Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation concerning a critical issue that affects many States--disaster assistance. Last year was one of the worst hurricane seasons that Florida had seen in recent years. The Sunshine State was battered by four hurricanes in a six week period. Many residents of Florida had to evacuate more than three times during last year's hurricane season only to return home and find their homes leveled, their crops uprooted, their neighborhoods flooded, and their dreams shattered.

In my home State of Missouri, we are no strangers to natural disasters. Located smack in the middle of Tornado Alley, Missouri has been hit by some of the largest storms in U.S. history. In May of 2003, a string of tornadoes ripped through the western part of the state causing major damage and devastation.

With two big rivers--the Mississippi and the Missouri--we have also seen our fair share of flooding through the years, including flash flooding. I will never forget when the Mississippi River breached its banks in 1993--one of the most devastating floods in U.S. history. Of the nine Midwestern States affected, the State of Missouri was the hardest hit and State officials estimate that damages totaled $3 billion.

One specific example of the benefits of disaster mitigation in flash- flood situations comes to mind when I think of the City of Union, located about 45 minutes from St. Louis, where many of the residents suffered tremendous damage from a severe flash flood in May of 2000. After the flood, the City of Union applied to the State of Missouri Emergency Management Agency to seek help in a demolition and acquisition project. With the mitigation grant money, 17 properties were acquired in residential areas with substantial damage. These properties are now deed restricted for ``open space,'' which will prevent future development and the potential for flash flood related deaths in that area because many of the homes and people will no longer be in harm's way. This is an excellent example of the value of disaster and mitigation money invested by the Federal, State and local governments.

The disaster mitigation program has also been used to provide grant money to an individual, as opposed to a municipality. In some instances, these homeowners may be located in areas highly susceptible to tornadoes. Often

times, disaster mitigation grants have been issued to individual homeowners enabling them to build storm shelters underneath their homes, ultimately saving lives.

Over the years, the State of Missouri has worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to build structures that prevent flooding and other damage from occurring when natural disasters strike. Time and time again, FEMA has come to the rescue by establishing funding for disaster relief and mitigation activities within the State of Missouri and in other states across the country.

Having served as the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, which until recently oversaw FEMA, I know first hand the value of the agency's disaster mitigation grant programs--the Hazards Mitigation Grant Program (HGMP), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program (PDM), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. Designed to manage future emergencies, these programs have been essential to countless communities, and without them, thousands of lives would be in jeopardy.

Last Congress, some very disturbing news was brought to my attention. According to a June 2004 legal memorandum issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), FEMA mitigation grants may be subject to income taxation. While some may argue that this is merely the IRS's interpretation of the statute, it is clearly the position the IRS intends to take against American taxpayers whose only recourse will be to fight the agency in court.

Let me tell you what this means for the American taxpayer. In my example of Union, Missouri, it is the individuals whose homes have been purchased by the city who ultimately will be forced to pay taxes on the proceeds of the buyout. For the homeowner building a storm shelter with grant money, he or she might be taxed upon receipt of the grant.

I must say that I am absolutely stunned by this determination by the IRS!! How in the world could the IRS possibly think that Congress intended to tax these types of grants to prevent natural disasters, especially when we went out of our way to ensure that disaster-relief payments to individuals recovering from a hurricane, flood, tornado or other natural disaster are not subject to income taxes?

Today, I am offering a bill that will stop the IRS in its tracks and prevent the taxation of disaster mitigation grants. This language will ensure that any federal grants to construct or modify property to mitigate future disaster damage will not be deemed to be income by the IRS's tortured reasoning. This bill will ensure that any grants currently out there, especially in light of the current hurricanes that have happened, are not subject to tax. In addition, there should be no inference by this legislation that Congress intended such grants to be taxable prior to the effective date of this legislation.

Why is this important? Why am I out here today? Because the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers rise, because tornadoes will ravage through the state once again, and because flash flooding can decimate an entire community. The last thing Americans who are working to prevent such potential destruction need is for government-grant funding to be subject to tax. My bill ensures that such taxes do not see the light of day.

I thank the original cosponsors of this bill, Senators Talent, Inhofe, Vitter, Conrad, Landrieu, and Nelson, for their support, and I urge my other colleagues to join us. Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a letter from the Stafford Act Coalition be printed in the Record.

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

Further, I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to speak in morning business for as such time as I may require.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, today it is a real privilege for me to be able to report to my colleagues and the people of America on a magnificent relief effort underway in Indonesia, where the December 26, 2004, tsunami left over 115,000 confirmed deaths, with potentially tens of thousands more swept out to certain death in the sea, leaving no record of their disappearance, and hundreds of thousands of surviving victims left in precarious positions, with inadequate water and food, facing potentially life-threatening diseases.

On Saturday, January 15, a week ago this past Saturday, I walked through the primitive conditions in the mud, in the heat and humidity of Banda Aceh Airport to talk to the relief teams and the military personnel, Asian and American, gathered in a common cause. Some of these American troops are shown here in this picture. It was an extremely diverse group of individuals. They shared in the common beads of sweat dripping off the end of the nose from the oppressive climate. They had a compelling commitment to relieve the tremendous suffering of the people of Aceh and Northern Sumatra and a cooperative spirit that resolved questions and differences of opinion with speed and good humor.

The U.S. Navy and Marine helicopter crews, which had flown 600 missions delivering 2.3 million pounds of supplies to isolated locations cut off by the tsunami-destroyed roads and bridges, mingled with international relief agency personnel, personnel from other countries, Navy volunteers from the USS Abraham Lincoln who joined with marines from the Bonhomme Richard, loaded U.S. Agency for International Development rice and purified water from the carrier Lincoln onto the helicopters.

The Indonesian military, through their Army, the TNI, provided security for relief forces against potential kidnapping and harassment by the free-Aceh movement, known as GAM, which apparently and fortunately was more interested in ensuring that people did not forget about them than in inflicting more casualties on the volunteers.

Navy fixed-wing pilots from the Lincoln, who were not that day flying off the carrier, came to work in oppressively hot tents to provide logistics control and support. USAID workers, who were among the true heroes of the effort, organized food, water, and medical supplies as directed by Indonesian government officials, to be put on helicopters or sometimes Marine hovercraft, VCACs, which could gain access to isolated regions along the shores, once the debris and human remains had been removed from the shorelines.

Even though the main work of removing bodies of victims in Banda Aceh had concluded days before, the State Department security official noted to me that each day debris from collapsed buildings was removed, a dozen or so body bags carried additional victims from beneath the rubble.

One of the first people who met me was Pierre King, the French leader of a unit from the International Organization of Migration, IOM, a critically important group of workers who had been on the scene from the beginning. He asked me to tell the American people that American troop efforts and that of volunteers had been outstanding. This was the theme heard time and time again from many different sources.

When I arrived at a concrete structure serving as the command center, Indonesia's coordinating minister in charge of relief efforts, Alwi Shihab, an old friend who had visited me in Washington, DC a week before the tsunami, expressed the profound gratitude of the people of Indonesia for the great work the Americans had done. He expressed his hope that the U.S. troops would stay in the country until Indonesian resources could take over the immediate relief effort.

Later, the Indonesian Defense Minister, Juwono Sudarsono, told Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz that the United States had been the backbone of the relief effort. Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and I later met with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, often referred to, for obvious reasons, by his initials SBY. The President expressed his gratitude for the relief work of the United States military, and he said he hoped that Indonesia would be able to take over any further needed relief work within 3 months and probably sooner.

This entire effort and the saving of untold lives was made possible by the outpouring of voluntary assistance as well as the work of troops assigned to the region.

In Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, later I learned that when the United

States began loading our C-130s with vital relief needs, our embassy personnel, led by USAID workers, were joined by volunteers from the American Chamber of Commerce in Indonesia, spouses of American diplomats, and other American and international civilians living in the area who loaded the 20,000-pound pallets to be carried to Banda Aceh in the C-130s. It is clear that without their efforts the scope of the tragedy of the tsunami itself could have been magnified many times by starvation and disease, killing Indonesians in the impacted areas who had survived the disastrous wall of water brought in by the tsunami.

Aid for severely injured victims in Indonesia was provided initially by United States naval doctors and corpsmen, and the most seriously injured were transferred to high-level care facilities on shipboard. Later field hospitals were provided by other countries, including Jordan, Spain, and France. The latter provided a 74-ton field hospital, which our heavy-lift Marine helicopters were able to transport to the disaster scene. Most of the severe injuries had been cared for by the time we arrived, and several of the field hospitals were preparing to return to their home countries because their mission had been fulfilled.

I was told that one Marine hovercraft had blown a portion of a pallet into a resident, injuring him. He was treated by a Navy corpsman, taken home by the Marines who were there unloading the hovercraft.

But the real challenge is to health, the lack of healthy water supply and sanitation, creating the danger of tetanus, typhoid, and other disease. One of the Philippine nurses in the IOM tent proudly showed me the tetanus, typhoid vaccines, and other medicines they were administering to protect survivors from disease.

The need for clean water was addressed initially by U.S. Admiral Doug Crowder, commander of the Abraham Lincoln Strike Force deployed to the region on an emergency basis. The carrier was able to generate 90,000 gallons of purified water, in addition to its needs each day, to be delivered to the residents of the stricken region.

Also we saw in Jakarta USAID personnel prepared large water jugs with water purification chemicals attached to them to enable purification of water on the ground for residents whose water supply had been severely compromised.

In addition to the volunteer efforts I described, great work was done by our allies in the region. We need to make special reference to them. Singapore supplied helicopters for relief efforts. Australia brought in C-130s for heavy lift, as did New Zealand. Other countries in the region played valuable roles as well. Japan contributed. Thailand, which had over 5,000 deaths in its hotel and resort area of Phuket, was able to handle the disaster relief with its own forces and volunteers, not calling on other countries for assistance.

In addition to dealing with the problem in his own country, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra promptly offered the use of its airfield at Utapoah as a central U.S. staging point for airlift relief supplies going into northern Indonesia.

The Government of Malaysia, led by its newly elected Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, acted quickly to clear all necessary flight access for relief efforts and to permit our military aircraft to utilize vitally needed airports for operations into Indonesia. After meeting with government officials and volunteers on the ground on January 15, I joined our United States ambassador in Indonesia, R. Lynn Pascoe, and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz on a helicopter tour of the devastated areas of northern Aceh.

During my time as Governor, I saw devastation of areas hit by floods and tornadoes. I thought I had seen the worst. In addition, all of us in America who watched television saw stark pictures of the floods, the destruction, what was left after the tsunami struck. But what I saw from the helicopter was beyond anything I had ever seen before in both its extent and magnitude. The extent and magnitude were nothing short of cataclysmic. We saw from the air broad reaches of low-lying portions of what had obviously been a reasonably prosperous Asian community turned into piles of large matchsticks with buildings torn completely off their foundations. Remnants of fishing vessels perched hazardously against remnants of structures hundreds and hundreds of yards from shore. Small fires were burning where surviving residents were cleaning up debris and burning the trash.

As we flew down the shoreline for a short way, we saw the sides of cliffs carved out where the tsunami wave had bulldozed huge sections of the cliffs. This slide from a helicopter window shows the new cliffs which have been carved out by the floodwaters as they hit in those areas. The only trees left standing were very young pine trees which apparently were slender and supple enough to avoid being broken off by the tsunami. Small towns along the way were identifiable only by foundations of buildings which may have been businesses, farms, or homes, but otherwise totally unrecognizable. In some areas, bridges were wiped out and in other areas the highways near the shore were covered in large expanses of sand. It was obvious that fields which had been cultivated were likely turned into barren salt and sand wastelands.

In addition to the large swath of devastation cut across Banda Atjeh, the devastation continued on to the horizon along the shore where the tsunami had wiped out manmade and even natural structures.

Later, I learned that the Navy operations to bring in relief had to await remapping of the shoreline because even the underwater structures had been so changed by the tsunami that the navigation charts were unreliable. From the helicopter, we obviously just had this bird's-eye view. But from the relief workers and news reports in the area, we gained a much more detailed understanding of what had transpired.

In the January 15 edition of the International Herald Tribune, it was reported that the seashore town of Calang, with 7,300 people, had been left after the tsunami with nothing other than the skeleton of one house of a wealthy resident. There were no signs of shops, houses, restaurants, or a mosque which had been there. Of the 7,300 people thought to live in the town, 323 bodies were found, and 5,627 residents were listed as missing--more than 80 percent of the community. We could only assume that they and thousands of others in isolated regions were swept out to sea. The total loss of life may never be known.

The IHT reported news of similar devastation along a coastal region where villages were flattened, leaving no roads, bridges, ports, or airstrips. It was reported that one swampy area had approximately 100 floating bodies, and nobody had been able to gain access to remove and bury the dead.

In a subsequent report on January 18, IHT noted that the Red Cross had given up attempting to compile a list of those missing, and decided to pursue what tragically was a much smaller listing of those who survived. It was a publication called simply ``I Am Alive.'' The news story recorded a heartwarming and touching account of an 18-year-old boy who was able to find his 8-year-old brother who had been torn out of his arms in the waves. But the number of reunions had been tragically small, with only one or two other reunions recorded.

Before I visited Banda Aceh, I had read and was concerned about reports indicating that the response to the tsunami had been slow. But as I learned more about the nature of the devastation, I gained a better understanding of why it was slow. Apparently, there had been a major sports celebration in Banda Aceh when the tsunami struck, and most of the town's leaders were in the low-lying areas as were a large number of the TNI military and its leaders, and most of the communication facilities in Banda Aceh. These were all washed away--the citizens, the leaders, the local officials, and the communications facilities. It was many hours before aircraft flights over the area could discover the extent of the destruction.

Despite the uncertainty and despite a lack of knowledge of the exact nature of the destruction, initial reports of the tsunami brought immediate proactive reactions from a lot of U.S. leadership--ADM Thomas Fargo, our Pacific military commander, and our Ambassador to Indonesia, R. Lynn Pascoe, as well as organizations like the American Red Cross, the International Organization for Migration, and the Governments of Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand.

Ambassador Pascoe immediately made available $100,000 to the International Red Cross to purchase badly needed supplies and medication. He also tasked the IOM to mobilize truck convoys which enabled land relief with 80 trucks to reach Banda Aceh within some 5 days after the tsunami. Admiral Fargo's proactive order to turn the USS Abraham Lincoln around to the straits of Aceh, cancel shore leave and move it from Hong Kong to the straits of Aceh, brought in helicopter relief to isolated areas 6 days after the tragedy.

It is obvious that this is a natural tragedy of historic proportions. The loss of life has truly been staggering, but the displaced and endangered people in the region are even a far larger number. Our relief efforts for the immediate needs have been generous and prompt, but there will be much more work to be done.

Now, several misinterpretations of our efforts in Indonesia have appeared in the press and I need to address that. Many people interpreted the remarks of the Indonesian Vice President as ordering American forces out of Indonesia by March 26. In fact, our Ambassador and military officials agreed with the Indonesian Government that our troops--diverted to the country from scheduled and needed rest and relaxation--would stay only as long as absolutely needed and wanted by the country's government. All parties knew that the time of our troops' commitment would be, at the most, no more than 3 months. I believe the Vice President's announcement of departure by March 26 was a prediction of the schedule, not an ultimatum.

Our mission in Indonesia was well described by Marine GEN Christian Cowdrey who, as commander of the Combined Support Group, told the Indonesians, ``We are here to support your efforts, at your direction, where you need it.'' He made it clear that we intended to stay as long as the Government of Indonesia requested our assistance, and as soon as our assistance was no longer required, he would return to the home base and station. There were 8,000 marines and sailors assisting in the relief effort, and the majority of them were based on ships to limit the number of people on shore who needed to be supplied.

The short-term nature of our commitment was reinforced by an announcement by Admiral Fargo this past Friday that withdrawal of the troops would begin immediately, transferring relief operations to host nations and international organizations. He predicted that all 15,000 U.S. troops would be withdrawn within 60 days--well short of the predicted maximum of March 26--as the mission in Indonesia moved from the immediate relief phase to rehabilitation and reconstruction.

Another press report suggested Indonesia had demanded that our aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, leave its waters. This report seemingly was based on sightings of the Lincoln heading to open waters.

Well, I had the opportunity to ask ADM Doug Crowder, commander of the Lincoln Strike Force, about this report. He shook his head and smiled in dismay. He told me that he routinely had to conduct flight operations to keep his fixed-wing pilots current. He does not conduct these operations near shore and routinely goes out to blue water, 50 to 60 miles offshore. Even if he is in San Diego, he doesn't fly fixed wing off of his carrier on shore; he goes out to sea by that distance to blue water.

In Indonesia, his practice had been to send off his helicopters with supplies and shore volunteers in the morning, located near shore. He then would move the carrier to blue water for fixed-wing flights and return in the evening to retrieve his choppers and personnel for overnight.

Another story indicated that the U.S. Marines were prohibited from carrying any weapons while they were on Indonesian soil. As a father of a marine, this troubled me. I thought, are we sending marines in without protection? I inquired of Marine General Cowdrey if his troops were unprotected. He assured me that while marines engaged in humanitarian operations normally did not carry M-16 rifles, he never deployed his marines without adequate force and personal protection.

Another thing the relief operations did was to bring into stark reality the unintended consequences of congressional restrictions placed on our assistance to Indonesia. This was done supposedly to deal with human rights abuses by the TNI--the Indonesian military--during the times of authoritarian rule in that country through the aftermath of the East Timor referendum. Those restrictions were first imposed in 1991 and have been tightened since.

I have opposed continuation of these sanctions since Indonesia has chosen new leaders democratically, most recently this fall's 2004 election of President Yudhoyono; and the new leadership made a strong commitment to reform, to a recognition of human rights, and to fighting corruption. President Yudhoyono has shown he is a reformer; his permitting U.S. soldiers in Indonesia was opposed by hardliners in his Parliament. I believe we need to support him and his reform efforts, rather than strengthen the hand of anti-U.S. forces in his country. The main focus of the sanctions was to prohibit Indonesian participation in the International Military Education and Training Program, or the IMET Program, run by our military for our own officers and forces from friendly nations.

IMET provides training in modern military operations, including adherence to the Code of Military Justice, civilian control of the military, respect for human rights, and proper treatment of civilian populations--precisely by the principles that should be instilled in military forces thought to have been involved in human rights abuses in the past.

The major benefits of the program, however, are establishing relationships among our military leaders and commanders of friendly foreign forces to assure they understand how to conduct military or relief operations together.

This principle is known as interoperability. The foreign officers learn English language skills so our allied officers can communicate. The failure to have such training in Indonesia almost resulted in a tragic midair collision of U.S. aircraft with a TNI helicopter operation.

Our military leaders, Secretary Don Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and our Secretary of State, Colin Powell, have told me personally how important these IMET programs are and how important it is not to deny them to Indonesia. If our forces are to participate in military or relief operations with those of friendly nations, we must train together.

Also, as a result of U.S. policy, Indonesia was denied the ability to purchase necessary spare parts for its C-130 fleet, rendering its fleet of 24 planes largely inoperable. Had the Indonesian C-130s been available, relief and aid would have flowed much sooner and in greater quantity to Aceh. When Secretary of State Colin Powell learned about the limitation, he immediately responded by issuing a waiver to bring funding for spare parts and the parts themselves to Indonesia.

Beginning this past week, American and Indonesian mechanics began the installation of the spare parts, and soon more of the fleet should be ready for flight operations.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to reverse these unnecessarily restrictive policies at the earliest opportunity.

I might also say it has been disheartening to read some press accounts that have attributed the U.S. response as a shallow move to win better public relations in Islamic countries. Some of this nonsense, regrettably, appeared in American publications.

America is and always has been and always will be a force for social justice and humanitarian relief. It is notable that we are not challenged when we provide assistance for AIDS victims in Africa or elsewhere around the world, and I hope people will understand the genuine outpouring of American concern in this instance.

At churches in Washington, DC, and in my hometown of Mexico, MO, as well as in comments and discussions with many Americans here and at home, I have heard nothing but genuine expressions of great concern, sympathy, and willingness to assist. Voluntary charitable contributions of individuals, corporations, and other organizations have been to date overwhelming.

When I was in Kansas City and St. Louis on Monday of this week, I heard that the American Red Cross is seeking to raise $400 million, which is greater than the $350 million pledged by the

U.S. Government for assistance. I believe the figures, when you take in the amount provided by many different avenues through matching grant programs from employers, corporations, to their employees, the number of dollars going voluntarily will significantly exceed the initial commitment of the U.S. Government aid.

I might also add that the U.S. Government spends $5 million to $6 million a day in addition to that just operating its carriers in Indonesia.

As far as expressions of aid and commitment and compassion, I can tell you the marines and soldiers laboring in the oppressive heat of Aceh to put rice and clean water on helicopters to deliver to suffering people were not doing it to gain better public relations for the United States. Neither were the USAID or the charitable organization workers who had to overcome tremendous obstacles to bring relief to people in isolated areas of Aceh and northern Sumatra. They were not worrying about anything more than coming to the aid of suffering human beings.

With respect to the grievances of the Free Aceh Movement, President Yudhoyono, in his previous position in the Megawati administration, had begun negotiations with leaders in the region, but these negotiations were called off by then-President Megawati.

Prior to the disaster, negotiations had been started by the Yudhoyono administration, and it is my understanding these negotiations are continuing in Sweden currently. President Yudhoyono appealed to the free Aceh rebels to respect the humanitarian weapons and disavow use of arms.

Minister Shihab told me they had gone further and sent the message that his government wanted not just a cease-fire but a reconciliation. President Yudhoyono even met with Western diplomats to discuss ideas for finding a solution. Aceh is a rich region that has many resources, as well as a long tradition of antipathy toward Jakarta. But with the proper spirit on both sides, I have hopes that coming out of this tragedy in Aceh can arise a negotiated settlement that will recognize and respect the culture, views, and wishes of the Acehanese and keep them in the country of Indonesia.

It is also my hope that the immediate emergency relief effort that will come to a close soon will not signal the end of American interest and commitment to the region. Truly, I hope that the attention that has been brought by the very extensive media coverage of the tsunami will keep more attention in this body and the American public at large on the importance of good relations with the people in Southeast Asia.

There is much more that needs to be done over the long term to meet what I view as an exciting but challenging relationship in Southeast Asia. I will be addressing in the future the extent and the importance of this challenge in Southeast Asia, how it has importance--not just for the humanitarian interests which I described today but for political, economic, strategic, and national security concerns.

The tragedy of the tsunami has brought an unparalleled opportunity to invite more Americans to pay attention to an area of the world where we have vital interests. I hope when the tsunami relief efforts have passed, our friends and neighbors will keep in mind the need to strengthen our relationships in a very critical area of the world.

I thank the Chair and my colleagues. I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, in 1878 a group of pioneering women led by Mrs. Appoline A. Blair had the innovative idea to open a hospital in St. Louis where children could receive the special care they needed and deserved. In 1879, St. Louis Children's Hospital opened its doors to children and families in downtown St. Louis, Missouri in a small, rented house with 15 beds. This year, St. Louis Children's Hospital, the first children's hospital west of the Mississippi River and the seventh oldest in the country, is proud to celebrate its 125th anniversary.

Today, St. Louis Children's Hospital's clinical and community outreach programs touch more than 250,000 patients annually. Patients from all 50 States and nearly 50 countries around the world have passed through the doors and been served by this remarkable institution.

The pioneering spirit with which this hospital was founded has continued through its long and distinguished history. St. Louis Children's Hospital, working in conjunction with Washington University School of Medicine, has consistently been at the forefront of pediatric care. From its earliest days St. Louis Children's Hospital has been home to critical pediatric advances. For example, from 1915 through the 1920s, Dr. Vilray Blair, known as the father of plastic surgery in America, perfected several important methods for correction of cleft palate and cleft lip. At about the same time, Dr. W. McKim Marriott, the hospital's pediatrician-in-chief from 1917 to 1936, revolutionized the artificial feeding of infants developing a formula using evaporated milk corn syrup and lactic acid supplemented with vitamins and iron. In 1922, for the first time anywhere, insulin was used to successfully treat an infant with diabetes. In 1927, Dr. James Barrett Brown performed the first homograft on a child resulting in the development of modern care for burns for children. In 1929, Dr. Alexis P. Hartmann developed the first practical treatment, Lactate Ringers Solution, for infants suffering from severe diarrhea and dehydration. Dr. Hartmann served as the hospital's pediatrician-in-chief from 1936 to 1964.

St. Louis Children's Hospital pioneered developments in many other health areas, including diagnosis of congenital heart diseases. After the acquisition of a heart-lung machine in 1958, the hospital became one of the most active institutions in the country in the field of pediatric open heart surgery. David Goldring, MD, who formed the hospital's cardiology division in 1950 and remained its director until 1985, was a pioneer in pediatric open heart surgery. In another ``first,'' doctors oversaw the first complete exchange of blood in a tiny infant weighing less than 3 pounds.

The first pediatric dialysis unit in the Midwest was set up at St. Louis Children's Hospital in 1974. Another innovation during the 1970s was the establishment of the Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Deformities Institute, the only one of its kind in the Midwest at the time. This unit works with many other areas of the hospital to reconstruct head and facial deformities in children. Dr. Thomas Spray, a cardiothoracic surgeon, performed his first successful Norwood procedure, an advanced surgical technique used to correct the fatal congenital heart defect known as hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Doctors at St. Louis Children's Hospital also performed the region's first cochlear implant, surgically implanting a device the helps children who are deaf to speak and comprehend language.

In addition, St. Louis Children's Hospital established the first free-standing pediatric lung transplant program in the United States. Today, St. Louis Children's Hospital is home to the world's most active pediatric lung transplant program. The hospital is one of the nation's leaders in total pediatric organ transplants, offering kidney, liver, heart and bone marrow transplant programs as well.

St. Louis Children's Hospital is recognized among America's best children's hospitals by Child magazine and US News & World Report, and its Neonatal Intensive Care Unit is distinguished nationally by Child magazine.

Mr. President, please join with me in celebrating 125 years of excellence in pediatric care. The pioneering vision and spirit of St. Louis Children's Hospital has improved the lives of children and families in Missouri and around the globe.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mrs. Marie Pringle who is retiring this month from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. Mrs. Pringle's retirement is well deserved after serving more than 30 years for the Federal Government, including over 20 years in the VA's Office of Budget. Mrs. Pringle epitomizes the best of public service in terms of her dedication, commitment, hard work, and professionalism.

Mrs. Pringle began her Federal service in 1972 with the Department of Army as a clerk typist. She then moved on to the Department of Energy in 1978 to work as a budget analyst. After a 2-year period in the private sector, Mrs. Pringle returned to the Federal Government working for the VA's Office of Budget. At the VA, Mrs. Pringle worked diligently in analyzing the budgetary activities of the Department whose budget has grown to some $68 billion.

As chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, my staff and I have found Mrs. Pringle to be an invaluable resource for reliable and timely data that was critical in helping me make decisions impacting the millions of veterans who depend on the VA. Further, Mrs. Pringle provided my subcommittee with technical expertise that helped us develop our appropriations bills.

Mrs. Pringle's departure is a great loss to the Department and my subcommittee and she will be missed. I commend Mrs. Pringle for her outstanding public service to the American Taxpayer and the millions of our veterans. I wish Mrs. Pringle and her husband Darian all the best.

Madam President, I begin today on a happy note to say, after a lot of hard work in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we have brought forth an excellent product. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy, we have produced a solid, bipartisan conference report which protects the educational rights of children with special needs while at the same time making the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act more workable for parents, teachers, school administrators, and school districts.

While IDEA, as the bill is known, has helped to open the doors to many children with special needs since it was enacted in 1975, there is no question about problems existing.

Over the last half dozen years, I have traveled around the State of Missouri and met, in over 50 different communities, with teachers, school principals, school board members, and parents to find out what the challenges are in education. No surprise that you would come to hear that it is not just that they want more Federal money, they want sense in the Federal regulations. They told me horror stories about the regulatory hurdles they had to overcome to administer some of the Federal programs, especially IDEA. The IDEA was more focused on complex rules than on producing the results that children with disabilities and their families deserve.

I have heard story after story about frustrated special education teachers just throwing up their hands and saying: I can't take it anymore. I came to serve special needs children, not a bureaucracy, and not to be involved in litigation all the time. I have hared about crushing paperwork burdens, children misidentified for special education, that the Federal Government is not paying its fair share of the cost.

The conference report we adopted yesterday is a very important step to address these concerns, to strengthen and improve IDEA for both children and the educational system. We believe it will strengthen the accountability and results for children with disabilities, reduce IDEA paperwork burdens, provide greater flexibility for school districts, reduce the number of children wrongly placed in special education classes, reduce litigation, and restore trust between parents and school districts.

I am particularly pleased to tell you that many of the ideas contained in this legislation were developed in Missouri. When I heard the complaints of Missouri educators, I met and talked with the Missouri School Board Association, which put together a multimonth planning conference with representatives of the teachers, of the special needs community, and others to come up with specific ideas and reforms. The Missouri School Board Association's Special Education Advocacy Council and the Missouri Council of Administrators of Special Education came forward with proposals that I took to the committee, and the committee was able to include most, if not

all, of those in the final legislation. So once again, the best ideas we get here come from home. I thank all of the committed education professionals and friends of special education who worked on it.

I am particularly pleased with the significant reforms which will focus special education on educating children with special needs, not simply complying with a system composed of intricate and complex regulatory and mountainous paperwork burdens.

Special education teachers, as I indicated, are leaving the profession out of frustration because of the unnecessary burden, and that is causing a chronic shortage. More time on paperwork means less time spent with students or preparing lessons for students. It is as simple as that. The numerous reforms in the bill will go a long way to free our time of special educators.

Again, my thanks to Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy, and on my on staff, Kara Vlasaty and Julie Jolly for helping us come up with an excellent product.

Mr. President, the other matter I need to speak to today is a very sad note. There is a funeral going on in my hometown of Mexico, MO, today, as we speak, for a very good friend of mine, Komninos ``Gus'' Karellas. There is a celebration of his life in a community which has mourned him in the last several days.

You heard on the floor from my colleague, Senator Talent, words about Gus, a tremendous American success story. He was an immigrant from Greece. He came here with nothing 40 years ago. He started out working for others. He started out in California, came to Iowa, then Columbia, MO, and then moved with his wife to Mexico, MO, in 1970, to work in a steakhouse. A year later, they bought that steakhouse.

For the last 33 years, Gus Karellas's G&D Steakhouse has been the place to go for good steaks. I know it because I have been one of the frequent visitors there.

I came to know Gus as the community of Mexico, MO, came to know Gus. What a warm, genuine human being Gus Karellas was. He was a leader in his community. He helped charities like Boys Town. But he also did a wonderful thing in the community because he reached out to young people with difficulties, gave them opportunities as busboys and other jobs in his restaurant.

Unfortunately, the allegation in the police report was that it was one of those, or maybe several of those, who murdered him several nights ago to take the receipts from his business. We do not know what was in their troubled minds, but I can tell you that the community has lost a man of great dedication, great service.

Gus was a wonderful father. One of his sons, Nick Karellas, serves as a legislative assistant in my office. Another son, Andy, serves as a legislative assistant to Senator Talent. Jim Talent and I see every day the work ethic, the commitment, the dedication that Gus instilled in his children. He is a man who has left a very large mark on his community, and he has left a legacy that all of us can admire and recognize.

In the Omnibus appropriations bill that we will be passing today, there is a grant for a trail at Lakeview Park in Missouri. I suggest that the city fathers of my hometown consider naming that in honor of Gus Karellas to recognize not only his accomplishments but his contributions to the community and to his family.

I can only say that our thoughts and prayers are with the Karellas family. We join with the community in saluting his life, the great role model he was, the good he did for the community, and we will miss him sorely. They will also be in our thoughts and prayers.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

I thank the President.

Madam President, I commend my colleagues from Louisiana and Idaho. It was a very touching story of the Senator from Louisiana which highlights the importance of adoption month. This is a wonderful effort that my two colleagues have launched. We are pleased to support them and the President's efforts and all those wonderful people who take adopted children into their home.

(The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of

S. 3009 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on

Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Mikulski, Senator Bennett, and Senator Harkin to establish a division of food and agricultural science within the National Science Foundation to support fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality. I present this to begin a critical discussion that I believe we must have over the next several months and perhaps over the next year or so about how we are going to ensure we capitalize on the technology to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of our agricultural production.

We remain the world leader in food and fiber production. We do it safely and through technology and the hard work of the American farmer. In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S. farm has grown from 19 to 129. We have a tremendously innovative agricultural research program. Our farmers, our farm leaders are on the cutting edge of developing new technology. And we have seen the innovations continue to come down the pike. This has made it possible for one farmer to feed 129 people.

In addition, we export $60 billion worth of agricultural products, and we do so at less cost and at less harm to the environment than any of our competitors around the world, again, because of new practices, diligence on the part of farmers, and new technology.

In a world that has a decreasing amount of soil available for cultivation, we have a growing population and we still have 800 million children who are hungry or malnourished throughout the world. As some have said: A person who is well fed can have many problems. A person who is hungry has but one problem. Unless we maximize technology and new practices, production will continue to overtax the world's natural resources.

Many people legitimately have raised concerns regarding new diseases and pests and related food safety issues. And they are growing. The leading competitiveness of our U.S. producers is only as solid as our willingness to invest in forward-looking investments and build upon our historic successes.

Now, we also know from past experience that with new technology the doors are being opened to novel new uses of renewable agricultural products in the fields of energy, medicine, and industrial products. In the future, we can make our farm fields and farm animals factories for everyday products, fuels, and medicines in a way that is efficient and better preserves our natural resources. Advances in the life sciences have come about, such as genetics, proteomics, and cell and molecular biology. They are providing the base for new and continuing agricultural innovations.

It was only about a dozen years ago that farmers in Missouri came to me to tell me about the potential that genetic engineering and plant biotechnology had for improving the production of food, and doing so with less impact on the environment, providing more nutritious food. Since that time, I have had a wonderful, continuing education, not in how it works but what it can do.

We know now, for example, that in hungry areas of the world as many as half a million children go blind from vitamin A deficiency, and maybe a million die from vitamin A deficiency. Well, through plant biotechnology, the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines has developed Golden Rice, taking a gene from the sunflower, a beta-carotene gene, and they enrich the rice. The Golden Rice now has that vitamin A, and that is going to make a significant difference in dealing with malnutrition.

We also know that in many areas of the world, where agricultural production has overtaxed the land, where drought has cut the production, where virus has plagued production, the way we can make farmers self-sufficient, where we can restore the farm economy in many of these countries, is through plant biotechnology.

But this is just the beginning. This legislation I am introducing today is a discussion draft which I hope is going to lay the foundation for tremendous advances in the future.

This legislation stems from findings and recommendations produced by a distinguished group of scientists working on the Agricultural Research, Economics and Education Task Force, which I was honored to be able to include in the 2002 farm bill. The distinguished task force was led by Dr. William H. Danforth, of St. Louis, the brother of our former distinguished colleague, Senator Jack Danforth. Dr. Bill Danforth has a tremendous reputation in science and in education, with a commitment to human welfare and is known worldwide. He was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts, the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council; Dr. Victor Lechtenbert, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University.

I extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Dr. Danforth and his team for providing the basis and the roadmap to ensure we have the mechanisms in place to solve the problems and capitalize on the opportunities in agricultural research. The full report of the task force can be found at www.ars.usda.gov/research.htm.

In summary, that study concludes that it is absolutely necessary we reinvigorate and forward focus our technology to meet the responsibilities of our time. New investment is critical for the world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the world.

I look forward to pursuing this vision in the 109th Congress. I invite my colleagues who are interested in science and research to review this report, to look at this measure, to join with me and my cosponsors in the next session of Congress to talk about moving forward on what I think will be a tremendous opportunity to improve agriculture and its benefits to all our populations.

Now, I cannot speak for all agricultural groups, but I talked to agricultural leaders of the various commodities, the farm organizations in my State of Missouri. They are very excited about it because these are the people who have been on the leading edge, who have pushed for the new technology, who have pushed for the new research that has enabled them to go from feeding 19 people per farmer a half century ago to feeding 129 people per farmer.

Madam President, this, I hope, will be the start of something really big. So, with that, I send the draft of the legislation to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Mikulski, Senator Bennett, and Senator Harkin to establish a division of food and agricultural science within the National Science Foundation to support fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality. I present this to begin a critical discussion that I believe we must have over the next several months and perhaps over the next year or so about how we are going to ensure we capitalize on the technology to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of our agricultural production.

We remain the world leader in food and fiber production. We do it safely and through technology and the hard work of the American farmer. In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S. farm has grown from 19 to 129. We have a tremendously innovative agricultural research program. Our farmers, our farm leaders are on the cutting edge of developing new technology. And we have seen the innovations continue to come down the pike. This has made it possible for one farmer to feed 129 people.

In addition, we export $60 billion worth of agricultural products, and we do so at less cost and at less harm to the environment than any of our competitors around the world, again, because of new practices, diligence on the part of farmers, and new technology.

In a world that has a decreasing amount of soil available for cultivation, we have a growing population and we still have 800 million children who are hungry or malnourished throughout the world. As some have said: A person who is well fed can have many problems. A person who is hungry has but one problem. Unless we maximize technology and new practices, production will continue to overtax the world's natural resources.

Many people legitimately have raised concerns regarding new diseases and pests and related food safety issues. And they are growing. The leading competitiveness of our U.S. producers is only as solid as our willingness to invest in forward-looking investments and build upon our historic successes.

Now, we also know from past experience that with new technology the doors are being opened to novel new uses of renewable agricultural products in the fields of energy, medicine, and industrial products. In the future, we can make our farm fields and farm animals factories for everyday products, fuels, and medicines in a way that is efficient and better preserves our natural resources. Advances in the life sciences have come about, such as genetics, proteomics, and cell and molecular biology. They are providing the base for new and continuing agricultural innovations.

It was only about a dozen years ago that farmers in Missouri came to me to tell me about the potential that genetic engineering and plant biotechnology had for improving the production of food, and doing so with less impact on the environment, providing more nutritious food. Since that time, I have had a wonderful, continuing education, not in how it works but what it can do.

We know now, for example, that in hungry areas of the world as many as half a million children go blind from vitamin A deficiency, and maybe a million die from vitamin A deficiency. Well, through plant biotechnology, the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines has developed Golden Rice, taking a gene from the sunflower, a beta-carotene gene, and they enrich the rice. The Golden Rice now has that vitamin A, and that is going to make a significant difference in dealing with malnutrition.

We also know that in many areas of the world, where agricultural production has overtaxed the land, where drought has cut the production, where virus has plagued production, the way we can make farmers self-sufficient, where we can restore the farm economy in many of these countries, is through plant biotechnology.

But this is just the beginning. This legislation I am introducing today is a discussion draft which I hope is going to lay the foundation for tremendous advances in the future.

This legislation stems from findings and recommendations produced by a distinguished group of scientists working on the Agricultural Research, Economics and Education Task Force, which I was honored to be able to include in the 2002 farm bill. The distinguished task force was led by Dr. William H. Danforth, of St. Louis, the brother of our former distinguished colleague, Senator Jack Danforth. Dr. Bill Danforth has a tremendous reputation in science and in education, with a commitment to human welfare and is known worldwide. He was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts, the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council; Dr. Victor Lechtenbert, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University.

I extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Dr. Danforth and his team for providing the basis and the roadmap to ensure we have the mechanisms in place to solve the problems and capitalize on the opportunities in agricultural research. The full report of the task force can be found at www.ars.usda.gov/research.htm.

In summary, that study concludes that it is absolutely necessary we reinvigorate and forward focus our technology to meet the responsibilities of our time. New investment is critical for the world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the world.

I look forward to pursuing this vision in the 109th Congress. I invite my colleagues who are interested in science and research to review this report, to look at this measure, to join with me and my cosponsors in the next session of Congress to talk about moving forward on what I think will be a tremendous opportunity to improve agriculture and its benefits to all our populations.

Now, I cannot speak for all agricultural groups, but I talked to agricultural leaders of the various commodities, the farm organizations in my State of Missouri. They are very excited about it because these are the people who have been on the leading edge, who have pushed for the new technology, who have pushed for the new research that has enabled them to go from feeding 19 people per farmer a half century ago to feeding 129 people per farmer.

Madam President, this, I hope, will be the start of something really big. So, with that, I send the draft of the legislation to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shelby be recognized for 10 minutes following me, and that Senator Breaux be recognized for 15 minutes thereafter.

Mr. President, it has been a pleasure to work with the Senator from Louisiana. We have appreciated his leadership on many issues not only important to Louisiana but to our energy future and important to navigation in the heartland, which is something that is vitally important for all of us.

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about an old- fashioned virtue: doing what you said you were going to do. That is a test a lot of people apply in politics. They say if you tell us what you are going to do when you get elected, are you going to do it?

It seems to me in the intelligence field we have an example of that. The reaction is somewhat surprising. We have had, I think, 128 or 130 hearings in the Intelligence Committee since I joined it in January 2003. One of the lessons we learned is that, while there are many outstanding dedicated men and women in the CIA and throughout the intelligence community, the system is broken; it didn't give us the adequate or accurate prediction of the scope of the terrorist danger to the U.S. before 9/11. We went into Iraq with the Director of Central Intelligence so confident of the intelligence analysis

that we would find weapons of mass destruction that he advised the President it was a ``slam dunk.''

We now find out that while there was great danger in Iraq, it was very different from the danger that the CIA had assessed. The estimates were really faulty. We have seen this. The CIA and the intelligence community, as I said, have outstanding, dedicated people; but they are not focused properly on doing the job that the new worldwide threat of an unrelenting, vicious, terrorist war directed at us and all free- minded people presents. So everybody came to the conclusion there needed to be a new direction.

The President nominated one of the Members of Congress who had done a great deal of oversight of the CIA and actually had served in the clandestine service himself, Porter Goss of Florida. Everybody said they wanted change. Porter Goss told the President and the Congress in his confirmation hearings that we are going to make some changes. He went over to the CIA. He is making some changes. What a surprise. The critics are now saying he is making changes at the CIA. I am a little bit confused about what they thought he was going to do. If he didn't make changes at the CIA, that is when I think we should be challenging him.

Something has to change. I have spoken with Director Goss, and I know our chairman, Senator Roberts, has. We both have confidence in his ability, because it appears to us that Director Goss is doing exactly what he told Congress he would do, and that is to make changes in order to improve the CIA.

Why are we surprised or critical that there is a change with new leadership? Obviously, changing means there are going to be some people who are going to be displaced. We thank them for their service and wish them well. But why are we arguing over the fact that some people are going to be removed or replaced?

Director Goss testified at his confirmation hearing that he would make changes that emphasize the CIA's missions and capability and focus on delivering a better product to the President and Congress. That is because, as I said, we have had report after report, including the Senate's inquiry that we spent a lot of time putting together, that shows failures at many levels within the CIA, resulting in an inadequate product presented to us and the administration. The status quo is not acceptable.

Director Goss has a very big challenge ahead of him. We need to give him room to address it. Change is tough, people don't like it, but it is necessary. Take two aspirins and call me in the morning. Sit back and take a deep breath and don't get upset because he is making changes.

There are some critics who are going after him tooth and toenail. I believe the New York Times had a headline today that said ``New CIA Chief Tells Workers to Back Administration Policies.'' Wait a minute. That is not what he said. I have the copy of the statement Director Goss made. He said that we will support the administration, but he says we will provide intelligence to support it. We don't come out and argue for it. He said that as agency employees, we do not identify with, support, or champion opposition to the administration or its policies. We provide the intelligence as we see it and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker. In other words, their support is by providing the best intelligence estimates available.

Now, Michael Scheuer, who wrote that anonymous book and made headlines with the ``Imperial Hubris'' book, criticized timid leadership at CIA. Why are we criticizing the DCI for shaking up the management? If the Director of CIA is making mistakes, or if he is going down the wrong path, we on the Intelligence Committees here and in the House are going to be monitoring the situation. If we see there is a problem, we are in a position to call him on it or to point out remedies that are needed. But, so far, I see a man willing to take on an entrenched and some might stay constipated bureaucracy.

Many of the senior intelligence officials to quit have been with the agency for decades. It is a shame we are going to lose that experience, but some would say--and I agree--new blood is needed at the CIA.

I am encouraged that Director Goss is willing to shake things up at the CIA. I hope he employs the same vigor in getting the rest of the intelligence community to work together and share information with each other.

Some of the people who are leaving and whining, I question their mettle. There are thousands of soldiers and marines in Afghanistan and Iraq, including special forces, who are yelled at every day by their sergeants, not to mention being shot at and living in the mud. I am glad they all have the fortitude to say: I am not going to quit because I am yelled at or somebody doesn't like what I am doing.

Perhaps these CIA officers should remember their mission and work with the DCI as the quiet service, keep their mouths shut, and work within the system to provide the best intelligence for the administration, for the Congress, and for the warfighters who need to rely on it and whose lives depend upon it.

Parochialism is one of the CIA's biggest problems. These career CIA officers, while having valuable experience, also carry the baggage of being resistant to change. The status quo may be comfortable to them, but it is dangerous to the country.

We on the Intelligence Committee have heard CIA officers say that everything is just fine, no changes are needed. Those people are clearly in a state of denial.

We on the Intelligence Committee take our oversight responsibilities seriously and will, of course, address legitimate concerns over how Director Goss is running the intelligence community. We appointed and confirmed him to make difficult changes, and I don't think it is appropriate to jump to conclusions or second-guess his management style.

I thank the Chair and my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to pay special tribute to the St. Louis Hurling Club on their National Championship of the North American Gaelic Athletic Association, Junior-C Division on September 3, 2004.

The St. Louis Hurling Club was founded in the Summer of 2002 by Paul C. Rohde, Daniel D. Lapke, and Patrick O'Connor. Their vision included introducing the sport of hurling to the greater metropolitan area of St. Louis, MO., creating opportunities to play the sport, and developing strong St. Louis representation in nationwide competition.

In just 2 short years the St. Louis Hurling Club has expanded to a four-team league, and has become the second-largest club of primarily American-born hurlers in North America. In just the first year of existence, the Gaelic Athletic Association extended the rare invitation to the St. Louis Hurling Club to join twenty-one other cities to the North American County Board. In September 2004, the St. Louis Hurling Club traveled to Colorado and returned with the National Championship by defeating clubs from Milwaukee and Seattle.

Paul Rohde, Daniel Lapke, and Patrick O'Connor are to be commended for their vision, leadership, and introduction of the ancient Irish sport as well as the continued growth of Irish culture to St. Louis. MO. Again, I wish to congratulate the St. Louis Hurling Club on their National Championship and wish them future success as they continue to evolve.