Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator John Kerry, my colleague and ranking member on the Small Business Committee, in sponsoring legislation to reauthorize the Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, Program. This program has proven itself to be highly effective. The bill we are introducing today acknowledges the success of the STTR Program by expanding it during the length of the reauthorization so that its benefits will increase in the coming years. The STTR Program was created in 1992 to stimulate technology transfer from research institutions to small firms while, at the same time, accomplishing the Federal government's research and development goals. The program is designed to convert the billions of dollars invested in research and development at our nation's universities, federal laboratories and nonprofit research institutions into new commercial technologies. It does this by joining the ideas and resources of research institutions with the commercialization experience of small companies. Each agency with an extramural research and development budget of more than $1 billion participates in the program. Currently, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, the National Science Foundation, NSF, and the Department of Energy, DOE, have STTR Programs. To receive an award under the STTR Program, a research institution and a small firm jointly submit a proposal to conduct research on a topic that reflects an agency's mission and research and development needs. The proposals are then peer-reviewed and judged on their scientific, technical and commercial merit. Similar to the Small Business Innovation Research Program, awards are provided in three phases. Phase one awards are designed to determine the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of a proposed research idea, with funding for individual awards limited to $100,000. Phase two awards further develop research from phase one and emphasize the idea's commercialization potential, with individual awards up to $500,000. Phase three awards consist of non-Federal funds for the commercial application of the technology, non-STTR Federal funds for the commercialization of products or services intended for procurement by the Federal government, or non-STTR Federal funds for continued research and development of the technology. The benefits of fostering collaboration between research institutions and small firms are numerous. Small firms have shown themselves to be excellent at commercializing research when they are provided the opportunity to take advantage of the expertise and resources that reside in our nation's universities. A recent Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy report reviewed the rate of return for research and development by large and small firms both with and without university partners. When these firms do not have university partners, their rate of return is 14 percent. When a collaboration is formed between universities and small firms, however, the rate of return jumps to 44 percent. By contrast, the rate of return only increases to 30 percent when large firms and universities collaborate. Moreover, partnerships between small firms and universities have led to world-class high-technology economic development. Numerous studies cite the emergence of Silicon Valley and the Route 128 corridor in Massachusetts as directly resulting from the partnerships and technology transfer that occurred, and are still occurring, among small firms, Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The cooperation between industry and these universities has strengthened considerably our economic competitiveness in the world. The STTR Program seeks to foster this same type of economic development in the hundreds of communities around the country that contain universities and federal laboratories. And, the STTR Program has proven to be immensely successful at growing small firms from these types of partnerships. The Committee on Small Business has recently received data on the commercial success of small firms that received STTR awards between 1995 and 1997. The results are truly outstanding. Of the 102 projects surveyed in that time-frame, 53 percent had either resulted in sales or the companies involved in the projects had received follow-on developmental funding for the technology. To date, these projects had resulted in $132 million from sales and $53 million in additional developmental funding. Moreover, the Committee has learned that the companies who had received these STTR awards are projecting an additional $186 million in sales in 2001 and an estimated additional $900 million in sales by 2005. These numbers are even more remarkable when one considers that it typically takes between 7 to 10 years to successfully commercialize new technologies. In addition to proving to be an amazing commercial success, the STTR Program has also provided high-quality research to the Federal Government. In the most recent published report of the General Accounting Office on the STTR Program, Federal agencies rated highly the technical quality of the proposals. The DOE, as an example, rated the quality of the proposed research in the top ten percent of all research funded by the Department. A good example of the benefits that the STTR Program provides to small firms and universities is the experience of Engineering Software Research and Development, Inc. in St. Louis, MO. Engineering Software, in partnership with Washington University in St. Louis, received a phase two award from the Air Force to develop an innovative method of analyzing the stresses placed on composite materials. While this technology is currently being used in the aeronautics industry, it has many other practical applications. The STTR Program permitted Dr. Barna Szabo, who had originated an algorithm he developed at Washington University, to transfer the technology to Engineering Software, which had the software infrastructure to transition the technology from an academic to a practical commercial application. According to Dr. Szabo, Engineering Software has received to date at an estimated $1.25 million in sales and follow-on developmental funding resulting from the technology funded by the STTR award and that the STTR Program was of great assistance in transferring the technology from the academic environment to actual use and application. Based on the proven success of the STTR Program to date, this legislation increases the funds allocated for the program. This increase is phased-in through the length of the reauthorization. When a program is working as well as the STTR Program, it would be a mistake if Congress did not build on its success. This is especially true for Federal investment in small business research and development. Despite report after report demonstrating that small businesses innovate at a greater rate than large firms, small businesses only receive less than four percent of all Federal research and development dollars. This number has remained essentially unchanged for the past 22 years. Increasing funds for the STTR Program sends a strong message that the Federal Government acknowledges the contributions that small businesses have made and will continue to make to government research and development efforts and to our nation's economy. I am pleased that my colleague Senator Kerry and I have worked together on this bi-partisan legislation. It is a good bill for the small business high-technology community and will ensure that our Federal research and development needs are well met in the next decade. When this bill is debated by the full Senate, I trust that it will receive the support of all of our colleagues.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the past several months we have focused extensively on the need for tax relief and the means for achieving it. As the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have argued time and again that the individual rate cuts included in the President's tax package will have tremendous benefits for small-business owners, the vast majority of whom pay taxes at the individual rather than the entity level. And time is of the essence since many of these hard- working Americans are now feeling real pain from the down turn in our economy. While I continue to believe that tax relief deserves our immediate attention, I cannot ignore another tax priority for small businesses, simplification of the tax code. With the year 2000 tax-filing season now behind us, thousands of small-business owners have once again been reacquainted with the stark realities of our current tax code. To keep that picture clearly in mind, let me remind my colleague of the results of an investigation that the General Accounting Office provided to my committee in the last Congress. A small-business owner faces more than 200 Internal Revenue Service, IRS, forms and schedules that could apply in a given year. While no business will have to file them all, it is a daunting universe of forms, including more than 8,000 lines, boxes, and data requirements, which are accompanied by over 700 pages. Even more disturbing is that in recent years more than three quarters of small-business owners hired a tax professional to help them fulfill their tax obligations. When we consider the complexity of the forms, rules, and regulations, no one should be surprised. And these tax professionals are far from inexpensive. By some estimates, small- business owners pay more than 5 percent of their revenues just to comply with the tax law, five cents out of every dollar to make sure that all of the records are kept and the forms completed, all before the tax check is even written. The list of tax provisions crying out for simplification has grown considerably in recent years. Therefore, earlier this year, I introduced the Small Business Works Act, (S. 189), which includes a number of tax-simplification proposals. Today, I rise to introduce additional legislation focusing on a particularly troubling and long- standing area of complexity for America's businesses and entrepreneurs--the status of independent contractors. Beginning in the last decade and continuing today, there has been an important shift in the American workplace, with an increasing emphasis on independent business relationships. The traditional single-employer career is rapidly being supplanted by independent entrepreneurs who provide specialized services on an ``as needed'' basis. They seek out individual contracts, apply their expertise, and move onto the next opportunity, bound only to their creativity and stamina. The members of this new workforce are often described as independent contractors, temps, freelancers, self-employed, home-based businesses, and even free agents. Whatever their title, they are a rapidly growing segment of our economy and one that cannot be ignored. Women in particular are playing an important role in this new business reality. Since the National Women's Small Business Summit, which I hosted in Kansas City last June, I have heard a steady stream of success stories about women entrepreneurs who have left the traditional workforce to start their own independent businesses, often times out of their homes. Today thousands of women are running dynamic businessess in fields like public and media relations, executive assistance, medical transcription, financial planning, management- information-systems consulting, and event planning, to name just a few. There are a number of reasons for this new business paradigm. Continuing innovations in computer and communication technology have made the ``victual'' office a reality and allow many Americans to compete in marketplaces that not so long ago required huge investments in equipment and personnel. In addition, many men and women in this country have turned to home-based business in an effort to spend more time with their children. By working at home, these families can benefit from two incomes, while avoiding the added time and expense of day-care and commuting. Corporate downsizing, glass ceilings, and company politics, too, contribute to the growth in this sector as many skilled individuals convert their knowledge and experience from corporate life into successful enterprises operated on their own. The rewards of being an independent entrepreneur are also numerous. The added flexibility and self-reliance of having your own business provide not only economic rewards but also personal satisfaction. You are the boss. You set your own hours, develop your own business plans, and choose your customers and clients. In many ways, this new paradigm provides the greatest avenue for the entrepreneurial spirit, which has long been the driving force behind the success of this country. With these rewards, however, come a number of obstacles, not the least of which are burdens imposed by the Federal government. In fact, the tax laws, and in particular the IRS, are frequently cited as the most significant problems for independent entrepreneurs today. Changes in tax policy must be considered by this Congress to recognize this new paradigm and ensure that our laws do not stall the growth and development of this successful sector of our economy. Since 1995, we have made substantial headway on a number of tax issues critical to these independent entrepreneurs. In the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, we restored the home-office deduction putting home- based entrepreneurs on a level-playing field with storefront businesses. The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 and the Taxpayer Relief Act also made some important strides on the unbelievably complex pension rules so that the freelance writer, home- based medical transcriber, and other small businesses have the opportunity to plan for their retirement as they see fit. Finally, and arguably most importantly, through several pieces of legislation in the last six years, we have finally made the self-employed health-insurance deduction permanent and placed it on a path to full deductibility by 2003, although still too long in my opinion. These examples are just a few of the tax law changes already enacted that are helping men and women who chose to work as independent entrepreneurs to enjoy a level- playing field with their larger competitors and still maintain the flexibility of their independent business lives. Amid this progress, however, one glaring problem still remains unsolved for this growing segment of the workplace--there are no simple, clear, and objective rules for determining who is an independent contractor and who is an employee. Through the Committee on Small Business, I have heard from countless small-business owners who are caught in the environment of fear and confusion that now surround the classification of workers. This situation is stifling the entrepreneurial spirit of many entrepreneurs who find that they do not have the flexibility to conduct their businesses in a manner that makes the best economic sense and that serves their personal and family goals. And it is the antithesis of the new business paradigm. The root of this problem is found in the IRS' test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. Over the past three decades, the IRS has relied on a 20-factor test based on the common law to make this determination. At first glance, a 20-factor test sounds like a reasonable approach, if our home-based financial planner demonstrates a majority of the factors, she is an independent contractor. Not surprisingly, the IRS' test is not that simple. It is a complex set of extremely subjective criteria with no clear weight assigned to any of the factors. As a result, small-business taxpayers are not able to predict which of the 20 factors will be most important to a particular IRS agent, and finding a certain number of these factors in any given case does not guarantee the outcome. To make matters worse, the IRS' determination inevitably occurs two or three years after the parties have determined in good faith that they have an independent-contractor relationship. And the consequences can be devastating. For example, the business that contracts with a management-information-systems consultant is forced to reclassify the consultant from an independent contractor to an employee and must come up with the payroll taxes the IRS says should have been collected in the prior years. Interest and penalties are also piled on. The result for many small businesses is a tax bill that bankrupts the company. But that is not the end of the story. The IRS then goes after the consultant, who is now classified as an employee, and disallows a portion of her business expenses, again resulting in additional taxes, interest, and penalties. All of us recognize that the IRS has a duty to collect Federal revenues and enforce the tax laws. The problem in this case is that the IRS is using a procedure that is patently unfair and subjective and one that forces today's independent entrepreneurs into the business model of the 1950s. The result is that businesses must spend thousands of dollars on lawyers and accountants to try to satisfy the IRS' procedures, but with no certainty that the conclusions will be respected. That is no way for businesses to operate in today's rapidly changing economy. For its part, the IRS adopted a worker-classification training manual several years ago. According to then-Commissioner Richardson, the manual was an ``attempt to identify, simplify, and clarify the relevant facts that should be evaluated in order to accurately determine worker classification. . . .'' While I support the agency's efforts to address this issue, the manual represents one of the most compelling reasons for immediate action. The IRS' training manual is more than 150 pages in length and is riddled with references to court cases and rulings. If it takes that many pages to teach revenue agents how to ``simplify and clarify'' this small-business tax issue, I can only imagine how an independent event planner is going to feel when she tries to figure it out on her own. In recognition of the new paradigm and the IRS' archaic 20-factor test, I am introducing the ``Independent Contractor Determination Act of 2001.'' This bill is substantially similar to the legislation I have introduced in the past two Congresses to resolve the classification problem for independent entrepreneurs. It removes the need for so many pages of instruction on the IRS' 20-factor test by establishing clear rules for classifying workers based on objective criteria. Under these criteria, if there is a written agreement between the parties, and if our medical transcriber demonstrates economic independence and independence with respect to the workplace, based on objective criteria set forth in the bill, she will be treated as an independent contractor rather than an employee. Moreover, the service recipient, e.g., the doctor or hospital, will not be treated as an employer. In addition, individuals who perform services through their own corporation or limited-liability company will also qualify as independent contractors as long as there is a written agreement and the individuals provide for their own benefits. The safe harbor is simple, straightforward, and final. To take advantage of it, payments above $600 per year to an individual service provider must be reported to the IRS, just as is required under current law. This will help ensure that taxes properly due to the Treasury will continue to be collected. While the IRS contends that there are millions of independent contractors who should be classified as employees, which costs the Federal government billions of dollars a year, this assertion is plainly incorrect. Classification of a worker has no cost to the government. What costs the government are taxpayers who do not pay their taxes. The Independent Contractor Determination Act has three requirements that will improve compliance among independent contractors using the new rules set forth in the bill. First, there must be a detailed, written agreement between the parties--this will put the home-based media-relations consultant on notice at the outset that she is responsible for her own tax payments. Second, the new rules will not apply if the service recipient does not comply with the reporting requirements and issue 1099s to individuals who perform services. Third, an independent contractor operating through her own corporation or limited-liability company must file all required income and employment tax returns in order to be protected under the bill. The bill also addresses concerns that have been raised about permitting individuals who provide their services through their own corporation or limited-liability company to qualify as independent contractors. Because some have contended that this option would lead to abusive situations at the expense of workers who should be treated as employees, the bill continues to limit the number of former employees that a service recipient may engage as independent contractors under the incorporation option. This limit will protect against misuse of the incorporation option while still allowing individuals to start their own businesses and have a former employer as one of their initial clients. Much has also been made to the improperly classified employee who is denied benefits by the unscrupulous employer. This issue raises two important points. First, the legislation that I am introducing would not facilitate this troubling situation. Under the provisions of the bill, it is highly doubtful that a typical employee, like a janitor, would qualify as an independent contractor. In reality, this issue relates to enforcement, which my bill simply makes easier through clear and objective rules. Second, the issue of benefits, like health insurance and pension plans, is extremely important to independent entrepreneurs. But the answer is not to force them to all be employees. Rather, we should continue to enact legislation like the Small Business Job Protection Act, the Taxpayer Relief Act, and the legislation vetoed by the Clinton Administration, that permit full deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed and better access to retirement savings plans. The Independent Contractor Determination Act also addresses a special concern of technical-service providers, such as engineers, designers, drafters, computer programmers, and system analysts. In certain cases, Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act precludes businesses engaging individuals in these professions from applying the reclassification protections under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. When section 1706 was enacted, its proponents argued that technical-service workers were less compliant in paying their taxes. Later examination of this issue by the Treasury Department found that technical-service workers are in fact more likely to pay their taxes than most other types of independent contractors. This revelation underscores the need to repeal section 1706 and level the playing field for individuals in these professions. In the last three Congresses, proposals to repeal section 1706 enjoyed wide bipartisan support. The Independent Contractor Determination Act is designed to treat individuals in these professions fairly by providing the businesses that engage them with the same protections that businesses using other types of independent contractors have enjoyed for more than 20 years. Another major concern of many businesses and independent entrepreneurs is the issue of reclassification. The bill I am introducing provides relief to these taxpayers when the IRS determines that a worker was misclassified. If the business and the independent contractor have a written agreement, if the applicable reporting requirements were met, and if there was a reasonable basis for the parties to believe that the worker is an independent contractor, then an IRS reclassification will only apply prospectively. This provision gives important peace of mind to small businesses that act in good faith by removing the unpredictable threat of retroactive reclassification and substantial interest and penalties. For too long, independent entrepreneurs and the businesses with which they work have struggled for a neutral tax environment. For an equally long time, that tax environment has been unfairly and unnecessarily biased against them. It is well past time that the tax code embraces one of the fundamental tenets of our country, the free market. We must allow individuals the freedom to pursue new opportunities in the ever- changing marketplace through business relationships that make the best sense for them. Our tax code should facilitate those opportunities through fair and simple rules that permit the freelance writer, home- based day-care provider, and every other independent entrepreneur to pay their taxes without under interference from the government. Trying to force today's dynamic workforce into a 1950s model serves no one. It only stands to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit in this country and dampen the continued success of our economy. The Independent Contractor Determination Act is a common-sense measure that answers the urgent plea from independent entrepreneurs and the businesses that engage them for fairness and simplicity in the tax law. As we work toward the day when the entire tax law is based on these principles, we can make a positive difference today by enacting this legislation. Entrepreneurs have waited too long, let's get the job done! I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a description of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the past several months we have focused extensively on the need for tax relief and the means for achieving it. As the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have argued time and again that the individual rate cuts included in the President's tax package will have tremendous benefits for small-business owners, the vast majority of whom pay taxes at the individual rather than the entity level. And time is of the essence since many of these hard- working Americans are now feeling real pain from the down turn in our economy. While I continue to believe that tax relief deserves our immediate attention, I cannot ignore another tax priority for small businesses, simplification of the tax code. With the year 2000 tax-filing season now behind us, thousands of small-business owners have once again been reacquainted with the stark realities of our current tax code. To keep that picture clearly in mind, let me remind my colleague of the results of an investigation that the General Accounting Office provided to my committee in the last Congress. A small-business owner faces more than 200 Internal Revenue Service, IRS, forms and schedules that could apply in a given year. While no business will have to file them all, it is a daunting universe of forms, including more than 8,000 lines, boxes, and data requirements, which are accompanied by over 700 pages. Even more disturbing is that in recent years more than three quarters of small-business owners hired a tax professional to help them fulfill their tax obligations. When we consider the complexity of the forms, rules, and regulations, no one should be surprised. And these tax professionals are far from inexpensive. By some estimates, small- business owners pay more than 5 percent of their revenues just to comply with the tax law, five cents out of every dollar to make sure that all of the records are kept and the forms completed, all before the tax check is even written. The list of tax provisions crying out for simplification has grown considerably in recent years. Therefore, earlier this year, I introduced the Small Business Works Act, (S. 189), which includes a number of tax-simplification proposals. Today, I rise to introduce additional legislation focusing on a particularly troubling and long- standing area of complexity for America's businesses and entrepreneurs--the status of independent contractors. Beginning in the last decade and continuing today, there has been an important shift in the American workplace, with an increasing emphasis on independent business relationships. The traditional single-employer career is rapidly being supplanted by independent entrepreneurs who provide specialized services on an ``as needed'' basis. They seek out individual contracts, apply their expertise, and move onto the next opportunity, bound only to their creativity and stamina. The members of this new workforce are often described as independent contractors, temps, freelancers, self-employed, home-based businesses, and even free agents. Whatever their title, they are a rapidly growing segment of our economy and one that cannot be ignored. Women in particular are playing an important role in this new business reality. Since the National Women's Small Business Summit, which I hosted in Kansas City last June, I have heard a steady stream of success stories about women entrepreneurs who have left the traditional workforce to start their own independent businesses, often times out of their homes. Today thousands of women are running dynamic businessess in fields like public and media relations, executive assistance, medical transcription, financial planning, management- information-systems consulting, and event planning, to name just a few. There are a number of reasons for this new business paradigm. Continuing innovations in computer and communication technology have made the ``victual'' office a reality and allow many Americans to compete in marketplaces that not so long ago required huge investments in equipment and personnel. In addition, many men and women in this country have turned to home-based business in an effort to spend more time with their children. By working at home, these families can benefit from two incomes, while avoiding the added time and expense of day-care and commuting. Corporate downsizing, glass ceilings, and company politics, too, contribute to the growth in this sector as many skilled individuals convert their knowledge and experience from corporate life into successful enterprises operated on their own. The rewards of being an independent entrepreneur are also numerous. The added flexibility and self-reliance of having your own business provide not only economic rewards but also personal satisfaction. You are the boss. You set your own hours, develop your own business plans, and choose your customers and clients. In many ways, this new paradigm provides the greatest avenue for the entrepreneurial spirit, which has long been the driving force behind the success of this country. With these rewards, however, come a number of obstacles, not the least of which are burdens imposed by the Federal government. In fact, the tax laws, and in particular the IRS, are frequently cited as the most significant problems for independent entrepreneurs today. Changes in tax policy must be considered by this Congress to recognize this new paradigm and ensure that our laws do not stall the growth and development of this successful sector of our economy. Since 1995, we have made substantial headway on a number of tax issues critical to these independent entrepreneurs. In the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, we restored the home-office deduction putting home- based entrepreneurs on a level-playing field with storefront businesses. The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 and the Taxpayer Relief Act also made some important strides on the unbelievably complex pension rules so that the freelance writer, home- based medical transcriber, and other small businesses have the opportunity to plan for their retirement as they see fit. Finally, and arguably most importantly, through several pieces of legislation in the last six years, we have finally made the self-employed health-insurance deduction permanent and placed it on a path to full deductibility by 2003, although still too long in my opinion. These examples are just a few of the tax law changes already enacted that are helping men and women who chose to work as independent entrepreneurs to enjoy a level- playing field with their larger competitors and still maintain the flexibility of their independent business lives. Amid this progress, however, one glaring problem still remains unsolved for this growing segment of the workplace--there are no simple, clear, and objective rules for determining who is an independent contractor and who is an employee. Through the Committee on Small Business, I have heard from countless small-business owners who are caught in the environment of fear and confusion that now surround the classification of workers. This situation is stifling the entrepreneurial spirit of many entrepreneurs who find that they do not have the flexibility to conduct their businesses in a manner that makes the best economic sense and that serves their personal and family goals. And it is the antithesis of the new business paradigm. The root of this problem is found in the IRS' test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. Over the past three decades, the IRS has relied on a 20-factor test based on the common law to make this determination. At first glance, a 20-factor test sounds like a reasonable approach, if our home-based financial planner demonstrates a majority of the factors, she is an independent contractor. Not surprisingly, the IRS' test is not that simple. It is a complex set of extremely subjective criteria with no clear weight assigned to any of the factors. As a result, small-business taxpayers are not able to predict which of the 20 factors will be most important to a particular IRS agent, and finding a certain number of these factors in any given case does not guarantee the outcome. To make matters worse, the IRS' determination inevitably occurs two or three years after the parties have determined in good faith that they have an independent-contractor relationship. And the consequences can be devastating. For example, the business that contracts with a management-information-systems consultant is forced to reclassify the consultant from an independent contractor to an employee and must come up with the payroll taxes the IRS says should have been collected in the prior years. Interest and penalties are also piled on. The result for many small businesses is a tax bill that bankrupts the company. But that is not the end of the story. The IRS then goes after the consultant, who is now classified as an employee, and disallows a portion of her business expenses, again resulting in additional taxes, interest, and penalties. All of us recognize that the IRS has a duty to collect Federal revenues and enforce the tax laws. The problem in this case is that the IRS is using a procedure that is patently unfair and subjective and one that forces today's independent entrepreneurs into the business model of the 1950s. The result is that businesses must spend thousands of dollars on lawyers and accountants to try to satisfy the IRS' procedures, but with no certainty that the conclusions will be respected. That is no way for businesses to operate in today's rapidly changing economy. For its part, the IRS adopted a worker-classification training manual several years ago. According to then-Commissioner Richardson, the manual was an ``attempt to identify, simplify, and clarify the relevant facts that should be evaluated in order to accurately determine worker classification. . . .'' While I support the agency's efforts to address this issue, the manual represents one of the most compelling reasons for immediate action. The IRS' training manual is more than 150 pages in length and is riddled with references to court cases and rulings. If it takes that many pages to teach revenue agents how to ``simplify and clarify'' this small-business tax issue, I can only imagine how an independent event planner is going to feel when she tries to figure it out on her own. In recognition of the new paradigm and the IRS' archaic 20-factor test, I am introducing the ``Independent Contractor Determination Act of 2001.'' This bill is substantially similar to the legislation I have introduced in the past two Congresses to resolve the classification problem for independent entrepreneurs. It removes the need for so many pages of instruction on the IRS' 20-factor test by establishing clear rules for classifying workers based on objective criteria. Under these criteria, if there is a written agreement between the parties, and if our medical transcriber demonstrates economic independence and independence with respect to the workplace, based on objective criteria set forth in the bill, she will be treated as an independent contractor rather than an employee. Moreover, the service recipient, e.g., the doctor or hospital, will not be treated as an employer. In addition, individuals who perform services through their own corporation or limited-liability company will also qualify as independent contractors as long as there is a written agreement and the individuals provide for their own benefits. The safe harbor is simple, straightforward, and final. To take advantage of it, payments above $600 per year to an individual service provider must be reported to the IRS, just as is required under current law. This will help ensure that taxes properly due to the Treasury will continue to be collected. While the IRS contends that there are millions of independent contractors who should be classified as employees, which costs the Federal government billions of dollars a year, this assertion is plainly incorrect. Classification of a worker has no cost to the government. What costs the government are taxpayers who do not pay their taxes. The Independent Contractor Determination Act has three requirements that will improve compliance among independent contractors using the new rules set forth in the bill. First, there must be a detailed, written agreement between the parties--this will put the home-based media-relations consultant on notice at the outset that she is responsible for her own tax payments. Second, the new rules will not apply if the service recipient does not comply with the reporting requirements and issue 1099s to individuals who perform services. Third, an independent contractor operating through her own corporation or limited-liability company must file all required income and employment tax returns in order to be protected under the bill. The bill also addresses concerns that have been raised about permitting individuals who provide their services through their own corporation or limited-liability company to qualify as independent contractors. Because some have contended that this option would lead to abusive situations at the expense of workers who should be treated as employees, the bill continues to limit the number of former employees that a service recipient may engage as independent contractors under the incorporation option. This limit will protect against misuse of the incorporation option while still allowing individuals to start their own businesses and have a former employer as one of their initial clients. Much has also been made to the improperly classified employee who is denied benefits by the unscrupulous employer. This issue raises two important points. First, the legislation that I am introducing would not facilitate this troubling situation. Under the provisions of the bill, it is highly doubtful that a typical employee, like a janitor, would qualify as an independent contractor. In reality, this issue relates to enforcement, which my bill simply makes easier through clear and objective rules. Second, the issue of benefits, like health insurance and pension plans, is extremely important to independent entrepreneurs. But the answer is not to force them to all be employees. Rather, we should continue to enact legislation like the Small Business Job Protection Act, the Taxpayer Relief Act, and the legislation vetoed by the Clinton Administration, that permit full deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed and better access to retirement savings plans. The Independent Contractor Determination Act also addresses a special concern of technical-service providers, such as engineers, designers, drafters, computer programmers, and system analysts. In certain cases, Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act precludes businesses engaging individuals in these professions from applying the reclassification protections under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. When section 1706 was enacted, its proponents argued that technical-service workers were less compliant in paying their taxes. Later examination of this issue by the Treasury Department found that technical-service workers are in fact more likely to pay their taxes than most other types of independent contractors. This revelation underscores the need to repeal section 1706 and level the playing field for individuals in these professions. In the last three Congresses, proposals to repeal section 1706 enjoyed wide bipartisan support. The Independent Contractor Determination Act is designed to treat individuals in these professions fairly by providing the businesses that engage them with the same protections that businesses using other types of independent contractors have enjoyed for more than 20 years. Another major concern of many businesses and independent entrepreneurs is the issue of reclassification. The bill I am introducing provides relief to these taxpayers when the IRS determines that a worker was misclassified. If the business and the independent contractor have a written agreement, if the applicable reporting requirements were met, and if there was a reasonable basis for the parties to believe that the worker is an independent contractor, then an IRS reclassification will only apply prospectively. This provision gives important peace of mind to small businesses that act in good faith by removing the unpredictable threat of retroactive reclassification and substantial interest and penalties. For too long, independent entrepreneurs and the businesses with which they work have struggled for a neutral tax environment. For an equally long time, that tax environment has been unfairly and unnecessarily biased against them. It is well past time that the tax code embraces one of the fundamental tenets of our country, the free market. We must allow individuals the freedom to pursue new opportunities in the ever- changing marketplace through business relationships that make the best sense for them. Our tax code should facilitate those opportunities through fair and simple rules that permit the freelance writer, home- based day-care provider, and every other independent entrepreneur to pay their taxes without under interference from the government. Trying to force today's dynamic workforce into a 1950s model serves no one. It only stands to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit in this country and dampen the continued success of our economy. The Independent Contractor Determination Act is a common-sense measure that answers the urgent plea from independent entrepreneurs and the businesses that engage them for fairness and simplicity in the tax law. As we work toward the day when the entire tax law is based on these principles, we can make a positive difference today by enacting this legislation. Entrepreneurs have waited too long, let's get the job done! I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a description of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I know I am out of order, but I do not see a representative from the other side. I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to proceed out of order for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to support President Bush's education initiative and S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. As a new member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee I have been involved in the tremendous bipartisan progress that has been made in Congress thus far on public education reform. I look forward to the swift conclusion of the debate, the signing ceremony that will take place, but most importantly--the improvements to public education that will result to ensure that ``no child is left behind.'' It is obvious that the American public places improvement of our public education system as a top priority. Parents and communities are aware of the same statistics that have been provided to us. Our children are not reading at the basic level. Too many students never graduate from high school. U.S. students lag behind too many countries in science and math. Our higher education institutions are spending too much money on remedial education and businesses have to spend billions of dollars teaching their employees what the schools did not teach them. I believe there is agreement that education, while a national priority, is a responsibility and obligation of the state and local communities. The education of our children has always been carried out and implemented at the local level. The American public is interested in the debate here in Washington, but they understand what really matters is what takes place in the schools and classrooms around the country--not the Senate or House floors. The decisions that are going to improve children in a particular school district are going to be made by the teachers, parents, school board members, and administrators who know the names of the children, know their problems, know their opportunities. Every single one of us have a vested interest in the success of today's generation and future generations of youth in this country. Therefore, we have a vested interest in the improvement of our public education system. For many decades Congress has debated numerous education issues, including the federal role and federal funding. Even after the completion of this specific debate, discussions and debates will continue. The debates continue because we are constantly seeking ways to improve upon our public education system. However, we must be careful. One of the main reasons that I support President Bush's plan and S. 1 is because it streamlines and consolidates many of the countless individual education programs that exist. We have all read the reports and have heard several colleagues talk about the 760 education programs scattered throughout 39 different federal agencies. According to the Education Commission of the States, ``In the 1999-2000 budget, the federal government spent almost $44 billion on elementary and secondary education programs. This funding was spread across 35 different education programs in 15 different federal departments.'' All the programs that exist today were started with good intentions. Some I have advocated and numerous others I have supported. All along, all of us have tried to do the right thing. But--what have they gotten us? Today, our good intentions have gotten us burdensome regulations, unfunded mandates, and unwanted meddling. Parents, teachers, and local school officials have less and less control over what happens in the classroom. The myriad of federal education programs make the jobs of our school administrators and teachers harder than they should be. Teachers are taken of the task of teaching, preparing lesson plans, taking on after school student activities and instead are researching for grant opportunities, reading regulations, preparing applications, filling out paperwork requirements, complying with cumbersome rules, and reporting on how they spend the little federal funding received. We even have teachers and administrators that decide that the little extra federal funding is not worth the time and effort that it will take to apply and comply so they do not even bother with the process. Instead of empowering parents, teachers, and local school officials we have empowered the federal government and bureaucrats. We have slowly eroded the opportunity for creativity and innovation on the local level and have established a system where supposedly the Olympians on the hill know what is best for the peasants in the valley. Knowing where we now are, how can we afford to keep spending our federal education dollars in the same way we have been doing for years if it is not simulating academic success for our children? We can't. Not only will I not stand for it, but parents, teachers, school boards, communities, and businesses cannot afford to stand for continued lackluster performance and failure in some cases. The President's education plan and S.1 are huge steps in the right direction recognizing that the answer to improving public education does not lie within the Halls of Congress or in the granite buildings of the downtown Washington education establishment. As an editorial from one of my homestate newspapers, the Southeast Missourian stated, ``The answer to fixing America's educational woes rests with individual school boards and passionate educators. The bureaucrats must reduce the red tape and mandates that are strangling our schools. Give those who know best the time, talent and incentives to finally fix public education.'' I agree with what the Southeast Missourian said. The President's proposal and S. 1 stress high academic achievement for all students so the achievement gap that exists will erode. The legislation stresses the importance of literacy and making certain our children can read. We know that reading is a basic, essential, and fundamental tool for personal growth and self-sufficiency. Reading provides the foundation for all other learning and eventually for productive employment. Accountability, as well as flexibility, are incorporated in the Bush plan and S. 1 to ensure that the needs of the individual child and school can be addressed while also ensuring that our tax dollars are resulting in academic success. Finally, one of the most important aspects from my perspective--advocation for increased parental involvement. It is very simple and well documented. Children whose parents are involved in their education from the very beginning are more successful in school and score higher on tests. Parents are a child's first teacher, and we can do things to help them be better teachers. Parental involvement, especially as it relates to early childhood education, is something that everyone has heard me talk a lot about, and they are going to hear more about it. There is bipartisan recognition that we must try something new to improve our public education system. My dear friend and colleague, the Senate leader from the other side of the aisle, Senator Byrd, said the following on the Senate floor in the 105th Congress: . . . when one goes the last mile of the way and concludes from what he sees, from what he hears, and from what he reads, concludes from analytical reports about public education that we are not doing well, that there is something working, then it seems to me that, in the interest of the public schools system, we may have to try a little different approach, else the confidence of the American people in that system and the support of the American people for that system are going to erode. We see that happening. From all the newspaper articles, television reports, letters to the office, et cetera, we know that the American people want more, demand more, and deserve more when it comes to public education. Let's put partisan rhetoric aside, let's move past the squabbling, and let's move forward on our common goal. Let's get on with our business. Let's have our votes. We want to be a positive contribution to educating our children for a lifetime of achievement. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 30 minutes of postcloture debate be equally divided between the majority and minority parties and the time deducted from each Senator as provided under rule XXII.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments on the 150th anniversary of the Eisleben Lutheran Church in Scott City, MO. Since the first congregation of nineteen members gathered on April 30th 1848, Eisleben Lutheran Church has grown to become a part of Missouri history. Eisleben Lutheran Church's first house of worship was a log cabin built in the area now known as Scott City. The area surrounding the church was mostly wooded hills and large swamps which were impassible much of the year. In 1867 the second facility known as Rock Church was built. Today the congregation worships in a church that was completed in 1913 using the stones from the original Rock Church. The congregation of the Eisleben Lutheran Church have maintained a long history of service to the Scott City community, as well as the international community by supporting missionary efforts all over the world. Over the past 150 years Eisleben Lutheran Church has witnessed and been a part of many historical events. Their devotion to the preservation and continued growth of the church is commendable. I am pleased to join with the Scott City community and the State of Missouri in congratulating the congregation of the Eisleben Lutheran Church.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for too many years comprehensive Superfund reform has been blocked by partisan rhetoric and fear-mongering. Even though the general public, government agencies, and federal bureaucrats know that the Superfund program is broken, proposed changes were called stealth attacks, roll-backs, and letting polluters off the hook. Those characterizations were not accurate, but they were effective in protecting one of the most troubled and inefficient programs in the Federal Government from meaningful reform. For more than 7 years we have been unable to reach agreement on Superfund reauthorization so the Environment and Public Works Committee decided to take a smaller, targeted approach. So today we are here considering S. 350, the Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act. There is general agreement that we need to address the issue of Brownfields. Across the country, brownfields are blights on the landscape, but because of liability concerns, too often clean-up and redevelopment opportunities are lost. The loss of clean-up and redevelopment opportunities means the loss of jobs and tax revenues for communities and means these sites are not cleaned up. However, even though I will support this bill today, more needs to be done. Working with my friends and colleagues, specifically Senators Inhofe and Crapo, we were able to reach an agreement with the managers of the bill to include in the manager's amendment a provision which will include petroleum only sites in the brownfields program. It is estimated that petroleum only sites make up almost half the brownfield sites in the country. How can we pass a brownfields bill that excludes half the brownfield sites in the country? Fortunately, agreement was reached on this issue. I want to go on record that I still have concerns regarding liability issues. In my opinion the legislation does not protect developers from potential liability and administrative orders under the Toxic Substance Control Act. I joined with Senators Inhofe and Crapo in offering an amendment during the committee's consideration, but unfortunately it was defeated. Opponents argued that EPA has not yet used TSCA or RCRA to deal with hazardous materials covered under Superfund so therefore it shouldn't be an issue. However, many believe that if the ``front door'' of Superfund is closed, EPA will use TSCA or RCRA as a ``back door'' to pursue legal action against a developer. In addition, it is my opinion that the bill still gives too much authority to the EPA over State programs. If we are going to give the responsibility to the State, EPA must step back and let the States run the programs and EPA must first work with the State before overstepping and taking enforcement actions. S. 350 is a step in the right direction. However, we must continue our efforts to address the liability issues that still remain and we must continue efforts to make the overall Superfund program more reasonable and workable. As we all know, the great environmental progress in this country has been made with bi-partisan support, when honest concern for the environment and the people outweighed political opportunism. I hope that the progress made on brownfields will translate into positive movement on the remaining issues.

Mr. BOND. I'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their cooperation on this amendment and commend the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership on this important initiative, which will provide a vital tool for brownfields cleanups. regarding ``contract carriage'' and ``spur track'' issues

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute on this side to respond to the comments of the proponent of the underlying amendment. Amendment No. 351 Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this underlying amendment, as others before and after, chips away at the tax relief package proposed by the President. All citizens, including our veterans, deserve tax relief. This amendment that I have just offered on behalf of Senator Domenici would increase veterans' discretionary spending for the coming year by almost $2 billion, including a $1.7 billion increase for medical care. This is the highest increase ever; this is the first increase in recent years. Let me make a point that the President's budget request for VA is an excellent one. This body should recall from previous years that the prior administration proposed to freeze veterans' medical care with no increase at all. This amendment also provides the highest increase ever for the Veterans' Benefit Administration, where a backlog of claims continues to mount. This is a problem that the prior administration refused to address. Finally, this amendment does not assume spending beyond fiscal year 2002 because VA has a new administration, new management, and a massive strategic review. I urge support of the second-degree amendment. Amendment No. 269

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

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes each. We managed to get through with only 45 minutes on that first vote. I think if we can do it in 10 minutes, it might get us home before Monday.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve access for certain small businesses in competing for overseas construction contracts for the Department of State. Small businesses that have been able to participate in smaller construction projects overseas, through one of the small business programs, would be able to compete for larger construction contracts. The effect of these changes is to enhance competition for these contracts. Moreover, greater competition usually means reduced costs to the taxpayer. Finally, these changes allow us to recoup the benefits from the Government programs directed at small business. We ensure that, after helping businesses grow and develop in our small business programs, they are then able to compete in the open market for Government construction contracts. This is certainly the goal of these small business programs, but unfortunately a technical glitch currently prevents this goal from being realized in overseas State Department construction contracts. This bill would correct that. Specifically, these provisions would make a minor change to both the Foreign Service Buildings Act, 1926, and the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, both of which impose related restrictions on the firms that may do construction of overseas State Department facilities. Most of the restrictions are security-related and have to do with ensuring the firms are American in their ownership, control, and workforce. Some other provisions seek to ensure they have the technical capacity actually to perform the work. One provision directed at the ``technical capacity'' issue says the firms must have performed work, comparable to the work they are seeking, in the United States. The legislative history makes clear that this particular restriction is in the law solely as an issue of past performance, not as a security matter. Since these measures passed, a small number of firms participating in small business programs have done work exclusively overseas, including work on State Department diplomatic and consular establishments. They therefore have a demonstrated past performance ability to do the work, but the two laws above currently exclude them from doing so in State Department contracts over $5 million. (They were previously able to participate because the sole source contracts under a couple of small business programs are limited to $3 million, so the restrictions in these two laws did not come into play.) The bottom line here is that we have small business programs intended to give firms the opportunity to show what they can do and to help expand the Government's vendor base. However, once these firms move beyond the small business program or seek to compete for larger contracts, we have these two laws that exclude firms who have demonstrated the ability to do overseas construction, simply because they have not done work domestically. This is a waste of the Government's investment in their business development. This bill would allow overseas work done specifically at State Department installations to count in showing their capacity to perform subsequent contracts. This is a relatively simple change that will increase opportunity and help the State Department maintain a strong contractor base to do this important construction work. It should be noncontroversial, and I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee to make these changes happen. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I believe is vitally important to the health care of children and pregnancy women in America. The goal of this legislation is simply, to make sure more pregnancy women and more children are covered by health insurance so they have access to the health care services they6 need to be healthy. The need is great, on any given day, approximately 11 million children and close to half a million pregnant women do not have health insurance coverage. For many of these women and children, they or their family simply can't afford insurance, and lack of insurance often means inability to pay for care. The further tragedy is that quite a few are actually eligible for a public program like Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program, but many of those don't know they are eligible and are not signed up. Lack of health insurance can lead to numerous health problems, both for children and for pregnant women. A child without health coverage is much less likely to receive the health care services that are needed to ensure the child is healthy, happy, and fully able to learn and grow. An uninsured pregnant woman is much less likely to get critical prenatal care that reduces the risk of health problems for both the woman and the child. Babies whose mothers receive no prenatal care or late prenatal care are at-risk for many health problems. including birth defects, premature births, and low birth-weight. The bill I am introducing deals with this insurance problem in two ways. First, it allows states to provide prenatal care for low-income pregnant women under the State Children's Health Insurance Program-- also known as SCHIP--if the state chooses. Through the joint federal-state SCHIP program, states are currently expanding the availability of health insurance for low-income children. However, federal law prevents states from using SCHIP funds to provide prenatal care to low-income pregnant women over age 19, even though babies born to many low-income women become eligible for SCHIP as soon as they are born. Approximately 41,000 additional women could be covered for prenatal care. There are literally billions of dollars of SCHIP funds that states have not used yet, so I would hope that most states would choose this option. This provision will not impact federal SCHIP expenditures because it does not change the existing federal spending caps for SCHIP. Babies born to pregnant women covered by a state's SCHIP program would be automatically enrolled and receive immediate coverage under SCHIP themselves. It is foolish to deny prenatal care to a pregnant mother and then, only after the baby is born, provide the child with coverage under SCHIP. Prenatal care can be just as important to a newborn baby as postnatal care, and the prenatal care is of course important for the mother as well. We know that states will be interested. Two states have already gone through the difficult Health Care Financing Administration waiver process to get permission to cover pregnant women through their SCHIP programs. But you shouldn't have to get a waiver to do something that makes so much sense. This bill will make it an automatic option that any state can do without the need of a waiver. Second, the bill will help states reach out to women and children who are eligible for, but are not enrolled in, Medicaid or SCHIP. Approximately 340,000 pregnant women and several million children are estimated to be eligible for but not enrolled in Medicaid. Millions of additional children are eligible for but not yet enrolled in SCHIP. We must reach out to these people to make sure they know they have options which they are not using. When Congress passed the welfare reform bill back in 1996, we created a $500 million fund that states could tap into to make sure that all Medicaid-eligible people stayed in Medicaid. The problem is that only half of that fund has been used. My bill would give states more flexibility to use this fund to reach out to both Medicaid and SCHIP-eligible women and children. In addition, my bill tries to make greater use of what is known as presumptive eligibility. Under presumptive eligibility, states are allowed to temporarily enroll children whose family income appears to be below Medicaid or SCHIP income standards, until a final determination of eligibility is made. This is useful because it allows people to get health care services at the same time that they are waiting, sometimes for as much as a month or two, for a final eligibility determination. Without presumptive eligibility, experience has shown that fewer people will fill out the applications forms, and fewer people will be willing to wait until a final decision is made. When it comes to trying to ensure that people get health care, we need to remove as many barriers as possible. That is why presumptive eligibility is useful, it removes a barrier. Right now, states may grant presumptive eligibility for both pregnant women in Medicaid and for children in Medicaid and in SCHIP. Because my legislation would allow pregnant women to be covered through SCHIP for the first time, my bill also extends presumptive eligibility for pregnant women into the SCHIP program. In addition, in legislation passed last December, Congress expanded the types of sites states can use to grant presumptive eligibility for children to also include schools and other entities that states think will be able to identify people eligible for these programs. However, we failed to give states the ability to use these additional entities as sites to enroll pregnant women. My bill would correct that omission. The bottom line is that this bill will help provide health care to more pregnant women. With hundreds of thousands of pregnant women lacking insurance, and with hundreds of thousands lacking adequate prenatal care, we are compelled to focus on this issue. I believe this is crucial legislation, and urge my colleagues to join me in support of it so that we can pass this bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feinstein for her comments. Our goal here is simple: We must, once and for all, treat children's hospitals the same as we do other teaching hospitals when it comes to funding physician training. This year, that means Congress must fully fund the Pediatric GME program as its authorized level of $285 million in fiscal year 2002. Two years ago, Congress finally recognized this need by passing legislation I sponsored with my friend, former Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, to authorize the children's hospitals GME initiative. Over the last couple of years, I have led the effort to fund this important initiative. Last year, Congress appropriated $235 million for the children's hospitals GME program--not quite enough for full parity with other teaching hospitals, but a good step forward. This year, we need to continue that momentum and finally treat all teaching hospitals equally. If it is important to train a doctor who treats adults, it's equally as important to train a doctor who treats children. We must make our policies reflect that important principle, and I am confident we can get there this year. I see the Senator from Massachusetts on the floor, and I ask if he has anything he wishes to add.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the managers for the efficient way they have been handling business. Last night in wrap-up, they passed amendment No. 210 which dealt with restoring money for critical health programs and graduate medical education at community health centers. I ask unanimous consent Senators Hollings, DeWine, Kennedy, Feinstein, Smith of Oregon, Kerry, and Dodd be added as cosponsors to Bond amendment No. 210.

Mr. BOND. If the distinguished managers would not object, I know Senator Kerry would like to add a brief statement. A recent visitor to my Small Business Committee office spoke excitedly that his small business won a Government contract. But when he sought financing at a local bank, the bank would not lend to him unless he was willing to pay a 28-percent interest rate. It is odd to see the Government willing to do business with him but banks consider the small business too risky. The SBA fills that role, and this amendment will ensure that the SBA can continue to do that. I urge adoption of this bipartisan amendment on SBA. The funds are critical for SBA programs such as HUBZones, 7(a) loan programs, and the BDC program.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee be identified as an original cosponsor. It was my mistake not to include him on that list.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I hope my colleagues will support this important amendment and our efforts to strengthen the country's research and development base. It is important to recognize that if we are to sustain our economic base and support the important work of NIH, we must support NSF. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I am going to use the last bit of my time to tell my colleagues that I have another amendment at the desk, No. 210, which we will be calling up in the vote-arama. It is cosponsored by Senators Hollings and DeWine. Yesterday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to add to the President's generous proposal for NIH research spending. I hope we get an overwhelming vote for this one, too. It does two things. First, it adds to the President's proposal on community health centers. Like NIH, the Senate is on record supporting double funding over 5 years for health centers, and like the NIH amendment yesterday, my amendment would put us on track to double the funding for health centers. Second, the amendment would make room in the budget to finally provide equitable treatment for children's hospitals when it comes to our support of physician training programs. They have not received enough money to train the pediatricians they need. This year, our goal is to end this inequity finally. The amendment we will be calling up later will provide enough room in the budget to make these things happen. When that amendment comes up, I ask my colleagues to support that one as well. I thank the Chair and my colleague. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, a very brief comment, necessarily, on the two amendments. The Democrats claim the difference is that their amendment will guarantee that the money will go to home health care. Unfortunately, that is not the way the amendment is drawn. That is not what will happen. Basically, the Democratic amendment simply says: You may spend more on Medicare, not necessarily on home health. The only thing it truly does is cut the money available for tax cuts. That leaves more money for spending in any area. The Collins-Bond amendment sets aside a reserve fund specifically for home health. It cannot be used for anything else. I urge my colleagues to support the Collins amendment and to oppose the Democratic amendment.