Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Fulton, Missouri's ``I Love America Day.'' Several years ago, the faculty of McIntire Elementary school became concerned that many of the students did not have a true sense of patriotism and national pride. What started out at one elementary school has spread to a communitywide celebration. Each year they highlight all levels of government and place special emphasis on pride in the flag. This year's celebration will include a presentation of the colors by the VFW flag team, a twenty-one gun salute, taps to honor those lost in service, presentations by the VFW, Mayor Craghead, and others, and a special demonstration by the Army's Golden Knights parachute team. As you can see, Mr. President, this event has grown into a wonderful day of activities that will enrich the sense of patriotism not only in our youth, but also in the entire community. I commend the organizers of ``I Love America Day'' for the wonderful example they set for Missouri and the entire country.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today as chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business to introduce the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific Evidence Act of SENSE Act. This bill calls on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to do the sensible thing--wait for sound science before imposing new ergonomics regulations on small businesses. If enacted, the SENSE Act would require OSHA to wait for the results of a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) before issuing proposed or final regulations, standards or guidelines on ergonomics. As a native of Missouri, the ``Show Me State,'' waiting for the NAS study makes good sense to me. In introducing the SENSE Act, I am pleased to be joined by numerous colleagues from all across the country--including Senators Enzi, Jeffords, Burns, Voinovich, Snowe, Ashcroft, McConnell, Lott, Nickles, Hutchinson, Mack, Coverdell, Collins, Shelby, Kyl, Fitzgerald, Abraham, Gregg, Hutchison, Helms, Bunning, Crapo, Bennett, DeWine, Hagel, Sessions, and Chafee. These Senators, like me, agree with their small business constituents that it makes good sense for OSHA to wait for the results of the NAS study before proposing additional regulatory requirements for small businesses. Just last year, Congress and the President agreed to spend $890,000 for NAS to undertake a thorough, objective, and de novo review of the scientific literature to examine the cause-and-effect relationship between repetitive tasks in the workplace and musculoskeletal disorders. The study is intended to achieve a scientific understanding of the conditions and causes of musculoskeletal disorders. The NAS has selected a panel of experts to conduct the study. The panel will examine the scientific data on the multiple factors and influences that contribute to musculoskeletal disorders and answer seven questions provided by Representatives Bonilla and Livingston. The NAS will complete its study by January 2001. As intended by Congress and the President, the NAS study will assist OSHA and the Congress in determining whether sound science supports a comprehensive ergonomics regulation as envisioned by OSHA. In theory, an ergonomics regulation would attempt to reduce musculoskeletal disorders, such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, muscle aches and back pain, which, in some instances, have been attributed to on- the-job activities. However, the medical community is divided sharply on whether scientific evidence has established a true cause-and-effect relationship between such problems and workplace duties. We need to understand the relationship between work and these injuries before moving forward. Regrettably, rather than waiting for NAS' findings, OSHA now plans to publish a proposed rule by September of 1999. In fact, OSHA officials have suggested that a final rule could be issued by the end of 2000-- just a few months before NAS will complete its study. This simply doesn't make sense. The NAS study should identify scientific and medical studies that are based on sound science and provide solid scientific evidence regarding the causation of ergonomics injuries. Our intent is simply to ensure that the requirements of any ergonomics program proposed by OSHA are based on sound science and are effective to improve workplace safety and health. It only makes sense for OSHA to wait for the scientific and medical information needed to know whether it is headed down the right path. Waiting for the NAS study won't stop the progress being made as ergonomic principles are applied to the workplace. And, progress is being made. According to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of injuries and illnesses involving repeated trauma, strains, sprains, tears, and carpal tunnel syndrome are all on the decline. Employers are actively implementing measures to address ergonomic risk factors. The SENSE Act is in no way intended to discourage employers from continuing to implement voluntary measures where appropriate and effective. Similarly, the SENSE Act does not prevent OSHA from continuing to work on ergonomics. In fact, I would encourage OSHA to use the time prior to the completion of the NAS study to research ergonomics further, identify successful prevention strategies, and provide technical assistance. For those who would argue that waiting for the NAS study will result in more employees being injury, OSHA can exercise its enforcement authority under the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, to ensure a safe workplace and address any significant ergonomic hazards. My bill doesn't change that authority provided under current law. Simply put, the SENSE Act requires OSHA to wait for NAS to complete its study and submit the findings in a report to Congress. Congress would then have 30 days to review the final report before OSHA issues proposed or final regulations, standards or guidelines. From where I stand, it only makes sense for Congress and OSHA to have the benefit of the NAS study before OSHA proposes to require employers to implement a comprehensive program addressing musculoskeletal disorders. Tomorrow in the other body, the compansion bill to the SENSE Act is scheduled for mark up. H.R. 987, known as the ``Workplace Preservation Act,'' was introduced by Representantive Roy Blunt from Missouri on March 4. Representative Blunt is doing an excellent job shepherding his bill through the other body. In fact, his efforts have produced a bipartisan list of 138 cosponsors. I expect the Senate to show similar support for our Nation's small businesses. I urge my collagues in the Senate to take a good look at the SENSE Act and join us in supporting legislation to ensure that the federal government does not propose an ergonomics regulation for small businesses until Congress can assess the findings of the NAS study. I ask unanimous consent that the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific Evidence (SENSE) Act be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Early Childhood Development Act of 1999'' with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. Through this legislation, we are seeking to support families with the youngest children to find the early childhood education and quality child care programs that can help those families and parents provide the supportive, stimulating environment we all know their children need. Recent research shows that the first few 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 more rapidly than previously thought, 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, uncles, and other adults plays a critical role. Here's what's going on during these amazing early years that in so many ways are crucial to each child. At birth, a baby's brain contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are stars in the Milky Way. But the wiring pattern between these neurons develops over time. Most things happening in the surrounding world--such as a mother's caress, a father's voice, even playing with a brother or sister--helps this wiring pattern expand and connect. A baby with a stimulating environment will make these connections at a tremendous rate. However, infants and children who play very little or are rarely touched or stimulated develop brains that can be 20 to 30 percent smaller than normal for their age. 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 types of behavior that are so instinctual 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. 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 higher-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. Of course, it's no mystery to many people from Missouri that this type of program can be successful. In Missouri, we are both proud and lucky to be the home of Parents as Teachers. This tremendous initiative is an early childhood parent education program that has been designed to empower all parents to giver their young child the best possible start in life. Expanding Parents as Teachers to a statewide program was perhaps my proudest accomplishment when I was Missouri's Governor. With additional resources, these programs 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. The legislation that Senator Kerry and I are introducing 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 bill will provide federal funds to states to begin or expand local initiatives to provide early childhood education, parent education, and family support. The bill will also expand quality child care programs for families, especially infant care. 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 there 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.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Early Childhood Development Act of 1999'' with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. Through this legislation, we are seeking to support families with the youngest children to find the early childhood education and quality child care programs that can help those families and parents provide the supportive, stimulating environment we all know their children need. Recent research shows that the first few 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 more rapidly than previously thought, 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, uncles, and other adults plays a critical role. Here's what's going on during these amazing early years that in so many ways are crucial to each child. At birth, a baby's brain contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are stars in the Milky Way. But the wiring pattern between these neurons develops over time. Most things happening in the surrounding world--such as a mother's caress, a father's voice, even playing with a brother or sister--helps this wiring pattern expand and connect. A baby with a stimulating environment will make these connections at a tremendous rate. However, infants and children who play very little or are rarely touched or stimulated develop brains that can be 20 to 30 percent smaller than normal for their age. 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 types of behavior that are so instinctual 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. 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 higher-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. Of course, it's no mystery to many people from Missouri that this type of program can be successful. In Missouri, we are both proud and lucky to be the home of Parents as Teachers. This tremendous initiative is an early childhood parent education program that has been designed to empower all parents to giver their young child the best possible start in life. Expanding Parents as Teachers to a statewide program was perhaps my proudest accomplishment when I was Missouri's Governor. With additional resources, these programs 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. The legislation that Senator Kerry and I are introducing 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 bill will provide federal funds to states to begin or expand local initiatives to provide early childhood education, parent education, and family support. The bill will also expand quality child care programs for families, especially infant care. 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 there 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.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today as chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business to introduce the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific Evidence Act of SENSE Act. This bill calls on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to do the sensible thing--wait for sound science before imposing new ergonomics regulations on small businesses. If enacted, the SENSE Act would require OSHA to wait for the results of a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) before issuing proposed or final regulations, standards or guidelines on ergonomics. As a native of Missouri, the ``Show Me State,'' waiting for the NAS study makes good sense to me. In introducing the SENSE Act, I am pleased to be joined by numerous colleagues from all across the country--including Senators Enzi, Jeffords, Burns, Voinovich, Snowe, Ashcroft, McConnell, Lott, Nickles, Hutchinson, Mack, Coverdell, Collins, Shelby, Kyl, Fitzgerald, Abraham, Gregg, Hutchison, Helms, Bunning, Crapo, Bennett, DeWine, Hagel, Sessions, and Chafee. These Senators, like me, agree with their small business constituents that it makes good sense for OSHA to wait for the results of the NAS study before proposing additional regulatory requirements for small businesses. Just last year, Congress and the President agreed to spend $890,000 for NAS to undertake a thorough, objective, and de novo review of the scientific literature to examine the cause-and-effect relationship between repetitive tasks in the workplace and musculoskeletal disorders. The study is intended to achieve a scientific understanding of the conditions and causes of musculoskeletal disorders. The NAS has selected a panel of experts to conduct the study. The panel will examine the scientific data on the multiple factors and influences that contribute to musculoskeletal disorders and answer seven questions provided by Representatives Bonilla and Livingston. The NAS will complete its study by January 2001. As intended by Congress and the President, the NAS study will assist OSHA and the Congress in determining whether sound science supports a comprehensive ergonomics regulation as envisioned by OSHA. In theory, an ergonomics regulation would attempt to reduce musculoskeletal disorders, such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, muscle aches and back pain, which, in some instances, have been attributed to on- the-job activities. However, the medical community is divided sharply on whether scientific evidence has established a true cause-and-effect relationship between such problems and workplace duties. We need to understand the relationship between work and these injuries before moving forward. Regrettably, rather than waiting for NAS' findings, OSHA now plans to publish a proposed rule by September of 1999. In fact, OSHA officials have suggested that a final rule could be issued by the end of 2000-- just a few months before NAS will complete its study. This simply doesn't make sense. The NAS study should identify scientific and medical studies that are based on sound science and provide solid scientific evidence regarding the causation of ergonomics injuries. Our intent is simply to ensure that the requirements of any ergonomics program proposed by OSHA are based on sound science and are effective to improve workplace safety and health. It only makes sense for OSHA to wait for the scientific and medical information needed to know whether it is headed down the right path. Waiting for the NAS study won't stop the progress being made as ergonomic principles are applied to the workplace. And, progress is being made. According to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of injuries and illnesses involving repeated trauma, strains, sprains, tears, and carpal tunnel syndrome are all on the decline. Employers are actively implementing measures to address ergonomic risk factors. The SENSE Act is in no way intended to discourage employers from continuing to implement voluntary measures where appropriate and effective. Similarly, the SENSE Act does not prevent OSHA from continuing to work on ergonomics. In fact, I would encourage OSHA to use the time prior to the completion of the NAS study to research ergonomics further, identify successful prevention strategies, and provide technical assistance. For those who would argue that waiting for the NAS study will result in more employees being injury, OSHA can exercise its enforcement authority under the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, to ensure a safe workplace and address any significant ergonomic hazards. My bill doesn't change that authority provided under current law. Simply put, the SENSE Act requires OSHA to wait for NAS to complete its study and submit the findings in a report to Congress. Congress would then have 30 days to review the final report before OSHA issues proposed or final regulations, standards or guidelines. From where I stand, it only makes sense for Congress and OSHA to have the benefit of the NAS study before OSHA proposes to require employers to implement a comprehensive program addressing musculoskeletal disorders. Tomorrow in the other body, the compansion bill to the SENSE Act is scheduled for mark up. H.R. 987, known as the ``Workplace Preservation Act,'' was introduced by Representantive Roy Blunt from Missouri on March 4. Representative Blunt is doing an excellent job shepherding his bill through the other body. In fact, his efforts have produced a bipartisan list of 138 cosponsors. I expect the Senate to show similar support for our Nation's small businesses. I urge my collagues in the Senate to take a good look at the SENSE Act and join us in supporting legislation to ensure that the federal government does not propose an ergonomics regulation for small businesses until Congress can assess the findings of the NAS study. I ask unanimous consent that the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific Evidence (SENSE) Act be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Y2K Act from my perspective as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business. The choice presented by this legislation is clear--if you are a supporter of small business in America, you must support this legislation and vote for cloture so that the Senate may proceed on this bill. One of the highest priorities of the small business community for this Congress is that we establish procedures to resolve disputes efficiently arising from the Y2K computer problem. The consequences that may arise from this problem are as yet unknown. However, small family-owned businesses are understandably concerned that their companies may be in danger either from the problem itself or from suits brought by trial lawyers concerned only with the fees they can obtain from settlements. The small businesses concerned with Y2K litigation are located on Main Streets all across America, not just Silicon Valley. They are this country's mom and pop groceries, its dry cleaners and its hardware stores. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, the nation's largest small business association, strongly supports this legislation. The NFIB surveyed its members and found that an overwhelming 93% support capping damage awards for Y2K suits. The small business community is speaking with a unified voice in support of Y2K liability legislation and we should not ignore that voice. I have heard during the debate that enactment of this bill will harm small businesses. That simply is not the case. By merely reading the bill, it is apparent that small businesses will benefit greatly from its provision. So that we may dispel the myths surrounding this bill once and for all, it is important to point out several of the provisions of this legislation that small women and family-owned businesses will find particularly helpful. First, the legislation encourages alternative dispute resolution for Y2K lawsuits. This will help small businesses tremendously. According to the Gartner Group, an international consulting firm, more than $1 trillion will be spent on litigation relating to the Y2K problem. Lawsuits are likely to occur up and down the supply chain. That is, if the supplier of a family-owned business has a Y2K failure that impacts its abilities to serve its customers, it may have a lawsuit on its hands. That business, to recoup its losses, may then be forced to turn around and sue its supplier, which very well may also be a small business. The supplier then will sue someone else to recoup its losses. The litigation cycle is never-ending and small businesses have the most to lose. A good example of a small business that may be caught in this cycle of litigation is a constituent of mine who owns a small medical supply company that provides oxygen to patients. He has already determined he has a Y2K problem with his computers and is diligently trying to correct the problem. The Health Care Financing Administration has even required him to create a booklet to provide to customers regarding the steps he has taken to become Y2K compliant. If his suppliers or vendors have a Y2K failure and he cannot supply needed oxygen to his customers, he may very well be subject to lawsuits that could cost him his company. This is the type of situation we must prevent from occurring. Women-owned and family-owned businesses are the most vulnerable from costly litigation, either as plaintiffs or defendants, because they don't have the time to devote to it and don't have excess revenue to afford it. In addition, small businesses do not want to sue companies with which they have long-standing relationships and whose survival is tied to their own. Therefore, encouraging resolution of disputes outside of the courtroom is of great assistance to these businesses. Second, the legislation requires plaintiffs to provide defendants with notice prior to filing a complaint and allows defendants 60 days to correct Y2K problems suffered by the plaintiff. Encouraging mitigation and prompt settlement of claims allows small women-owned and family-owned businesses to recover quickly from business disruptions and, most importantly, allows small businesses to continue doing business. As I stated before, many of these businesses do not have the cash flow to engage in long, drawn-out disputes, if they want to stay in business. This provision will allow small women-owned and family- owned businesses to focus on correcting their problems and continuing in business. This is what small businesses want to do and what Congress should encourage. The bill also establishes punitive damage limits for suits against small businesses. The bill provides that under most circumstances a small business defendant cannot be subject to punitive damages greater than 3 times the compensatory damages awarded or $250,000, whichever is less. I don't believe that anybody can reasonably suggest that this provision will not help the small women-owned and family-owned businesses. Other than the obvious affect the cap will have, placing a limit on punitive damages will allow plaintiffs in meritorious suits to recover their actual damages quicker. Moreover, the cap will decrease the number of frivolous lawsuits that small businesses may have to face, as unscrupulous attorneys will realize that large settlements will not be forthcoming. It is also important to point out what this bill will not do. It will not prevent a small business from availing itself of the judicial system when it has been wronged by another party's actions related to the Y2K problem. The bill does not affect the enforcement of written contracts nor does it prevent a small business from bringing a lawsuit alleging negligence or other grounds based in tort law. The bill merely establishes a procedure to efficiently remedy disputes and preclude a feeding-frenzy on the part of unscrupulous plaintiff's attorneys attempting to earn their fortune from the Y2K problem. Earlier this year, Congress passed Y2K legislation that I authored to provide small businesses with the means to fix their own computer systems. The next step is to discourage frivolous suits and permit small women-owned and family-owned businesses to resolve Y2K disputes without costly litigation. The bill now before the Senate is a bi- partisan compromise that will accomplish this objective without adversely affecting lawsuits that have merit. I believe that the choice is clear. If you are a supporter of small women-owned and family-owned business and you want to see them continue as the economic engine that runs this country, you must support this legislation and vote in favor of cloture so that the Senate may proceed on this bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its decision in the Environmental Defense Fund versus Environmental Protection Agency lawsuit whereby the EDF filed suit challenging several provisions of the EPA's air quality conformity rule. The court ruled in favor of the EDF. This decision overturned a well-established EPA rule permitting previously approved transportation projects being ``grandfathered'' into transportation air quality conformity plans. The court decision eliminates any flexibility for local authorities to proceed with projects and protect them from disruptions caused by issues often beyond their control--including changes in federal regulations and standards. In addition, the court decision impacted use of submitted budgets, non-federal project flexibility, grace periods before SIP disapprovals, and SIP safety margins. As of April 19, the Federal Highway Administration had identified ten areas in conformity lapse where transportation projects are impacted. The areas are: Ashland, Kentucky; Memphis, Tennessee; Raleigh, North Carolina; Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; Monterey, California; Santa Barbara, California; Knoxville, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and South Bend, Indiana. Many people probably thought that would be the end of the list. To give another example of why this is such an important issue--one week ago today the United States Department of Transportation determined that the Kansas City metropolitan area's conformity plan had lapsed. The Kansas and Missouri Divisions of the Federal Highway Administration halted approval of transportation projects in the region. More and more areas could be faced with this situation. If we do not address this issue, it could potentially bring to a halt transportation improvement projects around the country--further jeopardizing the safety of the traveling public, hindering economic growth, and in my opinion, doing nothing to improve the air quality situation in any of these areas. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk. Mr. President, the only thing this legislation does is amend the Clean Air Act to reinstate those EPA rules which were struck down or remanded in the Environmental Defense Fund vs. Environmental Protection Agency lawsuit. No more. No less. This legislation has zero impact on the Clean Air Act of EPA's rules. In 1997, in the EPA's information on the final conformity rule that incorporated the 1997 changes, EPA reported the following: The conformity rule changes promulgated today result from the experience that EPA, the Department of Transportation, and state and local air and transportation officials have had with implementation of the rule since it was first published in November of 1993. While these changes clarify the rule and in some cases offer increased flexibility, they will not result in any negative change in health and environmental benefits. So the EPA got together with the stakeholders, issued a rulemaking, provided the public comment period, issued a final rule, practiced for several years, and defended the position in court. I want to take this position and codify it. Mr. President--there will be some who will argue for more or less restrictive changes to the underlying conformity provision in the Clean Air Act. Should that discussion and debate occur? Yes. I might support some of those changes. However, we have an immediate situation where transportation projects around the country are or could be impacted by the court's ruling. States and metropolitan areas across the country are needing assistance with this issue. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this common sense legislation that simply takes EPA's own regulations on conformity that the court overturned and puts them into law. Mr. President, we must address the immediate situation and then continue the debate on conformity to address further needs.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its decision in the Environmental Defense Fund versus Environmental Protection Agency lawsuit whereby the EDF filed suit challenging several provisions of the EPA's air quality conformity rule. The court ruled in favor of the EDF. This decision overturned a well-established EPA rule permitting previously approved transportation projects being ``grandfathered'' into transportation air quality conformity plans. The court decision eliminates any flexibility for local authorities to proceed with projects and protect them from disruptions caused by issues often beyond their control--including changes in federal regulations and standards. In addition, the court decision impacted use of submitted budgets, non-federal project flexibility, grace periods before SIP disapprovals, and SIP safety margins. As of April 19, the Federal Highway Administration had identified ten areas in conformity lapse where transportation projects are impacted. The areas are: Ashland, Kentucky; Memphis, Tennessee; Raleigh, North Carolina; Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; Monterey, California; Santa Barbara, California; Knoxville, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and South Bend, Indiana. Many people probably thought that would be the end of the list. To give another example of why this is such an important issue--one week ago today the United States Department of Transportation determined that the Kansas City metropolitan area's conformity plan had lapsed. The Kansas and Missouri Divisions of the Federal Highway Administration halted approval of transportation projects in the region. More and more areas could be faced with this situation. If we do not address this issue, it could potentially bring to a halt transportation improvement projects around the country--further jeopardizing the safety of the traveling public, hindering economic growth, and in my opinion, doing nothing to improve the air quality situation in any of these areas. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk. Mr. President, the only thing this legislation does is amend the Clean Air Act to reinstate those EPA rules which were struck down or remanded in the Environmental Defense Fund vs. Environmental Protection Agency lawsuit. No more. No less. This legislation has zero impact on the Clean Air Act of EPA's rules. In 1997, in the EPA's information on the final conformity rule that incorporated the 1997 changes, EPA reported the following: The conformity rule changes promulgated today result from the experience that EPA, the Department of Transportation, and state and local air and transportation officials have had with implementation of the rule since it was first published in November of 1993. While these changes clarify the rule and in some cases offer increased flexibility, they will not result in any negative change in health and environmental benefits. So the EPA got together with the stakeholders, issued a rulemaking, provided the public comment period, issued a final rule, practiced for several years, and defended the position in court. I want to take this position and codify it. Mr. President--there will be some who will argue for more or less restrictive changes to the underlying conformity provision in the Clean Air Act. Should that discussion and debate occur? Yes. I might support some of those changes. However, we have an immediate situation where transportation projects around the country are or could be impacted by the court's ruling. States and metropolitan areas across the country are needing assistance with this issue. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this common sense legislation that simply takes EPA's own regulations on conformity that the court overturned and puts them into law. Mr. President, we must address the immediate situation and then continue the debate on conformity to address further needs.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Education Success-- Business Success.'' The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 25, 1999, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing will be broadcast live on the Internet from our homepage address: http://www.senate.gov/sbc For further information, please contact David Bohley at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Families for Home Education (FHE) in observance of Home Education Week, May 2-8, in my home State of Missouri. I join with the Missouri General Assembly in recognizing their commitment not only to excellence in education, but also to the promotion of public policy that strengthens the family. Home educators make tremendous sacrifices to educate our nation's young people and they are making a difference. Countless studies show that parental involvement positively impacts the education of a child. Home-schooled children, in particular, benefit greatly from the individualized, one-on-one training they receive from dedicated parents and home educators. They are also afforded unique opportunities to participate in apprenticeships, and community and civic organizations. These activities serve to strengthen social skills and enrich their overall educational experience. In today's challenging society, it is more important than ever that our young people receive a quality education if they are to succeed in the expanding global market. Home educators play a vital part in preparing children, tomorrow's workforce, to successfully compete and prosper in the adult world. I commend these dedicated parents and FHE, and wish them continued success in their endeavors.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, during the past recess, the third anniversary of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, better known as the Red Tape Reduction Act, passed on March 29 with little notice or fanfare. Let me suggest that while the Red Tape Reduction Act is hardly a household word, it is well worth commemorating, and it is extremely important to the small businesses in America who are oppressed by excessive Government regulation and unthinking regulation imposing unnecessary burdens on them. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record letters of support that speak to the importance of this law to our Nation's small businesses.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have heard a lot about the need for oversight to find out what Government agencies are doing with the laws we pass. Today, I am here to report on the oversight of the Small Business Committee, because we want to make sure that the small businesses get the fair treatment they are entitled to under the law. Unfortunately, while we have made some progress and offered hope to many small businesses, we have found a number of agencies have failed to make the grade. So in a few moments, I am going to announce a new series of awards for small-business-oppressing Government agencies who deserve to have some help in unclogging the regulatory pipelines in their office. For several decades, small business owners have watched with dismay as Federal regulations have proliferated. These regulations are taking increasingly large amounts of time and money to interpret, and compliance costs have soared. Until recently, we were shocked by the general assumption that small business owners spend 5 percent of their revenues to prepare their taxes. Last Monday, in a hearing we had in the Small Business Committee, we found it worse than we imagined. The committee heard testimony from Brian Gloe, the co-CEO of Rosse Lithographing Company in Kansas City, that his business, for example, pays more than 16 percent of its net income just to figure out how much it owes the IRS. That is even before they write the check to pay the taxes. As my colleagues well know, the IRS is just one Federal agency. Other agencies imposing huge burdens on small businesses include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Add to that list the countless other agencies a small business must deal with, depending on what products it sells or services it provides. Each of these agencies has thousands of requirements which must be followed under penalty of fines or even prison time. In short, the Red Tape Reduction Act was long overdue. I was very pleased that this body passed the measure unanimously. It passed the House on a consent calendar. It was signed into law on March 29, 1996. It was designed to provide tools to small business owners to assure regulatory fairness and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. The new law contains important innovative provisions. One, it gives small entities the ability to take an agency to court for failing to consider ways to reduce the economic impact of their new regulations. Two, it requires agencies to prepare ``plain English'' compliance guides so that small business owners will not have to hire a team of lawyers just to interpret the regulations. Three, it makes it easier for small businesses to recover attorney's fees when agencies make demands for outrageous fines and penalties that are not sustainable in court. And finally, it allows Congress to review and disapprove certain new agency regulations that are extreme or are not what Congress intended. Despite the straightforward nature of this law, it seems some agencies are ignoring Congress' commonsense mandate to make things simpler for the little guy and other agencies are actively fighting against it. On March 10, Senator Kerry, the ranking Democrat on the Small Business Committee, joined me in hosting a roundtable with representatives of small business on of the Red Tape Reduction Act. We learned that many agencies have failed to fulfill their obligations under the new law and under the Regulatory Flexibility Act which preceded it. These important laws apply to all regulations, unless the head of any agency can demonstrate that a new rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. That makes sense to me. When new regulations will affect small businesses, the agency should comply with the law so the burdens on small businesses will be identified and reduced. You would think that agencies would embrace gladly the opportunity to help, rather than impose unnecessary burdens on the smallest of businesses. Regrettably, that just is not the case. A closer look shows that these agencies are using every trick in the book, exploiting every known loophole, and creating new ones not to comply with the law. Rather than help, they work to exempt the regulations from the law. Here are a couple of examples: No. 1, false and ridiculous claims. EPA is infamous for its legalistic dodge, asserting that the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter would not affect small entities. This flies in the face of our experience, when they jack the standards up so hard it requires punitive measures that harshly burden small businesses. I have heard from many government officials in towns throughout Missouri who are concerned that their constituents will lose jobs as a result of those standards. Two, raising the bar. Agencies avoid compliance with the law by erroneously asserting a rule would not have a significant impact on small businesses. But data from the affected small businesses clearly show otherwise. They are being affected in large numbers. Three, the artful dodge. Agencies like the EPA and OSHA avoid the law by issuing guidance and permits rather than rules subject to notice and comment. I guess they have not heard the old saying: If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck--even if they want to call it a permit or guidance. Fourth, the plain old loophole. The Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, in particular has abused a narrow ``good cause'' exception to avoid following these laws. These are just a few examples of ways to get around the law. Instead of implementing simple, needed reforms, the agencies thumb their noses at Congress and the millions of small business owners. Their sleight of hand has not gone unnoticed. I am not going to stand idly by. Too often in Washington, when we pass a law in Congress, we move on to something else and forget about it. The agencies write the regulations, implement the laws however they want to, and your unsuspecting constituents find out the law they think was passed is something else entirely once the regulators write the regulations. That is why we need to change the views of some of the Washington bureaucrats. I am not going to look the other way. I am going to make sure the agencies do what the new law requires them to do and what is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Several months ago, I asked the General Accounting Office to assess agency compliance with the provisions of the Reg Flex Act. Today, I am releasing GAO's report and findings. While the Reg Flex Act has been the law for 18 years, GAO found that the agencies' knowledge of the actual requirements is lacking and that noncompliance is widespread. Agencies are failing right and left to meet the basic requirements of the law passed by Congress and enacted on a bipartisan, unanimous basis by the Congress in 1996. Congress told them to look over the agency's regulations to see if there is any way we can change or eliminate regulations to make life easier for small business. That is all--just a review, just a recommendation. But they are not even doing that. The GAO identified seven agencies that have consistently issued regulations affecting small business but have failed to conduct the periodic reviews required. What is the holdup? The agencies have thousands of employees. It seems the administrators might be able to use one or two of them to look at the regulations and see if any can be changed, particularly in this administration which touts its so-called ``reinventing Government'' plan. Perhaps this award we are announcing today will remind them. Today I am awarding the ``Plumber's Best Friend Award,'' a plunger, to each agency which has failed to get the process moving, those agencies which need to unclog their pipelines and review existing rules. I am sending the head of each agency a letter explaining the requirements for periodic review and asking them to outline the steps they will take to get the agency in compliance. And now for that moment you all have been waiting for. The winners of the first ``Plumber's Best Friend Award'' are: Department of Commerce, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of the Interior, Department of the Treasury, Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. But the grand prize winner in my book is the Small Business Administration. Believe it or not, the agency whose mission it is to safeguard the interests of and to assist small business owners has failed to follow this small-business-friendly law. Think about it; SBA should be the advocate for small business at the Cabinet table, ensuring Government-wide compliance, not showing indifference to the law. I was stunned that the SBA cannot get a passing grade. But it gets even worse. Nine other agencies completely failed to report to Congress by March 29 on their efforts to help small business as required in the act. All agencies that regulate small entities were to provide informal compliance assistance and penalty reductions for those small businesses seeking to comply in good faith. As we have learned, if we do not require progress reports, no progress is made. So we gave everyone 2 years to figure out how to do the right thing. But nine Federal agencies could not even get a report out on time. Ask yourself what happens to a small business woman running a business out of her home if she does not get an IRS, OSHA, or EPA form filed on time. They do not just overlook it; they come down on and crack hard on the small business. The agencies failing to even report were the Departments of Defense, Justice, Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration, the National Archive and Records Administration, the National Space and Aeronautics Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Control Board. But, again, most outrageous among the nine agencies that missed the deadline: the Small Business Administration. In fact, when I brought this to the SBA Administrator's attention, the SBA's general counsel had the audacity to claim the SBA was not covered by certain provisions of the law because SBA was not a regulatory agency. So today I am sending another letter to SBA, explaining why they are covered by the Red Tape Reduction Act and calling on the Administrator to take immediate steps to comply with the law. I ask unanimous consent these three letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. For the Reg Flex and Red Tape Reduction Act to deliver the benefits intended by Congress, the agencies must comply with the law. It is that simple. Too many agencies, too many officials, unfortunately, in this administration seem to have the attitude that they are Olympians on the hill who know what is best for the peasants in the valley, when it really is the other way around. We should be listening to what the people who create the jobs and the economic well- being in our country, the small business sector, are saying. Perhaps these plungers will help unclog things. But if sunshine and friendly persuasion will not work and if a plumber's friend cannot get it unclogged, it may be time to put civil penalties and fines in place so the agencies know we are serious. The job we are telling them to do is simple: Help small business, don't hurt it. If they will not do it, if the plumber's best friend won't help them, then we will change the law again and impose some penalties. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the committee, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. I join Senator Domenici in thanking my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, for his very thoughtful comments on the budget. Those of us who work on the numbers sometimes get lost in the trees and fail to see the forest. But I thought the Senator from Missouri did a very effective job in explaining why this budget is so important to the working American in the average family who sits around the kitchen table and tries to figure out how to spend their money and wonders why those of us in Washington cannot spend our money with the same kind of discipline. Today is April 14. It is an ideal time for us to consider this final version of the budget resolution. While so many of our constituents will be staying up late tonight to finish their own income taxes before tomorrow's deadline, we look like we are going to be able to meet an April 15 deadline of our own. The Congressional Budget Act created a deadline of April 15 for Congress to adopt its budget for the upcoming year, and this year looks like it will be only the second time since the Budget Act was adopted in 1974 that we in Congress will meet the deadline and will deliver a budget on time. I am sure many of our friends and colleagues and neighbors back home will be astonished to hear that. Taxpayers, those who are carrying the load that we are distributing, have to meet their April 15 deadline every year. I can understand their amazement, why we cannot seem to meet our April 15 deadline. Meeting the deadline is a major step forward in demonstrating to our fellow Americans we can be responsible in spending their tax money. I commend Chairman Domenici and all the conferees on doing whatever it takes to make that happen. Senator Domenici is responsible for the discipline that this budget imposes on spending. Through his good efforts and with the cooperation of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they even met the time deadlines that were required as well. But, as our constituents put the final touches on their tax forms, it is important they be able to read in the papers about how their taxes will be spent next year. Adopting the budget at this time amounts to full disclosure. Taxpayers are sending in their checks. We need to deliver the details of what they are buying. This year I think the taxpayers will have less cause for buyers' remorse than in the past. I think, when the American people heard what the President proposed in February, they probably wished their tax forms carried a money-back guarantee. Just think of what the President sent us and look how far we have come. The proposal made by the President would destroy the budget discipline that has helped us balance the books. It would have actually broken the spending caps by $22 billion in new budget authority and $30 billion in actual cash outlays. The conference report we have before us keeps to the caps and keeps to the discipline the taxpayers demanded. When you listen to the President's budget, someone might get the idea that it really presented a sound fiscal plan. That is patently false. This budget that the conferees presented us saves more of the surplus than the President over the next 5 and 10 years. That is why we will have lower debt levels than the President's proposal, from the year 2000 to the year 2009, even if one adjusts for Social Security equity purchases. This means the President's new spending is larger than our tax cuts. You do not hear too much about that, but that is what the President proposed. We have heard great complaints about leaving options in the budget for tax relief for American families, but the President proposed to spend more than that, new spending already above what we already do. The President would spend 35 percent of the surplus over the next 5 years on programs unrelated to Social Security or Medicare. To do that, he would have to use $158 billion of Social Security's money to pay for them. Our tax cut that we empower in this budget is smaller than the President's new spending, which is why we felt it was essential that we save the entire Social Security surplus. The President's budget talks about 15- year budget estimates and talks about how much he would save over the extended period. When you talk about saving money down the line and spending it in the short term, I do not think you have to tell the American taxpayer what that is all about. There is an old saying about ``a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.'' The President front-loads his spending and says leave it to a future President to come up with more savings. I do not believe that dog hunts in my State or any other State in the Nation. That is not the way to go. That is why I believe, when I introduced the President's budget as an amendment, for those who did not like the budget presented by the majority, the Republican budget, that the President's budget got a whopping two votes on the floor of the Senate. That was the President's budget, all his assumptions, what he wanted to do. People who said ours was so bad, our friends on the other side of the aisle, two of them voted for it. It was not a viable option. What we have presented is a good option. The conference report, as I said, will save Social Security surpluses for Social Security. It keeps to the contract we have with our seniors and puts the ``trust'' back in the Social Security trust fund. I look forward to working with Chairman Domenici and, I hope, with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to create a formal lockbox to enforce this approach. At a time when tax revenues are at their highest level since World War II, and income taxes are at an all-time high relative to our gross domestic product, the President proposed not to reduce taxes, but to increase them. The President's budget requested increased revenues $82 billion over the next 5 years. That is 80 different revenue raisers, 80 different increases in taxes or fees or revenues. The conference report which we have before us today goes in the opposite direction by permitting Congress to fashion responsible tax policy. We could leave in the pockets of the people who do the work, who create the jobs, who create the products, the goods and services, some $778 billion between 2000 and 2009. I have my ideas on how we need a flatter, simpler, fairer tax that will encourage economic development, but that is not going to be debated until we get around to the actual tax provisions. I think, however, that all taxpayers should welcome the news as they work on their tax forms today and tomorrow that there is a hope there might be a little less taxes to pay in future years. It is also important to note that not a dime of that tax relief will come at the expense of Social Security. All of it will be funded from the non- Social Security portion of the surplus. Let me cite one specific example of where this conference report makes a significant improvement over the President's budget. On a specific program that is of great concern to me, to the people of my State of Missouri, and I believe to people throughout the country, people who are concerned about a healthy environment, who want to see clean water, who want to clean up the wastewater that could carry pollution, that could carry damaging and dangerous illnesses that despoil our natural environments and put us at risk of waterborne diseases, the President proposed to whack $550 million out of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund. This program is not a very trendy one, it is not an environmental boutique program that sounds good in a press release, but it affects Missourians whether they drink water, whether they swim, or whether they fish. It means in the future that citizens in every State of the Nation can expect cleaner water. The funding is imperative for public health protection, for environmental protection, and economic growth. During the Budget Committee markup of the budget resolution, I said these cuts would not stand. Chairman Domenici was able to restore a good chunk of the President's cuts, and I thank him for that. But in this conference report, I am hopeful we can restore even more of this crucial funding. The conference report puts an additional $1.1 billion in the overall funding category for natural resources and environment for 2000. I will be working to try to get a good part of that for the State revolving funds. That is money that goes back to the people who are building the facilities, who are operating the facilities, who have had hands dirtied cleaning up the wastewater in this country and assuring that we have safe drinking water. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that handles the EPA budget, I am confident that the additional funding will be a crucial resource in restoring the funds the President slashed. Mr. President, I am encouraged that as our constituents finish their tax returns and pay off their taxes, we do not have to be ashamed of how we will be using the money they worked so hard to provide their Government. In fact, we are going to be letting them keep a bigger portion of their money through tax relief in the future. We will protect our children and our grandchildren from the debts that come from excessive spending. We will keep our promises to retirees who depend on Social Security--all of this signed, sealed, and delivered by the April 15 deadline. This budget will put the trust back in Social Security. If there is any surplus remaining, we can give needed tax relief to working families. It will say that we need to rescue Medicare by making the structural changes in it that are needed, not by putting in the pot more IOUs that will be future debt burdens on our children. We also made a commitment to reform education, to put decisionmaking back in the hands of parents, teachers and local schools. We are able to have this debate about what to do with the surplus because we have some good things going for us in this country. Our overall economic activity is good. We have relatively low unemployment. We have steady growth. We have a stock market, for those people who are interested, that has gone out of sight. Why is that so? First, I think a sound monetary policy. We have had good monetary policy. We have kept inflation under control. We have avoided the hidden tax of inflation. Secondly, after fighting long and hard, this Congress, through its majority, has gotten the President to accept the discipline on spending, to put caps on spending so that ``if we don't got it, we ain't gonna spend it,'' to put it in the vernacular. We have caps that keep spending under control. That means, like most Americans, we will not be spending money we do not have. Congress and the President have to sit down and decide what our priorities are going to be, to take care of priorities without saying yes to every spending opportunity that comes along. It is going to take some tough decisions, and many of those tough decisions are still coming down the pike. But you tell a family that has to live within their budget that we have to make tough choices, and they will tell you, ``So, what's new? What's different between what we have to do and what every American family has to do?'' We have to establish that discipline. Now is not the time to abandon the discipline and go back to the old ways of runaway spending. It seemed easy in the past to spend money that we did not have, to run up the debt, but when you think about it, we were running up the debt on our children's and our grandchildren's credit cards. That debt was building up for them to pay in the future, and it had a tremendously harmful impact on our Nation's economy. Poor fiscal discipline was holding our economy back. With the Federal Government's budget under control, with sound monetary policy, with a promise that we are going to allow the taxpayers to keep more of their money that is not needed for the work of the Government, we have the conditions to allow the strong, free market economy to continue to grow, to create jobs, to create wealth, and to provide for the families of America, for the individuals who work hard and who are the people we are to serve in this Government. Mr. President, I am proud to have worked with Senator Domenici. I appreciate his leadership. I hope that my colleagues will vote on both sides of this aisle for the budget so that we can get about the business of developing spending plans that comply with the discipline of a balanced budget, one that augers well for the future of this country. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND. Yes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the annual Missouri Invitational Celebrity Turkey Hunt sponsored by the MITCH club. This year marks the 12th anniversary of this charity event. The weekend of April 23-25, celebrities from all over the country will come to Warsaw, Missouri, to participate in the hunt. This year's participants include celebrities from many different fields including Marty Kove, who has appeared in such movies as The Karate Kid and The Rock; Ed Hearn, former Major League Baseball player; Jack Rudney, former Kansas City Chief; Dave Watson of the Oakridge Boys, and many others. Several corporate sponsors also donate time and money to this event. Following the hunt, there is an auction of items that have been donated by various celebrities, sponsors, as well as local and national wildlife artists. The money collected from this weekend of activities is donated to various charitable organizations including Children's Mercy Hospital and local victims of natural disasters. Over the last 12 year's, more than $25,000 have been donated to Children's Mercy Hospital and over $25,000 to other local charities for a total of more than $50,000 in charitable contributions from this event. Mr. President, I commend the MITCH club for their efforts and wish them much success in this year's event, as well as many more years of giving back to the community.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Buried Alive: Small Business Consumed by Tax Filing Burdens.'' The hearing will be held on Monday, April 12, 1999, beginning at 1:00 p.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing will be broadcast live on the Internet from our homepage address http://www.senate.gov/sbc For further information, please contact Mark Warren at 224-5175. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the second time in less than a year, the Senate is considering legislation to establish a pilot disaster mitigation loan program at the Small Business Administration (SBA). Last year, the Committee on Small Business voted unanimously to include a proposal to establish a disaster mitigation pilot program introduced by my colleague from Georgia, Senator Cleland, as an amendment to H.R. 3412, the ``Year 2000 Readiness and Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.'' H.R. 3412 passed the Senate on September 30, 1998; however, the House of Representatives was not able to consider the bill before Congress adjourned last fall. As the Chairman of Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, I have been concerned about our Nation's disaster relief program. I have worked at length with FEMA Director Witt and other Administration officials over the past several years to address the escalating costs of disaster relief and the need to tighten up this program. Since 1989, we have spent $25 billion on FEMA disaster relief, and there remains more than $2.6 billion in anticipated costs associated with open disasters. Much work needs to be accomplished to tighten the criteria for declaring disasters and eligibility for disaster relief funding, as well as stronger insurance requirements, so that we can bring these ever-escalating costs under control. One way to mitigate against future disaster losses is to undertake preventive measures. Preventive measures to mitigate against future disaster losses, rather than the current strategy of response and recovery, could save as much as 50 percent of projected disaster relief loan costs. S. 388 would create the Disaster Mitigation Pilot Program, which will permit SBA to establish a pilot program using up to $15 million of disaster loans annually from FY 2000-2004 to provide small businesses located in disaster prone areas with low interest, long-term disaster loans to finance preventive measures to mitigate against future disaster losses. The pilot program would operate in disaster prone areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA has launched ``Project Impact,'' which emphasizes emergency preparedness, in response to the problem of increased costs and personal devastation caused by repeated natural disasters. I continue to have concerns about the criteria under Project Impact and urge FEMA to work to strengthen the criteria. I expect that SBA will develop the appropriate criteria for this new loan program that is consistent with FEMA's efforts to make improvements in this area. In the end, I do not believe we should have a proliferation of independent mitigation programs housed in numerous Federal agencies, and we should be working to develop a cohesive national strategy to deliver disaster relief assistance. Under current law, SBA disaster loans may be used for mitigation purposes only to the extent that includes repairing or replacing existing protective devices that are destroyed or damaged in an area that has recently suffered a natural disaster. In addition, up to 20 percent of the disaster loan amount may be used to install new mitigation devices that will prevent future damage. Under S. 388, the Disaster Mitigation Pilot Program, a small business borrower would be allowed to use 100 percent of an SBA disaster loan for disaster mitigation purposes within an area designated by FEMA. Mr. President, S. 388, the Disaster Mitigation Pilot Program, makes sense. It is a worthy program that needs to be tested, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Since we seem to be wanting to keep things in the same context, it would be appreciated.

Mr. BOND. May I inquire of the Senator from Texas if there is immediate response or discussion of my amendment when we get around to it? Would it be possible to respond at that time?

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair, and I thank my distinguished chairman.

Mr. BOND. I would be happy to yield to any of my colleagues, or turn the time over to our distinguished chairman to allocate to such colleagues if they wish to speak on related areas. I would be happy to have the chairman of the committee allocate the time to any of our colleagues.