Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee is correct. That reference is specifically intended to refer to Catholic Social Services for renovations and construction at the Brother Francis Shelter and AWAIC's transitional housing and was inadvertently referred to as Catholic Community Services. I hope the Record will reflect this clarification and will result in an expeditious use of the funds.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, might I ask the indulgence of my good friend from Florida to take perhaps 5 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my former gubernatorial colleague. There are far too few of us former Governors in this body, and it was my pleasure to serve with the Governor from Florida, who is now the Senator from Florida. It is a very melancholy time for me to rise today to pay my respects and honor and to offer sincerest thanks to a friend who is probably my closest colleague in politics. We have been through a lot together. I lost a couple races as well as winning some. I can tell you, it is not fun. In fact, it is really terrible. I know what it is like. After my last loss, a good friend came up to me and slapped me on the shoulder and said: Well, experience is what you get when you are expecting to get something else. I don't know what that proves, but I have had experience, and I know John has had experience. It hasn't made him bitter. Every time he has had an experience, it has made him better. Last night I had the pleasure of joining him for ceremonies at a Christmas celebration to collect toys for tots in the Marine Corps effort. Now, there was some singing. And the host who heard both of us sing sort of gave me a speaking role and gave John the responsibility to lead the singing. There is no question that I will not try to take his place in the Singing Senators. That is going to be a loss. But there are a lot of other ideas, a lot of other fond memories that come back to me. When John Ashcroft followed me in the State auditor's office, he continued the effort to clean up the mess of the State auditor's office, something I chided him about frequently. He went on to be attorney general, my second term as Governor. During his first time, I had taken an involuntary hiatus from the Governor's office. I had one of my experiences. I came back and he was my counsel, my lawyer, kept me out of trouble for 4 years. Then he served 8 great years as a very effective and farsighted Governor of the State of Missouri. I will not impose on the Senate's time to go down the list of accomplishments. One of my favorite programs is Parents as Teachers. This is a wonderful early childhood program that has revolutionized early childhood education in Missouri. We managed to get it on the books and kind of bring it to life. But John Ashcroft was the one who funded it, nurtured it, encouraged it, made it flourish to become a national model and even an international model. It has gone to six or seven other countries, last time I heard, because it works. And because of his strong leadership, it was successful. With his long experience in Missouri, it is no surprise that when he came to Washington he said he was going to Washington not to bring Washington ideas back to Missouri but to bring Missouri values, views, and good ideas to Washington. He has clearly done that. There are many accomplishments we could cite about his service. He has mentioned a few of them. The methamphetamine problem became a very serious problem in Missouri in the early 1990s. We worked together, he on the Judiciary Committee, fashioning laws. He helped me secure appropriations to deal with this scourge. It was a terrible tragedy for too many Missourians. His work on behalf of ending the food and medicine embargo was just one more step in opening the markets that our farmers and, indeed, our entire world economy needs so they can be healthy from the export markets. Working together at the staff level, we had great staff efforts. I express my thanks to his staff as well because we worked jointly together and managed to do a lot of good. We sincerely appreciate the service the staff has provided. We fought the battles. I should note for our colleagues who are not soon going to forget our efforts on behalf of the Missouri River, we appreciate their indulgence. That issue of controlled flooding on the Missouri River was very important to our State, and we fought that battle. We appreciate the suffering of our fellow Senators. There is no better measure of a man than how he handles adversity. It is something you don't want to experience but when you do, how do you react? Do you get bitter or do you get better? John Ashcroft showed the nobility, the character, and the honor that has been his trademark throughout. When he conceded the election and there were those who wished to mount a legal challenge, he wasn't going to stand for it. He would not tolerate it. The people of Missouri had spoken. He views his job as one of service to the people of Missouri--not one of using legal challenges and court challenges to try to win what the polls had shown. I can tell you that as I have traveled around the State there is one overwhelming message Missourians have; that is, thank you, John Ashcroft. Their esteem for you has grown. People shake their heads, and say: Why didn't he fight? Why didn't he do something? I said: Look. He wants service to go forward. They are very proud of the nobility he showed. But they are confident, as I am, that new opportunities will be arising for him. They wish him well--with his experience, commitment, and his solid faith. There will be many areas where John Ashcroft will serve. He has too much to offer. And I look forward too--I admit--with awfully mixed emotions to seeing him take a new role and new responsibilities. On behalf of my fellow citizens of Missouri, I say thanks for the first 33 years of service to the State. We are not finished with you yet. There is a lot more to be done, and you are the one to do it. For me personally, I know what you and Janet have gone through. And I am very proud of the way you have handled it. Your friendship will always mean a great deal to me, and the shared time that we have had together in this body is particularly special. When they close the service and the benediction at my church in Missouri, the minister says: The service is over, and now it is time for the work to begin. For John, the service is over for now right here. But let the work begin. John, thank you from the bottom of my heart, and very best wishes to you, Janet, and your family. I thank the Chair. I particularly thank my colleague from Missouri.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Ms. Judy England-Joseph who retired from the General Accounting Office, GAO, this past March. Her departure from federal service is a great loss to the federal government as well as to all offices in the Senate. Judy was a superlative federal employee with a record of honesty and integrity as well as a commitment to a job well done. Ms. England-Joseph had been with GAO since 1975 working on a number of important federal issues in the fields of personnel and compensation, human resources, and energy, to name a few. However, I think most of my colleagues would agree that Judy's most outstanding contributions came as the Director of Housing and Community Development Issues at GAO. As Director, she had the primary responsibility for overseeing for the Congress the audit and evaluation of all programs and activities at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Small Business Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including those concerning housing, community and economic development, and federal disaster responsibilities. As Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies and the Committee on Small Business, I found Judy to be an invaluable resource for objective and timely information that was critical to fulfilling my responsibilities. Judy not only testified numerous times before my appropriations subcommittee and the Committee on Small Business, but also personally met with me and my staff to discuss pressing issues and provide us with the critical information needed to make policy decisions. Judy was more than a resource to my committees; I also viewed her as a teammate and partner who shared my goal of making government truly accountable and as efficient as possible. To say that we miss Judy would be an understatement. Judy epitomized public service. Her energy was boundless, her knowledge of policy issues was rarely matched, and her commitment to doing the right thing underlined her approach to her job and responsibilities. I am honored to have worked with Judy and commend her for the years of service she provided to the Congress and the American Taxpayer.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator and agree without reservation that the purpose of this legislation is to increase safety on the highways. No one in the small business community supports allowing defective auto parts or automobiles to be allowed on the road. After all, small businesses, their employees, and their owners are some of the drivers of the vehicles that would be identified under this law, and they are the other drivers on the road with these vehicles. They care as much as anyone else about highway safety. Without question, the safety of our roadways is one of our highest priorities. I would just like to add one clarification. When the Department of Transportation promulgates the regulations required by this act, it is required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to determine whether the regulations will have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' If the regulations rise to that level, the Department is required to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and a final regulatory flexibility analysis as described in SBREFA so that the impacts on small businesses can be identified and better understood. None of the requirements under SBREFA are intended to, or have been shown to, interfere in any way with an agency's regulatory objectives. In this case they would not impede, in any way, the Department of Transportation's ability to provide the maximum safety improvement on the highways as mandated under the TREAD Act. This is the current law and is consistent with the provision in the TREAD Act which prohibits the Department of Transportation from issuing unnecessarily burdensome regulations. I just want to make it clear that we will be watching closely to make sure that the Department of Transportation adheres to the mandates of SBREFA.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to call to the attention of my colleagues and the many people across this Nation the fact that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has rushed to judgment and published a huge, extremely burdensome ergonomics rule. They had talked about this previously with bipartisan support. We had included in the Labor-HHS bill, as well as others, legislative vehicles stating that they should not go forward with this measure because of the burdens it imposed. I have in my hand the voluminous computer printout of the rule. I chair the small business committee, and I can just see the thrill and excitement with which a small business will view this rule coming down on their backs. I hope this body can take action to stop the implementation of this rule until OSHA itself and the scientific evidence can provide real guidance to small business and other businesses on how to reduce ergonomics injuries. In the last 7 years, the incidence of ergonomics injuries has gone down by a third--26 percent in carpal tunnel syndrome and 33 percent in tendonitis. It is in the interest of employers and employees to reduce to the greatest extent possible the very painful, time-consuming and profit-consuming impact of ergonomics injuries. Well, OSHA decided they had been working on this for a long time and they wanted to get something out the door before the Clinton administration left office. Our political friends said we have to have an ergonomics rule. This overrules State workers compensation laws and tells employees if they have an ergonomics injury, they can collect more workers comp than the State provides them. We are overruling State workers comp laws. It also tells employees that if you get an ergonomics injury--say you are in a bowling league on your own time, or you are crocheting in the evening and you come up with an ergonomics injury--if that is made worse by the job that you are doing, then your employer has had it. This ergonomics rule doesn't give any sound guidelines on how employers and employees working together can reduce ergonomics injuries. That is what we need from OSHA, not a punitive measure which says if somebody has an ergonomics injury, you are dead; your workers comp account is going to be held hostage and you are going to be subject to lawsuits. All this says is, that if the highway speed limit sign says don't drive too fast and you are driving down the road at what you think is a reasonable speed and a State trooper flags you over and says: You know what, you were going 40 miles an hour, and I think 35 miles an hour is a reasonable speed, so you are guilty. That is precisely what they propose to do with this ergonomics regulation, and it affects businesses of all sizes. I have talked to soft drink distributors who say: If we don't go out of business, we are going to have to buy equipment and get rid of employees to have machines doing the work. You can talk to people in the delivery business--express delivery or any other delivery business--and they know that no matter what they try to do, even if they continue to reduce the incidence of ergonomics injuries, any time there is an ergonomics injury, they are going to be held responsible even if they didn't initially cause it. Well, we have the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act and we have lawsuits that are about to be filed by many organizations representing small business. I support those lawsuits. I hope this body can act to stop the implementation of this draconian rule. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I request 5 minutes of the time the majority leader has reserved.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me begin by noting a point made by the Senator from Texas. I urge all colleagues to change their plans to be here for the vote at 3 p.m. I believe there are colleagues on both sides of the aisle with planes to catch. The sooner we can complete the vote at 3 o'clock, the sooner we will be able to go on to the second vote, and there are many colleagues on both sides who hear the engines warming up and smell the jet fuel. Mr. President, before I talk about this bill in particular, we have had a lot of politics on the floor and that is where I think it is appropriate for us to have our political discussions. I think, as chairman of the Small Business Committee, we have been able to work on a bipartisan basis on small business issues. But something is very disturbing to me, and I want to call that to the attention of my colleagues and to a much broader constituency. It is something that appears to be an attempt by this administration to politicize the Small Business Administration just days before the national election this November. I call on the SBA Administrator to stop this effort. Yesterday, an anonymous employee of the Small Business Administration faxed to my office a draft of the ``SBA Day Plan.'' It was faxed to the Small Business Committee staff. According to the plan, in the week before the election, the SBA will use personnel from its district offices to conduct a nationwide blitz of making small business loans, releasing media statements on the Clinton-Gore administration accomplishments, and coordinating advertising with 5,000 lending partners across the country. The whistleblower who contacted us had one short message: ``This must be stopped.'' I agree. This must be stopped. According to this SBA document, SBA allegedly plans a major public relations campaign in the first days of November, right before the election. SBA central office will make mention of the hundreds of events going on all over the country. SBA regional and district offices will publicize their local SBA Day events throughout their regions. What wonderful timing. Does anybody want to guess what those days will feature? Do you think they will mention the name of the Vice President? Well, more disturbingly, SBA district offices will enlist and co-opt volunteers from the Small Business Development Centers, Women Business Centers, SCORE Chapters, and U.S. Export Assistance Centers, to place at least one person in lender offices in branches throughout the country in the week before the election. I say co-opt because these SBDC, SCORE, USEAC, and WBC centers receive a substantial amount of funding from SBA. It appears that the SBA may be using their private sector partners' dependence on SBA funding as leverage, pushing them to carry out this SBA campaign plan. SBA partners are expected to encourage local lenders to make joint media announcements with SBA. SBA private sector partners are also expected to coordinate advertising regarding the SBA Plan Day at their local offices. In particular, SBA district offices [are to] make every effort to target lender offices in key communities (i.e., Hispanic, African American, Asian, Native American, Export, Women). The most abusive part of this plan would be SBA's efforts to ``close or get commitments for as many new SBA-guaranteed loans as possible during the week of October 30 through November 3, 2000.'' A followup news release, of course, will publicize the success of this effort. Is this a great country or what? When I read this plan, I was shocked at what I saw. This thinly veiled attempt by the administration to promote itself in the days before the election is an abomination. Too many of us worked too long to allow the political manipulation and abuse of SBA resources, SBA personnel, and SBA partners with the goal of influencing the election. As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I, along with the committee, have worked tirelessly on a bipartisan basis to promote small business development and success. This entire Senate has worked on fostering small business growth as a top priority on a bipartisan basis. Focusing the resources of the SBA and its programs and loans towards historically disadvantaged and underutilized communities has also been a chief goal. This Senate passed the HUBZone Program overwhelmingly. It is now part of the SBA's programs to bring opportunity to areas of high unemployment and poverty. We cannot and should not allow SBA, in the waning days of this administration, to be politically hijacked for an election. Staging the events in the days before the election would spread a political taint throughout the SBA. This campaign plan will undermine the credibility of every SBA employee and partner. I don't want to see that political destruction. If SBA is serious about raising public awareness of SBA programs and services--and I think that is a good thing to do--then it will do one simple thing: Delay the SBA Day Plan for 1 month. They can begin it in December instead of November. That would avoid any hint of impropriety. If however, SBA continues with the SBA Day Plan in the days before the election, we have no choice but to conclude that a complete political takeover of SBA had occurred with a goal of advancing the administration's candidates in the November election. I don't know if this SBA pre-election campaign has been coordinated with the national political campaign or local political campaigns across the country. Frankly, we don't need to know, if this issue can be taken off the table right now. I urge SBA to remove any doubts and postpone this action. I have written to Administrator Aida Alvarez urging her to protect SBA from the taint of political interference. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and the attached SBA Day Plan be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I say to all of the outside organizations and individuals who may be contacted by the SBA, I hope they understand they are free to choose to participate or to not participate in any such activities if they are requested to do so. We intend to be around to continue oversight responsibilities next year, and we will ensure that there is no reprisal against any SBA employee or non-SBA employee who chooses not to participate in a political endeavor. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC, October 27, 2000. Aida Alvarez, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC. Dear Administrator Alvarez: The purpose of this letter is to express my alarm over the potential politicalization of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in the days leading up to the national elections on November 7, 2000. Employees at SBA have brought to my attention SBA plans for a major public relations campaign across the country in the first day of November. The Administration's use of SBA personnel, offices, programs and private-sector partners to influence public perception of the Administration only days before the election raises the specter of a pernicious manipulation of the federal government for political means. Most alarming is the directive from SBA headquarters to make as many government guaranteed loans as possible during the week before election day. Putting taxpayer money at risk for pre- election campaigning is totally unacceptable. The ``SBA Day Plan'' received by my office details SBA plans to: Close or get commitments for as many new SBA guaranteed loans as possible during the week of October 30-November 2, 2000; Release media announcements by all SBA offices on the success of these efforts; Encourage [local lenders] to make joint media announcements with SBA; Coordinate advertising [with local lenders] regarding SBA Day at their local offices/branches; Place at least one person [from SBA District Offices, Small Business Development Centers, Women Business Centers, Service Corps of Retired Executives Chapters of U.S. Export Assistance Centers] in lender offices/branches throughout the country during the week of October 30-November 3, 2000; and Make every effort to target lender offices/branches in key communities (i.e. Hispanic, African-American, Asian, Native American, Export, Women). The work of the Small Business Administration is vital to fostering small business across the country. I share your commitment to bringing these benefits to historically underutilized areas, which is why I sponsored and Congress overwhelmingly passed the HUBZone program. Therefore, I am sure you will agree that SBA should reschedule its SBA Day Plan from the beginning of November to the beginning of December. This would avoid any taint of political manipulation. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Christopher S. Bond, Chairman.

Mr. BOND. I object.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if you are asking, we are happy to yield 5 minutes. But the minority leader consumed a great amount of time. We had people waiting. We would prefer to continue to go back and forth, if the Senator does not mind.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, what is the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. BOND. Seriously, Mr. President, we are very tight on time and would like to be able to continue to go back and forth. Many of our Members are waiting.

Mr. BOND. That is a rare occasion. That should be noted with bugles.

Mr. BOND. I object.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, apparently there is a lot of discussion that needs to go on. We need to work out the time. Could we ask--

Mr. BOND. I know, but could we ask the initial remarks of the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Texas to be 15 minutes each, so then we can work out a schedule? We know that we will then be able to develop the schedule so that all of the important things that people on both sides of the aisle need to say before 3:15 can be said.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I believe the agreement is that between now and 3:15 the time is equally divided. So that would roughly be 3 hours and 10 minutes. So that is an hour and 45 minutes for each side. With that understanding, each side has 1 hour 45 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will yield 20 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici.

Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have all the time committed on our side. I have some time. I can give Senator Byrd 1 minute of my time, but we have people who are waiting to speak on our side as well.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I interrupt to propound a unanimous consent request?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 3:15 p.m. be changed to now occur at 3 p.m. and the time be reduced equally for both sides of the aisle. I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following passage of the joint resolution, the Senate proceed to the conference report to accompany the D.C. appropriations bill, including the Commerce-Justice- State appropriations bill, the conference report be considered as having been read, and the Senate proceed to immediately vote on adoption of that conference report without any intervening action, motion, or debate. I further ask unanimous consent that statements throughout the day relative to the appropriations conference report be placed in the record immediately prior to the adoption vote. I further ask unanimous consent that the votes at 3 p.m. be reversed so that the first vote occur on adoption of the D.C. conference report, to be followed by passage of H. J. Res. 117.