Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 22, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Government Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Wednesday, September 22, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing regarding the Department of Justice's Investigation of Charlie Trie.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 22, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 22, 1999, in open session, to receive testimony on the National Security requirements for continued training operations at the Vieques Training Range.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I congratulate Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi of Thailand on his selection to serve as Director General of the World Trade Organization. Dr. Supachai, Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Commerce, has been an unfailing advocate for the principles of free trade and is an excellent choice to lead this organization. I am very pleased that our faithful friend and ally, the Royal Kingdom of Thailand, will have one of their citizens guiding an international organization. The agreement reached will split the next term between Dr. Supachai and Michael Moore, the former Prime Minster of New Zealand. As many of my colleagues know, the process for selecting a new Director General was at a standstill for months. Renato Ruggerio of Italy, the first and very successful Director General, finished his term and stepped down at the end of April. Despite the fact that his departure was known well in advance, no consensus on a successor was formed and the post remained vacant at a critical time--the Seattle round of trade talks being on the immediate horizon. Most of the countries of Europe and Asia have been united in their support of Dr. Supachai while the administration has supported Mr. Moore. The agreement reached by the member nations will permit Mr. Moore to serve a three year term to be followed by a three year term for Dr. Supachai. For those of you unfamiliar with Dr. Supachai's work, as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Commerce, his most pressing responsibility has been developing policy to guide his country through their current economic challenges. This included taking a significant role in shepherding important banking and regulatory reforms through the Thai Parliament that are important to the sound economic foundation of his country. The IMF has reported good news for Thailand on the economic front. After experiencing an economic contraction of 8% in 1997, their economy is expected to grow this year by 2-3% with an expected growth rate of 5% in 2000. Their currency, the baht, has stabilized and the government has rebuilt reserves to higher than pre-crisis levels. This is very good news and a positive sign for an economic recovery for all of Asia. Dr. Supachai was also one of the architects of the economic policies that led his country to merge as a dynamic economic engine in Asia and experience several years of phenomenal economic growth. As Minister of Commerce he has been active in opening the business sector to foreign participation and improving transparency. He helped create the country's Export-Import Bank and has worked very closely with the countries of Southeast Asia in creating the ASEAN free trade zone. In Thailand, he was a strong voice in forging public acceptance of the Uruguay round of trade talks and guiding ratification of the treaty through the Parliament. Throughout the economic crisis, Dr. Supachai's support for free trade has not waivered. His credentials on the issues important to leadership at the WTO speak volumes. I believe it is important that an individual representing Asia and a developing economy has an important role in a prominent international organization, as Dr. Supachai will have. There are over 400 million people living in Southeast Asia alone, this region will soon be the second largest market for our exports. This region and all of Asia are growing in importance to our economy and security. A strong voice representing the Asian economies is overdue. The economic collapse in Asia, Russia and other nations did not simply stifle growth of U.S. exports, it put millions of people out of work in these countries, exacerbated the poverty level and in some cases led to social upheaval. Unfortunately, it caused policy makers in many foreign nations to question the pace of globalization and in some cases question the wisdom of globalization. Many countries believe that they have little to gain through expanding trade and everything to lose and that their stake in trade negotiations is limited. I do not agree. Increasing fair trade has contributed greatly to improving the standard of living of Americans and sustaining the growth of our economy and it holds the same potential for our trading partners. While this is an unfortunate development, it is not one without a solution. The solution is working with individuals like Dr. Supachai who believe in expanding trade and working to improve the role and the economies of developing nations. Rather than being an after thought, we must begin to work with more nations if more are to believe that they have a role in globalization. For the global trading structure to succeed and prosper, all countries must have faith in the trading system and faith that trade deals are being reached to the benefit of all member nations rather than just the most powerful. Dr. Supachai is uniquely suited to facilitate such change and his increased role in the international stage is a very positive development for the World Trade Organization. Finally, I believe the people of Thailand could have been treated better by the United States in this process. They are our good friends and faithful allies. We on the other hand were slow in selecting a candidate and did not do a good job in forging a compromise. Despite Dr. Supachai's strong advocacy of the principles of free trade, we actively worked against him. Fortunately, groups such as the US-ASEAN Business Council and companies like Boeing were outspoken on Dr. Supachai's strong record on trade issues. This lack of leadership does not enhance the credibility of the WTO and needlessly strains relationships with our friends. But I am confident that the new leadership, Mr. Moore and Dr. Supachai, can overcome these obstacles and look forward to working with them on these issues. So once again, I congratulate Dr. Supachai on his appointment. He is very strong on promoting expanded trade and I am confident that a leadership role for a representative of a Southeast Asian nation is a positive development for the World Trade Organization. I would like to commend the people of Thailand for their persistence and not backing down in their support of their candidate. I would also like to congratulate Mr. Moore and wish him the best; he is taking control of the organization at a critically important time. I look forward to working with both of these gentleman on the issues that are important to advancing free and fair trade around the world.

Mr. BOND

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

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment requires a study of mining in the Mark Twain Forest to address the scientific gaps identified specifically by the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey on behalf of the Forest Service, EPA, and others. While the information is collected, it delays any prospecting or withdrawal decisions for the fiscal year. It does not permit mining, prospecting or weaken environmental standards. It preserves the long-term requirements of a full NEPA process, which will ultimately dictate whether additional mining will occur. The opponents seem to have an argument not with me but with the administration scientists who have concluded that there is insufficient information. The bipartisan county commissioners of the eight counties in the area are unanimous and adamant in their support. I met with the representatives of the 1,800 miners whose continued livelihood in this poor area depends on the opportunity to continue to mine. They want a hearing held in Mark Twain country. I ask unanimous consent that the two additional letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Slotting: Fair to Small Business & Consumers?'' The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 14, 1999, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 608 Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact either Paul Cooksey or Paul Conlon at 224-5175. subcommittee on energy research, development, production and regulation

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there is further backup and supportive information that I can provide. But, in summary, my amendment provides the money for the research that the technical team says it needs, and it preserves the current rigorous environmental process which will take years to complete. If lead is discovered, if it is economically viable, and if the company decides to develop a mining plan and apply for mineral production, then the whole process will have to start. To vote for this amendment is to vote to let the scientists get what they say is necessary to make an informed decision, and it is a consensus of all of those agencies I outlined that they don't have the information. I think it is also a strong consensus of all the agencies that we must protect the environmental resources of the region. As one who has floated and fished on the streams in the Mark Twain National Forest, I can tell you that it is a real gem. I flew over much of the area and I visited on foot much of the area in the last month. I can tell you that it is a beautiful wilderness. But it is a multiple- use area. It is used for recreation; it is used for timber; it is used for mining. We flew over some 160 exploratory drilling sites. But you don't see them because they grow back. As a matter of fact, I had my picture taken in one of the exploratory sites. There is an exploratory site 2 years after the exploration stopped. It is growing back. In another few years you won't even be able to tell it is there. That is why the scientists said that exploratory drilling has no impact. So it is not even an issue. It has no environmental impact. That is not a problem. There are those who do not live in the area who say that no economic use can be made. But I believe that for the good of the country, for the good of the area, to satisfy our needs, to provide the work for 1,800 miners in the area, to provide the support for the schools, for the communities, for the roads and infrastructure in the area, we must follow the long established, rigorous evaluation process designed to allow environmentally acceptable activities and prohibit those that would be adverse to the environment. If you listen to the scientists, as we have, you know that it takes more information than is currently available to make that determination. These questions deserve to be answered before we mine, or before we slam the door in the face of the regions' residents and force our country to become exclusively reliant on foreign sources of this vital mineral. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It is a commonsense amendment. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment, as the manager has already stated, deals with a matter that was approved in the committee and was taken out by a procedural move. The amendment requires a study of mining in the Mark Twain National Forest in south-central and southeast Missouri. It requires that it be conducted to address the scientific gaps identified by scientists in the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and others. While the relevant information is collected, the amendment delays any prospecting or withdrawal decisions for the fiscal year. This amendment is a commonsense amendment. It is a modern amendment. It enables the full-blown process to go forward before any decisions are made. This amendment does not permit mining. It does not permit exploration. It does not amend, weaken, or touch environmental standards. It prohibits exploration and withdrawal. It requires a scientific study of the scientific gaps identified by the agencies. It maintains the NEPA requirement for full-blown environmental impact statements which any withdrawal by the Secretary would preclude. This amendment preserves, as I said, the requirement of the full- blown NEPA process. And a full-blown impact statement will ultimately dictate whether any mining should or should not take place if an application is made, if there are deposits of lead discovered. By the time any mining could take place, Senator Thurmond might be the only Senator remaining in this Chamber. The amendment does not give miners their way who want clearance for prospecting now. It does not give the zero-growth opponents their way. Contrary to precedent and current law, they want no economic activity on these public lands which are multiple-use lands in the State of Missouri. Anyone who understands this issue understands that bulldozers are not ready to roll, nor should they be. They don't even know yet what lead might be available. There are too many unanswered questions to make a final decision. Regrettably, some on the extreme want to preclude an opportunity to answer those questions. The fundamental question that this amendment addresses is whether someday, if we were to find lead in those areas, additional lead could be mined safely in the State of Missouri. That is a critical question and that is one that should be answered by the scientists. We are not here to legislate a decision and it should not be hijacked by administrative decree. Some suggest that we know enough already to make what would be a permanent decision for the 1,800 miners who are under the gun for the 10 counties in south Missouri that depend upon this mining. They say we know enough already to prevent any further mining in an area which has 90 percent of the domestic lead deposits. So we would export lead production overseas. This past month I met with the bipartisan county commissioners, Democrats and Republicans, who are elected by and responsible to the people in the counties they serve. They make up the Scenic Rivers Watershed Partnership. They are closest to the issue. They have the most at stake. They are the ones who represent the recreational interests. They are the ones who represent the timber interests. They represent the forest interests. They represent the interests of schools and roads which depend upon the royalties that come from mining. And they support this amendment. They said we must have a full-blown study. There is a technical team that has been set up. A multiagency technical team was established in 1988. It has the USDA Forest Service, the National Park Service, EPA, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division and the Geologic Division, the Mineral Resources Division, the Mapping Division, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Conservation. It has the private companies involved; it has the University of Missouri, Rolla; and it has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. What do these scientists and engineers who have begun the study say? First, they say: The technical team believes that there is insufficient scientific information available to determine the potential environmental impact of lead mining in the Mark Twain National Forest area. This is a consensus opinion that the technical team has held from the beginning through the present. Due to the lack of scientific information available to assess the potential impacts of lead mining, the technical team proposed that a comprehensive study be conducted. That is contained in a letter to me dated July 30, 1999, from Charles G. Groat, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, the Office of the Director, the U.S. Department of the Interior in Reston, VA. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleague from Ohio for his hard work on this very important bill. The work our nation's poison control centers do is absolutely essential to the safety and health of our children. Not only do poison control centers save lives, they significantly reduce our health care costs by helping American families deal quickly, safely, and efficiently with a poisoning emergency.

Mr. BOND. Doesn't this bill clarify how the proposed national toll- free number will affect existing, privately funded toll-free numbers?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I rise in support of the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 (H.R. 1568). This bill is a critical building block in our efforts to provide significantly improved help to small businesses owned and operated by veterans and especially those small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans. This bill was approved by a unanimous vote of 18-0 in the Committee on Small Business after the Committee approved a substitute amendment that I offered with the Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Kerry. Over the past two years, as the Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have brought three bills to the Senate floor that place a special emphasis on helping veteran entrepreneurs. The need for this legislation became necessary as Federal support for veteran entrepreneurs, particularly service-disabled veterans, has declined. Significantly, support for veteran small business owners historically has been weak at the Small Business Administration (SBA). The Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 seeks to provide assistance to veteran-owned small businesses to enable them to start-up and grow their businesses. The bill places a specific emphasis on small businesses owned and controlled by service- disabled veterans and directs SBA to undertake special initiatives on behalf of all veteran small business owners. H.R. 1568 has key provisions that are of particular importance to veterans. The bill establishes a federally chartered corporation called the National Veterans Business Development Corporation (Corporation/ NVBDC), whose purpose is to create a network of information and assistance centers to improve assistance for veterans who wish to start-up or expand a small businesses. The Corporation will be governed by a board of directors appointed by the President, who will take into consideration recommendations from the Chairmen and Ranking Members from the Committees on Small Business and Veterans Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives before making appointments to the board. Although funds are authorized during the first four years of the Corporation, it is the expectation of the Committee on Small Business that it will become self-sufficient and will no longer need Federal assistance after this four year start-up period. In an effort to make its programs more readily available to veteran entrepreneurs, the SBA is required to ensure that the SCORE Program and the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Program work directly with the Corporation so that veteran entrepreneurs receive technical support and other needed assistance. H.R. 1568 places special emphasis on credit programs at SBA that can be helpful to veterans, and especially service-disabled veterans. The bill specifically targets veterans for the 7(a) guaranteed business loan program, the 504 Development Company Loan Program, and the Microloan Program. A key component of H.R. 1568 is to make Federal government contracts more readily available to service disabled veterans who own and control small businesses. The bill includes an annual goal of 3% of all Federal contract dollars for these small business owners. This goal is seen as an incentive to Federal agencies to undertake a major effort to make their procurement activities more accessible to veterans who made major sacrifices for our Nation. During the markup of H.R. 1568, the Committee approved a requirement that the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) collect data to be reported annually to Congress on the number and dollar value of contracts and subcontracts awarded by Federal agencies to veteran-owned small businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. This new requirement is critical if we are to measure the success of Federal agencies in meeting this 3% goal. Last year, the Committee on Small Business approved new initiatives to strengthen the mandate that SBA's programs be more responsive to all veteran small business owners. The ``Year 2000 Readiness and Small Business Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' (H.R. 3412) directed that veterans receive comprehensive help at SBA. This bill passed the Senate unanimously in September 1998; unfortunately, it was not taken up by the House of Representatives before the adjournment in the fall. The bill would have elevated the Office of Veterans Affairs at SBA to the Office of Veterans Business Development, to be headed by an Associate Administrator who would report directly to the SBA Administrator. This provision is contained in H.R. 1568. In addition, H.R. 3412 would have established an Advisory Committee on Veterans' Business Affairs comprised of veterans who own small businesses and representatives of national veterans service organizations. The bill also would have established the position of National Veterans' Business Coordinator within the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) Program. This new position would work within the SBA headquarters to ensure that SCORE's programs nationwide included entrepreneurial counseling and training for veterans. Both initiatives from H.R. 3412 are included in H.R. 1568. More recently, on June 6, 1999, the Committee approved the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act of 1999 (S. 918) to assist military reservists called to active duty and the small businesses that employ them. This bill complements the provisions of the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act. Accordingly, the Committee voted unanimously to incorporate the full text of S. 918 into Title III (Technical Assistance) and Title IV (Financial Assistance) of H.R. 1568. During and after the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990's, the Committee heard from reservists whose businesses were harmed, severely crippled, or even lost, by their absence. These hardships can occur during a period of national emergency or during a period of contingency operation when troops are deployed overseas. To help such reservists and their small businesses, H.R. 1568 authorizes a deferral of loan repayments on any SBA direct loan, including a disaster loan, for an eligible small business. SBA is authorized to reduce the interest rate on the direct loans. SBA is also directed to publish guidelines within 30 days of enactment of the legislation to help its lending partners in the 7(a) guaranteed business loan program and the 504 Development Company program to develop procedures for providing loan repayment relief to small businesses that have been adversely affected by the departure of an essential employee to active military duty. Further, the bill establishes a low-interest economic injury loan program to be administered by the SBA through its disaster loan program. The purpose of these loans will be to provide interim operating capital to a small business that suffers substantial economic injury as a result of the departure of its essential employee to active duty and cannot obtain credit elsewhere. Mr. President, I have also introduced a non-controversial amendment to H.R. 1568, which would require the President, rather than the SBA Administrator, to appoint the voting members of the board of directors of the National Veterans Business Development Corporation. Senator Kerry has cosponsored this amendment. This change was requested by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Small Business. It is my understanding that with the adoption of this amendment and Senate passage of the H.R. 1568, as amended, that the House of Representatives is prepared to take up and pass the bill later this evening. We have an opportunity today to approve an excellent bill to help veteran small business owners, and I urge my colleagues to support both my amendment and the bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I and the several members of this Subcommittee have spent a considerable amount of time working to ensure that other nations do not unfairly discriminate against genetically modified crops grown by American farmers. These crops hold great promise for eliminating hunger in the developing nations of the world. In addition, advances in biotechnology will lead to a reduction in the use of pesticides, improvements in soil quality and many GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) crops have documented health benefits. It would truly be a disaster for the people of those nations--as well as for farm families in this country--if the benefits of these products are lost because of unsound science or straight up protectionism. We are all aware of the problems that we face in opening markets for these products in Europe and many of my colleagues are aware that we face new labeling requirements in Japan. What many of my colleagues may not realize is that the same groups that are fighting these products in Europe are funding similar efforts to stop the introduction and consumption of GMO products in developing countries around the world-- some of the very countries that stand to benefit the most from these products. The opponents are now turning their attention to a key U.S. market--Southeast Asia. This area of the world is home to a half billion consumers and the income levels are well above those in countries such as India or China. Unfortunately, the GMO opponents are busy at work to keep us from competing fairly in the markets of Southeast Asia. In Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and other countries in the region, American producers are facing a real threat of closed markets due to the efforts of non-governmental groups based mostly in Europe. This is a very important time in the region as a number of governments are studying how to and whether to regulate genetically modified organisms. As governments are reviewing the issues, it would be a tremendous mistake to allow the GMO opponents to go unanswered. As a government, we should be making every effort to assist our farmers and producers in educating government officials in these countries as to the sound scientific reviews that have been conducted on these products and the extensive regulatory approval process that the products are subjected to in the United States. Unfortunately, it appears that our federal government resources are completely tied up in fighting what some consider to be more pressing battles around the globe. My staff and I have been in contact with the Administrator of the Foreign Agriculture Service, Tim Galvin, several times in the past few months urging him to dedicate a relatively modest amount of funding-- $80,000--for the FAS to take internationally-respected scientists to countries throughout Southeast Asia so that they may meet with government officials and scientists who are working to address the GMO regulation issue. It is essential that we move forward with such education efforts to counter the rhetoric and the scare tactics of the NGOs. Several of the countries in this region are proceeding towards implementing regulatory schemes; if we do not take affirmative action on this front we stand to lose valuable markets. Despite the critical need for moving forward with such a program now, I have been unable to get Mr. Galvin to agree to this important program. I also understand that there is a plan to eliminate the regional FAS position in Singapore, which is dedicated to working for biotechnology acceptance throughout Southeast Asia. Such a move would be a terrible mistake. Singapore is in many ways the gateway to the ASEAN region-- which will overtake Japan as the second largest market for U.S. products and services by the year 2005. The Agricultural Trade Office's work with the ASEAN Secretariat towards establishing an ASEAN regional trade regime based on sound science and its work with the Singapore regional traders must continue if U.S. agriculture is successfully to realize this region's market potential. We should be focusing on improving and bolstering this office rather than eliminating it at a time when these countries are beginning to work on these important issues. I know that the chairman of the Subcommittee shares my concern about these issues. I urge him to join me in calling on Mr. Galvin and other officials at USDA to move to address the need for the U.S. to become engaged on this issue in Southeast Asia and to fund these important programs.

Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman for his remarks, and I look forward to working with him to address this issue. animal welfare enforcement

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to prevent a potentially harmful conflict that has come to our attention as we implement the new HUBZone program adopted in the Small Business Reauthorization Act. It appears this program doesn't quite mesh properly with the procurement of grain products in the Food for Peace program funded in this bill, and I offer this amendment to prevent the major economic disruption that could occur between now and the time we are able to correct this glitch in authorizing legislation. The HUBZone program is a valuable new tool I was able to put together as Chairman of the Small Business Committee. It provides competitive advantages for small businesses located in economically distressed areas as they seek to obtain government contracts. If these small businesses agree to hire 35 percent of their employees from these distressed areas, they become eligible for a 10 percent price evaluation preference in bidding on contracts awarded through free and open competition. The law also provides for certain contracts to be set aside exclusively for competition among HUBZone small business concerns, as well as sole source contracts. As we implement this program this year, we are occasionally running into situations where the program doesn't quite fit with existing law and other programs. We are working to resolve these issues in a manner that we hope will be as consistent as possible with both the intent of the HUBZone law and those other programs. When the government purchases agriculture products for the Food for Peace program, those purchases are a procurement within the meaning of the government's's small business procurement policies, including the HUBZone program. Some products like corn soy blend are procured with a mix of both small business set-asides and full and open procedures. In this particular case, 10% of the corn soy blend is purchased as a set aside for small business and 90% is purchased through full and open competition. Corn soy blend has only a handful of about five vendors, only two of which are small businesses. They would be the only ones allowed to compete for the small business set-aside. Only one of those two small businesses is a HUBZone small business, however. That HUBZone vendor would also be eligible for the 10 percent price evaluation preference in full and open competition. It could bid up to 10 percent more than the other vendors and still be deemed the lowest bidder. For a product like corn soy blend, operating on narrow price margins, this 10 percent preference is likely decisive. This means that this one HUBZone small business could lock up 90 percent or even 100 percent of the entire market for corn soy blend.It would do so as a matter of law, not simply because it produces the best product at the best price. We could accidentally create a monopoly by government action, thanks to the way these various programs come together in this particular type of procurement. I can say as Chairman of the Small Business Committee, this is not the outcome we intended. We are not here to create monopolies, even if the monopoly is currently a small business. The small business program seeks to expand small business opportunities and foster competition, not stifle it. That's why I have offered this amendment. This amendment does not alter any of the existing programs--Food for Peace or HUBZones. It just says, let's not create a monopoly between now and the time we are able to adopt corrective legislation in the next small business reauthorization bill, which is due next year. I'm sure we can fix this problem appropriately. But in the meantime, contracts for corn soy blend will continue to be awarded, and it is possible the market may have been converted into a monopoly in the short run. My amendment says that no funds will be used in this bill to award HUBZone contracts for Food for Peace commodities if the award would exceed the actual production capacity of the successful HUBZone small business. The amendment places a similar limitation on Food for Progress procurements of commodities, which are procured in a similar fashion. CCC procurements of non-commodity items--such as desks, computers, office supplies, and the other apparatus needed by any Government agency--would not be covered by this amendment. This means that a HUBZone small business would not be allowed to lock up the entire market, collect the HUBZone benefits, and then subcontract the actual contract performance to another firm. The business would be limited by the amount of commodity it could deliver on its own. This prevents an abuse of the program that could create a monopoly position for a HUBZone small business, unfairly threaten the livelihoods of its competitors, and unnecessarily drive up costs for the taxpayers. I should note also that this doesn't lock out anybody, including small businesses that I hope will in fact take advantage of the HUBZone program. It just prevents an abuse of the HUBZone program while we put together a long-term fix that reflects the particular circumstances that prevail in commodities procurement. I would note also that I anticipate this will be necessary only for this year. I know the managers of the Agriculture Appropriations bill sometimes get a little frustrated at the number of general provisions that get inserted into this bill, and many times these provisions tend to be carried over from year to year. In this particular case, we seek only to prevent market disruption in the interim until we tackle this in the small business reauthorization that will be due next year. Thus, I think this provision will be only for the Fiscal 2000 bill that is in front of us. This should be a non-controversial amendment, and I hope it can be cleared by unanimous consent. My staff and I are available to answer questions for anyone needing clarification on this. amendment no. 1528 On Page 76, after Line 6 insert the following: Sec. . It is the Sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture shall exercise reasonable treatment of producers in order to avoid harmful consequences regarding the inadvertent planting of dry beans on contract acres, up to and including the 1999 crop year.

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. President, I agree with my colleagues on the other side. Yet the President's budget devastates veterans' health care. The flat-line budget proposed by this administration will result in some 13,000 Veterans Affairs employees being RIF'd or furloughed. It will close down facilities. It will throw people out of the care of the veterans facilities. The problem is that this motion does nothing to get money to veterans. This body has already gone on record saying we do not want to stay at the low level submitted by the President. That is why we are going to increase by hundreds of millions of dollars in the appropriations bill the amount we spend for veterans' health care. We are concerned about veterans' health care. That is why we are not going to tolerate the unforgivably small budget that the President has proposed. This is an attempt to provide appropriations when, in fact, it will have no such impact. There is $505 billion set aside in this plan for spending on high-priority matters. Mr. President, I make a point of order against the amendment under section 305 of the Budget Act on the grounds that it is not germane.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator Kerry about the failure of SBA to allocate adequate staff to the Office of Advocacy. This shortfall has placed an enormous burden on the ability of the Office to fulfill its mission. While I would encourage the SBA Administrator to allocate staff for the Office of Advocacy at the 1990 level, I realize they may not be able to make such an large increase in one year. Therefore, I would like my colleagues on the Commerce- Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, to clarify their intent for the increase in the FY 2000 budget for the Office of Advocacy.