Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 154 regarding the European Union action against agricultural biotechnology, a resolution submitted earlier today by me and Senators Talent, Lincoln, Lugar, and Baucus. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand how this place works. We knew there was to be an objection. But we have submitted a resolution which will be referred to committee because it is a matter of great importance. While apparently 99 Senators did not have an objection, we will have an opportunity when this matter is reported out of the appropriate committee to deal with what I think is a very serious issue.

This resolution before us today expresses strong support for President Bush's decision to stand up for our trade rights before the World Trade Organization. The action taken by our President is right on principle, right on law, right on science, and it is morally right.

Two years ago, the European Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, told a news conference the following:

We have already waited too long to act. The moratorium is

illegal and not justified. The value of biotechnology is

poorly appreciated in Europe and there's a risk the

biotechnology industry will not develop.

In short, we could not have said it better. We appreciate the Commissioner's courage to be so candid.

Since reason has not prevailed in Europe, it is time for our overtaxed patience to give way to the need to exercise our rights before the World Trade Organization. If the Europeans had been satisfied to exist as a ``plant technology free zone'' without aggressively attempting to influence other nations, this action would not have become as imperative as it is.

Mr. President, this European ban on plant biotechnology is a lesson about the serious harm that can come in the form of unintended consequences. Too-clever politicians in Europe, coupled with the hysterical anticommercial activists, decided they could whip their public into a frenzy and shield the European Union producers from U.S. competition by suggesting that the new technology is not safe.

Even perhaps more venal--if that is possible--certain leftwing organizations decided they could raise fears and cause unfounded scares in the public and raise money through solicitations to fund their own salaries by spreading lies about the food that we in the United States eat every day.

But now that the European Union politicians are listening to their scientists and realize that the technology is safe, they say they cannot accept it because their public is against it. In other words, they now claim to be hostage to the misinformation they created and, indeed, fostered.

Consequently, we now have a major trade infraction. Our farmers have lost $300 million a year in corn exports. The European public doubts the credibility of their science community. European investment in new plant science is in sharp decline. Their farmers do not have access to new technology. Most importantly, world-renowned scientists are leaving the European Union.

They are coming to Missouri, where our leading scientists, such as Dr. Roger Beachy and Dr. Peter Raven, are hiring them and providing them a refuge where they can practice their science free from the Luddite hysteria or ``Eurosclerosis'' from which they came.

But most tragically--most tragically--the countries in the developing world have been frightened into refusing to feed their starving people the food we have sent them--which is food we eat--because they fear the hysterical European rejection is more serious than death by starvation. We have sent food, humanitarian efforts, to aid and keep these people alive. Unfortunately, their leaders have been frightened by Europeans who say they will never import from them again.

Regrettably, I would say that Europe's fastest-growing exports are hysteria and underappreciated plant scientists. We would like Europe to join us in our efforts to help feed the hungry in the world, not scare the world into needless, wanton starvation.

I do not believe this is where the Europeans wanted to be when they started this nonsense but this is where it has predictably taken them.

This technology was developed, studied, tested, reviewed, approved, planted on several hundred million acres over 7 years, rereviewed and reapproved,

using a strict and science-based system. We are basing our review on science and on experience--lots of experience.

All of us in America today are eating the food that has been improved by genetic modification. We recognize that no technology will ever be 100-percent safe. We must regulate this and other technologies aggressively and thoroughly and scientifically. But this has been the most scrutinized new food technology of our age--or any age--and it has been planted on several hundred million acres around the world for many years. The naysayers still have not identified a single stomachache coming from biotechnology, despite their desperate search.

Our findings are not unique in the world. The case we have taken against the EU is joined by the Governments of Argentina, Canada, Egypt, Australia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, and Uruguay.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences completed a report that ``emphasized it was not aware of any evidence suggesting foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification.''

I can list those which agree with us: the World Health Organization, France's Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the French Academy of Medicine, the Royal Society of London, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and many others.

Twenty Nobel laureates, including Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as ``the father of the Green revolution,'' with whom I spoke earlier this week on this subject, has come out in strong support. All of the major U.S. scientific societies are behind this technology. Dr. Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace and a trained biologist, said directly:

I believe we are entering an era now where pagan beliefs

and junk science are influencing public policy. GM foods and

forestry are both good examples where policy is being

influenced by arguments that have no basis in factor logic.

The scientific consensus on this matter is overwhelming. In this country, farmers, scientists, regulators, courts, shareholders, elected officials, editorial boards, and consumers have all ratified the product and process and future of biotechnology in their own ways. For all practical purposes, it is a settled issue, and remains so.

In my office last week I had a South African cotton farmer who said that new technology in a seed has changed his life. He now has a harvest. He produces profitably. He has a savings account. And now all his neighbors are using that technology.

U.S. agriculture continues to be on the forefront of the application of modern science. In 1940, it took one farmer to feed 19 people. Now one farmer feeds 129 people. But tragically, 800 million children in the world remain hungry. New applications of biotechnology in the U.S. have increased crop yields by 4 billion pounds, saved growers $1.2 billion, and reduced pesticide use by 46 million pounds in the year 2001 alone.

If wealthy citizens in Europe want to shop at trendy expensive food boutiques, that is their right, but their government should not be preventing the public from choosing their diet, and it most certainly should not be discouraging the developing world from trying to eat well to grow and live a better life.

I am very proud of the work President Bush and Ambassador Zoellick, Administrator Natsios, Under Secretary Larson, Ambassador Hall, and many others have done to preserve the viability of this new technology. The EU has made agreements with us to abide by rules they are now flagrantly ignoring. These promises should be kept.

I appreciate the cosponsors of this resolution, the support of farm groups, including the National Corn Growers, Missouri Farm Bureau, and Missouri Soybean Association.

The best arguments on behalf of this are contained in Wednesday's article in the Wall Street Journal by U.S. trade ambassador, Robert Zoellick. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

I join with many of my colleagues in commending the President and his team as they go to Europe aggressively to press their case before the G-8 meeting in France next week.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act of 2003. As an original co-sponsor, I am pleased to join my colleague, the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator Specter in introducing this important legislation that addresses the medical care needs of Medicare-eligible veterans. I applaud Senator Specter for his leadership on this important issue.

For several years, many veterans have not been able to receive timely health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs due to the long waiting lines created by the huge demand for prescription drugs. Under current policy, veterans are required to see a VA doctor before receiving their medication even when they have already

had a prescription written by a privately licensed physician. This policy has not only contributed to the long waiting lines, but it has denied care to service-connected and lower income veterans. It is a moral imperative that we correct this problem and I believe that this legislation is a step in the right direction.

As Chair of the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, my top priority is ensuring that the VA has adequate funding to provide accessible and quality care for our Nation's veterans. Unfortunately, despite record funding increases over the past few years, veterans must still wait for several months to see a VA doctor.

This past January, VA Secretary Principi had to take the unfortunate but necessary step of closing new enrollments to middle and higher income veterans who do not have service-connected disabilities. Many of these so-called Priority 8 veterans have Medicare insurance but do not have a prescription drug benefit. I recognize that the Congress and the President are trying to address the prescription drug issue for all American seniors and I will continue to fight to ensure that a Medicare prescription drug bill is enacted. Nevertheless, I believe that we need to raise awareness of the tragedy that many veterans suffer today to ensure that no matter what occurs during this session of Congress, they are not left behind.

This bill contains a number of important provisions but I highlight one particular measure. As I mentioned earlier, current policy requires veterans to see a VA doctor before having their prescription filled, even if they have had already seen a private doctor. This legislation allows eligible veterans to fill their prescriptions at the VA without having to see a VA doctor. This not only greatly streamlines the process and time for veterans to receive much-needed medications, but it also provides relief to the waiting lines so that our higher priority veterans can receive timely care. In other words, this legislation is a win-win for all veterans.

This legislation may not be perfect but it is important to begin a dialogue on the prescription drug needs of our nation's veterans. I welcome my colleagues' comments and comments from the Administration. I believe that we can resolve this matter this year. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this matter and I look forward to working with all of you over the next several weeks.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act of 2003. As an original co-sponsor, I am pleased to join my colleague, the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator Specter in introducing this important legislation that addresses the medical care needs of Medicare-eligible veterans. I applaud Senator Specter for his leadership on this important issue.

For several years, many veterans have not been able to receive timely health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs due to the long waiting lines created by the huge demand for prescription drugs. Under current policy, veterans are required to see a VA doctor before receiving their medication even when they have already

had a prescription written by a privately licensed physician. This policy has not only contributed to the long waiting lines, but it has denied care to service-connected and lower income veterans. It is a moral imperative that we correct this problem and I believe that this legislation is a step in the right direction.

As Chair of the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, my top priority is ensuring that the VA has adequate funding to provide accessible and quality care for our Nation's veterans. Unfortunately, despite record funding increases over the past few years, veterans must still wait for several months to see a VA doctor.

This past January, VA Secretary Principi had to take the unfortunate but necessary step of closing new enrollments to middle and higher income veterans who do not have service-connected disabilities. Many of these so-called Priority 8 veterans have Medicare insurance but do not have a prescription drug benefit. I recognize that the Congress and the President are trying to address the prescription drug issue for all American seniors and I will continue to fight to ensure that a Medicare prescription drug bill is enacted. Nevertheless, I believe that we need to raise awareness of the tragedy that many veterans suffer today to ensure that no matter what occurs during this session of Congress, they are not left behind.

This bill contains a number of important provisions but I highlight one particular measure. As I mentioned earlier, current policy requires veterans to see a VA doctor before having their prescription filled, even if they have had already seen a private doctor. This legislation allows eligible veterans to fill their prescriptions at the VA without having to see a VA doctor. This not only greatly streamlines the process and time for veterans to receive much-needed medications, but it also provides relief to the waiting lines so that our higher priority veterans can receive timely care. In other words, this legislation is a win-win for all veterans.

This legislation may not be perfect but it is important to begin a dialogue on the prescription drug needs of our nation's veterans. I welcome my colleagues' comments and comments from the Administration. I believe that we can resolve this matter this year. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this matter and I look forward to working with all of you over the next several weeks.

Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague, Senator Warner, in a colloquy.

As we know, Executive Order 13101 provides guidance to the head of each executive agency, including the Secretary of Defense, regarding the use and procurement of recycled and biodegradable products. In fact, the Order states each agency head ``. . . shall incorporate waste prevention and recycling in the agency's daily operations and work to increase and expand markets for recovered materials through greater Federal Government preference and demand for such products.''

I think that now is a great opportunity to once again encourage the Department of Defense to procure products that both reduce waste and enhance recycling. I am aware that

biobased products have been developed using a new composite material consisting primarily of limestone and renewable starch for the production of food serviceware. Manufacturers of these products maintain that they have proven to be strong, provide good insulation, and biodegrade in marine and composting environments. I am told that in recent years, biobased products have become more prevalent and more cost competitive. Moreover, I believe that these products have been tested in the Pentagon cafeterias and are being considered for use in other Defense facilities.

I support environmentally friendly products such as biobased products. In my home State of Missouri, we have a manufacturing plant in the City of Lebanon that produces equipment for manufacturing biobased products. The plant has already produced eight machines. By the end of the year, the plant will have produced 50 additional machines. Buy 2004, the plant will have built 100 additional machines. In addition, due to the high demand for biobased products, the plant is also producing biobased food serviceware. The plant takes up 50,000 square feet and requires 90 full-time and temporary workers. I appreciate the jobs and business created by this multimillion-dollar endeavor, and I am proud that we have a Missouri-manufactured product that reduces the impacts of waste on our environment.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation recognizing the historical significance of downtown Sainte Genevieve, MO. Sainte Genevieve was the first European settlement west of the Mississippi River, and still contains many structures and artifacts that have survived from its rich early history. Establishing this area as a unit of the National Park System will provide an unparalleled opportunity for Americans to be educated about our Nation's colonial past.

Sainte Genevieve was founded by French settlers in 1735. These early pioneers traveled south from French Canada, and built the rare French Colonial style structures that remain in place to this day. Today, the city contains an invaluable wealth of Native American and French Colonial sites, artifacts, and architecture. Perhaps most impressively, downtown Sainte Genevieve contains three of only five poteaux-en-Terre, post in the ground, vertical log French homes remaining in North America, dating from approximately 1800.

In addition to the historic downtown district, the area adjacent to Sainte Genevieve is rich in historic sites. The ``Grand Champ'' common field of the French colonists still retains its original field land pattern. The area's saline salt springs were an important industry source for Native American and European settlers. And nearby ceremonial mounds are evidence of a prehistoric Native American village.

This area is a truly valuable asset to the State of Missouri, and I feel that it is only fair to share it with the entire Nation by establishing the French Colonial Heritage Area as a unit of the National Park System. My legislation would take the first step toward such an establishment by directing the National Park Service to conduct a study of the historic features of Sainte Genevieve. After a thorough study, I am confident that the National Park Service will determine that Sainte Genevieve is the best tool with which to tell the important and fascinating story of the French in the New World.

Mr. President, in these times of economic distress and hardship we must focus our efforts to assist the more impoverished regions of our country. With this in mind, it is my pleasure to rise today to introduce, on behalf of President Bush, the Economic Development Administration Reauthorization Act of 2003.

This bill will allow the Economic Development Administration, commonly known as the EDA, to assist communities in the development of their local economy. Simply put, it will help to bring jobs to our cities and towns by reauthorizing the mission of the EDA, while focusing the Administration's efforts on localized economic growth.

EDA was established under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. Throughout the near forty years of its existence, EDA has helped to generate employment, retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in rural and urban areas of the nation that experience high unemployment, low income or other severe economic distress.

EDA has consistently been guided by the basic principle that `distressed communities must be empowered to develop and implement their own economic development and revitalization strategies'. To achieve these goals, EDA works in partnership with State and local governments by providing Federal grants to public and private nonprofit organizations, regional economic development agencies and Indian tribes.

This bill seeks to improve the coordination, flexibility, and performance of EDA. It focuses on methods to ensure that EDA can more easily work in coordination with other agencies involved in economic development, such as the Army Corps of Engineers or the Department of Labor. It attempts to improve EDA's ability to respond to rapidly changing economic conditions within regions and it highlights the need to focus on the performance of grantees--whether grantees actually increase jobs and economic growth.

During the last decade, in my home State of Missouri, EDA has implemented over 300 projects and invested more than $115 million into my state's economy. These projects have included improvements to the Cornerstone Industrial Park in St. Louis, the renovation of a blighted neighborhood outside Kansas City, and construction assistance for the Center for Emerging Technologies in St. Louis. EDA assistance in Missouri has truly been a boon to local investment and economic growth. Reauthorization of EDA will enable future projects like these throughout our country for years to come.

In this time of economic difficulty, strong partnership between federal and local governments are crucial. My hope is that through a sustained focus on spurring growth in our economy through continued support of the EDA, we can surmount the economic challenges of today and prepare the way for a more prosperous future.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation recognizing the historical significance of downtown Sainte Genevieve, MO. Sainte Genevieve was the first European settlement west of the Mississippi River, and still contains many structures and artifacts that have survived from its rich early history. Establishing this area as a unit of the National Park System will provide an unparalleled opportunity for Americans to be educated about our Nation's colonial past.

Sainte Genevieve was founded by French settlers in 1735. These early pioneers traveled south from French Canada, and built the rare French Colonial style structures that remain in place to this day. Today, the city contains an invaluable wealth of Native American and French Colonial sites, artifacts, and architecture. Perhaps most impressively, downtown Sainte Genevieve contains three of only five poteaux-en-Terre, post in the ground, vertical log French homes remaining in North America, dating from approximately 1800.

In addition to the historic downtown district, the area adjacent to Sainte Genevieve is rich in historic sites. The ``Grand Champ'' common field of the French colonists still retains its original field land pattern. The area's saline salt springs were an important industry source for Native American and European settlers. And nearby ceremonial mounds are evidence of a prehistoric Native American village.

This area is a truly valuable asset to the State of Missouri, and I feel that it is only fair to share it with the entire Nation by establishing the French Colonial Heritage Area as a unit of the National Park System. My legislation would take the first step toward such an establishment by directing the National Park Service to conduct a study of the historic features of Sainte Genevieve. After a thorough study, I am confident that the National Park Service will determine that Sainte Genevieve is the best tool with which to tell the important and fascinating story of the French in the New World.

Mr. President, may I ask my good friend if he would mention my name in that list?

Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico and I appreciate his kindness, and also my colleagues from Missouri and Nebraska.

I rise today in support of the renewable fuels standard, as passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on which I have the privilege of sitting.

This package provides a means for significant reductions in our dependence on foreign oil while we pursue cheaper energy for consumers that is produced in rural America by our hard-working farmers and ranchers.

I have spent a lot of years in the Senate Chamber talking about these issues. Recently a friend complained to me that he was tired of me talking about biodiesel. We first started talking about it a long time ago. But I am pleased to have the burr under the saddle to point out that biodiesel and ethanol are vitally important elements for our energy program.

I am pleased to see so many of our colleagues joining in the fight today. My good friend Senator Jim Talent from Missouri has been a leader on the Energy Committee. I know my colleague Senator Hagel from Nebraska has long been a champion of ethanol. I add my thanks and my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, for taking the leadership position on this issue.

Increasing the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel diversifies our energy infrastructure, making it less vulnerable to acts of terrorism while increasing the number of available fuel options, enhancing competition, and potentially reducing consumer costs of fuel.

Speaking of decreased fuel costs, I am reminded of some of the comments of my colleagues during consideration of this package in the Environment and Public Works Committee. At that time, it was suggested that ethanol as an oxygenate was the cause of high fuel prices in California and other areas. I bet we will hear that argument again.

Just as a marker, note this fact. I refer my colleagues to the recent California Energy Commission report promulgated by Gov. Gray Davis. In discussing the report's findings, California Energy Commission chairman William Keese indicated that ``Ethanol, the ingredient, did not have an impact that we can see on prices. . . .''

Frankly, that ought to answer the questions and concerns that undoubtedly will be raised on the floor. In fact, I would argue that ethanol and biodiesel actually reduced the consumer cost of fuel by extending supplies, offering alternatives to more costly imported oil, and providing leverage for independent fuel marketers to compete against the larger, more powerful integrated oil companies.

The renewable standard will more than double the amount of renewable fuel we use. I am told that renewable fuel use will increase to about 3 percent of our total transportation fuel supply, replacing roughly 66 billion gallons; that is, 1.6 billion barrels of foreign crude oil by 2012.

Of course, the environmental benefits of transitioning from petroleum fuels to clean, domestically produced renewable ethanol and biodiesel is clear. Not only can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil but with the renewable standard our environmental goals of

reducing hydrocarbon, particulate sulfur, and other polluting emissions would be pursued.

This RFS will also have a positive impact on the economy, particularly in rural areas which have been hardest hit in the economic slowdown.

According to studies, the renewable standard would create as many as 300,000 American jobs, increase net farm income by $6.6 billion a year, and reduce farm program payments by $7.8 billion. In other words, we can reduce farm program payments and increase net farm income by a combined total of $14.4 billion. Not many programs give you that much bang for the buck.

One farm analyst said that as many as 13.1 million acres of corn can be used to supply ethanol by 2012. That is almost 19 percent of last year's corn production. Today, only 6 percent of the crop goes into ethanol.

In our home State, Missouri corn farmers could see an average increase of about 12 cents per bushel over the next 10 years. Similarly, our soybean farmers will see increased benefits as biodiesel use will increase dramatically.

I encourage and invite my colleagues to come out to the heartland to see what we have. Come out and visit Nebraska, Missouri, and Iowa and see what this industry is all about. We could all learn the benefits of ethanol, soy diesel, and biodiesel. We will see how the homegrown renewable fuel benefits the environment, the economy, and our communities. Come out to my State and see what farm leaders have done to provide value-added opportunities for Missouri farmers.

In 1994, Golden Triangle Energy of Craig, MO, and Northeast Missouri Grain Processors of Macon, MO, organized as new generation cooperatives. Northeast Missouri Grain Processors opened their plant on April 29, 2000. I was pleased to be there. It had been producing 22 million gallons of ethanol per year. They have just flipped the switch on an additional capacity to make over 40 million gallons a year.

Come to Missouri and visit the communities and areas where ethanol production is underway and see the impact of the expanding usage of fuel through this renewable standard on Main Street, U.S.A.

I now defer to my colleagues. I thank them for their kind accommodation. I express my thanks also to the distinguished manager of this bill, who is doing an outstanding job. We look forward to seeing a good energy bill passed. But a good energy bill must have a good renewable fuel standard.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the achievements of a distinguished member of the Missouri education community, Mr. John C. Cary.

Mr. Cary is retiring this year after 17 years of distinguished service to the children and families of the Mehlville school district. As superintendent of schools for the Mehlville district he has guided the district to academic success, ensuring quality education for all Mehlville children. He has helped nurture Missouri's youth with a steadfast dedication and care. His devotion to education has earned him awards and recognition from around the State, including the Distinction in Performance Award for 2002-2003 school year.

Mr. Cary's lifetime commitment to education and children is admirable and inspiring. Today I join with the 12,000 students in the Mehlville school district in celebrating his 31 years as a distinguished educator. I thank him for his hard work and dedication to the children and families of Missouri.

Mr. President, today I would like to commend the Guadalupe Center Inc. for their continued commitment to improving the life of Latinos throughout Kansas City, MO.

The Guadalupe Center began as a volunteer school and well baby clinic for Mexican immigrants in Kansas City's Westside in 1919, becoming one of the Nation's first social service agencies for Latinos in the United States.

Once working out of the rectory of Our Lady of Guadalupe Shrine on West 23rd Street, the Guadalupe Center now has nine buildings and has expanded to serve the entire Kansas City Metropolitan Latino community.

Today, the Center provides a number of essential services and is a leading advocate for the Latino community.

Health programs at the center include substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and HIV/AIDS education and counseling. The center's diligent work in reaching this disproportionately affected Latino population is to be congratulated and encouraged.

Also, the center has had a great deal of success with increasing employment opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed in the Latino community. This success goes hand in hand with the center's constantly expanding education programs, which provide participants with a number of opportunities, including second language GED and job training skills.

Beyond reaching adult and young adults, the center also works to expand opportunities for children through its Plaza de Ninos preschool, which prepares young Latino children for early school success and helps them with the necessary English language skills, while providing childcare for working parents.

The Guadalupe Center's activities and services, which continue to grow in number and impact, serve as an example of the center's vision and dedication for the Latino community.

The future of Kansas City and the quality of life for its residents, especially the Latino community, depends on the decisions and the investments made today. The Guadalupe Center had taken the lead in making these strategic investments in Kansas City's urban core. Their efforts have improved the lives of the Latino community's children and families and the effects will be felt for generations to come.

I look forward to partnering with the Guadalupe Center in future investments in Kansas City's Latino community.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote change

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment by my colleague from Missouri. We are dealing with another very significant bailout, using taxpayers' money, for the airlines which have been hurt.

I agree with the need to keep the airlines flying. Airlines are absolutely essential to our economy. But I believe when we are sending taxpayers' dollars to airlines, that we have at least some responsibility to ensure the employees are being fairly treated. This, to me, is simply an issue of equity and fairness.

Back when American Airlines acquired TWA, they did not just take the airplanes. They took the hub, they took the facilities, and they took the heart of TWA as well--its employees, employees we have come to know and respect and trust and whose service we have appreciated over the years.

Since April 9, 2001, American Airlines and TWA have operated under a single umbrella. On that date, Donald J. Carty, chairman and CEO of American Airlines, stated:

Today, we warmly welcome TWA's employees to the American

family. While employees and customers will see business-as-

usual for some time, we're looking forward to working

together and building a future as one team. Employees at

American and TWA are united in our commitment to meeting our

customers' needs and providing opportunities for growth in a

rewarding work environment. Our theme for today's

celebrations is ``Two Great Airlines--One Great Future,'' and

I'm sure that, working together, we can fulfill that promise.

I was out there and I joined in that recognition in celebrating two great airlines with one great future, and on January 1, 2002, all TWA employees officially became American employees. At that moment, all former TWA employees were now an integral part of the new team at American Airlines.

Promises were made to the hard-working TWA employees in my home State, and these employees were publicly referred to as the crown jewel of TWA. It was not as if they were ``lucky to have a job at all,'' as some have suggested. They are employees with extensive years of background and years of seniority over a great number of their colleagues at American Airlines and, through their service to the traveling public to our communities, had developed a reputation for service that made this an extremely valuable hub.

Had they known that the promises were not going to be kept, there were

other options--reorganizing in bankruptcy, seeking alliance with another airline that would treat them fairly. They were made promises of fair treatment. They gave up what they call their Allegheny Mohawk protection rights on the expressed promise that they would be treated fairly.

After American Airlines stapled the TWA seniority list to the bottom, at least the top official of American Airlines came to my office and said: We are going to protect the hub at St. Louis; we are going to put a wall around that and keep former TWA employees serving the traveling public out of that hub, and we are not going to have them laid off because they will continue the TWA service.

The wall came down. They were not protected. The crown jewel of TWA, the people in St. Louis, are losing their glitter. These promises made to them were the root of the entire agreement reached between TWA and American Airlines back when this whole deal was going down, and now these promises appear to have been broken.

If the TWA employees knew at the beginning they were merely being taken as a sacrificial lamb, then the deal would likely never have happened. Now the TWA employees, the TWA pilots, and the TWA flight attendants are the blood donors when cuts have to be made.

According to today's issue of the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

All American Airlines flight attendants based at Lambert

Field will lose their jobs if members of the Association of

Professional Flight Attendants approve a contract by April 15

to help the airline avoid bankruptcy.

That is what we are providing money to support?

The situation for former TWA pilots is grim as well. Fifty-four percent of former TWA pilots will lose their job before a single former American Airlines pilot will lose his or her job because they were simply stapled to the bottom of the seniority list.

After planned furloughs, there will only be 565 former TWA employees remaining. To help everyone with the math, that is 76 percent of the former TWA pilots and 100 percent of TWA flight attendants in St. Louis who will lose their jobs. They are literally cutting off the family crown jewel.

The senior most TWA pilot hired in 1963 was integrated along with a 1985 hire from American Airlines. That is almost 22 years later, and guess which one is on the chopping block first? Promises made in fairness have not been achieved.

In this supplemental bill, we are poised to provide our airlines with $3.5 million to keep them in the air. With that assistance, more layoffs are coming. We must act before more of our talented and qualified employees are let go before junior colleagues within the same organization.

The choice before this body is simple: Support the Talent-Bond amendment and you support fairness, or oppose the Talent-Bond amendment and you decide with the bosses who are strong arming weaker unions, resulting in an extremely unfair integration of two great airlines and one great future. About 5,000 jobs are at stake.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this fair integration proposal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President as cosponsor of this amendment, I ask the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I have discussed this matter with my good friend from Texas, who is very understanding. I believe the sense-of- the-Senate amendment which we have prepared essentially states some of the findings in perhaps less colorful language than I have described but encourages American Airlines, or tells American Airlines to encourage its employee groups to integrate all employees in a manner that is fair and equitable for all parties involved. I send that amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to mourn the passing of and express respect and admiration for the service of our former colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whom we recently lost.

Before I came to this body, I had heard a great deal about Pat Moynihan. Who had not? If you followed Government, if you were interested in policy, Pat Moynihan probably said something that was very important. He was way ahead of his time on some issues. On other issues, I disagreed with him rather strongly, but you knew if Pat Moynihan spoke, it was going to be worth listening to. If you did not agree with him, you were going to have to work hard to counter it.

I had some disagreements with the distinguished Senator from New York. As a matter of fact, in the 1992 highway bill, I had a spectacular confrontation with him. We disagreed over a courthouse that was included in the highway bill. Thereafter, we became very good friends, and I think as a result of our rather tumultuous getting acquainted, I had the opportunity to spend a good bit of time with him.

We were neighbors in an area of the Capitol where we both had workspaces. I spent a number of evenings enjoying a discussion with him as we watched the debates on the floor of the Senate. His ability to discuss and have insightful observations about so many subjects was truly impressive. If I ever met a Renaissance man, it was Pat Moynihan.

I will give one example. Everybody knows the great role he played in revitalizing Pennsylvania Avenue and the leadership he provided. He was a great student of architecture. One of the projects we worked on in Missouri was saving the Wainwright Building, the first steel-framed skyscraper designed by Louis Sullivan. I mentioned it to him one day. He proceeded to give me a short course in architecture and the role of Louis Sullivan and his draftsman, Frank Lloyd Wright, which went far beyond the knowledge I had of the building in St. Louis. As a student of architecture, as a student who appreciated the benefits architecture brings to the quality of life, he was absolutely without peer.

There were many other issues, and I know my colleagues will have many thoughts to share about him, but I wanted to rise to say to those he leaves behind that he was truly an outstanding servant, one whose friendship and whose insights and experiences I personally will always hold dear. I know this body is far richer for his presence and his service.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that addresses an inequity facing an important segment of the small business community. This legislation is simple and straight forward--it adjusts the current tax exemption that has existed since 1942 for small property and casualty, P&C, insurance companies so that it keeps pace with inflation.

As the former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have heard from many small P&C insurers in Missouri and across the Nation that they are having to consider raising their premiums simply because the tax laws have not kept pace with inflation. Under current law, mutual and stock P&C insurance companies are exempt from Federal income taxes if the greater of their direct or net written premiums in a taxable year do not exceed $350,000.

For companies that grow above the $350,000 threshold, current law permits electing P&C insurance companies to be taxed only on their investment income, provided their premiums do not exceed $1.2 million. Unfortunately, these thresholds, which were last updated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, have not been adjusted for inflation.

This situation has created an unintended outcome. Take, for instance, a small P&C insurer in my State that started insuring the local farmers in the late 1980s. Over the ensuing years, the company's client base changed very little, but the insurance premiums increased gradually to keep pace with inflationary pressures. As a result, while the business itself has not grown, its premium base has and with it the loss of the tax exemption (or the alternative tax on investment income).

For the farmers and ranchers covered by the small P&C insurer, this loss is certain to mean higher insurance premiums, leaving the client with the choice of cutting coverage or paying higher costs, neither of which is a real option. And for our agricultural community over the past few years, this choice is about the last thing they need.

The bill I introduce today would correct this problem by simply adjusting the $350,000 and $1.2 million thresholds to bring them up to the level they would have been this year if the 1986 tax code had included an inflation adjustment. Accordingly, the tax exemption would apply to P&C insurers with premiums that do not exceed $575,000, and the alternative for taxation of investment income would apply to companies with premiums above $575,000 but not more than $1,971,000. The bill would apply for taxable years beginning in 2003 and would index both thresholds for inflation thereafter.

According to the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, this legislation will help at least 665 small P&C insurance companies nationwide. In my State under current law, only 23 out of 86 small insurance companies are currently tax-exempt. Under this proposed legislation, at least 66 of the 86 small insurance companies will be covered, thereby enabling them to continue providing critical insurance coverage to small businesses across Missouri.

With this legislation, we have an opportunity to infuse some fairness into our tax code and at the same time help the thousands of farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs covered by small P&C insurers in this country. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with the Finance Committee to see it enacted into law.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that addresses an inequity facing an important segment of the small business community. This legislation is simple and straight forward--it adjusts the current tax exemption that has existed since 1942 for small property and casualty, P&C, insurance companies so that it keeps pace with inflation.

As the former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have heard from many small P&C insurers in Missouri and across the Nation that they are having to consider raising their premiums simply because the tax laws have not kept pace with inflation. Under current law, mutual and stock P&C insurance companies are exempt from Federal income taxes if the greater of their direct or net written premiums in a taxable year do not exceed $350,000.

For companies that grow above the $350,000 threshold, current law permits electing P&C insurance companies to be taxed only on their investment income, provided their premiums do not exceed $1.2 million. Unfortunately, these thresholds, which were last updated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, have not been adjusted for inflation.

This situation has created an unintended outcome. Take, for instance, a small P&C insurer in my State that started insuring the local farmers in the late 1980s. Over the ensuing years, the company's client base changed very little, but the insurance premiums increased gradually to keep pace with inflationary pressures. As a result, while the business itself has not grown, its premium base has and with it the loss of the tax exemption (or the alternative tax on investment income).

For the farmers and ranchers covered by the small P&C insurer, this loss is certain to mean higher insurance premiums, leaving the client with the choice of cutting coverage or paying higher costs, neither of which is a real option. And for our agricultural community over the past few years, this choice is about the last thing they need.

The bill I introduce today would correct this problem by simply adjusting the $350,000 and $1.2 million thresholds to bring them up to the level they would have been this year if the 1986 tax code had included an inflation adjustment. Accordingly, the tax exemption would apply to P&C insurers with premiums that do not exceed $575,000, and the alternative for taxation of investment income would apply to companies with premiums above $575,000 but not more than $1,971,000. The bill would apply for taxable years beginning in 2003 and would index both thresholds for inflation thereafter.

According to the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, this legislation will help at least 665 small P&C insurance companies nationwide. In my State under current law, only 23 out of 86 small insurance companies are currently tax-exempt. Under this proposed legislation, at least 66 of the 86 small insurance companies will be covered, thereby enabling them to continue providing critical insurance coverage to small businesses across Missouri.

With this legislation, we have an opportunity to infuse some fairness into our tax code and at the same time help the thousands of farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs covered by small P&C insurers in this country. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with the Finance Committee to see it enacted into law.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I support my friend's amendment to increase Federal funding to $5.2 billion next year to help local communities provide our families and businesses with safe drinking water and clean waste water.

Our water pipes are aging and falling into disrepair. New regulations to treat stormwater are placing a huge burden on localities. Growth across the country, especially in the South and West, requires additional water funding.

In my own State of Missouri, we have small communities such as Pickering of no more than 150 people that still lack sewer systems. Mid-size cities such as Lebanon have tripled water rates and still can't afford new EPA regulations. Even our large cities such as St. Louis face many of the problems our aging eastern urban areas face. A recent series of articles in the St. Louis Post Dispatch highlighted St. Louis still using sewer pipes more than 100 years old and made of wood.

This crisis is too great for local communities to bear alone. Experts estimate the funding gap between what we as a Nation contribute and what is needed to clean and provide safe water at $500 billion over 20 years.

That's $25 billion per year. The Federal Government can't close that gap alone, but we must provide more than the current paltry $2.2 billion per year.

I urge my colleagues to support the Crapo amendment to increase vital water funds without depriving our citizens of their much deserved tax relief to spur economic growth, create jobs, and indirectly increase revenue for Government at all levels.

Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 358.

I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, there are stark needs for highways and transportation systems. The red column the President recommended, the green column across the chart shows what this budget proposes, and the budget before us proposes essentially flat funding for the next 6 years. The administration itself said the needs just to maintain highways are at this yellow line, which is way above.

Our amendment simply raises spending for highways over the 6 years to $255 billion and mass transit to $56.5,

using dollars previously paid into the highway trust fund by highway users, and other items that have been identified by the President and the Budget Committee, such as transferring 2.5 cents for ethanol into the highway user funds.

Investing in highways and transportation is the best immediate stimulus we can have to the economy, creating jobs, and lowering highway deaths. I urge the support of my colleagues.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am assured by the staff, who are experts in this area, that will not reduce the money available for appropriations. I agree with most of the whereases in this amendment because it says that highways should be paid for by highway users. And, frankly, this returns to the highway trust fund almost $50 billion that has been paid in by highway users over the last decade. It also lays out other areas where there should be additional funds that the Finance Committee has already agreed we should pay.