Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I stated before that this approach proceeds on the outrageous assumption that the Clinton-Gore-Browner administration in EPA is not doing its job of regulating pesticides. Children would be placed at risk if we banned these pesticides. And contrary to what was said in the DOD debate, EPA does not support the underlying amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a June 30 letter from EPA, which states they have not reviewed it, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3852

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is not fair that a self-employed person cannot deduct 100 percent of health care costs when a large business can. A self-employed person is denied that deductibility, even though we have worked since 1995 when this body accepted my amendment at that time to increase the deductibility of insurance costs for the self- employed. Still, only 60 percent of the health insurance cost is deductible by the self-employed. I have talked to a lot of these people. They cannot wait until 2003 when they will get 100-percent deductibility. My amendment says there is 100-percent deductibility this year and makes sure that the 5 million Americans in households headed by self-employed can get health care coverage, including 1.3 million children. It also corrects a disparity in current law which says if a self- employed person is eligible for health coverage from another plan, a second job, or a spouse's plan, they cannot deduct. This says you can deduct so long as you do not participate in another health care plan. I thank my colleagues on both sides and my colleague from Illinois. I urge this body to accept the amendment.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Senators Lincoln, Kerrey of Nebraska, and Roberts, prevents funds from being used for the application of any pesticide that is not approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency in any area managed by the U.S. Park Service that may be used by children. Further, it directs the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate with EPA to ensure that pest control methods do not lead to unacceptable exposure of children to pesticides. Let there be no mistake that every member of this Senate supports the protection of children. It is the mandate of the EPA to do so. They are already required by law to do so. The strict standard that mandates EPA on product approval is: ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' That is a tall hurdle. The shocking thing about this underlying amendment by the Senator from California is that its premise holds that the EPA, is not, I repeat, not, doing its job protecting children. Let me repeat, this is a referendum on whether EPA is protecting children. Now, I think, that if the EPA were paying attention, it would be news to the EPA Administrator that her agency is not protecting children. As Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA/HUD, I have listened to countless hours of testimony about the Administrator's devotion to protecting children. I would think, that if we had a Sense of the Senate that Administrator Browner is not doing her job protecting children, we would defeat that. I asked the nominee (James V. Aidala) to be Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances of the Environmental Protection Agency if the EPA already protects children on military bases from harmful pesticides and we got the following response: The protection of children is one of our highest priorities. When we register, re-register, or reassess tolerances for existing pesticides we try to ensure that our actions are protective of all consumers, especially children. He continued on to say that, FQPA requires special protections for infants and children including: an explicit determination that tolerances are safe for children; an additional safety factor, if necessary, to account for uncertainty in data relative to children; and consideration of children's special sensitivity and exposure to pesticide chemicals. Let the record also show that the reason that many pesticides are used is to protect children from bacteria and disease including asthma, encephalitis, malaria, lyme disease, Legionnaires' disease, and other diseases all of which that occur here in the U.S. Mr. President, what is a pesticide? According to EPA, . . . all of these common products are considered pesticides. Cockroach sprays and baits; insect repellents for personal use; rat and other rodent poisons; flea and tick sprays, powders, and pet collars; kitchen, laundry, and bath disinfectants and sanitizer; products that kill mold and mildew; some lawn and garden products, such as week killers; and, some swimming pool chemicals. Pesticides eradicate a wide variety of pests, including cockroaches, biting insects, algae, bacteria, poisonous Brown Recluse Spiders--as found in the U.S. Capitol buildings--and infectious microbes which result in unsanitary and unhealthy conditions at food and medical care facilities. Many common cleaners, disinfectants and sanitizer are used to eradicate infectious microbes, bacteria, and algae in bathroom and kitchens and nursing homes, hospitals and other health care facilities. Cooling systems and water supplies are treated. Chlorine, which is registered as a pesticide by EPA could be affected by the underlying amendment. Products that sterilize medical equipment are carcinogenic and would thus also be affected. Used according to EPA--label instructions, pesticides not only prevent property damage from termites, but also protect our children. West Nile virus and encephalitis, which have been detected throughout the mid-Atlantic, are carried by mosquitoes. Deer ticks carry lyme disease, and cockroaches have been linked to the worsening of asthma symptoms. According to the New York Times, asthma is now the most common cause of hospitalization among American children affecting a total of five million. Deaths among children with the condition rose 78 percent from 1980 to 1993. Again, these pesticides are approved by the EPA following a rigorous and science-based process to determine what is safe and what is not safe. With our concern for the safety of our children in mind, this body passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) unanimously in 1996. FQPA was designed to update the safety standards of pesticides especially with respect to children and other vulnerable sub- populations. The Environmental Protection Agency has been implementing this law for the past four years. In the regulatory review process EPA reviews data from up to 120 tests conducted on pesticides prior to registration. When registration decisions are made, the EPA includes additional safety factors for children. According to EPA, ``. . . these specific requirements in the statute will help EPA in its efforts to implement the NAS report and ensure that risks to infants and children are always considered. . . .'' And, under FIFRA, EPA has the authority to immediately cancel the use of any pest control product that it believes poses an imminent risk to public health. Obviously, EPA has the authority to protect children. Obviously, EPA believes that the law protects children. Obviously, EPA believes they are protecting children. Since the new law in 1996, EPA has re-reviewed thousands of products. We are spending about $50 million in taxpayer money to pay full-time experts at the EPA to Administer the FQPA and to re-review the products. They tell us what is safe and what is not safe. Contrary to what was mistakenly represented in previous debate, EPA does NOT support this amendment. According to EPA in answers in response to questions I submitted for the Record on June 30, 2000, ``. . . the amendment has not been subject to a full review by the Administration, nor has the Administration taken a position on the amendment.'' With this extensive regulatory process in place and recently updated, I cannot support the Senator's proposal to regulate further pesticides by completely ignoring and circumventing EPA's aggressive implementation of FQPA, as well as the Clinton Administration's entire regulatory process. The Senator from California's proposal will effectively regulate pesticides from the Senate floor on an appropriations bill, which is not only bad science, but bad public policy as well, and a process we all should want to avoid. I think if we are going to have a referendum on whether the EPA protect's children, we should have some cursory review of the subject first. I am also not an expert on asthma or encephalitis or lyme's disease or salmonella, or e. Coli or Legionnaires' disease or the West Nile virus. If the Senator from California has some information that says that the EPA is not doing their job, then I think the information should be reviewed and the EPA should have the opportunity to respond and comment and defend itself. If there is an emergency that the Senator from California is aware of, EPA has the regulatory authority to deal with it and they should. If EPA is not appropriately dealing with an emergency, perhaps we should ask the Administrator to tell us why that is the case. Absent that, it is not a very good idea for us to be substituting our scientific judgment for the judgment of Administrator Browner's scientists as to what is and is not safe. We also know that according to industry and EPA, there is no legal or regulatory or industry ``term of art'' for a ``category I or category II acute nerve toxin.'' If we are going to tell EPA to prohibit something, EPA should understand what we want them to prohibit. If we are going to tell industry that they cannot use a product, they should know what product they are forbidden to use. One organophosphate, for example, is Raid. Organochlorides, I am told, are products that contain carbon and chlorine which wipes out all hard surface disinfectants. One such hard surface disinfectant which is used daily to clean our bathrooms is Lysol disinfectant. Some of the same products are used to clean our cafeteria. Some carcinogens are used to sterilize medical equipment. The chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations has just received a bipartisan letter from the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House committee of jurisdiction stating that this is an issue under their jurisdiction which should be dealt with solely through the authorization process. The bipartisan letter was signed by Congressmen Combest, Stenholm, Goodlatte and Clayton. Mr. President, I am continuously amazed at the knowledge and dedication of my Senate colleagues but I will admit that I am not an expert on organophosphates or nerve toxins. I fear that this issue about nerve toxins and organophosphates and ``probable carcinogens'' may be a mystery to a good number of my colleagues and it is a horrible precedent for regulation, which will impact not only the urban uses of pest control products, but also the agricultural uses for our Nation's farmers. We know that the EPA does not support this amendment. It has not reviewed it and I don't expect them to review it during an election year. My amendment protects children by allowing Carol Browner and her cops on the beat to do their job. We have a dreadful picture of a bite from a Brown recluse spider. This spider is bad news as the picture indicates. This poisonous spider was found in the Capitol on more than one occasion and it is called a recluse spider because it is hard to discover. In the last three weeks, a Senate appropriations staffer was bitten by this spider. Used according to EPA-label instructions, pesticides protect our children by controlling harmful pests like disease carrying insects, infectious bacteria, poison ivy, and other noxious weeds. This underlying Boxer amendment would prohibit the use of products that have been scientifically tested and approved for use by the EPA to help prevent disease and improve the quality of life for all Americans, especially children. The EPA has a sound regulatory process in place that protects children and provides safe, effective pest control tools for use in the farmer's field, the cafeteria, hospitals, playgrounds, and the home. To undermine the process of the strictest pesticide regulations in the world would not only set a misguided precedent, but would indeed threaten the health of our children. It would also send a shocking message that our EPA is not following its legal mandate and its perpetually-articulated mission of protecting children. In summary, the underlying amendment it is unnecessary, it is overly- broad, it is a horrible precedent and it is encumbered with far- reaching unintended negative consequences that are harmful to children. I just do not believe the U.S. Senate should take an action which makes the visitor's centers of our national parks the largest cockroach hotels on the planet. My amendment prohibits the use of any pesticide not approved by Administrator Browner's team and ensures consultation to ensure that pest control methods do not lead to unacceptable exposure of children to pesticides. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and preserve the effectiveness and the integrity of the science-based regulatory system. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the Farm Bureau opposing the underlying amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend my good friend from Michigan on his attempt to address the issue of high gas prices. However, I must oppose his amendment. The problem with the high gas prices we are experiencing is not the result of the gas taxes, but with the fact that the Clinton/Gore Administration has pursued a long-term consistent energy policy discouraging domestic production of oil, coal, nuclear, gas, hydropower, etc. The result of this cartel policy has been to put us over a barrel--an OPEC barrel of oil with resulting high gas prices. My colleagues offering this amendment have stated that this amendment would hold the trust fund harmless. Once again, I applaud their desire to help the consumers, but violating the ``trust'' in the highway trust fund is not holding the trust fund harmless. We cannot risk the tremendous gains we made to ensure that the gas tax was a dedicated tax for a dedicated purpose. This is a true user fee. This is a user fee that works. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Abraham amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the motion to proceed to H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. While this legislation has long been one of my priorities as chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, it is of critical concern to a sector of the United States economy that employs more than 27.5 million people, generates over $3.6 million in sales, and has grown by 103 percent in the past four years. That sector is women-owned businesses. As one of the fastest growing segments of the economy, women-owned small businesses are essential to America's future prosperity. In recognition of this growth and their contribution to our economic life, I led a bipartisan group of policy makers last month to convene the National Women's Small Business Summit, New Leaders for a New Century, in Kansas City, Missouri. With the support of Senators Kerry, Feinstein, Hutchison, Snowe, and Landrieu, we set out, through this summit, to listen to women-owned small-business owners. Our goal was to elicit their views, concerns, and policy recommendations on the obstacles that women entrepreneurs face every day as they strive to run successful businesses. One issue that we heard loud and clear was that the ``death tax'' has to go. In fact, repeal of the estate tax was the number one tax priority identified by the summit participants. So it is particularly timely that the Senate is considering this crucial legislation that will eliminate a tax that discourages hard work and innovation rather than encouraging and rewarding it. Mr. President, I believe we can now agree on both sides of the aisle that the estate tax is highly detrimental to small and family-owned businesses and farms in this country. Indeed, according to recent findings, the estates of self-employed Americans are four times more likely to be subject to the estate tax than Americans who work for someone else. In addition, because owners of small businesses do not know when they will owe the estate tax or, consequently, how much they will owe, the tax exacts excessively high compliance costs. For example a June 1999 survey by the Center for the Study of Taxation found that eight of ten family-owned business reported taking steps, such as estate planning, to minimize the effect of this tax. Moreover, the Upstate New York survey revealed that the average spending on estate planning was almost $125,000 per business. Similarly, a survey by the National Association of Women Business owners found that the estate tax imposed almost $60,000 in estate-tax- related costs on women business owners. These costs translate into thousands of dollars of valuable capital that women-owned businesses are pouring down the drain simply to ensure that the estate tax does not become the grim reaper for their businesses. And if anyone thinks that wasting these funds is not important, they should note carefully that access to capital was the second most pressing issue area identified at the National Women's Small Business Summit. Mr. President, compliance costs pertaining to the death tax also directly affect the availability of jobs. In the Upstate New York survey, an estimated 14 jobs per business have been lost because of the cost of Federal estate-tax planning to those same businesses. A study by Douglas Holtz-Eakin found that the estate tax caused an annual 3 percent reduction in desired hiring by sole proprietors. A 1995 Gallup poll also found that three out of five businesses would add more jobs over the coming year if the estate tax were eliminated. If nothing else, this legislation boils down to one simple issue-- jobs! Small businesses are the top job creator in this country, and the death tax is sending those jobs to the grave. Existing businesses are not hiring as many workers because of estate-planning costs, and when the owner dies, this tax can cause the business to be liquidated just to pay the government. And when those doors close, they close hard and fast on the jobs that the business provided in our local communities. That is a reality we simply cannot ignore or allow to be concealed by erroneous claims that repealing the death tax is just a tax cut for ``the rich.'' Mr. President, the cost of the estate tax is high not only for small business owners, but for those seeking employment and for the overall economy. It is time that those costs are eliminated by repealing the estate tax once and for all. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed and the underlying legislation for the continued success of America's women-owned businesses and the jobs they create.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a meeting to mark up S. 1594, Community Development and Venture Capital Act of 1999, and other pending matters. The markup will be held on Wednesday, July 26, 2000, beginning at 9 a.m., in room 428A, Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``GAO's Performance and Accountability Review: Is the SBA on PAR?'' The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 20, 2000, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing will be broadcast live over the Internet from our homepage address: http://www.senate.gov/sbc. For further information, please contact David Bohley at 224-5175. committee on small business

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed for 4 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on a number of occasions, I have come to this floor to talk about the importance of women-owned businesses. Women-owned businesses employ more than 27.5 million people and generate over $3.6 billion in sales and have grown by 103 percent in the past 4 years. As one of the fastest growing segments of the economy, women-owned small businesses are essential to America's future prosperity, as well as the prosperity and the well-being of the individual communities and particularly the families of those women who own businesses. In recognition of this growth and contribution to our economic life, I convened with a bipartisan group of policymakers a national women's small business summit entitled ``New Leaders for a New Century,'' which was held in Kansas City, MO, on June 4 and 5 of this year. The cosponsors of that conference were my ranking member on the Small Business Committee, Senator John Kerry, along with Senators Dianne Feinstein, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snowe, and Mary Landrieu. Today I am very pleased to announce that we are releasing a report of the recommendations of the women who attended this summit. Copies will be available in every office. It will be available through the Small Business Committee, and later I will also ask that portions be printed in the Record. Because the conference was designed to elicit directly the views, concerns, and policy recommendations of women business owners, we learned more about the obstacles women entrepreneurs face and the specific issues which are of the utmost importance to them. It is interesting; what we learned is this: Despite the advances women have made in the entrepreneurial area, their top priorities remain, first, procuring their fair share of Federal contracts. We have already dealt with that on this floor, and in a bipartisan, overwhelming vote on a resolution said the Federal Government needs to live up to its legislatively mandated responsibility to set aside 5 percent of small business contracts for women small business owners. They have not even come halfway to the goal. Second, the women business owners who met with us are very much concerned about taxes. They said their top priority was getting rid of the death tax. Small business owners do not know when they will owe the estate or death tax or how much they will owe, so they have enormously high compliance costs. A survey by the National Association of Women Business Owners found that the estate tax imposed almost $60,000 in death-tax-related cost on women business owners. That is not taxes imposed; that is how much it cost the average woman-owned small business to figure out what the death tax implication would be. As a congressman colleague in Missouri once said, there ought be no taxation without respiration. That was the overwhelming view of the women in this conference. In addition, the report outlines the women's views on what the Federal Government can do to help women entrepreneurs in areas such as access to capital, pensions and retirement, expanding markets, and health care. By asking women small business owners themselves to identify their professional concerns and make corresponding policy recommendations, we as policymakers, as legislators, should be able to craft our agenda much more effectively, and that agenda is oversight of the Small Business Administration and other Government agencies complying with the law, as well as legislative recommendations. This, we think, should facilitate even greater success on the part of current women small business owners and also offer incentives to more women to consider becoming business owners themselves. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the conclusion of the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the committee, for allowing me this time. I thank the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for having done an excellent job on this bill. There are many items in the bill before us that I, along with the Senator from Wyoming, believe are very important. We wish them Godspeed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from South Dakota for bringing attention to this serious problem. Fetal alcohol syndrome affects 2,000 infants born every year. At the same time, we must keep in mind that birth defects generally are a major, even larger health care problem in this country. Birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality, and about 150,000 children will be born with a major birth defect annually. This year, CDC is spending only $16.5 million total on all birth defects, with an additional $2 million being spent on a folic acid awareness campaign for which I fought and worked with my colleagues in this body to support. The $10 million for CDC to fight fetal alcohol syndrome would be well spent. At the same time, we need to significantly increase our overall investment in the fight against birth defects. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member and Senator Daschle as we move forward to make sure this critical area of children's health is adequately addressed in this bill and in the work of the CDC in the coming year. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there is another pending amendment; is that correct?

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to offer what I think is a very important amendment to increase the funding this bill provides for a vital piece of our Nation's health care system--our community health centers. This amendment, which I am very pleased to offer in conjunction with my colleague, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, who has been a long- time supporter of community health centers--as was the late Senator from Rhode Island, the father of the distinguished occupant of the chair, who was a great champion of community health centers--along with a total of 58 cosponsors, would increase funding for community health centers by a total of $50 million for this coming year. That is a $50 million increase over that which is already included. The offset we use to fund this health center increase is a reduction in the departmental management fund for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The managers of this bill, Senators Specter and Harkin, clearly had a very difficult task in crafting this bill. There is a lot of money in it, but there are even more demands and requests for good things that this bill does. And they have to compete for the funds that, although they are significant, are still limited. Despite the competing demands, the underlying bill has a $100 million increase for community health centers. I sincerely commend the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts to include this very needed increase in the funding for the CHCs. At the same time, I believe very strongly that adding an additional $50 million for health center funding is crucial to ensure that these vital health care providers have sufficient resources behind them to do everything they can to provide for the uninsured and medically underserved Americans. All of us who have talked about health care know that the lack of access to care is perhaps the largest single health care problem that faces our Nation today. Part of this problem is a lack of health insurance. About 44 million Americans are not covered by any type of health plan. But an equally serious part of the problem is that many people are simply unable to get access to a health care provider. Even if they have insurance, a young couple with a sick child is out of luck if they can't get in to see a pediatrician or other health care provider. In too many urban and rural communities around the country, there just are not enough doctors to go around. I urge my colleagues, if they have not done what I have done--and that is, to visit community health centers in their States--that they do so. You will be amazed and you will be very uplifted to see the work that is going on each and every day in these community health centers. Community health centers in a center city, in the poorest neighborhoods, are reaching out and helping everyone--from the very young to the teenage mother perhaps with a child, or a teenager who is expecting a child, to the very elderly, who have difficulty getting around. We see the same thing in rural areas, in some of the communities that are the hardest to access in our State. There are community health centers with dedicated physicians and nurses and health care professionals who are there to answer the health care needs of people who would have no chance of getting service were it not for the health centers. These community health centers are truly the safety net of our health care system. For all of my colleagues, I trust they do know about these centers, but for other concerned citizens who may be watching, I suggest they find out about the community health centers in their area. What are they doing; are they serving people in need? I can tell my colleagues, based on the experience in my State, they are delivering the service to people who otherwise would not be served, were it not for these CHCs. We all know there are problems with access to health care. There are many good ideas on additional steps we need to take. Some people want nationalized health care. Other people want new tax credits, subsidized health insurance. Others want to expand governmental health programs. Some people want to enhance insurance pooling arrangements. All of these have been proposed in an effort to make sure people have the health coverage and can get the care they need. As different and as diverse and as creative as many of these ideas are, they all have one thing in common: They are not going to be passed into law this year. All these wonderful ideas are going to come together. They are going to clash. We will look at them and talk about them, and we are going to refine them and argue about them and go down different roads. They are not going to pass this year. The breadth of the disagreement over these policy issues and the political complications of an election year make it totally unlikely that Congress will bring any of these new ideas to reality. There is one thing we can still do this year, something we can pass into law that will make a big difference for many people who lack access to health care. What we can do is dramatically increase funding for community health centers and help them reach out to even more uninsured and underserved Americans. Just for the technical background, health centers are private not- for-profit clinics that provide primary care, preventive health care services in thousands of medically underserved urban and rural communities around the country. Partially with the help of Federal grants, health care centers provide basic care for about 11 million people every year, 4 million of whom are uninsured. Health centers provide care for 7 million people who are minorities, 600,000 farm workers, close to 1 out of every 20 Americans, 1 out of every 12 rural residents, 1 out of every 6 low-income children, and 1 out of every 5 babies born to low-income families. Despite this great work, there are millions of Americans who still cannot get access to health care. The demand for the type of care these centers provide simply exceeds the resources available. Today we can help change this. There are as many as 44 million who are not covered by a health plan. We are covering about 11 million. We need to do something to make sure we serve those additional people. We are building on a program that has proven itself to be effective. This is probably the best health care bargain we can get because these not-for-profit centers leverage the Federal dollars that go into them. They collect insurance from those who are insured. They can collect Medicare or Medicaid. They are a vehicle for providing the service. The average cost per patient served by a community health center in my State is something like $350 a year. That is how much it costs them because of the other reimbursements and because of the efficiencies and economies of scale. That is less than $1 a day. Not too many plans can provide so much bang for the buck, so much important delivery of health care service. This is probably the first priority of all the health care problems we are facing, and there are many. We can do something that will have a real impact on access to care and the uninsured. It is the best thing we can do to expand that safety net and pursue the search for better health care. There are a couple of key reasons why community health centers are so important. No. 1, these dollars build on an existing program that produces results. Unlike many other health care proposals that suggest radically new and untested ideas, health centers are known entities. They do an outstanding job. They are known, respected, and trusted in their communities. Numerous independent studies, in addition to the observations of those of us who have traveled around to visit them, confirm that community health centers provide high quality care in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Health centers truly target the health care access problem. By definition, health centers must be located in medically underserved communities, which means places where people have serious problems getting access to health care. So health centers attack the problem right at its source--in the communities where those people live. Health centers are relatively cheap. Health centers can provide primary and preventive care for one person for less than $1 a day, $350 a year. That has to be one of the best health care bargains around. This proposal is not a Government takeover of health care. Admittedly, this amendment calls for more Government spending, but unlike most other health care proposals, this funding would not go to create or expand a huge health care bureaucracy. This amendment would invest additional funds into private organizations which have consistently proven themselves to be efficient, high quality, cost- effective health care providers. If this amendment succeeds, it will mean an overall increase in health center funding of $150 million. That level of increase will put us on a path to double health center funding over 5 years. As my colleagues know, this same goal, doubling funding over 5 years, is what we challenge ourselves to provide to the National Institutes of Health. Through these increased funds to health centers, we continue our support for the good work that goes on in health centers. As in NIH, we have increased funding for biomedical research that produces medical innovations and develops ways to save, improve, and prolong people's lives. I have supported those efforts. In fact, the underlying bill contains funding increases for NIH that will keep us on the track for doubling NIH funding over 5 years for this, the third straight year. But as we expand the envelope for what is possible in the world of health care, we must also ensure that more Americans have access to the most basic level of primary care services, including regular checkups, immunizations, and prenatal care. If we are not reaching some Americans, it doesn't matter how much we put into health care research. It doesn't matter how many innovations we come up with. It doesn't matter how many new drugs or new procedures or new techniques we develop. If they don't have access to the basic health care system, it is not going to help them at all. That is why I believe it is so important to set the same noble goal we have set for research, doubling funding over 5 years, and adopt it for community health centers as well. There is widespread bipartisan support for both this 5-year plan as well as for the first-year installment. Nineteen of my Senate colleagues cosponsored what I called the REACH initiative--a resolution calling on Congress to double health center funding over 5 years. This resolution has since been made part of the congressional budget resolution that establishes our tax and spending goals and priorities. Sixty-seven Senators joined in my initial request for the 1-year funding increase of $150 million. This amendment, which makes this 1-year increase a reality, has 57 cosponsors. I am pleased to say that Gov. George W. Bush has publicly announced his support for funding increases for community health centers comparable to what this amendment would provide. I thank my colleagues who have joined in these efforts for their support. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to support this amendment. A dramatic increase in community health center funding is one of the first and most important things Congress can do this year to truly help the uninsured and medically underserved Americans. Let us not waste the opportunity to make it happen. I express my thanks to the chairman and ranking member of the committee.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee. If he really wants us to get the rest of the 67, we will be happy to go about it. But I found the chairman and the ranking member so responsive to my persuasive arguments that I didn't think they needed any more weight on this. I sincerely appreciate the willingness of the chairman to accept this.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, amendment No. 3602 is at the desk. I ask that it be called up for immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 22, 2000, at 10 a.m., in SD226.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Operations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2000, at 3 p.m., to hold a hearing.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to hold a hearing on the nominations of Thomas L. Garthwaite, M.D., to be Under Secretary for Health, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Robert M. Walker to be Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 22, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for their second reading.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.