Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering with my colleagues, Senators Mikulski, Allen, Lieberman, and Bingaman proposes to add $1.44 billion over the President's budget to the Function 250 general science account to boost spending in fiscal year 2002 for the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Compared to the fiscal year 2001 enacted levels, this amendment would add $469 million to DOE's science accounts, $674 million to NSF, and $518 million to NASA. This amendment continues the Federal Government's strong commitment to the Nation's basic science research programs. Let us make no mistake, basic science means applied science, which is the foundation of this economy and will be the booster rocket for the future success of our economy and allow this Nation to lead the world in this century. Of particular interest to me, this amendment maintains the momentum to double the budget of NSF over 5 years. Under this amendment, NSF would receive a 15.3 percent increase over last year's enacted level. As chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I began the doubling effort last year with my good friend and colleague on the appropriations subcommittee, Senator Mikulski. We are not alone and we have broad support for this funding. Last year, a bipartisan group of 41 Senators also supported this effort and I expect even more direct and enthusiastic support this year. NSF plays an important and unique role in stimulating core disciplines of science, mathematics, and engineering and doubling the NSF budget will help ensure that the economic growth we have enjoyed over the past several years will continue. I think we can all agree that research and development is a positive and critical investment for the economic and intellectual growth and well-being of our Nation. According to many economists, over the past half century, advances in science and engineering have stimulated at least half of the Nation's economic growth. Further, investment in scientific research has led to innovative developments in the high-tech industry--most notably the Internet and lasers. The investments have also spawned not only new products, but also entire industries, such as biotechnology, Internet providers, E-commerce, and geographic information systems. Besides the economic benefits we have enjoyed from our investment in NSF's research programs, NSF has also played a crucial role in the biomedical area. Over the past half century, NSF-supported research has had monumental impact in the field of medical technologies and research. Let me make it clear that I am very supportive of the funding support we have provided to the National Institutes of Health. However, I am very concerned that the work that NIH is doing currently may be jeopardized if the underlying work from NSF research is not adequately supported. Medical technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital mammography and genomic mapping could not have occurred, and cannot now improve to the next level of proficiency, without underlying knowledge from NSF-supported work in biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and computer sciences. Thus, the success of NIH to cure deadly diseases such as cancer depend upon the underpinning research supported by NSF. The connection between NSF and NIH has been recognized by leading medical experts such as former NIH Directors, Bernadine Healy and Harold Varmus. As Dr. Varmus wrote in a letter to me last June 26: Essential contributions to both genome sequencing and determination of protein structures have come from work supported by the NSF, and efforts to take advantage of this new information will require expanded activity in disciplines traditionally dependent on the NSF--including computer science, chemistry, physics, and engineering. Indeed, from the perspective of a medical scientist, there could be no more opportune time to guarantee the vitality of American science funded by the NSF. Let me add on more voice, Dr. Kenneth Shine of the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Shine wrote: . . . it is important to note that advances in medicine are very dependent upon other fields of science that are mostly supported by the National Science Foundation . . . . doubling of the NSF budget will pay for itself many times over in terms of saving costs, and, more importantly, improving human health. To be blunt, supporting NSF supports NIH. Beyond just the biomedical field, the Senate should also be concerned about our Nation's supply of engineers and scientists. For the past several years, the number of graduates in the science and engineering fields has been declining. This decline has put our Nation's innovation capabilities at risk and at risk of falling behind other industrial nations. In the past decade, growth in the number of Asian and European students earning degrees in the natural sciences and engineering has gone up on average by four percent per year. During the same time, the rate for U.S. students declined on average by nearly one percent each year. NSF plays a key role in funding the training of the nation's young researchers in university laboratories. Twenty thousand graduate students and nearly 30,000 undergraduates are directly involved in NSF programs and activities every year. However, as many of my colleagues know, the Congress has had to raise the cap on H1-B visas for immigrant workers due to the shortage of technically-trained workers in this country. The high-tech industry has had to turn to foreign workers because our country is not producing enough scientists and engineers to meet demand. According to NSF, the demand for engineers and computer scientists is expected to grow by more than 50 percent by 2008. While NSF has been active in addressing this problem, it is obvious that it is not enough and we need to provide more support to our Nation's students. I hope my colleagues understand why this amendment is so critical. If we do not support NSF, this problem will continue and our Nation's long-term economic growth and research innovation will be significantly hampered.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would be happy to respond to the distinguished manager.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the total amount of funding goes into section 250. I say to the Senator, $1.44 billion goes into section 250. As I understand it, how that gets sliced up is probably beyond the ability of this particular budget debate to determine. It will ultimately come down, I believe, to a 302(b) allocation. But my recommendation is that the vitally important work of DOE be funded with an additional $469 million out of this function. There is another function--I believe it is 270--that also funds science.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his kind comments as well as the strong comments of the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I ask unanimous consent that the Durbin amendment be laid aside and that Senator Bennett be recognized to offer an amendment. I further ask consent that the debate run concurrently on both first- degree amendments and be limited to 60 minutes equally divided, and following that time, the amendments be laid aside. I further ask consent that no amendments to these amendments be in order prior to the votes just described and the votes occur in a stacked sequence, first, in relation to the Durbin amendment, and then in relation to the amendment offered on behalf of Senator Domenici, beginning at 6 p.m., with 10 minutes for closing remarks equally divided prior to the 6 p.m. stacked votes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, so long as it comes off the time of the amendment, there is no objection on this side.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment, cosponsored by Senators Mikulski, Lieberman, Allen, Bingaman, and Domenici, adds a very important $1.4 billion to function 250, the general science function. Basic science research in this country is suffering because we have not adequately funded the National Science Foundation in recent years. The funding in this function leverages the research done in NIH and other areas. We believe it is extremely important. We expect that we are on a path for doubling the NSF budget in 5 years. This will put us back on the path. I yield to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if I could, I think Senator Mikulski and I each wanted 5, and I think Senator Bingaman wanted 2, if we could expand that to 12 minutes. Are there others?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, a quick word on why I voted against the Specter amendment which made extra room in the budget for $700 million in National Institutes of Health research spending. I voted against the NIH amendment not because I oppose the valuable research that NIH does, but rather because I wanted to draw attention to the fact that we risk focusing on NIH spending to the exclusion of other important initiatives. Biomedical research at NIH is important, but we must recognize we have other priorities as well. The NIH is important, but so is the basic scientific research that we do at the National Science Foundation. Basic research is the foundation on which applied science and technology rests. Understanding how the world works has applications in every field, including health. Without increased funding for basic research, we will soon find that our basic scientific understanding is too limited to get the maximum value from the applied research NIH does. The NIH is important, but so are community health centers. These local clinics provide basic primary care services to close to 12 million Americans at over 3,000 sites in medically-underserved urban and rural communities across the country. Yet the demand is still great--millions are still uninsured, and millions more simply don't have access to health care providers. The NIH does great work expanding the high-tech envelope of medicine, but the people that health centers serve often cannot get even low-tech services like immunizations and basic doctor visits. The NIH is important, but so are children's hospitals. These priceless resources care for our sickest children, train a significant portion of our children's doctors, and themselves perform much of the pediatric research that NIH funds. But for three decades we have not treated these children's teaching hospitals fairly. Through the Medicare program, we have provided billions of dollars to help other teaching hospitals train physicians. But until recently, we barely gave children's hospitals pocket change to support their physician training. We still do not have parity between children's hospitals and other teaching hospitals, we need to get there. I support the President's budget and his tax cut, and thus I supported this budget resolution, at least as it was introduced. Knowing that the appropriations bills that actually provide funds for all of these priorities will be written later this year, I was content to bide my time and deal with funding totals then. But when the NIH amendment was brought up earlier, I started to worry. Would our focus during this debate be only on the NIH, and not in other areas? Would this mean that later appropriations bills thus focus only on the NIH and ignore others areas? Would the NIH become the guest at the dinner party who stays too long and eats everyone else's food? We must not let this happen. We voted to make room in the budget for a total increase in NIH spending of $3.5 billion, more than 16 percent above the current spending level. None of these other important programs, the National Science Foundation, community health centers, children's hospitals, receive anywhere close to that much of an increase. In the remaining time here on the budget resolution, I intend to offer amendments that will address each of these priorities. I hope the Senate will recognize that they are just as important as the vital work the NIH does. And I hope to see those amendments pass in a similarly overwhelming way.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to offer an amendment on Medicare home health care. This amendment will give us the ability later this year to pass the Home Health Payment Fairness Act, a bill I have sponsored with the Senator from Maine and 31 other Senators, that tries to ensure that seniors and disabled Americans have appropriate access to high-quality home health care. Home health care is a crucial part of Medicare through which seniors can get basic nursing and therapy care in their home. It is convenient. It is cost-effective. But more importantly, home health is the key to fulfilling a virtually universal desire among seniors and those with disabilities, to remain independent and within the comfort of their own homes despite their health problems. Yet we have a crisis in home health, too many seniors who could and should be receiving home health are not getting it. This is tragic. We all know the basic history, Congress made cuts in the Balanced Budget Act, the Health Care Financing Administration went too far in implementation, providers struggled or disappeared, and now patients are having a harder time getting care. This has been true for hospitals, for nursing homes, and for home health. But there are two things that distinguish the home health crisis from all of the other Balanced Budget Act problems. First and most importantly, no other group of Medicare patients and providers, absolutely none, has suffered as much. The numbers don't lie: In 1999, two years after the Balanced Budget Act, almost 900,000 fewer seniors and disabled Americans were receiving home health care than previously. More than 3,300 of the Nation's 10,000 home health agencies have either gone out-of-business, or have stopped serving Medicare patients. Medicare home health spending has actually gone down for three straight years, dropping by 46 percent from 1997 and 2000. In my home state of Missouri, 27,000 fewer patients are receiving home care than before, a drop of 30 percent. And almost 140 home health care providers, almost half, have disappeared since the Balanced Budget Act. The second thing that is unique about home health, the biggest cuts may be yet to come. While other Medicare providers will still face some additional Balanced Budget Act cuts, nobody faces anything like the 15-percent across-the- board home cuts that are now scheduled for October of 2002. That's a 15-percent cut on top of everything else that has happened thus far. I do not believe this should happen, and I actually don't know of anybody who believes the 15-percent health cuts should take effect. That's why Congress has already delayed the 25-percent cuts three separate times. Our amendment would give us the room in the budget to fix this once and for all, no more mere delays, no more half-measures. This amendment will allow us to pass legislation later this year to permanently eliminate these 15-percent cuts. Home health care has been through enough. Our Nation's dedicated home health providers deserve to be left alone and given a break so they can focus on patient care rather than survival. The last thing they need is more cuts. And that is all our bill tries to do, we try to spare home care patients and agencies additional cuts that threaten to make a bad situation worse. The seniors and disabled Americans who rely on home health for the health care, and for their independence, deserve no less.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fishable Waters Act with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be listed as a cosponsor. This is consensus legislation from a uniquely diverse spectrum of interests to establish a comprehensive, voluntary, incentive-based, locally-led program to improve and restore our fisheries. Put simply, this legislation enables local stakeholders to get together to design water quality projects in their own areas that will be eligible for some $350 million in federal assistance to implement for the benefit of our fisheries and water quality. It does not change any existing provisions, regulatory or otherwise, of the Clean Water Act. The Fishable Waters Act complements existing clean water programs that are designed to encourage, rather than coerce the participation of landowners. This legislation will work because it will empower people at the local level who have a stake in its success and who will have hands-on involvement in its implementation. It is supported by members of the Fishable Waters Coalition which includes the American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League of America, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, the American Fisheries Society, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Pacific Rivers Council. These groups have labored quietly but with great determination for several years to produce this consensus proposal to build on the success of the Clean Water Act. As my colleagues understand, it is at great peril that anyone in this town undertakes to address clean water-related issues but the need is too great and this approach too practical to not embrace it, introduce it, and work to achieve the wide-spread support it merits. A companion bill, H.R. 325, has been introduced by Congressman John Tanner in the House. That bipartisan measure is cosponsored by Representatives Abercrombie, Blunt, Boehlert, Allen, Clement, Nathan, Dingell, English, Christopher, Johnson, Leach, Pallone, Saxton, Stenholm, and Whitfield. Joining us last year for the kickoff were representatives of the Fishable Waters Coalition and a special guest, a fishing enthusiast who some may know otherwise as a top-ranked U.S. golfer, David Duval. ``Why am I here? I like to fish. I've done it as long as I can remember,'' Duval said. ``I want my kids to be able to have healthy habitats for fish. I want my grandkids and my great-grandkids to be able to do what I enjoy so much, and I think this could make a big difference.'' This bipartisan and consensus legislation is intended to capture opportunities to build on the success of the Clean Water Act. It enables local stakeholders to get together with farmers who own 70 percent of our nation's land to design local water quality projects that will be eligible for some $350 million in federal assistance for the benefit of our fisheries and water quality. Instead of Washington saying, ``you do this and you pay for it'' and instead of Washington saying, ``you do this but we'll help you pay for it'', this legislation lets local citizens design projects that can be eligible for federal assistance. For farmers, the idea of protecting land for future generations is not an abstract notion because the farmers in my State know that good stewardship is good for them and their families. Their challenge is that while they feed this nation and provide some $50 billion in exports, they do not have the ability to pass additional costs onto consumers like corporations do. For the 2 million people who farm to provide environmental benefits for themselves and the rest of the nation's 270 million people, they need partners because they cannot afford to do it by themselves. This legislation recognizes that reality. While one can expect a great deal of controversy surrounding any comprehensive Clean Water effort, the consensus that has built around this approach is cause for great optimism that this legislation will be the vehicle to make significant additional progress in improving water quality. I am pleased to continue work on the Fishable Waters Act with the broad coalition to move the legislation forward to passage and I thank my colleagues Senator Lincoln and Congressman Tanner. This new generation approach empowers people at the local level who have the greatest understanding and the most at stake in the success of environmental protection. I will be working with new members of the Bush Administration aggressively because I believe that this is philosophically consistent with their modern approach to environmental protection. I congratulate members of the Coalition for producing and supporting this consensus legislation and I look forward to working with Senator Lincoln and my other Senate colleagues to move this legislation forward. I ask unanimous consent to print the text of a one-page summary of the bill in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fishable Waters Act with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be listed as a cosponsor. This is consensus legislation from a uniquely diverse spectrum of interests to establish a comprehensive, voluntary, incentive-based, locally-led program to improve and restore our fisheries. Put simply, this legislation enables local stakeholders to get together to design water quality projects in their own areas that will be eligible for some $350 million in federal assistance to implement for the benefit of our fisheries and water quality. It does not change any existing provisions, regulatory or otherwise, of the Clean Water Act. The Fishable Waters Act complements existing clean water programs that are designed to encourage, rather than coerce the participation of landowners. This legislation will work because it will empower people at the local level who have a stake in its success and who will have hands-on involvement in its implementation. It is supported by members of the Fishable Waters Coalition which includes the American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League of America, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, the American Fisheries Society, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Pacific Rivers Council. These groups have labored quietly but with great determination for several years to produce this consensus proposal to build on the success of the Clean Water Act. As my colleagues understand, it is at great peril that anyone in this town undertakes to address clean water-related issues but the need is too great and this approach too practical to not embrace it, introduce it, and work to achieve the wide-spread support it merits. A companion bill, H.R. 325, has been introduced by Congressman John Tanner in the House. That bipartisan measure is cosponsored by Representatives Abercrombie, Blunt, Boehlert, Allen, Clement, Nathan, Dingell, English, Christopher, Johnson, Leach, Pallone, Saxton, Stenholm, and Whitfield. Joining us last year for the kickoff were representatives of the Fishable Waters Coalition and a special guest, a fishing enthusiast who some may know otherwise as a top-ranked U.S. golfer, David Duval. ``Why am I here? I like to fish. I've done it as long as I can remember,'' Duval said. ``I want my kids to be able to have healthy habitats for fish. I want my grandkids and my great-grandkids to be able to do what I enjoy so much, and I think this could make a big difference.'' This bipartisan and consensus legislation is intended to capture opportunities to build on the success of the Clean Water Act. It enables local stakeholders to get together with farmers who own 70 percent of our nation's land to design local water quality projects that will be eligible for some $350 million in federal assistance for the benefit of our fisheries and water quality. Instead of Washington saying, ``you do this and you pay for it'' and instead of Washington saying, ``you do this but we'll help you pay for it'', this legislation lets local citizens design projects that can be eligible for federal assistance. For farmers, the idea of protecting land for future generations is not an abstract notion because the farmers in my State know that good stewardship is good for them and their families. Their challenge is that while they feed this nation and provide some $50 billion in exports, they do not have the ability to pass additional costs onto consumers like corporations do. For the 2 million people who farm to provide environmental benefits for themselves and the rest of the nation's 270 million people, they need partners because they cannot afford to do it by themselves. This legislation recognizes that reality. While one can expect a great deal of controversy surrounding any comprehensive Clean Water effort, the consensus that has built around this approach is cause for great optimism that this legislation will be the vehicle to make significant additional progress in improving water quality. I am pleased to continue work on the Fishable Waters Act with the broad coalition to move the legislation forward to passage and I thank my colleagues Senator Lincoln and Congressman Tanner. This new generation approach empowers people at the local level who have the greatest understanding and the most at stake in the success of environmental protection. I will be working with new members of the Bush Administration aggressively because I believe that this is philosophically consistent with their modern approach to environmental protection. I congratulate members of the Coalition for producing and supporting this consensus legislation and I look forward to working with Senator Lincoln and my other Senate colleagues to move this legislation forward. I ask unanimous consent to print the text of a one-page summary of the bill in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the kindness of my colleague and good friend from North Dakota. We have a lot of work to do this week. I know we are going to be getting to amendments, but I thought it would be important to talk a little bit about the ``Blueprint for New Beginnings'' submitted by the President on February 28 and how we intend to implement our agenda in this congressional budget resolution offered by the chairman of the Budget Committee. As we all know, the Congressional Budget Act puts a deadline on adoption of the budget resolution. It must be signed, sealed, and delivered by April 15. That is an important deadline for a couple of reasons. It is the tax filing deadline. As Americans put together their tax returns, they see newspaper stories about how their tax money is being spent. We certainly have their attention then, and taxpayers who calculate the tax burden say: What am I getting in return? Then they see the details of the budget in their newspapers and they get to decide whether it is worth it or not. Are they getting all the Government they deserve, or are they paying for too much Government? Second, April 15, an early deadline, is important to keep us on track for the rest of the year. As a member of the Appropriations Committee as well as the Budget Committee, I know that the two committees have to work together to figure out how much we are going to spend for the coming year, and then the subcommittees need to work up the 13 individual bills to meet these targets. We should pass them and sign them into law by October 1. We have had trouble getting the appropriations bills passed on time in recent years and I guess even before then. Last year the complete package was not signed into law until December 21. By that time, several of us had already written our letters to Santa Claus. We would have rather gotten a lump of coal in our stocking than to be still dealing with appropriations bills at that late date. If we were to miss the budget deadline now, it would make our timeframe even more of a problem, and we could lag further and further behind the rest of the year. There was a very interesting exchange last Friday about that between the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Arizona. I say this is one of the central issues that often gets overlooked in this discussion. If we miss the deadline now, we are set up for missing deadlines all year long, deadlines we have enough trouble meeting as it is. These are not simply arbitrary dates that do not matter. When we fail to have a budget in place by the start of the fiscal year, the agencies are severely affected. They do not know how to plan, they are put in limbo, and we pass short-term continuing resolutions. That just keeps the doors open and keeps us busy with make-work, passing of the short- term continuing resolutions. One cannot develop a consistent year's plan for the operation of an agency with a stop-and-start, stop-and-start continuing resolution agenda. This causes agencies and the programs to be less effective in serving our citizens. In turn, we get further behind in our preparations as well. I am unwilling to say that we can afford to miss the April 15 deadline facing us knowing that to do so will put us even further behind. We must move forward using the best information we have, and the information we have turns out to be pretty good. We expect a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. Out of that, we set aside $2.5 trillion of Social Security money. A bipartisan consensus has already developed that this money should be used for Social Security. It is not used for additional spending. It goes to pay down the debt held by the public, and that is the only way we can put money in the bank. We gave ourselves a little extra leeway, a little extra breathing room so we can borrow again down the road when we need to pay benefits to retiring baby boomers. That is $2.5 billion in debt reduction, putting that money, again, to use for Social Security later. Some have said we do not do much debt reduction under the President's proposal. Mr. President, $2.5 trillion is not enough? That is out of a total of $3.4 trillion in debt held by the public. At the end of the 10 years covered by this budget resolution, less than $1 trillion will be left of the debt. We know that under this formula we will retire all the debt that is actually possible to retire. The only question is when we will reach that point. Federal debt is used as an investment for many Americans and other people around the world. Pension plans use it as a safe place to put their funds. They will not want to part with it unless we pay a big premium to make it worth their while to give up that investment. It makes no sense for us to pay down debt to the point that we would have to pay a premium to buy back the obligations that people hold. I do not know about the occupant of the chair, but certainly in our family when my son was growing up, we bought savings bonds. We expected over a period of time the Federal Government would pay the interest on that debt and that he would have a long-term investment in a federally guaranteed, federally safe investment. To buy all those savings bonds back, as well as the bonds held by funds, not only disrupts the planning in the private sector, but probably cannot be done without paying a premium. When I say there is only so much debt we can pay down, I believe any economist will tell you the price to buy some of that debt down is exorbitant. There is no reason for us to pay down debt before it is due if we are going to have to pay a premium. After we set aside Social Security money and pay pretty much all the debt we can, we still have $3.1 trillion left. That is a lot of money to meet critical priorities. One of the priorities, obviously, is Medicare. Since this program was set up in the sixties, medicine has made tremendous progress. Problems that required expensive hospital stays now can be treated with prescription drugs. It is cheaper for the taxpayer and better for the patient. It makes sense to have a reformed Medicare plan that includes prescription drug coverage. Clearly, one of the things we must do in this Congress is reform Medicare. Fortunately, we have bipartisan work going on with the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Tennessee coming up with a plan that makes some sense instead of the current plan where we have the Government trying to control the costs merely by setting prices when the patients and the providers control the usage. As I have said before, that system does not make sense. The Health Care Financing Administration, which is right in the middle of the system, has made it even worse. They have imposed arbitrary cuts. For example, they have put more than one-third of the home health care agencies in the Nation out of business by demanding too great a cut in their reimbursement. We need to put Medicare on a sound footing. We need to blow up the current function of HCFA and move into a system that has some rational being, some commonsense approach to ensuring that we provide the services and that we do so in a cost-effective manner. I hope we will get to the Medicare reform proposal because people in the health care field tell us that Medicare and HCFA are the biggest problems. Over the last 8 to 10 years, the problems we have seen with HCFA administering Medicare under the Balanced Budget Act have been huge. They are probably the most unresponsive agency in the Federal Government. If our experience in small business is anything like the experience other committees have had, we can assure our colleagues this is a system that is not working. We will have the money in Medicare for reform. There is surplus in one of the Medicare trust funds. The hospital insurance trust funds will be nearly $400 billion over the next 10 years. This budget resolution ensures all that money can be used for Medicare purposes, and it allows us to pay, at least in part, for prescription drug coverage. I believe my colleague on the other side of the aisle rounded that figure up to $500 billion, but the figures we have are about $392 billion. That is a little bit of a rounding up error.

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague. As he said, we do use Congressional Budget Office numbers in the congressional budget resolution. In any event, we will round that up to $400 billion. I think we found a basis of agreement. We have already overcome one of the big hurdles, and we now, at least for this side, agree it is $400 billion. However, one of the fundamental issues that separates our side of the aisle from our Democratic friends is what we do with that money. It is set aside for Medicare. I agree with Senator Domenici and voted on March 13 for his version of the lockbox that allows Medicare money to be spent on Medicare. It sounds like common sense to me. That is what we have a trust fund for, to provide for Medicare. So let's use it. That is how we make prescription drugs affordable. That is how we make Medicare reforms and make the programs stronger, solvent for the long term, and ensure our senior citizens will continue to have not only Medicare coverage but, if they have prescription drug coverage, they will continue that. If they don't, they will have a prescription drug option and low-income seniors will get assistance for their prescription drug payments. Our friends on the other side of the aisle want to lock the money away completely with a flawed so-called lockbox that would not allow Medicare money to be used for Medicare. We don't think that makes sense. That approach would have jeopardized the growing consensus that we need to provide prescription drug coverage. The Democratic approach would have made it unaffordable. Medicare money should be spent for Medicare. I am committed to that. But the so-called lockbox that wouldn't allow Medicare money to be spent even on Medicare is counterproductive and unrealistic. Finally, after setting aside Social Security money, after paying down as much debt as we can, and after making prescription drug coverage available in a reform Medicare program, we have money left over to return to the hard-working folks who earned it in the first place--or, better yet, not really returning it; we are leaving it in their pockets. I don't know how many of you have the workout T-shirt that I have from the small business community. It says it is the money that we sent to Washington; it is not the IRS. It is not theirs; it is ours. We are sending it to Washington because they need it. If Washington doesn't need it, we need to leave it in their pockets. We need to leave it in the pockets of the hard-working American families who have debts they have to pay. They have needs they have to secure for their families. Our proposal would leave more of that money in their pockets. We have $1.6 trillion in tax relief. Leaving that money in the pockets of families, farmers, and small businesses will have a tremendous impact. As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I listen to small businesses every day, 21.2 million of whom are taxed at personal rates. In other words, the taxes from the businesses flow to them. They are either proprietorships or partnerships or limited liability corporations, subchapter S. corporations, and instead of being taxed in the corporate entity, they are taxed at the personal level. Mr. President, 21.2 million pay income taxes based on personal rates. When we lower marginal rates as proposed by the President, No. 1, we are giving the greatest tax relief to the low-income people. Six million people at the bottom of the income-tax-paying ladder are taken off the income tax rolls. If you are a family of four making $35,000 a year, you get knocked off the income tax rolls altogether. A family of four making $50,000 a year receives a 50-percent tax reduction: $1,600 will be the reduction. Up the scale, a farmer or businessman will have reductions in income taxes that will allow them to save, to invest in equipment, to invest in technology, to hire more workers, and to pay more to the workers. We have had a tremendous explosion in the productivity of our workforce in recent years because we have invested in information technology. Where did that come from? No. 1, from the reductions in capital gains rates. It encouraged more money to go into the productivity-enhancing work of each business. Chairman Alan Greenspan and other reputable economists agree that if you want to give a boost to the economy, which is sagging, which was not rescued by the last 50 percentage bases point rate reduction by the Federal Reserve, the best thing to do is tax relief, tax reduction. The best kind of tax reduction is the marginal rate reduction. A few years ago, we agreed 28 percent ought to be the top marginal rate. I think most people, if surveyed over what is the maximum the Federal Government ought to take from anybody's income that they worked to earn, would answer maybe 30 percent. We are not going to come anywhere near that. We will lower that 39-percent bracket, which because of the cockamamie scheme of phaseout of deductions, becomes as high as 44 percent in some areas. We will lower that rate to 36 percent but still leave the top 1 percent of the taxpayers paying more of the total tax burden than they do today. That is very important for our economy. That is very important for the healthy growth of small businesses, improving the balance sheet of families, and strengthening our communities. Second, we will fix the marriage penalty. It is ridiculous to punish citizens for getting married. We ought to encourage stable households and relieve the burden that comes when two working married partners move into a higher tax bracket than they would if they were single. Second, we need to fix the death tax by getting rid of it. It is ridiculous for the tax collector to show up at people's weddings. It is even more ridiculous for the tax collector to show up at a funeral. There was a recent movie, ``Four Weddings and a Funeral.'' For the IRS, four weddings and a funeral makes five taxable events. We fix that unfairness in the budget resolution. We get rid of the death tax that erases an entire lifetime of work and productivity by making small businesses sell out just to pay taxes. We also eliminated the costly burden of inheritance tax planning and insurance costs that put unnecessary drags on small businesses while the owner is still alive and trying to plan around the death tax. One of the best arguments for getting rid of the death tax is the complexity of the code. Many have had an opportunity to listen to Larry Lindsey. We know the death tax only brings in about 1 percent of the revenue. But think of the significant number of pages in the Tax Code that were put in there to try to shore up the death tax to make sure people could not get around the death tax. Add to that the tens of thousands of dollars that farmers and small businesses have to pay just to figure out how to get around the death tax and you see why it is such a nonproductive burden on the economy. A farm friend of mine was telling that in his father's final illness they had to spend $97,000 on legal and accounting fees just to try to figure out how to keep the farm together to make it a viable agricultural productivity unit. They wasted $97,000 that could have gone a long way towards a downpayment on a new tractor or other equipment they needed on the farm. Speaking about the death tax, there is an article in yesterday's Washington Post from four African American leaders calling for the repeal of the death tax. Many fellow citizens have been able to participate in our economy for a long time and have accumulated assets across several generations. For African Americans who are often getting into the economic life for the first time thanks to the civil rights movement and others, the death tax is holding them back. A generation that has finally gotten to enjoy some level of opportunity is finding that the death tax can undo decades of progress. For example, Robert L. Johnson, chief executive of Black Entertainment Television and an organizer of the campaign, said the group was influenced by recent efforts by very wealthy white Americans such as William Gates, Senior, and members of the Rockefeller family to fight repeal with similar ads. Johnson said although it might be easier for people who have accumulated assets for generations to support the tax, many African Americans have built up wealth only since the passage of the Civil Rights Act. He goes on to say on behalf of the group that repealing the tax will help close a wealth gap that has left the net worth of an average black family one-tenth of that of the average white family. He also said the group believes the estate tax is a form of double taxation because businesses have already paid taxes on earnings. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. I have lots more to say about this budget resolution, and regrettably I will have a chance to say it. But at this point I think it appears that people are here and ready to move on. So I will thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Of course.

Mr. BOND

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

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we talked about imposing a lot of new laws and new provisions in some areas where I think we may not be doing what we wish to achieve. We are in this bill proposing to take political parties out of the campaign process which inevitably is going to shift money into other channels. One of the things I don't think we have adequately considered is what we do about people who have violated existing laws. Certainly, to the extent I have heard concerns about campaign finance, it has been about the failure to provide adequate penalties for those who violate the laws that are already on the books. Under current campaign finance laws, there is no meaningful punishment of campaign violators. Over the last several years, we have had hearings, investigations and read about key figures in campaign scandals only to learn later that they walk. It is small wonder that abuse occurs on the scale that we have recently witnessed. It is a misdemeanor offense to make a campaign contribution in the name of another person, knowingly permit your name to be used for a contribution or knowingly accept a contribution made in the name of another, in other words make an illegal contribution through a conduit (2 U.S.C. 441f). Despite this clear prohibition, it came to light that during the 1996 presidential campaign millions of dollars in illegal donations from foreign nations were funneled into party and campaign coffers through conduit contributors, some as outrageous as nuns and other people of worship. Despite these outrageous abuses, illegal contributions totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases flowed with impunity. Under the circumstances, the punishments handed out to those caught red-handed can barely be considered slaps on the wrist. As simply a misdemeanor offense, those intent on corrupting the process do not fear the consequences. Despite the scale of some of the abuses, the offense is rarely prosecuted. When it is, the offenders are handed minimal fines and no jail time. The message from the so-called prosecutions is that there is no threat of jail time for those who break campaign finance laws. If it feels good, do it. As the gross abuses of the 1996 presidential campaign came to light, we heard from the perpetrators of the abuses themselves that what was needed was not enforcement of the law but new laws and reform of the campaign finance system. Despite their gross indifference to the law, it appears they got their wish. We are here debating more laws with no discussion about increasing penalties and cracking down on law breakers. If we are truly serious about reforming the system, we must crack down on the lawbreakers. Abusers must be punished accordingly or no new law is going to make a difference in cleaning up the system. Violators have to fear punishment or they will continue to violate the law as they have abused existing law. There is no reason to think that yesterday's lawbreakers will not break tomorrow's laws unless they understand there are consequences. New laws cannot be effective if ``teeth'' are not put in the law. Without this change, ``reform'' talk is cheap and just talk. My amendment would make it a felony to knowingly make conduit contributions, knowingly permit your name to be used for such a contribution or knowingly accept a contribution made in the name of another. The amendment does not change the conditions of the underlying offense, but by making it a felony, it adds some ``teeth'' to the law. Maybe the Johnny Chungs and the Charlie Tries of this world will understand there are consequences for their actions and no longer violate campaign finance laws with impunity. As a felony offense, violators will be subject to either jail time or a stiff fine, or perhaps both. Fines will be increased dramatically to a minimum of not less than 300 percent of the amount involved. The amendment requires, not suggests, that the FEC refer these cases to the Justice Department. Finally, it broadens the prohibition on donations from foreign nationals, ensuring that clever lawyers won't be able to move funds to accounts like ``redistricting'' or others. There is a prohibition on donations from foreign nationals. This takes away an exploitable loophole. By taking this step, Congress will be sending a clear message that it considers the funneling of illegal campaign contributions a serious offense to be punished accordingly. It becomes an offense that prosecutors can use in pursuing a case. Currently there is little incentive for a suspect to cooperate if they are threatened only with a misdemeanor. There is less incentive for busy prosecutors to dedicate the time and resources to prosecute this offense if it remains a misdemeanor. This amendment gives prosecutors something they can use. This amendment goes after law-breaking contributors to any candidate of any party. Contributors to all parties are required by law to disclose their donations properly. Concealing the source of a donation is illegal. If you do it, you can expect punishment. Similar legislation has been introduced on the House side and has strong bipartisan support. We in Congress should be very concerned about the growing willingness we have seen in recent cycles for people to break the law apparently with impunity. We should be further concerned with the meaningless punishments handed down and the signal it sends that we will tolerate corruption. According to news accounts, what has become of these notorious abusers of our campaign finance laws? Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie was convicted of funneling over $1 million in conduit contributions during the 1996 cycle, a large percentage of the money was traced to Macau. For this, Mr. Trie was sentenced on November 1, 1999 to 3 years probation and 4 months home detention and fined $5,000--but he received no jail time. Mr. Johnny Chung funneled $300,000 he received from a general in the Chinese Military Intelligence Agency and made another $350,000 in conduit contributions. This individual who brazenly said ``the White House is like a subway, you have to put in coins to open the gate,'' was sentenced to 3,000 hours of community service for bank fraud, tax evasion, and his role in aiding donations to the Clinton campaign, but he received no jail time. Mr. President, 3,000 hours of community service--if they make enough, that ought to be a good year's work for anybody. They ought to be willing to do community service not as a punishment but as their contribution. Next, John Huang pleaded guilty on August 12, 1999, to arranging illegal political contributions from overseas. It was found that he arranged over $1 million in illegal contributions, primarily with money from Indonesia. He was fined $10,000 and sentenced to 1 year probation and 500 hours of community service but no jail time. I suspect that whatever source provided him the million dollars probably helped him cover the amount of that fine. And 500 hours of community service, well, that would be a nice year's work. Maria Hsia, who funneled over $100,000 through nuns and monks at a temple was tried and convicted of five counts. She was sentenced on February 6 of this year to a whopping 90 days--90 days--of home confinement--that is really tough; you have to stay home for 90 days-- 250 hours of community service, 3 years of probation and she was fined a whopping $5,000. The ``home confinement,'' of course, permits Ms. Hsai to work each day, care for her elderly parents and attend religious services--but no jail time. So you can't really say this is an onerous penalty. Billionaire James Riady agreed on January 11 of this year to pay an $8.6 million fine and plead guilty to unlawfully reimbursing donors to the 1992 campaign of President Bill Clinton--but he will serve no jail time. But for a billionaire, $6 million is like me reaching in my wallet to buy lunch at the sandwich shop. Do you think that hurt him very much? I do not believe so. For $8.6 million, he has every incentive to come back and do his trick again. That is a small price to pay for being able to exercise inappropriate, unwarranted, and illegal influence on a campaign. Until this point, this body has focused exclusively on making it more difficult for candidates to raise money legally while remaining silent on blatant abuses. If we are to get serious about reform, at least we should go after those who are willing to break the law. If campaign violators refuse to respect the law, then maybe they will respect the threat of real, not meaningless, punishment. Congress needs to get tough and send a clear message that the days of tolerance for these illegal, unlawful, and improper practices are coming to an end. I urge my colleagues to adopt this very simple amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, five years ago today the Congress, without dissent in the Senate, took a historic step in reigning in the federal government's regulatory machine and protecting the interest of small businesses. My Red Tape Reduction Act, what others call the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, ensured that small businesses would be given a voice in the regulatory process at the time when it could make the most difference: before the regulation is published as a proposal. This act provides a number of provisions that have proven to make the regulatory process more attentive to the impact on small businesses, and consequently more fair, more efficient and more effective. Perhaps the best known of these provisions is the requirement that OSHA and EPA convene panels to receive comments from small businesses before their regulations are proposed. This gives these agencies the unique opportunity to learn up front what the problems with their regulation may be, and to correct these problems when it will cause the least difficulty. This has resulted in significant changes being made, and in one case, EPA abandoning a regulation because they recognized that the industry could deal with the issue more effectively on their own. Experience with this panel process had proven to be an unequivocal success. The former chief counsel for advocacy of the Small Business Administration stated that, ``Unquestionably, the SBREFA panel process has had a very salutary impact on the regulatory deliberations of OSHA and EPA, resulting in major changes to draft regulations. What is important to note is that these changes were accomplished without sacrificing the agencies public policy objectives.'' Another provision of the Red Tape Reduction Act that was just exercised, was the Congressional Review Act, which gave Congress the ability to invalidate those regulations determined to be truly egregious and beyond repair. Thankfully, we had this measure available as a last resort to dispose of the Clinton OSHA ergonomics regulation, which was a monument to regulatory excess and failure to appreciate the impact on small businesses. Finally, one other provision of the Red Tape Reduction Act is just now being invoked. The Red Tape Reduction Act corrected the Regulatory Flexibility Act's lack of enforcement by giving interested parties the opportunity to bring a legal challenge when they believed that an agency is in non-compliance. Litigation is now moving through the courts that takes advantage of this provision and will hold agencies accountable for their actions. While the Red Tape Reduction Act has been a resounding success, it is clear that more needs to be done. Too many agencies are still trying to evade the requirements to conduct regulatory flexibility analyses that will identify the small business impacts of their regulations. We now realize that the IRS should also be required to conduct small business review panels so that their regulations will impose the least amount of burden while still achieving the mission of the agency. These and other issues shall be addressed in future legislation that I will introduce. For now, let us all appreciate and celebrate the benefits that the Red Tape Reduction Act brought to both the agencies and small businesses.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, while we in the Senate are working hard exploring the mysteries of campaign finance reform, many Americans are enjoying the annual tradition known as ``March Madness.'' In Missouri, we are particularly fixated on ``the March to the Arch'' where St. Louis is hosting the final four of the Women's NCAA basketball tournament. In the final four are a couple of teams from somewhere in Indiana and Connecticut but in Missouri, we will be cheering for our Southwest Missouri State University Lady Bears. They started out as a low seed, but they are two upset wins away from a national championship. The Lady Bears are coached by Cheryl Burnett who, in her 14 years at SW Missouri, has posted a 274-117 record winning 70 percent of her games. In recent years, the residents of my home State of Missouri have been privileged to witness many great sports legends, from George Brett and Derrick Thomas in Kansas City to Mark McGuire and Kurt Warner in St. Louis to Springfield's own Payne Stewart. Today I recognize the achievements of the Southwest Missouri State University basketball team and, Jackie Stiles--our newest sports legend. On March 1 of this year, in front of a sell-out, standing-room-only crowd, Jackie broke the record for most career points scored by a women's basketball player in NCAA Division I, a record that has stood since 1989. Ms. Stiles is the Nation's leading scorer at 30.7 points per game and the career total is a whopping 3,253 points. Monday night, in Spokane, Washington, Southwest Missouri State rolled over the home team Washington 104 to 87. Jackie Stiles left the game to a standing ovation from 11,000 fans rooting for the opposing team. Fans in her hometown of Claflin, KS, enjoyed watching her compete in basketball, track, and tennis at the high school level. They watched as she scored more points in the history of Kansas prep sports than any high school basketball player--boys or girls. Her decision to play NCAA Division I basketball at SMS was made after all of the top women's college basketball programs tried to recruit her. Her choice has been applauded time after time over the last 4 years as fans pack into Hammons Student Center to cheer on the Lady Bears team. Jackie Stiles has led Division I teams in average points per game the past 2 years and was nominated for the prestigious ESPY award, the Naismith Award, and was recently named to both the Associated Press and the Sports Illustrated Women's All-American First Team. The awards she has earned throughout her career are too numerous to list. Beyond the many honors she has earned we should recognize her for something more important than records and awards. Jackie Stiles has become a role model to the many young people who dream of the kind of achievements she has accomplished. The best thing about this is that she is showing them the way to achieve their goals. First, by being a role model and setting a fine example for young people everywhere. In the words of SMS Lady Bear's head coach Cheryl Burnett, ``She really is the kind of role model that an athlete should be . . . Jackie is a tremendous ambassador for women's basketball and athletics in general.'' Whether she is breaking records on the court or reading to elementary students, Jackie embodies a spirit of excellence. Second, Jackie Stiles has reached the pinnacle of women's college basketball by combining her talent with more hard work than most can comprehend. She is the product of a small mid-western town and reflects the values you would expect to find in a town of just over 600--hard work, friendliness, dedication, and devotion to family. She has distinguished herself from many sports heros with her humility which was evident in her recent ESPN interview where she gave credit to the team and the program rather than accepting it for herself. I agree the team deserves a lot of credit, but so does Jackie Stiles. When Jackie broke her wrist during her sophomore year of high school she did not let it get her down. Instead, she learned to shoot left handed and still averaged 26 points per game. That is also when she began her now-famous 1,000 shots per day practices that kept her in the gym all hours of the day and night. It is that kind of work ethic that builds champions, and that I stand to honor today. She puts her team first and plays unselfishly on the court. When she scored 56 points in a game she gave the credit to her coaches and her teammates, as well as to the enthusiastic fans from Southwest Missouri that have lined up to see her play the last 4 years. Her team-centered focus on winning games, not personal accolades, sets Jackie Stiles apart. And, finally, it is her focus on being a scholar-athlete, maintaining a high grade point average while dealing with the intense pressures of being in the national spotlight. Thank you, Jackie, for choosing Southwest Missouri State University, and for setting an example for young people everywhere with your hard work and humility. Those are the true things of which champions are made. I congratulate Coach Burnett, Ms. Stiles, the entire team and University for this great achievement or making it to the Final Four. I plan on attending the game Friday night game in St. Louis to see one of those Indiana teams dispatched by the Lady Bears. I say to my friends from Indiana, while Indiana may be known for men's basketball, I predict this weekend will make Missouri host to the capital of college women's basketball. Mr. President, I see no one seeking recognition, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I would pay tribute to Dr. M. Graham Clark, of Point Lookout, MO, who died earlier this month and will be sadly missed by his family and all of us who were privileged to be counted among his friends. Dr. Clark was a tremendous educator, businessman and community leader. He came to what was then known as the School of the Ozarks in 1946, a high school, as vice-president and became its president in 1952. On his watch of nearly a half century, the institution grew from a high school into a junior college and then a four-year college, and was brought into regional accreditation. Dr. Clark was proud, and deservedly so, of the fact that the College was accredited even before it issued its first full degree. The school Dr. Clark built was also nationally recognized for its adherence to Christian principles and the strong work ethic of its students. He viewed the school as his mission, and tirelessly raised funds for its improvement, even when he was well into his eighties. During his more than 50 years of service to College of the Ozarks, and to all of Southwest Missouri, Dr. Clark touched millions of people's lives. His leadership will be remembered for generations to come. Those who knew him best know that his commitment and love of the College was second only to his dedication to his Lord and Savior, and to his family. Our culture is quick to glorify the here and now, the ``flash in the pan'' celebrities, the ``cause'' of the day. By that measure, Clark stood apart. While he could no doubt have made a fortune in the for- profit sector, he devoted his considerable intellectual and business skills to the work of building a top-notch educational institution. He was a strong Christian who never hid nor apologized for his beliefs. He spent his entire life making life better for young people in the Ozark region, his family, his church,and his community. His love for others knew no social boundaries. We are in his debt, and remember him fondly.