Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2417

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleague and co- chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Ford to introduce a bill today to bolster the recognition of the National Guard and reserve components by the Department of Defense. The bill entitled the National Guard and Reserve Components Equity Act of 1998. Since the Senate National Guard Caucus was established in 1987, Senator Ford and I and the sixty five other members have worked tirelessly to insure the adequate resourcing of the National Guard and reserves. This year will be Senator Ford's final year as Caucus co- chair. I will sorely miss his advise and counsel. The legislation we lay before you this day is testimony to his commitment to improving the quality of life standards for our nations active, Guard and reserve component service members. He and I have worked to include major quality of life and resourcing issues highlighted by reserve and National Guard Associations. This bill seeks to provide overdue recognition and benefits to the nation's reservists and Guard personnel and their families. For too long, the nation's reservists and National Guardsmen and women have been the recipients of less than a full commitment by the Department of Defense. The bill we have introduced will stir some controversy I am sure, but these men and women deserve our support. As we ask more and more of our reserve and Guard we owe it to the people who we ask to go into harm's way, to provide them with equality in pay, equality in fielded equipments and equality in training. We owe it to their families to provide them with equal access to commissaries and space available travel. We owe it to them to continue reservist eligibility for VA home loans and repeal Montgomery Bill limitations for Selected Reservists. We need to do all this and more. We must also recognize the sacrifices made by reservist and Guard employers. This bill addresses each of these issues. We must remove any semblance of second class status from the shoulders of these professional and dedicated individuals. Reserve and Guard components are being called upon to integrate themselves into the tactical operations of the nation's defense plans, in order to do this effectively, the systems used by the components must be compatible. That is not the case today. In many instances, radios and data transfer equipments are incompatible. For instance many artillery units operate independently because they are unable to coordinate their operations. I could hardly believe it, but many fighter aircraft units suffer the same fate, and you can imagine that the theater commanders don't care to have independent fighter units involved in heavily coordinated and multi-national operations. Digitization, situational awareness data link upgrades and avionics modernization of reserve and Guard units is imperative. This bill directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a master plan for the modernization of these components. The bill also addresses the use of Guard and reserve component personnel in response to an emergency involving a weapon of mass destruction; to include their integration with efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Family issues are addressed, as well. As I mentioned earlier, there are provisions for demonstration program for unlimited use of military commissionaries by reserve component members, and for the development of rules governing Space Available Travel for reservists and their families. I urge my colleagues to review this bill, sign on and help us to provide these and other long overdue measures to bring equity in individual recognition and resource allocation to these vital components of our national security.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleague and co- chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Ford to introduce a bill today to bolster the recognition of the National Guard and reserve components by the Department of Defense. The bill entitled the National Guard and Reserve Components Equity Act of 1998. Since the Senate National Guard Caucus was established in 1987, Senator Ford and I and the sixty five other members have worked tirelessly to insure the adequate resourcing of the National Guard and reserves. This year will be Senator Ford's final year as Caucus co- chair. I will sorely miss his advise and counsel. The legislation we lay before you this day is testimony to his commitment to improving the quality of life standards for our nations active, Guard and reserve component service members. He and I have worked to include major quality of life and resourcing issues highlighted by reserve and National Guard Associations. This bill seeks to provide overdue recognition and benefits to the nation's reservists and Guard personnel and their families. For too long, the nation's reservists and National Guardsmen and women have been the recipients of less than a full commitment by the Department of Defense. The bill we have introduced will stir some controversy I am sure, but these men and women deserve our support. As we ask more and more of our reserve and Guard we owe it to the people who we ask to go into harm's way, to provide them with equality in pay, equality in fielded equipments and equality in training. We owe it to their families to provide them with equal access to commissaries and space available travel. We owe it to them to continue reservist eligibility for VA home loans and repeal Montgomery Bill limitations for Selected Reservists. We need to do all this and more. We must also recognize the sacrifices made by reservist and Guard employers. This bill addresses each of these issues. We must remove any semblance of second class status from the shoulders of these professional and dedicated individuals. Reserve and Guard components are being called upon to integrate themselves into the tactical operations of the nation's defense plans, in order to do this effectively, the systems used by the components must be compatible. That is not the case today. In many instances, radios and data transfer equipments are incompatible. For instance many artillery units operate independently because they are unable to coordinate their operations. I could hardly believe it, but many fighter aircraft units suffer the same fate, and you can imagine that the theater commanders don't care to have independent fighter units involved in heavily coordinated and multi-national operations. Digitization, situational awareness data link upgrades and avionics modernization of reserve and Guard units is imperative. This bill directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a master plan for the modernization of these components. The bill also addresses the use of Guard and reserve component personnel in response to an emergency involving a weapon of mass destruction; to include their integration with efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Family issues are addressed, as well. As I mentioned earlier, there are provisions for demonstration program for unlimited use of military commissionaries by reserve component members, and for the development of rules governing Space Available Travel for reservists and their families. I urge my colleagues to review this bill, sign on and help us to provide these and other long overdue measures to bring equity in individual recognition and resource allocation to these vital components of our national security.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on May 19, an endowed lectureship, at Washington University in my home State of Missouri, will be named in honor of Louis Avioli, M.D., for his contribution to the field of bone and mineral metabolism. Washington University and St. Louis University employ the largest group of bone research scientists in the world. Dr. Avioli is known as a legend in this field and for good reason. Dr. Avioli is the founder of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), and is responsible for individually combining the growing research interests beginning from a large range of disciplines into what is now the top scientific society devoted to bone and mineral research. The membership of ASBMR has grown to more than 3,000 scientists and more than 5,000 attend the annual convention. Dr. Avioli has been appointed to numerous positions, been published countless times and has several honorary degrees. With so many impressive accomplishments, it is no wonder an endowed lectureship is named in his honor. Commending Dr. Avioli for his many years of service to the field of bone and mineral metabolism, I am glad to say that the State of Missouri is enriched with his wisdom and leadership. I join the many who congratulate and thank him for his hard work and wish him continued success in future years.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Inez Kaiser for being named 1997 National Minority Advocate of the Year. She received this prestigious award from the United States Department of Commerce's Minority in Business Development Agency (MBDA). Dr. Kaiser is president of Inez Kaiser & Associates, Inc., the oldest African- American female-owned public relations firm in the United States. Dr. Kaiser was chosen for the award based on her forty+ years of advocacy on behalf of minority business development. In addition to her untiring efforts to expand minority roles in the business industry, she was a consultant and advisor to former Presidents Nixon and Ford on minority women's business issues and organized the first nationwide conference of Women in Business for the United States Department of Commerce. Over the years she has strived to help other minority businesses by identifying their problems and offering advice on how to address those problems. Being the only African-American female in the National Hall of Fame of Women in Public Relations, she is also the president of the National Association of Minority Women in Business. Dr. Kaiser has set a positive example for minority business people everywhere and it is a pleasure to see her impressive accomplishments receive the recognition they deserve. My home State of Missouri is extremely fortunate to have such a shining example of success and hard work. I wish her continued prosperity and achievement in the coming years.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference report and urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit. For those in agriculture, it is critical that we move this in a prompt and expedited fashion and avoid any additional delay. The time for passage is now. I congratulate Chairman Lugar, Senator Harkin and their staffs who have labored for months to bring this legislation before us. Simply put, agriculture needs this now. Included in it are urgent reforms and funding necessary to avoid a crisis which would undermine the viability of crop insurance--a safety net that farmers in my State and across the country cannot do without. This legislation is fully offset and paid for and is supported by a united agriculture industry. After months of careful and deliberate negotiations, a bipartisan agreement with the administration has been developed. It was an agreement with the administration and it takes into account the need to get the President's signature on it. I believe the work of the conferees should be applauded and endorsed with our support today. I am particularly interested in the research title. We expect to see the world's population double in the next 30 years. The demand for food is expected to triple in the next 50 years. The world's population wants more food, cheaper food, more nutritious food, safer food, food that is easier to prepare and they want it produced on less land with fewer chemicals and in a more environmentally sensitive manner. Those individuals who produce food and fiber for this world today-- encumbered with what otherwise would be conflicting mandates--have never faced a greater challenge. Technology is the answer. Remarkably, plant technology in this half-century has helped make it possible for the farmer, who in 1940 fed 19 people, to feed 129 people today. Nobel prize-winning chemist Robert F. Curl of Rice University proclaimed that: ``* * * it is clear that the 21st will be the century of biology.'' The March 27 article in Science Magazine entitled: ``A Third Technological Revolution,''--after the Industrial and Computer- based revolutions--contends that: ``Ultimately, the world will obtain most of its food, fuel, fiber, chemicals and some of its pharmaceuticals from genetically altered vegetation and trees.'' The possibilities are breathtaking and the U.S. is poised to lead the third technological revolution as we unlock the secrets plant-by-plant and now, genome-by-genome. Simply put, this research is about meeting the world's growing nutritional needs, protecting U.S. jobs and preserving the environment. The legislation before us looks ahead to the challenges of the 21st century by providing additional funding on what all of us back home say is a priority; research. It provides $600 million for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. This will augment our federal commitment to undertake cutting-edge research in priority areas such as genome studies, biotechnology, food safety, precision agriculture and new use development. I cite as an example, the University of Missouri has just tested a new hybrid corn which when fed to swine reduces phosphorous in manure by a whopping 37 percent. The Monsanto Company, in my State, is using biotechnology to produce cotton plants with genes that produce colors to reduce the need for chemical dyeing. From the corn plant, they have produced a human-like antibody that holds promise for allowing cancer patients to tolerate more frequent doses of a tumor-shrinking drug. The possibilities are breathtaking and the U.S. is leading the charge. Let me say one thing to those who represent agriculture states. Almost 70 percent of the USDA budget is not for research or export promotion or conservation or for subsidies to farmers--it is for food and nutrition programs, primarily the food stamp program. For those who have watched over the years as a greater and greater percentage of USDA funds have gone to welfare, often at the expense of programs that assist farmers and conservation, this legislation moves $1 billion back to agriculture. While I understand that some here today would like to see less money for food stamps for legal immigrants, others would like to see more. I recall that the Administration proposed in their budget that all this administrative savings go for legal immigrants and have threatened to veto crop insurance and research if it didn't also include funding for food stamps for legal immigrants. The food stamp provisions of this act are an essential step to providing much needed assistance to certain legal immigrants. Attempts to undo this carefully-crafted bipartisan compromise will result in delay and ultimately undermine the entire bill. The bipartisan leaders have worked hard to craft a bill that the President will accept. There should be no further delay and I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and move swiftly to final adoption of the conference report.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as an original cosponsor with Senator Bob Kerrey of the ``Children's Hospitals Education and Research Act of 1998.'' This bill seeks to address an unintended inequity in federal support for graduate medical education. If not addressed, this inequity will jeopardize the future of the pediatric health care work force as well as the pediatric biomedical research enterprise for our nation's children. Specifically, this bill will provide capped, time-limited, interim commensurate federal funding for the nearly 60 independent children's teaching hospitals, including the children's hospitals in Kansas City and St. Louis, which are so important to the training of the nation's physicians who serve children. They are equally important to the conduct of research to benefit children's health and health care. Let me illustrate the magnitude of the inequity in federal investment in graduate medical attention (GME). In 1977, the federal Medicare program reimbursed teaching hospitals, on average, more than $76,000 for each resident trained. In contrast, Medicare reimbursed independent children's teaching hospitals--children's hospitals that do not share a Medicare provider number with a larger medical institution--less than $400 per resident, because children's hospitals care for children, not the elderly, and therefore do not serve Medicare patients, except for a small number of children with end stage renal disease. Until recently, this inequity was not a problem as long as all payers of health care were willing to reimburse teaching hospitals enough for their patient care to cover the extra costs of GME. As the health care market has become increasingly competitive, it has become harder and harder for all teaching hospitals to generate patient care revenues to help cover their GME costs. But only independent children's teaching hospitals face these competitive pressures without the significant federal GME support, which the rest of the teaching hospital community relies upon. This is more than a problem for the financial well-being of the education programs of a small number of children's hospitals--less than one percent of the nation's hospitals. It is a problem for our entire pediatric workforce and pediatric research enterprise, because these institutions play such a disproportionately large role in academic medicine for children. On average, their education programs are equal in size to the GME programs of all teaching hospitals, but they train twice as many residents per bed as do other teaching hospitals. As a consequence, independent children's teaching hospitals train about 5 percent of all physicians, 25 percent of all pediatricians, and the majority of many pediatric subspecialists who care for children with the most complex conditions, such as children with cancer, cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, and more. Recommendations to address the inequity in federal GME support for children's teaching hospitals are supported by the National Association of Children's Hospitals as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs. Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote to President Clinton, to express support for the establishment of interim federal support for the GME program of freestanding, independent children's hospitals. The AAP said, ``(w)e regard the education programs of independent children's hospitals as important to our pediatric workforce and therefore to the future health of all children, because they educate an important proportion of the nation's pediatricians.'' Last year, many members of the Senate, including myself, recommended that any comprehensive reform of graduate medical education financing should include commensurate federal GME support for children's teaching hospitals. Instead of enacting GME reform, Congress directed the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare and the Medicare Payment Assessment Commission to prepare recommendations for the future of GME financing, including for children's teaching hospitals. Since it will be at least another year before Congress receives those recommendations and potentially several years before Congress is able to act on them, the ``Children's Hospitals Education and Research Act'' will provide interim funding for just four years. It will be commensurate to federal GME support for all teaching hospitals. Specifically, the bill provides, in a capped fund, $100 million in FY 1999 and $285 million in each of the three succeeding fiscal years, for eligible institutions. It will be financed by general revenues, not Medicare HI Trust Funds. I know what a critical role children's hospitals play in the ability of families and communities to care for all children, including children with the most complex conditions and children on families with the most limited economic means. Through their education and research programs, they are also devoted to serving future generations of children, too. Certainly, the children of Missouri as well as Kansas and Southern Illinois, depend vitally on the services and research of independent children's teaching hospitals such as Children's Mercy in Kansas City, St. Louis Children's Hospital, and Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital, and the care givers they educate. Children's hospitals are places of daily miracles. Healing that we would never have thought possible a few years ago for children who are burn victims, or trauma victims, or even cancer victims now occurs daily at these hospitals. And while I am sure divine intervention plays a role in this healing, it is also due to the very hard work of skilled doctors, nurses, and dedicated staff that is second to none. We must therefore ensure that these facilities have the resources to continue their noble mission of saving children from the clutches of death and disease. I know trustees, and medical and executive leaders of these institutions. All are committed to controlling the cost of children's health to the best of their ability. But their future ability to sustain their education and research programs will also depend on commensurate federal GME support for them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the enactment of the ``Children's Hospital Education and Research Act.''

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment which I offer for myself and my colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun, to improve electronic filing of tax and information returns. Working with the manager of the bill, I believe we have an agreement on the amendment. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today with an amendment, which I offer for myself and my colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun, to improve electronic filing of tax and information returns. After working with the managers, I believe we now have an agreement on this amendment, and I send that amendment to the desk. The bill we are now considering contains far-reaching provisions that will encourage the Internal Revenue Service to expand the use of electronic filing. My amendment improves those provisions in two ways. First, my amendment makes it absolutely clear that electronic filing of tax returns should be voluntary--not another burdensome government mandate on American taxpayers. While the bill calls on the IRS to make electronic filing the ``preferred and most convenient means for filing,'' it also establishes a goal of 80 percent electronic filing of tax returns by 2007. Without a clear statement of congressional intent, it will be too easy for the IRS to interpret those provisions as requiring electronic filing by certain taxpayers or in certain circumstances. As the Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have heard over the past 2 years from hundreds of small businesses about a similar government mandate--the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System or EFTPS. Under the statute establishing this system, the Treasury is required to collect certain percentages of tax electronically each year. To implement that requirement, the IRS established thresholds based on a business' past employment tax deposits. Regrettably, the IRS established the thresholds to serve its convenience rather than the taxpayer's. As a result, it now appears that far more taxpayers are required to pay their taxes electronically than the law requires. While EFTPS deals with electronic payment of taxes, as opposed to filing of tax returns as we are addressing in this bill, it is a clear example of how the intent of Congress can be misinterpreted and result in an onerous mandate, in this case on America's small businesses. My amendment cuts that misunderstanding off at the pass. As the IRS develops new programs and procedures for electronic filing, they must not be forced down the throats of the country's taxpayers. If they are truly convenient and cost effective, taxpayers will volunteer in droves to file their tax returns electronically, just as they have with the IRS' TeleFile program. And those taxpayers who, for one reason or another, decide that electronic filing is not practical, should be permitted to continue filing paper returns. Second, my amendment expands the reporting requirements under the bill to ensure that the IRS pays particular attention to electronic- filing issues pertaining to small business. The bill currently requires that the Treasury Secretary, the IRS Commissioner, and the advisory group on electronic filing to report annually to the Congress on the progress made in expanding the use of electronic filing. I commend the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee for including representatives of small business on the advisory group as I proposed. My amendment capitalizes on that small business voice, by requiring that the report to Congress include an analysis of the effects of electronic filing on small enterprises. If we are to prevent another burdensome program like EFTPS, I believe we must require the IRS to focus on how electronic-filing programs will affect small business. It will be of little benefit to the government if new electronic-filing programs include new requirements, like a substantial investment in new equipment, since most small businesses will not be able to participate. In addition, if the IRS pays particular attention to the issues facing small businesses in this areas, the agency will be better equipped to market and promote the benefits of electronic filing--a 100 percent improvement over the agency's initial efforts to encourage small firms to use EFTPS. I fully endorse the intent of this legislation to make electronic filing widely available, cost effective, and an attractive option. My amendment fine tunes the bill to ensure that the intent becomes a reality. With the continuing advances in technology, we have an enormous opportunity to make all taxpayers' lives easier. But with technological advances comes the risk of imposing even more burdens on taxpayers, and Congress must make sure that these improvements are not implemented at the expense of the taxpayers, and especially the small businesses, who are expected to benefit from them. My amendment is designed to achieve that goal.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as an original cosponsor with Senator Bob Kerrey of the ``Children's Hospitals Education and Research Act of 1998.'' This bill seeks to address an unintended inequity in federal support for graduate medical education. If not addressed, this inequity will jeopardize the future of the pediatric health care work force as well as the pediatric biomedical research enterprise for our nation's children. Specifically, this bill will provide capped, time-limited, interim commensurate federal funding for the nearly 60 independent children's teaching hospitals, including the children's hospitals in Kansas City and St. Louis, which are so important to the training of the nation's physicians who serve children. They are equally important to the conduct of research to benefit children's health and health care. Let me illustrate the magnitude of the inequity in federal investment in graduate medical attention (GME). In 1977, the federal Medicare program reimbursed teaching hospitals, on average, more than $76,000 for each resident trained. In contrast, Medicare reimbursed independent children's teaching hospitals--children's hospitals that do not share a Medicare provider number with a larger medical institution--less than $400 per resident, because children's hospitals care for children, not the elderly, and therefore do not serve Medicare patients, except for a small number of children with end stage renal disease. Until recently, this inequity was not a problem as long as all payers of health care were willing to reimburse teaching hospitals enough for their patient care to cover the extra costs of GME. As the health care market has become increasingly competitive, it has become harder and harder for all teaching hospitals to generate patient care revenues to help cover their GME costs. But only independent children's teaching hospitals face these competitive pressures without the significant federal GME support, which the rest of the teaching hospital community relies upon. This is more than a problem for the financial well-being of the education programs of a small number of children's hospitals--less than one percent of the nation's hospitals. It is a problem for our entire pediatric workforce and pediatric research enterprise, because these institutions play such a disproportionately large role in academic medicine for children. On average, their education programs are equal in size to the GME programs of all teaching hospitals, but they train twice as many residents per bed as do other teaching hospitals. As a consequence, independent children's teaching hospitals train about 5 percent of all physicians, 25 percent of all pediatricians, and the majority of many pediatric subspecialists who care for children with the most complex conditions, such as children with cancer, cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, and more. Recommendations to address the inequity in federal GME support for children's teaching hospitals are supported by the National Association of Children's Hospitals as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs. Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote to President Clinton, to express support for the establishment of interim federal support for the GME program of freestanding, independent children's hospitals. The AAP said, ``(w)e regard the education programs of independent children's hospitals as important to our pediatric workforce and therefore to the future health of all children, because they educate an important proportion of the nation's pediatricians.'' Last year, many members of the Senate, including myself, recommended that any comprehensive reform of graduate medical education financing should include commensurate federal GME support for children's teaching hospitals. Instead of enacting GME reform, Congress directed the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare and the Medicare Payment Assessment Commission to prepare recommendations for the future of GME financing, including for children's teaching hospitals. Since it will be at least another year before Congress receives those recommendations and potentially several years before Congress is able to act on them, the ``Children's Hospitals Education and Research Act'' will provide interim funding for just four years. It will be commensurate to federal GME support for all teaching hospitals. Specifically, the bill provides, in a capped fund, $100 million in FY 1999 and $285 million in each of the three succeeding fiscal years, for eligible institutions. It will be financed by general revenues, not Medicare HI Trust Funds. I know what a critical role children's hospitals play in the ability of families and communities to care for all children, including children with the most complex conditions and children on families with the most limited economic means. Through their education and research programs, they are also devoted to serving future generations of children, too. Certainly, the children of Missouri as well as Kansas and Southern Illinois, depend vitally on the services and research of independent children's teaching hospitals such as Children's Mercy in Kansas City, St. Louis Children's Hospital, and Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital, and the care givers they educate. Children's hospitals are places of daily miracles. Healing that we would never have thought possible a few years ago for children who are burn victims, or trauma victims, or even cancer victims now occurs daily at these hospitals. And while I am sure divine intervention plays a role in this healing, it is also due to the very hard work of skilled doctors, nurses, and dedicated staff that is second to none. We must therefore ensure that these facilities have the resources to continue their noble mission of saving children from the clutches of death and disease. I know trustees, and medical and executive leaders of these institutions. All are committed to controlling the cost of children's health to the best of their ability. But their future ability to sustain their education and research programs will also depend on commensurate federal GME support for them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the enactment of the ``Children's Hospital Education and Research Act.''

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I, again, commend my colleague from Delaware for his outstanding leadership. I will only say that Commissioner Rossotti is going to leave sometime. I think it is important for us to make a structure which gives us the possibility of real reform in the IRS. An advisory board, in my experience in dealing with advisory boards, cannot and will not make a difference in the day-to-day management, the selection of IRS audits and the running of the agency which is the issue on the minds of American taxpayers. We need to do the job right, and I believe we need to make the change now. Mr. President, if the distinguished manager of the bill has no further people wishing to speak--the ones who wanted to speak in support of the amendment are otherwise occupied--I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time. We have 1 minute on each side prior to the vote. If the manager is finished with his speakers, I will join him in yielding back whatever time remains.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. I thank my colleagues from both Iowa and Nebraska for their very thoughtful comments. As I said earlier, I appreciate so much the excellent work the Finance Committee has done on restructuring of the IRS. Truly, it is a very important issue. Primarily, I hear them raising the point that we can't get people to serve if we have a full-time board. We are making it a small board. We need four individuals who want to serve. Some say you can have part-time people who can come in and get the big picture authority. The problem is, we need them to work on specific law enforcement activities and personnel actions. We are not talking about somebody giving them the big picture; we are talking about somebody taking management responsibility. If individuals would serve, is their question. They say we can't get good individuals to serve. We have the Commissioner of the IRS. He came from the private sector. He was willing to move in. Private-sector individuals have served, and have served with great distinction, in related areas, where they do an excellent job. Why should we think it is harder to get people to serve on the IRS board than it would be to serve on the FTC board or on the SEC? These are issues that I think are very closely related. If we can't get good people to serve on that board, I would be very much surprised. We would not see a part-time advisory board dealing with actual cases of taxpayer abuse. They would have to do so only when the Commissioner or the Treasury Inspector General said they could. Let's just take an example--the alarming revelation last week that former Secretary Howard Baker and former Congressman James Quillen were the targets of a vendetta by a rogue IRS agent. Even more troubling, more troubling is that the agent's activities were covered up by numerous officials in the IRS district office. This case clearly demonstrates a pattern of bad behavior in one office, but it may be indicative of structural or procedural defects throughout the agency. Are we really going to tie the hands of the IRS board and only permit it to review such problems as the Commissioner or the Treasury IG permit it? I say not. If we are going to do the job, we ought to do it right. Without this authority, the board will only find out about the problems like the rest of us--when the press points them out or when we have to go through a congressional hearing. The problems of the IRS are well known. Now we need to make sure we fix them, not just tinker around the edges. The Bond amendment replaces the IRS management structure of a Commissioner plus a part-time limited authority board with an independent full-time board of governors, including the Commissioner. It is not an accident, as I have said earlier, that the SEC, the FTC, the Federal Reserve, are all run by boards or commissions. These agencies carry out sensitive regulatory and enforcement duties, and they must be insulated from political motives. Insulation from political motives is one of the objectives we must achieve in this IRS restructuring. The American taxpayer deserves the same level of protection as the people who are governed by and are subject to the rules and regulations of the SEC and the FTC and the FCC. Who has not heard of the allegations that the IRS has targeted out- of-favor groups or those who seem to have nothing in common but their opposition to various White House policies? No American should have the enforcement powers of the IRS unleashed on them because they don't agree with the White House on an issue. I think that is simply why my amendment is so necessary. Under the current bill, the only way the part-time board would have known about the abuses we learned about last week is the same way the rest of us did when we watched Senator Roth's hearing on television. That is how limited the authority of the part- time board is. We need real reform of how the IRS does its business. I believe putting a full-time, independent board in place to run the agency is the best way to do that. I say to those people who really want reform, if you really believe a board is essential to restructuring the IRS, then I say let's get out and run with the big dogs; let's get a full time, independent board. Otherwise, get back up on the porch, because a part-time advisory board is not going to even have a large bark; it will have a minor meow. If we are going to put some teeth into it, we need to have the teeth that a full-time, independent board governing the IRS can give to managing the agency, to make sure it does not abuse taxpayers. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act that we are now considering. Over the past several months Senator Roth and his Finance Committee have done an exemplary job of reviewing the legislation sent to us by the House and identifying ways to improve and strengthen that bill. And it's been well worth the wait. I also commend my colleague from Delaware and his committee for including a number of the proposals that I introduced as part of my Putting the Taxpayer First Act, earlier this year. They represent suggestions that I received from Missourians and small business owners across the country, who have called, written, and stopped me on the street to stress the need for IRS reform and greater taxpayer rights. While I believe we have made substantial progress toward that goal, one aspect of this bill continues to trouble me--the creation of the so-called oversight board. As currently proposed, a majority of this board will consist of six individuals who must split their time between watching over the IRS and running their private-sector businesses--each of which can be more than a full-time job. And even if these individuals can dedicate sufficient time, their ability to make real changes for the benefit of taxpayers amounts to little more than advice to the Commissioner, which he may or may not decide to take. Despite these issues, the creation of a part-time board has been portrayed by many as the linchpin of solving the problems at the IRS. But when has such a part-time advisory board ever turned around a governmental agency as vast as the IRS and with such a poor record of service to millions of Americans? I have searched for a comparable success story within our government, and came up dry. And while some point to Canada's Revenue Office as an example, Canada's part-time board is still on the drawing board. Consequently, I think we are placing too much reliance on the untested and unproven concept of a part-time board to bring fundamental change to the IRS. If we are going to create a board to steer the IRS back on course, let's do more than add some window dressing to this troubled agency. America's taxpayers deserve a well-managed agency committed to service. The amendment I offer today establishes the framework to accomplish that goal. Mr. President, my amendment creates an independent, full-time Board of Governors for the IRS, which will exercise top-level administrative management over the agency. The Board of Governors will have full responsibility, authority, and accountability for the IRS' enforcement activities, such as examinations and collections, which are often at the heart of taxpayer complaints about the IRS. In addition, the Board will oversee the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate and the new independent appeals function required by the bill. Under my amendment, the Board of Governors will consist of five members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, each with a staggered five-year term. Four of the members will be drawn from the private sector. Overall these members will bring private-sector experience critical to the management of an agency like the IRS. Of equal importance, they will bring the perspective of the diverse group of taxpayers the IRS must serve, including individuals and small and large businesses. The fifth member of the Board will be the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who will also serve as the Chairman of the Board of Governors. The board I envision through this amendment corrects the major weaknesses of the bill's part-time advisory board. First, my full-time Board of Governors is a permanent solution to the management difficulties that have plagued the IRS for years. It seems like little more than a token gesture to create an oversight board for the IRS and have it expire after 10 years, as set out in the bill. If a board is expected to turn the IRS around, wouldn't it make sense to continue the reason for that success story? Second, my full-time Board of Governors will have real authority to make a difference. The Board's direction is to ``oversee the Internal Revenue Service in the administration, management, conduct, direction, and supervision of the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes and tax conventions to which the United States is a party.'' The only exception to this broad authority is that the Board will have only a consultative role in developing tax policy. In contrast, the part-time advisory board recommended by the Finance Committee starts with broad authority but is quickly whittled down essentially to an advisory role. For instance, the part-time board would have no responsibility or authority with respect to tax policy. In my view, good tax policy must take into account more than just revenue and collections; it must consider the burdens that the law imposes on the taxpayers and the corresponding burdens involved in administering and enforcing those laws. A full-time Board of Governors managing the IRS will be uniquely qualified to provide critical perspective and feedback to the Treasury Department in crafting future tax proposals. Similarly, the bill's part-time board would have no responsibility or authority over specific IRS law enforcement activities or personnel actions. These restrictions fly in the face of the testimony that the Finance Committee received just last week, not to mention to committee's hearings last fall. Each of us was shocked by the taxpayers and IRS employees who came forward with accounts of poor service and abuse, and many of these cases involved IRS examination or collection activities. Moreover, these horror stories merely echo the countless letters and calls that each of us receives from taxpayers embroiled in disputes with the IRS in our home states. Can any of us suggest, with a straight face, that creating a part- time advisory board will ``fix'' the IRS when that board cannot know about or address specific enforcement or personnel problems? While I am not suggesting that the IRS board should address every taxpayer grievance, the board should be able to take action with respect to specific types of examination and collection problems and those that involve IRS personnel. Some will argue that the expansion of the taxpayer-confidentiality rules addresses this issue. I must disagree. The information that the part-time board will receive under this provision is dependent on the discretion of the Commissioner and the Treasury Inspector General. For too long, ``section 6103'' has been a convenient shield for the IRS to hide behind, and it will be too easy for that practice to continue leaving the board in the dark about the types of problems described all too clearly in the Finance Committee's hearings. In addition, limited access to taxpayer information won't help the board address personnel problems in the agency, which is critical if we are to restore credibility to the term ``service'' in its name. My amendment resolves this problem. As full-time employees, the four members of the Board of Governors drawn from the private sector will have access to the same information available to the Commissioner. Moreover, the Board under my amendment will have authority to address personnel issues. As a result, their hands will not be tied when it comes to restoring taxpayer service and respect in all IRS enforcement activities. The bill's part-time advisory board also starts out with authority to review and approve reorganization plans for the IRS. Yet tucked away at the end of the effective date section is a provision barring the part- time board from approving the current plan to reorganize the IRS along customer lines. This contradiction simply defies reason. I am a strong advocate of reorganizing the IRS into divisions that serve particular taxpayers with similar needs, like individual taxpayers and small business owners, and I included such a plan in my Putting the Taxpayer First Act that I introduced. IRS Commissioner Rossotti has also embraced this approach. With so much support, why should we restrict even a part-time advisory board from approving such a fundamental restructuring of the IRS but require its review and approval for all future plans? The full-time Board of Governors under my amendment would be required to evaluate and sign-off on all plans to reorganize the agency--it only makes sense! Mr. President, besides giving the IRS board real authority to run the agency and make critical changes, my amendment also ensures that the members of the Board of Governors are sufficiently committed to the task. Having been governor of my state of Missouri, I have some appreciation of the time and energy it takes to run a large organization. But I can't begin to imagine how I could have hoped to make a difference if I spent only a few days a year commuting to our capital, Jefferson City, to govern the state, and spent the rest of my time running a successful business or even a not so successful law practice. That is the trap we will create with a part-time advisory board for the IRS. The IRS has over 100,000 employees spread across the country and around the world. The agency has a budget of over $7 billion, and it collects more than $1 trillion each year from millions of taxpayers. It is an imposing task for even a full-time Board of Governors to reform an institution of this size-- common-sense suggests it is an impossible task for a part-time advisory board. What's more, the proponents of the bill contend that its part-time board will improve accountability within the IRS. But take, for example, a part-time board member who is an executive in a major corporation headquartered on the west coast. He flies to Washington several times a year as part of his IRS oversight responsibilities. How can he be accountable for the daily actions of this enormous organization when he is little more than a hostage to its bureaucracy on his occasional visit to Washington? If we are going to make changes to the IRS' management structure, we should give them a real chance for success and give the taxpayers confidence that reform can be achieved. Mr. President, while not everyone will agree with my proposal, let's take a moment to look at some arguments I've heard so far. Some have commented that we won't get the best people to serve on the IRS board if they have to leave their private-sector jobs for a tour of government service. As an example that just the opposite is true, I point to our current IRS Commissioner. In my assessment, Commissioner Rossotti has outstanding credentials and has been very successful as a business owner in the private sector. In addition, I think most of my colleagues would agree that he has done an exceptional job during his short tenure at the helm of the IRS. This criticism also rings rather hollow when we look at the individuals who have served on similar full-time boards and commissions throughout the government, like the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, to name a few. I've never heard it suggested that we scrape the bottom of the barrel to find people qualified to serve in these full-time positions. Just the opposite is true. As Commissioner Rossotti, Treasury Secretary Rubin, and many others have demonstrated, there are business leaders in this country who are willing to take leave from their private-sector lives to serve the public. Others have argued that the IRS Commissioner doesn't need a full-time board to run the agency, especially since the bill gives the Commissioner broader authority to bring in senior management talent. If that's true, why do we need a board at all? Why not have just Alan Greenspan run the Federal Reserve or Arthur Levitt oversee the securities markets? Surely the same arguments would apply to those boards and those commissions. I believe there is value in having a core group of individuals who bring important talents and experience to complement the Commissioner's management of an agency like the IRS. Just as with other boards and commissions throughout the government, these individuals can share the top-level management burdens and allow the Commissioner to focus on the most pressing issues completely and quickly. A third issue raised by my opponents is that a full-time board with real authority will make the IRS too independent. So what exactly is the problem? Sadly, there have been allegations in recent years that the IRS is being used for politically-motivated audits. Whether true or not, such assertions severely undercut any efforts to instill confidence in our tax-administration system. While I applaud the provision in the bill that prohibits Executive Branch influence over taxpayer audits, we can further ensure that result by establishing a board with representatives of both political parties, as my amendment requires. In the end, there should be nothing partisan about helping taxpayers to comply with the tax laws in the least burdensome manner possible. Mr. President, my amendment offers a straight forward, common-sense solution for the management of this troubled agency and it cures the inherent weaknesses of the part-time advisory board called for in the bill. With a vast number of agencies across this city, including the city itself, managed under full-time boards and commissions, we have ample evidence that this structure can work for the IRS. In my opinion, if we want more than window dressing on the current management structure, a full-time, full authority, full accountability Board of Governors is the answer. A part-time advisory board will not make a difference in how the agency is run. If we need a board, we need a full-time board. We don't need a part-time advisory board. Otherwise, if we do not want to have a full-time board, let's leave the agency's management alone, because when has a part-time advisory board ever turned an agency around? I suggest never. Amendment No. 2341 (Purpose: To strike the Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board and establish a full-time Board of Governors for the Internal Revenue Service)

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a minute on each side for the proponents and opponents to state their case on the amendment since the vote is going to be stacked later.

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

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we all know the problems of the IRS. They are well known. This is a troubled agency. It needs to be turned around. This is a good bill, but I think we need to do one thing to make it better. When has a part-time board ever turned around a troubled agency? A part-time board will not do the job. We need a full- time board if they want to change the culture of the agency. A full- time board such as the FTC, the SEC, even the Federal Reserve, can draw the people from all walks of life across the country to make sure the culture of the IRS is changed. If you want to do something about the IRS, you have to put into the field a big dog that can back up his bark. Otherwise you have a little puppy on the porch that is meowing with the cats. It is not going to change the IRS to put a toothless puppy in as an advisory board. I believe a full-time board can give us the strength we need for vital reform. I ask for support of my amendment. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. I ask for 10 minutes, because there are others on this side who may wish to speak.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will rise to introduce an amendment, but I will defer to my colleague from Delaware if he wishes to ask for a time agreement.

Mr. BOND. That is correct. Mr. President, 20 minutes for the side in opposition, and 10 minutes.

Mr. BOND. I yield back the remainder of time on our side. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware.