Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. After discussing this difficult decision with Missouri constituents, the Missouri legal community, and the Missouri law enforcement community, I have determined that Ronnie White is not the appropriate candidate to serve in a lifetime capacity as a U.S. district judge for eastern Missouri. The Missouri law enforcement community, whose views I deeply respect, has expressed grave reservations about Judge White's nomination to the Federal bench. They have indicated to me their concern that Judge White might use the power of the bench to compromise the strength of law enforcement efforts in Missouri. Given the concerns raised by those in Missouri's law enforcement community, who put their lives on the line on a daily basis, and those in Missouri's legal community, who are charged with protecting our system of jurisprudence, I am compelled to vote against Judge White's confirmation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the American Royal. The American Royal is an annual Fall event that has contributed much to the Kansas City area over the last century. The Royal features world-class horse and livestock competitions; a top-ten PRCA indoor rodeo; as well as many educational and scholarship programs that foster the development of tomorrow's leaders. The American Royal is truly the Midwest's largest and oldest agricultural extravaganza. From the world's largest Barbecue, to the outstanding parade, music and comedy, to the elegant Concert of Champions, the Royal has something for every member of the family. Even though the Royal began in the 19th Century, it still plays an integral role in the community by providing a connection to Kansas City's rural roots and by celebrating the value of working in agriculture. For many, being a part of the Royal's livestock shows or rodeo can be the highlight of their career. Not only does the Royal offer agricultural competition, but there are also educational tours of their museum, scholarships and programs for college age youth. Mr. President, I am truly proud of the contribution the American Royal has made to Kansas City, the state of Missouri, and the entire country over the last 100 years. I wish the Royal well as they continue to be America's best agricultural expose' well into the next millennium.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I wanted to take a few minutes to share with my colleagues the very clear, overwhelming message I received as I traveled over the State of Missouri and met with teachers, parents, principals, superintendents, and school board members. They asked me a very simple question: Why is it the people in Washington know so much more about our needs than we do? How are you, in Washington, DC, so smart, to know that what we really need is more teachers? I can tell you instance after instance where, for example, they say: Look, we are in a small school. We only have so many classrooms. We cannot put another teacher in those classrooms. What we need is more equipment. Do not give us the money for a teacher for whom we do not have a classroom, or do not give us more money for another teacher when our salaries are so low we have to raise all the teachers' salaries in order to make sure we keep good people in teaching. It is not just quantity. In a lot of these areas it is getting the money to pay for quality teachers. That is why I believe the Gorton proposal is the way to go. I have talked to those in small school districts who say: Do you know what we would get? We would get .17 of a teacher, 17 percent of a teacher. That makes a pretty poor teacher, when you have only 17 percent of the teacher. They have not quite figured out how to usefully employ seventeen one-hundredths of a teacher. But that is the extreme case. The real case, time and time again, is that this is viewed in school districts around my State, and I suggest it would be viewed that way in your own States if you asked them, that Washington is not so smart as to know what each district--whether it is North Callaway or the Scotts Corner or the Martinsburg-Wellsville- Middletown School District needs another half a teacher, or a teacher- and-a-half. Those decisions should be made by the school boards that represent and serve the parents of the district who employ the superintendents and the principals and the teachers. I proposed something called a direct check for education, which is molded on the work of my colleague, Senator Gorton. That has had overwhelming support from people who actually do the job of teaching our students. We entrust the future of our students to these people. Then we come in from Washington, DC, and say: We are a lot smarter; we know what you need in the school district. One size does not fit all. Washington's solution is not right in every school district. I can assure you of that. I can assure you the people who are responsible, the people who are elected-- usually by the constituents in that district, the patrons of the school district--want to see the best for their children. Do you know what bugs them? Do you know what is causing them problems? It is all the time and energy they waste in filling out the forms on how they used that 17 percent of a teacher. Filling out those reports, sending them to Washington to keep more bureaucrats busy, does not educate a child or teach the child to read. It doesn't help that child figure out multiplication or division or even to learn about science and history. We need to get the Federal redtape and regulations and misdirected priorities off the backs of the schools that are laboring to teach our kids. If you have any confidence at all in public education, public education in America today is, and must be, controlled at the local level. Yes, it is a national priority. It must be a national priority. I commended President Bush when he set out to start the work of raising the standards and the expectations for everybody in America to improve our education system. That is a national priority. But it is a local responsibility. Let us not impose our will on local officials, school board officials, parents, principals, and the teachers on how to spend that money. I think this is a clear-cut case where we want to trust the people who teach our kids. They know the kids' names, they know the kids' problems, and they know the kids' opportunities. I urge support of the Gorton amendment. I reserve the remainder of the time and yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Technical Amendments Act of 1999, S. 1156. This bill was approved by the Committee on Small Business which I chair, with unanimous bipartisan support. Senator Kerry, the Ranking Member of the Committee, was the lead cosponsor of this important small business legislation. Our bill is simple and straightforward. It clarifies and amends certain provisions of the law enacted as part of my ``Red Tape Reduction Act,'' the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In 1996, this body led the way toward enactment of this important law. With a unanimous vote, we took a major step to ensure that small businesses get an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process when their input can have the greatest impact, and that they are treated fairly by federal agencies. The overall purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, is to identify and minimize the burdens of the regulations on the small businesses affected by the agency's actions, and to help the agency make the rule as effective as possible when it is implemented. Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act, each ``covered agency'' is required to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (Panel) to receive advice and comments from small entities that will be affected by the regulation being developed. Specifically, under section 609(b), each covered agency is to convene a Panel with representatives from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget, the Chief Counsel of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and the covered agency promulgating the regulation, to receive input from small entities prior to publishing an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for a proposed rule with a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Panel produces a report containing comments from the small entities and the Panel's own recommendations. The report is provided to the head of the agency, who reviews it and, where appropriate, modifies the proposed rule, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or the decision on whether the rule significantly impacts small entities. The Panel report then becomes a part of the rulemaking record. Under current law, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the only agencies covered by the Panel process. So far, the results are encouraging with these agencies clearly benefitting from the input of the small entities that have participated in the review panels. In addition, the bill will bring the Internal Revenue Service, the agency that has perhaps the most pervasive impact on small businesses, into the Panel process by mandating the agency to convene panels for certain proposed rulemakings that will impact small businesses. Our bill also clarifies how the Regulatory Flexibility Act generally applies to the IRS. In 1996, Congress expressly included the IRS within the coverage of the Red Tape Reduction Act which amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act. However, the Treasury Department has interpreted the language in the law in a manner that essentially writes them out of the law. The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Technical Amendments Act of 1999 clarifies which interpretative rules involving the Internal Revenue Code are to be subject to compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As I noted previously, for those rules that will impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the IRS will also be required under our bill to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel as required by SBREFA. If the Treasury Department and the IRS had implemented the Red Tape Reduction Act as Congress originally intended, the regulatory burdens on small businesses could have been reduced, and small businesses could have been saved considerable trouble in fighting unwarranted rulemaking actions. For instance, with input from the small business community early in the process for their 1997 temporary regulations on the uniform capitalization rules, the IRS could have taken into consideration the adverse effects that inventory accounting would have on farming businesses, and especially nursery growers. Similarly, if the IRS had conducted an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, it would have learned of the enormous problems surrounding its limited partner regulations prior to issuing the proposal in January 1997. These regulations, which became known as the ``stealth tax regulations,'' would have raised self-employment taxes on countless small businesses operated as limited partnerships or limited liability companies, and also would have imposed burdensome new recordkeeping and collection of information requirements. Specifically, the bill strikes the language in section 603 of title 5 that limits inclusion of IRS interpretative rules under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, ``only to the extent that such interpretative rules impose on small entities a collection of information requirement.'' The Treasury Department has misconstrued this language in two ways. First, unless the IRS imposes a requirement on small businesses to complete a new OMB-approved form, the Treasury Department contends that the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply. Second, in the limited circumstances in which the IRS has acknowledged imposing a new reporting requirement, the Treasury Department has limited its analysis of the impact on small businesses to the burden imposed by the form, ignoring the more substantive and complicated burdens. As a result, the Treasury Department and the IRS have turned Regulatory Flexibility Act compliance into an unnecessary, second Paperwork Reduction Act. To address this problem, our bill revises the critical sentence in section 603 to read as follows: In the case of an interpretative rule involving the internal revenue laws of the United States, this chapter applies to interpretative rules (including proposed, temporary and final regulations) published in the Federal Register for codification in the Code of Federal Regulations. The remaining provisions of our bill address the mechanics of convening a Panel and the selection of the small-entity representatives invited to submit advice and recommendations to the Panel. Coverage of the IRS under the Panel process and the technical changes I have just described are strongly supported by the Small Business Legislative Council, the National Association for the Self-Employed, and many other organizations representing small businesses. Even more significantly, these changes have the support of the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy. Our mutual goal is to ensure that the views of small entities are brought forth through the Panel process and taken to heart by the ``covered agency''--in short, to continue the success that EPA and OSHA have shown this process has for small businesses. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his support, and I look forward to seeing the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Technical Amendments Act of 1999 signed into law at the earliest possible date.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Yes, that's right. That sort of cooperation is good for science and good for education right here at home. The National Science Board is going to examine that issue, and I look forward to seeing their recommendations.

Mr. BOND. Yes, I do. I recognize that irregular payment or per diem can complicate the remediation of existing problems as well as possibly cause others. Does the Senator from Utah agree that the VA should have some leverage in order to get prompt action to correct deficiencies in patient care or safety?

Mr. BOND. I will certainly keep the request from the Senator from New York in mind when we go to conference.

Mr. BOND. I will certainly keep the request by the distinguished Senator from New York in mind when we go to conference.

Mr. BOND. I certainly understand the concerns of the Senator from Nebraska and we will review these requests prior to conference.

Mr. BOND. I concur with my Ranking Member and would be happy to work with the Senator from Wisconsin to ensure that his constituents' needs are met. clem

Mr. BOND. That does sound like the sort of activity we'd like to encourage at NSF.

Mr. BOND. I will be open to NSF's plans once they are developed. If the National Science Board and NSF support funding the program in FY 2000, I will review it as part of their operating plan and future NSF budget proposals.

Mr. BOND. I concur with my good friend from Maryland, and we will make every effort to consider the merits and funding requests of the Barry University project in conference. bayard wastewater treatment facility

Mr. BOND. Yes, I appreciate the Senator from New Mexico informing me of the situation in Bayard and the citizens' need for a new wastewater treatment facility.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, prior to beginning the time, I would like to announce that this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill and the pending Wellstone amendment regarding atomic veterans. Following the 2 minutes for closing remarks, the Senate will proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Wellstone amendment. Senators can therefore expect the first rollcall vote this morning in just a couple of minutes. Following that vote, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts will be recognized to offer an amendment regarding section 8. There are further amendments on the list that must be disposed of prior to the vote on final passage. However, we hope the Senate will complete action on the VA-HUD bill today at a reasonable time. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout the morning. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Minnesota has been a devoted advocate for veterans who have been exposed to atomic radiation. I commend him for his advocacy. He has for 3 years pursued attaching legislation to this bill. However, the legislation is properly under the VA subcommittee's jurisdiction. The VA has opposed amending this law because, No. 1, it would cost over $500 million in additional entitlement payments over 5 years. The VA has the authority and the responsibility to make the medical judgments as to whether these are, in fact, service-connected disabilities, and I suggest that this body does not have before it the medical evidence or the scientific proof needed to make that kind of judgment. We commend the Senator for being interested and concerned about these veterans, but we are not in a position to make the medical judgment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are pleased to be able to work with the Senator from Massachusetts, the ranking member on the housing authorization committee. We know there are great needs. We are very pleased we have been able to work with the Senator and provide an additional $7 million for section 8, for the HOPWA program and the section 811 program. When we talk about availability of housing, section 811 does provide additional housing. In many of the section 8 programs, we find they cannot create new housing. Having a certificate without a place to live, without a place to use it, doesn't do any good. The section 811 program has been at a static level of $194 million over the last decade. We were able to provide in the original mark for an additional $40 million in section 8 for persons with disabilities. Section 811 is a construction program for persons with disabilities. This is a modest increase. It is well deserved. I appreciate working with my ranking member, Senator Kerry, to get this done. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the comments that have been made about the need for affordable housing. Unfortunately, this problem is bigger than just section 8. Section 8 is a real problem, as I outlined several days ago. To repeat, we used to have multiyear section 8 contracts, 10-, 15- year section 8 contracts. That allowed landlords to obtain financing to build housing. In the last 10 years, we have gone from 10-, 15-year contracts down to 2-year and 1-year budget authority appropriations. In order to save money in the overall spending caps in budget authority, they shortened the contracts. That means, No. 1, as these contracts expire, we are spending over $20 billion a year in outlays on section 8 contracts. Those outlays are in the budget. But the budget authority needed rises every year, from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $8.2 billion in 1998 to $11.1 billion in 1999, and the need is $12.8 billion for fiscal year 2000. That number goes up to $18.2 billion by the year 2004. Unfortunately, that is how we budget around here, on how much budget authority you request. The problem we have with the administration seeking additional section 8s is that in their recommendations, their OMB budget request, they say they are going to appropriate $11.3 billion for the next 10 years. As those needs for more appropriations continue to rise, we will wind up kicking 1.3 million families out the back door. First, let's make clear, we are not going to let that happen. We have to protect those who are actually in publicly assisted housing. We have to scrape, we have to do everything we can to find the funds to do so. The Senator from Massachusetts mentioned the 50,000 additional vouchers the administration sought. Two things: I was promised by the Secretary of HUD the budget submission this year will account for those additional 50,000 vouchers, which we will accept into the stock, and we are renewing all the vouchers that are coming due. Unfortunately, instead of making provision in the budget for the additional 50,000, the administration proposed, and we have had to accept, a deferral on an advanced appropriation of $4.2 billion. In other words, we were $4.2 billion short of the budget authority needed to continue all of the section 8 certificates expiring this year. This means we rolled over into 2001 $4.2 billion. So we are falling way behind in the budget authority and being able to maintain the section 8 certificates we have now. In addition, we have heard people say: The need is now for section 8 certificates. None of the 50,000 vouchers we approved last fall have been used. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. None of them have been used. The administration has not gotten them out. We have discussed this problem, but they have not gotten them out. We are trying to renew vouchers that have not been used this year. We cannot use money that was not used this year to add new vouchers next year when we have already included provisions for the vouchers that we authorized last year and they have not been used. Probably the most important thing--and this is the point on which we really are going to have to get to work--is that a 1-year section 8 voucher does not create a house. It does not create an apartment. It does not create a condominium. Nobody can finance the construction of housing on the promise of a 1-year section 8 voucher. Right now in St. Louis County, for every 100 vouchers they issue, only 50 of them are used because there are no places physically to house the people who need housing. That is why we put money into HOME, into CDBG, to increase the stock of housing. That is why we have the low-income housing credits. That is why we have section 202 which does build housing for the elderly. We are not suffering a lack of housing because of a lack of section 8 certificates. We are suffering a lack of housing because in many areas they just have not been built. We will work with people on both sides of the aisle to create housing that is needed, to give somebody a certificate. That certificate does not keep the rain off them; it does not keep them warm in the winter. They have to have shelter. Merely giving them a section 8 voucher does not create a shelter when there is no shelter available. It will enable them to pay the rent if there is one available, but in too many areas there is not. This is a subject for much discussion later on. I look forward to working with the Senator from Massachusetts and the others who have talked about it. This is not a section 8 problem. We have our own section 8 problems with the budget authority needed. The real problem is providing housing. I commend groups such as Enterprise and LIST. I commend local units. I commend people who are working under the low-income housing tax credit, housing authorities across the Nation such as the Missouri Housing Development Commission, and Habitat for Humanity. They are the ones who are providing shelter. These are the places we have to look in many areas for a house. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his insights on this measure. Unfortunately, we are in a budgetary situation where we cannot provide additional section 8 certificates in this current budget. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I say, very quickly, to my colleague from Delaware, I appreciate the kind words he said about the ranking member and me, but I have to disagree with all the rest he said. I am not going to make the argument here. There is a plan. We have a budget. We are faced with problems in this allocation, not because of any tax cut but because of the budget caps that were adopted by Congress and signed into law by the President. There is a plan, and I will leave it to the Budget Committee members and the leadership of the committees to describe that plan. We have added money above the caps this year for the costs of military actions. That is why there will be work on the Labor-HHS bill to raise the money necessary within the available surplus. It has nothing to do with the tax cut. We will not be touching Social Security. Because the Senator from Rhode Island raised a question about community builders, I send a memorandum to the desk and ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record. It is a memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Housing, the Federal Housing Commissioner, outlining the problems with community builders. We have heard from many people in HUD offices, who do not wish to be quoted, concerning their problems with the community builders. We are not going to argue that point here.