Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, therefore, for the information of all colleagues, the next votes will occur now at 3 p.m. There will be two back-to-back votes at that time. The time has been reduced on both sides. I appreciate being able to interrupt the Senator from Idaho. What is the time remaining under this reduced amount?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are about ready to conclude the debate on this portion of the omnibus small business. Let me point out before we go to the votes on District of Columbia/ Commerce-State-Justice and adopt the resolution numbered 245, there has been a lot of talk about all of these things not having passed. Ninety percent of the bill has been voted out of the House by a large margin, and parts have come out of the Finance Committee. I can tell you from the Small Business Committee that we took a bipartisan, broadly supported bill, and we were not able to get all of the things that we in the Senate wanted included. Frankly, one of the key elements I wanted was rejected. I know a provision advocated by the Senator from Minnesota was rejected. But I can assure you that it was over my strong objections, and only at the last was it rejected. This measure does many things to continue the small business programs and to assure small businesses can provide jobs in areas where there are great needs when there is poverty and unemployment. There are provisions that are recommended by the Women's Business Conference. There are provisions to bring jobs into needy low-income communities. These bills together have many of the things that the President also requested. I regret to say that the President and some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pouting because they didn't get it all. I can tell you something. I didn't get all that I wanted in this bill either. I took some things I didn't want, that were wanted by the House and that were wanted by other Members. But this bill provides significant savings incentives and income- limited savings incentives on IRAs that could do more to help savings. Medicare give-backs will enable providers to continue to serve needy people. Those who ran against the HMOs are trying to make HMOs available in States such as New Mexico and rural areas that do not have the tremendous bonanza of the reimbursements that they do in New York State. There are many good provisions in this bill. An overwhelming number of them have been supported and requested by the President and, at one time or another, supported by the people on the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately, they say: We are just not getting enough. Sixteen billion dollars in school construction, two-thirds of what the President wanted, is not enough. Our friends have never seen a tax cut that they liked nor a tax surplus they didn't want to spend. This strikes the happy medium. I hope ultimately we will adopt this measure and have it signed by the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. The Small Business Committee, which I chair, has invested considerable time and effort working on this issue. While we have made much progress, many of the facts surrounding this practice remain shrouded, and little hard data has been produced to gauge slotting's impact, especially on small businesses and small farmers. For example, at a recent hearing, the General Accounting Office reported it has been unable to collect data needed to prepare a thorough analysis of the practice. The FTC, however, would have the legal authority under Section 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to collect the data necessary to continue with a full and complete analysis of these practices and their impacts. This funding was requested for the purpose of the FTC preparing a comprehensive report to Congress, pursuant to Section 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, that outlines the appropriate policy considerations arising from this issue. The report should concentrate on industry-wide practices of retailers that engage in the sale of grocery items with respect to slotting allowances and other similar practices including, without limitation: Their impact on competition and retail prices; their impact on all forms of grocery retailing, including smaller grocery retailers; their impact on manufacturers and suppliers; and their relationship to consolidation in the retail grocery industry.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am going to make some comments about the conference report that is before us, but perhaps it would be advisable to set the record straight. I agreed to allow the minority leader to go first as a courtesy to him. There are many things he said that I believe reflect a viewpoint many of us on this side of the aisle do not share. I would only note that when we talk about bipartisanship, it was our understanding that the leadership on both sides, for example, agreed we would get 10 appropriations bills passed out of the Senate before the July recess. Due to the extensive debate and extended dilatory activities engaged in on this floor prior to our August recess, to get something like the fifth, sixth, and seventh bill before us, we had to invoke cloture. Now, to me, that is not a mark of good bipartisan cooperation. We have been stalled for many months. There have been examples where we have worked on a bipartisan basis. In another role, I express my appreciation to my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle for getting our Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development bill passed. I think we have worked on a bipartisan basis there. But with the problems we are having with the appropriations bills, the problems we are having throughout, I do not think the other side can say we have been the ones who have refused to operate in a bipartisan manner. I heard reports from the majority leader, for example, of the contacts made to him by the President of the United States, a Democratic President, about this bill and about the measures in it. If you look at this bill, a lot on my side of the aisle do not like it because it has so many of the priorities that our Democratic friends wanted. If this were strictly a Republican or a partisan bill, I do not think you would see the minimum wage in its current form; you would not see the community renewal, a massive new Federal Government program. Frankly, with all the spending the President has requested in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill--and the President is now requesting more spending in that bill than his initial budget request--to add, as this bill does, some $16 billion for school construction, which is two- thirds of the President's request, I think is a major step towards helping in this new area, which traditionally has been the responsibility of the local school districts. We have heard there is a desire for more and more spending. That is not surprising. That is the habit of our friends on the other side of the aisle. They have never seen a tax surplus they did not want to spend. Tax cuts are very unpalatable to them. But we want to leave some of the taxes in the pockets of the people who earn them. I have not seen the figures--I do not know the study the minority leader came up with to say that 60 percent only get 5 percent of the tax cuts--but I think, if my memory serves me correctly, the lowest income 40 percent of the population do not pay any income taxes. I imagine the lowest 60 percent probably pay not more than a couple of percent of the total tax burden. Now that is not to say there has not been some fuzzy math with respect to the figures we presented, but only to say that if you are going to have tax cuts, the people who get the tax cuts are going to be the people who pay the taxes. It sounds logical, sounds simple, but that is the fact of the matter. I might add, also, that small rural school districts will be benefited in school construction because their exemption has been raised from $10 million to $15 million. When we hear talk that the Democrats have not had anything to say about this, the tax bill includes bills that have already been voted on and passed, been voted out of the House, been voted out of the Finance Committee. Certainly the small business portion of the bill, which I am going to talk about, has been passed, as usual, out of the Small Business Committee on a unanimous vote, a bipartisan vote. If I remember correctly, when the bills that are included in the small business section came before this body, there was only one dissenting vote, and that was on my side of the aisle. But if there is ever a bipartisan measure, it is the measures we have reported out of the Small Business Committee. On the Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000, when the House passed the pension bill earlier this year, it was a vote of 401-25. It was reported out of the Finance Committee last month by a unanimous vote. I was not there for the vote, but I assume there were some Democrats there--there usually are--who voted for it unanimously. So it stretches credulity beyond any acceptable measure to say that this does not incorporate measures adopted and supported by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--certainly measures demanded by the President. We had a caucus on our side, and many people thought it would be difficult to vote for a bill because there were so many priorities from the Democratic side. But under the measure that has come before us, there are clearly many important Democratic priorities. Excuse me, I misspoke a few moments ago when I indicated what the percentage of total taxes was paid by the lowest income taxpayers. The lowest income taxpayers, the bottom 56 percent pay 6 percent of the taxes. So that is roughly the figure.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Let me move to the bill before us. It has been thoroughly covered with faint praise. Maybe it deserves a hearing in its own right before this thing gets pasted all over the place. I would like my colleagues and our constituents to know what is in it because I think there are some good things in it. The conference report on H.R. 2614, the Certified Development Program Improvement Act, has grown over the past week to include not only a 3- year reauthorization bill for the Small Business Administration, but it includes extensive tax legislation, provisions to reform and improve the Medicare program, and, as I mentioned, pension reform. We might call this bill ``Small Business and Friends.'' A lot of important luggage is being carried on the train that our little small business bill is pulling. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I will comment first on the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000. This is, as I said before, the result of many months of work by the Senate and House Committees on Small Business. The bill is the conference agreement to reauthorize most small business programs at the Small Business Administration, and it reauthorizes the Small Business Innovation Research Program. To summarize the provisions briefly, this includes an 8-year reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, the SBIR Program. This program was initially implemented in 1983 and allows Federal agencies to award research grants and contracts to small research firms. This is vitally important to develop the capacity in the economy as a whole, and the country as a whole, to do high-quality research needed by the Federal Government. Some 50,000 SBIR awards have been made since the inception of the program. It contains measures to ensure that small businesses receive the appropriate allocation of Federal R&D funds, to require that agencies retain more comprehensive information on the program's operations that will improve its management, and to protect the intellectual property of the small businesses that participate in the program. The conference report also establishes what we call the FAST program, a matching grant initiative to provide incentives to States to assist in the development of high-tech small businesses. We have noted, particularly those of us from the heartland, that companies on the east and west coasts generally receive the vast majority of SBIR awards, while companies in the South, Midwest, and Rocky Mountain States receive proportionally very few awards. Out in the heartland, we, too, have technology. We have research capabilities. The FAST program will help even out the concentration of the awards by providing wide latitude to States to provide the type of help their high-tech businesses need to succeed and create high-paying quality jobs for their citizens. The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 also includes a comprehensive reauthorization of the credit and management assistance programs that are included in the broad umbrella of small business programs administered by the SBA. The omnibus bill includes the flagship 7(a) guaranteed business loan program, the Small Business Investment Company program, and the Microloan program. Certain improvements were made to the Microloan program championed by the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. John Kerry. The Microloan program has been expanded. We also included aspects which will be especially beneficial to women-owned small businesses across the United States. In addition, this extensive legislation would reauthorize and make improvements in the management assistance programs, including the SCORE and Small Business Development Center program. As a result of the continuing oversight responsibilities of the Committee on Small Business, the bill includes a significant improvement package for the HUBZone program. This is a program which I was pleased to present and have adopted by Congress, signed by the President, that provides set- aside contracts to bring jobs and economic opportunity to areas where there has been high unemployment and high poverty. This is a geographically based program, which actually takes the jobs to the communities that need them to help people get from welfare to work by using the power of the Federal Government as a purchaser to create business opportunities. First and foremost, the bill, H.R. 5545, addresses the inadvertent exclusion of Indian tribal enterprises and Alaska Native corporations from the program. These provisions resulted from extensive negotiations between the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Indian Affairs, and the Alaska congressional delegation. The HUBZone section of the bill also seeks to clarify the effects of the HUBZone price evaluation preference on commodity procurements in which the range of bid prices tends to be small, and the HUBZone price evaluation preference would be overwhelmingly decisive. In addition, the legislation makes other improvements and clarifications in a variety of SBA programs to make them more effective. For example, there has been some confusion among the Federal agencies about contract preferences for service-disabled veterans. This bill would make it absolutely clear that service-disabled veterans are on the same preference level as the small disadvantaged businesses and women-owned small businesses for Federal contracting opportunities. The conference report incorporates the new market venture capital program of 2000. The purpose of this program is, similarly, to promote economic development, new investment, and job opportunities in low- income areas. It accomplishes this goal by providing incentives to encourage small venture capital firms to invest in targeted low-income communities and economically distressed inner cities and poor rural counties. This is a program that has been developed with bipartisan support. This is certainly something that will assist us in this country in getting more people off of welfare, making sure that job opportunities go to the places and the people who most need them. When the Congress enacted my HUBZone legislation 3 years ago, it established the Federal contracting incentives to lure small businesses into distressed cities and rural counties. I believe this new market venture capital program will add an additional building block in our strategy to make sure these economically distressed areas are attractive to small businesses and that they will be able to bring job opportunities and new vitality to these historically neglected areas of the Nation. As everybody now has heard from the other side, the conference report does deal with taxes. I believe it is a great victory for the American taxpayers. The tax portion has four sections. First, the legislation includes the Foreign Sales Corporation Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000. I can see that is going to be a real winner. That title really rolls off your tongue, the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000. That one will be a winner. But it is must-do legislation, seriously. We have to do it by November 1, if we are to avoid a potential trade war--at least sanctions --with the European Union. Second, the conference report includes a House-Senate compromise on the Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000, which has enormous bipartisan support, having passed the House earlier this year by a vote of 401-25 and being reported out of the Senate Finance Committee by unanimous vote. That legislation includes sweeping changes encouraging retirement savings, expanding pension coverage by increasing contribution limits on IRA and other types of pension plans, increasing portability, and providing meaningful relief for women who often take time off to raise their families. And it contains a number of provisions to reduce regulatory burdens that are very excessive and will be especially helpful to small businesses, our constituency in the Committee on Small Business. The third part of the tax portion of the conference report is a minimum wage increase and a package of small business tax provisions. I raised questions about raising the minimum wage when it first came here. I think it can be detrimental to small business. I do not believe it is good economics. We know it is good politics. It is always nice to promise somebody a raise, particularly when you don't have to come up with the money that they are being paid. This is great election year politics. I know everybody wants to do something. It makes you feel good to give somebody a raise out of someone else's pocket. The problem is, right now it probably won't hurt small businesses too much because most small businesses I know of, if they are hiring reasonably competent workers, have to pay well over the minimum wage. The real downside is that the very people it is supposed to help are the ones who may not get the jobs. Right now we see people who have never had a job before, teenagers, first-time employees, perhaps persons with disabilities, often minority students coming out of college, have trouble getting jobs. If the minimum wage is raised, we may see in the United States, as we do in Europe, high unemployment among teenagers. What the minimum wage does is make it very difficult to get on the first rung of that ladder of economic progress. It is like putting grease on that first rung of the ladder and saying, boy, this is going to make it easy to slip onto that first rung. Unfortunately, the grease on the first rung of the ladder too often slips people off, when businesses find they just can't make a profit, hiring people at an inflated minimum wage. I hope we will continue, as a result of the economic and fiscal restraint of the Republican-led Congress, if we can keep the economy going as it has since the Republicans took control of the Congress beginning in 1995, we hope that wages will continue to go up and productivity will continue to go up so we don't need the minimum wage. If the time comes when there are tight economic times, the victims of the increased minimum wage will be the small businesses, the smallest businesses, the ones with the lowest profit margin and the most needy workers, the workers very often not supporting their families but trying to get on the first rung of the economic ladder so they can build a bank account and make enough money to start a family. In addition to the minimum wage, however, there are small business advantages from this bill. I appreciate the work of Chairman Roth to include a significant package of small business tax relief items, including something that has been my top priority since we began in 1995, and that is 100 percent deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed starting in 2001. I have been working on it for over 5 years to ensure that the self-employed are on a level playing field with their corporate competitors. In the past we said, you can have it, but it was 2007 and then 2003. A lot of self-employed people said: That is nice, but I can't wait until 2007 or 2003 to get sick. Well, now I hope we will have it in 2001, so they will be able to afford the health insurance for themselves and their families. Coupled with a new above-the-line deduction for employees who pay for the majority of their health insurance costs, we will now reach more than a million of the uninsured and help them get the coverage they need and deserve. Second is a repeal of the Clinton-Gore installment limitation, which has been an unforeseen barrier to small businesses looking to sell all or part of their business assets, in many cases to fund the small business owner's retirement. Third, a clear safe harbor for small businesses to use the cash method of accounting. This has been a real nightmare for the smallest businesses, to have to come up with accrual accounting. They are in business to make widgets or sell hamburgers, not to be accounting specialists who have to come up with an accrual system. Now small businesses with gross receipts under $2.5 million can continue to use cash accounting. It also lets the IRS know that it can stop its campaign to force small businesses into using the more burdensome accrual accounting rules. We will increase expensing of equipment up to $35,000 per year, which will reduce compliance costs by allowing small firms to deduct purchases rather than setting up elaborate depreciation schedules to figure out how to deduct them over many years. Something we are proud of, particularly in the Ninth Congressional District in Missouri, which is represented by my colleague on the House side, who has been a champion of this measure, and my Senate colleague to the north, Senator Grassley, is the new farmer, fisherman, and ranch risk management accounts --the FFARRM accounts--which permit farmers, fishermen, and ranchers to make tax-deductible contributions of up to 20 percent of the income in good years for use during subsequent economic declines. The bill also provides important alternative minimum tax--or AMT--relief for farmers who use income averaging, and it extends the work opportunity tax credit through June 30, 2004. The fourth component of the tax package is the Community Renewal and New Markets Act of 2000, which is intended to reinvigorate our distressed communities. This portion of the legislation includes the House-Administration compromise on empowerment zones/renewal communities and new markets tax credit, which creates 40 renewal communities and 9 empowerment zones. This certainly was not my recommended legislation, but this was part of the bipartisan compromise we reached with the President and incorporated it in the bill. These renewal communities would have a zero capital gains rate, and the legislation creates a new-markets tax credit for equity investments in qualified low-income communities. The goal of this program is to bring the innovation and creativity of America's businesses--and especially small businesses--into these renewal communities to make real economic change for the future. The legislation also increases the low-income housing tax credit and private-activity-bonds volume caps, which are key financing features for renewal communities. They included provisions to help clean up brownfields by allowing expensing of brownfield cleanup costs, except Superfund sites, through 2003. That is good for communities and for the environment. These four core components of the tax package provide important tax relief for Americans throughout our economy. The legislation also addresses several other priorities, such as the school construction bond provision which I have already mentioned. This is another avenue to address construction and modernization needs without a Federal stranglehold. It is my belief that local school districts know best how to address their needs. While providing them this assistance, it keeps the Federal camel's nose out from under the tent. The adoption tax credit, which is very important and has been addressed previously on the floor, is to encourage loving families to adopt children. It also makes other strides toward improving and reforming our Tax Code as which we are going to have to rely. The White House leadership, next year, I believe will complete that work. Medicare. This legislative package addresses the problems caused by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as implemented with the chronic incompetence of the Health Care Financing Administration. I have heard time and time again health care providers talk about what is happening to them under the BBA. When you ask the questions, you find out it is how HCFA has implemented the BBA. They have used the BBA to cut far more than Congress ever mandated. What they seem to want to do is to cut out choice for patients--cut out the choice they have of going into a Medicare insurance plan such as we have or an HMO plan as is available to FEHBP members; it puts out their choices to use home health care. HCFA has gone about doing everything in its power to collapse the present system. I guess--and I can only surmise --that they would like to see the kind of health care plan that was so infamously run up the flagpole in 1993 without getting any salutes. I remember hanging around here in August of 1993 as they talked about Mrs. Clinton's health care plan and kept waiting for somebody to try to introduce it and get a vote on it. But as we looked at that June bug longer and longer, as people got to look at it more and more, the minimum amount of enthusiasm I saw initially grew even less. But HCFA has never given up. By killing off parts of our health care system one at a time, they hope maybe we can have a totally Government-run health care system. The Vice President on the campaign trail has said he hopes to be able to go to a European system within a few years. Well, if you let HCFA in control long enough to kill the existing health care system, there may not be anything left. This Medicare bill, just very briefly, provides benefits to patients and providers worth $32 billion, benefits for nearly 40 million Americans relying on Medicare. Glaucoma screening, colonoscopy screening, mammography, nutrition therapy services for some patients, additional coverage of immunosuppressive drugs --all have been added to the Medicare program. Help for just about every type of Medicare provider to allow them to continue to provide high-quality care to seniors and the disabled. Hospitals, particularly rural hospitals, home health care, nursing homes, hospice providers, and Medicare HMOs that have been driven out of the field by cuts, and targeted help for particular health care providers that are most in need. As one who lives in a rural community, the bill targets $1.7 billion for rural health care providers to help them deal with the unique challenges of rural health care, which I think is very important. More than $6 billion to Medicare HMOs will help address the widespread withdrawals from the Medicare program we have seen in the last couple of years. Why have HMOs been leaching Medicare? Not because they are evil incarnate, as some would have us believe. If that were the case, the seniors losing their HMO coverage would not be so upset. No, these providers left because the payment system for HMOs is seriously flawed and in many areas has provided inadequate reimbursement. This new funding will address this issue. Approximately $1.5 billion in assistance to home health care providers. Home health care patients have, by far, borne the greatest brunt of HCFA's maladministration of the BBA. They were supposed to save $16 billion over 5 years, and they are on the path to save $55 billion to $60 billion by eliminating too much of home health care and making it unavailable. It has been devastating. Tens of thousands of seniors previously receiving home health care lost it during the crisis of the last few years. The bill postpones for 1 additional year the potentially devastating 15 percent cuts which are addressed in this legislation. They would be the death knell of home health care. Next year, we need to get rid of that completely. We need to get a brand new Medicare system, such as the bipartisan deal that was worked out in the Breaux-Frist commission before the White House pulled the plug on it. Finally, this bill helps community health centers, the clinics that exist in more than 3,000 urban and rural medically underserved areas nationwide, ensuring that they continue to receive adequate reimbursement from the State Medicaid programs so they can pursue their mission of providing care to those Americans who would otherwise not get any. There is a long list of more than 40 organizations, led by the American Hospital Association, supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have a letter from the AHA to Chairman Bill Thomas on the House side listing the letters of support for the provisions printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, overall I believe this is an excellent package that is badly needed by seniors, the disabled, hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers. Finally, we have already had a lot of discussion about the Pain Relief Promotion Act. Obviously it is controversial. The bill simply amends the Controlled Substances Act to prohibit the use of federally regulated drugs to help his or her life. Let me be clear about that. Simply put, this would prevent any effort to assist in a suicide by using controlled substances such as powerful pain killers. The bill goes further in its efforts to provide appropriate relief to people suffering great pain. It provides a variety of provisions and educational programs to encourage appropriate pain relief. Indeed, under this legislation for the first time ever the Controlled Substances Act would explicitly recognize that aggressive pain relief is an appropriate and fully warranted use of controlled substances. I believe a vast majority of Americans share a simple belief--that I hold very strongly--that doctors we rely on to nurture and extend our lives should not be party to efforts actively to promote someone's death. The bill simply recognizes that consensus. It looks like we are going to have lots of discussion and have an opportunity to hear many different views on this legislation. But before we paint it as the most ugly duckling coming down the path, I thought my colleagues and those who may be watching or listening still at this late hour would like to know that there are some beautiful limbs and beautiful facets of this that are very important bipartisan measures. I hope we can pass this because there are many priorities that the President has asked for, that leaders on the Democratic side have asked for, and I believe our side wishes as well that are beneficial to a great number of American people who are waiting for our response. I thank the Chair. I apologize to my colleague from Nevada whom I misled into thinking that it was going to be a short set of remarks. Exhibit 1 AHA, Advancing Health in America, Washington, DC, October 26, 2000. Hon. Bill Thomas, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington DC. Dear Representative Thomas: On behalf of the 5,000 members of the American Hospital Association (AHA), I am writing to express our views regarding the ``Beneficiary Improvement and Protection Act of 2000'' (BIPA). We believe this legislation will take another step forward in addressing the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). Consequently, as we approach the remaining hours of the congressional session, we are urging Members to vote in favor of this legislation, and have recommended that the President not veto the legislation. As we understand the provisions of the legislation, it includes a number of provisions that provide much needed relief to hospitals and health systems throughout the country. Such provisions include: a full market basket inflationary update in FY2001, and elimination of half of the reduction in FY2002; temporary elimination of the reductions in Medicaid DSH state allocations in FY 2001 and 2002, and allow the program to grow with inflation in those years; increase the adjustment for Indirect Medical Education to 6.5% in 2001 and 6.375% in FY 2002, and establish an 85% national floor for direct Graduate Medical Education payments; equalize payments to rural hospitals under Medicare DSH; increased flexibility for critical access, sole community, and Medicare dependent hospitals; increased bad debt payments from 55% to 70% for all beneficiaries; and a full market basket update for outpatient hospital services. The bill will also provide relief to home health agencies and skilled nursing facilities. As our members operate approximately one-third of the home health agencies and one fourth of the skilled nursing facilities, relief in this area is also vitally necessary, and is an important feature in the bill. In addition, the bill includes important beneficiary protections, particularly the execrated reduction in beneficiary coinsurance for hospital outpatient services. At the same time, we are disappointed that certain provisions we have advocated, such a full market basket increase in FY2002 for both inpatient and outpatient hospital services, complete elimination of the impact of the BBA's reductions in Medicaid DSH, and maintaining the IME adjustment of 6.5% beyond FY 2001, were not included. We are also concerned that additional reductions in the hospital inpatient market basket in 2003 were included in the bill. We look forward to working with you in the next congress to achieve these additional changes. Again, we appreciate your efforts to achieve additional BBA relief this year. Sincerely, Rick Pollack, Executive Vice President. medicare, medicaid & schip improvements act of 2000--letters of support Federation of American Hospitals, National Association of Community Health Centers, American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association, HealthSouth, National Association of Long Term Hospitals, Acute Long Term Hospital Association, National Association of Children's Hospitals, Kennedy Krieger Institute, National Association of Rural Health Clinics, National Association of Urban Critical Access Hospitals, American Medical Group Associates, Mississippi Hospital Association, Tennessee Hospital Association, The University of Texas System, National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, Healthcare Leadership Council, National Association for Home Care, American Association for Homecare, American Federation of HomeCare Providers, Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care, American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, Visiting Nurses Associations of America, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, National PACE Association, Association of Ohio Philanthropic Homes, Housing and Services for the Aging, John Hopkins Home Care Group, Patient Access to Transplantation Coalition, LifeCare Management Services, American Cancer Society, Alliance to Save Cancer Care Access, Intercultural Cancer Center, The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, National Kidney Foundation, The Glaucoma Foundation, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, American College of Gastroenterology, American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Optometric Association, American Dietetic Association, American Association of Blood Banks/America's Blood Centers/American Red Cross, Association of Surgical Technologists, AdvaMed, GE Medical Systems, Landrieu Public Relations, National Orthotics Manufacturers Association, American Orthotic and Prosthetics Association, UBS Warburg.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. BOND. I am happy to do so, so long as I can regain the floor when he concludes so I may discuss the conference report which is before the Senate. I am happy to accommodate the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address two issues that are related; first, to express support for one of the most lethal and effective foreign policy instruments we know; that is, our brave service men and women who are standing guard on distant shores. We were reminded of that recently by the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. It was yet another reminder that our forces are on watch 24 hours a day in farflung places many of us have never heard of. Their presence and service is a crucial component of foreign policy. The effort of the sailors aboard the U.S.S. Cole in saving the ship is a testimony to the honor, courage, and commitment the Navy expects from every sailor wearing the Navy uniform. Our thanks and our congratulations go to them; our sorrow, of course, for those who were lost; and our sympathies and prayers go with their families. But in light of the danger in which these fighting men and women of the United States are placed, it is important we assess our foreign policy, and that we take a look at the record of what has happened in the past. What have the two candidates done? Where would the Vice President lead us, based on his experience to date? When you talk about experience with respect to Vice President Gore's foreign policy, I am reminded of that old saw that ``experience is what you get when you expected to get something else.'' His record of experience has been a very bad one, and one that will put at risk other sailors and other U.S. military in the future. You don't need to look too far to share these concerns. First, let me call attention to a Wall Street Journal editorial page article, ``Gore's Hidden Weakness: Foreign Policy'' from Monday, October 23. There Robert Zoellick expresses concern over the supposed foreign policy experience that Vice President Gore would bring to the White House. In the article he said that in the Chernomyrdin agreement: . . . he blessed Russian exports to Iran of weapons that could only be targeted against the U.S. Navy, which protects the world's energy lifeline. He went on to say: . . . Russian technicians continued to help Iran develop ``laser isotope separation technology'' used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. This was to a country that the State Department called ``the most active state sponsor of terrorism.'' We would have hoped that our Vice President, in his agreements with Mr. Chernomyrdin, would have been trying to build a market economy based on the rule of law. He should have prodded them to close down the corrupt commissions. But what we seem to have seen, as a result, or what has followed on that agreement, was a Soviet-style bureaucracy that never made any progress. There was an admission that the IMF money went to foreigners and Russian speculators. Quoting the editorial further, the former chairman of Russia's security commission said: ``I cannot explain why the Western governments didn't pay serious attention.'' And Anatoly Chubais, Mr. Chernomyrdin's deputy, said pithily: ``We conned them out of $20 billion.'' And the editorial writer, Mr. Zoellick, says: Mr. Gore's Russian record is more than a litany of costly mistakes. The vice president was unable to either perceive the true nature of Russia's transformation or to design creative U.S. policy to match the circumstances. I think we ought to be alarmed. We ought to be alarmed at the record that Vice President Gore has written as he takes credit for our foreign policy with Russia. Is it really credit, when we find that the Russians continue to export arms to Iran? Would it alarm Americans that Iran, which relies on Russian arms sales to maintain its own military, sends arms also to Hezbollah's guerrillas in Lebanon, which uses those same arms against Israeli soldiers in settlements? Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations began hearings to probe the recent press reports that Vice President Al Gore and the Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin made a secret agreement 5 years ago promising the Clinton White House would not enforce the law requiring sanctions for Russian sales to Iran. Is this what we can expect, secret deals with Russia that have not stopped the sales of dangerous weapons to Iran? We are still seeking disclosure to the appropriate committees of Congress of the details of the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement. They have not come forward even to give the committees of jurisdiction the details on that agreement. What is going on? Why is it being hidden? I think we all ought to be very much concerned about what appears to be a series of deadly mistakes covered up--covered up--and kept out of the view of the congressional committees. Now, portions of the 12-page agreement between Vice President Gore and Mr. Chernomyrdin appeared in the October 17 edition of the Washington Times. In there, it appeared that the U.S. Vice President committed our country to ``avoid any penalties to Russia that might otherwise arise under domestic law.'' The final document reads: ``This aide memoire, as well as the attached annexes, will remain strictly confidential.'' This secret Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement, and the Clinton-Gore administration's promise not to implement U.S. laws requiring sanctions for Russian weapons proliferation to Iran, was first reported in the New York Times on October 13 of this year. It said there that: In exchange for the Russian promises, the United States pledged not to seek penalties against Russia under a 1992 law that requires sanctions against countries that sell advanced weaponry to countries the State Department classifies as state sponsors of terrorism. Iran is on that list. The law they are referring to, of course, is the 1992 Iran-Iraq Non- Proliferation Act. That was sponsored by the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Al Gore, along with Senator McCain. Let's be clear. This law requires the President impose sanctions on countries that sell advanced weaponry or assist in nuclear weapons programs in countries sponsoring terrorism. Russian cooperation with Iran's nuclear program was a major concern behind enactment of that legislation. How do you get around that? The White House has attempted to downplay the impact of Vice President Gore's deal by arguing the weaponry transferred was ``antiquated.'' I see nothing antiquated about laser isotope separation technology, which was described in the Wall Street Journal article, being used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. It is my understanding that some of the weapons sold to Iran by Russia included the Kilo-class submarine, which is difficult to detect and track in the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf because they generate very little noise while operating on battery power. In the event of a crisis, these submarines would present a credible threat to U.S. forces, allied vessels, and merchant marine traffic. They also aid wake-homing torpedoes and antiship mines. If these weapons pose a significant threat to U.S. ships and forces in the region, then these transfers appear to me to meet the threshold for sanctions under the Gore-McCain Act. Make no mistake, were tensions to escalate between the United States and countries in the Middle East, these weapons could have a catastrophic effect on our sailors and other military personnel on ships in the region. We just saw what a small simple boat loaded with explosives could do. What other reminders do we need. The Vice President defends his actions claiming that none of the weapons included met the standard for triggering sanctions. Yet the Washington Times uncovered a letter sent last January to the Russian Foreign Minister by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitting: Without the aid memoire, Russia's conventional arms sales to Iran would have been subject to sanctions based on various provisions of our laws. In classified documents obtained by the Washington Times, a 1995 letter, apparently written by Mr. Chernomyrdin to Vice President Gore, said: The information we are passing on to you is not to be conveyed to third parties, including the U.S. Congress. Open information concerning our cooperation with Iran is obviously a different matter, and we do not object to the constructive use of such information. I am counting on your understanding. These secret agreements between the Vice President and Mr. Chernomyrdin took place in the context of a Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, which began in 1993 and was conducted in twice yearly meetings until Mr. Chernomyrdin was removed from his position in 1998. These secret agreements contradict administration and Vice President Gore's concerns regarding the spread of dangerous missiles in the Middle East and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to a country such as Iran who exports terrorism. Former Secretaries of State and Defense, Directors of Central Intelligence, National Security Advisers, have put out a strong letter, dated October 24, saying in part: This is why we are deeply disturbed by the agreement made by Vice President Gore and then Russian Premier Chernomyrdin in which America acquiesced in the sale by Russia to Iran of highly threatening military equipment such as modern submarines, fighter planes, and wake-homing torpedoes. We also find incomprehensible that this agreement was not fully disclosed even to those committees of Congress charged with receiving highly classified briefings--apparently at the request of the Russian Premier. But agreement to his request is even more disturbing since the Russian sales could have brought about sanctions against Russia in accordance with a 1992 U.S. law sponsored by Senator John McCain and then Senator Al Gore. This letter was signed by George Schultz, Jim Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, James Schlesinger, Brent Scowcroft, Caspar Weinberger, and James Woolsey. I think their concerns ought to be concerns of all of us. This foreign policy effort is part and parcel with Vice President Gore's approach to the people. Who does the Vice President trust. Apparently not the people, not the U.S. Congress. The reason we are here discussing this issue is because exactly 13 days ago the New York Times revealed that Vice President Gore signed this secret agreement I have been discussing. This Gore-Chernomyrdin deal has broad foreign policy ramifications. The decision to allow Russia to escape the consequences of providing Iran with conventional weapons is one which affects the security of our allies and more importantly the security of our troops such as those who routinely patrol the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. This is not the type of agreement which should have been kept from the American people. In closing, I find it unconscionable that the Vice President of the United States could willingly withhold information from the Congress regarding the sale of arms from Russia to Iran; to a state described by his own administration as ``the most active state sponsor of terrorism.'' I find it highly disturbing knowing the difficulties we have faced in this region over the years that the Vice President would willingly hide from the people a deal that puts in the hands of the Iranian government weapons that could do real harm to our forces in the region who routinely patrol the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Our forces put their lives at risk any time they enter this region of the world because tensions are so high. Is it unrealistic to ask that the Government that sends our military forces into harm's way would work at decreasing the availability of arms in the region that could potentially be used against them? Is it unrealistic to expect from our President and Vice President sufficient trust in the people and our form of government to convey information to the Congress critical to our national security, critical to the security of our allies and critical to the stability of a region of the world that is wrought with tension and hatred for our allies such as Israel? I think not. I urge my fellow citizens to not simply accept the spin by supporters of Vice President Gore that his foreign policy experience is necessarily good for America and the troops we send in harm's way to enforce it. I urge this body to take action to get copies of that agreement from the administration. We should demand it. We should subpoena it. I hope my colleagues will joint me in seeking that resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Wall Street Journal and the statement by former Secretaries of State be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, might I ask if everybody will yield back the time so we can get on with the votes?

Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I must object to speaking in morning business. We reached an agreement to utilize this time. Perhaps my colleague could gain time. All right. I am advised by the staff that Senator Dorgan might be willing to yield some of his 20 minutes to the Senator. If that is agreeable with my colleague from Nebraska, I would be happy to give up Senator Dorgan's time.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that following the debate on the HUD-VA conference report, notwithstanding the receipt of the papers, the Senate proceed to the continuing resolution and that it be considered under the following agreement, with no amendments or motions in order: 20 minutes under the control of Senator Dorgan; 10 minutes equally divided between Senators Stevens and Byrd. I further ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the joint resolution, without any intervening action, motion, or debate.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, two back-to-back votes can be expected to occur sometime between 3:30 and 4 o'clock this afternoon. I yield floor.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. I have addressed similar questions, but to remove any confusion, I clarify the statement of managers now before the Senate. In directing that the NAS report by properly considered by the Agency, the language in the statement of managers directs the Agency to consider the findings of the report when making site-specific remedial decisions and in developing remediation guidance for contaminated aquatic sediments. In both cases, EPA should consider the findings of the report so that the best science available will be taken into account before going forward. In implementing this direction, EPA should seek to ensure that Congress can evaluate how the findings of the report have been considered.

Mr. BOND. It is my understanding the time for VA-HUD has expired. Some of the time has been used off the CR. I believe there is a willingness to yield back on our side.

Mr. BOND. That is our understanding. So the sooner we use up or yield back the time on the continuing resolution, the sooner we can vote, and perhaps colleagues who wish to use time can talk quickly.

Mr. BOND. On the continuing resolution?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe there is some time left for Senator Stevens under this agreement. We are interested in yielding back time, to the extent that the other side will yield back time. Mr. President, there are lots of statements that could be made to answer the political charges of my colleague from Nevada. Let's just say we disagree with them. We will debate those later. We have been delayed in this process because we had to file cloture because of filibusters this summer on the measures. I ask the distinguished chairman of the committee if he would like time. I would be happy to yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the VA-HUD conference report?

Mr. BOND. Yes. I believe the language clarifies that Jacksonville/ Duval County meets the definition of an urban county under the statute, as amended. HUD also agrees with this interpretation.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now begin consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4635, the VA-HUD appropriations bill, notwithstanding the receipt of the papers, and it be considered as having been read and the conference report be considered under the following agreement: 30 minutes under the control of Senator Graham of Florida, 10 minutes equally divided between Senators Bond and Mikulski, 20 minutes equally divided between Senators Domenici and Reid, and 10 minutes equally divided between Senators Stevens and Byrd. I further ask consent that at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report without any intervening action, motion, or debate.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are other pressing matters. It is an interesting discussion that might go on after the vote.