Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to support in the strongest possible way the Enzi-Bond amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill relating to ergonomics. This amendment will save businesses, small businesses particularly, and other employers, and primarily their employees, from the ravages of OSHA's regulatory impulses running rampant. As many in this body know, I have questioned OSHA's approach to formulating an ergonomics regulation for several years. Last year, I introduced a bill, which currently has 48 cosponsors, to force OSHA to wait for the results of the study that we and the President--and the President--directed the National Academy of Sciences to conduct on whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to support this regulation. This measure is known as the Sensible Ergonomics Scientific Evidence Act, or the SENSE Act. Sadly, this issue, as administered by OSHA, has been lacking in common sense in the years that OSHA has been working on it. We were not able to move the SENSE Act last year, nor were we able to convince OSHA they needed to put some common sense into their regulatory process before going forward with the proposed rule. At this time last year, we were fearful of what OSHA might come up with because it did not look as if they were going about it in a reasonable, responsible way. When the proposed rule was finally published in November and we found out what they wanted to do, it was worse than we could have imagined. It is tragic that OSHA and this administration have all but disregarded the protections for the rulemaking process that are needed for sound regulations. They moved at an unprecedented pace, and it looked as if they were trying to get this regulation finalized before they even left office. This is a classic example of ready, fire, aim. OSHA needs to be told they have gone too far and they must suspend the regulation so that it can be redrafted and put into some reasonable, workable approach. The Enzi-Bond amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill must be adopted, and I urge my colleagues to strongly support it. I have the honor of serving as chairman of the Small Business Committee, and I have heard from literally thousands of small businesses and their representatives about the utter terror they face of having to comply with an impossible regulation that they cannot figure out and they cannot implement. Let me be clear, their fear is not that they will have to protect their employees or even that they will have to spend some money to achieve that goal--they are doing that already because they do not want to see their employees have repetitive motion injuries or ergonomic injuries. They want to do what is right for their employees. In many cases, these employees in the smallest businesses are like family. They treat them like family members because they work closely with them. Instead, this fear, this terror is that they will be forced to figure out what this regulation means, what is expected of them, whether they can satisfy the requirements, whether they will get any results from the huge costs of this regulation, and whether they can convince an OSHA inspector they have satisfied a regulation which gives no clear guidelines. In some cases, the alternative to complying with the regulation may be to close the company or to move it to another country where they do not have such regulations, or, which is also extremely sad, they may be required to get rid of employees and buy equipment and replace their employees with equipment. None of these regulatory efforts has to do with assuring protection for employees from repetitive motion injuries. The simple truth is, there is nothing the regulation says that will protect employees. It does not do what OSHA would have us believe it does. It does not tell employers how they can help their employees. On this basis alone, the proposed regulation fails and must be withdrawn. OSHA likes to say this regulation is flexible. So is a bullwhip. What OSHA calls flexible is really a level of vagueness such that no employer, no matter how well intentioned, would be able to tell what is required of them or if they have done enough. Let me give a couple examples to help illustrate the degree of vagueness that permeates this proposal. These terms come directly from the language of the proposed rule: Throughout the standard, employers are directed to implement provisions and establish program elements ``promptly.'' In analyzing a ``problem job,'' employers are instructed to look for employees ``exerting considerable physical effort to complete a motion,'' or employees ``doing the same motion over and over again.'' Engineering controls are to be used ``where feasible.'' When implementing the ``incremental abatement'' provisions, employers are to ``implement controls that reduce MSD hazards to the extent feasible.'' For an employer to evaluate its ergonomics program, it is to ``evaluate the elements of [its] program to ensure they are functioning properly; and evaluate the program to ensure it is eliminating or materially reducing MSD hazards.'' Ergonomics risk factors are defined as: ``(i) force (i.e., forceful exertions, including dynamic motions); (ii) repetition; (iii) awkward postures; (iv) static postures; (v) contact stress; (vi) vibration; and (vii) cold temperatures.'' Anytime one lifts a garbage can outside in the winter, one probably goes through all those. To be effective, however, this regulation must tell employers when their employees will be injured, when an employee will have lifted too much, when the employee will have done too many repetitions, what an employer can do to prevent injuries or to help an employee recover from an injury. OSHA loves to say this proposal is supported by adequate science and many studies. Unfortunately, none of these studies have answered these critical questions, or at least OSHA has not bothered to include any of that information in this proposed rule. All other OSHA regulations provide a threshold of exposure to a risk beyond which the employer must not let the employee be exposed without protection or taking a corrective measure. This proposal is unique in its complete absence of any thresholds. I guess that is what they mean by ``flexible.'' That bullwhip they use can come down at any time and give them the full benefits of flexibility. There is not a single threshold. OSHA is telling employers: We think you have a problem. We cannot define it. We cannot tell you how to fix it. But you have to go fix it. We will hold you accountable for how well you fix it, even though we cannot tell you how to fix it. This is absurd. It would be like driving down a highway where the sign said, ``Don't drive too fast,'' but not specifying what the speed limit is. You would never know if you had gone too fast until the highway patrolman pulled you over and told you whether you had gone too fast, according to that patrol person's view of what was ``too fast.'' This is no way to create an enforceable, workable, worker safety regulation in a country that prides itself on being a country governed by laws, not people. This proposal is simply unenforceable as it is written. It amounts to nothing more than a regulatory trap which will result in more citations, more fines, more litigation, more legal fees, more confusion, and more problems without protecting a single worker or making a single workplace safer. It is a big bullwhip to threaten employers without telling them how to avoid that which they seek to prevent. Whatever other problems this regulation may cause for large employers, the problems will be catastrophic for many small businesses. It is impossible to overstate the complications and the burden this regulation could impose on small businesses. Small business owners simply do not have the time, expertise, resources, staff, or understanding of the issue to deal with this regulation while still performing all the other roles that are demanded of them as businesspeople as well as family members. The same person who may handle sales, accounting, inventory, customer relations, and environmental compliance may also be responsible for safety compliance. With the vagueness of this proposal, the lack of a scientific consensus on what causes these injuries, the lack of a medical consensus on what is an effective remedy, and the naturally complicated nature of this issue, the typical small business owners will be so overwhelmed with this regulation, it will be a wonder if they decide they can both comply with the regulation and stay in business. Every hour they spend on this regulation--and despite OSHA's claims, there will be many--is an hour they will not use to do something that will further increase their business or create more jobs. For small business owners, time really is money. And if they are not dealing with all these roles in their business, they are probably trying to set aside a few hours a day to spend with their children and families. The Small Business Administration did an analysis of this proposed rule. One of the points they made is that small businesses are not just large businesses with fewer employees, they function in an entirely different way. In addition to their lack of resources and staff, they may also have a different cash-flow structure, which means that the financial burden of this regulation cannot be absorbed as easily. In many small businesses, they are more dependent on financing for their operating capital, so the cost of implementing this regulation will require the company to take on more debt, thus eroding further its opportunity to make a profit and grow and hire more employees. Also, small businesses often exist as niche businesses to serve very special needs. They may not be able to pass costs along to their customer easily because the customer may be able to do without the niche product or be able to find it cheaper or more easily from a larger source. Small businesses are the engine of this great economic expansion we have been enjoying recently. They are the ones that are creating the jobs. They are the ones that are creating the opportunity and creating the wealth for many families around this country. This rule will be sand that can cause this engine to seize up and stop dead in its tracks. The Small Business Administration's study on this proposal found that OSHA underestimated the cost of this regulation by a factor of anywhere between 2 and 15 times. OSHA simply has no idea how much this regulation will cost businesses, and particularly small businesses. And businesses have no idea what they will get for the money they will be forced to spend. Employers have no problem investing in safety to protect their employees, but when you ask them to spend excessive amounts, with no guarantee of what they will get in return, they are going to object, and object strenuously. This weekend, when I was in Missouri, I talked to small businesses, small businesses that are very much concerned about this. Do you know what they said to me? They said to me: Look, we don't want to see repetitive motion injuries. We are very much concerned if one of our employees comes up with carpal tunnel syndrome. One small business owner said: I have hired two different safety engineers to come in and work with the employees and me to find out where there might be an injury, to help us develop ways of preventing those injuries. We talk with and listen to our workers and say: What are we doing? What can we do differently? He also said: I have paid a lot of money trying to find an answer. Wherever we can find an answer, we implement it, because it doesn't make any sense for me to lose good workers or to have them suffer the physical pain, which is great, or to have the loss of income which can come from one of these on-the-job injuries. And it certainly does my business no good to be without a valued employee. And he said: When we look at what OSHA is telling us, how come, if they are so smart, they can't tell me what specific things I can do? What are the standards? I paid these safety engineers to come in and help me, and they have done everything they can. And OSHA doesn't even come close. They are not even trying. They are just going to pull out that big bullwhip and whack me across the back if there is something I missed and something nobody understands can be done to prevent it. Small businesses are such a vital part of the economy that, 5 years ago this month, I introduced what we call the Red Tape Reduction Act, but it is technically known as the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, or SBREFA. This act was passed by the Senate without a dissenting vote and signed by the President in March of 1996. Among other provisions, the Red Tape Reduction Act requires OSHA to convene panels of small businesses to review regulations before they are proposed, at the time when their input can have the most impact. OSHA convened their SBREFA panel for the ergonomics regulation in March 1999. It should be no surprise that the small businesses that reviewed this regulation thought it would be a nightmare to comply with. Even those businesses that were generally in favor of doing something about an ergonomics regulation, because of the possible ergonomics injuries and the pain they cause, believed that this proposal was seriously flawed and totally inadequate. In every category of question, the small businesses that reviewed this regulation found serious problems. The report was issued, and it contained many criticisms and complaints about the proposal. I will mention a few of them: Many [small businesses] felt that OSHA's preliminary cost estimates had underestimated costs. Some [small businesses] felt that there may be substantial costs for firms to understand the rule and to determine whether they are covered by the rule, even for firms not required to have a basic program and who have not had an MSD. Many [small businesses] expressed doubt over their capability to make either the initial determination about whether they need an ergonomics program or to implement an ergonomics program itself. Many [small businesses] felt that they would need the assistance of consultants to set up an ergonomics program and to assist them in their hazard identification and control activities. Almost all of the [small businesses] stated that they would not be able to pass on the costs of an ergonomics program to their customers. The ability to pass through costs may be dependent on the level of domestic and foreign competition. Many [small businesses] questioned OSHA's estimate that consultants would not be necessary for any element of the program except in 10% of those cases involving job fixes. Many [small businesses] had difficulty understanding OSHA's criteria for determining the work-relatedness of MSDs. Many [small businesses] interpreted OSHA's criteria for determining the work-relatedness of MSDs in such a way that, in practice, the two criteria in addition to a recordable MSD would be unworkable or ignored. Some [small businesses] expressed concerns about how certain terms and provisions of the draft rule would be interpreted and enforced by OSHA compliance personnel. Many [small businesses] found it difficult to apply the concepts of feasibility, similar jobs and manual handling, as these are defined in the draft rule. Many [small businesses] . . . were concerned about perceived overlaps between State workers' compensation laws and the draft standards' medical removal protection requirements. Some [small businesses] suggested that employers' increased concern about MSDs could create additional incentives for employers to discriminate against individuals who may be members of protected classes of employees based on the perceived likelihood that such workers would have more MSDs than other workers. Many [small businesses] suggested that non-regulatory guidance would be preferable to a rule. Some [small businesses] recommended that OSHA delay the ergonomics rule until the completion of the National Academy of Sciences study that is now underway. Mr. President, those are some of the comments the small business panels offered when they looked at this atrocity. You would think with all these concerns and recommendations, OSHA would have made major changes to the proposed rule to take into account, as they were supposed to, the legitimate concerns of small business. Unfortunately, that was not the case. The changes that were made were merely cosmetic, not substantive, and did not address any of these issues raised by the small businesses. In fact, OSHA made so few changes to the draft that when thousands complained about the short comment period after it was published in November, OSHA claimed the fact that it had been released to the panel qualified as giving interested parties sufficient time to help them develop their comments. OSHA ignored the concerns raised by small businesses that gave up their time to participate in this process in the hopes of helping OSHA fashion a reasonable and responsible, better regulation. They didn't want to know. They didn't pay attention. This is precisely what the Red Tape Reduction Act was meant to stop, when a Federal agency says: Ready, fire; we will worry about the aim later, and they didn't care about what aim they took. They didn't care about listening to the small businesses. This is a clear-cut example of abuse of the law that is designed to protect small businesses from excessive overreaching and inappropriate Federal regulation. Unfortunately, this has been a consistent pattern of OSHA during the development of this regulation. There have been numerous stakeholder meetings and meetings with concerned businesses where OSHA received valuable guidance and suggestions that would have led to a better regulation. OSHA has not been willing to work with anyone from the employer community who would have to deal with this regulatory monstrosity. They have pursued their vision of this rule with a myopic tunnel vision that has shut out any and all recommendations that could make this regulation palatable and workable. The intransigence of OSHA in this rulemaking has been positively staggering. Unfortunately, this regulation threatens not only to stagger but to take the breath out of small businesses in the United States. OSHA would have us believe that they must move forward because of the levels of musculoskeletal disorders occurring among employees. In fact, as employers have focused on MSDs, the numbers have been steadily declining, since 1994, by a total of 24 percent. These injuries now make up only 4 percent of all workplace injuries and illnesses. This progress has come about without an ergonomics regulation. There is more that needs to be done, yes. We need to continue to work to find ways to reduce these painful and harmful injuries that cost time and pain to employees and deprive employers and small businesses of their ability to turn out product or a service and make a profit. Businesses are willing to consider what makes sense for their employees when there is a solution available. I told you the story of one small business owner with whom I talked this week in Missouri. I have held conferences. At the National Women's Small Business Conference I held in Kansas City, they talked about problems facing women small business owners. They have problems with procurement. They have problems with access to capital. They are scared to death of what can happen to their businesses because they don't want to see their employees have MSDs or musculoskeletal disorders, injuries from repetitive motions. They told me they are working on ways to minimize them and eliminate them, but this regulation gives them no help in moving forward in their efforts, which they intend to continue, which are voluntary, which are effective, unlike this rule. There is no help for them in this regulation, just a bull whip, if something goes wrong. This regulation does not provide a solution or any guidance that would be helpful to employers. If OSHA were smart, they would take a look at what is happening and get out of the way, or offer constructive assistance, help figure out ways to prevent these injuries. OSHA is trying not to reinvent the wheel but telling the wheel which way to go without giving it any guidance. OSHA will claim they have made changes in response to the concerns of the businesses. They will point to the grandfather clause they included. That is truly a laugh. The only problem is the grandfather clause is worthless. Not a single company in the country which currently has an ergonomics program could qualify for it. OSHA's grandfather clause requires a company to put OSHA's program in place so they can be relieved of having to comply with the OSHA program. That sounds absurd. It doesn't make any sense, but that is what they require. They said: If you will put into place this OSHA program, whatever it is--and nobody knows what it is--then you will have complied with the grandfather clause. But to our knowledge--and OSHA hasn't told us of any--nobody has one in place that meets the impossible and unworkable and unknowable standards of this rule and regulation. Grandfather? That looks like some other kind of relative, not often seen at a family picnic when you apply it to this clause. OSHA's pursuit of this regulation has been so single minded, they have cut corners with the rulemaking process. Under the proposed regulation, an employer's obligation to implement the full ergonomics program is triggered when an employee has an OSHA-recordable MSD injury. OSHA's definition of a recordable MSD injury is one where ``exposure to work caused, contributed to the MSD, or aggravated a pre- existing MSD.'' An employee could actually have an injury caused entirely by nonwork-related factors. This regulation would require the employer to implement a full-blown ergonomics program if the employee's job requires them to do something as simple as standing, which aggravates the injury. I have had an ergonomic injury trying to pull up carpet tacks in a new house. I spent a weekend pulling up carpet tacks. I could not move my arm the next day. I went into work. I couldn't use the typewriter, even a pen, but I knew what caused that: pulling up the carpet tacks and ripping up the rug. Under this rule, if I had gone in and told the employer, darn, I can't use the typewriter, I can't pick up a pencil today, I can't lift the law books, under this definition, that would have been a recordable MSD injury for my employer. That would not have made him happy. What is even more remarkable about this regulation is that the language comes directly from OSHA's 1996 proposal to revise the recordkeeping standard which has not yet been finalized. OSHA is actually trying to finalize their proposed recordkeeping standard by inserting that language in the ergonomics proposal. That is an outrage and a clear violation of the principles of fairness and disclosure that underlie the rulemaking process that must be and should be subject to challenge under SBREFA and the appropriate procedures and actions. The fact that OSHA has taken liberties with the rulemaking process is hardly new. Most of us remember in January when OSHA tried to impose on employers the obligation to check the homes of employees who telecommute for safety hazards. OSHA was attempting to do this through a letter of interpretation in response to a legitimate inquiry from an employer. The outcry over this move was so loud and so bipartisan that the Secretary of Labor herself had to withdraw that crazy idea the next day. One of the reasons OSHA's attempts blew up in their face so badly was because of this ergonomics regulation. Employers immediately realized that if they were responsible for safety hazards in an employee's home, the ergonomics regulation would require them to intrude into their employees' private lives far too deeply. The regulation already expects employers to be responsible for injuries that are not caused by workplace exposures. If employers were to be responsible for safety issues at home, there would be no limit to what they would have to cover. Employers would never be able to control the exposure to ergonomic risk factors in the home, or distinguish which risks were part of work activities and which risks were part of everyday life like picking up their children. This is the most expensive, complicated, expansive, burdensome, and destructive regulation that OSHA has ever proposed. That is no small title to achieve. When you are dealing with OSHA, that is a high stump to jump. But they have done it on this one. Indeed, it could be one of the most burdensome regulations ever proposed by the Federal Government. OSHA is pursuing this regulation with no concern for the impact it would have on employers, or the fact that employees will lose their jobs because of this regulation. I call on my colleagues to pass the Enzi-Bond amendment to the Labor- HHS appropriations bill to stop OSHA from finalizing this horribly flawed regulation and force them to reconsider their approach and listen to the scientific evidence and to the people who are making their best efforts, successful in part already today, to reduce ergonomics injuries. To vote against this amendment is to say that an agency can promulgate a regulation without providing an adequate scientific foundation, and they can impose a crushing burden that would drive small businesses out of business and deprive employees of their jobs without considering the impact. That must not be the case. I strongly urge and beseech my colleagues to support this amendment and put a stop to a terribly bad idea before OSHA takes the bull whip to small businesses throughout this country. Cloture Motion

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on S. 1643, a bill to authorize the addition of certain parcels to the Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa; and S. 2547, a bill to provide for the establishment of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2000, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, June 22, 2000, at 2 p.m., in SD226.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2000, at 11 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to mark up the following: S. 2719, to provide for business development and trade promotion for Native Americans; S. 1658; to authorize the construction of a Reconciliation Place in Fort Pierre, SD; and S. 1148, to provide for the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux Tribe certain benefits of the Missouri River Pick-Sloan Project. To be followed by a hearing, on the Indian Trust Resolution Corporation.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., on the continuation of the hearing on the United/US Airways merger.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on these bills at this time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. There is no time agreement? I thank the Chair. I will take such time as I require then. Mr. President, my colleague from Ohio has offered an amendment which I believe takes us down the wrong tracks, very far in that direction. He has offered an amendment that would allow our precious highway resources to be used for Amtrak. My colleague from Georgia has talked about the sad situation in Georgia where their highway funds are frozen because the courts have overturned a previous policy of the Federal Government to allow highway transportation projects to continue. I urge his and my other colleagues' support of my measure on conformity that would allow needed highway construction to go forward. As to this amendment, many would argue this is an issue of States rights. That is just not the case. I am a former Governor. One would be hard pressed to find anyone in this body who is a stronger States rights advocate than I am. I intend to continue to be so. There will be those who will try to convince us this is anti-Amtrak. That is not the case. As Governor of the great State of Missouri, I was the one who ensured that my State provided its own resources in an effort to help subsidize Amtrak. This is an issue of a dedicated tax for a dedicated purpose. We told the American people we were going to put the trust back into the trust fund. This is an issue of Congress upholding its end of the agreement with the American people. It has just been 2 years this month since the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st century--better known as TEA-21--was signed into law. In my opinion, the most historic and the most important provision of TEA-21 was the funding guarantee that I authored with our late friend, Senator John Chafee, with the assistance and the guidance of the Budget and Appropriations Committees. Some called that provision RABA, or revenue aligned budget authority. Up here, it is often called the Chafee-Bond provision. In Missouri, we call it the Bond-Chafee provision. But the whole intent of that measure was very clear. We have a dedicated tax that was imposed on the American people for the purpose of highway improvement and safety issues. We lose too many lives in my State and in every State in this Nation because of inadequate highways. Over 30 percent of the deaths on our highways nationally are a result of inadequate highway and bridge conditions. We told the American people for the first time we were going to allow them to trust the trust fund; that when they put the money in when they bought the gas at the pumps, we would put it back for highway trust fund purposes. That is what the funding must be spent on under the guarantee--highway improvements and safety issues. Because of the guarantee, our road and bridge improvements are financed on a pay-as- you-go basis. We drive on the road. We buy the gas. We pay the tax. We build better roads and safer roads to protect our citizens, to provide convenience and safety, to get rid of the pollution that comes from congestion, and to assure sound economic growth in our communities and in our States. I don't think this debate should even occur. It should not even be an option for us to decide whether or not we will use the highway trust fund money for other purposes. How soon we forget. We made those decisions just 2 years ago in TEA-21. Do we want to reopen the whole highway funding and highway authorization measure again? Let's not start down the path of reopening TEA-21. We made accommodations. We made changes. We made compromises. We included other projects and other activities such as transit in TEA-21. We made a deal--not just with us but with the taxpaying American public. Earlier this year, the administration proposed to divert funding coming from the highway trust fund to Amtrak and other purposes. At that time, my colleague from Ohio, I, and countless other Senators made it clear that we opposed the administration's attempt to rob the highway trust fund. I had an opportunity to discuss this with Secretary Slater at our Transportation appropriations hearing and suggested to him that ``this dog won't hunt.'' This dog isn't a much better hunter either. I don't believe that the people in my State who pay the taxes or in the States of my colleagues who pay the taxes are going to be excited about this. This amendment is similar to the previous effort by the administration to divert funding. It takes us down the path of diluting our highway funding for purposes other than highways and highway safety. I have a simple question for my colleagues to think about: Why are we talking about using our highway funds for Amtrak and not using our transit funds for Amtrak? I personally think transit funds would be more appropriate if it fit into the transit plan. OK. Let them use transit funds because that is essentially what Amtrak is; it is a form of transit. It should not be competing with the scarce dollars to build safe highways, roads, and bridges. I remind my colleagues that we have a transportation infrastructure crisis on our hands. Two years ago, Governors, commissioners, highway departments, city officials, and everyday Americans told us we were not investing enough in our highway infrastructure. They let us know that the deterioration of our highways and bridges was having a tremendous impact on their local and State economies and, more importantly, on the safety of their citizens. We are still not getting enough money into highway improvements. The latest I heard, and to the best of my knowledge, no State in the Nation has even 80 percent of its highways up to a standard the Department of Transportation regards as fair. Every State, to my knowledge, has at least a 20-percent deficit in adequate highways, roads, and bridges. These are just some of the reasons so many of us fought to ensure that we would keep our commitment to the American people regarding the highway trust Fund. We increased spending on our Nation's highway infrastructure because our needs were much greater. I know with absolute certainty that the needs identified just 2 years ago have not gone away, and they are not going to go away if we continue to divert money and if we try to divert money from the highway trust fund. These needs still exist. We told the people of America we would put trust back into the trust fund: Trust us. Trust us to spend your highway taxes that go into the highway trust fund for highway trust fund purposes. The National Highway System was part of the grand national scheme. This was a national scheme to ensure that people in any State in the Nation could travel to any other State in the Nation and be safe on a National Highway System. That is what this is all about. This isn't about States having their own little, independent highway programs with four-lane highways that end in a cornfield at somebody's border. This is about having a National Highway System where there is safe transit on interstate highways. Trust fund taxpayers in my State, and your State, and every other State, expect when they pay the money in, it will go to assure that when they drive in their State or in any other State, they will be driving on safe highways; they will not be putting themselves and their loved ones and their families at risk from unsafe highway conditions. To my donor State colleagues--those of us whose states pay more into the highway trust fund than they get out--think about this for a minute: You have highway needs in your State. Yet under this proposal, you would see the highway trust fund dollars your citizens put into the highway trust fund going into Amtrak. That is not keeping faith with the commitment we made in the highway trust fund. Let's talk about States rights. I have often thought that maybe we really ought to do a States rights approach to this and let the States have all the money they raised. You want to talk about States rights. Let's keep the highway trust fund dollars in each State as they are contributing. That is States rights. We agreed in TEA-21 that we were going to have a trust fund for a National Highway System--not a national Amtrak system. We are providing funds in this bill for Amtrak. We know that improvements and repairs to our highway system will help improve driving conditions, will reduce driving costs to motorists, will relieve congestion, and will reduce the number of accidents and fatalities. The cost of repairing roads in poor condition can be about four times as great as repairing roads that are in fair condition. We have to keep our roads in at least fair condition. Our Nation's roads and bridges are at a high level of deterioration. A recent headline in the Capital City newspaper in Missouri said that my State of Missouri ranks seventh nationally in poor bridges. We need to do something about those bridges; they are dangerous. The highways are dangerous and we need to do something about them. Look at the other side. This is not an issue of trying to deny Amtrak resources. Senators Shelby and Lautenberg included in the underlying Transportation bill, which I support, $521 million for Amtrak's capital program. I have supported that. That is $521 million for Amtrak for capital. That $521 million provided is consistent with the administration's request, and it is consistent with the so-called glidepath level of Federal funding agreed to by the administration and Amtrak. We continue these huge Federal subsidies, even though Amtrak's financial situation is precarious at best. According to the Senate report, the Federal Railroad Administration has said that Amtrak ended the 1999 fiscal year with a net operating loss of $702 million. Since 1971, Amtrak has received over $23 billion in Federal funding for operating and capital expenses. Despite Amtrak's efforts to improve and its new business plan, it is still not clear whether or not Amtrak will reach self-sufficiency. I said that I support the appropriation for Amtrak in the underlying bill. I have used Amtrak. I am happy to work with my colleagues in the Senate, my former fellow Governors, and others, to see that we put money into Amtrak. But this issue is not about Amtrak. This is an issue about keeping our commitment to the taxpaying citizens of our States and of this country, whom we told we were going to put the ``trust'' back in the highway trust fund. I strongly oppose the Voinovich amendment because it violates that promise. We can't even keep a promise for 2 years. We said we were putting the ``trust'' back in the highway trust funds. That is what the highway trust fund is all about. I think this amendment violates the agreement made during TEA-21, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Voinovich amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this measure. I yield myself 10 minutes in opposition.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 2614, the Certified Development Company Program Improvements Act of 2000. This important legislation was recently considered by the Committee on Small Business and approved by an 18-0 vote. I am also offering a ``Managers' Amendment,'' which has been approved on both sides of the aisle. The purpose of H.R. 2614 is to make the 504 Certified Development Company program a more effective and more efficient program. The 504 Program is a key credit program run by the Small Business Administration to provide access to capital to small business owners. It was enacted to leverage private sector resources to fund larger projects for small businesses to acquire, construct or expand their facilities. Specifically, it was designed to create job opportunities and improve the economic health of both rural and inner city communities. Unlike most government-guaranteed loan programs, the 504 loan is subordinate to a loan made by a private lender. SBA guarantees 10- or 20-year debentures issued by Certified Development Companies (CDC), and the proceeds from the sales of these debentures to investors are used to fund the 504 loans. Usually, the conventional loan will finance 50 percent of the project's cost, and the SBA-guaranteed 504 loan cannot exceed 40 percent of the project cost. In the event of a default of the 504 small business borrower, the bank's loan is senior to the SBA- guaranteed 504 loan. 504 Loan Defaults and Recoveries Over the past 5 years, the Committee on Small Business has devoted considerable attention to the 504 program. The committee has been particularly concerned about reports and testimony from the SBA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about loan recoveries following a default by a borrowers on a loan made under the program. Historically, in nearly all cases when a 504 program borrower defaults, it is the SBA, not the CDC, that take the required liquidation and foreclosure actions. The failure of the SBA to take aggressive actions to recover the value of collateral held following a default significantly increases the costs to borrowers to obtain a loan under the 504 program. In response to the continuing problem of low recoveries under the 504 program, the committee, in 1996, approved legislation establishing a pilot program that allowed approximately 20 CDCs to liquidate loan that they originate. Results from the pilot have been encouraging, and the committee concluded that it is in the best interest of the 504 program to allow additional CDC's to conduct their own liquidation and foreclosure activities. Section 7 of H.R. 2614, as reported by the Committee on Small Business, makes the pilot liquidation program permanent and requires SBA to permit certain CDC's to foreclose and liquidate defaulted loans that they have originated under the 504 loan program. Premier Certified Lenders Program In October 1994, the Congress first enacted the Premier Certified Lenders Program (PCLP) on a pilot basis. The program was expanded by Congress in 1997, and the limitation on the number CDC's that could participate in the program was removed. The Committee has noted the success of the PCLP and has agreed with the House of Representatives to make it a permanent part of the 504 program. In doing so, the committee expects the SBA to continue its efforts to work with the CDC's to take advantage of the strengths of the most successful and well-run CDC's. 504 Program Costs In 1995, the SBA and the National Association of Development Companies (NADCO) strongly urged the Congress to adopt legislation mandating that the 504 program be supported entirely by fees paid by the private sector. Since the new fees took effect at the beginning of 1996, the fees increased from 0.125 percent to 0.875 percent in FY 1997. The fees rise or fall based primarily on two key factors: the rate of defaults and the recovery rates. Since FY 1997, the committee is pleased to note that estimates for defaults and recoveries has improved dramatically, and the borrower fee for FY 2001 will be 0.472 percent, a significant drop in four years from its peak in FY 1997. H.R. 2614 authorizes SBA to collect these fees to offset the credit subsidy rate through FY 2003. The bill adds 504 loans to women-owned small businesses to the current list of public policy goals specified under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. Currently, loans for public policy goals can be guaranteed up to $1,000,000. Other 504 loans can be guaranteed up to $750,000. As approved by the committee, H.R. 2614 will increase the guarantee ceiling for regular 504 loans to $1,000,000, and the ceiling for public policy loans will become $1,300,000. During the committee's consideration of H.R. 2614, the committee members voted unanimously to establish the authorization levels for the 504 program. The levels approved are $4 billion in FY 2001, $5 billion in FY 2002, and $6 billion in FY 2003. These are the same levels that the committee also approved in the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000. Asset Sales During the past four years, the committee has urged SBA to undertake the sale of assets held by the Agency; however, the committee does not believe this step forward should necessarily harm its lending partners, such as the CDC's. SBA has announced it will undertake two sales during calendar year 2000; consequently, the committee approved a provision that requires the SBA to notify CDC's prior to including a 504 loan in an asset sale. The committee adopted this section in order to insure there is an open dialogue and full cooperation between the SBA and the relevant CDCs. Amendments Mr. President, the Manager's Amendment includes three provisions. The first provision, which has the strong support of the majority leader, Senator Lott, and Senator Cochran, is designed to expedite SBA consideration of several applications for multi-state operating authority for CDC's that have been pending at the 504 program office at the SBA headquarters for at least one year. The second provision addresses the pending shortfall in the 7(a) guaranteed business loan program. SBA is now projecting that the 7(a) program will run out of money on or about September 1, 2000. In order to ensure that sufficient funds are available to fund this important small business credit program until September 30, 2000, when FY 2000 concludes, the Amendment authorizes SBA to reprogram funds appropriated but not spent in prior years for the DELTA loan program and the Microloan guarantee loan program. The total amount that SBA would need to reprogram would not exceed $6.5 million. The third provision addresses an unforeseen event under the HUBZone program, which was authorized by Congress in 1997. The HUBZone program provides a valuable Federal contracting incentive for small businesses that are located in economically distressed inner cities and poor rural counties and that employ residents from these distressed areas. It is my understanding that new unemployment data will be released soon by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which could result in the sudden disqualification on many recently certified HUBZone small businesses. The amendment will ensure that HUBZone areas remain qualified for a fixed period of at least 3 years by giving them a 3-year period to wrap up their HUBZone activities once an area has ceased to qualify on the basis of income or unemployment data. This change in the law will counter an unintended consequence and bring some needed stability to program. Mr. President, the Certified Development Company Program Improvements Act of 2000 is an important credit program providing small businesses with credit opportunities that would not otherwise be available. I urge my colleagues to support that bill and the manager's amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mark Lamping, President of the St. Louis Cardinals. Today, the St. Louis Catholic Youth Council presented its Annual Achievement Award for the year 2000 to Mr. Lamping. His tenure as head of the Cardinals has seen a 1996 Central Division championship, a return to post-season play for the first time since 1987, and a complete renovation of Busch Stadium. In 1999, his dedication as President enabled the Cardinals to receive the honor of Major League Baseball's Fan Friendly team by the United Sports Fans of America for the Cardinals' outstanding efforts at making the ballpark a more enjoyable, affordable, and memorable experience for the paying public. In February of 1994, after serving for five years as Anheuser-Busch's group Director of Sports Marketing, Mr. Lamping was appointed Commissioner of the Continental Basketball Association. While in this position, Mr. Lamping managed the company's TV and radio sports marketing activities for all Anheuser-Busch beer brands, including sponsorship agreements with the Olympics, World Cup, the National Hockey League, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and all other major professional sports. Mr. Lamping's accomplishments are not limited to the realm of sports; he also gained experience in the corporate world. In 1981, Mr. Lamping joined the Anheuser-Busch family and began his work as a financial analyst within the company's corporate planning division. He then moved on to serve as the District Manager in Southern Illinois and Central Iowa. In addition to these responsibilities, Mr. Lamping served as the Senior Brand Manager for New Products and the Director of Sales Operations. Mr. Lamping has also added a number of civic and charitable activities to his resume, including the St. Louis Sports Commission Board of Directors, the St. Louis University Business School Board of Directors, and the SSM Health Care Central Regional Board. He has served on the Board of Directors for the Roman Catholic Orphan Board, the Boone Valley Classic Foundation, the St. Louis Cardinals Community Fund, as well as Chairperson of the Make-A-Wish Foundation Golf Classic in 1997, 1998, and 1999, Chairman of the Old Newsboys Day for Children's Charities, and as the Chairperson for 1999 St. Louis papal visit. In 1998, Mr. Lamping received the Man of the Year honor from the St. Louis Chapter of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Resources. That same year he received the James O'Flynn Award from St. Patrick's Center in recognition of his hard work to help fight homelessness in the St. Louis area. Also, Mr. Lamping was recently inducted into the Vianney High School Hall of Fame. The holder of a bachelor's degree in accounting from Rockhurst College of Kansas City and a master's degree in business administration from St. Louis University, Mr. Lamping is husband to Cheryl and father to three children--Brian, Lauren, and Timothy. St. Louis is lucky to count as a resident a man so dedicated to his native community. It is my honor and pleasure to congratulate Mr. Mark Lamping on his outstanding success as a Missouri citizen and as this year's recipient of the Catholic Youth Council's Annual Achievement Award.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my amendment affects every State in the Nation--the Bond-Bryan amendment to S. 2549. As co-chair of the Senate Guard Caucus, I firmly believe that this important piece of legislation is critical to meeting the number one priority of the National Guard-- full-time support. As you know, the National Guard relies heavily upon full-time employees to ensure readiness. By performing their critical duties on a daily basis, these hard-working men and women ensure drill and annual training remain focused on preparation for war fighting and conducting peacetime missions. During the cold war, Guard and Reserve forces were underutilized. During the 1980's, for example, they numbered more than one million personnel but contributed support to the active forces at a rate of fewer than 1 million work days per year. At the end of the cold war, force structure and personnel endstrength were drastically cut in all the active services. Almost immediately, the nation discovered that the post-cold-war world is a complex, dangerous, and expensive place. Deployments for contingency operations, peacekeeping missions, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and counter-terrorism operations increased dramatically. Most recently, our forces have been called upon to destroy the capability of Saddam Hussein and his forces, bring peace and stability to Haiti, force Slobodan Milosevic and his forces out of Kosovo, ensure a safe, stable and secure environment in the Balkans, and rescue and rebuild from natural disasters at home and abroad. Because of the increased deployments and the reduction in the active force, we became significantly more dependent on the Army and Air National Guard. In striking contrast to cold war levels of contributory support, today's Guard and Reserve forces are providing approximately 13 million work days of support to the active components on an annual basis--a thirteen-fold increase and equivalent to the addition of some 35,000 personnel to active component end strength, or two Army divisions. For example, the 49th Armored Division from the Lone Star State is currently leading operations in Kosovo, and the Army just identified four more Guard units for deployment to Kosovo. With this shift in reliance from the active force to the Guard came the obligation to increase Guard staffing to keep pace with the expanded mission. The Army and Air National Guard established increased full-time staffing as their number one priority. We agreed with them, but we have not yet held up our end of the bargain. We gave them the mission; we must now give them the personnel resources to accomplish it. The Department of Defense has identified a shortfall in full-time manning of 1,052 ``AGRs'' (Active Guard/Reserves) and 1,543 Technicians. Frankly, I agree with their numbers, but I do not see how we can afford immediately to increase their staffing to those levels. Accordingly, the Bond-Bryan amendment proposes an incremental increase in the number of full-time positions. We ask that S. 2549 be amended to provide for an additional 526 ``AGRs'' (Active Guard/Reserves) and 771 Technicians. As you can see, this is about half of what the Guard requested, and far less than what was requested in the past. We believe these additional positions will give the Guard the minimum it needs to do the job, while providing the opportunity to reexamine the situation during the next fiscal year. When we expand the mission, when we increase operating tempo, and when we ask for greater effort; we have to realize that increased funding is often necessary and appropriate. In this case, we have attempted to provide the minimum additional personnel to accomplish a mission we previously assigned but did not fully resource. Your support for this amendment sends a strong message to your constituents and the Guard units in your state that you support the National Guard in its significant role in our Nation's defense, and that you are willing to give the men and women in its ranks the resources to do the job. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner, Senator Levin, my co-chair, Senator Bryan, and our esteemed colleagues for your support of this critical issue.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce the Small Business Relief Act of 2000. This bill will provide a lifeline for the thousands of small business owners threatened by lawsuits and litigation under the broken Superfund liability system. This bill is simple. All this bill does is relieve innocent small business owners from superfund liability unless it is demonstrated that the small business is guilty of gross negligence or did contribute significantly to the toxic waste at the superfund site. My bill will not let polluters off the hook. This common-sense proposal will make the Superfund program a little more reasonable and workable. With this legislation, we can begin to provide some relief to small business owners who are held hostage by potential Superfund liability. For years now, members from both sides of the aisle have said that the Superfund program is broken, it doesn't work, it must be reformed. Unfortunately we haven't gotten past the rhetoric to fix the problem. Instead of making changes that will produce results that are better for the taxpayers, better for the environment, and more efficient for everyone involved--government agencies, federal bureaucrats, and Congress has protected this troubled and inefficient program from meaningful reform. As Washington has played politics with the Superfund program, innocent Main Street small business owners across the nation, the engine of our economy, continue to be unfairly pulled into Superfund's legal quagmire. Even the EPA has stated its support for protecting restaurant owners, mom-and-pop convenience store operators, and other small business owners who have legally disposed of their trash and cannot afford the tab that comes with Superfund legal bills. Let's put a human face on this: last year, just across the Missouri border--in Quincy, Illinois--160 small business owners were asked to pay the EPA more than $3 million for garbage legally hauled to a dump more than 20 years ago. The situation in Quincy is just one example of the very real, ongoing Superfund legal threat to small business owners across the nation. Mr. President, we all know that Superfund was created to clean up the nation's most-hazardous waste sites. Superfund was not created to have small business owners sued for simply throwing out their trash! These small business owners are faced with so many challenges already, that the thousands of dollars in penalties and lawsuits leave them with no choice but to mortgage their businesses, their employees and their future to pay for the bills of a broken government program. How many times will we tell ourselves that this unacceptable situation must be fixed before we act? Small business owners literally cannot afford to wait around while we delay action on the common-sense fixes required to protect them and our environment. In recognition of our small businesses around the country and Small Business Week, I introduce this bill and look forward to leading the fight to ensure timely adoption of this long-overdue legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to rise in recognition of Small Business Week 2000. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have participated in a number of activities this week. I urge all of my colleagues who may not have done so to consider working with, identifying with, and listening to the small businesses in their State. I think today it is appropriate that we recognize some of the small business trends of the future. Most of us know that the prototypical entrepreneur of the last century--or of the 1900s; the manufacturing age--was a man, inventing something in his garage or basement, which became the basis for a Fortune 500 company. The prototypical entrepreneur of the 21st century--the information and service age--is a woman trying to run her household, keep her kids fed and cared for, who comes up with a good idea that she can turn into a business. Women have started businesses in record numbers over the last 10 years. They are driving the economy. They are helping to expand opportunities and provide good payrolls for their workers. They are willing to use the new information technologies even more than men. The explosion of capabilities through information technologies certainly opens up a range for a whole new series of undertakings. The number of small businesses owned and controlled by women is expanding at a very rapid rate. Today, small businesses owned by women total 30 percent of all businesses in the United States. Their numbers are expanding at such a pace it is anticipated that women-owned small businesses will make up over 50 percent of all businesses by 2010. Given where we came from, that is a gratifying and astounding statistic. But for all the good news, women-owned small businesses still face some age-old obstacles in starting and running their businesses: work and family conflicts, a lack of access to capital, and complex regulatory and tax issues. In addition, yesterday the Senate adopted a resolution I sponsored, S. Res. 311, that was adopted unanimously. I express my appreciation to my colleagues for adopting it. It called attention to the Federal Government's failure to meet the statutory goal to award 5 percent of Federal contract dollars to women-owned small businesses. The members of the Small Business Committee who joined me in cosponsoring this resolution included my ranking member, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, and also sponsoring it were Senators Burns, Snowe, Landrieu, Lieberman, Edwards, as well as Senator Abraham, who authored last year's initiative in the committee to help women reach the 5- percent goal. In addition, Senators Bingaman and Murray joined us as cosponsors of the resolution. In 1994, Congress recognized the important role women-owned small businesses played in our economy. During the consideration of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, the Senate approved a provision directing that 5 percent of all Federal procurement dollars be awarded each year to women-owned small businesses. The goal includes 5 percent of prime contract dollars and 5 percent of subcontract dollars, and was included in the final conference report enacted into law. The Federal Departments and Agencies have failed to meet that 5- percent goal enacted in 1994. After Senator Abraham chaired a committee field hearing in Michigan on the state of women business owners, he offered an amendment addressing the failure of the Federal Departments and Agencies to meet the 5-percent goal during the Small Business Committee markup of the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. That was adopted unanimously by the committee and enacted into law as Public Law 106-165, which directed that GAO undertake an audit of Federal procurement systems and their impact on women-owned small businesses. The statistics for Federal procurement in fiscal year 1999 have just been released. Again, the 5-percent goal for women-owned small businesses was not met. It fell over 50 percent short of the goal, reaching only 2.4 percent. The administration's failure to reach that goal was the subject of the resolution, which resolved that the Senate strongly urge the President to adopt a policy in support of the 5- percent goal for women-owned small businesses, to encourage the heads of the Federal Departments to make a concentrated effort to meet the 5- percent goal before the end of fiscal year 2000. I understand the President has now issued an Executive order. But the second part of the resolution says the President should hold the heads of Federal Departments and Agencies accountable to ensure that the 5-percent goal is achieved during this year. But these are just some of the issues confronting women-owned small businesses. I am very pleased to say I have been joined by Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Snowe, Senator Landrieu, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Hutchison of Texas to convene a National Women's Business Summit on June 4 and 5 of this year in Kansas City, MO. This summit will give women small business owners a chance to tell Congress and the next President what they need and what will work. Their agenda will serve as the women's small business agenda for the next Congress and the next President. I might add that we have nationally known women and professional business leaders, as well as bipartisan government servants, who will be talking with the participants in the conference. I invite women who are engaged in and concerned about small business to participate. More information can be found about the summit on my Senate office web site at www.Senate.gov/bond or they can call us through the Capitol number: (202) 224-3121. We would be happy to provide them information. I think it will be a very interesting and worthwhile endeavor in Kansas City. I am looking forward to participating. I know we will have many good ideas, based on the women participating in that conference, on how we can help the fastest growing and most important new sector of the economy--women-owned small businesses in the United States. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senate Resolution I introduce today which calls attention to the Federal Government's failure to meet the statutory goal to award 5 percent of Federal contract dollars to women-owned small businesses. I am very pleased that members of the Senate Committee on Small Business have cosponsored this Resolution, including the committee's ranking member, Senator Kerry, Senator Burns, Senator Snowe, Senator Landrieu, Senator Lieberman, Senator Edwards and Senator Abraham, who authored last year's initiative in the committee to help women reach the 5-percent goal. In addition, Senators Bingaman and Murray have joined us as cosponsors of the resolution. This is Small Business Week 2000. It is very appropriate that we recognize the important roles played of women-owned small businesses in our Nation's economy and communities. The number of small businesses owned and controlled by women is expanding at a very rapid rate, and today, they total 38 percent of all businesses in the United States. Importantly, their numbers are expanding at such a pace that it is anticipated women-owned small businesses will make up over 50 percent of all businesses by 2010. That is an astounding statistic. In 1994, Congress recognized the important role women-owned small businesses play in our economy. During the consideration of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, FASA, the Senate approved a provision directing that 5 percent of all Federal procurement dollars be awarded each year to women-owned small businesses. The goal includes 5 percent of prime contract dollars and 5 percent of subcontract dollars and was included in the final FASA Conference Report and enacted into law. The Federal departments and agencies have failed to meet the 5 percent goal since it was enacted by Congress in 1994. After Senator Abraham chaired a committee field hearing in Michigan on the state of women business owners, he offered an amendment addressing the failure of the Federal departments and agencies to meet the 5 percent goal during the Committee on Small Business markup of the ``Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999,'' S. 791. The amendment was adopted unanimously by the Committee and enacted into law, Public Law 106-165. It directed the General Accounting Office to undertake an audit of the Federal procurement system and its impact on women-owned small businesses, which is underway at this time. The statistics for Federal procurement for FY 1999 have been released. Again, the 5 percent goal for women-owned small businesses was not met--and again the Federal departments and agencies fell over 50 percent short of the goal--reaching only 2.4 percent. The failure of the Administration to meet this goal, which is designed to produce opportunities for start-up and growing small, women-owned businesses, is disturbing. Over 5 years have passed since the enactment of FASA, and the Federal Government continues to respond by taking baby steps toward meeting this Congressionally-mandated goal. The resolution before the Senate today urges the President to adopt an administration policy in support of the 5-percent goal. Further, the resolution urges the President to go to the heart of the problem--to those Federal departments and agencies that are not carrying their share of the burden in meeting the goal. Specifically, the resolution asks the President to hold the head of each department and agency accountable for meeting the 5-percent goal. Is it asking too much to require cabinet secretaries and agency heads to work harder to comply with a statutory goal? Of course not. It's all a matter of priorities. And I think supporting women-owned business should and must be a priority for each and every cabinet secretary and agency head. In other words, we are demanding performance not promises. Were it not for the growth of the small business community over the past decade, our economy would not be its booming self. Women-owned small businesses have contributed significantly to our economic strength and stability. We need to help stimulate this growth to strengthen further the foundation of our business success. The 5 percent Federal procurement goal is a significant component to help women-owned business to start-up and flourish. We should not lose sight of the fact that our laws are not keeping up with the new realities of business, particularly for women-owned businesses, who are heating up the economy. We need to be ever vigilant and remain alert to changes in the business climate so that laws and government policies are relevant and helpful. We in Congress should be prepared to jettison antiquated laws. And we need to recognize that occasionally the best government policy will be to step aside to avoid hindering progress and growth. Future Congresses and Administrations will have a tremendous impact on the success of women-owned businesses. That is why I am joining with Senators Kerry, Olympia Snowe, Mary Landrieu, Dianne Feinstein, and Kay Bailey Hutchison to convene a National Women's Business Summit on June 4-5, 2000, in Kansas City, Missouri. The summit will give women small business owners the opportunity to help formulate national policies on women's small business issues by gathering input from women business leaders, elected officials and other experts. Results and recommendations from this summit will be communicated directly to the Congress. More information about the summit can be found on my Senate office Web site at www.senate.gov/bond. As we begin Small Business Week, I hope my colleagues in the Senate will take a moment and recognize the important role small businesses play in our economy. And I urge them to reinforce their support for the 5-percent Federal procurement goal and women-owned small businesses by voting in favor of the Senate resolution.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, when journalists and political scientists write about the activities here, they often prepare articles about how a bill becomes a law. That is an interesting study, but it is only half of the story. In fact, it is equally interesting to see how a law becomes a program--how words on the law books are transformed into a working program that delivers services to our constituents. The key to that process is people. Ultimately, someone has to take responsibility for carrying out the laws we craft here. Today I want to recognize a group of people who are aggressively working to give life to the HUBZone program we passed in 1997. The HUBZone program seeks to use the Government's purchasing power to encourage economic growth and job creation in the Nation's most intransigent areas of poverty and unemployment. These areas often present the greatest challenge because they lack a strong customer base. As a result, small businesses tend not to locate in these areas, preferring to set up their operations in more prosperous areas that have an established stream of customer traffic. The HUBZone program seeks to offset this imbalance by making the Government a customer to firms willing to invest in these hard-to-reach communities. Over two years have passed since the HUBZone program was signed into law, but progress has been very slow. Recently the Small Business Administration certified the 1,000th HUBZone small business concern, a major milestone. However, the need is much greater. Without a large base of certified firms, the Government will not have enough participating companies to do business on the scale we envisioned in writing the program. Because of this lack of certified companies, some agencies are throwing up their hands and opting not to carry out the HUBZone law. Without enough vendors to bid on contracts, some agencies are letting this tremendous new resource sit idle. Defense Department agencies in the New England States have proved an exception to that rule. The Northeast Regional Council, which comprises small business officers from Defense agencies and Procurement Technical Assistance Centers, along with defense contractors large and small, created a special High Performance Team dubbed ``The Matchmakers'' to identify problems in implementing the HUBZone program and to work aggressively to solve them. The Matchmakers found six components that were mismatched (``the hexa-mismatch problem''): contract requirements, suppliers, commodities, agency databases, education and benefits under the program, and the HUBZones themselves. For example, commodities to be purchased were not matched with suppliers who could provide them, and those suppliers were not necessarily matched to HUBZone areas that would make them eligible to participate. Having distilled the problem to its most basic elements, the Matchmakers are now setting out to track down suppliers who could fill the agencies' procurement needs, identify those that are located in HUBZones, educate them about the program benefits, and get them to apply for certification. Mr. President, this kind of aggressive action is exactly what is necessary to transform the HUBZone Act from mere words on a page into a program that helps real people and communities. Someday, when the HUBZone program is delivering benefits and creating jobs for people who currently do not have them, it will be essential to remember the people who made it possible. So that their names are not forgotten, I ask to include in the Record a list of the members of the Matchmakers High Performance Team, and I call the attention of my colleagues to their leadership and hard work. Richard S. Alexander, Market Development Center, Bangor, ME Ronald R. Belden, Kollsman Inc., Merrimack, NH Deborah Bode, Kaman Aerospace Corporation, Bloomfield, CT Ira M. Brand, Sanders-Lockheed Martin, Nashua, NH Cynthia Busch, Market Development Center, Bangor, ME Sean Crean, Small Business Administration, Augusta, ME Carl E. Cromer, Defense Contact Management Command, Hartford, CT Janette Fasano, Small Business Administration, Boston, MA Joseph M. Flynn, New Hampshire Office of Business and Industrial Development, Concord, NH John Forcucci, BBN Corporation, Cambridge, MA Benita Fortner, Raytheon Company, Lexington, MA Len Green, Massachusetts Small Business Development Center, Salem, MA Keith Hubbard, Small Business Administration, Bedford, MA Maridee N. Kirwin, GEO-Centers, Inc., Newton Center, MA Gregory Lawson, State of Vermont Department of Economic Development, Montpelier, VT Ken Lewis, Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation, Providence, RI John H. McMullen, General Dynamics Government Services Corporation, Needham Heights, MA David J. Rego, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport, Newport, RI Barbara A. Riley, Textron Systems, Wilmington, MA Michael Robinson, Massachusetts Procurement Technical Assistance Center, Amherst, MA Philip R. Varney, Defense Contract Management Command, Boston, MA Arlene M. Vogel, Connecticut Procurement Technical Assistance Center, New London, CT

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to submit a resolution recognizing the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri as a national World War I symbol. I am pleased that Senator Ashcroft and Senator Roberts are joining me as original cosponsors. Fighting in the trenches in Europe, America's sons and daughters defended liberty and our country through service in World War One. We want to ensure that the sacrifices they made are not forgotten. The Liberty Memorial serves as a long-standing tribute to their accomplishments. More than 4 million Americans served in World War One, however, the Liberty Memorial is the only major memorial and museum honoring their courage and loyalty. It is important to me that these men and women have an appropriate national symbol; they deserve to be recognized and honored. The Liberty Memorial serves as a constant reminder of the patriotism and sacrifice that the War evoked, both to the people of Kansas City, and across the country. In 1919, Kansas Citians expressed an unprecedented outpouring of support, raising $2.5 million in less than two weeks. Three years later the five Allied military leaders met in Kansas City, marking the only time in history all five leaders came togther at one place. The leaders from Belgium, Italy, France, Great Brittan and the United States looked on, as the site for the Liberty Memorial was dedicated. Since that historic occasion, many other great world leaders have addressed the public at the Liberty Memorial including: Presidents Calvin Coolidge, Harry S Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and William Howard Taft. The Liberty Memorial opened to the public in 1926. It is an amazing structure; the impressive size and design puts it in a class with monuments here on the National Mall. The Memorial Tower is 217-feet- tall. The four Guardian Spirits: Honor, Courage, Patriotism, and Sacrifice, encircle the top of the tower. This is a great, inspirational work of art that serves as an outstanding tribute to America's sons and daughters of World War I. In addition to the Memorial Tower, there is a Liberty Memorial Museum located within the complex. This museum promotes and encourages a better understanding of the sacrifices and progress made during World War I. While the Memorial undergoes a major renovation project, the museum is currently closed to the public. Upon its reopening, visitors from around the world can come to Kansas City to view the finest collection of World War I memorabilia in the United States. These fascinating displays are arranged to give visitors insight into America's role in the First World War. The Memorial's history, consistent local support and its location in the Heart of America, makes the Liberty Memorial an ideal national tribute to all Americans who fought in World War One. I am proud to have such a distinguished Memorial in my home state of Missouri. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass this resolution in a timely fashion so that we can properly honor the veterans of World War One with a national monument, and recognize the significance of the Liberty Memorial.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today with Senators Kerry, Campbell, Murkowski, Stevens, Daschle, and Baucus will expand economic opportunity in some of the most stubborn areas of poverty and unemployment in the entire country. It will do so by expanding the HUBZone program to ensure that Indian Tribal enterprises and Alaska Native Corporations are eligible to participate. The HUBZone program, enacted in 1997, directs a portion of Federal contracting dollars into areas of the country that have been out of the economic mainstream for far too long. HUBZone areas, which include, qualified census tracts, poor rural counties, and Indian reservations, often are relatively out-of-the-way places that the stream of commerce passes by. They tend to be low-traffic areas that do not have a reliable customer base to support business development. As a result, business has been reluctant to move into these areas. It simply has not been profitable, without a customer base to keep them operating. The HUBZone Act seeks to overcome this problem by making it possible for the Federal government to become a customer for small businesses that locate in HUBZones. While a small business works to establish its regular customer base, a Federal contract can help it stabilize its revenues and remain profitable. This gives small business a chance to get a foothold, and provides jobs to these areas. New business and new jobs mean new life and new hope for these communities. The HUBZone Act seeks to restart the economic engine in these communities and keep it running. Small business is the carburetor that makes that engine run smoothly. If a community seeks to attract a large business, often with expensive tax concessions and promises of public works, that community can find itself back where it started if that large business becomes unprofitable and closes its plant. However, if a community attracts a diversified base of small businesses its overall economic development does not stop just because one or two of those businesses close. That is why small business must be a central part of any economic development strategy. Unfortunately, when we wrote the HUBZone Act three years ago, we accidentally created a technical glitch that excludes Indian Tribal enterprises and Alaska Native Corporations. These businesses must play a central role in improving life in rural Alaska and on Indian reservations. That is why we are here to propose a solution to this problem. In the HUBZone Act, we specified that participating small businesses must be 100 percent owned and controlled by U.S. citizens. However, since citizens are ``born or naturalized'' under the Fourteenth Amendment, ownership by citizens implies ownership by individual flesh- and-blood human beings. Corporate owners and Tribal government owners are not ``born or naturalized'' in the usual meanings of those terms. Thus, the Small Business Administration found that it had no authority to certify small businesses owned wholly or partly by Alaska Native Corporations and Tribal governments. Although the legal logic of that view seems sound, the outcome is not. It certainly is not what we intended. On many reservations, particularly the desolate, isolated ones in western State, the only investment resources available are the Tribal governments. Excluding those governments from investing in their own reservations means, in practical terms, excluding those reservations from the HUBZone program entirely. Similarly, Alaska Native Corporations have the corporate resources that are necessary to make real investments in rural Alaska, to provide jobs to Alaska Natives who currently have no hope of getting them. That is why we are here to propose a legislative fix. In putting together this bill, we have sought to follow three broad principles. First, no firm should be made eligible solely by virtue of who they are. We should not, for example, make all Alaska Native Corporations eligible solely because they are Alaska Native Corporations. Instead, Alaska Native Corporations and Indian Tribal enterprises should be eligible only if they agree to advance the goals of the HUBZone program: job creation and economic development in the areas that need it most. Second, our legislation should seek to conform to existing Native American policy and not allow the HUBZone program to be used as a back door to change that policy. Some folks would like to change Alaska Native policy so that Alaska Natives exercise governmental jurisdiction over their lands, just like Tribes in the Lower 48 do on their reservations and trust lands. However, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 deliberately avoided that approach, and our legislation here simply recognizes existing practice in ANCSA. The third principle underlying this bill is that Alaska Natives and Indian Tribes should participate on more-or-less equal grounds. It is impossible to have exact equivalence because the Federal relationship with Alaska Natives is not equal to the relationship with Indian Tribes, and also because Alaska is a very different State from the Lower 48. However, ANCSA provided that Alaska Natives should be eligible to participate in Federal Indian programs ``on the same basis as other Native Americans.'' Mr. President, with these principles in mind, we have finally come to the end of a long negotiation on these issues. This bill represents the outcome of that discussion, and it is a long step forward. I have a section-by-section discussion of the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000 with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. Our bill will accomplish the following: 1. Phases down to elimination MTBE within 3 years of enactment; 2. Maintains the oxygenate standard; 3. Probably has the strongest environmental anti-backsliding provisions of any bill; 4. A temporary waiver from oxygenate standard could be granted if the USDA and DOE certify that there is an issue with supply; and 5. Highway apportionment percentages will stay the same. Low grain prices high fuel prices, and the clean water problems associated with MTBE have highlighted the need for this bipartisan effort to protect our water, protect our air, and to protect our rural economy. Our region and the nation require a renewable, environmentally friendly alternative to MTBE that helps create local jobs, which adds value to our farmer's product, which moves us away from an energy- hostage situation where our reliance on foreign-produced oil makes our producers, consumers and economy subject to the whims of international cartel autocrats, and protects our air and water. My colleagues and friends on this issue, Senators Daschle and Lugar, have also introduced a bill on this issue. I commend them for their involvement and look forward to working with them; however, I do not believe their bill solves all the problems. Specifically, their bill eliminates the oxygenate requirement. The federal oxygen-content requirement was adopted for several reasons. First, Congress understood that oxygenates provide a source of clean octane-displacing toxic compounds such as benzene and reducing ozone-forming exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Second, Congress recognized the energy-security benefits of substituting a certain percentage of imported petroleum with domestically-produced, renewable fuels such as ethanol. Finally, the Congress hoped the Federal oxygen requirement could provide new market opportunities for farmers by stimulating new demand for ethanol. I believe each of these objectives remain as valid today as they were in 1990. Unfortunately, the refiners' decision to utilize MTBE, rather than ethanol, has created a serious and growing problem nationwide. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that MTBE has been detected in 21 percent of the drinking water wells in RFG areas nationwide. States with detected MTBE water contamination include Missouri, Illinois, California, Texas, Virginia, Florida, Connecticut, and many more. It is important to recognize that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 did not mandate the use of MTBE. Indeed, in Chicago and other areas where ethanol RFG is used, the program has been declared a huge air quality success. Replicating the Chicago ethanol RFG model in areas where MTBE is being used today would assure continued air quality progress without compromising water quality by its use. It would also provide a tremendous economic stimulus to rural America by creating value-added demand for as much as 500 million bushels of grain. The Department of Agriculture recently reported that replacing MTBE with ethanol in RFG markets would increase net farm income $1 billion annually, create 13,000 new jobs, enhance our balance of trade and reduce farm program costs over the next ten years. Moreover, USDA reports ethanol can replace MTBE without price spikes or shortages in supplies within three years. Let us be very clear about this issue. The environmental problem at hand is real. However, the problem is not ethanol, the problem is MTBE. Fortunately some States are already taking action to ban MTBE. Some are not moving fast enough. We need to make certain that all States ban MTBE to eliminate its contamination of our water supplies. To ensure that we do not have a piecemeal approach to banning MTBE it is important to pass legislation to ensure we have a national solution. This bill is supported by the National Corn Growers, Missouri Corn Growers, Renewable Fuels Association, and the Missouri Farm Bureau. I look forward to other groups supporting this bill as well. I am pleased that Senator Durbin, Senator Grassley, and Senator Ashcroft have joined me in introducing this vitally important bill. I look forward to working with them and all the other members that join us in this endeavor to ensure that we have a national solution that will protect our water and still ensure that we maintain our air quality benefits produced from the Federal oxygenate requirement. In addition, we will be promoting positive energy and rural economic policy objectives, which includes ethanol.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000 with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. Our bill will accomplish the following: 1. Phases down to elimination MTBE within 3 years of enactment; 2. Maintains the oxygenate standard; 3. Probably has the strongest environmental anti-backsliding provisions of any bill; 4. A temporary waiver from oxygenate standard could be granted if the USDA and DOE certify that there is an issue with supply; and 5. Highway apportionment percentages will stay the same. Low grain prices high fuel prices, and the clean water problems associated with MTBE have highlighted the need for this bipartisan effort to protect our water, protect our air, and to protect our rural economy. Our region and the nation require a renewable, environmentally friendly alternative to MTBE that helps create local jobs, which adds value to our farmer's product, which moves us away from an energy- hostage situation where our reliance on foreign-produced oil makes our producers, consumers and economy subject to the whims of international cartel autocrats, and protects our air and water. My colleagues and friends on this issue, Senators Daschle and Lugar, have also introduced a bill on this issue. I commend them for their involvement and look forward to working with them; however, I do not believe their bill solves all the problems. Specifically, their bill eliminates the oxygenate requirement. The federal oxygen-content requirement was adopted for several reasons. First, Congress understood that oxygenates provide a source of clean octane-displacing toxic compounds such as benzene and reducing ozone-forming exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Second, Congress recognized the energy-security benefits of substituting a certain percentage of imported petroleum with domestically-produced, renewable fuels such as ethanol. Finally, the Congress hoped the Federal oxygen requirement could provide new market opportunities for farmers by stimulating new demand for ethanol. I believe each of these objectives remain as valid today as they were in 1990. Unfortunately, the refiners' decision to utilize MTBE, rather than ethanol, has created a serious and growing problem nationwide. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that MTBE has been detected in 21 percent of the drinking water wells in RFG areas nationwide. States with detected MTBE water contamination include Missouri, Illinois, California, Texas, Virginia, Florida, Connecticut, and many more. It is important to recognize that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 did not mandate the use of MTBE. Indeed, in Chicago and other areas where ethanol RFG is used, the program has been declared a huge air quality success. Replicating the Chicago ethanol RFG model in areas where MTBE is being used today would assure continued air quality progress without compromising water quality by its use. It would also provide a tremendous economic stimulus to rural America by creating value-added demand for as much as 500 million bushels of grain. The Department of Agriculture recently reported that replacing MTBE with ethanol in RFG markets would increase net farm income $1 billion annually, create 13,000 new jobs, enhance our balance of trade and reduce farm program costs over the next ten years. Moreover, USDA reports ethanol can replace MTBE without price spikes or shortages in supplies within three years. Let us be very clear about this issue. The environmental problem at hand is real. However, the problem is not ethanol, the problem is MTBE. Fortunately some States are already taking action to ban MTBE. Some are not moving fast enough. We need to make certain that all States ban MTBE to eliminate its contamination of our water supplies. To ensure that we do not have a piecemeal approach to banning MTBE it is important to pass legislation to ensure we have a national solution. This bill is supported by the National Corn Growers, Missouri Corn Growers, Renewable Fuels Association, and the Missouri Farm Bureau. I look forward to other groups supporting this bill as well. I am pleased that Senator Durbin, Senator Grassley, and Senator Ashcroft have joined me in introducing this vitally important bill. I look forward to working with them and all the other members that join us in this endeavor to ensure that we have a national solution that will protect our water and still ensure that we maintain our air quality benefits produced from the Federal oxygenate requirement. In addition, we will be promoting positive energy and rural economic policy objectives, which includes ethanol.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kerry for the work he and I have done over the years on early childhood education. This amendment by Senators Stevens and Jeffords and others builds on that because we know that early in a child's development is the best time to begin the process of assuring that child is well educated, well prepared--the very earliest stages in life. This amendment recognizes if we do everything possible for our Nation's children in their overall education, we should begin at the earliest years. While most of the debate on this bill will be about elementary and secondary education--the years of what we might call formal schooling-- the education and mental development of a child begins long before that child enters kindergarten. In fact, the education and development of a child begins practically at birth and continues at an extremely rapid pace through the first several years of life. This amendment recognizes this basic fact--that a child's education and mental development begins very early in life. Through this amendment, we are seeking to support families with the youngest children to find the early childhood education care programs that can help those families and parents provide the supportive, stimulating environment we all know their children need. This amendment recognizes that if we want to do everything possible for our nation's children and their overall education, we need to focus on the earliest years as well as the years of formal schooling. We can do this--and this amendment proposes to do this--by supporting and expanding the successful early childhood programs and initiatives that are working right now on the local level. These programs help parents to stimulate and educate their young children in an effort to make sure every child enters kindergarten fully ready to learn. I am pleased to say that this amendment is based on the basic ideas and principles I set forth in legislation that was first introduced several years ago with my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. Research shows that the first years of life are an absolutely crucial developmental period for each child with a significant bearing on future prospects. During this time, infant brain development occurs very rapidly, and the sensations and experiences of this time go a long way toward shaping that baby's mind in a way that has long-lasting effects on all aspects of the child's life. And parents and family are really the key to this development. Early, positive interaction with parents, grandparents, aunts, uncle, and other adults plays a critical role. Really we shouldn't be surprised that parents have known instinctively for generations some of these basic truths that science is just now figuring out. Most parents just know that babies need to be hugged, caressed, and spoken to. Of course, the types of interaction that can most enhance a child's development change as the baby's body and mind grow. The best types of positive interaction--which are so instinctual to us for the youngest babies--may not be quite so obvious for two- and three-year-olds. Raising a child is perhaps the most important thing any of us will do, but it is also one of the most complicated. And parents today also face a variety of stresses and problems that were unheard of a generation ago. In many families, both parents work. Whether by choice or by necessity, many parents may not be able to read mountains of books and articles about parenting and child development to keep perfectly up-to-date on what types of experiences are most appropriate for their child at his or her particular stage of development. They also must try to find good child care and good environments where their children can be stimulated and educated while they work. Simply put, most parents can probably use a little help to figure out how best to help a child's mind and imagination to grow as much as possible. Many communities across the country have developed successful early childhood development programs to meet these needs. Most of the programs work with parents to help them understand their child's development and to discuss ways to help further develop the little baby's potential. Others simply provide basic child care and an exciting learning environment for children of parents who both have to work. In a report released in 1998, the prestigious RAND Corporation reviewed early childhood programs like these and found that they provide children, particularly high-risk children, with both short- and long-run benefits. These benefits include enhanced development of both the mind and the child's ability to interact with others. They include improvement in educational outcomes. And they include a long-term increase in self-sufficiency through finding jobs and staying off government programs and staying out of the criminal justice system. Of course, it's no mystery to people from my home state of Missouri that this type of program can be successful. Missouri is the ``Show Me'' state, an we have been shown first-hand the benefit of a top- notice early childhood program. In Missouri, we are both proud and lucky to be the home of Parents as Teachers. This tremendous organization is an early childhood parent education program designed to empower the parents to give their young child the best possible start in life. It provides education for the parent on a volunteer basis. Over 150,000 Missouri families are participating in it, with 200,000 children benefiting from it. It combines visits by the parent/educator in the home to see the progress of the child. It provides ideas and information to the parent to stimulate that child's learning curiosity. It brings parents and children together in group sessions to discuss common problems. This program has been shown, by independent tests, to improve significantly the learning capacity of children when they reach formal schooling years. In addition, it hooks the parents into their child's education for the future years. I personally, from my visits to over 100 of these sites around my State, can tell you it is clear to the teachers, to the administrators, to the school board members, children who have been in Parents as Teachers have an excellent start and they are above and ahead of the other children who have not been so lucky. This program is available through every school district in our State. I have talked to mothers coming off welfare who say it is the most important thing for their children. I have talked to farm families who are struggling to make a living off the farm, who say it is the best thing that can happen to their children. I have talked to economically successful suburban families; mom and dad both have good jobs, not enough time, but Parents as Teachers gives them the direction and the tools so they can be the best first teachers of their children. That is why it is called Parents as Teachers. With additional resources, programs such as Parents as Teachers could be expanded and enhanced to improve the opportunities for many more infants and young children. And we have found that all children can benefit from these programs. Economically successful, two-income families can benefit from early childhood programs just as much as a single-parent family with a mother seeking work opportunities. This amendment will support families by building on local initiatives like Parents as Teachers that have already been proven successful in working with families as they raise their infants and toddlers. The bill will help improve and expand these successful programs, of which there are numerous other examples, such as programs sponsored by the United Way, Boys and Girls Clubs, as well as state initiatives such as ``Success by Six'' in Massachusetts and Vermont and the ``Early Childhood Initiative'' in Pennsylvania. The amendment will provide Federal funds to states to begin or expand local initiatives to provide early childhood education, parent education, and family support. Best of all, we propose to do this with no Federal mandates, and few Federal guidelines. Many of our society's problems, such as the high school dropout rate, drug and tobacco use, and juvenile crime can be traced in part to inadequate child care and early childhood development opportunities. Increasingly, research is showing us that a child's social and intellectual development as well as a child's likelihood to become involved in these types of difficulties is deeply rooted in the early interaction and nurturing a child receives in his or her early years. Ultimately, it is important to remember that the likelihood of a child growing up in a healthy, nurturing environment is the primary responsibility of his or her parents and family. Government cannot and should not become a substitute for parents and families, but we can help them become stronger by equipping them with the resources to meet the everyday challenges of parenting. I believe this amendment can accomplish this and dramatically improve the life and education of millions of the youngest Americans. I invite any of my colleagues, or anyone else who wants to know more about this program, to let me know because we have seen this program copied in other States, in other countries. It really can make a difference for children. I believe the support this amendment will provide for early childhood education is one of the best things we can do to assure the highest quality educational achievement for all of our children. The screening for young children that goes along with it helps avoid problems and more than pays for the cost of the education programs. I believe this amendment, if we adopt it, can be a tremendous boost for children of all walks of life throughout our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a meeting to mark up S. 1594, Community Development and Venture Capital Act of 1999, and other pending matters. The markup will be held on Tuesday, May 16, 2000, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175. Committee on Small Business