Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will be offering, after the 3 o'clock timeframe, an amendment to the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act. I commend the chairman of the committee and the members of the committee who have done so much good work in crafting a measure that I think is a strong measure that will do much to resolve the questions many citizens of America have about whether the IRS is treating them fairly, whether they are getting a fair shake. I have talked with a lot of people in my State, and I can tell you that there are a very large number of people in the IRS who have the confidence of the private sector folks, the taxpayers, and their representatives who work with them. Coming from Missouri, we can say that the overwhelming number of IRS agents who are dealing with the public are dealing on a fair, evenhanded basis. But we have had examples brought forth in the Finance Committee of abuses that are clearly outrageous. Something needs to be done to shape up the system so that a rogue agent cannot give the entire agency a bad name and that a rogue agent cannot impose or inflict upon a taxpayer burdens and penalties and requirements that are nowhere in the statutes. I will be offering an amendment which changes the proposed structure for the advisory board. I believe if you are going to have an advisory board, if you are going to put the IRS into some kind of board, then you need to do the job all the way. It is clear from the hearings and from the testimony that there is significant support for saying the IRS ought to be run by a board, it ought to have an insulation from political influence--it should be kept free from direct interference by the White House or even guidance out of the Treasury in terms of enforcement of the laws. Not tax policy. Tax policy is rightly one in which we expect the Secretary of the Treasury and the President to offer advice, counsel, and work with the Congress on carrying out the policy. But given the example of audits which at least raise the question of whether they have been conducted or directed by political influence, I think the only safeguard for the American people is to make the board a full-time professional board composed of five members--four from the private sector plus the Commissioner of IRS--and give it the full authority to run the day-to-day operations of the IRS. It would have a consultative role in developing tax policy. But let's take a look at it. We have full-time boards that conduct some agencies with very sensitive responsibilities--the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission. These are boards which run agencies with very important economic powers over the economy and over citizens in the economy. To the extent that we have entrusted powers to them, we see that they are able to provide a buffer between political influence and the work of the agency. On the other hand, if you are concerned about reforming an agency and you find that the agency is out of control, as the committee has found the IRS to be, then how can you expect a part-time advisory board to get the job done? Nobody has been able to cite me an example where a part-time advisory board came in and got control of the agency. The purpose of a part-time advisory board is to give advice which can be accepted or ignored, and, from the hearings, we have seen that a part-time advisory board type of advice is not what the IRS needs. I think the time has come, if we are going to fulfill the mandate given to us by our constituents to do something about the IRS, to reform it, then we ought to set up a full-time board so the members do not have to split their time between private activities--between their own jobs and their own responsibilities--and looking over the IRS on a day-or-two-a-month basis. It just does not make any sense. As a former chief executive of my State, I know that agencies can run a unit of Government and they can do so without political interference. In my experience, sometimes agencies of State government were too immune to interference or guidance or leadership from the Governor. But if the question here is to make sure that there is not improper influence on tax audits and tax investigation targets, the only way to do the job and to do it properly is to put the management and the authority over the work of the IRS in the control of a board with full- time members on an equal footing with the Commissioner so that they can insulate the IRS from any political influence. I believe this is a very logical step to ensure that the reformed IRS meets the standards we would all expect to see for this agency. If we are going to go for a board, let's go big time. Either go for an independent, full-time board with executive authority or get back up on the porch and let the existing agency run itself. Mr. President, I look forward to discussing this amendment when the time ripens for its consideration in the Chamber. I appreciate the chairman and the manager on the other side bringing to the floor a very good bill. I believe this provision will make it an even better bill, and I look forward to debating it, I hope this afternoon. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize a truly unique leader and educator for his exemplary service to my home State of Missouri at the time of his retirement. Dr. Lloyd Pelfrey has been President of Central Christian College of the Bible (CCCB) in Moberly, Missouri, for the past twenty-five years. Dr. Pelfrey will be honored this year at the College's Commencement exercise this coming May 8. CCCB first opened its doors in September of 1957. Lloyd started teaching at CCCB the same day it opened. He has held several positions including Professor of Old Testament, Academic Dean, Dean of Faculty, Executive President, Acting President and President. As the fourth President in the history of the school, he has served the longest of any other President of the College. He became an ordained minister in 1953 and co-founded the Missouri Christian Convention and the Missouri Operation for Vigourous Evangelism (MOVE), an organization which establishes new churches in Missouri. Lloyd serves on the National committee of the North American Christian Convention. During his tenure at CCCB, Lloyd boasted several accomplishments including construction of the Memorial Building, increased awareness of the need for a Development Department as an integral part of the college, development of an Admissions Department, accreditation of the college with Accrediting Association of Bible College, first fundraising banquet with Paul Harvey as speaker and the implementation of a major capital campaign. Commending Dr. Pelfrey for his many years of service to CCCB, 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, in observance of Home Education Week, May 3-9, I rise to pay tribute to the eight regions of Families for Home Education (FHE), in my home State of Missouri, for their excellence and continuing efforts to better the home education system. I have always recognized the importance of family involvement in the education of our youth and applaud the efforts of home educators to make a difference in the lives of their families. In today's complex society it is especially significant to have guidance in the development of our children and their continuing education. Through adult mentors, home schoolers develop, not only a close relationship with their families, but also acquire the much needed interpersonal skills through involvement in civic and community organizations in form of apprenticeship opportunities. The support home schooling receives helps to cultivate its success through family participation in our communities. My home State of Missouri especially relishes the high quality of home education and the strong family values it teaches. I commend the energies of FHE and the families that help make it possible. I wish FHE continued success and growth in future years.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, every year in St. Louis, Missouri, May Day is especially important in paying tribute to what can be achieved through collective action. This year, the Annie Malone Children and Family Service Center, as well as, the St. Louis African American community will celebrate May Day on May 17. The first of these celebrations occurred more than eighty years ago and since that time they have continually grown. The celebration serves as a reminder of all that has been endured and the prosperity that it now reflects. Annie Malone Children and Family Service Center began its service more than 100 years ago. Its predecessor was the St. Louis Colored Orphans' Home and was established in 1888 by a group of prominent women concerned about the welfare of neglected and orphaned children. The president of the Board of Directors from 1919 to 1943 was Annie Malone. In honor of her loyalty and dedication to the goals of the institution, it was renamed for her in 1946. Through the years, the Center has continued to expand its services and programs to meet the needs of a changing society, but the mission, ``to improve the quality of life for children, families, and the community utilizing education, social services, and developing positive values and self esteem,'' has remained the same. Annie M's has several programs including residential treatment, therapeutic services/family crisis center and its evaluation and diagnostic services. The programs have helped to make the quality of life more complete, fulfilling and successful for African Americans in the St. Louis Community. I salute the contributions made by Annie M's beneficial programs and join the community in paying tribute to the woman that helped in their growth and success, Annie Malone.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. As you know, in large part to your help, the conference report to the FY 1998 Supplemental appropriations bill includes $130 million for emergency CDBG funding that is intended to meet unmet emergency disaster needs by supplementing the existing, more traditional disaster programs administered through FEMA, the SBA and the Corps of Engineers. While there remains significant concerns over HUD's administration of emergency CDBG funding, buyout funding is an eligible activity under both FEMA disaster relief and HUD emergency CDBG funding, and I expect any request for buyout funding for Alabama to receive the full consideration by both FEMA and HUD. Nevertheless, the term ``buyout'' has become overused and has come to mean different things to different people. The federal government should be providing communities with a menu of flexible approaches to address emergency disaster needs. This flexibility is critical to the people of Alabama. In addition, I urge both FEMA and HUD to develop comprehensive yet flexible requirements for buyouts, including eligibility and cost requirements.

Mr. BOND. Correct, waivers are included to help programs address local needs. Emergency CDBG funding needs to remain flexible to assist families and individuals in these times of real crisis.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on Thursday, April 30, 1998, the St. Louis Jewish Community will be celebrating Israel's 50th Birthday. My home State of Missouri is especially excited for the event since President Harry S. Truman played a large role in the formation of the State of Israel. The 50th anniversary is very significant because it marks the reestablishment of Jewish Sovereignty in the ancient Jewish homeland, the reasserting of Jewish peoplehood after the devastation of the Holocaust, the fulfillment of the Zionist vision, the blossoming of Jewish creativity and community. The Jewish Federation of St. Louis is the central planning and fundraising agency of the St. Louis Jewish Community. This outstanding organization has coordinated the St. Louis Israel 50th anniversary celebration congregation. I congratulate the State of Israel and the Jewish community for 50 years of democracy. Additionally, I commend the Jewish Federation of St. Louis for its leadership during this exciting time. I wish them continued success in future years of Statehood.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished manager. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coverdell measure and in support of the Gorton-Frist amendment and in support of the Ashcroft amendment. We have an opportunity as a body to make some very clear statements about education that the people in our States are asking us to make. I firmly believe that education is a national priority but a local responsibility. This leads to a fundamental difference between this side and what might be referred to as a Washington establishment on education. I believe that those who know the names of the students personally are better at making decisions than those who don't know them. Unfortunately, Federal involvement in education over the years has started off with a great idea of providing resources in support for what we believe for our children is the highest priority, and that is getting them a good education, but it has mushroomed into burdensome regulations, judicial intrusion, unfunded mandates and unwanted meddling. The results have been that local school officials who are accountable to parents and communities have increasingly less and less control over what goes on in their classrooms. In some cases, parents really feel that they have lost control of their child's education. They have told me horror stories about how their children are not getting an education because of requirements that the Federal Government has put on the schools. I believe that parents and local school boards are and must be the key to true educational reform, not big Government. We should be empowering parents and teachers and school districts and States to develop challenging academic standards, programs and priorities, not making their jobs of educating children of America more difficult. As my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, said, we already have standards, we already have tests. As a result of those tests, we know where the problems are in education, and we need to do something about it. Yes, nationally we ought to focus on the problem, but we ought not to try to solve with a ``Washington, DC, solution'' the problems we face in every community and every city throughout Missouri and throughout America. I have had a very interesting and informative experience over the last year and a half talking to school board members, talking to teachers, talking to principals and talking to parents across my State of Missouri. It is from these discussions that I come back here with a renewed commitment to keep local control over education. We have school districts in Missouri hiring hordes of consultants and grant writers instead of teachers because they know they have to play ``Mother May I?'' with Washington, DC. We have some schools, the smaller schools, that say they don't even bother to apply for the Federal funds because they don't have the time and the resources to prepare the application. Leaders in school districts have told me of the unforeseen consequences of getting a grant. They get a grant development program and the grant expires and the school district has to determine whether to take local money from existing resources to continue the program or to eliminate it. One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said very, very convincingly today, and I love these words, ``The Federal Government doesn't run schools, and the Federal Government doesn't fund schools.'' I agree with those principles. I just wish that he were correct in the facts. The Federal Government should not be micromanaging school districts. In Missouri, 67 percent of the funds that go to the school districts come from the Federal Government. These are general funds for K through 12. They tell me, depending upon the school district, that anywhere from 40 to 85 percent of the red tape and the hassle and the regulations come from Washington. I don't think that is right. Last year, when we adopted the Gorton amendment to send money directly to the schools, some of my colleagues very eloquently said, ``We don't want to have Federal dollars going directly to school districts because the school districts will waste the money; they might build athletic facilities; or they will waste it in some other way.'' Mr. President, I have spent my adult career working with parents and teachers and school boards in Missouri. I have watched them work. I have watched their education decisions. I have spent about the last 11 years in this body watching Congress debate issues and watching the Federal bureaucracy administer programs. And when it comes to who wastes money, Mr. President, it is not even close. It is not a contest. The Washington way wastes more money by far. The locally controlled schools are far better at applying those dollars to the needs of the children in their schools. There is no disagreement that in some cases a local school district may need money to build some more schools or it may need money to hire more teachers. For some schools, new textbooks should be the top priority. For others, additional computers might be needed or a school safety program might need to be implemented. Who knows best? Those at the local level, held accountable by those they serve, or the bureaucrats in Washington? A one-size-fits-all approach does not and will not work in education. Let us give our schools, our teachers, and our parents the resources and flexibility they need to educate our children for a lifetime of achievement and accomplishment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendments and to support the bill, and I urge that they give a sound, strong endorsement to local control over education. I reserve the remainder of the time on this side and yield the floor. Again, I extend my sincere thanks to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts. I ask for 5 minutes to be yielded from the majority side.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on April 23, in a ceremony held in Kings Bay, Georgia on the U.S.S. Maine, Exercise Tiger veterans will be honored. Following the dockside ceremony, there will be a 24 hour embark on the nuclear missile submarine of the United States Navy's Sub Group 10. In addition, my home State of Missouri will receive a memorial anchor commemorating the D-day dress rehearsal turned battle that took place during World War II. This week in 1944, German ``E'' boats, patrolling the English Channel attacked Eight American tank landing ships near the Devon coast killing 749 United States Army and United States Navy soldiers. Of Tiger's death toll, 201 men were from the 3206th Quartermaster Company in my home State of Missouri. Due to the secrecy of this mission, to see the soldiers, who fought so bravely, finally received the acknowledgment they deserve. Knowing that I cannot adequately express my admiration and respect, I join in the opportunity to say thank you. I hope the raising of the anchor memorial will in some way compensate the brave soldiers who risked or lost their lives during this crucial exercise. This week will be a great occasion for the survivors of Exercise Tiger and I pay tribute to their courage and service to the United States of America.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on Sunday, April 19, 1998, a new math, science and business classroom building on the campus of Southwest Missouri State University-West Plains campus (SMSU), will be dedicated to former State Senator Emory L. Melton. Emory, a long time friend, has done much to help my home State of Missouri. Elected to the State Senate in 1972, Emory had no opposition five of the six times he ran, which is a State record. Originally, he involved himself in politics because of a strong feeling that the State government was growing much too quickly. As a Senator, he was known for reading every bill that came to the Senate floor and could point out even the slightest of errors. Many of his colleagues felt him to be one of the truest fiscal conservatives ever to serve in the Senate. I had the pleasure of witnessing his great leadership while serving my two terms as Governor. Before his service to the State Senate, Emory was the Barry County prosecuting attorney and a newspaper publisher in Cassville, Missouri. He served as Missouri Tourism Commission chair for many years. Emory received the St. Louis Globe-Democrat award for public service and was named one of the top ten legislators by Capitol press corps. With so many impressive accomplishments, it is no wonder the new campus building is named in his honor. I am extremely pleased to see Emory recognized for his great service to the State of Missouri. Congratulations Senator Emory Melton on a tribute well deserved.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a tremendous accomplishment by the Community Betterment Committee of Mt. Vernon, Missouri, On April 23, 1998, a project that began almost 2\1/2\ years ago will be dedicated at a lighting ceremony. Lighting the Lawrence County Courthouse, once just a dream to many citizens, has now become a reality. Through the perseverance of the Community Betterment Committee, private funds were raised to complete the project. The hard work put forth by the Mt. Vernon Community is impressive. Because of these efforts the Lawrence County Courthouse, for years to come, will be lit at night for people to enjoy. I congratulate the Community Betterment Committee for their outstanding achievement. Additionally, I commend the Mt. Vernon community for their generosity, without which, none of this would have been possible. I wish them continued success in all future endeavors.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the section 202 Elderly Housing Program is the most important housing program for elderly low-income Americans providing both affordable low-income housing and supportive services designed to meet the special needs of the elderly. The President's budget request proposes reducing the funding from a current year level of $645 million to $109 million, an 83 percent cut. On behalf of myself, Senator Mikulski, and numerous other colleagues, we offer this sense-of-the-Senate resolution to say that we must maintain the section 202 program. The alternative is to provide vouchers. Vouchers for the typical resident, an elderly woman, frail, in her seventies--to give her a voucher to go out and walk to find a new apartment, or new dwelling place, is simply unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to show an overwhelming vote in support of the program that maintains housing that our frail elderly so badly need. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am advised by the Budget Committee staff that we have to make a modification in the terminology of the sense-of- the-Senate language, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified, under the last subsection (b), to say, ``It is the sense of the Senate that''--at that point include the following--``the levels in this resolution assume that''.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so I may make some brief remarks and introduce an amendment on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague from Maryland.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Let me just offer my thanks and congratulations to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for presenting a budget resolution which balances a large number of competing interests without a lot of resources to do it. The discretionary caps are getting tighter, no question about it. The path of least resistance would have been to loosen them. I am pleased to say the Budget Committee, under Senator Domenici's leadership, avoided that path. Now the real test of leadership is before the full Senate to see whether we can keep those caps and move the budget--at long last--into balance. Even with the limits we face, the Budget Committee managed to assemble a good package that meets a number of critical priorities. That is what budgeting is about--setting priorities. These priorities call for funding the public needs of the current generation, but they also call for self-discipline to avoid increasing the debt burdens on our children and grandchildren. The budget resolution before the Senate sets those priorities-- keeping our obligations to both the present and the future. The best deals are those in which everybody wins without neglecting any critical priorities. I think this budget resolution is one of those kinds of deals. When you look at who wins, first, future generations win. We will keep our commitment to our children and grandchildren, get control over the Federal budget and stop piling on heavier and heavier debt burdens. We do this by putting the budget into balance and resisting the temptation to spend a surplus that we haven't even seen yet. If we keep to our current path, we may even get to lighten that debt burden a little bit. We have lived fairly comfortably at the expense of our children. We have borrowed from them about $5.5 trillion and spent it for our own needs and comforts. The living standard we now enjoy will be paid, to a great extent, by our children. I think that is worth saying again. Our children have bought or will buy $5.5 trillion worth of our current prosperity. They will pay for it in higher taxes, higher interest payments, and less funds to pay for the public needs and priorities they face. We certainly should not increase the debt any more. Now, it appears likely that we will run a small surplus for the next decade or so. Now we have a few crumbs to give back to our children in appreciation for what they have already lent us. Incredibly, some folks around here want us to spend that as well. We owe it to our children, Mr. President--we literally owe it to them--to pay down this massive debt. We certainly should not increase the debt even more. That's why it's so important to keep to the discretionary spending caps and to keep the budget moving into balance. The budget resolution achieves this goal. It keeps within the discretionary spending caps that the Congress and the President agreed to just last year. Unfortunately, the President's budget would have broken those caps by $12 billion in 1999, according to the Congressional Budget Office. I find this remarkable. Why is it so hard to keep to an agreement we made just last year? Breaking the discretionary caps, putting the balanced budget in jeopardy--these would have neglected the priority we have placed on the prosperity of future generations. The budget resolution avoids that temptation, keeps to the caps, and keeps our commitment to stop borrowing from our children and grandchildren. So, future generations win under the budget resolution. Who else wins? Well, current generations win, too--at every stage of life. For example, children already born--not just the children of the future--win under the budget resolution. Under the committee version, funding for the child care and development block grant will increase by $5 billion in budget authority--doubling its budget authority over the next 5 years. I am pleased also that the Budget Committee, on both sides of the political aisle, agreed with my proposal to designate savings from assuming the President's reduction in the School-to-Work Program for local early childhood development initiatives. This would provide another $1.5 billion for our Nation's children. Clearly, children are winners under the budget resolution. Adults are winners, too. Hardworking American taxpayers come out ahead under the committee plan. The budget resolution envisions $30 billion in tax relief. Some may criticize that amount for being too little. Of course, we would always like to find more ways to lighten the tax load on America's taxpayers. Let me note a couple of things about the committee's actions on tax relief. First, we need to keep in mind that any specific tax cut measure will be the responsibility of the Finance Committee. Nothing in the budget resolution dictates to that committee what it must do. In fact, if the committee finds additional offsets, it may cut taxes even more than the budget resolution proposes. The budget resolution includes a ``tax cut reserve fund'' to make deficit-neutral tax relief--of whatever size, as determined by the committee of jurisdiction--possible. Second, the Budget Committee's $30 billion in expected tax relief would allow long-needed relief in some crucial areas. These could include $10.5 billion in relief from the marriage penalty and $9 billion in child care expenses. I am particularly grateful that Chairman Domenici included in this chairman's mark an acceleration in the deductibility of health insurance for self-employed persons. This idea, which the full Budget Committee subsequently endorsed, is critical to achieving parity between self-employed persons and their large competitors. I have long advocated full deductibility as the only fair policy. Although current law now calls for that to be achieved in 2007, full deductibility needs to be achieved sooner. Current practice still places a relative disadvantage on self-employed persons, since employers do have full deductibility. People who pursue the American dream through independent self-employment should not be penalized or discouraged from getting health insurance by treating them differently. I am going to support the budget resolution because it is a step forward on this issue and on so many other issues. I urge my colleagues who have their own concerns about the tax package to look at it in the same light. Is it an improvement over current law? Yes. How can we oppose it just because it doesn't include everything we might like? I remind my colleagues of the political adage of not making the perfect into the enemy of the good. Finally, the budget resolution helps all American taxpayers by endorsing reform of the Internal Revenue Service. My distinguished colleagues from Iowa and Oklahoma Messrs. Grassley and Nickles, joined with me in the Budget Committee to propose that a tax relief package include improvement of taxpayer rights--especially in IRS property seizure cases--and reform of IRS penalty rules. This proposal was also endorsed by the full Budget Committee and it appears in the budget resolution. I thank the committee for its attention to, and concern for, the rights of our Nation's taxpayers. The budget resolution is a winning package for American taxpayers, as well as our children. Another group that wins under the budget resolution is our nation's seniors. The budget resolution provides needed support for both Social Security and Medicare. The Budget Committee's package adopts the President's call to set aside the expected budget surplus until we reform Social Security into a sound and reliable program for the long-term. Social Security, as the President knows, is a key source of support for our seniors as part of their total retirement strategy. That's why the President was right to demand that we ``Save Social Security First.'' The Budget Committee adopted the President's view. Remarkably, the President himself did not. As the Congressional Budget Office noted, the President's own budget submission would have reduced the expected surplus by $43 billion. Forty-three billion dollars. That's money spent to ``Save Big Government First.'' I commend my colleagues on the Budget Committee for including language in the budget resolution to remind the President of his promise to ``Save Social Security First'' and stating the sense of the Senate that these surpluses should be set aside until we reform Social Security for future generations. The surpluses should not be frittered away on higher spending in violation of last year's budget agreement. The Budget Committee also resisted the temptation to spend any Federal revenues that might arise from a tobacco settlement, despite numerous amendments from the committee minority to do so. Instead, the committee's plan earmarks those revenues for bolstering the Medicare Program. Given the health care costs that tobacco has placed on Medicare, I can think of no better way to use tobacco revenues. Those costs are part of the reason why Medicare is a troubled program. The seniors who rely on Medicare are counting on us to take the necessary steps to shore up that program. We took some preliminary steps in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. By slowing the annual rate of Medicare growth from 8.8 to 5.5 percent, the Balanced Budget Act extended the life of the Medicare part A trust fund through 2006, an improvement over the program's previous expected bankruptcy date in 2001. However, we all know the effect that the baby-boomers are going to have on the program when they start to retire in 2011. Let's start planning ahead by allocating any Federal tobacco revenues to keep Medicare in business for the customers--our senior citizen constituents--who need it. It would be irresponsible for use to do anything else. I sum, I say again that the best deals are those in which everybody wins. The Budget Committee has assembled a package that meets that standard. Future generations win, and current generations--children, working Americans, and senior citizens--also win. Who doesn't win under the budget resolution? Those who would break the discretionary caps, those who would push the budget out of balance, and those who would ``Save Big Government First.'' Anyone who observed the Budget Committee's markup of the budget resolution would have to note the alarming number of proposals from the minority that sought to spend, spend, spend. They no doubt will be the loudest in condemning the budget resolution for failing to adopt the President's new spending schemes. I find this astonishing. Frankly, the minority should be pleased with this resolution. The Budget Committee kept its word to the President to protect certain functions at funding levels the President agreed to in last year's bipartisan budget agreement. That agreement designed five budget functions as ``protected functions.'' These are International Affairs (Function 150); Natural Resources and Environment (300); Transportation (400); Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500); and Administration of Justice (750). In every case, the budget resolution meets or exceeds the levels we agreed to last year. With this in mind, it is amazing that the President could attack the committee's budget resolution by claiming it ``shortchanges our nation's future.'' By reducing the debt, by preserving Social Security and Medicare, the plan actually plans for the future. Apparently, the only problem for the President is that we could not keep the deal he signed just last year--and that he wanted to spend, spend, spend, even more than he agreed to last year. A deal is a deal, Mr. President. I supported the bipartisan budget agreement last year. I will support this year's plan, too, since it complies with what we agreed to last year. I do think there are a couple of areas where the budget resolution can be fine-tuned. I emphasize that the amendments I will propose are friendly amendments, intended to make a good budget plan better--not to attack it. The first of these related to housing for elderly persons. The President's budget request proposed slashing this program by some $500 million. In a hearing before the VA/HUD subcommittee, Secretary Cuomo did not explain why the administration is seeking this cut. Senator Mikulski and I committed to restoring the cut funds to avoid jeopardizing the supply of specialized rental housing for the elderly poor. We welcome the support of other Senators who share our concerns. I comment on two particular points. Chairman Domenici has included an acceleration in the deductibility of health insurance for self-employed persons. This idea, which the full Budget Committee subsequently endorsed, is critical to achieving parity between self-employed persons and the people who work for the large competitors. I fought this battle on the floor in the past session and in this session, and with the tremendous support of colleagues, we are moving in that direction. I think it is good news that the budget now provides that we move that up. I will offer one amendment now, and a second amendment I will propose will nudge the Immigration and Naturalization Service to establish circuit rides in the former Soviet Union to recognize the enormous cost imposed on refugees having to travel to Moscow. The amendment is a sense of the Senate, and it states that the budget resolution assumes $2 million in the INS budget. Again, I emphasize that these are offered in a friendly and cooperative spirit, seeking to make a good budget resolution even better. The budget resolution reported from the Budget Committee is a deal in which everybody wins, and I will be pleased to support it on the floor as I did in committee. Amendment No. 2213 (Purpose: Sense of the Senate to fully fund the Section 202 Elderly Housing program)

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, a sense of the Senate to urge we fund fully the section 202 Elderly Housing Program.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I believe our message has not been getting across that elderly housing works under the section 202 program. You can't expect elderly housing to be covered by the HOME program where there are many competing local needs that must be met. Most of all, do not put Grandmother or Aunt Effie out on the street in her walker with a voucher and expect that she is going to be able to find decent, affordable, appropriate housing. We need an overwhelming vote. I welcome the fact that we have had a number of cosponsors. I hope we will have a unanimous vote, or an overwhelming vote, to express the sense of the Senate that we are not going to change this program. This is a program that is meeting the needs of the elderly today. We must continue that program, because the needs are only growing greater and we need to do all we can to try to keep up with those needs. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I particularly thank my colleague from Maryland. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland, who has been a real champion in housing--housing for all kinds of people in need, but particularly housing for the elderly. I had the pleasure of beginning my service on the VA-HUD committee under her chairmanship. She has been absolutely invaluable in helping to guide, teach, and cooperate with me as we moved forward. Her statement on the importance of elderly housing is very compelling. I hope that we will have overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle for this amendment. Since some people are not getting the message, I ask that when a vote is scheduled on this amendment, that the yeas and nays be requested.

Mr. BOND. Deja vu all over again. Senator Mikulski and I rise one more time to fight to fulfill our commitment and the commitment of the Senate to fund fully the section 202 Elderly Housing Program at no less than $645 million for each of the next 5 fiscal years. I want to emphasize our commitment to this program and the elderly housing as the chairman and ranking member of the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, the Appropriations subcommittee with the responsibility for funding the section 202 Elderly Housing Program, as well as all other programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The purpose of this amendment is to set a floor of $645 million for the section 202 Elderly Housing Program, the amount that Congress appropriated for this program for fiscal year 1998, as opposed to the President's budget request of $109 million for fiscal year 1999--a cut of over $500 million from this $645 million program. The President's budget request is plainly wrong. I cannot state this in strong enough terms. We have an investment in the elderly and our Nation here just as we must invest in the youth of this Nation through good education and good, available health care. I want to be clear that we are not going to shortchange the elderly. The section 202 Elderly Housing Program is the most important housing program for elderly low-income Americans, providing both affordable low-income housing and supportive services designed to meet the special needs of the elderly. This combination of supportive services and affordable housing is critical to promoting independent living, self- sufficiency and dignity, while delaying the more costly alternative of institutional care. Section 202 elderly housing is more than just housing--it is a safety net for the elderly, providing both emotional and physical security and a sense of community. Moreover, since the inception of the program in 1959, the section 202 Elderly Housing Program has funded some 5,400 elderly housing projects with over 330,000 units. Nevertheless, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's own estimates, there are over 1.4 million elderly families currently identified as having ``worst case housing needs'' and in need of affordable housing. Despite the need for and the success of the section 202 Elderly Housing Program, the President proposes to slash funding for this program from $645 million in fiscal year 1998 to $109 million in fiscal year 1999. This is a cut of over 83 percent in funding and will mean a reduction from building some 6,000 units with fiscal year 1998 funding to building only 1,500 units with the President's proposed fiscal year 1999 funding. We cannot afford this critical loss of housing. Moreover, the President is proposing to merge section 202 elderly housing into the HOME program. I am a great supporter of the HOME program because it does a good job by providing affordable housing with decisionmaking at the local level. But there is no rational justification for merging section 202 into the HOME program. Not only is section 202 extremely successful and critically needed, a recent General Accounting Office report indicated that the HOME program has provided few elderly housing units since enactment. In particular, from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1996, over 1,400 section 202 elderly housing projects were developed with some 52,000 rental units for over 47,800 elderly individuals. During that same 5-year time period, the HOME program produced 30 elderly housing projects with 681 units which serve some 675 elderly individuals. In case you missed the figures, section 202, in 5 years, provided 52,000 housing units; the HOME program provided 681 housing units. However, the problem with the President's request does not stop here. The President also requests funding for 8,800 vouchers for the elderly. Over the last several years, this administration repeatedly has attempted to voucher out assisted housing, including housing for the elderly. Vouchers are a very important housing tool and work well in many instances, but the elderly deserve to have decent, safe, and affordable housing as well as needed supportive services. Section 202 elderly housing accomplishes these purposes, and vouchers do not. Think with me for a moment about this recurring nightmare image I have of an elderly woman in a walker with a voucher in her hand, searching dark and dangerous streets for needed shelter. That is what they are proposing we do. To put it in context, I remind my colleagues that the average tenant in section 202 housing is a frail, older woman in her seventies, living alone, with an income of less than $10,000 per year. Do we want to tell her to get out of the housing? Do we want to say, ``Here is a voucher, start walking up and down the streets and maybe a friend will go along and help you with your walker or push your wheelchair; you are going to have to hit the streets to find new housing''? That is not a comforting image, but it is a compelling one. Again, the need for section 202 elderly housing: There are currently 33 million Americans aged 65 and over. This is some 13 percent of all Americans. That number will grow to over 69 million elderly by the year 2030, which would be some 20 percent of all Americans, and will continue to grow to almost 80 million elderly Americans by 2050. Cutting back and remodeling the section 202 program will do these Americans a disservice. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the section 202 Elderly Housing Program and the need for Congress to stand by elderly families. Over the years, millions of Federal dollars have been saved by providing elderly families with access to supportive services in their homes and their communities. Without this housing and these services, many elderly persons and families would have had to be relocated to nursing homes and other institutions where care would be more costly and the loss of personal dignity more compelling. Mr. President, as I close my remarks, I send to the desk a letter from AARP saying that the AARP opposes the President's recommendations concerning section 202 housing and that the Bond-Mikulski floor amendment is a crucial step along the way to press for current funding as the relevant appropriations measure works its way through Congress; I ask that it be printed in the Record. American Association of Retired Persons, Washington, DC, March 30, 1998. Hon. Christopher S. Bond, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Bond: I am writing on behalf of the American Association of Retired Persons to express our support of your proposed amendment regarding supportive housing programs for elderly and disabled persons when the Senate takes up the FY 1999 Budget Resolution this week. These initiatives make a critical difference in the lives of many vulnerable Americans throughout the nation. Given the continuing need for such specialized housing, it is essential that appropriations are subsequently preserved next year in both programs. Living in Section 202 Elderly Housing means living at affordable rents in a user-friendly environment with features such as special lighting, nonskid floors, and grab bars that prevent serious injuries from falls--features which can help prevent early admission into a nursing home. Section 202 helps meet an acute housing need for frail low income older persons. An estimated eight persons, are waiting in line for every one Section 202 vacancy that occurs. Meanwhile, many of these individuals are forced to live an unsafe housing and in crime-ridden neighborhoods--in some instances with windows nailed shut--because they cannot afford to live anywhere else. The Association opposes the President's recommendations concerning Section 202 Housing. We intend to press for current funding throughout the year as the relevant appropriations bill works its way through Congress. The Bond- Mikulski floor amendment this week is a crucial step along the way. Sincerely, Horace B. Deets, Executive Director.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.