Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns and efforts of the Senator from Iowa in this area. I share his concern about preserving elderly rural housing and that any adverse effect on elderly residents be minimized. Clearly, we expect that there will be instances in which participating administrative entity may need to look at rents outside the jurisdiction to best determine comparable rents. This concept is borne out in the definition of ``comparable properties'' in section 512(1) where such properties are defined as meaning ``properties in the same market areas, where practicable, that (A) are similar'' in various indicated ways to the project at issue, including ``type of location,'' ``unit amenities,'' and ``other relevant characteristics.'' The addition of the words ``type of'' was added to meet the concerns you and others expressed that the lack of comparable housing for the elderly in relatively low population markets calls for appraisers to, within the normal practices, to use comparables in similar types of locations in other markets when there are not two comparable properties in the market. I presume in such a case where it has been determined appropriate to look at other market areas for comparable properties, that the use of the phrase ``in the same market area'' with respect to comparable properties in the definition of ``eligible multifamily housing projects'' in section 512(2)(A) would be guided by the same standards as apply in connection with determining comparable properties, i.e., the limitation to the same market area would be to the extent it was practicable and that as indicated in the statement of managers, the participating administrative entity may look at rents outside the project's jurisdiction. And, we expect that the Secretary will grant the waiver authorities allowed to him regarding the 20 percent limit on properties receiving an FMR of up to 120 percent and for granting appropriate properties FMR's in excess of 120 percent up to the limits allowed in the legislation. Again, I thank you for your efforts in this area. particulate matter research

Mr. BOND. I believe research, as outlined in this bill, will begin to improve our understanding of the relationship between particulate exposure and adverse health effects. The funding and direction provided in the bill will put into place a needed mechanism to establish a comprehensive, peer-reviewed research program which will benefit all parties involved with the decision-making activities regarding particulate matter in the years to come. The EPA was one of several organizations that worked with us to develop the research directives in this bill and I fully expect the EPA to follow the direction and spirit of the statement of managers.

Mr. BOND. The research program is intended to build on the research that is planned or underway at the EPA, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Academy of Sciences [NAS], Health Effects Institute and several other public and private entities. Within 30 days of the enactment of this legislation, the EPA is required to enter into a cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] to develop a comprehensive, prioritized, near- and long-term particulate matter research program, as well as a plan to monitor how this research program is being carried out by all participants. All parties, including Congress, will be apprised of the research plans and all subsequent steps throughout the process. The EPA is expected to implement NAS's plan, including appropriate peer reviews. NAS will monitor the implementation of the research plan and periodically report to Congress as to the progress of the research program. We believe the language included in this bill set forth a realistic and thoughtful plan to address the numerous scientific questions that need to be investigated prior to the next NAAQ's review for particulate matter.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington is correct. The GAP and other funding mechanisms in EPA have increased over the years to meet the needs of tribal governments. These needs include the CTWQP in Washington State. The funding will allow the tribes to fulfill their roles as comanagers of water quality in Washington State.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senate committee report on the fiscal year 1997 VA/HUD appropriations bill regarding HUD's regulation of insurance stated that: The Committee intends that funds appropriated to the fair housing initiatives program for enforcement of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of housing and in the provision of brokerage services, be used only to address such forms of discrimination as they are explicitly identified and specifically described in title VIII. Recognizing that there are limited resources available for FHIP activities, the Committee believes that FHIP funds should serve the purposes of Congress as reflected in the express language of title

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, a number of items in the conference report or statement of the managers require further clarification or correction due to printers' errors. The items are as follows: Within the housing certificate fund, the legislation requires HUD to provide enhanced or sticky vouchers to residents to prevent displacement where an owner of a property chooses to prepay the outstanding indebtedness under a preservation mortgage (which prepayment can now be authorized at the option of a property owner). These enhanced vouchers, including those provided in prior years, are not just for the first year after prepayment but must renewed for each subsequent year so long as the assisted family continues to live in the property. Within the $32 million for section 107 grants under the CDBG Program, $4 million for technical assistance, $7.5 million for the Community Outreach Program, $6.5 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, $6.5 million for Community Development Work Study, with a $3 million set-aside for Hispanic-serving institutions, $7 million for insular areas, and $500 thousand for the National Center for the Revitalization of Central Cities. Within the Economic Development Initiative grants, there is a grant to Arab, AL. The statement inadvertently refers to Arab, IL. Within the Economic Development Initiative grants, the grant to the city of Jackson, MS, should be used for the acquisition and rehabilitation of facilities and related improvements for a downtown multimodal transit center in the city of Jackson. This project was incorrectly identified in the statement of managers. In addition, with respect to EDI, the intent of the conferees is for HUD to use the maximum flexibility in funding the specified EDI grants in the statement of managers. HUD is not expected to establish special requirements but should work with the entities specified in each grant to ensure that activities can be funded and completed in an expeditious manner. Within the Superfund research appropriation, there is a $2.5 million appropriation for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center. This item was included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill but not expressly identified in the statement of the managers. Within NASA Science, Aeronautics and Technology is a $2 million appropriation for the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, HI. This item was included in the Senate version of the bill, and the House receded to the Senate in conference, but it was inadvertently not included in the statement of the managers.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues and the leadership for allowing us to proceed in a timely fashion on this matter. I have mentioned only briefly my appreciation for the work of my ranking member, Senator Mikulski. Truly, there is no better person to have in a very complicated matter like this than to have someone of Senator Mikulski's ability, perspicacity, and dedication to right and justice to carry through on this. I am deeply grateful for her cooperation, the cooperation of the leadership on her side, and particularly the leadership of both sides of the aisle on the Banking Committee which authorizes housing programs without which we would not have been able to accomplish mark-to-market. Senator Mack and his staff, in particular, Senator D'Amato, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Kerry have been helpful. I express my thanks to Andy Givens, Stacy Closson, and David Bowers on the minority. We could not have done this on our side without the dedicated work of John Kamarck, Carrie Apostolou, and of Sarah Horrigan, who assisted us as representatives on loan from the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. President, again, I express my appreciation to my ranking member.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, to respond to my good friend, I first commend him for calling attention to some of the abuses that occurred. When we accepted on the floor his proposal, it was in light of the abuses and the problems that were uncovered. As I have advised my colleague from Washington, the House had grave concerns about the breadth of this issue, fearing that it might bar not only people actively engaged in fraud but people with other problems in their background or in other time periods or in other areas. I cannot do a good job of explaining their objection because it was not my objection. We were unable to include it because we did not have adequate support from our side to overcome the resistance of their side. I point out to my colleague from Washington that HUD currently has authority under this program to address fraud and abuse in this program and they have assured us that they will. Having said that, Mr. President, I assure my friend from Washington, I am from Missouri, and assurances--frothy substances do not satisfy me; I am from Missouri, and you must show me. I expect that the new Native American Housing Block Grant Program which is under consideration in the Banking Committee will include program administrative and oversight requirements. At this point we must defer to the Banking Committee which is currently looking at native American housing block grant reforms as part of a HUD extender bill which would extend the authorization of a number of the programs such as FAA and multifamily risk programs. We expect this bill will be considered by the House and the Senate before the end of the session. I hope there would be an opportunity once again, for the Senator from Washington to address the very real concerns he noted.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the Senate with the conference report accompanying H.R. 2158. The bill provides a total of $90.7 billion in new budget authority, including $21.5 billion in mandatory spending, which is $855 million less than the President's request. As with most legislative activity in this body, the bill is not perfect, but I do think it reflects a very balanced approach to a number of particularly difficult funding and policy decisions. In achieving that balance, I owe a special debt of gratitude and express my sincerest thanks to my hard-working ranking member, Senator Mikulski, whose cooperation, guidance, and wise counsel has helped to craft a consensus in reaching many of these difficult decisions. We have done our best to ensure that both the spirit of the budget agreement and the highest priorities of the President have been met without jeopardizing key programs, such as veterans' medical care and the space program which were not protected in the budget agreement. For the VA, the highest priority in the VA-HUD conference report is afforded to veterans' programs which total $40.45 billion and veterans' medical care in particular. The conference report provides $17,060,000,000 for VA medical care, which is $100 million more than the President's request and more than $300 million above the amount assumed for veterans' medical spending in the budget agreement. This level should ensure continued care to all eligible veterans and continued improvements to the VA medical system. Increases also are provided for the State Nursing Home Program construction and research. For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the conference report provides close to $25 billion for fiscal year 1998, including full funding of $8.2 million for section 8 contract renewals as provided through the budget resolution. Other key programs include $310 million for drug elimination grants; $1.5 million for HOME; $4.7 billion for community development block grants; $600 million for the Native American Block Grant Program; $823 million for homeless assistance programs; $35 million for Youth Build; $25 million for Brownfields; and $138 million for the economic development initiative. Unfortunately, we were unable to fund the preservation program due to the high cost of the program, reported fraud and abuse, and HUD's lack of capacity to administer the program. To continue the program would cost some $2 billion over the next several years. Therefore, we have included instead $10 million to reimburse costs expended by project owners and nonprofit and tenant purchasers under the program. This bill also authorized enhanced--or ``sticky''--vouchers which will protect tenants from being forced to move if an owner chooses to prepay a mortgage and higher rents are charged. Mr. President, I also point out that we have worked with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and colleagues in the authorizing committee to craft an ongoing solution to the high-cost rental program under multifamily projects in a program known as mark- to-market. We believe that the Senate's position, which finally has been accepted by the House, to deal with these programs to provide a continuation of housing services to those residents in particularly elderly and other projects funded under a multifamily basis, is the best approach to dealing with what otherwise would be a budgetary nightmare and potentially totally disruptive to the residents. For EPA, the conference report provides $7.4 billion for fiscal year 1998, an increase of over $400 million over fiscal year 1997; and an additional $650 million for fiscal year 1999 for the Superfund program. The appropriation includes $3.3 billion for the operating programs, an increase of $200 million or 6 percent over fiscal year 1997. State revolving funds would receive a total of $2.075 billion, including $1.35 billion for clean water and $725 million for drinking water. The President's proposed reduction of $275 million from the clean water State revolving fund was fully restored. For Superfund, the conference report includes $2.1 billion, an increase of $750 million over the current level. This funding includes an advance appropriation of $650 million to be made available on October 1, 1998, so long as a Superfund reform bill is enacted by May 15, 1998. This reflects the budget agreement which assumed this additional funding only upon a comprehensive reform of the Superfund program. In addition, given the priority the administration places on funding for Boston Harbor, the conference report provides $50 million, which is $27 million more than proposed by the House. For NASA, the conference agreement recommends $13.6 billion, the same amount as proposed by the House and an increase of $148 million over the Senate level and the administration's budget request. This amount will help NASA deal with the recent problems with the space station program without jeopardizing critical programs, such as space science, earth science, and aeronautics. For the National Science Foundation, appropriations would total almost $3.5 billion, a $60 million increase above the budget request. This funding includes an additional $40 million for plant genome research. Mr. President, this new comprehensive initiative is critical to the future of U.S. crop production, the ability of our strong agriculture sector to provide the food and fiber needed in this country and the world. For the Federal Emergency Management Agency, this agreement recommends $830 million, including $320 million for disaster relief and $30 million for a new predisaster mitigation grant program intended to improve the Nation's ability to reduce the costs and impacts of natural disasters, particularly in communities with significant disaster risks. For the National and Community Service Program, funding is $425.5 million, an increase of $25 million over the current year. Despite continued concerns many of us have with this program, we have acknowledged the priority the President has placed on the program. And, in addition, the $25 million is targeted directly to the critical issue of child literacy. Community development financial institutions are provided $80 million. While this funding is $45 million less than the President's request of $125 million, the conference report funding represents a compromise which reflects significant concerns raised in the last several months over the lack of administrative capacity and accountability at CDFI, including concerns relating to the contracting of services. We expect that the Treasury Department will continue to put in systems, procedures and policies that will ensure that the CDFI program will be administered appropriately in the future. As I said before, on the section 8 mark-to-market reforms, title V of the bill provides, beginning in fiscal year 1999, a comprehensive reform program that provides a mortgage and rent restructuring program to reduce the costs of oversubsidized section 8 multifamily housing properties insured under the FHA. Under this mark-to-market program, FHA-insured properties with above-market rents are eligible for debt restructuring to reduce the rent levels to market-rate rents or the project base rents needed to support operations and maintenance. In response to concerns about HUD's capacity, the legislation shifts the management, administration, and restructuring of the portfolio to capable local entities with a public purpose. In most cases, State and local housing finance agencies will be responsible for the restructuring of projects and consultation with project owners, the tenants and the affected community. In addition, the legislation requires the continuation of project- based assistance for projects that serve elderly and disabled families, thus ensuring the availability and affordability of low-income housing for the elderly and disabled. I note that a number of provisions, some of which I do not support, were added in conference to ensure the passage of the bill in both the House and the Senate and to promote signing by the President. In addition, we reached a number of accommodations with the White House with the cooperation and assistance of Senator Mikulski, Congressman Stokes, Congressman Obey, and other members of the conference. We are grateful for their assistance. I yield to Senator Mikulski for her opening statement.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 2158) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for his comments.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my friend Senator D'Amato, the chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, is entirely correct. His statements are consistent with the intent of the conferees to devolve decisionmaking responsibility to the State and local level. Clearly, the conferees recognize that participating administrative entities in some jurisdictions may find it necessary to take into account rents on units which are subject to local rent stabilization regulations in order to determine comparable market rent levels. The conferees are mindful of the unique circumstances of New York rental markets. For that reason, the legislation was crafted to allow the consideration of rent stabilized apartments within the definition of comparable properties for the purposes of determining market rent levels.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the statements of the chairman of the Committee of Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs are indeed consistent with the intent of the conferees. Indeed, devolving responsibility and decisionmaking to the State and local level is one of the primary goals of this mark to market legislation. Not surprisingly, that is also the reason for the priority in selecting State and local housing finance agencies to be PAE's. The decisions made by these entities will have long-term consequences. The PAE's therefore should be granted great deference in assessing the impact of these decisions on local housing markets. Also, I would reiterate the Senator's statement on the importance of resident and owner involvement in the decisionmaking process. We believe the local PAE's will be in a better position to make these determinations than Federal officials at HUD or the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the VA-HUD conference report; that the report be considered read; and that there be 20 minutes equally divided between the majority and the minority, plus 5 minutes for the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton; that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the conference report be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I have no objection.

Mr. BOND. Without objecting, may I say, we are trying to arrange for the expeditious consideration of the VA-HUD report.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this year marks the culmination of a distinguished career in health care for an individual whose name has become synonymous with the respect and appreciation accorded Missouri hospitals. Charles L. Bowman joined the Missouri Hospital Association staff on October 1, 1975, as vice president of legislative services. He assumed the presidency in January 1986. During his 22 years of service, his word has been his bond, and he has established a solid reputation of integrity in the legislative arena for himself, the association and the hospital industry. Charles Bowman helped shape activities of the Missouri Hospital Association at a time when the health care delivery system was undergoing dramatic changes and health policy was assuming a greater importance on the country's public policy agenda. During this period, he charted an advocacy course for Missouri's hospitals through upheavals in the State tort reform laws, massive changes in reimbursement for the Medicare Program, and complete redesign of Missouri's Medicaid Program. His interest always has been in developing sound health care policy that helps hospitals serve their communities more fully. He advanced landmark legislation in Missouri that provided consent for emergency health care to be rendered to minors, and legislation that provided a definition of death. He also provided the impetus for a statewide voluntary initiative among hospitals to release hospital charge data so that consumers might become more familiar with the price of health care services. Charles Bowman has championed equity in reimbursement policy designed to preserve vital access to health care in rural and inner-city communities. And he has been a proponent of health system reform that gives hospitals and other providers the opportunity to organize local delivery systems of coordinated care that will allow seniors and others to continue the relationships with health care providers they have trusted over the years. Charles Bowman has forged a remarkable partnership between Missouri hospitals and State agencies that led to expansions in health funding for poor Missourians, development of an innovative scholarship program to help increase the number of health care providers in underserved areas of the State, and creation of a process for assessing and improving community health that has become a model for other States. Through his 22 years of leadership for Missouri hospitals and health systems, Charles Bowman has kept the focus of association activities on improving health care for all Missouri's citizens--by spearheading legislative programs, forging collaborative partnerships and seeking innovative solutions to problems of health delivery. He has been a credible voice for Missouri health and an advocate for a strong, unified health care community in Missouri. His truly has been a distinguished career of health care service.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I stand before you today to pay tribute to Mr. Donald J. Babb. Donald recently received the 1997 Shirley Ann Munroe Leadership Development Award, by the American Hospital Association, a distinction given to the rural hospital administrator across the Nation who ``displayed outstanding leadership commitment to meet the challenges faced by small/rural hospitals.'' Donald was chosen to be the administrator by the first board of directors for the Citizens Memorial Hospital in Bolivar, MO, in the early 1980's. With his experience in hospital administration and construction, Donald has taken what was once just a dream to new heights of reality. In the last 17 years he has built a huge rural facility as executive director of the Citizens Memorial Health Care Foundation. This facility provides excellent health care to more than 75,000 individuals in Bolivar and the surrounding areas. The Citizens Memorial Health Care Foundation now consists of an acute care hospital, three long-term care facilities, a residential care facility, independent living apartments, 12 physician clinics, including six certified rural health clinics--the first created in Missouri--home health, hospice, home medical equipment, homemaker services, a wellness and counseling center, a statewide health maintenance organization, and an extensive outpatient rehabilitation program. Donald also always makes time for his staff, patients, residents, and community members. He meets individually with each new employee and makes regular rounds of all of his health care facilities in the area. It is a privilege to honor Citizens Memorial Hospital Administrator, Donald J. Babb, on this well deserved award. I know the hospital will continue to improve and grow for years to come. The State of Missouri is lucky to have such a facility and I want to express my sincere appreciation to Donald Babb, who makes Citizens Memorial Hospital excel.

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, one of the pleasures and honors I have in this body is to serve as the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds veterans' programs, housing, as well as environment, space, science, and emergency management. On the veterans side, we have a very heavy responsibility to the people who, in my State and throughout the country, have been willing to put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms, and I think they deserve the best that we can give them. That is why in past years, I have been very disappointed and troubled at this administration's approach to funding for veterans' medical care. Quite frankly, they were willing to sacrifice these important programs, at least on paper, in order to pretend that they were reaching a balanced budget. I think that is just plain wrong. I was also disappointed earlier this spring when the President and the congressional leadership proposed to take $300 million out of veterans' medical care as a part of the budget agreement. I said at the time that we would not let that happen. I am pleased to report that last night in a bipartisan, bicameral session, the Senate and House negotiators on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, approved a measure that provides more funding than the President, more funding than the budget agreement for veterans' medical care. The conference agreement that we hope will soon be signed into law provides $17 billion next year for medical care for veterans. This level of funding ensures that we keep our promise of continued care to all eligible veterans. We will also be able to continue our efforts to improve the VA medical system, which has been under great stress and which we hope is making progress toward more efficient, more effective, more humane care and treatment for our veterans who need care. It is sometimes easy during peace and prosperity to forget temporarily the promises that we as a country have made to those veterans who were willing to risk their lives to protect us. I said throughout this budget process I did not intend to let us forget, and I hope we will move quickly to send this bill to the President. In addition to the tough battles we fought in the veterans' medical care area and the difficult decisions we made, we had to make some tough decisions and take some difficult actions with respect to housing. Over the last several weeks, many elderly residents in public housing complexes in Missouri and I am sure in other States represented in this body, have expressed their deep concern about the possibility of their housing subsidies being ended. HUD was required by law and did send notices to thousands of senior citizens across the country over the last few months telling them that their rent subsidies were scheduled to expire this fall. That is required by law. But for most of the seniors who received the notices, it is very frightening because it threatens to tell most of them they will no longer be able to afford their homes and will be forced to move. I visited residences of complexes in St. Louis and Springfield, MO, and listened as the residents described their fears about losing their rent subsidies. I told them I would do everything in my power to help them stay in their homes. I am pleased to announce once again that last night the House-Senate conference agreed to provisions that we crafted, that I crafted to protect elderly housing. During the years I have spent as a member of the Senate Banking Committee and now as chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I made preservation of affordable, low-income housing, especially for seniors, for the elderly, a top priority and a long-term commitment. Unlike the administration which, for some reason, continues to emphasize the possibility of vouchers as a one-size-fits-all approach to housing needs of low-income families and the elderly, I believe that elderly housing complexes, which are good, safe places, comfortable for the elderly residents, should be maintained. Frankly, it is terrifying to seniors who may have lived 10 to 15 to 20 years in the same housing complex to tell them suddenly they must move: ``Here is a voucher, go out and pound the pavement and try to find housing.'' Mr. President, if you have visited these complexes, and I am sure you have them in your State as we have them in all of our States, all you have to do is go into one of those complexes and meet with the residents, many of them in walkers, using canes, in wheelchairs and think just a minute of giving those people vouchers and asking them to go out and look for housing. What a ridiculous thought that is. We are not going to force them to go out and look for housing. How many of us who have parents and grandparents or other relatives in elderly housing complexes want to see them torn away from their communities and forced to find new housing? I really believe that seniors should be treated differently from young persons eligible for subsidized housing. While the trend in recent years has been to provide vouchers for recipients to use for housing of their choice in a variety of neighborhoods, many seniors--most of whom I talked to--prefer to remain in senior-only housing complexes. I think it makes sense for them to remain in communities where they have grown accustomed to living and have made friends and feel comfortable. As chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee, I included language in the HUD-VA bill that was agreed to last night which does allow these seniors to remain in their homes, to remain in their complexes. Specifically, we provided for the renewal of project-based section 8 contracts at a rate affordable to the elderly. Good, affordable elderly housing, more than just an example of a successful private-public partnership, is a community of people who live together and care about each other. We cannot afford to lose this type of housing. We cannot afford to lose the type of community this housing represents. Washington sometimes loses sight of people and the importance of local communities. But I do not plan to let Washington lose sight of these elderly housing communities or the people who live in them now or in the future. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. The local community has been very involved in designing a plan to clean up the site. They are concerned that the administration of the cleanup will be moved away from the St. Louis area to Omaha or Kansas City, reducing their input and influence on the cleanup process. When the Army Corps of Engineers takes over the FUSRAP program, will the St. Louis cleanup be managed out of the St. Louis Corps office?

Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman for his assistance and assurances.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, St. Louis, MO, is the location of this country's first nuclear weapons site. Unfortunately, the wastes are in the midst of the St. Louis metropolitan area and are for the most part uncontrolled. The radioactive waste at these sites was generated from the production of nuclear weapons as part of the Federal Government's Manhattan Project and Atomic Energy Commission between 1942 and 1957. Much to my dismay, St. Louis has the distinction of having the largest volume of radioactive waste in the country with over 900,000 cubic yards. For 15 years we have worked with the Department of Energy to clean up this site. Finally, in just the past 2 weeks, after much frustration and delay, we have come to the point were DOE has begun preliminary cleanup efforts. Given this recent progress, the news of the FUSRAP program's transfer out of DOE has, quite understandably, caused a great deal of distress in the community. While I am by no means questioning the Corps' ability to handle the FUSRAP project, I am concerned that potential delays caused by the transfer will undo much of the recent progress. With site recommendations already made, feasibility studies concluded, and contracts let, it is important that the Corps honor the preliminary groundwork laid by DOE in order to avoid any further delays. Will the Corps be willing to respect these studies, site plans, and contracts?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Georgia and I thank the Chair. I rise today to address an issue of profound importance, as my colleagues have been addressing, and that is the urgent need for a complete overhaul of the tax system in this country. Over this past week, we have all watched as the Senate Finance Committee has held important hearings on the administration of our current tax system. The testimony has demonstrated many things quite clearly, among them the fear of many taxpayers. But it has also been quite plain that for many taxpayers the root of their difficulties starts with the enormous complexity of the tax laws as they currently stand. Clearly, there is an urgent need to scrap the current tax law and start with a new system so that taxpayers can understand and follow the law in the first place. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, I have heard in hearings from entrepreneurs all across the country that their biggest obstacle to staying in business is complying with the tax laws. The tax bill that we passed last summer did much to ease the tax burden for many small businesses. But at the same time it did nothing to reduce the complexity of the law which small enterprises must navigate in order to enjoy the lower tax bills. As a result, instead of leveling the playing field for small businesses we have made it more lopsided. Unlike their larger competitors, small businesses can rarely afford a staff of full-time professional employees to maintain the tax records and fill out the dozens of forms required each year. To put these duties in context, it has been estimated that Americans spend more than 5 billion hours each year complying with the tax laws. That is a staggering amount of time spent on completely unproductive activities. One of the figures that we have heard in the Small Business Committee is that the average small business spends 5 percent of its revenues on figuring out how to comply with the tax laws. That is not paying the taxes, that is figuring out how much tax they owe and how to comply with the tax laws. Would it not be better for small businesses to spend that time making products, providing services, providing jobs-- activities that they set out to do in the first place? For the vast majorities of small enterprises there is only one person who handles all the tax matters and that is the small businessowner. That is the one person who has to deal with nearly 10,000 pages of tax laws, 20 volumes of tax regulations, and thousands and thousands of pages of instructions and other guidance, issued by the IRS. Sadly, much of that burden is more than most small businessowners can do on their own. Instead, they are forced to spend vast amounts of their limited capital to hire accountants to keep the records and prepare the tax returns. For the small business that runs into difficulties on its taxes, the situation becomes even worse. The businessowner must spend additional funds on accountants and lawyers to handle the issue. Resolving these cases can take years, and cost tens of thousands of dollars in professional fees. Not infrequently, the end result is a tax bill that is inflated by the large amounts of interest and penalties. Once again, we must keep in mind that every hour the small businessowner spends trying to resolve tax problems is taken away from the actual productive business of running his or her own company. Madam President, the Small Business Committee will hold a hearing next month to elicit the views of small business on what the optimal tax system would look like, if we started from scratch. I look forward to constructive suggestions from the small business community. I expect they will say the system should be fair, simple, and easy for the average person to understand. It should apply a low rate to all Americans. It should eliminate taxes for individuals and families who can least afford to pay. It should not penalize marriage or families. It should protect the rights of taxpayers and reduce taxpayer abuse. It should minimize recordkeeping and reporting requirements. It should eliminate the bias against jobs, and investment. It should protect Social Security and Medicare and help ensure all Americans have access to health insurance. The case cannot be clearer that we need a dramatic change in our tax laws, and we need it soon. For the information of my colleagues, the full text of my remarks will be on the web site of the Small Business Committee at www.senate.gov/sbc. Mr. President, the case cannot be clearer that we need a dramatic change in our tax laws and we need it soon. Too much time, money, and effort are now wasted by individuals and businesses in this country that could be spent to improve our economy, our society, and the environment. I ask my colleagues to join me in raising the alarm and committing ourselves to do more than just talk about the problem. It's time to act--it's time for a new, fair, and simple tax system for all Americans.