Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BOND

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I had my picture taken with the Sojourner. I thought it was quite coincidental that the Sojourner model showed up today. Timing is everything. I urge my colleagues who are interested in this space exploration to look at the panoramic view to see how the Sojourner operates. I see my colleague from Texas is anxious to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. I join my distinguished colleague from Maryland in thanking our friend from Ohio. No one in this body speaks with more knowledge and expertise on space issues than Senator John Glenn. To hear him talk about the exciting things that are happening in space, science and medical advances, it truly is remarkable. It gives one a sense of what we can accomplish with the investments we make. This is extremely helpful, as we go into the debate, because these are very tight budget times. We have taken a step of assuring that money is available for space, for investment in our future by the exploration not just of space but of the scientific discoveries that can come from utilizing the space station. I thank him first as one who is interested in science. I envy his background and his knowledge. I appreciate very much his description of the exciting things that can come from space exploration, not just for those of us who are worrying about the funny-named rocks on Mars but those who want to see concrete and specific medical advances here today.

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

Mr. BOND. Madam President, when major measures like this are considered on the floor, it is usually boilerplate for each side to say nice things about the counterpart. In the case of the VA-HUD bill--this is a very difficult bill--I say without reservation, and not as a matter of mere formality, that one of the great benefits I have in working through a very, very difficult bill is that I have the distinguished Senator from Maryland as my ranking member. She has helped me a great deal learn and understand many of the great challenges in this bill from her position as having chaired this committee. She has presented to us, in very workable fashion, a number of the concerns we have been able to meet in this bill, and I really could not be here with this difficult a bill in as good a shape as I believe it is without her support. It has been absolutely invaluable to me to have her assistance and that of her able staff. She mentioned a modest amendment that I look forward to working with her to include. I guess my whole concern over this bill--it was with a slight tear in my eye that I read the statement of administration policy from Budget Director Raines. He said some nice things about working with the committee. On the first page of his letter, he said, ``We urge the committee to reduce funding for lower priority programs or for programs that would be adequately funded at the requested level and to redirect funding of programs of higher priority.'' Unfortunately, we have looked at the programs. We have not funded the lower priority programs to the best of our ability. The priority funding that we have included in this bill does reflect the priorities of what I hope will be a bipartisan majority of this body. We do have the option when we go to conference, we hope, of increasing the overall allocation, so that there will be more funds available, and that we will be able to put some more money in the higher priority programs. But given the nature of the allocation and the many pressing needs, as my ranking member has outlined and as I have outlined, there are not low-priority programs funded in this bill. I note that on the America Reads Program, it has not been authorized. We don't really have any details on it yet. So we were reluctant to go forward with the President's full request. When I first heard about it, I thought it would be a program that would be funded in Labor-HHS if it is a reading program. But I am certainly willing to work with my minority colleagues in trying to make some accommodation of the President's interests there. With respect to the brownfields HUD program, I have said on this floor many times that HUD is a very troubled agency that is having a great deal of difficulty running the programs it is supposed to run. That is why I am reluctant to give it a new responsibility in the environmental area. EPA is handling that program. We have included money for the EPA for the brownfields program. We made brownfields clean up an eligible activity for the community development block grants, so that communities without an undue benefit, Federal bureaucratic interference, might be able to clean up some of them themselves. So we feel that the brownfields program is not one that ought to be added to HUD's already too-full plate. After speaking briefly with my ranking member, I join with her in urging our colleagues to bring forward the amendments. We hope to know by 10 o'clock tomorrow what amendments are pending. We want to be accommodating. We want to accommodate our colleagues if they do have amendments and, if possible, we would try to accommodate them. If we simply do not see the resources available, we would like to move expeditiously to a vote on it, if that is required. I am most encouraged by the optimistic thought that we could finish this very important bill by not too late tomorrow. I am from Missouri and it is the ``show me'' State. I will believe it when we have final passage. But I commit to working with the ranking member and all of my colleagues. In the past, we have been swamped at the end with a large number of colloquies and senses of the Senate. I have found, through very painful experiences, that I need to read those and make sure that we have time to consider them fully on both sides. So if colloquies or other noncontroversial items are to be inserted, it would be of great help to me and I would appreciate it, as my ranking member would, if we could see those colloquies as soon as possible, so we will be able to give them full consideration. Now, Madam President, I had hopes that one of our very distinguished colleagues would be able to be over this afternoon. We heard that Senator Glenn might wish to come and talk about the space station. We are open and we are ready to do business. We will be more than happy to entertain any measures. If any colleagues have an amendment that may need to go to a voice vote, we would like very much to lay it down today. We have both the time from now until 5:15 and then after the votes to do it. It is the request, I believe, of the leaders that we move forward. If there is an amendment that we can debate and set for a vote tomorrow morning, we would like very much to do so. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, it is now my pleasure to yield to my partner in this effort, the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I yield the floor. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Sarah Horrigan, who has worked on space and science issues on this bill, be allowed the privilege of the floor during consideration on S. 1034, the VA-HUD appropriations bill and any votes therein.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Represenatives on S. 858 entitled, ``An Act to Authorize Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998 for Intelligence and Intelligence-related Activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 858) entitled ``An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I stand before you to recognize a truly unique individual and personal friend on his 70th birthday. Robert ``Bob'' Lock, born on July 22, 1927, in Marshall, MO, has lived most of his life in Carrollton, MO. Bob has shown the kind of lifelong devotion to his State and country that make it an honor to commend him for his many years of civic contributions. After joining the Navy and serving his country in World War II, Bob founded Lock Steel Building Co. in 1947, and is still active in the industry today. He has been an active board member of several businesses and philanthropies throughout the years and takes pride in his lifelong work to help those less fortunate than himself. Always young in spirit and energy, I commend Bob for his generosity and service with a special birthday wish that my friend continues to enrich his community for years to come.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my cochair of the National Guard Caucus, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, in support of a very long overdue and very important provision offered by the chairman of our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the full committee. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this measure to elevate the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a rank of four-star general and to give that general a seat at the table as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As has already been pointed out, the National Guard has been increasingly called upon to perform overseas deployments and other operational tasks in its role as a national defense component. The National Guard is unique from all other services in that it has a State-oriented mission as well as a national mission. The National Guard maintains a force of over 350,000 soldiers and airmen and women, fully 20 percent of our total fighting force. It is a force greater, almost double that of another military component already represented on the JCS. The current administrative chain of command for the National Guard at the highest levels is confusing, to say the least. Component Air Force personnel of the National Guard, who are integrated into the Air Force structure in an enlightened and seamless way, fall under the umbrella of the Chief of the Guard Bureau, specifically to address the unique requirements faced by the National Guard personnel, but the Chief of the National Guard Bureau is responsible to the Chief of the Army. By placing the Chief of the Guard Bureau on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this convoluted chain of command will be rationalized. By placing the Chief of the Guard Bureau on the JCS, the unique characteristics of the Guard will receive their just due. As former Governors, my cochairman and I recognize as much as anyone can the truly vital State mission that the Guard provides. I have come to know and appreciate what the Guard must do in its civilian mission and its State militia role. This is a unique mission, unlike any of the missions of the other branches of the service, and for this reason as well it commends a seat at the table with the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the head of the Guard Bureau. My colleagues from Alaska and Kentucky have already pointed out how the Guard gets short shrift when major decisions are made. We have a couple of colonels in the room when the generals are making the decision. That does not carry a lot of weight. We have seen time and time again where agreements are reached, supposedly taking account of and recognizing the role the Guard plays, only to have the higher-ups, those people who have a membership on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, overturn or ignore those agreements. The President, who is advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gets, in my view, a biased view, and as a result the Office of the President traditionally has habitually disregarded the legitimate procurement needs of the Guard, and the recommendations that come to us from the President do not reflect what we in this body have continually recognized as the important role of the Guard. Rather than having us try to fight that battle every time, it makes sense, in my view, to have a four-star general as head of the Guard and have that person represented on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This will force the Defense Department to recognize the needs and the unique mission of the Guard in its budget requests and incorporate them into its financial plans as well as incorporating the Guard in its utilization plans. This action will go a long way to making sure that we have a fully integrated and effectively utilized civilian militia as we meet the changing needs with tight budgets for the future. As well, there are those of my colleagues who have had concerns about the politicization of National Guard requirements and resources. The administration has yet to recognize the legitimate procurement needs of the National Guard. Not once has one penny been requested for the National Guard's procurement requirements. The Department of Defense has relied upon the largess of the Congress to support it. So, to my colleagues who will use the argument in the coming days during discussions on the Defense authorization and appropriation bills, that ``the Pentagon has not even asked for so many dollars,'' the Pentagon, doesn't do the asking, it is the President, and he has seen fit to disregard habitually, the legitimate procurement needs of the Guard. By having the Guard represented on the JCS, the Defense Department will be forced to recognize these needs in its budget and incorporate them into its financial plan. And this action will relieve a lot of that politicization we keep hearing about. This amendment will not increase the size of the National Guard, nor increase the administrative staffs. The rules and requirements met by the other Joint Chiefs will have to be met by the National Guard Chief. This is an amendment whose time has come. It is forward thinking, it recognizes the changing world situation and the subsequent change to our Nation's military force structure and requirements. It is an important step in the right direction of modernizing the military paradigms we have lived with through the cold war and goes a long way to addressing QDR concerns for the direction of our Nation's military force. I say again, I urge Members who have not yet cosponsored it--and there are only 53 left--to join us in cosponsoring this measure because this is an idea whose time has come. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend from Indiana. I rise to express my opposition to the Feingold amendment. I understand, as the Senator from Indiana does, the need to deal with the fiscal problems the Department of Defense will face in coming years. We are all very much aware of those, and we know that choices have to be made. We know we have to operate within a budget. Mr. President, the Department of Defense has just completed its Quadrennial Defense Review. Not all of us like what the QDR had to say, but it was a strategy-based plan and decision for the future. This fall and early this winter, as the Senator from Indiana has just pointed out, the National Defense Panel will come out with another review of the Department's future. Just how many strategic essays does the sponsor of this amendment want? We can run around and order more studies conducted. Somehow, conducting studies makes thin soup. We can continue to put more of a paperwork burden on the Department of Defense, but that does not change the need for us to stay within the budget that has already been adopted by this Congress, to put us on a path to balance the budget by the year 2002, or sooner, I hope. We know those numbers. We know the maximum we can allot, and another study does not change the obligation of Congress to make tough choices based on what the Department of Defense has told us. The Armed Services Committee has held hearings. They have asked these questions. I say for my friends that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has also held hearings. We have also gone over all of these items and asked these questions. The sponsor and other Members are interested in where we stand and what the best thinking of the Department of Defense is today. I invite them to review the testimony that has been presented at those hearings and also to review the recommendations of the National Defense Panel. Technology moves on. We need to provide our military personnel with the finest equipment available in the present, as well as in the short- and long-term future. Technology is not cheap. But it does save lives. It protects our freedom; it protects our national security and international peace. These goals are worthy objectives. It is worth the cost. If some in this body do not believe it is worth the cost, I strongly disagree with them, and I will fight them on that. We are currently in the process of procuring the Navy's No. 1 priority. It happens to be tactical aircraft for its carrier fleet. This is a fleet which the Armed Services Committee, and I predict the full Senate, will shortly show its support by advancing $345 million in this bill in order to bring the ship online and to do it faster and cheaper. This is a commitment to naval aviation. We need the carriers and the airplanes on the deck. Enough strategic studies. Let's get on with the program. I appreciate the time. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the amendment. As a former chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on International Finance, it is a pleasure to rise in support of the amendment offered by the current chair of that subcommittee and the current ranking member. We spent a lot of time in the International Finance Subcommittee trying to figure out what export controls work and what controls do not work. Let me tell you something, Mr. President. The one thing that we have learned is we do not spend enough time in dealing with the truly cutting-edge technology, the major supercomputers that need to be controlled. And why? Because we spend too much time on things that are readily available in Radio Shack in the United States or similar stores throughout the world. Why are we wasting our time trying to control something that any attache from an Embassy can walk into a store here in the United States and pick up and send home or can be found in a store in almost any major city in the world. Two years ago, the Clinton administration put to an end the requirement that a U.S. exporter of computer technology attain a Commerce Department license prior to selling computer equipment with a capacity greater than 2,000 MTOPS to any Third Tier nation--2,000. We need to keep these numbers in mind and, unfortunately, there are a lot of numbers going to be thrown around. We are talking about the range of 2,000 to 7,000. Now, the administration arrived at this decision at the conclusion of a detailed study by a professor at Stanford University conducted in association with the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce. These parties concluded that the marginal benefit to national security cannot justify requiring U.S. exporters of technology at this level to be licensed for sale to nonmilitary users. Acting on the conclusions of this very credible source and with the concurrence of the Defense and Commerce Departments, the administration rolled back the regulatory requirement that the first-degree amendment of the distinguished Senators from Mississippi and Illinois would seek to reimpose. In spite of my great respect for my esteemed colleagues from Mississippi and Illinois, let me say that rolling back the decontrols is unwise and misdirected policy, and I hope that our colleagues will join us in supporting the second-degree amendment. The policy of the legislative change in the first-degree amendment quite simply cannot be policed, it cannot be enforced, it is ineffective, and it does little to contribute to our national security. I might add, ``harsh letter to follow.'' I think if you would take those four points--it cannot be policed, it cannot be enforced, it is ineffective, and does not contribute to our national security--it does harm our economic competitiveness. It does take away jobs from Americans. The question here is about computer technology, but it is also about computer chips. Dozens of computer chips with a typical capacity of 650 MTOPS are available commercially all over the world--650 MTOPS. I happened to stop by the candy desk, and I picked up four pieces of candy. Each one of these could hold a computer chip wrapped in a couple of layers of protective shipping material. Four 650 MTOPS chips would give you the capacity of 2,600 MTOPS--600 MTOPS above the level. If these were four computer chips, that would give you more computing power than the minimum amount to be licensed in sales under this first- degree amendment. I am told that anyone with the know-how, basic electronic know-how, can fashion these chips together in a computer with capacity that is far greater than that which would be regulated under this amendment. I cite this example to show that it is nearly impossible to prevent the transport of certain technology particularly when it can be carried out of the country in somebody's pocket. It is simply fruitless to attempt to control technology at this level through export control measures. Now, the proponents and my friend from Illinois have talked about sales of supercomputers to our adversaries. If that is what we were talking about, if we were talking truly about supercomputers, I would be on their side because I do not think we ought to be selling supercomputers. Supercomputers that do military work these days are 20,000 MTOPS to 650,000 MTOPS. They are talking about computers 10 times, 10 times the range that would be covered by this regulation. Now, the Senator from Illinois said that the servers we have in our offices are about 200 to 250 MTOPS. I just checked with the computer center, and the Pentium server that we have in our office to do such sophisticated things as handle the mail and try to get the split infinitives out of the letters my staff prepares for me and handle memoranda and keep the books in our office is a 1,500 MTOPS computer. That server is 1,500, just under the level that would be regulated. And we do the high-technology stuff like keep the mail and send e-mail messages. I have even learned how to use it. That is how simple it is. With little benefit to national security, the first-degree amendment's proponents are preparing to deliver a serious blow to the American computer industry. With very little to show for it, the advocates of this amendment are advocating the subjection of the entire computer industry to a cumbersome bureaucratic process and a significant regulatory burden. Our competitors certainly will not be joining us in this effort. To the contrary. When they have concluded their celebration and breaking open the champagne bottles to celebrate their capture of this market, they will use this opportunity to leave our manufacturers in the dust. While perhaps our most dynamic industry is forced to comply with added regulatory obstacles, our competitors will be selling to our country's former customers. This amendment, Mr. President, is a blow because it is not regulating the sale of supercomputers. The technology we fear will be employed to upgrade weapons systems. The amendment actually regulates the sale of technology on the level of an office server or an office workstation, a tremendous market for our manufacturers. In a short period of time, this amendment will be regulating personal computers and we will be doing it by legislation that will have to be changed. You know how quickly we change things around here. Not that quickly. Many levels of technology far below that which pose national security risks will be subjected to this policy. Leadership in the computer industry is incredibly important to the prosperity of this country. We cannot afford to foreclose those markets. The disadvantage to our producers on the world market cannot be understated. The potential loss of U.S. jobs cannot be underestimated. And the risk to our leadership in the industry should not be jeopardized in this manner. I do not take lightly the reports of technology being diverted to unauthorized military users. This is a serious matter that requires our attention. That is why it is important to study the 1995 decontrol and evaluate its effectiveness. I believe that we will find that it was unlikely that these transfers could have been prevented and that they are an inevitable byproduct of the world market. But, should it be concluded that decontrol is a threat, corrective measures can and should be taken in a prompt fashion. They can be taken administratively. However, to backtrack today with a legislative enactment would be a mistaken rush to judgment and risks placing our companies at a significant competitive disadvantage. It has already been pointed out, and I believe the Senator from California has offered into the Record the opposition of the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the administration, and several of my colleagues. I note just one provision in the letter from our former colleague, the former Senator from Maine now the Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen. He says in that letter: I am a strong advocate for effective export controls. To be most effective, we must focus our limited export control resources on the export of goods and technologies that can make a significant difference for national security and nonproliferation reasons. Mr. President, that is the gist of this whole thing. We should not be focusing our efforts on things that are readily available commercially. I agree with the Secretary of Defense that we ought to concentrate our efforts on the true supercomputers and make sure that those, not office workstations, are kept out of the hands of potential adversaries. We need to be selling to countries like Israel workstations and office things, personal computers, that would, if the first-degree amendment were adopted, be subject to a lengthy licensing process. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the second-degree amendment of the chairman of the subcommittee, my friend from Minnesota. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the Defense authorization bill to include authorization for funding construction of a National Guard readiness center. Military construction projects such as this will ensure that as we downsize our military, the facilities which house and service our military will not be left to deteriorate. Armories throughout the Nation need to be adequately maintained and upgraded to provide decent training facilities for the men and women assigned to units based at these armories and to protect the vital equipment stored there. In Macon, MO, there is a company of soldiers located in a facility owned by the city, which was constructed in the 1890's and is totally inadequate. In order to provide these soldiers with a facility capable of maintaining their proficiency in mission essential task training, I have requested funds adequate to complete such a facility. I also point out that it will be less expensive to create a new facility than to attempt to refurbish this 19th century structure.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 150, on which I voted ``no,'' it was my intention to vote ``aye.'' Since it will in no way change the outcome of the vote, I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as an ``aye.''

Mr. BOND. I want to get a unanimous consent. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in this budget agreement some of us thought there was too much spending and not enough tax relief. We find that there are even more spending proposals and less tax relief than we thought. This point of order is directed at spending on Amtrak in addition to other things. There is $2.3 billion being spent out of the tax cut section going to Amtrak. I join my colleague from Arizona in asking that these matters be referred to the authorization for Amtrak and urge that the point of order be sustained. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this bill I am introducing today is a bridge discretionary bill. We cannot forget in our reauthorization of the Nation's transportation policy the importance of maintaining our bridges. Missouri has approximately 23,000 bridges in total. Unfortunately, the State of Missouri, according to Department of Transportation statistics ranks sixth from the bottom on conditions of bridges in this country. This is a deplorable place for the State of Missouri to be. We must start taking better care of our roads and bridges and begin building roads for the 21st century--with new technologies, new materials, and better designs. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials America must address the deficiencies of over 11,000 bridges per year just to maintain current levels of condition. According to the Department of Transportation, the cost to improve bridge conditions would require an annual investment of $8.9 billion. Let us not lose the hard-won gains in our transportation infrastructure. Let's not squander our investment. Postponing taking care of our bridge needs only means that our investment declines and to make repairs later will cost more. The cliche does say ``Pay now or pay More later.'' Taking care of our transportation infrastructure can be compared to taking care of your home. If you fail to fix the leaky roof, fail to re-paint, fail to adequately insulate, your costs increase and the value of your home declines. If we fail to maintain and reinvest in our Nation's bridges not only does the value of our investment decline, but lives are lost and our economic prosperity is jeopardized. I am pleased to work with my dear friend and House colleague, Congresswoman Emerson to introduce this bill in both Houses--the Safe Bridges Act of 1997. The Safe Bridges Act of 1997 is our marker to stress to our colleagues from around the country that bridges are an important and necessary component to this country's transportation system. Properly maintained and constructed bridges help save lives and provide for the efficient movement of people and goods in this country. If we want to secure our foundation--we must renew our investment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this bill I am introducing today is a bridge discretionary bill. We cannot forget in our reauthorization of the Nation's transportation policy the importance of maintaining our bridges. Missouri has approximately 23,000 bridges in total. Unfortunately, the State of Missouri, according to Department of Transportation statistics ranks sixth from the bottom on conditions of bridges in this country. This is a deplorable place for the State of Missouri to be. We must start taking better care of our roads and bridges and begin building roads for the 21st century--with new technologies, new materials, and better designs. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials America must address the deficiencies of over 11,000 bridges per year just to maintain current levels of condition. According to the Department of Transportation, the cost to improve bridge conditions would require an annual investment of $8.9 billion. Let us not lose the hard-won gains in our transportation infrastructure. Let's not squander our investment. Postponing taking care of our bridge needs only means that our investment declines and to make repairs later will cost more. The cliche does say ``Pay now or pay More later.'' Taking care of our transportation infrastructure can be compared to taking care of your home. If you fail to fix the leaky roof, fail to re-paint, fail to adequately insulate, your costs increase and the value of your home declines. If we fail to maintain and reinvest in our Nation's bridges not only does the value of our investment decline, but lives are lost and our economic prosperity is jeopardized. I am pleased to work with my dear friend and House colleague, Congresswoman Emerson to introduce this bill in both Houses--the Safe Bridges Act of 1997. The Safe Bridges Act of 1997 is our marker to stress to our colleagues from around the country that bridges are an important and necessary component to this country's transportation system. Properly maintained and constructed bridges help save lives and provide for the efficient movement of people and goods in this country. If we want to secure our foundation--we must renew our investment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague and neighbor from Illinois. I commend him for his perseverance in being able to hold on to the floor. These are very difficult times and this is a very important amendment. I congratulate him on staying with it so we can bring this up and debate it while we have the attention of this body. I believe my experience in the State of Missouri is probably like the experience that most of us have had in our own States. As we travel around and talk to farmers, to people involved in small business, to truck drivers, day care operators, people who work for themselves, they ask an unanswerable question: Why is it that I can only deduct, now, 40 percent of what I pay in health insurance premiums for myself and my family when my neighbor next door who works for a large corporation, or in the country when my neighbor next door who works for a large corporate farm gets his or her health care paid and the employer deducts 100-percent of what they pay and they do not have to include any of the health insurance on their income tax? Why does the self- employed person only get to deduct 40 percent? Frankly, there is no answer, Mr. President. There is a gross inequity in this system. It is an inequity that has been pointed out by every farm organization in my State time and time again. It has been pointed out by organizations representing small business. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will enter in the Record a letter from the NFIB of June 26 expressing their strong support for the 100- percent deductibility for the amounts paid for health insurance for self-employed business owners. This is a matter of equity. This is a matter that is absolutely essential to see that the 5.1 million self-employed individuals in the country today have health insurance and the 1.3 million children who do not have health insurance and who live in a family headed by an entrepreneur, a self-employed business owner. This, to me, is not only an inequity, but it is a very bad policy outcome. We are talking about the health of children. One of the best things we can do is provide 100 percent deductibility. Mr. President, the reason I am here joining with my colleague from Illinois, we have pointed out in this tax relief bill, this tax reduction bill that is before the Senate now, with $85 billion in taxes, we have pointed out that this is one of the top priorities of small business and of farmers, of the struggling working middle class of America. Before the debate began, I circulated a letter signed by 52 of my colleagues, in addition, saying that this was important. Unfortunately, the three top small business priorities were excluded--the self- employed tax deduction for health care, the home office business deduction, and the independent contractor. This measure, unfortunately, is not in either the House or the Senate bill. We feel it is vitally important to put it there. I congratulate my colleague from Illinois in choosing the tobacco tax. Tobacco taxes are being raised in this bill. There is no more important place to put those taxes than this, guaranteeing health for self-employed and their children. In addition to the figures that my colleague from Illinois stated, about 3,000 children becoming regular smokers every day, last week when Senator Bumpers and I introduced a measure to encourage pregnant women to stop smoking, I pointed out that while tobacco use among most pregnant women is declining, tobacco usage among teenage pregnant women is on the increase. In my State it is 50 percent above the national average, and not surprisingly our birth-defect rate is 50 percent above the nationwide average. This will have an impact on discouraging teenagers from starting to smoke. It will help encourage pregnant women, particularly pregnant teenagers, to stop smoking. Mr. President, this is an important matter of equity. It is a matter of health care policy. I urge my colleagues to support what I know will be a required budget waiver so that this could be included. Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of June 26 from the vice president for Federal Government relations of NFIB, Dan Danner, saying, ``The self-employed have an extremely difficult time purchasing health insurance. This is why 3 million self-employed business owners have no health insurance, nor do 1.3 million of their children.''

Mr. BOND. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the section?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of committee and the manager of the bill. Having been enlightened by quite a few minutes of debate on the floor, I asked for 2 additional minutes. First, I want to emphasize that what we are talking about here is a bipartisan bill. My friend from Massachusetts characterized it as a Republican bill. I particularly appreciated the kind comments by the Senator from Montana. As I listened to his praise of the measure, I was reminded of those immortal words of Mark Twain. When asked about the music of Wagner, he said, ``It is not as bad as it sounds.'' There was some of that in the praise that the Senator from Montana heaped upon this measure. I appreciate his support and his good words. When I listened to my colleague from Massachusetts, I found out why this music sounds so much better than the alternative because, Members of the Senate, I agree that we are looking for saving and protecting the working men and women of America, the small business owners. As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I have had the opportunity to listen to those people who are struggling to make a living for themselves and provide jobs for others through small business. I can tell you that after we dealt last year with some of the significant problems in regulatory reform, it was clear that the small businesses of America are overtaxed and overburdened by the Federal Government's desire for more money. They are the ones who are pulling the wagon. They are moving the economy. And they are paying the tariff for this Government. This measure, the bipartisan agreement reached between leaders of Congress and the President, provided that there would be spending reforms and that there would be tax reductions--tax reductions in the process of getting to a balanced budget. Those tax reductions are absolutely essential if we want to continue the dynamic engine that moves this country forward. I rise in strong opposition to the Daschle amendment because, No. 1, the Daschle amendment only provides $68.1 billion in net tax cuts-- a 20-percent reduction from the bipartisan plan. It goes back on the agreement reached between the leaders of Congress and the President on what we need to do to get this economy moving again. The Daschle plan provides $14 billion less to American families than the bipartisan plan would in the child tax credit. Families under it would only receive $350 per child instead of $500 per child, and children aged 13 and over would not even be eligible. The Daschle plan, moreover, is a bad deal for seniors. Seniors get about one-third of the capital gains realized in this country. They would have to pay 10 percent more in capital gains taxes under the Daschle scheme. But it is a particularly bad deal for small business owners and farmers. It contains less than half the death tax relief contained in the bipartisan plan, and on capital gains taxes, seniors, small business owners, farmers, and self-employed would pay 10 percent more. As I said, the Daschle plan is a deal-breaker. The Daschle plan is outside of the scope of the agreement under which we are working. Mr. President, in saying that, I want to emphasize that there is one important element which must and will be added to the measure pending before us. One of the top priorities for farmers, ranchers, truckdrivers, and small business men and women across this country is getting fairness in tax treatment of the money paid for health insurance premiums. For too long people who are self-employed have suffered because they have not gotten the same breaks that a large corporation or institution gets in being able to deduct 100 percent of what is paid for health insurance. Now, I fought long and hard in 1995, and I included an amendment in the Balanced Budget Act, unfortunately, vetoed by President Clinton, which would have increased the health insurance deduction for the self- employed to 50 percent from 25 percent. In 1996, I worked with Senator Kassebaum to include in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act an increase in the self-employed health insurance deduction incrementally to 80 percent. That is not far enough and that is not fast enough. Today, while the self-employed can deduct 40 percent of their health insurance costs, they are still not on a level playing field, and very few of them can wait until 2006 to get sick. The budget resolution reported out of the Budget Committee includes an amendment I offered that was cosponsored by every member of the Budget Committee present, which calls for a portion of the resources available in this legislation to be set aside for an immediate 100- percent deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed. As I said, it was cosponsored by all members, Democrat and Republican. Earlier this month, I originated a letter to the Senate Finance Committee urging full deductibility for the self-employed. That letter was signed by 53 Senators. I believe that is a majority. Now, an immediate deduction of 100 percent would make health insurance more affordable and accessible to some more than 5.1 million self-employed who lack health insurance, almost a quarter of the self- employed work force. In addition, full deductibility of health insurance by the self-employed will also help insure 1.4 million children who live in households headed by self-employed individuals. Coverage of these self-employed and their children through the self- employed health insurance deduction will enable the private sector to address these health care needs. I am proud to cosponsor the amendment put forward by my colleague and neighbor from Illinois, Senator Durbin, which would pay for the cost of this deductibility with a 10-cent increase in the tax on cigarettes. This is one way we can pay for this measure. We know that 3,000 children become regular smokers every day and start down that dangerous road at 13. By enacting this amendment, we cannot only pay for health insurance, we can provide a deterrent against children smoking and thus help save lives. In addition, the revenues raised will be used for a directly related purpose, reducing the cost of health care coverage for the self-employed and their families. Last week, with my colleague and neighbor from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, I introduced a measure, the Pregnant Mothers and Infants Health Protection Act, to set up a fund to discourage smoking among pregnant women and among parents with small children because of the tremendous impact of birth defects from smoking and because of the danger of SIDS for those who smoke. In any event, I believe that this amendment will improve the measure. I urge defeat of the Daschle amendment. The budget resolution calls for full deductibility of health insurance. I look forward to working with my colleagues to include that measure in the final bill as reported out. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of the committee.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to reform the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. There is, as I speak, a tribe that is attempting to move into the State of Missouri to build a large gambling casino. I do not believe the tribe is entitled to build this casino under the Indian gaming law, but while Secretary Babbitt has indicated he would consider our views in making his decision, he may rule in favor of the tribe and those who favor gambling. The only way to reverse his decision would be for Congress to change the law and I plan to start that process now. As my colleagues know, Mr. President, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act became law in 1988 to address the rapid growth of gambling on Indian tribal lands. The Supreme Court affirmed the sovereignty of Indian tribes and upheld their right to conduct gambling on their tribal lands, holding that such a right could only be abrogated by an act of Congress. Recognizing that it is the policy of the majority of the States to prohibit or drastically regulate gambling and recognizing that many of the citizens of these States regard gambling as morally repugnant, Congress passed the Indian Gambling Regulatory Act. The intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is to balance tribal sovereignty with a State's interest in regulating and controlling gambling. The bill attempted to accomplish this by bringing parties to a mutual table to work out an agreement for regulating gambling on reservations consistent with State policy. But the spirit of the legislation is one of containment, to limit gambling and control its growth. IGRA pursues the objective by narrowly restricting the circumstances by which gaming can be conducted on land acquired by tribes after the date of passage of the statute, October 17, 1988. However, like many pieces of regulation, unforeseen circumstances arise, loopholes open and language proves to be too vague or obtusely drafted. Such is the case with IGRA. My legislation does not attempt to reopen or rewrite the bill, but it does attempt to address some of the legislative voids that affect my State and others. A first step for a tribe to conduct gaming on Indian land is to petition the Secretary of the Interior to have land taken into trust, this permits the tribe to benefit from the tax advantages afforded Indian tribes. While such trust petitions are under review by the Secretary, he is instructed to review the petition considering the best interests of both the tribe and the surrounding community. Furthermore, while such a petition is under review, elected officials have an opportunity to confront the Secretary with any concerns regarding gambling on that land or any objections that community members may hold regarding gambling. The statute, however, does not require the tribe to declare to the Secretary that land will be used for gambling. Furthermore, there is nothing in the statute that would prohibit a tribe from representing to the local community and the Secretary that land will be used for an unobjectionable purpose, only to begin using the land for gambling after it has been placed in trust. My legislation will require a tribe that is planning to begin conducting gambling on newly acquired tribal land to inform the Secretary during the trust application process that the land in question will in fact be used for gambling. Tribes with land held in trust that have not made such a declaration to the Secretary will be prohibited from using that land for gambling until such time as the tribe applies with the Secretary to have that land held in trust for the specific purpose of gambling. I believe this language will encourage the tribes to be open and upfront regarding their gambling plans for the trust land and is in the best interests of communities to be affected by gambling and in the best interests of the tribal- community relations. Communities that have serious concerns with the introduction of gambling to their neighborhoods will be given the opportunity to register their concerns with their elected officials and with the Secretary of the Interior. Tribes will also be disinclined to misrepresent their intentions or engage in any deceptive tactics to acquire land to begin or expand their gambling operations, which will go a long way to abating any suspicion between the tribes and the surrounding communities. This language also clarifies the language regarding tribes in the State of Oklahoma, a State where there is no tribal reservations, attempting to spread their gaming operations into a neighboring State. I believe such a practice was not foreseen by the original statute and is inconsistent with the spirit of that statute. Specifically, my legislation will permit an Oklahoma tribe to expand their gaming operations into a neighboring state, but only when the tribe is located in that State and the gaming will be conducted within the boundaries of a former reservation. My State is confronted with a situation where a tribe has purchased land reaching across the State border into Missouri and the tribe is attempting to use that recently purchased land to claim residency in Missouri for the purpose of the statute. To me, that is exploiting the loose drafting of a statutory language. I do not believe the tribe is located in Missouri as contemplated by the statute and, therefore, is not entitled to bring a casino into this Missouri community over the overwhelming objections of Missourians. My bill will make this section clear. Finally, the Indian Gaming statute authorizes tribes to conduct gaming on their reservations and other trust lands to the extent that gaming is permitted in that State. Such language is consistent with other Federal law by which tribes are subject to the criminal laws of the State but they are not subject to the regulations of the State. The Missouri constitution prohibits land-based gaming, gaming of this class may only be conducted on floating facilities on the Missouri River or Mississippi River. This prohibition was a popular referendum passed by the people of the State and the State legislature endorsed the objection to land-based gaming in a resolution. My legislation clearly states the Missouri Constitution contains a prohibition on land-based casinos and may not be interpreted in any way to permit class III land- based gaming. I might add that where a State has spoken so clearly--and the State constitution is certainly a clear statement of intent--I find it absurd that outsiders can just come in and do what the local people have said they oppose. Mr. President, my proposals are not an exhaustive list, but the statute has caused a situation in my State that this legislation will address. I understand that the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs will be pursuing a larger package of amendments to address the problems in the gaming laws. I encourage him to do so, I look forward to working with him and I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort. I want to conclude by reiterating that Federal Indian gambling legislation is intended to control and contain Indian gambling. Unfortunately the legislation is riddled with loopholes that out-of- State gambling interests can exploit through tribes like the Eastern Shawnee to operate gambling parlors. The people of southwest Missouri do not want any kind of casino gambling and I am going to do everything I can do legislatively and through the regulatory process to stop it. I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the bill and a brief question and answer in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to reform the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. There is, as I speak, a tribe that is attempting to move into the State of Missouri to build a large gambling casino. I do not believe the tribe is entitled to build this casino under the Indian gaming law, but while Secretary Babbitt has indicated he would consider our views in making his decision, he may rule in favor of the tribe and those who favor gambling. The only way to reverse his decision would be for Congress to change the law and I plan to start that process now. As my colleagues know, Mr. President, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act became law in 1988 to address the rapid growth of gambling on Indian tribal lands. The Supreme Court affirmed the sovereignty of Indian tribes and upheld their right to conduct gambling on their tribal lands, holding that such a right could only be abrogated by an act of Congress. Recognizing that it is the policy of the majority of the States to prohibit or drastically regulate gambling and recognizing that many of the citizens of these States regard gambling as morally repugnant, Congress passed the Indian Gambling Regulatory Act. The intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is to balance tribal sovereignty with a State's interest in regulating and controlling gambling. The bill attempted to accomplish this by bringing parties to a mutual table to work out an agreement for regulating gambling on reservations consistent with State policy. But the spirit of the legislation is one of containment, to limit gambling and control its growth. IGRA pursues the objective by narrowly restricting the circumstances by which gaming can be conducted on land acquired by tribes after the date of passage of the statute, October 17, 1988. However, like many pieces of regulation, unforeseen circumstances arise, loopholes open and language proves to be too vague or obtusely drafted. Such is the case with IGRA. My legislation does not attempt to reopen or rewrite the bill, but it does attempt to address some of the legislative voids that affect my State and others. A first step for a tribe to conduct gaming on Indian land is to petition the Secretary of the Interior to have land taken into trust, this permits the tribe to benefit from the tax advantages afforded Indian tribes. While such trust petitions are under review by the Secretary, he is instructed to review the petition considering the best interests of both the tribe and the surrounding community. Furthermore, while such a petition is under review, elected officials have an opportunity to confront the Secretary with any concerns regarding gambling on that land or any objections that community members may hold regarding gambling. The statute, however, does not require the tribe to declare to the Secretary that land will be used for gambling. Furthermore, there is nothing in the statute that would prohibit a tribe from representing to the local community and the Secretary that land will be used for an unobjectionable purpose, only to begin using the land for gambling after it has been placed in trust. My legislation will require a tribe that is planning to begin conducting gambling on newly acquired tribal land to inform the Secretary during the trust application process that the land in question will in fact be used for gambling. Tribes with land held in trust that have not made such a declaration to the Secretary will be prohibited from using that land for gambling until such time as the tribe applies with the Secretary to have that land held in trust for the specific purpose of gambling. I believe this language will encourage the tribes to be open and upfront regarding their gambling plans for the trust land and is in the best interests of communities to be affected by gambling and in the best interests of the tribal- community relations. Communities that have serious concerns with the introduction of gambling to their neighborhoods will be given the opportunity to register their concerns with their elected officials and with the Secretary of the Interior. Tribes will also be disinclined to misrepresent their intentions or engage in any deceptive tactics to acquire land to begin or expand their gambling operations, which will go a long way to abating any suspicion between the tribes and the surrounding communities. This language also clarifies the language regarding tribes in the State of Oklahoma, a State where there is no tribal reservations, attempting to spread their gaming operations into a neighboring State. I believe such a practice was not foreseen by the original statute and is inconsistent with the spirit of that statute. Specifically, my legislation will permit an Oklahoma tribe to expand their gaming operations into a neighboring state, but only when the tribe is located in that State and the gaming will be conducted within the boundaries of a former reservation. My State is confronted with a situation where a tribe has purchased land reaching across the State border into Missouri and the tribe is attempting to use that recently purchased land to claim residency in Missouri for the purpose of the statute. To me, that is exploiting the loose drafting of a statutory language. I do not believe the tribe is located in Missouri as contemplated by the statute and, therefore, is not entitled to bring a casino into this Missouri community over the overwhelming objections of Missourians. My bill will make this section clear. Finally, the Indian Gaming statute authorizes tribes to conduct gaming on their reservations and other trust lands to the extent that gaming is permitted in that State. Such language is consistent with other Federal law by which tribes are subject to the criminal laws of the State but they are not subject to the regulations of the State. The Missouri constitution prohibits land-based gaming, gaming of this class may only be conducted on floating facilities on the Missouri River or Mississippi River. This prohibition was a popular referendum passed by the people of the State and the State legislature endorsed the objection to land-based gaming in a resolution. My legislation clearly states the Missouri Constitution contains a prohibition on land-based casinos and may not be interpreted in any way to permit class III land- based gaming. I might add that where a State has spoken so clearly--and the State constitution is certainly a clear statement of intent--I find it absurd that outsiders can just come in and do what the local people have said they oppose. Mr. President, my proposals are not an exhaustive list, but the statute has caused a situation in my State that this legislation will address. I understand that the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs will be pursuing a larger package of amendments to address the problems in the gaming laws. I encourage him to do so, I look forward to working with him and I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort. I want to conclude by reiterating that Federal Indian gambling legislation is intended to control and contain Indian gambling. Unfortunately the legislation is riddled with loopholes that out-of- State gambling interests can exploit through tribes like the Eastern Shawnee to operate gambling parlors. The people of southwest Missouri do not want any kind of casino gambling and I am going to do everything I can do legislatively and through the regulatory process to stop it. I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the bill and a brief question and answer in the Record.