Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``IRS Restructuring: A New Era for Small Business.'' The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 23, 2000, beginning at 10:00 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 Mark Warren at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have been listening with a great deal of interest as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed their views on education. I particularly commend my neighbor and colleague from Kansas and my good friend from Idaho for their very perceptive comments about education. As I listen to the debate back and forth, it is clear we have two very different approaches to education being championed. On the one side, we have trust of local schools; on the other side, we have mistrust. On one side, we advocate local control; on the other side, they advocate Federal control. On our side, we say that parents, schools, teachers, and school boards know best. On the other side, they say Washington knows best. For me it is not a tough choice. This is not rocket science: trust, local control, parents, schools know best. There is no question in my mind. I come to the Senate floor today to say--and I have said it before and I will say it again--I spent my adult career working with parents, teachers, and school boards in Missouri. I have watched them work. I have watched their education decisions. I spent the last 13 years in this body watching Congress debate issues and watching the Federal bureaucracy administer programs. When it comes to wasting money, it is not even close. It is not a contest. It is a good thing that local schools do not operate as does the Federal Government because local schools could not afford to. Luckily, schools are far better at applying resources to the needs of children in their schools. Unfortunately, the Federal bureaucracy has been good at creating waste, misdirected priorities, red tape, and unnecessary hassles and regulations. As it is the case in other areas as well, our congressional zest to provide assistance has become part of the problem--our good intentions. And they are good intentions. Nobody questions the intentions. When the Congress went about creating 765 programs, every single one of them was a good idea. Unfortunately, it was at the wrong place. It was a good idea in Washington, not a good idea at the local school level. Our good intentions have become burdensome regulations, unfunded mandates, mounds of paperwork, and unwanted meddling. We have created a system where parents, teachers, and local school officials have less and less control over what happens in the classroom. Instead of empowering parents, teachers, and local school officials, we have empowered the Federal Government and the bureaucrats. We have been slowly eroding the opportunity for creativity and innovation on the local level and have put a system in place where the Olympians on the hill pretend to know what is best for the peasants in the valley. We need to be bold enough to stand up and admit that these good intentions have gone astray. Our good intentions are failing our public schools and, most importantly, they are failing our children. Let's recognize what we do not know in Washington has become obvious. Washington does not always know best, especially when it comes to micromanaging the education of children in local schools throughout this country. What is wrong with giving control of education to local schools and to the States? What happened to everyone saying that education is a national priority but a local responsibility? I firmly believe that is true. If that were true, and the other side trusted those at the local level, this debate would not be as controversial as it is. What is wrong with letting classroom teachers, principals, and school boards fashion plans to improve learning and achievement in their own schools? Back in my home State of Missouri, no one thinks the answer to improving public education lies within the Halls of Congress or in the granite buildings in downtown Washington's Department of Education. Almost everyone I have talked to will say: Stay out of the way and give the local schools the opportunity. Missourians know, and I know, that the real solutions--the laboratories--are the local schools when they are given the opportunity to excel and not have to play the ``Mother, May I'' game with Washington, DC. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep talking about class size, afterschool programs, and numerous other programs. These will be new programs, with new mandates, and new responsibilities for schools directly controlled and regulated by Washington, smothered with reports and regulations and redtape. Is this the direction we want to go? I do not think so. This will only exacerbate the ``Mother, May I'' game. As we debate ESEA today, I hope we will keep certain things in perspective. One of those things is how much money the Federal Government actually provides to the local school district and what amount of Federal involvement is appropriate with the amount of funding provided. I have heard over and over again that the Federal Government provides less than 10 percent of a local school district's budget. Yet the Federal Government accounts for over 50 percent of the local school district's paperwork burden. How can any of us justify this proportion of Federal meddling and paperwork burden for less than 10 percent of the district's funding? In my State of Missouri, on average, Federal funding accounts for only 6 percent of the local school district's budget. My great State of Missouri has some wonderful teachers, principals, superintendents, and school board members--some of the best in the country. I cannot believe my colleagues are not hearing the same thing from their constituents that I am hearing from mine. If you are not, I suggest you are not listening. Go back and ask them. They will tell you. However, just in case you have not heard, let me share some of the things I have been told. The Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools in Missouri said: The amount of paperwork that the federal government causes local school districts to engage in is often overwhelming. That extra effort and time often reduces productive classroom time and energy that could better be spent working directly with children. Mr. Berrey of the Wentzville R-IV School in Missouri said: Limiting federal intrusion into decisions best left to local communities is what I believe our founding fathers had in mind. From Neosho R-5, in Missouri: The individuals working most closely with the students are indeed the ones who can best decide how this money can be spent for the benefit of students' education. From the Superintendent of the Special School District of St. Louis County, MO: As head of a school district specializing in special education, I fully understand how my district's financial needs differ from other school districts' needs. In order to best utilize the limited funds that are at my disposal, I need maximum flexibility in determining how to put those funds to the best use. From the Board of Education President of the Blue Springs School District in Missouri: Without local control, the focus is taken away from the needs specific to the children in each school system. I think the Superintendent of the Taneyville R-II School District in Missouri sums it up well: I feel that the State and Federal government has tied our school's hands with mandated programs and mandated uses for the monies we are receiving. The schools are likened to puppets on a string. Pull this string this way and the school does this; pull it another way and the school does that. School systems and communities are as different from one another as individual people are different. What works for one will not work for another. These are the types of comments I have heard over the past couple years. These comments led to the development of my Direct Check for Education proposal that is S. 52. As introduced, S. 52 took six Department of Education programs, primarily competitive grant programs, and combined them and determined that the funding would go out based on average daily attendance in school districts. It would give school districts added flexibility. I intend to offer an amendment that would allow us to try this as a demonstration program. I know it is hard sometimes to get Governors to support this concept. But I stand here as a recovering Governor. I know that Governors and States have the responsibility for welfare programs, State transportation programs; but the responsibility for directly delivering student education rests in the hands of those at the local level. Let's give them the opportunity to demonstrate they can deliver. States can still establish standards and requirements. They still have the ability to control their local school districts. What I am saying, with Direct Check, is to keep their hands out of the bureaucratic maze that the Federal Government imposes on them. I hope my colleagues will take a look at that proposal when I offer it. Another area I am looking at very carefully is having an amendment on Impact Aid. Impact Aid is one of the oldest Federal education programs, dating from the 1950s, and is meant to compensate local school districts for the ``substantial and continuing financial burdens'' resulting from Federal activities. These ``activities'' include Federal ownership of land, such as military installations or Indian reservation lands, as well as local school enrollment of children whose parents work on Federal property. It is a Federal responsibility. In my State, we have two outstanding military bases: Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base. I would argue it is a quality-of-life issue for our military and one we must address. I look forward to working on it with my colleagues. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma will be working on it. I also offer my support, in advance, for an amendment I have been working on for some time with Senators Stevens and Jeffords, along with a number of our other colleagues, that focuses on early childhood education and development. While most of the debate this week will be about elementary and secondary education--the years of what we might call ``formal schooling''--the education and mental development of a child, however, begins long before that child enters kindergarten. In fact, the education and development of a child begins practically at birth. From the experiences we have had in Missouri with parents and teachers, we know that those first 3 years are vitally important. Giving the parents the right tools to help that child get started can make a tremendously important difference in the educational achievement of that child throughout that child's educational experience. The amendment the Senators from Vermont and Alaska will offer recognizes these basic facts; that the education and mental development and entire development of a child begins early in life. Through this amendment, we hope to support families with the youngest children to find the early childhood educational programs that can help those families and parents provide the supportive, stimulating environment we all know their children need. The amendment recognizes that if we want to do everything possible for our Nation's children and their overall education, we need to focus on the earliest years, as well as the years of formal schooling. We can do this--and this amendment proposes to do this--by supporting and expanding the successful early childhood programs and initiatives that are working right now at the local level. I invite anybody to come to Missouri to see how well these programs work. I am pleased to say the amendment is based on the basic ideas and principles set forth in legislation that I was pleased to introduce several years ago with my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. Mr. President, it is my opinion that if we want to improve our public education system to educate our children for a lifetime of achievement, we must take the stranglehold of the Federal Government off the local school districts and the States and give the resources directly to those local school districts and States so they can do their job. I look forward to supporting an amendment by my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, which deals with some of the very serious problems that the current IDEA imposes. Talk to any school official, any schoolteacher, any school personnel in Missouri, and they will tell you they are scared because the requirements of IDEA put other students, teachers, and school personnel at risk from dangerously violent students who sometimes carry guns and are sheltered by the Federal regulations that come with the individual education program. We should not have a Federal Government program that puts people associated with schools at risk. We need to change the laws to protect and nurture those with IEPs but not to expose those with whom they deal to violence and perhaps even to guns. In closing, we must empower parents, teachers, school administrators, and school boards because education decisions can best be made by educators, board members, parents, teachers, and local school officials who know the names and the needs of the children in their schools. I hope we will be spending our time debating education, not every issue under the Sun that may come up as an effort to derail this vitally important reform of our education system. Our children deserve the reform this bill delivers. This ESEA bill deals with one of the most important national priorities, and that is education. It deals with it by moving the control and the responsibility out of Washington and back into the real world where the best decisions can be made. I look forward to working with my colleagues. I thank the floor manager, the chairman of the committee, for allowing me the extra time. I look forward to continuing the debate and working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve successful ESEA reform, with perhaps some of the bells and whistles added that I have mentioned.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fishable Waters Act with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. This is consensus legislation from a uniquely diverse spectrum of interests to establish a comprehensive, voluntary, incentive-based, locally-led program to improve and restore our fisheries. Put simply, this legislation enables local stakeholders to get together to design water quality projects in their own areas that will be eligible for some $350 million federal assistance to implement for the benefit of our fisheries and water quality. It does not change any existing provisions, regulatory or otherwise, of the Clean Water Act. The Fishable Waters Act compliments existing clean water programs that are designed to encourage, rather than coerce the participation of landowners. This legislation will work because it will empower people at the local level who have a stake in its success and who will have hands-on involvement in its implementation. It is supported by members of the Fishable Waters Coalition which includes the American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League of America, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, the American Fisheries Society, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Pacific Rivers Council. These groups have labored quietly but with great determination for several years to produce this consensus proposal to build on the success of the Clean Water Act. As my colleagues understand, it is at great peril that anyone in this town undertakes to address clean water-related issues but the need is too great and this approach too practical to not embrace it, introduce it, and work to achieve the wide-spread support it merits. A companion bill is being introduced by Congressman John Tanner in the House. That measure is being cosponsored by Representatives Roy Blunt, John Dingell, Nancy Johnson, Charles Stenholm, Sherwood Boehlert, Wayne Gilchrest, Pat Danner, Phil English, Christopher John and Jim Saxton. Joining us yesterday for the kickoff were representatives of the Fisable Waters Coalition and a special guest, a fishing enthusiast who some may know otherwise as a top-ranked U.S. golfer, David Duval. ``Why am I here? I like to fish. I've done it as long as I can remember,'' Duval said. ``I want my kids to be able to have healthy habitats for fish. I want my grandkids and my great-grandkids to be able to do what I enjoy so much, and I think this could make a big difference.'' This bipartisan and consensus legislation is intended to capture opportunities to build on the success of the Clean Water Act. It enables local stakeholders to get together with farmers who own 70 percent of our nation's land to design local water quality projects that will be eligible for some $350 million in federal assistance for the benefit of our fisheries and water quality. Instead of Washington saying, ``you do this and you pay for it'' and instead of Washington saying, ``you do this but we'll help you pay for it'', this legislation lets local citizens design projects that can be eligible for federal assistance. For farmers, the idea of protecting land for future generations is not an abstract notion because the farmers in my State know that good stewardship is good for them and their families. Their challenge is that while they feed this nation and provide some $50 billion in exports, they do not have the ability to pass additional costs onto consumers like corporations do. For the 2 million people who farm to provide environmental benefits for themselves and the rest of the nation's 270 million people, they need partners because they cannot afford to do it by themselves. This legislation recognizes that reality. While one can expect a great deal of controversy surrounding any comprehensive Clean Water effort, the consensus that has built around this approach is cause for great optimism that this legislation will be the vehicle to make significant additional progress in improving water quality. I congratulate members of the Coalition for producing and supporting this consensus legislation and I look forward to working with Senator Lincoln and my other Senate colleagues to move this legislation forward. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page summary of the bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fishable Waters Act with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. This is consensus legislation from a uniquely diverse spectrum of interests to establish a comprehensive, voluntary, incentive-based, locally-led program to improve and restore our fisheries. Put simply, this legislation enables local stakeholders to get together to design water quality projects in their own areas that will be eligible for some $350 million federal assistance to implement for the benefit of our fisheries and water quality. It does not change any existing provisions, regulatory or otherwise, of the Clean Water Act. The Fishable Waters Act compliments existing clean water programs that are designed to encourage, rather than coerce the participation of landowners. This legislation will work because it will empower people at the local level who have a stake in its success and who will have hands-on involvement in its implementation. It is supported by members of the Fishable Waters Coalition which includes the American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League of America, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, the American Fisheries Society, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Pacific Rivers Council. These groups have labored quietly but with great determination for several years to produce this consensus proposal to build on the success of the Clean Water Act. As my colleagues understand, it is at great peril that anyone in this town undertakes to address clean water-related issues but the need is too great and this approach too practical to not embrace it, introduce it, and work to achieve the wide-spread support it merits. A companion bill is being introduced by Congressman John Tanner in the House. That measure is being cosponsored by Representatives Roy Blunt, John Dingell, Nancy Johnson, Charles Stenholm, Sherwood Boehlert, Wayne Gilchrest, Pat Danner, Phil English, Christopher John and Jim Saxton. Joining us yesterday for the kickoff were representatives of the Fisable Waters Coalition and a special guest, a fishing enthusiast who some may know otherwise as a top-ranked U.S. golfer, David Duval. ``Why am I here? I like to fish. I've done it as long as I can remember,'' Duval said. ``I want my kids to be able to have healthy habitats for fish. I want my grandkids and my great-grandkids to be able to do what I enjoy so much, and I think this could make a big difference.'' This bipartisan and consensus legislation is intended to capture opportunities to build on the success of the Clean Water Act. It enables local stakeholders to get together with farmers who own 70 percent of our nation's land to design local water quality projects that will be eligible for some $350 million in federal assistance for the benefit of our fisheries and water quality. Instead of Washington saying, ``you do this and you pay for it'' and instead of Washington saying, ``you do this but we'll help you pay for it'', this legislation lets local citizens design projects that can be eligible for federal assistance. For farmers, the idea of protecting land for future generations is not an abstract notion because the farmers in my State know that good stewardship is good for them and their families. Their challenge is that while they feed this nation and provide some $50 billion in exports, they do not have the ability to pass additional costs onto consumers like corporations do. For the 2 million people who farm to provide environmental benefits for themselves and the rest of the nation's 270 million people, they need partners because they cannot afford to do it by themselves. This legislation recognizes that reality. While one can expect a great deal of controversy surrounding any comprehensive Clean Water effort, the consensus that has built around this approach is cause for great optimism that this legislation will be the vehicle to make significant additional progress in improving water quality. I congratulate members of the Coalition for producing and supporting this consensus legislation and I look forward to working with Senator Lincoln and my other Senate colleagues to move this legislation forward. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page summary of the bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to call to the attention of all colleagues that amendment No. 3018 is a REACH amendment. It is designed to put us on record as doubling the funding for community health centers over 5 years. These are the health facilities that reach the most poor and most needy. It is a bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Senator Hollings. I know it is cleared on both sides. I ask it be approved by voice vote.

Mr. BOND. I rise today to offer an amendment that addresses what is perhaps the biggest problem we face in health care--the fact that millions of Americans can't get health care when they need it. Part of this problem is cause by the fact that about 44 million Americans aren't covered by any type of health plan or health insurance. For obvious reasons, it can be difficult to get care if you don't have any insurance coverage. An equally serious part of the access problem is many people's simple inability to get in to see 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. And in too many urban and rural communities across the country, there just aren't enough doctors to go around. This while issue is a hot topic, and there have been a number of recent plans that address it. Some have made proposals that call for something close to a large, government takeover of our health care system--something that we soundly rejected in 1994. Others have proposed tax credits or other tax benefits to allow more people to buy into the existing market-based health care system. There are clearly many differences between all of these plans, but they all have one thing in common--it will be difficult or impossible for them to become law this year. Whether because of policy differences or political differences, they're just not likely to pass. So today I'm offering an amendment with strong bipartisan support-- based on what I call the REACH Initiative-- that begins to address the health care access problem, and which does have a chance to pass this year. There's no need to wait--we can start this year. This proposal builds on the crucial work that organizations known as community health centers do to provide care and ensure access for millions of Americans. Heath centers are private, nonprofit clinics that provide primary care and preventive health care services in medically underserved communities across the country. They exist in every State in hundreds of rural and urban communities. Overall, there are about 750 separate centers with more than 3,000 clinics nationwide. This year, health centers will provide basic care for about 11 million people every year, 4 million of whom are uninsured. The goal of this amendment and of the REACH Initiative is simple--to make sure that even more people have access to health care. We do this by calling for a doubling in funding for community health centers over a period of 5 years, including a 1-year increase of $150 million. This will ultimately allow up to 10 million more women, children, and others in need to receive care at health centers. If we are successful, we can practically double the number of uninsured and underinsured people that health centers care for. I am pleased that 15 other Senators have joined me as cosponsors of the REACH Initiative--the full 5-year plan. And I am ecstatic that 63 of my colleagues have agreed to join in a letter to support the $150 million increase in this coming year. Now, out of all the ways we can address health care access problems, why are health centers a good solution and a worthwhile target for additional funding? Building on an existing program that produces results. Too many health care proposals out there suggest huge--even revolutionary-- changes to our health system. While I realize that we have many problems, we must realize that many people are pleased with it despite the flaws. Instead of radical new proposals, I believe it make sense to build on an existing part of the system that's been proven to provide cost-effective, high-quality care. Health centers already play an essential role. It's amazing to me how few people realize just how important community health centers are in our existing health system. Think about this--health centers provide care to close to one out of every 20 Americans--11 million people overall. In addition, health centers provide care to one out of every 12 rural residents, one out of every 6 low-income children, and one of every 5 babies born to low-income families. Health centers truly target the health care access problem. By definition, health centers must be located in ``medically underserved'' communities--which simply means places where people have serious problems getting access to health care. So health centers attack the problem right at its source. Relatively cheap. Health centers can provide primary and preventive care for less than $1 dollar per person per day--about $350 per year. Even better, with the base federal grants, health centers are able to leverage additional private funding. This means that health centers can basically turn one federal dollar into several--all of which can be used to address the health care needs in these underserved communities. With an extra billion dollars a year--the goal of the REACH Initiative in its fifth year--health centers could be caring for an additional 10 million people. Not a government takeover of health care. While this amendment and the REACH Initiative call for some additional government spending, this is NOT a government takeover. Out of all the plans to address the health insurance and health access problem, the REACH Initiative is by far the least costly. Unlike many of the other plans, this new funding would not go to create a huge new bureaucracy. Instead, the REACH Initiative would invest additional funds into private organizations that have consistently proven themselves to be efficient, high-quality, and cost-effective health care providers. To me, all of these reasons point to one logical conclusion--a need for drastically increased funding for health centers. Health centers are already helping millions of Americans get health care. But they can still help millions more--pregnant women, children, and anyone else who desperately needs care. Simply put, we need to take the goal of this amendment and of the REACH Initiative--doubled funding for health centers within 5 years-- and make it happen. I thank my colleagues who have taken a leadership role in support of this issue--Senator Hollings; Senator Hutchinson; and Senator Stevens, who I am very pleased has joined as a cosponsor of this amendment. I join with these powerful voices and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. I ask my colleagues to adopt this on a voice vote. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my amendment 2913 to the budget resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that no Federal funds may be used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to subsidize or otherwise assist smoke shops or tobacco outlets. The amendment refers to those facilities or designated portions of facilities which focus almost exclusively on cigarette and other tobacco product sales. Free standing tobacco outlets funded by HUD in recent years devote nearly ninety percent of their in-store inventory to cigarettes and other tobacco products. Larger HUD-funded facilities containing designated tobacco stores still devote as much as eighty percent of their total in-store inventory to cigarettes or other tobacco products. These cigarette and tobacco stores stand in contrast to convenience, grocery and general discount stores where cigarette and tobacco products generally account for no more than thirty percent of total in-store sales volume. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Medical Association, American Cancer Society and American Academy of Pediatrics supported this amendment after agreement that HUD support of businesses that exist primarily to sell tobacco products is totally inconsistent with the Clinton Administration's efforts to curb youth smoking. The National Congress of American Indians agrees this amendment will treat Indian and non-Indian HUD grantees alike, and thus they also supported this amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment simply says the Department of HUD should stop using community development block grant funds to build discount cigarette stores known as smoke shops. A year ago, a doctor called up and said there was a new discount smoke shop in his neighborhood and it was funded by Federal dollars. I didn't know what the sign said, so I sent staff out. Here it is: Smoke Shop, Discount Tobacco. Our policy is supposed to discourage cigarette smoking. Inside, we found wall-to-wall cigarettes, 25 percent or more off. These are your tax dollars at work. Instead of funding what we could have funded, $4.2 million went to six of these in the last 3 years--instead of building a water tower or elders' wellness centers. I wrote to HUD and said stop funding them. The letter I got back from the assistant said: You haven't proven that discount cigarettes encourage smoking. Well, it is about time we taught HUD some common sense. The Secretary of Housing now says: If you tell me to stop funding it, if you stop me from funding them, I will stop. I urge colleagues to vote aye.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the amendment says we should not fund any discount smoke shops. It doesn't say Indians.

Mr. BOND. It does not.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. It is an honor to be on the floor to join with him and Senator from Virginia to make the point very strongly that suspension or repeal of the gas tax would be a grave error. Although all of us, as Senators, are aware of consumer complaints about the high gasoline prices we are facing in our States, we also should keep in mind that this is due primarily to factors other than the level of the gas tax, as the Senator from West Virginia has pointed out. Our declining production of petroleum and the constriction by OPEC of the supply of gasoline on the world markets is the most significant factor in determining the price at the pump. Cutting the tax would merely reduce the revenues available for improving highway safety without producing real savings that would be passed on to the consumers. Because of the imposition of tax at the refinery level, there is no assurance it would come to the gasoline purchaser, the automobile owner, or the truck or bus driver. The CRS has issued a report saying there might not be any appreciable evidence of a reduction in tax. The consumers would never see it. Who would see it would be those people who are committed to repairing and rebuilding our inadequate roads, bridges, and highways. In 1998, I worked hard with our friend and dear colleague, the late Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. John Chafee, on the Bond-Chafee guarantee that was incorporated into TEA-21 with the help of the Senators who spoke before me--Senator Domenici, Senator Byrd, and Senator Warner. That provision created for the first time a real guarantee that revenues collected and earmarked for the highway trust fund would, in fact, be used for transportation purposes. If we collect a dollar gas tax, that dollar must be credited to the highway trust fund. This guarantees that for the first time highway users will get the transportation benefits in return for the user fee they pay through the gas tax. We cannot have a guarantee if we continue to change the way the program is funded. To hold the trust fund harmless, supposedly by having money come from general revenue and projected surpluses, will put us back in the same sinking boat--more appropriately, crumbling highway--that we were in before. That position was one where off-budget or turnbacks were advocated. This amendment makes clear the budget resolution does not assume the reductions of any Federal gasoline tax. We need a Department of Energy that makes energy policy, not the EPA. The administration policy has been no policy. We can stop the raid on the highway funds, and we must not repeal or roll back the gasoline tax.

Mr. BOND. I would like 3 minutes.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2906

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Stoody, a detailee to the Committee on Small Business staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during pendency of S. Con. Res. 101.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Collins to offer a bill--the Medicare Home Health Payment Act--that will address the crisis in home health care. The crisis is that far too many seniors and individuals with disabilities can't get the home health care they need. They either go without needed care, or are forced into a medical facility such as a nursing home. This is a travesty, because home health can serve an extremely valuable role--it helps seniors get needed medical care while retaining the comfort and dignity of living in their own home. We have plenty of data that demonstrates the problem. Over 2,000 agencies driven out of business or out of the Medicare program. In Missouri alone, over 100 of the 300 agencies that were around in 1997 are gone. Independent studies that show that seniors and people with disabilities just can't get access to the home care they need--perhaps forcing them into nursing homes or other medical facilities. Reports that home health agencies feel forced to refuse to care for seniors because they fear the Medicare reimbursements won't cover their costs. Recent news from CBO that total Medicare home health spending has actually fallen by 45 percent in just two years--perhaps the largest reduction for a specific type of provider that we have ever seen in Medicare. Of course, last year I was also talking about the home health crisis--and Senator Collins and I had a bill to address the issue then as well. But I'm here to share bad news with my colleagues--Medicare home health is still in crisis. While we did address home health in the Balanced Budget Refinement Act late last year--which helped--it didn't solve everything. That's because all we did last year to the biggest threat that's out there for home health care providers--the 15-percent across-the-board cuts that are in addition to all of the other cuts made thus far--was postpone things. What we did not do--except for one minor provision--is increase home health reimbursement rates. Keep in mind that we did provide relief in the form of increased payments for most other Medicare providers, like hospitals and nursing facilities. So what we did is simply postpone further cuts in an already- devastated industry. That cannot be the end of the story. So what should we do? Senator Collins and I--in the bill we are introducing today with 34 of our colleagues--propose to eliminate permanently the planned 15-percent home health cuts forever. I think this initial show of support form my colleagues is tremendous--and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure this bill becomes law. The millions of Americans on Medicare--for whom the home health benefit is so important--deserve no less.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in the House, Congressmen Bliley and Oberstar and 42 other House Members, as well as Senators Landrieu, Craig, Jeffords, Lincoln, Johnson, Lieberman, Jeffords, Robb, Stevens, and Warner, in introducing a bill to reimburse all federal employees up to $2,000 for qualified expenses associated with the adoption of a child and for special-needs adoptions--the Federal Employees Adoption Assistance Act of 2000. Every year, couples who are unable to have children of their own spend literally thousands of dollars to adopt a child. Statistics show that approximately 2.1 million couples in the Unites States are infertile. One of the main reasons for this is because couples are waiting longer to start a family in order to focus on careers. Many seek treatment to conceive a child, but are unsuccessful. For them, their only hope of having a child of their own is through adoption. The adoption process demands an incredible amount of time and money and creates stress that can affect job performance. For this reason many private-sector businesses, such as Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Sprint, Prudential, Home Depot, and Freddie Mac, now provide financial assistance to employees adopting a child, thus increasing employee satisfaction, productivity, and loyalty and commitment to the employer. Unfortunately, the largest employer in the U.S.--the federal government--currently provides no financial assistance for adoption expenses to its employees. That is why I am introducing the Federal Employees Adoption Assistance Act. This legislation would allow federal agencies to reimburse employees up to $2,000 for all qualified expenses associated with the adoption of a child, including special-needs children. Any benefit paid by this legislation would come out of funds available for salaries and expenses of the relevant agencies. Currently, active-duty armed services personnel receive this adoption benefit, $2,000 per adoption; however, no other branch of the federal government covers this expense. A key aspect of adoption that is frequently overlooked, and that I have made sure is addressed in this legislation, is that of special- needs children. Recent estimates show there are currently around 110,000 special-needs children in foster care who are eligible for adoption. Many of these children have physical or mental disabilities and need extensive care and therapy. Another common situation is two or more siblings in need of a family willing to take on the responsibility of more than one child. Most of these children are currently in foster care waiting to find a permanent home and family of their own, and are less likely to be adopted than non-special-needs children. Often, couples who may already have children of their own are interested in opening their home and their hearts to adopt a child or children with special needs, but are hesitant to do so due to the costs involved. By providing an adoption reimbursement benefit, many couples already considering adopting special-needs children decide to go ahead with the process. The Federal Employees Adoption Assistance Act broadens the adoption benefits package to include the costs associated with special-needs adoptions. Mr. President, this is why I, along with numerous colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers, are introducing and advocating the passage of this legislation. Additionally, this bipartisan and bicameral bill has the endorsement of numerous adoption advocacy groups, including: Bethany Christian Services in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Covenant House, The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, The Edgewood Children's Center in St. Louis, Missouri, Family Voices, The National Adoption Center, The National Council for Adoption, The National Treasury Employees Union, and Voice for Adoption. As a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I believe we should provide incentives to make sure that more children find loving parents. I thank my colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Craig, Jeffords, Lincoln, Johnson, Lieberman, Jeffords, Robb, Stevens, and Warner, Congressmen Bliley and Oberstar, and the numerous other House and Senate sponsors, as well as the many adoption advocacy groups, for joining me in promoting adoption and supporting our civil servants by cosponsoring and endorsing this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that addresses an issue of growing concern to small businesses across the nation--tax accounting methods. And I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley. While this topic may lack the notoriety of some other tax issues currently in the spotlight like the estate tax or alternative minimum tax, it goes to the heart of a business' daily operations--reflecting its income and expenses. And because it is such a fundamental issue, one may ask: ``What's the big deal?'' Hasn't this been settled long ago?'' Regrettably, recent efforts by the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have muddied what many small business owners have long seen as a settled issue. To many small business owners, tax accounting simply means that they record cash receipts when they come in and the cash they pay when they write a check for a business expense. The difference is income, which is subject to taxes. In its simplest form, this is known as the ``cash receipts and disbursements'' method of accounting--or the ``cash method'' for short. It is easy to understand, it is simple to undertake in daily business operations, and for the vast majority of small enterprises, it matches their income with the related expenses in a given year. Coincidentally, it's also the method of accounting used by the Federal Government to keep track of the $1.7 trillion in tax revenues it collects each year as well as all of its expenditures for salaries and expenses, procurement, and the cost of various government programs. Unfortunately, the IRS has taken a different view in recent years with respect to small businesses on the cash method. In too many cases, the IRS contends that a small business should report its income when all events have occurred to establish the business' right to receipt and the amount can reasonably be determined. Similar principles are applied to determine when a business may recognize an expense. This method of accounting is known as ``accrual accounting.'' The reality of accrual accounting for a small business is that it may be deemed to have income well before the cash is actually received and an expense long after the cash is actually paid. As a result, accrual accounting can create taxable income for a small business that has yet to receive the cash necessary to pay the taxes. While the IRS argues that the accrual method of accounting produces a more accurate reflection of ``economic income,'' it also produces a major headache for small enterprise. Few entrepreneurs have the time or experience to undertake accrual accounting, which forces them to hire costly accountants and tax preparers. By some estimates, accounting fees can increase as much as 50% when accrual accounting is required, excluding the cost of high-tech computerized accounting systems that some businesses must install. For the brave few that try to handle the accounting on their own, the accrual method often leads to major mistakes, resulting in tax audits and additional costs for professional help to sort the whole mess out--not to mention the interest and penalties that the IRS may impose as a result of the mistake. To make matters even worse, the IRS recently began focusing on small service providers who use some merchandise in the performance of their service. In an e-mail sent to practitioners in my State of Missouri and in Kansas, the IRS' local district office took special aim at the construction industry asserting that ``[t]axpayers in the construction industry who are on the cash method of accounting may be using an improper method. The cash method is permissible only if materials are not an income producing factor.'' For these lucky service providers, the IRS now asserts that the use of merchandise requires the business to undertake an additional and even more onerous form of bookkeeping-- inventory accounting. Let's be clear about the kind of taxpayer at issue here. It's the home builder who by necessity must purchase wood, nails, dry wall, and host of other items to provide the service of constructing a house. Similarly, it's a painting contractor who will often purchase the paint when she renders the service of painting the interior of a house. These service providers generally purchase materials to undertake a specific project and at its end, little or no merchandise remains. They may even arrange for the products to be delivered directly to their client. In either case, the IRS insists that inventory accounting is now required. Mr. President, if we thought that accrual accounting is complicated and burdensome, imagining in having to keep track of all the boards, nails, and paint used in the home builder's and painter's jobs each year. And the IRS doesn't stop at inventory accounting for these service providers. Instead, they use it as the first step to imposing overall accrual accounting--a one-two punch for the small service provider when it comes to compliance burdens. Even more troubling is the cost of an audit for these unsuspecting service providers who have never known they were required to use inventories or accrual accounting. According to a survey of practitioners by the Padgett Business Services Foundation, audits of businesses on the issue of merchandise used in the performance of services resulted in tax deficiencies from $2,000 to $14,000, with an average of $7,200. That's a pretty steep price to pay for an accounting method error that the IRS has for years never enforced. In many cases, like retailing, inventory accounting makes sense. Purchasing or manufacturing products and subsequently selling them is the heart of a retail business, and keeping track of those products is a necessary reality. But for a service provider with incidental merchandise, like a roofing contractor, inventory accounting is nothing short of an unnecessary government-imposed compliance cost. The bill I'm introducing today, the Small Business Tax Accounting Simplification Act of 2000, addresses both of these issues. First, it establishes a clear threshold for when small businesses may use the cash method of accounting. Simply put, if a business has an average of $5 million in annual gross receipts or less during the preceding three years, it may use the cash method. Plain and simple--no complicated formula; no guessing if you made the right assumptions and arrived at the right answer. If the business exceeds the threshold, it may still seek to establish, as under current law, that the cash method clearly reflects its income. Some may argue that this provision is unnecessary because section 448(b) and (c) already provide a $5 million gross receipts test with respect to accrual accounting. That's a reasonable position since many in Congress back in 1986 intended section 448 to provide relief for small business taxpayers using the cash method. Unfortunately, the IRS has twisted this section to support its quest to force as many small businesses as possible into costly accrual accounting. The IRS construes section 448 as merely a $5 million ceiling above which a business can never use the cash method. My bill corrects this misinterpretation once and for all--if a business has average gross receipts of $5 million or less, it is free to use cash accounting. Second, for small service providers, the Small Business Tax Accounting Simplification Act, creates a straightforward threshold for inventory accounting. If the amount paid for merchandise by a small service provider is less than 50% of its gross receipts, based on its prior year's figures, no inventory accounting would be required. Above that level, the taxpayer would look more like a retail business and inventory accounting may make sense. These two thresholds set forth in my bill are common sense answers to an increasing burden for small businesses in this country. In addition, it sends a clear signal to the IRS: stop wasting scarce resources forcing small businesses to adopt complex and costly accounting methods when the benefit to the Treasury is simply a matter of timing. Whether a small business uses the cash or accrual method or inventory accounting or not, in the end, the government will still collect the same amount of taxes--maybe not all this year, but very likely early in the next year. What small business can go very long without collecting what it is owed or paying its bills? To date, the Treasury Department's answer has been to suggest a $1 million threshold under which a small business could escape accrual accounting and presumably inventories. While it is a step in the right direction, it simply doesn't go far enough. Even ignoring inflation, if a million dollar threshold were sufficient, why would Congress have tried to enact a $5 million threshold 14 years ago? My bill completes the job that the Treasury Department has been unable or unwilling to do. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today is substantially similar to the bill introduced in the other body by my good friend and fellow Missourian, Jim Talent (H.R. 2273). With the strong support he has built among his colleagues in the other chamber and in the small business community, I expect to continue the momentum in the Senate and achieve some much needed relief from unnecessary compliance burdens and costs for America's small businesses. The call for tax simplification has been growing increasingly loud in recent years, and the bill I offer today provides an excellent opportunity for us to advance the ball well down the field. This is not a partisan issue; it's a small business issue. And I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in this common sense legislation for the benefit of America's small enterprises, which contribute so greatly to this country's economic engine. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a copy of the bill and a description of its provisions.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in the House, Congressmen Bliley and Oberstar and 42 other House Members, as well as Senators Landrieu, Craig, Jeffords, Lincoln, Johnson, Lieberman, Jeffords, Robb, Stevens, and Warner, in introducing a bill to reimburse all federal employees up to $2,000 for qualified expenses associated with the adoption of a child and for special-needs adoptions--the Federal Employees Adoption Assistance Act of 2000. Every year, couples who are unable to have children of their own spend literally thousands of dollars to adopt a child. Statistics show that approximately 2.1 million couples in the Unites States are infertile. One of the main reasons for this is because couples are waiting longer to start a family in order to focus on careers. Many seek treatment to conceive a child, but are unsuccessful. For them, their only hope of having a child of their own is through adoption. The adoption process demands an incredible amount of time and money and creates stress that can affect job performance. For this reason many private-sector businesses, such as Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Sprint, Prudential, Home Depot, and Freddie Mac, now provide financial assistance to employees adopting a child, thus increasing employee satisfaction, productivity, and loyalty and commitment to the employer. Unfortunately, the largest employer in the U.S.--the federal government--currently provides no financial assistance for adoption expenses to its employees. That is why I am introducing the Federal Employees Adoption Assistance Act. This legislation would allow federal agencies to reimburse employees up to $2,000 for all qualified expenses associated with the adoption of a child, including special-needs children. Any benefit paid by this legislation would come out of funds available for salaries and expenses of the relevant agencies. Currently, active-duty armed services personnel receive this adoption benefit, $2,000 per adoption; however, no other branch of the federal government covers this expense. A key aspect of adoption that is frequently overlooked, and that I have made sure is addressed in this legislation, is that of special- needs children. Recent estimates show there are currently around 110,000 special-needs children in foster care who are eligible for adoption. Many of these children have physical or mental disabilities and need extensive care and therapy. Another common situation is two or more siblings in need of a family willing to take on the responsibility of more than one child. Most of these children are currently in foster care waiting to find a permanent home and family of their own, and are less likely to be adopted than non-special-needs children. Often, couples who may already have children of their own are interested in opening their home and their hearts to adopt a child or children with special needs, but are hesitant to do so due to the costs involved. By providing an adoption reimbursement benefit, many couples already considering adopting special-needs children decide to go ahead with the process. The Federal Employees Adoption Assistance Act broadens the adoption benefits package to include the costs associated with special-needs adoptions. Mr. President, this is why I, along with numerous colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers, are introducing and advocating the passage of this legislation. Additionally, this bipartisan and bicameral bill has the endorsement of numerous adoption advocacy groups, including: Bethany Christian Services in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Covenant House, The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, The Edgewood Children's Center in St. Louis, Missouri, Family Voices, The National Adoption Center, The National Council for Adoption, The National Treasury Employees Union, and Voice for Adoption. As a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I believe we should provide incentives to make sure that more children find loving parents. I thank my colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Craig, Jeffords, Lincoln, Johnson, Lieberman, Jeffords, Robb, Stevens, and Warner, Congressmen Bliley and Oberstar, and the numerous other House and Senate sponsors, as well as the many adoption advocacy groups, for joining me in promoting adoption and supporting our civil servants by cosponsoring and endorsing this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Swindling Small Businesses: Toner-Phoner Schemes and Other Office Supply Scams.'' The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen 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.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to extend my heartfelt sympathies to the family of 6-year-old Jake D. Robel of Blue Springs, Missouri. One week ago Jake died after being dragged for almost five miles at high speed by a man who had stolen Jake's mother's car in Independence, Missouri. Jake's mom had stopped at a sandwich shop to run in and pick up her order. She left her car running and Jake was waiting in the car. This town and area should be safe. Many would say tragedies like this one happen everywhere else, but not here. In this area, there are people who always leave their car doors unlocked and their keys in the ignition. Many leave their homes unlocked and have no idea where to find the house key. Unfortunately, that sense of security is now shattered. In those few moments it took Jake's mom to run into the sandwich shop, an assailant jumped in her vehicle and sped away. Jake, with his mother's help, tried to escape from the vehicle, but became entangled in the seat belt. In a heartbeat, the car door closed--with Jake tangled in the seat belt--being dragged behind. I can't imagine the loss felt by the family and friends of Jake Robel. However, I want to join with the countless families in Missouri and across the nation in sending my thoughts and prayers to those in grief. Mr. President, in addition, it is important to recognize the bravery, heroism, and citizenship of those that tried to come to Jake's rescue. The man who stole the car took off on Interstate 70 at high speed. All along the way, people honked and shouted from their cars for him to stop. The driver was stopped and apprehended, not by the police, but by approximately four gentlemen who managed to surround the vehicle after the man left I-70 and turned onto a busy street in Independence, Missouri. The man tried to escape on foot, but was stopped by these heroes who tied his feet together and sat on him until the police arrived. These men acted swiftly and responsibly. Once again, Mr. President, my thoughts and prayers go out to the family of Jake Robel as well as to all those who witnessed such a tragedy. I also want to recognize the gentlemen who apprehended the driver. These honorable citizens have shown us first-hand that heroes do exist.