell seniors, you had better die in 2010 or the tax rates are going to jump back up and the death tax is going to spring from the grave. Now we are saying, you can be protected on prescription drugs through 2010, but you had better move on because in 2011 this program sunsets. Somebody is not thinking. Somebody is not realizing what they are doing. Let's get serious. We need to make the death tax repeal permanent, and we need to make prescription drug benefits for seniors permanent. Seniors should have the right, also, to choose the prescription drug plan that best meets their needs. They should not be told what they need by a politician or a Washington bureaucrat. I fear the majority leader's bill dictates a one-size-fits-all, Government-run benefit for all seniors and puts the Government in the position of determining what drugs would be covered under the plan. We must protect our seniors from a Government-run drug program that delays, restricts, or denies access to the newest and most effective drugs available on the market. Seniors should have the right to choose a benefit that best meets their needs and does not restrict access to the newest and most effective drugs. I fear that the majority leader's bill leaves no room for innovation and flexibility in terms of plan design, no choice for seniors, and could limit access to breakthrough drugs. A prescription drug benefit must address the high cost of prescription drugs and attempt to restrain the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs which cannot be sustained long term. All existing drug benefits make manufacturers compete to reduce prices and pass along the savings from price competition as larger discounts and lower premiums for beneficiaries. That is the only proven way to keep a drug benefit affordable. The majority leader's bill locks in copayments and premiums for beneficiaries and prevents competition that could lower drug prices. According to the Congressional Budget Office, bills that rely on public-private-sector partnerships and an element of competition, such as the tripartisan bill, will help manage the cost of drugs. Sadly, the CBO found that bills similar to the bill of the majority leader, because of the lack of competition and inflexibility of the benefit, would in fact increase drug costs. Given the current climate, I simply cannot support a plan that increases drug costs or one that sunsets at the end of 2010. Finally, a prescription drug benefit should be fiscally responsible and sustainable long term. The best guess we have, without the CBO's scoring, is that the proposal by the majority leader and some of his colleagues would cost at least $600 billion over the next 8 years. In a time of deficit spending and a tight economy, such a benefit would ultimately require cuts in other fields, such as education, Social Security, or national defense, and place a heavy burden on the current generation receiving benefits, the generation paying for those benefits, and the next generation. Seniors have a right to demand a drug benefit now, but I believe most of them will tell you they do not want to mortgage their grandchildren's future in the process. Seniors must be protected from catastrophic drug costs. No senior should face financial ruin because of an illness that triggers catastrophic drug costs. Our Nation's health care system has changed significantly since Medicare was first created. To make it effective, we must change Medicare as well. We must work to bring affordable prescription drug coverage to every Medicare recipient. The Senate has the opportunity to pass a bipartisan--tripartisan permanent Medicare prescription drug plan this year. The House has already passed a bill. The President has indicated repeatedly that he wants a prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. With this kind of momentum, the time should be now. I hope we will move forward with an honest and open debate that will produce a responsible, bipartisan bill consistent with the principles I have outlined that fulfill Medicare's promise of health care security for all seniors. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Westminster Christian Academy of St. Louis, Missouri for their second place award in the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' competition held in Washington, D.C. from May 4-6, 2002. These outstanding young people competed against 50 other classes from across the nation and demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government. I commend these students for their hard work and keen understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the principles and values they embody. Congratulations to Chelsea Aaberg, Erin Aucker, Claire Barresi, David Baxter, Jordan Chapell, Eric Dalbey, Matt Frick, Brandon Furlong, Matt Georges, Megan Ghormley, Kate Gladney, Abi Haas, Elisabeth McClain, Alyson Miller, Becky Miller, Emily Munson, Amy Myers, Anu Orebiyi, Lauren Petry, Cassie Reed, Terra Romar, Matt Schrenk, Drew Winship, and Bethanne Zink.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I initially came to the floor to talk about this bill and another issue. The Water and Power Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is holding a hearing on Wednesday, and I asked to testify about the views of Missouri on the Missouri River issue. Initially, the staff said I was not going to be able to testify, and I was going to therefore have to share my testimony with the entire body. However, I have now been advised by the chairman of the committee I will have an opportunity to testify, so I will save my comments for the committee hearing. I thank the chairman for giving me that opportunity.

Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BOND. I thank my good friend from North Dakota and assure him I hope to be brief and to the point. I am somewhat disappointed I will not share all that testimony with my colleagues, but there will be another opportunity. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his kind indulgence. Today I rise to join in expressing my concern about recent accounting practices in publicly held companies and their auditors. As a former State auditor, I have an interest in that profession being performed properly. Obviously, something is seriously broken. We hear about Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, and Arthur Andersen. The people of America are very concerned. We have seen millions of families with their investments diminished or even wiped out. That is not acceptable. The vast majority of investments were not in the volatile sectors, or not what we thought were the volatile sectors of the stock market. They were invested in the so-called blue chip companies. The families who made those investments on their strong belief in the integrity of our financial markets and accounting industry now find that because of corporate shams, accounting gimmicks, and inadequate auditing, they have lost significantly the investments they planned for education or retirement--for their families. As far as we know, overall the overwhelming majority of publicly traded companies are in full compliance with corporate accounting standards. But the fact that there has been a significant deception by a handful of companies raises suspicions of all companies. In addition, we don't know how many others will come forward in coming weeks. We must restore the public's confidence in the market. Without this, the economic recovery which should be beginning will remain elusive. While much of the focus in the debate here and in the news media is on the auditing problems of the big conglomerate companies, unfortunately little attention has been paid in this bill to how the impact will fall on small publicly traded companies and small auditing firms. As the ranking member on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have some concerns, after reviewing this bill, that we may be pushing ahead without considering the serious effect and the unintended consequences the bill could have on smaller firms--both small auditing firms and small publicly traded companies. The bill is clearly targeted towards abuses in extremely large businesses, which we all think should be dealt with. I personally hope it will result in prison sentences for people who are proven to have committed criminal acts in their accounting activities. But the SEC is not even aware of how many small auditing firms there are auditing small, publicly traded companies. There are some 2,500 small companies, and we believe many of them are audited by small- and medium-size auditing firms. For small auditors, the bill will require many new elements including registration, annual filing requirements, as well as partnership rotation of lead auditors. In addition, the bill would codify a list of banned services or nonauditing services that an auditing company might conduct for a company that it audits. While some of these elements clearly are necessary to restore confidence, and I think are going to be dealt with by regulatory action and maybe even by the industry itself, no one knows how these requirements will affect the small firms. It has been argued that the bill allows for a case-by-case exemption, but that exemption process itself could be extremely costly and untimely for small firms and lead to inconsistent results. I fear that some of these small auditing firms will not have the resources to implement these requirements and will stop auditing services or just go out of business. The result may be that small, publicly traded companies may not be able to obtain auditing services at reasonable cost. As a result, the bill might be setting up a hurdle for small companies to reach the public markets, one that is too expensive and too great to overcome. Clearly, when we deal with the major problems we ought not cause significant problems for the smaller, growing entrepreneurial sector of our country. As for publicly traded companies, the bill also places new requirements for auditing committees and for corporate responsibility. Again, many of these may be necessary. However, we need to look at how these requirements will affect the small, publicly traded companies. The entrepreneurial spirit of our country is really the envy of the world. People know that entrepreneurship works in America. That is where we get the new ideas. That is where we get the growth. That is where we get the new services and the products. We should be careful as we adopt reforms not to put a disproportionate burden on these companies, dampening the entrepreneurial spirit or impeding access to the public markets. I fully support accounting reform and the taking of steps necessary to restore investor confidence in the market. I think we should pass a balanced bill that will not overburden small firms and not create additional hurdles that will impede them from growing. We don't want an incidental consequence of this bill to be a monopoly of large accounting firms when it comes to corporate audits. I agree with the other speakers that the American public is looking to us for answers. I intend to work to see that the needs of the small businesses, publicly traded small companies, and small auditing firms are protected. I am committed, and I think we all are committed, to restoring the public's confidence in the markets so families can feel safe once again in investing in America and in America's future. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure a balanced bill which will do that without bringing unnecessary hardship on the entrepreneurial sector of our economy. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for the courtesy in allowing me to go ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional officer in the United States Air Force Reserve, an individual that a great many of us have come to know personally over the past few years, Colonel John K. Ellsworth. Colonel Ellsworth, who serves as Deputy Chief of the Air Force Senate Liaison Office, and was recently promoted to Colonel, will be leaving his position to attend the prestigious Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, PA. During his assignment here on Capitol Hill, Colonel Ellsworth personified the Air Force core values of integrity, service, and excellence in the many missions the Air Force performs in support of our national security. Many Members and staff enjoyed the opportunity to work with him on a variety of Air Force issues and traveled with him on a multitude of fact-finding trips around the world. To a person, they all recognize and deeply appreciate his character, dedication to duty, and professionalism. Today it is my privilege to recognize some of Colonel Ellsworth's many accomplishments, and to commend the superb service he provided the Air Force, the Congress, and our Nation. Colonel Ellsworth entered the Air Force through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps program at the Citadel, SC. He served in various operational support and staff assignments including duty as a maintenance officer for many of the Air Force's aircraft. Throughout his distinguished career, Colonel Ellsworth's exceptional leadership skills were always evident to both superiors and subordinates as he repeatedly proved himself in numerous select leadership and command positions. During his current assignment of working with the Congress, Colonel Ellsworth provided a clear and credible voice for the Air Force while representing its many programs on Capitol Hill, consistently providing accurate, concise and timely information. His integrity, professionalism and expertise enabled him to develop and maintain an exceptional rapport between the Air Force and the Congress. The key to his success, I believe, was his deep understanding of Congressional processes and priorities, and his unflinching advocacy of programs essential to the Air Force and to our Nation. I am very pleased that Colonel Ellsworth is about to begin the next phase of his career as a senior officer in our Air Force. I offer my sincere congratulations and best wishes to his as he heads for his next assignment where he will further his knowledge of national security strategy with other warriors of our armed forces. On behalf of the Congress and our great Nation, I thank Colonel Ellsworth and his entire family for the commitment and sacrifice they have made throughout his career. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in expressing my heartfelt appreciation to Colonel Ellsworth for a job well done. He is certainly a credit to the Air Force and the United States. We wish our friend the best of luck in his new assignment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I appreciate the time. I am very much concerned that the Kennedy amendment takes us backward. Under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998, the FAIR Act, agencies are examining activities to find what they do that duplicates activities done in the private sector. This would be done to see if these activities can be contracted out, to do those activities more cheaply and effectively. This would prevent the Federal Government from competing with the private marketplace. When the job is done in the private marketplace, not only do we avoid having to carry an additional Federal bureaucracy, we get to tax them if they make a profit and we get the benefits of the competition, the innovation, that small business brings. As the ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I focused a lot of time and attention on what small businesses are able to do. We find there are some tremendous innovations and new ideas coming from small business. Whenever some action can be done effectively in the private sector, I believe the private sector should have the opportunity to do it. Functions that are inherently governmental, clearly no one disagrees, should be done by Federal employees. We are not talking about those. We are talking about functions that are commercial in nature. The current process for evaluating these functions for a possible contracting out is the so-called A-76 process. OMB Circular A-76 calls for competition to take place wherever commercial activity currently performed by a Government agency is proposed to be contracted out. The Federal employees of that agency describe how they would organize themselves into the most efficient organization and compete against the proposals submitted by private contractors. The Kennedy amendment would bar contracting out of these functions, unless the private contractor's proposal to provide cost savings of at least 10 percent over the Federal employee's MEO. This is intended to make contracting out as difficult as possible. This is a direct shot at small businesses. This is meant to cripple the ability of small businesses which are now providing vital products and services in our Defense Department. The Kennedy amendment purports to implement the recommendation of the Commercial Activities Panel convened by Comptroller General David Walker. However, the sole emphasis on cost savings--also, the Kennedy amendment puts in a 10-percent additional savings--the sole emphasis of the sponsor of this measure is saying that the deciding criteria in that should be cost actually conflicts with the Walker panel recommendations. The Walker panels calls for the standard of best value, what generates the overall best value to the taxpayer. Cost savings is clearly one factor being considered. But best value contracting also includes other factors, such as higher quality, faster delivery, innovative processes, reliable past performance, or other criteria that might justify a higher cost. Best value contracting is what most of us do every day when we go out to buy goods and services. When you buy lunch, you do not always buy the lowest price item on the menu every day. When you go to the department store, you do not always purchase the cheapest item on the shelf. You may deliberately buy an item that is more expensive because you expect the quality to be better. The best value approach puts Government contracting on par with how average, intelligent, informed consumers make their purchases in the marketplace. That is one reason the Government is increasingly relying on best value contracting and why the Walker panel recommends it for analyzing contracting out proposals. The Kennedy amendment's exclusive emphasis on costs savings, and the additional unworkable requirement the savings must be more than 10 percent, is a step backward from the Walker recommendations. The sponsor of the amendment has cited OMB and other statements made by this administration, when, in fact, the President, speaking for this administration on March 19, emphasized the vitally important role that small business plays in meeting the needs of the Federal Government. He talked about taking a major effort, launching a major effort, to stop the bundling of contracts to prevent their being awarded to small businesses. There is currently underway a study in OMB under Angela Styles on how to get more contracts unbundled so small business can provide a workable and economic role. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the staple of the Missouri conservation community, Mr. Raymond D. Evans. Mr. Evans is retiring after 35 years of service with the Missouri Department of Conservation and he is a major contributor to the development of conservation provisions for the State of Missouri. Mr. Evan's fundamental efforts have played a role in developing provisions that helped land owners implement management practices to improve profitability and wildlife values by helping to protect the soil and water resources that are the foundation of agriculture and wildlife productivity. He has maintained the highest standard of excellence in his service to conservation and received several awards from his peers and associates as a result. These awards include the management Award from the Southeast Section of The Wildlife Society, and Award of Merit from the ASCS for helping write and pass the Farm Bill. Mr. Evans has also received the American Motors Conservation Award for his many contributions to the success of the Missouri Conservation Department's coordinated forest habitat management program, and the E. Sydney Stephens Award for his career contributions to Missouri's wildlife resources. I wish to honor and thank him for his hard work and dedication to the preservation of wildlife and the environment. To people in Missouri, Mr. Evans has always been known as ``Ray''. His trademark ribbon tie, warm smile and commitment to his neighbors and the land they live on will remain his legacy. On the national scene, Ray has been a tireless advocate of Federal assistance to promote local initiatives. Ray has always understood that conservation is a ``public good'' and, consequently, the public should help landowners provide that public good. As a practicing farmer, Ray also understands and helps our urban friends understand that farmers are the most committed practitioners of conservation because it is good business and because they want to leave more value to their children and future generations. In other words, they want to leave it better than they found it. It is that understanding that won him the trust of landowners which is a key element to the success with which Ray is associated. Ray's advocacy has been tireless, both for him and those of us he pursued constantly. With Ray, the ``to-do'' list is never complete and every success is followed by a new initiative. Recently, after Ray witnessed President Bush signing the 4th consecutive Farm Bill Ray worked on, Ray innocently succeeded in lifting the President's speech and convincing the President to sign it for him. While Ray was a good enough salesman to pull that off, he couldn't get past the staff who have obligations to the National Archives but if anyone deserves a high-level souvenir for his work in conservation, it would be Ray. Nevertheless, I am pleased that Ray got some face time with the Commander-in-Chief out of the deal. On behalf of many citizens who benefited from his friendship, work, and guidance, I thank Ray and I thank his wife Carole for lending him to us. While I trust he will continue sharing his presence at many conservation-related events, I am pleased that he and Carole will have more time to enjoy time together. I recommend that he take her for long walks in the countryside so they can both appreciate what they have done for the landscape.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending legislation concerning terrorism reinsurance. Last December--December 13, I believe--I spoke here urging the leadership to bring up bipartisan legislation that was at the time being negotiated between the White House and the Senate Banking Committee. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today does not reflect those discussions. At that point, I thought we had a good start on a bipartisan terrorism reinsurance effort. The availability and affordability of insurance is vital to the stability of our Nation's economy. Now that we know terrorists can and have struck in the United States, and have struck against major buildings, insurance is going to have to change because the insurance is going to have to cover risks that were never before recognized as being legitimate in this country. We hear reports from all over that many insurance and reinsurance companies are no longer able to provide the insurance coverage that is necessary for builders of buildings, for those owning buildings, to get the kind of financing they need or to have the protection they need for the resources they put into those buildings. At this moment, affordable terrorism risk insurance is not attainable by many businesses, both small and large--apartment and condominium buildings, shopping centers, as well as many cultural institutions. Recently, the St. Louis Art Museum was identified by the Joint Economic Committee as not being able to afford terrorism insurance. As a result, the museum is not covered. I am positive there are many entities across the country facing the same situation as the museum. I know major sports facilities, including ones in my State, are in a position where they cannot get the terrorism risk insurance they would need to add new construction, or even to continue their operations. The fact that terrorism has struck our country has a double impact now that we are in a position where insurance companies are not able to write and insure against and to ascertain the level of insurance risk that might be brought about by terrorist acts. It is unacceptable that we hold large segments of our economy hostage to the acts of terrorists. Right now, many small business and small property owners are at disadvantages. They face the prospect of doubling and tripling insurance premiums. They are not only faced with increased property insurance costs, but they are facing workers' compensation insurance costs, health insurance costs; and without affordable insurance, many small businesses and property owners are simply forgoing insurance. That is bad business. Those that have elected to pay much higher insurance costs are finding they have to pass this cost along to their customers, renters, leaseholders, and others. This could have a tremendous impact on our economy. We are hearing about major construction projects coming to a halt across the country as lenders and major financing institutions are seeking, but unable to get, terrorism risk insurance. The Bond Market Association has stated that more than $7 billion worth of construction projects are on hold or have been canceled due to the lack of affordable terrorism risk insurance. Rating organizations have issued warnings in the past 2 weeks that large securitizations are in jeopardy of being downgraded. We are trying to get out of a recession. The economic recovery that we expect and that we need is in grave danger if we do not provide a means of reinsuring the risk that has now become a reality in this country with possible terrorist acts. This is an unknown at this point, and this is the time, and this is something in which the Federal Government could play a very significant role. That is why good terrorism risk reinsurance legislation must be provided. I also agree with my colleague from Kentucky that businesses that are victimized by terrorist attacks should not be subject to punitive damages. Now, unfortunately, on a party line vote, we rejected the standard my colleague proposed. I hope we can find other means of compromise to ensure that a business owner or a business that is struck by a terrorist act is not also struck by a punitive damage action that could be economically as devastating as a terrorist act. We cannot and should not hold our major economic engines hostage to the threat of punitive damages on top of a terrorist act. I hope we can agree on a means of avoiding this kind of risk to those who have businesses or property that might be subject to a terrorist attack. As I said back in December, this is a potential problem. I believe now it is a problem. I think our recovery from the economic downturn, the recession, has been slowed because the business community--especially small businesses from which I hear--are really in a position where they cannot go forward and, in many instances, they cannot get financing without terrorism insurance, and most insurance companies are not in a position to offer that. So I hope we can move with a good piece of legislation that will provide the temporary reinsurance by the Federal Government to allow us to get back to the normal business of building facilities, building shopping centers, operating cultural facilities, and conducting business. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues. I hope we can get a good product, and I hope we can do it very quickly so we can get our economy moving again. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Texas. I say to my colleague from Illinois, if the wealthiest people say not to bother repealing the death tax, it is probably because it does not bother them. A lot of the wealthiest people do not really worry about the death tax. If you have enough money, it does not matter what you would pay. Most of them can spend hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars to avoid the death tax. By and large, the people who are paying the death tax are not the very wealthy. They are hard-working people, many of them educators, as my colleague from Arizona has pointed out. But there are an awful lot of farmers and small businesses. I have spent a good deal of my time in my service in the Senate listening to farmers and owners of small businesses. In fact, that is where I get most of my ideas. That is where we got the idea to strengthen the regulatory relief for small businesses and to provide the assistance we give to farmers to open up markets abroad. We have talked about regulatory relief, and we have provided a number of areas of tax relief, but one of the issues that is the top priority for the farmers and the small businesses in my State is getting rid of the death tax. These are not the wealthiest people. These are people who fear that what they have worked hard to save, to put away, to leave to their children, is going to be taken away by the tax collector. This morning we had a news conference. We were joined by Brad Eiffert of Columbia, MO. He owns Boone County Lumber Company. He and his brother work in a business that their father started. They have a very successful business with 30 employees. They have worked hard, and they have a great deal of equipment used in their business. They want to continue the business after their father passes on, but they have found that, because of the investment in the equipment, they will have to pay a tremendous estate tax. So now each year they take out of that business almost $60,000 for insurance premiums to pay the tax man. This is money that could be going to the employees, it could be going to buy new equipment, or it could be going to build the business in many ways. They really want to get rid of the death tax. Farmers I have talked with have told me that they have spent over $100,000 in lawyers fees and accountants fees trying to figure out how to get around the tax. The lawyers get the money, the accountants get the money, and they hope that the Federal Treasury will not get the money. They have to spend a lot of money, that they should be putting back in their farm, to figure out how to avoid this tax. So what they avoid does not come to the Treasury, but there is a heavy planning cost on how to get away from paying the estate tax that is paid by small businesses and farmers. Before us we have an amendment which says we are going to expand section 2057 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Qualified Family-Owned Business Interest exclusion, QFOBI, I guess is what it is called. My colleagues propose to make it bigger, better, longer, and stronger, but in 2000 only 1.3 percent of family-owned businesses applied for this 2057 exemption. There are people saying we are going to allow you to save small businesses and farms from the estate tax through this provision, but the provision does not work. In short, a flat tire cannot be made to roll simply by making it bigger. This 2057 exclusion is too complicated to provide widespread relief to estates harmed by the death tax. As my colleague from Arizona has pointed out, it is so complex that the American Bar Association urges its tax lawyers not even to try it because it is so filled with traps and so many Catch-22s that they can get sued for malpractice if they try to use it. In order to qualify, the business must constitute at least 50 percent of the estate's value. The decedent must have owned and been actively involved in the family business for at least 5 of the 8 years leading up to his or her death. Following the death of the owner, the heirs must continue to participate in the business for at least 10 years. But once the business is transferred, the estate tax deferred by receiving this designation hangs over the business for at least 10 years, and the IRS has a first position lien on the property. So the small business cannot borrow money without going to a loan with a secondary position, if they can even get one. Moreover, such loans cost them more. If the business goes bankrupt and they cannot continue it, then the IRS goes back and gets the entire estate tax. One hundred percent could become due with interest. Not surprisingly, there are not many people who are willing to play this kind of Russian roulette. If this amendment were to become law, I can only imagine the insurance premiums that would be required.

Mr. BOND. We need to kill the estate tax and keep it dead and not let it spring back. That is what farmers and small businesses in my State want.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent a legislative fellow in my office, John Stoody, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, today I am introducing a bill to help protect communities in Missouri and across the Nation from terrorist attack. Chemical plants in communities across America are perfect terrorist targets. Right now, the U.S. Government provides a virtual blueprint for attacks on these facilities to any member of the public who requests the information--on any terrorists frankly. The Community Protection From Chemical Terrorism Act will help protect communities from terrorists who would use sensitive information made public to destroy those communities. There are 15,000 chemical facilities across the country. Facilities store and use potentially dangerous chemicals to make consumer products and keep us healthy. Chlorine, for example, is used by every family to whiten and brighten our clothes. Every child, every senior person, every family across America is able to drink clean water and avoid getting sick because of chlorine treatment. However, we know that chlorine is a dangerous chemical if misused or abused. According to EPA, at least 123 plants each keep amounts of chemicals that if released, could form deadly vapor clouds that would put more than one million people in danger. A plant outside of Detroit projects that a rupture of one of its 90-ton rail cars of chlorine could endanger three million people. Even worse, an accident at a New Jersey plant in suburban New York City could cover a 14 mile radius affecting 12 million people. Missouri is not spared from these dangers. In the Kansas City metropolitan area alone, there are over 100 plants filing reports to EPA on their potential chemical accidents. I am holding back on the names and addresses of these facilities, but their identity and location is no secret to those who want to look. In fact, the law currently requires EPA to make this information available to the public. You do not even have to look, because the newspapers are publishing this information. Here is the front page of the Kansas City Star with a story ``Chemical Plants Ordered to Prepare for the Worst.'' The story describes how information on worst-case scenario accidents is publicly available to anyone who bothers to look. The San Francisco Chronicle published a story entitled ``If All Hell Broke Loose.'' Here you see the newspaper not only describes the chemical facilities in Northern California, but provides a map of the location of the facilities and the radius of potential damage from a toxic release. This newspaper published not only the names and addresses of the facilities, but drew a map with their location and the radius of destruction from a release. It helps the terrorists by showing just what radius of death and destruction would occur. This is the front page of a newspaper that is out there for anybody who wants to make a terrorist strike in San Francisco. This is published in May of 1999. I wonder, after September 11, they would still be so helpful. The reason this is a problem is that this is exactly the type of information terrorists would use to plan and carry-out an attack. Families in suburban San Francisco and across the country have a bulls eye on their communities because terrorists can use this publicly available information to target their attacks. By law, the government requires chemical facilities to report to the government the hazardous chemicals they have on site and then predict the worst-case scenario for an accident with those chemicals. These Offsite Consequence Analysis or OCA reports include the type of chemical, the conditions under which a worst-case accident would occur, the distance a toxic cloud of chemicals might travel, the environmental or public receptors such as hospitals, schools or national parks in danger's way, and the number of people who would be harmed by an attack. According to the FBI, this publicly available chemical facility information provides a ``blueprint for potential terrorist attack.'' A DOJ report analyzing the threat from terrorists abusing OCA information says: The distance that a toxic cloud might travel, the numbers of people who might be harmed, and the environmental or public receptors that could be affected are precisely the types of factors that a terrorist weighs when planning an attack. Chemical facilities are exactly the type of target terrorists would attack to create mayhem and destruction. According to DOJ: Certain types of facilities that are required to submit OCA information are preferred terrorist targets. Many such facilities exist in well-populated areas, where a chemical release could result in mass casualties and would result in widespread destruction. In a chilling confirmation of this, copies of U.S. chemical trade publications were found in one of the cave holes where Osama bin Laden had hidden. They found it with the other rat infestations in December. Terrorists would have little problem searching through government collected OCA. According to DOJ, this data provides ``one-stop shopping for refined targeting information, allowing terrorists or other criminals to select the best targets from among the 15,000 chemical facilities that have submitted OCA data.'' Indeed, accessing this publicly available information is easy. In a single afternoon, my staff was able to search and find the top ten facilities across my home state of Missouri where terrorist attacks would produce the greatest number of casualties. By the end of the day, my staff had the names of the facilities, their street address, the name of the vulnerable chemicals, the conditions under which a worst-case scenario release would occur, the radius of harm caused by the attack, any safety or mitigation measures plants might use to control the release, and the number of people in the affected area who could be hurt. It was shocking to me that Federal law makes information which terrorists could use to destroy communities available to any member of the public. The argument goes that communities want to know about dangerous chemicals used and stored in their neighborhoods. That is a legitimate desire. The law further intends that members of the public use this information to pressure chemical facilities to remove dangerous chemicals or change their ways so that neighboring communities are not in danger from an accidental release. That also is a very legitimate concern. Unfortunately, the terrorist attacks of September 11th show us that times are not so simple anymore. The threat from terrorist attack now outweighs the benefits of making this information public. We should be concerned about chemical facilities in our communities. However, our greatest concern must be protecting those communities from terrorist attack. In a different time, the environmental policy concerns of making worst-case scenario chemical accidental data available to the public might have outweighed the security threats to our communities. Sadly, those times have passed. According to the Department of Justice, OCA worst-case scenario data continues to present a security threat. The threat from terrorists using OCA worst-case scenario data is even greater after the September 11th terrorist attacks. DOJ believes that legislation is necessary to further limit public access to dangerous OCA information. Unfortunately, the current law does not protect our communities from terrorist attack. Congress amended the law concerning OCA information in 1999. That legislation, entitled the Chemical Safety Information and Site Security Act reversed EPA plans to post OCA information on the Internet. However, the law left the task of establishing specific regulations for publicizing OCA information to EPA and DOJ. Admittedly, the last administration did its work before the terrorist attacks of September 11th. It was a different time then. A legitimate argument was made that environmental policy concerns outweighed the need to protect communities from terrorist attacks. However, even the restrictions EPA and DOJ devised to limit access to sensitive OCA information were quickly overcome by advocacy groups. This story in the New York Times describes how environmental advocates put OCA disaster data on the Internet. The caption here is, ``Getting around a law intended to avoid helping terrorists.'' My staff used one of these sites to help them determine the communities in Missouri most at risk from a terrorist attack. This is not fair to the communities that wish to avoid terrorist attacks. Further restrictions are necessary to protect our communities from terrorist attack. The legislation I propose today strikes the best balance between allowing the public to monitor the actions of the chemical industry and protecting individual communities from terrorist attack. Official users engaged in official protection activities will have unrestricted access to OCA information. However, my bill will allow members of the public to view OCA data on chemical facilities without knowing their specific name and location. This will allow advocates to continue watching and pressuring the chemical industry at-large to make safety improvements without placing specific communities at risk of terrorist attack. For those environmental advocates that wish to play a role in a given community, this legislation specifically expands local emergency planning committees to include members of local and national environmental organizations. I recognize that these groups have a role to play in making our communities safer and hope they will accept this invitation to join in formal community protection activities. Communities have much to fear from terrorist attack. According to DOJ, the risk of terrorists attempting in the foreseeable future to cause an industrial chemical release is both real and credible. We must not help those terrorists who want to destroy our communities. I urge my colleagues to support the Community Protection From Terrorism Act and look forward to working with you on its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be appropriately referred.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, today I am introducing a bill to help protect communities in Missouri and across the Nation from terrorist attack. Chemical plants in communities across America are perfect terrorist targets. Right now, the U.S. Government provides a virtual blueprint for attacks on these facilities to any member of the public who requests the information--on any terrorists frankly. The Community Protection From Chemical Terrorism Act will help protect communities from terrorists who would use sensitive information made public to destroy those communities. There are 15,000 chemical facilities across the country. Facilities store and use potentially dangerous chemicals to make consumer products and keep us healthy. Chlorine, for example, is used by every family to whiten and brighten our clothes. Every child, every senior person, every family across America is able to drink clean water and avoid getting sick because of chlorine treatment. However, we know that chlorine is a dangerous chemical if misused or abused. According to EPA, at least 123 plants each keep amounts of chemicals that if released, could form deadly vapor clouds that would put more than one million people in danger. A plant outside of Detroit projects that a rupture of one of its 90-ton rail cars of chlorine could endanger three million people. Even worse, an accident at a New Jersey plant in suburban New York City could cover a 14 mile radius affecting 12 million people. Missouri is not spared from these dangers. In the Kansas City metropolitan area alone, there are over 100 plants filing reports to EPA on their potential chemical accidents. I am holding back on the names and addresses of these facilities, but their identity and location is no secret to those who want to look. In fact, the law currently requires EPA to make this information available to the public. You do not even have to look, because the newspapers are publishing this information. Here is the front page of the Kansas City Star with a story ``Chemical Plants Ordered to Prepare for the Worst.'' The story describes how information on worst-case scenario accidents is publicly available to anyone who bothers to look. The San Francisco Chronicle published a story entitled ``If All Hell Broke Loose.'' Here you see the newspaper not only describes the chemical facilities in Northern California, but provides a map of the location of the facilities and the radius of potential damage from a toxic release. This newspaper published not only the names and addresses of the facilities, but drew a map with their location and the radius of destruction from a release. It helps the terrorists by showing just what radius of death and destruction would occur. This is the front page of a newspaper that is out there for anybody who wants to make a terrorist strike in San Francisco. This is published in May of 1999. I wonder, after September 11, they would still be so helpful. The reason this is a problem is that this is exactly the type of information terrorists would use to plan and carry-out an attack. Families in suburban San Francisco and across the country have a bulls eye on their communities because terrorists can use this publicly available information to target their attacks. By law, the government requires chemical facilities to report to the government the hazardous chemicals they have on site and then predict the worst-case scenario for an accident with those chemicals. These Offsite Consequence Analysis or OCA reports include the type of chemical, the conditions under which a worst-case accident would occur, the distance a toxic cloud of chemicals might travel, the environmental or public receptors such as hospitals, schools or national parks in danger's way, and the number of people who would be harmed by an attack. According to the FBI, this publicly available chemical facility information provides a ``blueprint for potential terrorist attack.'' A DOJ report analyzing the threat from terrorists abusing OCA information says: The distance that a toxic cloud might travel, the numbers of people who might be harmed, and the environmental or public receptors that could be affected are precisely the types of factors that a terrorist weighs when planning an attack. Chemical facilities are exactly the type of target terrorists would attack to create mayhem and destruction. According to DOJ: Certain types of facilities that are required to submit OCA information are preferred terrorist targets. Many such facilities exist in well-populated areas, where a chemical release could result in mass casualties and would result in widespread destruction. In a chilling confirmation of this, copies of U.S. chemical trade publications were found in one of the cave holes where Osama bin Laden had hidden. They found it with the other rat infestations in December. Terrorists would have little problem searching through government collected OCA. According to DOJ, this data provides ``one-stop shopping for refined targeting information, allowing terrorists or other criminals to select the best targets from among the 15,000 chemical facilities that have submitted OCA data.'' Indeed, accessing this publicly available information is easy. In a single afternoon, my staff was able to search and find the top ten facilities across my home state of Missouri where terrorist attacks would produce the greatest number of casualties. By the end of the day, my staff had the names of the facilities, their street address, the name of the vulnerable chemicals, the conditions under which a worst-case scenario release would occur, the radius of harm caused by the attack, any safety or mitigation measures plants might use to control the release, and the number of people in the affected area who could be hurt. It was shocking to me that Federal law makes information which terrorists could use to destroy communities available to any member of the public. The argument goes that communities want to know about dangerous chemicals used and stored in their neighborhoods. That is a legitimate desire. The law further intends that members of the public use this information to pressure chemical facilities to remove dangerous chemicals or change their ways so that neighboring communities are not in danger from an accidental release. That also is a very legitimate concern. Unfortunately, the terrorist attacks of September 11th show us that times are not so simple anymore. The threat from terrorist attack now outweighs the benefits of making this information public. We should be concerned about chemical facilities in our communities. However, our greatest concern must be protecting those communities from terrorist attack. In a different time, the environmental policy concerns of making worst-case scenario chemical accidental data available to the public might have outweighed the security threats to our communities. Sadly, those times have passed. According to the Department of Justice, OCA worst-case scenario data continues to present a security threat. The threat from terrorists using OCA worst-case scenario data is even greater after the September 11th terrorist attacks. DOJ believes that legislation is necessary to further limit public access to dangerous OCA information. Unfortunately, the current law does not protect our communities from terrorist attack. Congress amended the law concerning OCA information in 1999. That legislation, entitled the Chemical Safety Information and Site Security Act reversed EPA plans to post OCA information on the Internet. However, the law left the task of establishing specific regulations for publicizing OCA information to EPA and DOJ. Admittedly, the last administration did its work before the terrorist attacks of September 11th. It was a different time then. A legitimate argument was made that environmental policy concerns outweighed the need to protect communities from terrorist attacks. However, even the restrictions EPA and DOJ devised to limit access to sensitive OCA information were quickly overcome by advocacy groups. This story in the New York Times describes how environmental advocates put OCA disaster data on the Internet. The caption here is, ``Getting around a law intended to avoid helping terrorists.'' My staff used one of these sites to help them determine the communities in Missouri most at risk from a terrorist attack. This is not fair to the communities that wish to avoid terrorist attacks. Further restrictions are necessary to protect our communities from terrorist attack. The legislation I propose today strikes the best balance between allowing the public to monitor the actions of the chemical industry and protecting individual communities from terrorist attack. Official users engaged in official protection activities will have unrestricted access to OCA information. However, my bill will allow members of the public to view OCA data on chemical facilities without knowing their specific name and location. This will allow advocates to continue watching and pressuring the chemical industry at-large to make safety improvements without placing specific communities at risk of terrorist attack. For those environmental advocates that wish to play a role in a given community, this legislation specifically expands local emergency planning committees to include members of local and national environmental organizations. I recognize that these groups have a role to play in making our communities safer and hope they will accept this invitation to join in formal community protection activities. Communities have much to fear from terrorist attack. According to DOJ, the risk of terrorists attempting in the foreseeable future to cause an industrial chemical release is both real and credible. We must not help those terrorists who want to destroy our communities. I urge my colleagues to support the Community Protection From Terrorism Act and look forward to working with you on its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be appropriately referred.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 2579 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank my friend for yielding. I, too, would like to express my concern over the dire consequences extending preferential tariff treatment of packed tuna to the Andean region will have on our ASEAN allies. I believe maintaining stability in Mindanao is of utmost importance and I do not want to see our war on drugs succeed at the expense of our war on international terrorism. I urge our colleagues to address this issue during conference deliberations.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, when the shocking events of September 11 hit us, we all realized that major changes had occurred. The devastation and the death that was visited by the terrorists were truly shocking. But there was collateral damage as well in many areas. We are seeing small businesses that have been put out of business. We have worked hard to try to help them. But, obviously, one of the most severely affected areas of our economy--really, the lifeline of our Nation's transportation system-- the airline industry, was severely hurt by this action. Not only did we shut down flights for a period of days, which cost the airlines literally billions of dollars, their insurance rates skyrocketed and put them at risk. And when you put the airline industry at risk, you put all of us at risk because ours is a very mobile country that depends upon a healthy, competitive airline industry. I came to the floor on September 13 to urge my colleagues to take immediate action. Well, people in both Houses shared that view, and we did act. We adopted critical legislation to ensure that our airlines could continue to operate even as their insurance rates skyrocketed. This was a successful approach. Then we embarked on another approach. We said we would set up a $10 billion loan guarantee program to provide assistance to airlines that were doing well, that were ``taking off,'' so to speak, but whose cash shortfall was exacerbated by the shutdown and the slow return of airline passengers. That $10 billion loan guarantee program sounded like a good idea. We should support this amendment that tries to preserve the full commitment we made to our airlines and to the traveling American public. Now, we have a problem, specifically with the ATSB--that fine group of Federal servants--that decide what airlines get the money. So far, I think there have been seven applications; and they have only granted one. Even if all the applications were granted, I understand that $10 billion would be more than enough to cover them. I have had a real problem because we have a fine, growing airline, a new airline in Kansas City, called Vanguard Airlines. So far, the ATSB has formally denied three loan applications submitted by Vanguard. Actually, they have only approved one. That was for America West. We are very glad that our colleagues who fly on America West and the people served by America West will be helped. The intent of this program was to help airlines such as America West and, I believe, such as Vanguard. When you look at the facts, Vanguard actually stacks up better than America West when you consider the necessary criteria. The airline was growing rapidly and consistently prior to September 11. The airline is trying to get back on its feet, has recently made new hires, is getting back on a growth track. It is increasing routes and hiring people. They wanted a private loan package that would allow them to purchase more aircraft, more Boeing MD-90s. When I talked with one of the officials at ATSB, they said: Well, we don't have any collateral. If you don't have collateral, and you are going to use the loan to buy an airplane, guess from where the collateral is going to come? They are even bringing in equity funding that would come in with the loan if it were granted. If we fail to do that, the potential ripple effect will not only be on the airline industry but on the entire Kansas City metropolitan area where Vanguard has become a major employer in the area. I am reminded of a very old and very troubling definition. A friend of mine once said: A banker is a guy who loans you an umbrella and takes it back when it rains. If this loan fund were to be made available solely on the criteria by which a bank would issue a loan, we would not need it. If these airlines are healthy enough to go out and get loans--and many of them are--then they do not need the loan guarantee package. We set up criteria which should be observed, but somehow those criteria have resulted in denying everybody except America West a loan. I hope we adopt this amendment by the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee to knock out the rescission because we want to make sure airlines that are healthy, that have a good record, that have the potential to grow, are not killed in their infancy because of the cashflow problems, the insurance problems, and the short-term lack of confidence in airline travel that came about as a result of September 11. I say to our friends who serve on the ATSB, we appropriated this money, we made available these loan guarantees for one simple purpose; and that is, to loan the money to airlines that could otherwise not stay in business and that would not meet bankable loan standards. This is extremely important to the airline industry. It is important to my constituents in Kansas City. I hope we will support the amendment, and I strongly hope that one of these days they will figure out how to provide money to airlines that may not have bankable loan capabilities but which have the growth and which have the potential to get back on their feet after the tragedy of September 11. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution proclaiming the week of June 10 to June 14, 2002 as National Work Safe Week. There is no more important goal than having every employee go home safely at the end of their work day. In my home State of Missouri, a program has been developed that helps employers work together with their employees to make sure everyone is focused on working safely. Once a year we set aside a week in June to recognize and promote this concept. This year the week of June 10-14 is designated in Missouri as Work Safe Week. The goal of an injury free work place definitely is achievable. Too many times we assume that accidents are an inevitable part of the job. This just is not true. Accidents are preventable, largely through constant vigilance and common sense, as well as compliance with relevant safety standards. Missouri is especially attached to the goal of workplace safety since one of its native sons is currently the Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. John Hewnshaw built his career on implementing safety plans for such companies as Monsanto and Solutia. These plans were widely praised by safety professionals and have resulted in thousands of employees avoiding injuries and illnesses. I know that John is using the same reasonable style and practical approach in addressing the Nation's safety issues that he used in developing the safety plans for his private sector employers. These same common sense principles are at the heart of the Work Safe Week program in Missouri. The WorkSAFE program was started by Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance in 1997 to teach employers and employees how to Work Smart in an Accident-Free Environment. The WorkSAFE program is based on the premise that 20 percent of all workplace injuries are the result of unsafe working conditions, while the remaining 80 percent are caused by unsafe acts. The program is based on the belief that 100 percent of injuries are preventable when employers and employees work together. The program focuses on employer and employee attitudes and awareness in an effort to maintain an injury-free workplace. Prior employer and employee working attitudes can significantly correlate into costly workplace injuries which. For instance: Total 1998 accident costs nationwide: $122.6 billion; and national average: $28,000 per disabling injury/$940,000 per work-related death. As tremendous as the direct costs are, there are costs you can not calculate. There are indirect or hidden costs such as property damage, lost production an modified duty. Parents who will not ever come home, bodies that are permanently damaged, and the trauma of witnessing an injury or fatality--these are emotional costs that the numbers do not reflect. By the end of Work Safe Week, I hope that employers and employees will have the kind of attitude that will keep employees safe and health while on the job the whole year through.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and thank my colleague from New Hampshire. There are many other good arguments. I urge my colleagues to support the Senator from New Hampshire and help us go back to the job of cleaning this bill up to make it a trade promotion rather than an entitlement promotion bill.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire. I say to my good friend from Iowa, I know he is a devoted, committed advocate of free trade. Coming from agricultural States such as his and mine, we know our farmers absolutely depend upon access to the world market to make sure they gain their return from the marketplace rather than from the mailbox. When we see trade decline, we see agricultural prices drop to terribly low levels. I think the problems we have in agriculture are largely attributable to the collapse in Southeast Asia. We are only going to get the markets back and our income back and the costs of the farm bill down when we open up more trade agreements and see healthy trade with our partners throughout the world. Having said that, I come to the floor as a very strong proponent of free trade. It is not just good for farmers; it is good for the people who work in the industries. The exporting industries pay 13 percent to 15 percent more than the nonexporting industries. Our service sector is a leader in the world in exporting services of all kinds, and we benefit from that. When I go out to shop every day at home in Mexico, MO, or St. Louis or Kansas City, I have better priced goods and better quality goods because there is competition. I buy American-made goods every chance I can if they are available. But I know I am getting the best price and I am getting the best quality because they have to compete. So every one of us, as a consumer, benefits from the competition through increased choice and lower prices. That is why I think trade promotion is so important. That is why I am so disappointed today to see the trade promotion bill has been hijacked. This is no longer a trade promotion bill; it is a welfare entitlement bill which talks about trade promotion, gives the President some authority, and then takes it away. We failed to table the Dayton-Craig amendment. There were strong arguments made for that amendment: We can't give up our sovereignty. Let me tell you what it does. It essentially says to any country that is even thinking about negotiating a deal with the President or his Trade Representative: Forget about it. Forget about it because whatever you negotiate with the President, the Congress can take it away when they come back. That essentially kills the authority of the President to negotiate a trade agreement, authority that previous Presidents have had in recent years as we made progress toward getting free trade. I wish we would take the Andean Trade Promotion Act out of this bill. Everybody knows we need it. Today is the day one deadline occurs. We need to reassure our partners in the Andean region that we want free trade with them, to maintain it and not to see the tariffs come back. We ought to pass that and send this turkey back to get some wings and feathers on it so it will fly because this will not fly. One of the amendments we have before us by the Senator from New Hampshire is just one step we ought to take to clean it up. As the Senator from New Hampshire has so eloquently stated, this is a brandnew subsidy without checks and balances. It does not guarantee that people will get the benefits and the economic opportunities that we should seek. There is no limitation based on necessity. The subsidy would go to an older worker who simply chooses to quit the rat race. As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, you can get a wage subsidy for doing what you want--a former office worker could join her daughter's catering firm or a factory worker who treats a trade-related plant closing as an opportunity not to take an equal job in the community but to take early retirement, move to Florida, and maybe serve as a greeter at Wal-Mart or a groundskeeper at a golf course so he could have a couple of rounds of golf in and have a little wage subsidy. I have nothing against that. I know some of my colleagues like to play golf, but I would sure hate paying them for their privilege of playing golf. My colleagues in this body who are good golfers do so on their own time, after they put in the 60-hour workweek, so it does not hold for them. But to encourage people without limit to do what they wish and take a subsidy along with the other entitlement programs is a bad precedent.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, first, I support and second very strongly the comments made by my good friend and colleague from New Hampshire. I am a traditionalist, and I like to see things come out of the committee because, frankly, committee work ensures there is full consideration of all the measures that come to the floor. We have seen leadership rewriting bills--the farm bill, the energy bill, the stimulus bill--and the products are not good. What my colleague from New Hampshire has described seems to me not only a very expensive, very bad policy direction that has been taken on this trade adjustment assistance, it is beginning to smell to me like an effort to love it to death. I have been around legislative bodies long enough to know if one does not want to stand up and kill something, such as trade promotion, they do not want to come out and say, no, I am not for free trade, the best way to kill it is to put so much stuff on it that it sinks. This was not done in committee. This was not done in the light of day, as the Senator from New Hampshire said. This was done behind the scenes. This was an effort to sabotage trade promotion. I hope this body will say no. Frankly, if it were to go to the President with all of this junk on it, I hope he would veto it and send it back. We need trade promotion authority. We do not need a huge new socialistic program to have the Federal Government paying people's salaries when they are working. Trade adjustment assistance traditionally as we have had it, yes, it makes a lot of sense, but to have a whole new health care program, not going through the committee structure, a whole new income supplement program not fully considered, not aired out, put on this bill, I think is an outrage. I hope it does not take a supermajority to get this--or 41 votes to get it off. I hope we have an up-or-down vote and the people who are really for trade promotion authority, the people who want to give our farmers the opportunity to produce and sell in the world market will stand up and say no, we need trade promotion authority clean, not with all of these love handles on it.