Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about one of the hot topics in the world of health care--health care access. Many people see this as the biggest problem in health care today. Part of the problem, and the part that has received the most attention, is that too many Americans lack health insurance--about 44 million Americans are not covered by any type of health plan. But an equally serious part of the problem is many people's simple inability 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 cannot get in to see a pediatrician or another health care provider. And in too many urban and rural communities across the country, there just are not enough doctors to go around. Several plans have been proposed recently on how to deal with the health care access problem. Senator Bradley has a plan. The Vice President has one. There's also a bipartisan proposal for tax credits to help people buy health insurance. All of these plans have at least three things in common: First, they all address a worthwhile goal. I think we all want to see that people have access to good health care, even if we might disagree on how to get there. Second, they are all very ambitious. Senator Bradley in fact is basically proposing to use close to the entire $1 trillion surplus to provide people with health insurance. The third thing these plans have in common--and perhaps the most important thing--is that it will be difficult or impossible for them to become law this year. Whether because of policy differences or political differences, it is just not likely that they will pass. So last week, we launched a bipartisan effort--along with Senators Hollings, Cochran, Lincoln, Hatch, Hutchinson of Arkansas, I and other Senators--called the REACH Initiative, that does have a chance this year. There is no need to wait for an election, we can do it now. Our proposal builds on the crucial work that organizations known as community health centers have been doing to ensure better access to health care. Health centers are private nonprofit clinics that provide primary care and preventive health care services in medically- underserved urban and rural communities across the country. Partially with the help of Federal grants, health centers provide basic care for about 11 million people every year, 4 million of whom are uninsured. The goal of the REACH Initiative is simple--to make sure more people have access to health care. We plan to achieve this by doubling Federal funding for community health centers over a period of 5 years. We believe this will allow up to 10 million more women, children, and others in need to receive care at health centers. If we are successful with the REACH Initiative, we can practically double the number of uninsured and underinsured people cared for at health centers. I am pleased that 12 colleagues--led by my good friend from South Carolina, Senator Hollings--have joined me to introduce this resolution calling for doubled health center funding over 5 years. The REACH Initiative basically recognizes the key contributions that community health centers have already made in addressing the health care access problems. But there is so much more that can still be one. 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? No. 1, they are building on an existing program that produces results. Too many health care proposals want to start practically from scratch, and make breathtakingly revolutionary changes. When I look at the health system and its admittedly huge problems, I sometimes think that might not be a bad idea. But it is also extremely risky. We need to remember that despite the many flaws in our health system, many people are pleased with it. We should be wary about making too radical changes that could interfere with what is right in our system. Instead, we can expand an existing part of the system that has been proven to provide cost-effective, high-quality care. No. 2, health centers play a crucial role in health care, and are vastly underappreciated. It is amazing to me how few people know what community health centers are. After all, health centers care for close to one out of every 20 Americans, 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. No. 3, 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. Unlike other health care proposals, the REACH Initiative does not create problems of ``crowding out'' private insurance by replacing private dollars spent on health insurance with Federal dollars. The health centers are partially funded by those patients who do have health insurance. No. 4, they are relatively cheap. Health centers can provide primary and preventive care for one person for less than $1 per day--about $350 per year. That's just about the best value you will ever see in health care. Even better, health centers are able to leverage each grant dollar from the Federal Government into additional funding from other sources--meaning they can effectively turn one grant dollar into several dollars that can be used to address health care problems. 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. No. 5, this initiative is not a government takeover of health care. Admittedly, our plan calls for more government spending. This is of course true for most plans that try to deal with health access problems. But 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 must reach the goal of the REACH initiative--doubled funding for health care centers within 5 years--and we can and should make it happen. Let me close with what this means in human terms. The REACH initiative will help make sure that a young woman who has just found out she is pregnant but does not have health insurance has a place to get prenatal care so she does not risk her health and the baby's health by waiting until late in the pregnancy. The REACH initiative will help make sure that a 6-year-old boy who is living in a deep rural Missouri community, a community that otherwise would not have any health care providers at all, has a place to get regular checkups so he can stay healthy at home and in school. The REACH initiative will help make sure a young couple without anyplace to go will be able to get their infant daughter immunized to protect her from a variety of dreaded diseases. The REACH initiative will make sure Americans like Denise Hall, a Washington, DC, resident, and her children have a place to get needed care. Denise joined us for our announcement last week and talked about her reliance on health care centers. The REACH initiative will make sure she and her children have a place to get needed care. Denise, at our press conference kicking off the REACH initiative, said she is an out-of-work mother of two who is working to improve her job skills so she can rejoin the workforce. But for the moment, she and her children simply have nowhere to go for health care needs other than a local community health center. These Americans, and millions like them, are the reasons why we must make the REACH initiative--doubled funding for community health centers--become a reality. I invite my colleagues to join me and 12 others who cosponsored this resolution, and 29 distinguished health care organizations, in support of the REACH initiative. If we work together, we can make a difference and serve those who are in the greatest need of access to health care and who, without community health centers, will not have that access. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the hot topic in the world of health care--health care access. Many people see this as the biggest problem in health care today. Part of the problem, and the part that has received the most attention, is that too many Americans lack health insurance--about 44 million Americans aren't covered by any type of health plan. But an equally serious part of the problem is many people's simple inability 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 another health care provider. And in too many urban and rural communities across the country, there just aren't enough doctors to go around. Several plans have been proposed recently on how to deal with the health care access problem. Senator Bradley has a plan. The Vice President has one. There's also a bipartisan proposal for tax credits to help people buy health insurance. All of these plans have at least 3 things in common. First, they all address a worthwhile goal. I think we all want to see that people have access to good health care, even if we might disagree on how to get there. Second, they're all very ambitious. Senator Bradley in fact is basically proposing to use close to the entire $1 trillion surplus to provide people with health insurance. The third thing these plans have in common--and perhaps the most important thing--is that they probably have little chance of becoming law this year. Whether because of policy differences or political differences, it's just not likely that they will pass. So today, we're launching a bipartisan effort--called the REACH Initiative--that does have a chance this year. There's no need to wait for an election--we can do it now. Our proposal builds on the crucial work that organizations known as community health centers have been doing to ensure better access to health care. Health centers are private nonprofit clinics that provide primary care and preventive health care services in medically- underserved urban and rural communities across the country. Partially with the help of federal grants, health centers provide basic care for about 11 million people every year, 4 million of whom are uninsured. The goal of the REACH Initiative is simple--to make sure more people have access to health care. We plan to achieve this by doubling federal funding for community health centers over a period of five years. We believe this will allow up to 10 million more women, children, and others in need to receive care at health centers. If we are successful with the REACH Initiative, we can practically double the number of uninsured and underinsured people that health centers care for. The REACH Initiative basically recognizes the key contributions that community health centers have already made in addressing the health care access problems. But there is so much more that can still be done. 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? 1. Health centers are an existing program that produces results. Too many health care proposals want to practically start from scratch, and make breathtakingly revolutionary changes. When I look at the health system and its admittedly huge problems, I sometimes think that might not be a bad idea. But it's also extremely risky. We need to remember that despite the many flaws in our health system, many people are pleased with it. We should be wary about making too radical changes that could interfere with what's right in our system. Instead, we can expand an existing part of the system that's been proven to provide cost-effective, high-quality care. 2. Health centers play a crucial role in health care, and are vastly underappreciated. It's amazing to me how few people are aware of the types of services community health centers provide, and just how prominent they are in health care. After all, health centers care for close to one out of very 20 Americans, 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. 3. 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 this source. Unlike other health care proposals, the REACH Initiative doesn't create problems of ``crowding out'' private insurance by replacing private dollars spent on health insurance with federal dollars. 4. Health centers are relatively cheap. Health centers can provide primary and preventive care for one person for less than $1 dollar per day--about $350 per year. Even better, health centers are able to leverage each grant dollar from the federal government into additional funding from other sources--meaning they can effectively turn one grant dollar into several dollars that can be used to address health care problems. 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. 5. Expanding health center access would not be a government takeover of health care. New funding within the REACH Initiative. But this new funding would not go to create a huge new government bureaucracy. Instead, the REACH Initiative would invest additional funds in 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. At the start of my remarks, I said that we were here to talk about and address the problem of health care access--but that's sort of a cold way to talk about it. So let me try again, but this time in human terms. We're here to introduce the REACH Initiative to make sure that a young woman who has just found out she's pregnant--but who doesn't have health insurance--has a place to get prenatal care so she doesn't risk her health and her baby's health by waiting until late in the pregnancy. We're here to introduce the REACH Initiative to make sure that a 6- year-old boy living in a heavily rural Missouri community--where there wouldn't otherwise be any health care providers at all--has a place to get regular checkups so he can stay health at home and in school. We're here to make sure that a young couple without anywhere else to go has a place to get their infant daughter immunized to protect her from a variety of dreaded diseases. These individuals, and millions more like them, are the reasons why we must make the goal of the REACH Initiative--doubled funding for community health centers--a reality.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Dr. Richard Harriman. Dr. Harriman has been an integral part of the Fine Arts program at William Jewell College and on February 25, 2000, the Fine Arts program will be named for him. Among his many accomplishments, Dr. Harriman presented the world professional recital debut by the world renowned Luciano Pavarotti in 1973. Dr. Harriman has also presented other artists such as Isaac Stern, Itzhak Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma. The Fine Arts program at William Jewell Incorporates an Education Series that offers free masters classes, workshops and discussions allowing Jewell students and community members to view artists in a less formal setting. Furthermore, the program was named in Peterson's Smart Parents Guide to College as an example of how small colleges can become centers of culture for an entire region. Mr. President, Dr. Harriman has been a tremendous asset to William Jewell College and, indeed, the entire Kansas City area. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating him on this most distinguished honor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sadness at the news of the passing of one of the finest defensive football players ever, Derrick Thomas. Derrick Thomas had a stellar 11 year career, all of which was spent with the Kansas City Chiefs. Among his numerous NFL achievements are 9 Pro Bowl appearances, 119.5 sacks, 3 safeties, and 28 fumble recoveries; all of which are K.C. records. In 1990, Derrick had 20 sacks in one season, setting a K.C. single season record. When Derrick was just 5 years old, his father was shot down over Vietnam on December 17, 1972. He was returning from a mission called ``Operation Linebacker Two.'' As you can imagine, this had a tremendous impact on young Derrick. Eighteen years later, Derrick was the most dominant linebacker in the National Football League. His most impressive performance came against the Seattle Seahawks when he made a NFL record 7 sacks in one game. As fate would have it, that game was on Veteran's Day. Mr. President, while he certainly made an impact on the quarterbacks that played against him, he made a much larger impact in the lives of those he touched through his philanthropic efforts. During his career he received the League's two most prestigious humanitarian awards. In 1993 he was the youngest man to ever win the NFL Man of the Year and in 1995 he won the Byron ``Whizzer'' White Humanitarian Award for service to team, community and country. The Humanitarian Award is the most prestigious award given by the NFL Players Association. In 1993 he delivered the keynote address at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial during the annual Memorial Day ceremony. By delivering the Keynote address, he joined the ranks of other great Americans such as Bob Hope and General Colin Powell. Derrick said addressing those who served with his father was one of his greatest honors. By far, his greatest contribution was founding the Third and Long Foundation. The foundation's goal is to help inner-city children by ``sacking illiteracy.'' As part of the program, Derrick would read to children at local libraries each home Saturday during the season. President Bush designated Derrick as the 832nd point of light for his work with the foundation. Derrick said once that he didn't want to be remembered or rewarded for what he did in football, but that if he helped one child become a success, that is all he needed. Derrick has been and will continue to be a force in the lives of many children through the work of his foundation. Derrick Thomas was truly a humanitarian, philanthropist and hero, not only to Kansas City, but to many around the country. His life was tragically cut short at the age of 33, but his influence will continue to make America better for the youth of this country for many years to come. Thank you, Derrick.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request for the Small Business Administration.'' The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 24, 2000, beginning at 9 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a couple that has had a tremendous impact on my hometown of Mexico, Missouri; my good friends Stephen and Laura Erdel. Mr. President, these two have served the community in a variety of roles and on January 22 they were the recipients of the Mexico Area Chamber of Commerce 1999 Community Service Award. Steve has served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Handishop, Inc. the Handi-Shop Endowment Fund, the Mexico Rotary Club, The Mexico Country Club, The Arthur Center Advisory Board, Mexico/ Audrain County Community Development, Enterprise Development Corporation, Audrain Medical Center Charitable Foundation, the Advanced Technology Center Foundation, the Westminister College Board of Trustees, Missouri Military Academy, the Alan Woods Scholarship Foundation, the Roy Creasey Scholarship Foundation and the Ross D. Ferris Scholarship. He has served as president of the Mexico Area Chamber of Commerce and as vice president of Economic Development. He was also president of the following organizations: Handishop, Inc., Mexico Country Club, Arthur Center Advisory Board and as chairman of the Audrain Medical Center Charitable Foundation, the Advanced Technology Center Foundation and as their fund-raising chairman. He is currently on the Westminster College Executive Committee. Mr. President, Laura Erdel also has an outstanding record of community service. Laura served as a member of the Mexico Board of Education for 6\1/2\ years. In 1996 she was the first woman to be elected president of the school board. She was vice president of the board for four years and is certified by the Missouri School Board Association. For seven years she also served as a weekly volunteer at Eugene Field School. Laura was co-founder of the A+ for Mexico Education, Inc. and president for two years. She has served as a board member of the Methodist Pre-school and on various committees of the Eugene Field PTO, Mexico Junior High School PTA, and Mexico High School PTA. As a member of the White family, long-time publishers of the Mexico Ledger, Laura has supported the Audrain Historical Society as publicity chairman for five years, ans was co-chairman of the Audrain County Fair in 1990. She is currently a member of the Presser Hall Restoration Society and has served on their board of directors. She has been a strong supporter of the YMCA as a board member and has worked on numerous fund drives. Laura is a former member of the Mexico Women's Club, a past president of the Wednesday Club and served as president of P.E.O. Chapter MB from 1989 to 1991 and again in 1998-99. Furthermore, Laura was also the physician recruiter for Audrain Medical Center for ten years and has been a freelance reporter for the Mid-Missouri Business Journal. Mr. President, it is people like this, who are willing to serve, that make our communities better places to live. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognition of Steve and Laura Erdel, who serve as an example to us all.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, On January 30th, the St. Louis Rams faced the Tennessee Titans in one of the most spectacular Super Bowls ever. Both teams played valiantly, and in the end, the Rams were triumphant. The Rams' victory in Super Bowl XXXIV was the only fitting ending for a season that one expects to find in a movie script. From day one, the Rams' motto was ``Gotta Go To Work.'' Embracing that attitude, the Rams posted one of the best seasons ever. Quarterback Kurt Warner, the regular season and Super Bowl MVP, came from bagging groceries and playing in the arena football league to lead his team to the most coveted prize in football. He became only the second man ever to throw 40 or more touchdown passes in one season. Runningback Marshall Faulk set a new record for total yards from scrimmage. The offense scored 526 points, the third highest total ever. Head Coach Dick Vermeil was named the NFL's coach of the year. Six Rams were chosen to start in the Pro Bowl. The team's defense was top rated in the NFL against the run. Perhaps even more impressive than the Rams' regular season was their performance in the Super Bowl. The Rams, living their slogan ``Gotta Go To Work,'' played like a team possessed. Warner set a new Super Bowl record with 414 yards passing. Wide receiver Isaac Bruce caught a 73- yard touchdown pass. Wide receiver Torry Holt set a rookie record with 7 catches for 109 yards--and a touchdown. The defense, led by defensive end Kevin Carter and linebacker London Fletcher, never yielded for a moment. When their backs were up against the wall, linebacker Mike Jones heroically tackled the Tennessee Titan's wide receiver Kevin Dyson to seal the victory. My congratulations go out to the Rams players, the coaching staff, and the loyal St. Louis fans, who have supported the Rams in anticipation of this moment. The spirit of the St. Louis Rams provides an example for St. Louis, and all of America, of how to live and work. I commend Kurt Warner, Isaac Bruce, Mike Jones and all of the Rams for the sense of unity and pride they have brought to St. Louis.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the passing of a wonderful woman and a great American. On the 21st of January, at the age of 101, Mrs. Jean MacArthur passed away at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. In 1988, President Reagan recognized her contribution to America by presenting her the Presidential Medal of Freedom. As you know, the Medal of Freedom is the highest award our country can give to a civilian. The citation for the award recognized that ``Jean MacArthur has witnessed the great cataclysms of our time, survived war and peace, conquered tragedy and known triumph.'' President Reagan also referred to her as ``a shining example, a woman of substance and character, a loyal wife and mother, and like her General, a patriot.'' The General and Mrs. MacArthur were married in 1937. Mrs. MacArthur remained devoted to her husband until his death in 1964. Her devotion to him was not only emotional, but involved a great deal of physical sacrifice. You see, Mr. President, Mrs. MacArthur lived with the General in Manila until they were forced to retreat to Corregidor by the Japanese. While on Corregidor, she endured daily air attacks while raising their 4 year old son, Arthur. Furthermore, when it was obvious the Japanese would take the Philippines, the president of the Philippines offered passage for her and her son to Australia. She replied: ``We have drunk from the same cup; we three shall stay together.'' She then continued to stay with her husband in the field until General MacArthur finally accepted the surrender of the Japanese in Japan. After the death of General MacArthur, Mrs. MacArthur lived out her life in New York where she remained active in philanthropic activities. She even served as the honorary chairman of the MacArthur Foundation, which was created in honor of her husband. The spouses of our Americans in uniform seldom receive the recognition they deserve for their contribution to the valor, patriotism, and loyalty of our fighting forces. Her contribution to America cannot be quantified, but it must not be forgotten. It's no wonder that General MacArthur often introduced her as ``my finest soldier.'' Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to this outstanding woman and her sterling contribution to America.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee for giving me the opportunity to make these remarks. I hope our colleagues are listening to his remarks. As a former economics professor, he has been able to bring to common terms, in understandable language, the message that is so important in economics. I have stayed awake longer listening to his treatises on economics than I have on most of the ones I had in school. While the record is not perfect, at least it is better. We appreciate his kind words. I also thank my colleague from Iowa for permitting me to make these remarks. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the nomination of Alan Greenspan for his fourth term as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. As has just been said, since Chairman Greenspan was originally appointed in 1987, his wise stewardship of the monetary policy of this country has in no small part contributed to the best economic times in our country's history. Yesterday we reached a milestone of economic expansion. Our country has a record 107 consecutive months of economic growth. At no other time in our history have we experienced uninterrupted economic growth that has lasted this long. Moreover, it does not appear that this growth is slowing. Unemployment is at record lows. Consumer confidence is at record highs. Inflation, the unfortunate byproduct of expansion in the past, has been kept under control. Some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have raised questions about the way Chairman Greenspan and the Federal Reserve have conducted their business. Make no mistake--it is an arcane science. Maybe it is an art. I am never sure whether it is an art or a science. Make no mistake about the fact that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Board itself have tremendous power in this economy. It can cause inflation or it can foster low inflation. It can promote sound economic growth or it can cause a depression. As tough as that job is-- and probably none of us here in this body would fully understand it-- fortunately, we have a means of judging the success of the work that is done by the Chairman and by the Federal Reserve. In no place can I think of a better application for the admonition that you shall be judged by your works or, as we say at home in Missouri and in the country: Show me. Don't tell me what you are going to do; show me what you have done. Under that test, Alan Greenspan has received the highest marks. When you look at what has happened, more people are working. More people can buy homes. More people can keep their jobs. And they can see that their savings are not eroded by inflation. It was only about 20 years ago we saw inflation destroying savings and driving the price of homes out of reach of almost every American--a tremendous crisis--because monetary policy had gotten out of control. Today we see monetary policy under control; we see growth; we see opportunity. All American citizens stand to benefit from this growth, and I think they owe a debt of gratitude to the dedicated public service of Chairman Greenspan. Many economists did not believe low unemployment and low inflation could exist for a significant period of time. Indeed, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have cited the fact that even Chairman Greenspan has learned as he has gone along. As he stated in his remarks, he has seen that there is a new paradigm. There is a new operation in effect. Times have changed, and we are learning more about economics. But as we learn more about them and how monetary policy affects our country, the Chairman's firm hand on the rudder of economic policy has been responsible for keeping us on the straight and steady course. He wisely steered America clear of the potential harm that may have resulted from the Asian financial crisis and, as the chairman of the Banking Committee said, the other crises back through the savings and loan debacle. In addition, he has provided unwavering support for fiscally conservative budgetary policy and has been of enormous assistance to this body. He explained to us even recently, as he probably well needed to, the necessity of continuing to link sound monetary and sound fiscal policy. I believe if you translate what he said in his speech, it was: Don't blow the surplus on big spending programs. That is an important message for us. As we look to the future, we see that the near-term economic future of this country looks promising. There are clearly--and we all recognize it--dangers to our prosperity that will likely arise, including inflation fears, increasing labor costs, dampening market problems, and structural problems in the economy. But Chairman Greenspan's thoughtful leadership over the last 12 years will serve us well in the coming years. I am very proud to add my name in support of Alan Greenspan for another term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I congratulate and I thank President Clinton for nominating him because I think not only we as a country are grateful that he has agreed to accept a fourth term but we will all benefit from his service in that term. I urge all of my colleagues to support his nomination. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill. I rise today because I feel very strongly about what we are considering. Today we in the Congress are being asked to consider our first statement on Indonesia since the country's elections last fall. Everyone is familiar with it. Everyone has watched CNN and watched the bloodshed and horror that occurred in East Timor and other places in Indonesia. That was prior to the Indonesian elections, and it had taken place under a severely weakened and ineffective leader. Last fall, the Parliament completed the first election cycle that was truly free in the country's history by electing a new President, President Abdurrahman Wahid. I just returned from Indonesia, where I not only met with President Wahid but the Vice President, the Foreign Minister, the Speaker, and the Head of Parliament. I met with Indonesian citizens, Americans living over there, and most important of all, I met with our very astute and very able Ambassador, Bob Gelbard, and the staff we have in Indonesia to help us formulate policy with respect to that country. Unfortunately, our press, which gave us a lot of information about East Timor, has not paid much attention to the free elections. It has paid little attention to the work of the new Government and its efforts to lead a transition to democracy. This is truly a time of rapid change in Indonesia, and it is a time of great challenge for Indonesian leadership and others in the world who support democracy, freedom, human rights, civilian control of the military, and religious tolerance for all people. Regretfully, some Members of this body seem determined to stay in the past. Things are moving in the right direction, and it is time, in my view, for the United States to support the new Government, to work to make sure that this Government succeeds, and that the noble objectives we support are carried out. President Wahid's job in this situation could not be more difficult. He has to bring democracy and a better standard of living to people who were living under a totalitarian government in a situation that bordered on chaos. He has to bring under control the ethnic and religious conflicts that are breaking out all over the country. Perhaps most difficult of all, he has to overcome the well-entrenched and powerful interests that want him to fail, that would be delighted to bring the country straight back into chaos. From everything I saw, and from what our distinguished Ambassador and his staff tell us, President Wahid has not disappointed. He wakes up every day and makes bold and courageous decisions and he doesn't bother to take polls on what people want. He is simply concerned about moving his country in the right direction. I hope we will have the opportunity to welcome President Wahid to Washington, DC, and to give him an opportunity to address the Congress to talk about the challenges he faces and his commitment to the American ideals of democracy, freedom, human rights, and cleaning up corruption in all areas of government and private sector activity. In a very short time, the changes in Indonesia have been marked and profound. On the issues the sponsors of this amendment are concerned about, President Wahid has agreed to work with the U.N. Security Council to track down and bring to justice those who were responsible for the bloodshed in East Timor. The Indonesian Government, as has been noted already, has impaneled their own commission to investigate what took place in East Timor and bring those to justice. The panel has identified six high-ranking military officers. The President has indicated they will all be removed from the military and has given every indication they will be brought to justice. When the spokesman for the military said the military should not be subject to the control of the civilian-elected Government, the President moved and cut him off. We in Congress cannot continue to put our heads in the sand with these monumental changes going forward. Even the European Union recognizes the tremendous progress President Wahid and his Government are making. The E.U. has lifted the ban on certain arms sales. They pledged to begin military training. I regret to tell you the situation in Indonesia and East Timor is not as simple as some of my colleagues would have you believe. Secretary Cohen traveled there and laid out what we expect of the new Government. The Government has complied, but in the interim we have cut off our ability to have any positive influence by ending military to military contact. I say let's listen to our former colleague, now Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, who is well informed about what is going on in that area. I suggest we listen to the people in our State Department--a State Department run by the party of my colleagues who have introduced this resolution--and ask them what we can do to help move the Government, move the cause of democracy and freedom, in the right direction. At a time such as this, we should be sending to the people of Indonesia a loud message, and a clear message, that we support their efforts to achieve democracy and we will support the new Government in its efforts to bring democracy to its 210 million people. The resolution, as I have just seen it, as I quickly calculate, dedicates 14 lines to congratulating the people of Indonesia and encouraging the Government of this country to work with the struggling democracy and then dedicates several pages to those things we as a government should be denying the Indonesian Government. Here is a country emerging from all the problems of the past. They need a hand up, not another bucket of water dumped on their heads. Secretary Cohen delivered a clear message during his trip to the country that it was time for military reform. The Indonesian people responded. Today, the Indonesian military is under civilian control. In a clear move to curb the power of the army, the position of commander in chief has been given to an admiral in the Indonesian Navy, considered to be the most progressive and professional of the military branches. Under pressure from Secretary Cohen, the military vacated East Timor. There have been positive reports coming in that the military has been cooperating with the international community. Some members are working actively to frustrate the efforts of pro-Jakarta militias to conduct any further raids on refugees or East Timor towns. On the human rights front, a new attorney general has been selected. Our State Department has great confidence in his commitment to the rule of law and protection of human rights. The Indonesian Government has also created a new position within the Government, the State Commission on Human Rights, a position that has been filled by a former political prisoner from Aceh. These are not insignificant steps. In fact, they are enormous steps that show the tremendous effort on the part of the new Government and the people of Indonesia. The outcome of the election could have been very different. It was not. There was no mass violence in the streets, and there was no military coup. The result was democracy in action. The bottom line is the Indonesians have been doing everything we asked them to do. Now, with this proposed resolution, we are being urged not to offer congratulations, not to extend a helping hand but, rather, to poke a sharp stick in their eye. This resolution endorses a cutoff of military-to-military contact, education, and military assistance. But the administration promptly cut off assistance and contact after the violence broke out. The Department of Defense and our Department of State can be a very positive force for reform, but this amendment would propose to limit their ability to do so. The violence happened under a different government with a weak president. Make no mistake about it, this resolution will be looked upon by the Indonesian people as a repudiation of the direction they have chosen and of the work of their democratically elected President and Vice President. It will be taken as a clear sign that the United States is not interested in being a positive force for change. I urge--I beg my colleagues to stay involved and to pay attention because this is a vitally important part of the world. When I was in Southeast Asia 9 months ago, when I asked in one country or another how things were going, everybody would say: We are doing well, but we are worried about Indonesia. We ought to be worried about Indonesia because they are the fourth largest country in the world. They have an opportunity to join the list of countries that are democracies, that are committed to human rights and freedom. They deserve to be part of the enlightened leadership of the world. It is time we provided support to that effort. It is vital the United States continue to support the development of democracy and of civilian control of the military. We need to begin the process of engagement, to provide their military with the assistance and training they need to ensure that the functions of security are carried out effectively and properly. Our government has pressured the Indonesian government to restrain the military and make reforms. Now the situation is getting out of control. The military has lost its ability to respond to regional outbreaks of violence. Rather than being an impediment to progress, we ought to be in there helping them to reestablish the rule of law and order and peace and security for all people and all religious groups in Indonesia. We have a tough battle ahead. There have been atrocities that are mind boggling. I join with the sponsors of the resolution who understand how terrible these depredations were. But times are changing. We need to be a positive force, to encourage those changes, to keep them on the right track, and not punish a government that is trying to move in the direction we laid out for them. Mr. President, I am sure we will visit this issue again. In the meantime, I urge all my colleagues to seek counsel from our own State Department, our own Department of Defense. This Democratic administration has excellent people who are well aware of what is going on there. Let's find out from them what is happening and what we can do to be a positive force. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will listen to them so we can be positive in our efforts and in our results. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and my colleagues.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, as we move into this next century, we face a great opportunity and great challenge. We need only to look backward to help contemplate the immense change and innovation that is in front of us. While positive change is to the long-term benefit of all, it typically results in short-term difficulties, anxiety, and fear for some. How we cope with those difficulties defines our vision and tests our courage. In the last century we saw the industrial age and the computer age. We experienced fits of fear regarding everything from aviation, penicillin, industrialization, computerization and most recently, the non-calamity, fortunately, known as Y2K. Remarkably, plant technology in this half-century has helped make it possible for the U.S. farmer, who in 1940 fed 19 people, to fee 129 today. Meanwhile, worldwide population grows and farmland shrinks, Policymakers, farmers, doctors, business leaders, scientists, and others look ahead and search for critical tools to meet the increasing demands of a growing and changing world. Nobel prizewinning chemist Robert F. Curl of Rice University said that ``it is clear that the 21st will be the century of biology.'' Scientists, medical doctors, Government officials, farmers, and others have testified before the Congress and elsewhere to the benefits of this new generation of technology, which may offer the sustainable production of safer amd more abundant food sources, new vaccines and medicines, as well as biodegradable plastics and cleaner energy alternatives. Senator Mack hosted a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee in September entitled ``Putting a Human Face on Biotechnology'' where Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong testified about his personal experience using biotechnology and will to overcome cancer. Senators Lugar and Harkin held 2 days of hearings in October with a diverse number of distinguished witnesses to discuss the science and regulation of biotechnology. Bipartisan members including Senators Kerry, Durbin, Hagel, Craig, Frist, Conrad, Lugar, Gorton, Grassley, Ashcroft, Robb, Burns, Grams, Gordon Smith, Baucus, Helms, Hutchison, Roberts, Bayh, Brownback, Crapo, and Coverdell have joined me in expressing to the President our bipartisan commitment to biotechnology. We urge the administration and the State Department to be firm in their negotiations in Montreal, to say that the phyto sanitary agreements are adequate in all we need to regulate biotechnology. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee which funds public research activities at the National Science Foundation, I have worked with my partner, Senator Mikulski, to win congressional approval of $150 million in the last 3 years for the Plant Genome Initiative at the National Science Foundation to study the structure, organization, and function of genomes of significant plants important to improving human health and the environment. Recently, I received a letter signed by over 500 scientists revealing the exceptionally strong scientific consensus endorsing biotechnology. These are public- and private-sector scientists, the majority of whom are from academic institutions representing nearly every State, a number of foreign countries, the National Academy of Sciences, private foundations, Federal research agencies, and our National Labs. Here is some of what they told me about biotechnology: The ultimate beneficiaries of technological innovation have always been consumers, both in the United States and abroad. In developing countries, biotechnological advances will provide means to overcome vitamin deficiencies, to supply vaccines for killer diseases like cholera and malaria, to increase production and protect fragile natural resources, and to grow crops under normally unfavorable conditions. They continued: We recognize that no technology is without risks. At the same time, we have confidence in the current U.S. regulatory system provided by the USDA, EPA, and FDA. The U.S. system has worked well and continues to evolve as scientific advancements are achieved. They strongly endorse the U.S. regulatory multiagency approval system, which they say works well. The American Medical Association is supportive also. In policy H- 480.985, ``Biotechnology and the American Agricultural Industry'' they say the following: It is the policy of the AMA to (1) endorse or implement programs that will convince the public and government officials that genetic manipulation is not inherently hazardous and that the health and economic benefits of recombinant DNA technology greatly exceed any risk posed to society; (2) where necessary, urge Congress and federal regulatory agencies to develop appropriate guidelines which will not impede the progress of agricultural biotechnology, yet will ensure that adequate safety precautions are enforced; (3) encourage and assist state medical societies to coordinate programs which will educate physicians in recombinant DNA technology as it applies to public health, such that the physician may respond to patient query and concern; (4) encourage physicians, through their state medical societies, to be public spokespersons for those agricultural biotechnologies that will benefit public health; and (5) actively participate in the development of national programs to educate the public about the benefits of agricultural biotechnology. Remarkably, however, we find ourselves at a crossroads as a strange mixture of forces endeavor not to ensure that biotechnology is safe-- which is and should be our collective purpose--but to discredit and eliminate biotechnology. Opposition has been motivated variously by protectionist sentiment, by political intimidation, by competing business, and by scientifically unsubstantiated fear of technology. Activists and protectionists in Europe have conspired with a level of success that is stunning. Their goal is to stroke fear and use intimidation to frustrate and undermine biotechnology. Just this week, it was reported by the Detroit News that: A visiting Michigan State University associate professor whose office was the target of a fire set by radical environmentalists on New Year's Eve said Sunday that she heads a project aimed at increasing food production and making food more nutritious. The purpose of her work was to ensure that we use agricultural knowledge and tools to address those problems. Catherine Ives, director of the Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Productivity, which is based at Michigan State University, said, ``The whole point of the project is to make land more productive so we don't have to damage the environment.'' The paper reported, ``The goal of the project is to develop long-term solutions for food security in the developing world, where undernourishment is an epidemic.'' ``We know that there are 840 million people in the world who don't have enough to eat,'' Ives said. ``The use of agricultural knowledge and tools will help in addressing that problem.'' Dr. Martina McGlaughlin, Director of Biotechnology at the University of California at Davis, in a November 1, 1999, column in the Los Angeles Times reinforced the dilemma of population growth coupled with the finite quantity of arable land: [u]nless we will accept starvation or placing parks and the Amazon Basin under the plow, there really is no alternative to applying biotechnology to agriculture. Dr. McGlaughlin continued: The most cost-effective and environmentally sound general method for controlling pests and disease is the use of DNA. This approach has led to a reduction in the use of sprayed chemical insecticides. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2 million fewer pounds of insecticide were used in 1998 to control bollworm than were used in 1995, before ``Bt'' cotton was introduced. And the Bt gene-- introduced into the crop plant, not sprayed into the atmosphere--is present in minute amounts and spares beneficial insects. She concluded: Millions of people have eaten the products of genetic engineering and no adverse effects have been demonstrated. The proper balance of safety testing between companies and the government is a legitimate area for further debate. So are environmental safeguards. But the purpose of such debate should be to improve biotech research and enhance its benefits to society, not stop it in its tracks. It should be mentioned that her students at Cal Davis were also victimized by law-breakers who vandalized their research testing plots. Clearly, if the radicals were as interested in understanding as they are in intimidation, eliminating research is the last thing they would consider. In an Op-Ed in the New York Times entitled ``Who's Afraid of Genetic Engineers?'' former President Jimmy Carter outlined the sad irony. He said: Imagine a country placing such rigid restrictions on imports that people would not get vaccines and insulin. And imagine those same restrictions being placed on food products as well as on laundry detergent and paper. As far-fetched as it sounds, many developing countries and some industrialized on may do just that. He concluded: If imports . . . are regulated unnecessarily, the real losers will be the developing nations. Instead of reaping the benefits of decades of discovery and research, people from Africa and Southeast Asia will remain prisoners of outdated technology. Their countries could suffer greatly for years to come. It is crucial that they reject the propaganda of extremists groups before it is too late. Renowned scientists have dedicated their lives to understanding biotechnology and using it to the benefit of mankind to solve problems of hunger, disease and environmental degradation. These problems are considerable now, but will grow in magnitudes in the years ahead. In the tabloid press, however, a teenager dressed up as a corn cob will get as much attention and is attributed the same credibility as leading scientists, whose work is subjected to rigorous peer review. We need to be clear about several issues. First, our Government and its citizens are second to none in our collective commitment to food safety. We have a rigorous multi-agency approval process that has stood the test of time since 1938. It is based not on politics but on scientific consensus. It is supported by bipartisan Members of each body who have the strongest commitment to food safety and environmental protection. None of us are advocates for unfettered technology. As with any technology, there are limits that will be and must be subjected to law, not to mention common sense. Second, we need to realize that there are strong elements in the European Union who are more than happy to exploit fears--fears that they helped create--to provide short-term protection to their farmers from imports. In a sentence, fear and hysteria, without scientific basis, is being used by some to limit the productivity of foreign farmers--period. Meanwhile, opportunistic food companies such as ADM and Novartis are knowingly undermining our scientists and trade negotiators to placate the Luddites and protectionists. Finally, let me emphasize this critical point. The issue of risk is not one-dimensional. Yes, we must understand and evaluate the relative risk to a Monarch Butterfly larvae. Additional research has answered already many of those questions. But there is another risk. That risk is that naysayers and the protectionists succeed in their goals to kill biotechnology and condemn the world's children to unnecessary blindness, malnutrition, sickness and environmental degradation. Dr. C.S. Prakash directs the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University in Tuskegee, Ala, said the following in a column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Anti-technology activists accuse corporations of ``playing God'' by genetically improving crops, but it is these so- called environmentalists who are really playing God, not with genes but with the lives of poor and hungry people. While activist organizations spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote fear through anti-science newspaper ads, 1.3 billion people, who live on less than $1 a day, care only about findings their next day's meal. Biotechnology is one of the best hopes for solving their food needs today, when we have 6 billion people, and certainly in the next 30 to 50 years, when there will be 9 billion on the globe. Those people, who battle weather, pests and plant disease to try to raise enough for their families, can benefit tremendously from biotechnology, and not just from products created by big corporations. Public-sector institutions are conducting work on high-yield rice, virus-resistant sweet potato and more healthful strains for cassava, crops that are staples in developing countries. The development of local and regional agriculture is the key to addressing both hunger and low income. Genetically improved food is ``scale neutral,'' in that a poor rice farmer with one acre in Bangladesh can benefit as much as a larger farmer in California. And he doesn't have to learn a sophisticated new system; he only has to plant a seed. New rice strains being developed through biotechnology can increase yields by 30 to 40 percent. Another rice strain has the potential to prevent blindness in millions of children whose diets are deficient in Vitamin A. Edible vaccines, delivered in locally grown crops, could do more to eliminate disease than the Red Cross, missionaries and U.N. task forces combined, at a fraction of the cost. But none of these benefits will be realized if Western-generated fears about biotechnology halt research funding and close borders to exported products. For the well-fed to spreadhead fear-based campaigns and suppress research for ideological and pseudo-science reasons is irresponsible and immoral. Dr. Prakash just released a petition signed by more than 600 scientists declaring support of agricultural biotechnology. In his press release he noted, ``We in the scientific community felt it necessary to counteract the baseless attacks so often being made on biotechnology and genetically modified foods. Biotechnology is a potent and valuable tool that can help make foods more productive and nutritious. And, contrary to anti-biotech activists, they can even advance environmental goals such as biodiversity.'' Not content to live with their own brand of ludditism, European activists have shifted the battleground and they are now looking to export--not answers or solutions or constructive proposals--but fear, hysteria and unworkable restrictions to Asia, South America and even the United States. Many have stayed out of this debate thinking the controversy will blow over as it does with most regulated technologies. Many, particularly those who understand the science of the issue, had been silent, thinking, possibly that people would understand and that the technology would sell itself. I have said from the beginning that we could not take it for granted that people would embrace the technology because it is complex. I have said from the beginning that American consumers would want information. Consumers who know the facts--who know the benefits this technology will provide--will endorse it. American consumers demand food safety, but they also embrace technology and progress. They are not satisfied to say what we are doing is good enough. And finally, they want to base their decisions on science not fiction and it is the open discussion of facts that the vandals, the protectionists, and the luddites fear the most. President Clinton outlined what is at stake last week in proclaiming January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month: Today, a third of all new medicines in development are based on biotechnology. Designed to attack the underlying cause of an illness, not just its symptoms, these medicines have tremendous potential to provide not only more effective treatments, but also cures. With improved understanding of cellular and genetic processes, scientists have opened exciting new avenues of research into treatments for devastating diseases--like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease, AIDS, and cancer--that affect millions of Americans. Biotechnology has also given us several new vaccines, including one for rotavirus, now being tested clinically, that could eradicate an illness responsible for the deaths of more than 800,000 infants and children each year. The impact of biotechnology is far-reaching. Bio- remediation technologies are cleaning our environment by removing toxic substances from contaminated soils and ground water. Agricultural biotechnology reduces our dependence on pesticides. Manufacturing processes based on biotechnology make it possible to produce paper and chemicals with less energy, less pollution, and less waste. Forensic technologies based on our growing knowledge of DNA help us exonerate the innocent and bring criminals to justice. A question is whether we want to continue with a fixed number of agricultural uses or if we want to expand them to provide farmers and consumers new options and new opportunities. A question for some is whether we want to be more pro-environment and pro-health and nutrition than we are anti-corporate. Like many of my colleagues here in the Senate, I have consulted scores of scientists in the academic world, in the public sector and in the private sector. I have consulted medical professionals, and farmers for their practical experience regarding biotechnology. But let me finish by reading you a quote from a December 25, 1999, interview in ``New Scientist'' and you consider for yourself who might be the source: I believe we are entering an era now where pagan beliefs and junk science are influencing public policy. GM foods and forestry are both good examples where policy is being influenced by arguments that have no basis in fact or logic. The source is not a corporate leader, a Senator, or a university scientist. It is an ecologist with a Ph.D. That ecologist is Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace and a veteran of the frontline against everything from whaling to nuclear waste since the 1970s. The scientific consensus amongst government and academic scientists in the U.S. is extraordinary. The scientific community in Europe, some of whom I have met with agree, but have been intimidated and silenced. Please give the scientific and medical communities the opportunity to speak to these complex issues before you are swayed by the tabloids in Europe, those who may have their head burried in the flat earth, and the vandals and extremists who have been condemned even by some of their very own. We have a system in the U.S. to identify and evaluate relative risk, and, if necessary, mitigate those risks. The focus of international leaders should be on working constructively to identify and evaluate relative risk so that our people may have safely the options of biotechnology available to them. The development of this technology is not recreational. It is to solve real world problems and the possibilities are truly breathtaking. There is too much at stake for those who know better to remain passive. In 1921, Missouri's renowned plant scientist, George Washington Carver said: ``I wanted to know the name of every stone and flower and insect and bird and beast. I wanted to know where it got its color, where it got its life--but there was no one to tell me.'' He added that: ``No individual has any right to come into the world and go out of it without leaving behind him distinct and legitimate reasons for having passed through it.'' This issue will be a test of our collective vision, discipline, and courage. Madam President, I thank the Chair and my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record materials from President Clinton, President Carter, Drs. Prakash and McGlaughlin, New Scientist, and the 500 scientists' letter.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I too, extend my thanks to the Chairman of the Energy Committee for his willingness to help us on this very complex and difficult issue. Missouri, and other States in the Missouri River Basin are dependent on the flow of the Missouri River. Any legislation that affects this flow must be thoroughly vetted by the people in our state who have the knowledge and the expertise. Since this legislation came up at the end of the session with no time for debate on the Senate floor, we appreciate the opportunity the Chairman is providing us to bring together those people from our States who know this issue well. A forum with the free exchange of ideas is an excellent way to air very serious concerns as well as explore possible solutions that can make this a win-win situation for everyone. Representatives of the Missouri Basin States are currently in deep negotiations to discuss water flow. This forum should be held in the context of those negotiations.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, the so-called ``patent reform'' act was placed in the Satellite Home Viewer Act in the waning hours of the conference. Even though this bill did not clear the Senate floor in regular order and never had a vote on the floor of the Senate and was highly controversial for three years the proponents had to resort to these tactics to secure passage. The Satellite Act was very important and many Americans were relying on its passage so it provided the leverage. This is an unfortunate development in this legislative battle. Over the strenuous objections of several members, the bill stayed in the conference report. The inventors never even got a debate on the floor of the Senate. I think the entrepreneurs of America deserve far better than this sort of treatment. Special recognition should be given to the staff of the Alliance for American Innovation for their hard work on behalf of American Inventors, particularly Steven Shore and Beverly Selby. Also, Congresswoman Helen Bentley labored tirelessly on behalf of America's inventors, they deserve a great deal of recognition for their fight. As does Jim Morrison of the National Association of the Self Employed. They won many victories in this battle and the proponents had to resort to these sorts of tactics to defeat them. It is unfortunate how this bill was handled, the American inventors deserved a debate and a vote-- for all that they do for America, they deserve better. We are going to be watching carefully the impact of this bill on innovation in America.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I just asked for 2 minutes, and I will make it shorter than that.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding the order for recess, I be permitted to speak for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Senate companion bill to legislation sponsored in the other body by the distinguished Representative from southwestern Missouri (Mr. Blunt). This bill intends to clarify the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, in Missouri. Specifically, this bill would prevent Indian Tribes from setting up casino gambling operations in areas of Missouri where non-Indians currently are prohibited from gambling. This is vitally important, if for no other reason than to maintain harmony in these communities. It is also essential to preserve the family-friendly atmosphere that draws so many vacationers to these areas. Branson, Missouri, in particular, has attained national fame as an extraordinarily beautiful area, with fun activities and entertainment suitable for parents and children alike. An invasion of gambling into this setting would wreck this tremendous asset. It would bring all the well-known pathologies and social problems that accompany gambling. I oppose introducing gambling into these areas and will do all I can to fight it. We must protect the family spirit that makes Branson a national destination for vacationers. We must do likewise for other Missouri communities that offer similar sanctuaries from the hyperactive stress of modern life, as well as great places for residents to raise children, build homes, and do business. The bill I introduce today is very similar to one I offered in 1997. That bill would also have prevented Tribally owned casinos in areas of Missouri where non-Indian casinos are currently illegal. It became necessary when a Tribe in Oklahoma applied to put land in the small town of Seneca, Missouri into trust status for gambling purposes. They wanted to operate a casino where no one else could do so legally and to do so despite overwhelming community objection. Fortunately, the Interior Secretary indicated to me that he would not approve that application, and the Tribe ultimately withdrew its gambling application. Thus, the issue was satisfactorily resolved without legislation. More recently, however, a flurry of applications has been filed to put Indian-owned land into trust for non-gambling activities. I am glad the Tribes are finding that non-gambling activities, as proposed uses for these lands, can be more beneficial and more friendly to their communities and neighbors. However, a great many of my constituents are concerned that these trust applications might make it easier to apply for gambling later. They worry that some Tribes might be seeking to approve gambling casinos through the back door. This bill will eliminate that concern by clarifying the meaning of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act with respect to Missouri. When the Congress adopted IGRA in 1988, it intended for a State's general policy toward gambling to be considered in evaluating applications by Indian Tribes to start casino operations. Drawing upon past court decisions in this area, the Congress provided that a Tribe might be eligible to conduct casino gambling on their lands in a State ``that permits such gambling for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity.'' Once a State decides to move away from a criminal/prohibitory stance toward gambling, and adopts instead a civil/regulatory stance, Tribes are to have the opportunity to engage in gambling in that State as well. To that end, they may ask the State to negotiate a compact to regulate those casinos. Generally, this approach helps ensure public peace while also ensuring the Tribes get to participate in gambling on more-or-less the same basis as non-Indians in the State. If the people of a State, through their legislature or through direct legislation, decide to legalize casino gambling ``by any person, organization, or entity,'' they cannot simply exclude the Tribes in favor of whatever non-Indian gambling companies might have the inside track in the State government. The Tribes are to have the same opportunity as the non-Indian companies. But, if the people of a State maintain a general prohibition on gambling--whether as an expression of moral opposition or for some other reason--the Tribes will also need to respect this public opinion just like everyone else. I believe this is the situation in Missouri, whose constitution includes just such a general prohibition on casino gambling, with an exception for casinos based on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Article III of the Missouri Constitution sets out the powers of the Missouri General Assembly. Section 39 of that article makes certain things expressly outside of the legislature's authority. This is where the State's general prohibition on gambling appears. ``The General Assembly shall not have power,'' it says, ``to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises for any purpose, and shall enact laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift enterprise tickets.'' It says prohibit, not regulate. Gambling, in general, is still prohibited by State law. Under section 572.020 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, ``the crime of gambling'' is a class C misdemeanor, unless committed by a professional player, in which case the crime is a class D felony. This means the crime of gambling is punishable by fine of up to $300 in the case of a misdemeanor. A professional player may be fined up to $5,000 or twice the amount of any gain received, up to a limit of $25,000. These criminal offenses also carry potential prison sentences, of 15 days for a misdemeanor and up to 5 years for felony gambling. The State constitution does not give the General Assembly authority to legalize these crimes. The power to legalize gambling was withheld from the General Assembly by the express terms of the constitution. Any change would require a constitutional amendment, ratified by the voters of Missouri. The voters did exercise their authority to authorize very limited exceptions, without removing the general prohibition on legalized gambling. In the case of casino gambling, the voters authorized the General Assembly to legalize certain games only on excursion gambling boats and floating facilities docked along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Again, the voters granted these limited exceptions without disturbing the general constitutional prohibition on gambling, which is a criminal offense elsewhere in the State. The initiative that created this exception took this approach because many areas of Missouri have strong objections to gambling casinos. Particularly in southwest Missouri, many citizens hold strong moral objections to gambling. Many others simply fear that gambling would destroy the family atmosphere that makes the Branson area a desirable and unique vacation spot. Still others are concerned that gambling disproportionately preys on the hopes of the poor, making it a particularly regressive economic activity. We can see this expression of the community's view in the votes that were cast on the Missouri and Mississippi riverboat casino initiative. In the November 1994 election, voters in Taney county (where Branson is located) voted against the casino initiative 73% to 27%. In Greene county (where southwest Missouri's largest metropolitan area of Springfield is located), 58% of voters opposed the riverboat casinos. Finally, in Newton county (the home of Seneca, Missouri, where a Tribe once sought to impose a casino on the local residents), 62% of voters opposed the constitutional amendment. Knowing the strength of these communities' opinions on gambling in general, the sponsors of the initiative petition drive had no real alternative but to leave the general gambling prohibition intact while carving out a very narrow geographic exception for Missouri's two major rivers. Otherwise, the initiative would almost certainly have failed statewide as well. Therefore, the constitutional amendment reassured southwest Missourians that they likely would not feel the change directly--it would affect only the two rivers far away from them, and would not bring casinos into the family oriented Branson and Springfield areas. The general constitutional prohibition on gambling stayed in force. The limited exception for riverboat casinos, therefore, did not change the State's posture on gambling from a criminal/prohibitory one to a civil/regulatory one. In areas such as the Branson, Missouri area, gambling is still a criminal offense. IGRA's requirement that the State negotiate to allow Tribally owned casinos is not triggered, since casino gambling in that area is not permitted by ``any person, organization, or entity.'' As I mentioned earlier, that's the language IGRA uses to trigger a State's obligation to negotiate with the Tribes to create a regulatory compact. Tribes wanting to operate casinos on the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers might have a case under IGRA, since there are persons, organizations, or entities authorized to gamble there. But this is not true in Branson, Springfield, or other areas off the rivers where gambling is still prohibited and where the General Assembly lacks constitutional authority to legalize it even if it wanted to. This view of IGRA is not undermined, as some claim, by the Mashantucket Pequot case decided in 1990. In that case, the Mashantucket Pequots sued Connecticut to force the State to negotiate a casino gambling compact because the State authorized ``Las Vegas Nights'' as a fundraising activity for certain nonprofit organizations. Connecticut had argued that the occasional Las Vegas Nights did not mean that the State had decriminalized gambling in general. However, those nonprofits authorized to operate casinos, even on a very occasional basis, fall within the express language of ``any person, organization, or entity'' used in IGRA, which is what the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found. Allowing nonprofits to engage in some forms of casino gambling did move the State of Connecticut into a civil/regulatory stance on casino gambling. The State did not absolutely prohibit it; it regulated the type of organization permitted to engage in gambling. Thus, IGRA was triggered by the express language of the law. This is completely different from the situation in Missouri, where all persons, organizations, and entities are flatly prohibited, by criminal law, from casino gambling anywhere but on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The Mashantucket Pequot case does not apply to the Missouri situation. Geographic limitations, like in Missouri, were not at issue in that case. Thus, the language of this bill does not really change the current policy of IGRA. It simply makes explicit what is already plainly implicit under current legislation and case law. It would take express notice of the provision in Missouri's constitution on gambling and recognize that Missouri still maintains a criminal/prohibitory stance toward gambling off the rivers. Because some pro-gambling advocates are attempting to read the Mashantucket Pequot case too broadly, trying to make it apply to Missouri when it clearly does not, this bill is essential. In the past, a number of Tribes have tried to use that argument to try to set up casinos in Missouri--even in a small town like Seneca, nowhere near the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers. Because some people are trying to read into the Mashantucket Pequot case a view that is really not there, this bill writes into law the correct interpretation. I appreciate the hard work my colleague in the other chamber did on this bill, and am glad to have the opportunity to resolve this issue once and for all.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Senate companion bill to legislation sponsored in the other body by the distinguished Representative from southwestern Missouri (Mr. Blunt). This bill intends to clarify the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, in Missouri. Specifically, this bill would prevent Indian Tribes from setting up casino gambling operations in areas of Missouri where non-Indians currently are prohibited from gambling. This is vitally important, if for no other reason than to maintain harmony in these communities. It is also essential to preserve the family-friendly atmosphere that draws so many vacationers to these areas. Branson, Missouri, in particular, has attained national fame as an extraordinarily beautiful area, with fun activities and entertainment suitable for parents and children alike. An invasion of gambling into this setting would wreck this tremendous asset. It would bring all the well-known pathologies and social problems that accompany gambling. I oppose introducing gambling into these areas and will do all I can to fight it. We must protect the family spirit that makes Branson a national destination for vacationers. We must do likewise for other Missouri communities that offer similar sanctuaries from the hyperactive stress of modern life, as well as great places for residents to raise children, build homes, and do business. The bill I introduce today is very similar to one I offered in 1997. That bill would also have prevented Tribally owned casinos in areas of Missouri where non-Indian casinos are currently illegal. It became necessary when a Tribe in Oklahoma applied to put land in the small town of Seneca, Missouri into trust status for gambling purposes. They wanted to operate a casino where no one else could do so legally and to do so despite overwhelming community objection. Fortunately, the Interior Secretary indicated to me that he would not approve that application, and the Tribe ultimately withdrew its gambling application. Thus, the issue was satisfactorily resolved without legislation. More recently, however, a flurry of applications has been filed to put Indian-owned land into trust for non-gambling activities. I am glad the Tribes are finding that non-gambling activities, as proposed uses for these lands, can be more beneficial and more friendly to their communities and neighbors. However, a great many of my constituents are concerned that these trust applications might make it easier to apply for gambling later. They worry that some Tribes might be seeking to approve gambling casinos through the back door. This bill will eliminate that concern by clarifying the meaning of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act with respect to Missouri. When the Congress adopted IGRA in 1988, it intended for a State's general policy toward gambling to be considered in evaluating applications by Indian Tribes to start casino operations. Drawing upon past court decisions in this area, the Congress provided that a Tribe might be eligible to conduct casino gambling on their lands in a State ``that permits such gambling for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity.'' Once a State decides to move away from a criminal/prohibitory stance toward gambling, and adopts instead a civil/regulatory stance, Tribes are to have the opportunity to engage in gambling in that State as well. To that end, they may ask the State to negotiate a compact to regulate those casinos. Generally, this approach helps ensure public peace while also ensuring the Tribes get to participate in gambling on more-or-less the same basis as non-Indians in the State. If the people of a State, through their legislature or through direct legislation, decide to legalize casino gambling ``by any person, organization, or entity,'' they cannot simply exclude the Tribes in favor of whatever non-Indian gambling companies might have the inside track in the State government. The Tribes are to have the same opportunity as the non-Indian companies. But, if the people of a State maintain a general prohibition on gambling--whether as an expression of moral opposition or for some other reason--the Tribes will also need to respect this public opinion just like everyone else. I believe this is the situation in Missouri, whose constitution includes just such a general prohibition on casino gambling, with an exception for casinos based on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Article III of the Missouri Constitution sets out the powers of the Missouri General Assembly. Section 39 of that article makes certain things expressly outside of the legislature's authority. This is where the State's general prohibition on gambling appears. ``The General Assembly shall not have power,'' it says, ``to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises for any purpose, and shall enact laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift enterprise tickets.'' It says prohibit, not regulate. Gambling, in general, is still prohibited by State law. Under section 572.020 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, ``the crime of gambling'' is a class C misdemeanor, unless committed by a professional player, in which case the crime is a class D felony. This means the crime of gambling is punishable by fine of up to $300 in the case of a misdemeanor. A professional player may be fined up to $5,000 or twice the amount of any gain received, up to a limit of $25,000. These criminal offenses also carry potential prison sentences, of 15 days for a misdemeanor and up to 5 years for felony gambling. The State constitution does not give the General Assembly authority to legalize these crimes. The power to legalize gambling was withheld from the General Assembly by the express terms of the constitution. Any change would require a constitutional amendment, ratified by the voters of Missouri. The voters did exercise their authority to authorize very limited exceptions, without removing the general prohibition on legalized gambling. In the case of casino gambling, the voters authorized the General Assembly to legalize certain games only on excursion gambling boats and floating facilities docked along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Again, the voters granted these limited exceptions without disturbing the general constitutional prohibition on gambling, which is a criminal offense elsewhere in the State. The initiative that created this exception took this approach because many areas of Missouri have strong objections to gambling casinos. Particularly in southwest Missouri, many citizens hold strong moral objections to gambling. Many others simply fear that gambling would destroy the family atmosphere that makes the Branson area a desirable and unique vacation spot. Still others are concerned that gambling disproportionately preys on the hopes of the poor, making it a particularly regressive economic activity. We can see this expression of the community's view in the votes that were cast on the Missouri and Mississippi riverboat casino initiative. In the November 1994 election, voters in Taney county (where Branson is located) voted against the casino initiative 73% to 27%. In Greene county (where southwest Missouri's largest metropolitan area of Springfield is located), 58% of voters opposed the riverboat casinos. Finally, in Newton county (the home of Seneca, Missouri, where a Tribe once sought to impose a casino on the local residents), 62% of voters opposed the constitutional amendment. Knowing the strength of these communities' opinions on gambling in general, the sponsors of the initiative petition drive had no real alternative but to leave the general gambling prohibition intact while carving out a very narrow geographic exception for Missouri's two major rivers. Otherwise, the initiative would almost certainly have failed statewide as well. Therefore, the constitutional amendment reassured southwest Missourians that they likely would not feel the change directly--it would affect only the two rivers far away from them, and would not bring casinos into the family oriented Branson and Springfield areas. The general constitutional prohibition on gambling stayed in force. The limited exception for riverboat casinos, therefore, did not change the State's posture on gambling from a criminal/prohibitory one to a civil/regulatory one. In areas such as the Branson, Missouri area, gambling is still a criminal offense. IGRA's requirement that the State negotiate to allow Tribally owned casinos is not triggered, since casino gambling in that area is not permitted by ``any person, organization, or entity.'' As I mentioned earlier, that's the language IGRA uses to trigger a State's obligation to negotiate with the Tribes to create a regulatory compact. Tribes wanting to operate casinos on the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers might have a case under IGRA, since there are persons, organizations, or entities authorized to gamble there. But this is not true in Branson, Springfield, or other areas off the rivers where gambling is still prohibited and where the General Assembly lacks constitutional authority to legalize it even if it wanted to. This view of IGRA is not undermined, as some claim, by the Mashantucket Pequot case decided in 1990. In that case, the Mashantucket Pequots sued Connecticut to force the State to negotiate a casino gambling compact because the State authorized ``Las Vegas Nights'' as a fundraising activity for certain nonprofit organizations. Connecticut had argued that the occasional Las Vegas Nights did not mean that the State had decriminalized gambling in general. However, those nonprofits authorized to operate casinos, even on a very occasional basis, fall within the express language of ``any person, organization, or entity'' used in IGRA, which is what the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found. Allowing nonprofits to engage in some forms of casino gambling did move the State of Connecticut into a civil/regulatory stance on casino gambling. The State did not absolutely prohibit it; it regulated the type of organization permitted to engage in gambling. Thus, IGRA was triggered by the express language of the law. This is completely different from the situation in Missouri, where all persons, organizations, and entities are flatly prohibited, by criminal law, from casino gambling anywhere but on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The Mashantucket Pequot case does not apply to the Missouri situation. Geographic limitations, like in Missouri, were not at issue in that case. Thus, the language of this bill does not really change the current policy of IGRA. It simply makes explicit what is already plainly implicit under current legislation and case law. It would take express notice of the provision in Missouri's constitution on gambling and recognize that Missouri still maintains a criminal/prohibitory stance toward gambling off the rivers. Because some pro-gambling advocates are attempting to read the Mashantucket Pequot case too broadly, trying to make it apply to Missouri when it clearly does not, this bill is essential. In the past, a number of Tribes have tried to use that argument to try to set up casinos in Missouri--even in a small town like Seneca, nowhere near the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers. Because some people are trying to read into the Mashantucket Pequot case a view that is really not there, this bill writes into law the correct interpretation. I appreciate the hard work my colleague in the other chamber did on this bill, and am glad to have the opportunity to resolve this issue once and for all.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about some important legislative matters and to announce to my colleagues I cannot and will not clear a bill called S. 623, the Dakota Water Resources Act, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. It would authorize a half billion dollars to divert additional water from the Missouri River system for additional uses, including transfer to the Cheyenne and Red River systems. We cannot and will not tolerate the diversion of water. This is strongly opposed by the Governor of my State, by the State of Minnesota, by Taxpayers for Common Sense, and a whole list of environmental groups including the National Wildlife Federation, the Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth and American Rivers. The Canadian Government opposes it, the Governor of Minnesota and the Minnesota DNR oppose it. I understand why the Dakota Senators want to fight for this. It would be a tremendous boon for their States. But I am not going to be blackmailed because 52 other unrelated bills are being held up over this matter. There are strong substantive objections to this bill. It is not appropriate in this process to try to ram this through, to try to steal water from the Missouri River. I serve notice on my colleagues, if they have a problem because their bills are being held up in an attempt to blackmail me, it is not going to work. We have worked in good faith with the Senators from North Dakota in the past, helping them with their problems, but I do not intend to be blackmailed into allowing diversion of the Missouri River water. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act'' (S. 1346). This bill is designed to build on the success achieved by the Office of Advocacy over the past 23 years. It is intended to strengthen that foundation to make the Office of Advocacy a stronger, more effective advocate for all small businesses throughout the United States. I introduced the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act'' on July 1, 1999. Two weeks later, on July 15th, the Committee on Small Business voted unanimously, 17-0, in favor of this important legislation. The Office of Advocacy is a unique office within the Federal government. It is part of the Small Business Administration (SBA/ Agency), and its director, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. At the same time, the Office is also intended to be the independent voice for small business within the Federal government. It is supposed to develop proposals for changing government policies to help small businesses, and it is supposed to represent the views and interests of small businesses before other Federal agencies. As the director of the Office of Advocacy, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy has a dual responsibility. On the one hand, he is the independent watchdog for small business. On the other hand, he is also a part of the President's Administration. As you can imagine, those are sometimes difficult roles to play simultaneously. The ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act'' would make the Office of Advocacy and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy a fully independent advocate within the Executive Branch acting on behalf of the small business community. The bill would establish a clear mandate that the Office of Advocacy will fight on behalf of small businesses regardless of the position taken on critical issues by the President and his Administration. S. 1346 would direct the Chief Counsel to submit an annual report on Federal agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to the President and the Senate and House Committees on Small Business. The ``Reg Flex Act'' is a very important weapon in the war against the over-regulation of small businesses. At the request of Senator Fred Thompson, Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, I am offering a noncontroversial amendment to S. 1346 that would direct the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to send a copy of the report to the Senate Government Affairs Committee. In addition, my amendment would also require that copies of the report be sent to the House Committee on Government Reform and the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. It makes good sense for each of the committees to receive this report on Reg Flex compliance, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. The Office of Advocacy as envisioned by the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act'' would be unique with the Executive Branch. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy would be a wide-ranging advocate, who would be free to take positions contrary to the Administration's policies and to advocate change in government programs and attitudes as they impact small businesses. During consideration of the bill, the Committee adopted unanimously an amendment I offered, which was cosponsored by Senator John Kerry, the Committee's Ranking Democrat, to require the Chief Counsel to be appointed ``from civilian life.'' This qualification is intended to emphasize that the person nominated to serve in this important role should have a strong small business background. In 1976, Congress established the Office of Advocacy in the SBA to be the eyes, ears and voice for small business within the Federal government. Over time, it has been assumed that the Office of Advocacy is the ``independent'' voice for small business. While I strongly believe that the Office of Advocacy and the Chief Counsel should be independent and free to advocate or support positions that might be contrary to the Administration's policies, I have come to find that the Office is not as independent as necessary to do the job for small business. For example, funding for the Office of Advocacy comes from the Salaries and Expense Account of the SBA's budget. Staffing is allocated by the SBA Administrator to the Office of Advocacy from the overall staff allocation for the Agency. In 1990, there were 70 full-time employees working on behalf of small businesses in the Office of Advocacy. Today's allocation of staff is 49, and fewer are actually on- board as the result of the hiring freeze imposed by the SBA Administrator. The independence of the Office is diminished when the Office of Advocacy staff is reduced to allow for increased staffing for new programs and additional initiatives in other areas of SBA, at the discretion of the Administrator. In addition, the General Accounting Office (GAO) recently completed a report for me on personnel practices at the SBA (GAO/GGD-99-68). I was alarmed by the GAO's finding that Assistant and Regional Advocates hired by the Office of Advocacy share many of the attributes of Schedule C political appointees. In fact, Regional Advocates are frequently cleared by the White House personnel office--the same procedure followed for approving Schedule C political appointees. The facts discussed in the GAO Report cast the Office of Advocacy in a whole new light--one that had not been apparent until earlier this year. The report raises the questions, concerns and suspicions regarding the independence of the Office of Advocacy. Has there been a time when the Office did not pursue a matter as vigorously as it might have were it not for direct or indirect political influence? Prior to receipt of the GAO Report, my response was a resounding ``No.'' But now, a question mark arises. Let me take a moment and note that I will be unrelenting in my efforts to insure the complete independence of the Office of Advocacy in all matters, at all times, for the continued benefit of all small business. However, so long as the Administration controls the budget allocated to the Office of Advocacy and controls who is hired, the independence of the Office may be in jeopardy. We must correct this situation, and the sooner we do it, the better it will be for the small business community. The ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act'' builds a firewall to prevent the political intrusion into the management of day-to-day operations of the Office of Advocacy. The bill would require that the SBA's budget include a separate account for the Office of Advocacy. No longer would its funds come from the general operating account of the Agency. The separate account would also provide for the number of full- time employees who would work within the Office of Advocacy. No longer would the Chief Counsel for Advocacy have to seek approval from the SBA Administrator to hire staff for the Office of Advocacy. The bill would also continue the practice of allowing the Chief Counsel to hire individuals critical to the mission of the Office of Advocacy without going through the normal competitive procedures directed by federal law and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). I believe this special hiring authority, which is limited only to employees within the Office of Advocacy, is beneficial because it allows the Chief Counsel to hire quickly those persons who can best assist the Office in responding to changing issues and problems confronting small businesses. Mr. President, the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act'' is a sound bill. It is the product of a great deal of thoughtful, objective review and consideration by me, the staff of the Committee on Small Business, representatives of the small business community, former Chief Counsels for Advocacy and others. These individuals have also devoted much time and effort in actively participating in a Committee Roundtable discussion on the Office of Advocacy, which my Committee held on April 21, 1999. And I stated earlier, the Committee on Small Business approved this bill by a unanimous 17-0 vote. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote in favor of the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act.''

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999 (S. 791). This bill is the latest step by the Committee on Small Business to strengthen the Women's Business Center program at the Small Business Administration (SBA). Since this program first opened its doors in 1989, it has grown from an initial 12 centers to 81 centers operating in 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The bill I am bringing before the Senate today will increase the authorization level for the Women's business Centers program. Further, this bill establishes a four year pilot program that will, for the first time, allow centers that have completed a grant or that are in their last year of a grant under this program to apply for a second, five year grant. S. 791 was approved by the Committee on Small Business by a 17-1 vote, and I am urging my colleagues to support this bill with an amendment that Senator Kerry and I are offering on the floor today. The amendment includes changes to the bill that have been agreed to by the House Committee on Small business. Once Senate action on this bill is complete, it is our hope the House of Representatives will be able to pass the bill before Congress adjourns, clearing the measure for the President's approval. The amendment adopts the authorization levels included in the House-passed version of this bill, and it places all centers on an equal footing when competing for sustainability grants. During the past decade, the number of women-owned small businesses has exploded. Women-owned small businesses are the fastest growing segment of our nation's business community. Years ago, there was an advertising campaign slogan proclaiming that women ``had come a long way.'' I find that slogan very applicable to the plateau now reached by women entrepreneurs. Women business owners have established themselves as a key component of our small business community, which has been the engine driving our economy during the 1990's. The research foundation arm of the National Association of Women business Owners (NAWBR) has conducted studies which show that women no longer are having more trouble than men obtaining bank loans. However, obtaining a loan does not guarantee a business' success. In fact, many small businesses that start out well capitalized end up failing. Success of a small business is usually dependent on the owners' management capabilities. Women's Business Centers offer help to women entrepreneurs who are looking to start a business or who already have a business by providing them with business and education training, including marketing, finance, and management assistance. For the past three years, I have worked with Senator Domenici, Senator Kerry, and Members of the Committee on Small Business first to save and later to expand the Women's Business Center Program. In 1996, when the Administration sought to zero-out the budget of the program, I helped lead the effort to earmark funds for the program within SBA's Fiscal Year 1997 budget. In 1997, Senator Domenici, Senator Kerry and I sponsored the ``Women's Business Centers Act of 1997,'' which expanded the program from $4 million to $8 million per year. This bill was incorporated into the ``Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997'' (Public Law 105-135). Earlier this year, the Congress passed the ``Women's Business Center Amendments Act of 1999'' (Public Law 106-17), which helped bring us closer to achieving our goal of having at least one Women's Business Center up and running in each of the 50 states. This law authorized $11 million for Fiscal Year 2000 for the Women's Business Center Program, which allows SBA to continue to fund the existing 35 eligible Centers and provide seed funding to new eligible applicant Centers in states not yet served by the program. Under this latest step to strengthen the SBA's program for women- owned businesses, the ``Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999'' addresses the ongoing funding constraints that are making it increasingly difficult for Women's Business Centers to sustain the level of services they provide after they graduate from the Women's Business Centers program. To help these centers, S. 791 would establish a four-year competitive grant pilot program that allows graduating and graduated centers that offer on-going programs and services to women entrepreneurs to compete for another five years of matching grants known as a ``sustainability grant.'' ``Graduating centers'' are centers that are in the final year of their initial five-year funding cycle. A ``graduated center'' is a center that participated in the Women's Business Center program and no longer receives program funds but is still actively providing business programs and services to its local market. The ``Women's Business Center Sustainability Act of 1999'' also increases oversight and review of the Women's Business Centers. Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) undertook an examination of the Women's Business Center Program at the request of the Senate and House Committees on Small Business. The GAO found that more than two- thirds of the centers that currently receive grant funds or that received funds in the past continue to operate as Women's Business Centers. Most that are continuing to operate after Federal support ceased have continued to offer similar services to women business owners. While conducting its examination, GAO investigators experienced difficulty obtaining complete data about the program from the SBA because of limitations of SBA's records and databases for program years 1989 through 1998. I am concerned about the report from the GAO highlighting the failure of SBA to keep complete program and financial records on Centers that are receiving SBA grants funds; therefore, the bill includes a provision requiring the SBA to send the Senate and House Committees on Small Business a yearly Management Report on the status of the program. This report will include an annual programmatic and financial examination of each Women's Business Center. Further, SBA is directed to make a determination annually of the programmatic and financial viability of each Women's Business Center. It is my belief that this new statutory requirement will lead to better SBA oversight and a stronger Women's Business Center Program. During the Committee's consideration of S. 791, it approved unanimously an amendment sponsored by Senator Abraham addressing Federal procurement opportunities for women-owned small businesses. The amendment directs the GAO to conduct an audit on the federal procurement system for the preceding three years and report on all identifiable trends in Federal contracting that are related to women- owned small businesses. It is difficult to understand how the women-owned small businesses segment of our economy can make up 38 percent of all small businesses and receive only 2.2 percent of the $181 billion in Federal prime contracts. In 1994, Congress passed into law a goal for women-owned small businesses to receive at least 5 percent of the total amount of Federal prime contract dollars. I am distributed by the failure of the Federal agencies to meet this goal, and it is our intention for the GAO study to shed some light on this problem. Mr. President, passage of the ``Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999'' will build on the progress and successes we have accomplished to assist women entrepreneurs succeed as small business owners. I urge each of my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.