Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. It has been made clear to our colleagues and to the people viewing this that before major disaster relief can start flowing, there has to be damage assessments. I guess it is the understanding of the majority leader that they are at least 2 weeks away from getting the damage assessments. The State has to have a plan submitted and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Dollars then go to the State from FEMA and from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Is it the clear understanding that this is a long process which is not being held up during this day or tomorrow, but the money is needed, and we will provide it? But the time required to get the plans in place still has not been completed. Is that the understanding?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to ask the majority leader a series of questions that I think are necessary to clarify where we stand. I apologize for not being on the floor when he began. I have the responsibility for the subcommittee that appropriates money for FEMA. I wonder--as has been made clear on the floor, the emergency money is now flowing. There is money --$2 billion in FEMA-- that is going for the immediate needs right now. So there is money which can be paid out right now prior to the issuance of the completion of plans and assessments being available. Is that clear? Has that been made clear?

Mr. BOND. I have one final question to the majority leader. I very much appreciate his efforts to bring up the Birth Defects Prevention Act, which would deal with a very serious problem of 150,000 babies being born each year with birth defects in this country. We would like to go to it. It is my understanding that, even if there were no other measure on the floor, the supplemental appropriations bill would have to come over from the House. There is no reason to filibuster or delay the Birth Defects Prevention Act, because taking care of this bill this afternoon will in no way delay the disaster. It will deal with the disaster of birth defects which we can deal with today without slowing down any supplemental emergency appropriations. Is that correct?

Mr. BOND. If I could ask another question----

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Bryan in introducing the Common Cents Stock Pricing Act of 1997. I thank Senator Bryan for his leadership in this measure. As he indicated in his comments, we worked together through three sessions of Congress to pass the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Numerous members of staff came and went while we were trying to get this commonsense consumer measure passed, and I only hope, as he indicated, that we will not have a similar 6- year battle on this one, because I think the bill is very simple, very straightforward, and reflects common sense. It calls for the markets to get on in the business of trading in plain numbers, dollars and cents, instead of fractions. The Common Cents Stock Pricing Act will make stock prices easier to understand for the average small investor. It will also force stock dealers to compete in pennies, which should result in lower transaction costs and investor savings. Our Nation's stock markets use pricing methodologies which date back to the 18th century, when colonies used Spanish dollars as their currency. Traders would chisel these ancient coins into ``pieces of eight'' or ``bits'' and use them to purchase commodities. When organized stock trading began in New York in 1792, stock prices were quoted in bits, or eighths. Mr. President, 200 years later, the time has come to move beyond this pricing system. We don't use Spanish coins today, we don't use bits, and we don't need confusing price systems. The pricing system based on ancient coins is not only out of date, but it is difficult for the average investor to understand. At least one newspaper has recognized this fact. The San Francisco Chronical recently began printing its tables in dollars and cents, instead of fractions. Others, including the Boston Globe and USA Today have called on the stock exchanges to move to a penny pricing system. Small investors also stand to benefit financially from the move to pricing by the penny rather than by the bit. SEC Commissioner Steve Wallman estimates investors lose a minimum of $1.5 billion a year under the current system. Other experts put the figure in the $4 to $9 billion range. Let me just explain why small investors lose in the current environment. Stock exchange rules effectively limit the minimum spread between a stock's buy-and-sell price to one-eighth of a dollar, or 12.5 cents. This means that floor traders earn at least 12.5 cents from investors on every trade. Large investor institutions can get better deals on their trades by negotiating prices on block trades, but the average small investor has to pay the full fare. Penny stock pricing is also in step with the rest of the world. The U.S. is the only major market that trades in eighths; every other country uses decimal pricing. If we are going to maintain our role as the dominant player in world markets, the U.S. must keep pace and move to a system of decimal pricing. The bill we are introducing today is straightforward. It simply calls on the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate a rule, within 1 year after the enactment date of the legislation, to transition the stock and option markets away from fractionalized trading, bits trading, into dollars and cents pricing. I think the bill is an appropriate way for the Government to regulate financial markets. The Common Cents Stock Pricing Act does not micromanage the markets by dictating what the spread will be. The competition and the markets will determine the spread. The implementation of the SEC will allow competitive forces to decide what the spread will be. Let me close by saying I also noted the New York Stock Exchange announcement has been made that it will begin trading in sixteenths and eventually in decimals. I commend Senator Bryan and the sponsors of the companion House legislation, because their bill was cited as one of the reasons that the New York Stock Exchange was moving forward. I plan to review the language to ensure that their efforts clearly commit them to move to decimals, and that other exchanges will move to decimals. We need to do so in a reasonable timeframe and not wait until the forecasted computer crisis of the year 2000, when all of the computers go back to 1900. Big investors get good deals every day in negotiating stock trade prices. I think it is time for the average investor to get a good deal too. I encourage my colleagues to join me in making sure average investors are treated equitably. I thank my colleague from Nevada for his work on this issue, and I encourage and invite other Members of the Senate to join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, in introducing legislation to ensure that the Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service does not usurp the power to tax--a power solely vested in Congress by the U.S. Constitution. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will ensure that the duly elected representatives of the people, who are accountable to the electorate for our actions, will have discretion to exercise the power to tax. This legislation is intended to curb the ability of the Treasury Department to bypass Congress by proposing a tax increase without the authorization or consent of Congress. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act builds on legislation passed unanimously by the Senate just over 1 year ago. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I authored the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act--better known as the Red Tape Reduction Act-- to ensure that small businesses are treated fairly in agency rulemaking and enforcement activities. Subtitle E of the Red Tape Reduction Act provides that a final rule issued by a Federal agency and deemed a major rule by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget cannot go into effect for at least 60 days. This delay is to provide Congress with a window during which it can review the rule and its impact, allowing time for Congress to consider whether a resolution of disapproval should be enacted to strike down the regulation. To become effective, the resolution must pass both the House and Senate and be signed into law by the President or enacted as the result of a veto override. The bill Senator Shelby and I introduce today amends this law to provide that any rule issued by the Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service that will result in a tax increase--any increase--will be deemed a major rule by OIRA and, consequently, not go into effect for at least 60 days. This procedural safeguard will ensure that the Department of the Treasury and its Internal Revenue Service cannot make an end-run around Congress, as it is currently attempting with the stealth tax it proposed on January 13. As my colleagues are aware, the IRS has issued a proposal that is tantamount to a tax increase on businesses structured as limited liability companies. The IRS proposal disqualifies a taxpayer from being considered as a limited partner if he or she ``participates in the partnership's trade or business for more than 500 hours during a taxable year'' or is involved in a ``service'' partnership, such as lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects, and health-care providers. The IRS alleges that its proposal merely interprets section 1402(a)(13) of the Tax Code, providing clarification, when in actuality it is a tax increase by regulatory fiat. Under the IRS proposal, disqualification as a limited partner will result in a tax increase on income from both capital investments as well as earnings of the partnership. The effect will be to add the self-employment tax--12.4 percent for social security and 2.9 percent for Medicare--to income from investments as well as earnings for limited partners that under current rules can exclude such income from the self-employment tax. Under the bill introduced today, the tax increase proposed by the Internal Revenue Service of the Treasury Department, if later issued as a final rule, could not go into effect for at least 60 days following its publication in the Federal Register. This window, which coincides with issuance of a report by the Comptroller General, would allow Congress the opportunity to review the rule and vote on a resolution to disapprove the tax increase before it is applied to a single taxpayer. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act strengthens the Red Tape Reduction Act and the vital procedural safeguards it provides to ensure that small businesses are not burdened unnecessarily by new Federal regulations. Congress enacted the 1966 provisions to strengthen the effectiveness of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a law which had been ignored too often by Government agencies, especially the Internal Revenue Service. Three of the top recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business sought reforms to the way Government regulations are developed and enforced, and the Red Tape Reduction Act passed the Senate without a single dissenting vote on its way to being signed into law last year. Despite the inclusion of language in the 1996 amendments that expressly addresses coverage of IRS interpretative rules, we find ourselves faced again with an IRS proposal that was not issued in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As 18 of my Senate colleagues and I advised Secretary Rubin in an April letter, the proposed IRS regulation on limited partner taxation is precisely the type of rule for which a regulatory flexibility analysis should be done. Although, on its face, the rulemaking seeks merely to define a limited partner or to eliminate uncertainty in determining net earnings from self-employment, the real effect of the rule would be to raise taxes by executive fiat and expand substantially the spirit and letter of the underlying statute. The rule also seeks to impose on small businesses a burdensome new recordkeeping and collection of information requirement that would affect millions of limited partners and members of limited liability companies. The Treasury's IRS proposes this stealth tax increase with the knowledge that Congress declined to adopt a similar tax increase in the Health Security Act proposed in 1994--a provision that the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in 1994 would have resulted in a tax increase of approximately $500 million per year. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act would remove any incentive for the Treasury Department to underestimate the cost imposed by an IRS proposed or final rule in an effort to skirt the administration's regulatory review process or its obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. By amending the definition of major rule under the Congressional Review Act, which is subtitle E of the Red Tape Reduction Act, we ensure that an IRS rule that imposes a tax increase will be a major rule, whether or not it has an estimated annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000. Our amendment does not change the trigger for a regulatory flexibility analysis, which still will be required if a proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We believe the heightened scrutiny of IRS regulations called for by this legislation will provide an additional incentive for the Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service to meet all of its procedural obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Red Tape Reduction Act. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Shelby and me in supporting this important legislation to ensure that the IRS not usurp the proper role of Congress--nor skirt its obligations to identify the impact of its proposed and final rules. Rules such as that currently proposed by the IRS should be carefully scrutinized by Congress. When the Department of the Treasury issues a final IRS rule that increases taxes, Congress should have the ability to exercise its discretion to enact a resolution of disapproval before the rule is applicable to a single taxpayer. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act Senator Shelby and I introduce today provides that opportunity.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Bryan in introducing the Common Cents Stock Pricing Act of 1997. I thank Senator Bryan for his leadership in this measure. As he indicated in his comments, we worked together through three sessions of Congress to pass the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Numerous members of staff came and went while we were trying to get this commonsense consumer measure passed, and I only hope, as he indicated, that we will not have a similar 6- year battle on this one, because I think the bill is very simple, very straightforward, and reflects common sense. It calls for the markets to get on in the business of trading in plain numbers, dollars and cents, instead of fractions. The Common Cents Stock Pricing Act will make stock prices easier to understand for the average small investor. It will also force stock dealers to compete in pennies, which should result in lower transaction costs and investor savings. Our Nation's stock markets use pricing methodologies which date back to the 18th century, when colonies used Spanish dollars as their currency. Traders would chisel these ancient coins into ``pieces of eight'' or ``bits'' and use them to purchase commodities. When organized stock trading began in New York in 1792, stock prices were quoted in bits, or eighths. Mr. President, 200 years later, the time has come to move beyond this pricing system. We don't use Spanish coins today, we don't use bits, and we don't need confusing price systems. The pricing system based on ancient coins is not only out of date, but it is difficult for the average investor to understand. At least one newspaper has recognized this fact. The San Francisco Chronical recently began printing its tables in dollars and cents, instead of fractions. Others, including the Boston Globe and USA Today have called on the stock exchanges to move to a penny pricing system. Small investors also stand to benefit financially from the move to pricing by the penny rather than by the bit. SEC Commissioner Steve Wallman estimates investors lose a minimum of $1.5 billion a year under the current system. Other experts put the figure in the $4 to $9 billion range. Let me just explain why small investors lose in the current environment. Stock exchange rules effectively limit the minimum spread between a stock's buy-and-sell price to one-eighth of a dollar, or 12.5 cents. This means that floor traders earn at least 12.5 cents from investors on every trade. Large investor institutions can get better deals on their trades by negotiating prices on block trades, but the average small investor has to pay the full fare. Penny stock pricing is also in step with the rest of the world. The U.S. is the only major market that trades in eighths; every other country uses decimal pricing. If we are going to maintain our role as the dominant player in world markets, the U.S. must keep pace and move to a system of decimal pricing. The bill we are introducing today is straightforward. It simply calls on the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate a rule, within 1 year after the enactment date of the legislation, to transition the stock and option markets away from fractionalized trading, bits trading, into dollars and cents pricing. I think the bill is an appropriate way for the Government to regulate financial markets. The Common Cents Stock Pricing Act does not micromanage the markets by dictating what the spread will be. The competition and the markets will determine the spread. The implementation of the SEC will allow competitive forces to decide what the spread will be. Let me close by saying I also noted the New York Stock Exchange announcement has been made that it will begin trading in sixteenths and eventually in decimals. I commend Senator Bryan and the sponsors of the companion House legislation, because their bill was cited as one of the reasons that the New York Stock Exchange was moving forward. I plan to review the language to ensure that their efforts clearly commit them to move to decimals, and that other exchanges will move to decimals. We need to do so in a reasonable timeframe and not wait until the forecasted computer crisis of the year 2000, when all of the computers go back to 1900. Big investors get good deals every day in negotiating stock trade prices. I think it is time for the average investor to get a good deal too. I encourage my colleagues to join me in making sure average investors are treated equitably. I thank my colleague from Nevada for his work on this issue, and I encourage and invite other Members of the Senate to join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. This editorial outlines succinctly the issues facing the National Guard in the debate surrounding its force structure and its very future. I have said before and reiterate now in the strongest of terms, that rather than bill payer, the Guard's role should be vibrant, viable, and adequately funded by the Department of Defense. National Guard units from every State are, today, involved in operations domestically in their State roles, and globally in their national role. Recently, units from my home State have been involved in missions in accordance with United States directives in Bosnia, Hungary, the Persian Gulf, and continue to serve our interests there. Units from States which have experienced natural disasters have traditionally been the ``Cavalry to the rescue.'' Even the U.S. Air Force was a recipient of the National Guard's professional response when and A-10 aircraft which had crashed in a remote area was initially discovered by a National Guard Team involved in the search. With the fiscal constraints being imposed on our military force while simultaneously increasing their roles and missions, we need the Guard now, more than ever. We need it to be trained, we need it to be well equipped, and we need it funded. Mr. President I call upon all Senators to join with me and Senator Ford along with the other members of the National Guard Caucus in a pledge to insure the robust nature of the National Guard, a service from which we ask so much. exhibit 1 [From the Washington Times, June 5, 1997] The Army vs. the National Guard (By Philip Gold) The fracas was inevitable. Several weeks ago, the National Guard's senior leadership concluded that they hadn't been given a fair chance to make their case before the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). They also concluded that the Army was systematically lying to them about the extent of the Guard reductions they wanted. So they requested a meeting with Defense Secretary William Cohen and were told to ``go through their chain of command.'' So they did . . . through their other chain of command. They went to the governors, who started writing the president, cc: the Pentagon. That got Mr. Cohen's attention and Mr. Cohen's attention--to adapt a venerable adage-- started flowing downhill. As of this writing, the secretary was ordered an Army/National Guard ``off-site'' at the Pentagon (great place for an ``off-site'') to work it out the first week in June. Also as of this writing, the Guard has received seven contradictory letters from Mr. Cohen, army secretary Togo West and senior army generals on structuring the meeting. About the only thing that hasn't been suggested is a United Nationals peacekeeping force in the room. Maybe not such a bad idea, given the acrimony on both sides. Whatever the ``off-site'' producers, it won't last long. The Army and the National Guard have been at it for centuries. The Guard has survived through a combination of domestic political savvy and foreign threats that seemed to require a large reserve. But does this venerable (some would say archaic) institution have any relevance to today's world and tomorrow's missions? The answer is that the Guard has a greater relevance today than during the Cold War--exactly the kind of relevance the Founding Fathers envisioned when they elected to place the preponderance of the nation's military strength in the state militias. Three facts vindicate the Guard. First, the U.S. simply cannot afford to maintain a large standing army. The force that did Desert Storm is long-gone. Nor can the United States afford to maintain large portions of the present force at high readiness. Reserves are far cheaper, especially in a world where mass armies are vanishing, and where those that remain grow ever more obsolete and vulnerable to other forms of American power. Second, the Guard and service reserves provide a de facto ``people's veto'' on major foreign involvements. If a president lacks the popular support to mobilize, he lacks the popular support to go to war--and has better not do it. Third, the Guard is a classic ``dual use'' system, available for foreign and domestic tasks. The Guard's experience in domestic emergencies offers a capability of major military significance. For example, the Guard, not the standing Army, should be given the nuclear/biological/ chemical weapons disaster relief mission. The standing Army doesn't need this capability in peacetime, so it should be in the part time forces. Given the likelihood of future terrorist actions on American soil, the Guard, with thousands of sites around the country and local expertise, offers a far superior means of deploying this capability for domestic emergencies. Further--and this is not easy to say--the standing Army, is an institution in profound disarray, trashed by scandal and, in many ways, looking for work that will generate hard cash and renewed respect. Almost inevitably, that points toward more domestic missions, especially counter-terrorism in its various aspects. One need not conjure up lurid thoughts of military coups or images of an alienated, embittered officer corps to understand that this is a bad idea. The less the standing military is involved in domestic affairs, the better. Not because they're evil people, but because their professional methods and loyalties may do more harm than good. The Founders knew it; the Army's domestic intelligence activities during Vietnam proved it. To the extent that military force may have to be used in this country in the decades ahead, it ought to be the Guard, with its complex set of responsibilities to and relationships with country, state, and community. But the political and cultural justifications for the Guard don't address one practical question: Can they be ready to do the job? Obviously, the answer depends on what the job is and what you mean by ready. Still, one thing is clear. There is no inherent reason the Guard cannot perform adequately across the range of its missions. The Marine Corps and the Air Force have demonstrated what can be accomplished when reserves are treated as assets, not rivals. New tools and methods, from tank and cockpit simulators to computerized command post exercises, offer training possibilities unimaginable even 10 years ago. High-priority units can be filled with people willing to accept high levels of contractual obligation, including extended active duty and early call-up. In short, the Guard's proficiency is limited only by resources and creativity--and by a standing Army that, for reasons of its own, prefers not to acknowledge it. Again, that standing Army isn't evil. It's simply fighting for its institutional life and soul. The current off-site, and the next one, and the one after that, will no doubt reflect the desperation of the struggle. But the Army should not be permitted to sacrifice the Guard to protect its own turf bowls. The current military situation, and the wisdom of centuries, should preclude it.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I join with my friend and cochair of the National Guard Caucus when I call the attention of my colleagues to an editorial found in today's issue of the Washington Times by Mr. Philip Gold, entitled ``The Army vs. The National Guard'' which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho. I commend him on the work he does in forestry, an area in which I have great interest. We have seen tremendous developments in this area. Agri- forestry and many related concepts are very important new ways in which we cannot only benefit our environment, but maintain profitable revenue-producing opportunities for landowners, and we think that updating the law is very important. I look forward to working with my colleague. I appreciate his leadership.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, in introducing legislation to ensure that the Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service does not usurp the power to tax--a power solely vested in Congress by the U.S. Constitution. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will ensure that the duly elected representatives of the people, who are accountable to the electorate for our actions, will have discretion to exercise the power to tax. This legislation is intended to curb the ability of the Treasury Department to bypass Congress by proposing a tax increase without the authorization or consent of Congress. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act builds on legislation passed unanimously by the Senate just over 1 year ago. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I authored the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act--better known as the Red Tape Reduction Act-- to ensure that small businesses are treated fairly in agency rulemaking and enforcement activities. Subtitle E of the Red Tape Reduction Act provides that a final rule issued by a Federal agency and deemed a major rule by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget cannot go into effect for at least 60 days. This delay is to provide Congress with a window during which it can review the rule and its impact, allowing time for Congress to consider whether a resolution of disapproval should be enacted to strike down the regulation. To become effective, the resolution must pass both the House and Senate and be signed into law by the President or enacted as the result of a veto override. The bill Senator Shelby and I introduce today amends this law to provide that any rule issued by the Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service that will result in a tax increase--any increase--will be deemed a major rule by OIRA and, consequently, not go into effect for at least 60 days. This procedural safeguard will ensure that the Department of the Treasury and its Internal Revenue Service cannot make an end-run around Congress, as it is currently attempting with the stealth tax it proposed on January 13. As my colleagues are aware, the IRS has issued a proposal that is tantamount to a tax increase on businesses structured as limited liability companies. The IRS proposal disqualifies a taxpayer from being considered as a limited partner if he or she ``participates in the partnership's trade or business for more than 500 hours during a taxable year'' or is involved in a ``service'' partnership, such as lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects, and health-care providers. The IRS alleges that its proposal merely interprets section 1402(a)(13) of the Tax Code, providing clarification, when in actuality it is a tax increase by regulatory fiat. Under the IRS proposal, disqualification as a limited partner will result in a tax increase on income from both capital investments as well as earnings of the partnership. The effect will be to add the self-employment tax--12.4 percent for social security and 2.9 percent for Medicare--to income from investments as well as earnings for limited partners that under current rules can exclude such income from the self-employment tax. Under the bill introduced today, the tax increase proposed by the Internal Revenue Service of the Treasury Department, if later issued as a final rule, could not go into effect for at least 60 days following its publication in the Federal Register. This window, which coincides with issuance of a report by the Comptroller General, would allow Congress the opportunity to review the rule and vote on a resolution to disapprove the tax increase before it is applied to a single taxpayer. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act strengthens the Red Tape Reduction Act and the vital procedural safeguards it provides to ensure that small businesses are not burdened unnecessarily by new Federal regulations. Congress enacted the 1966 provisions to strengthen the effectiveness of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a law which had been ignored too often by Government agencies, especially the Internal Revenue Service. Three of the top recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business sought reforms to the way Government regulations are developed and enforced, and the Red Tape Reduction Act passed the Senate without a single dissenting vote on its way to being signed into law last year. Despite the inclusion of language in the 1996 amendments that expressly addresses coverage of IRS interpretative rules, we find ourselves faced again with an IRS proposal that was not issued in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As 18 of my Senate colleagues and I advised Secretary Rubin in an April letter, the proposed IRS regulation on limited partner taxation is precisely the type of rule for which a regulatory flexibility analysis should be done. Although, on its face, the rulemaking seeks merely to define a limited partner or to eliminate uncertainty in determining net earnings from self-employment, the real effect of the rule would be to raise taxes by executive fiat and expand substantially the spirit and letter of the underlying statute. The rule also seeks to impose on small businesses a burdensome new recordkeeping and collection of information requirement that would affect millions of limited partners and members of limited liability companies. The Treasury's IRS proposes this stealth tax increase with the knowledge that Congress declined to adopt a similar tax increase in the Health Security Act proposed in 1994--a provision that the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in 1994 would have resulted in a tax increase of approximately $500 million per year. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act would remove any incentive for the Treasury Department to underestimate the cost imposed by an IRS proposed or final rule in an effort to skirt the administration's regulatory review process or its obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. By amending the definition of major rule under the Congressional Review Act, which is subtitle E of the Red Tape Reduction Act, we ensure that an IRS rule that imposes a tax increase will be a major rule, whether or not it has an estimated annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000. Our amendment does not change the trigger for a regulatory flexibility analysis, which still will be required if a proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We believe the heightened scrutiny of IRS regulations called for by this legislation will provide an additional incentive for the Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service to meet all of its procedural obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Red Tape Reduction Act. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Shelby and me in supporting this important legislation to ensure that the IRS not usurp the proper role of Congress--nor skirt its obligations to identify the impact of its proposed and final rules. Rules such as that currently proposed by the IRS should be carefully scrutinized by Congress. When the Department of the Treasury issues a final IRS rule that increases taxes, Congress should have the ability to exercise its discretion to enact a resolution of disapproval before the rule is applicable to a single taxpayer. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act Senator Shelby and I introduce today provides that opportunity.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Oversight of SBA's Microloan Program.'' The hearing will be held on June 12, 1997, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an exceptional small business person and fellow Missourian: Marilyn Moore. Marilyn recently received the Small Business Administration's [SBA] 1997 Small Business Person of the Year Award for Missouri. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, it is exciting for me to congratulate such a respected and dedicated leader from my home State of Missouri. The SBA honors one small business person from each State at national ceremonies during Small Business Week, June 1-7. These small business owners are acknowledged for their achievements and contributions to the Nation's economy. SBA uses several criteria to select the small business person from each State, these include; staying power, growth in number of employees, increase in sales and/or unit volume, current and past financial reports, innovative product or service, response to adversity, and evidence of contributions by the nominee to aid the community. The small businesses are nominated by trade associations, chambers of commerce, and business organizations. The SBA then selects from each State the business it feels has best met all of the criteria. Missouri's representative, Marilyn Moore, is president of TeamRehab, Inc., located in Clayton, MO. Her company is dedicated to providing therapy services to physically challenged individuals. TeamRehab uses physical, occupational, and speech therapy to help these individuals, and its services extend to more than 35 nursing home facilities, outpatient clinics, and home health agencies in the greater St. Louis metropolitan area and southern Illinois. TeamRehab was established in 1982 with two employees, and since that time has grown to more than 135 employees. TeamRehab is committed to quality care as demonstrated by its mission to enhance the quality of life and dignity of our clients. Marilyn's work in the St. Louis community is exemplary, and not only have TeamRehab's clients benefited from her work, but so have her employees. Marilyn is known for her fairness and commitment to a team effort. Her commitment to this team has proven successful as she continues to help her clients strive to remain as self-sufficient as possible. Abraham Lincoln stated ``Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other one thing.'' TeamRehab's success and accomplishments are testimony to her resolve. She is a role model for all small business owners and I congratulate Marilyn Moore for this well-deserved honor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr President, during the past few weeks we have all heard disturbing news coming forth from the territories under Palestinian Authority control. The idea that Chairman Arafat even hinted of his support much less, his embrace of a policy to sanction the assassination of his own people for selling real estate to Jews is abhorrent and beyond the pale. That individuals were actually murdered because of this policy should serve as a wake-up notice to those who attempt to push the principals into agreements before they are ready. We also have been appraised of the situation facing Mr. Daoud Kuttab, a United States citizen, who during the exercise of his right under Palestinian Authority rule, was arrested for complaining about the jamming of his radio station which was broadcasting the legislative council session of the Palestinian Authority. This activity, much like C-SPAN, I believe, is a core freedom of a democratic government. An American citizen, holding a Jerusalem identity card, as Mr. Kuttab does, is exempted from jurisdiction of the PA. The road to democracy is not an easy one. It is filled with what may seem to be impossible impasses, but they are not. The right of a free press to operate and the right of free speech and the right of an individual to dispose of his own property in a free and legitimate manner are core to a democratic state. I call upon the President of the United States to reiterate to Mr. Arafat, our Nation's commitment to those freedoms and our inability to accept anything less than a full compliance with those freedoms or face the withdrawal of our continued support. I also call upon the President to voice through appropriate channels, our condemnation of the policies and resulting actions which we have seen occur in the recent weeks in the areas under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction. While I am firmly committed to the principle that the United States remain a neutral and honest mediator, I must speak up when those very principles for which we stand and for which the parties claim to be attempting to achieve are ignored and violated flagrantly. I hope that President Clinton will be forthcoming with some initiative to address these and other issues such as the revocation of the clauses calling for the destruction of Israel within its charter, and that we hold the Palestinian Authority responsible for implementing democratic ideals which will be critical to a strong and vibrant Palestinian Government.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is easy to take for granted the freedom we have here, in the United States, and too often we lose sight of that and resort to complaining about one thing or another, but the fact is, we live in the most blessed Nation in the world, we enjoy the greatest freedom of choice, we enjoy so much, but those freedoms were purchased and protected at a very high cost. As we prepare to celebrate Memorial Day this year, I call upon my fellow Missourians and all Americans to pause and remember the sacrifice of our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and air men and women stationed around the world today protecting us with a blanket weaved with the battle flags from places with names like Lexington, Concord, Gettysburg, Belleau Wood, Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Iwo Jima, Saint Lo, Bastogne, Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sahn, Beirut, Wadi Al-Batin, and Medina Ridge in Iraq and most recently, those taken from us in Somalia and by the brutal and cowardly bombing of Kobart Towers. We must remember the sacrifices of those who came before us, and those whom we most recently lost--the fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters who gave their most precious of gifts, their lives, that we might continue to enjoy the freedoms we hold so dear. We must remember them so we will focus our determination, as a nation, that we never, ever, waste a life because it is too hard or too expensive to do the right thing. We must take this opportunity to re- dedicate ourselves to make that effort and to ensure that our military personnel are the best trained, equipped and prepared in the world, because we ask so much of them.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this past April 28, 1997, the Missouri and New Jersey Exercise Tiger Associations, in conjunction with Veterans of Foreign War Post 280 of Columbia, MO recognized a group of heroic men. Until recently, few people knew of the secret operation code named ``Exercise Tiger,'' because the details of the tragedy were not disclosed until after the Battle of Normandy and even then proper recognition was not given. In December 1943, several training operations began in order to prepare for the Battle of Normandy. These operations, organized by the United States Army, were undertaken off a beach in Devon, England. It was known by all participating parties the dangers they could encounter. At the time, several German ships patrolled this stretch of water looking for American and English ships. One such evening during practice operations, with only one English ship to guard, there was a surprise attack on the American ships. On April 28, 1944, the German Navy ``E'' boats, patrolling the English Channel, attacked the Eight American tank landing ships who became aware of the attack only after the U.S.S. LST-507 was struck by an incoming torpedo. Next, the U.S.S. LST-531 was attacked and sunk in a matter of minutes. The convoy returned fire and the last ship to be torpedoed, the U.S.S. LST-289, valiantly struggled to reach Dartmouth Harbor. Even after this frightening turn of events, to its credit, Exercise Tiger continued operations and remained on schedule. Normandy was attacked as planned and the D-day invasion was a success. Information of the fatalities was not released until after the D-day invasion due to the secrecy of the mission and in order to keep the Germans from becoming aware of the impending strike. It took many years, and the passage of the Freedom of Information Act, to learn of the significance of these missions. I feel now is the time for these courageous men to get the long-awaited recognition they deserve. Four thousand men participated in this operation and of those, nearly a quarter were killed in action. Records from the Department of Defense estimate 749 men died consisting of 551 Army and 198 Navy casualties. Of Tiger's death toll, 201 men were from the 3206th quartermaster company in my home State of Missouri. This Memorial Day weekend commemorates the heroic actions of the men who participated in Exercise Tiger and particularly the ones who lost their lives in this crucial preparation for the D-day invasion. The Exercise Tiger Associations and VFW Post 280 have the great privilege of being first in the State of Missouri to recognize these brave individuals. In the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, ``Old soldiers never die, they just fade away * * * '' I hope that through this long delayed acknowledgment of these fine soldiers, their memory will not fade away, but will remain in our minds and hearts for years to come. These men were an example for all American soldiers to live by and a credit to the United States as it remains the free and great country that it is today.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss a sense of the Senate amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Murray, Gorton, Ashcroft, and Hutchison, which simply states that ``careful study must be made of the impact of Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, reform proposals on children's health and on vital sources of care including children's hospitals.'' It is our strong belief, and the sense of the Senate indicates, that any restrictions on DSH funding should not harm Medicaid coverage of children and pregnant women. While I recognize and strongly support the need to control Federal spending, I am deeply concerned about the impact of billions of dollars in new Medicaid DSH spending reductions. I know that my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, can point to some States in which there may be disagreements about how the DSH payments were used. I don't say that there has been the same kind of usage of Medicaid disproportionate share payments in other States as there has been in Missouri. But I do know from our standpoint that since 1981 the Medicaid DSH Program has enabled hospitals who provide care to a disproportionate share of low-income people to serve as a safety net for those with little or no access to health care. In Missouri, the DSH Program has been a key variable in expanding health care coverage to thousands of pregnant women and children. More than a quarter of a million, more than 250,000, people have been served as a result of the DSH payments. These payments have enabled my home State to successfully reduce the number of uninsured Missourians by enrolling them. It has improved access to health care services for those who remain uninsured. In addition to using DSH funds appropriately, our State of Missouri also uses them efficiently. For Federal Medicaid benefits plus DSH payments per beneficiary: The national average is $2,454; in Missouri the figure is $2,288 versus the national average of $2,454. Overall Medicaid spending in Missouri is also below the national average. A recent report by the Kaiser Commission illustrates the efficiency of the Missouri program. Missouri spends $3,190 annually per Medicaid enrollee compared to the national average of $3,290. Yet, reductions in the Federal DSH payments would be devastating for Missouri, a State which has used its Federal DSH dollars in an efficient, effective, and appropriate manner. Anywhere from 56,000 to 348,000 Medicaid beneficiaries in Missouri could lose health coverage if the DSH reforms that have been publicized are enacted, and there is no compensating source of revenue funding for them. President Clinton's proposal specifically would eliminate Medicaid benefits for 162,000 Missourians. This is simply the wrong approach. Reducing DSH payments does not focus on cutting the fat in the Medicaid Program. Instead, it cuts crucial health care benefits for low-income pregnant women and children whose lives depend upon this critical coverage. Yes, Congress should increase State Medicaid flexibility, as this budget resolution calls for. But we should not target DSH funding-- funding which has allowed many States to expand health care coverage to our Nation's most vulnerable population. Again, I reiterate that this resolution fully recognizes and supports the need for a balanced Federal budget. At the same time it guarantees that when working out the details of achieving Medicaid savings, Congress will have sufficient information to ensure that reforms in disproportionate share payments will not threaten low-income pregnant women and children, as well as providers of health care such as children's hospitals, public hospitals, and other safety net hospitals. I look forward to working with the Finance Committee in the coming months regarding this issue, and I am confident that we can structure a plan that takes into consideration the health of our most vulnerable citizens. I ask unanimous consent that several statements in support of this amendment be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that statements by Lawrence McAndrews, president and CEO of the National Association of Children's Hospitals; Governor Met Carnahan of the State of Missouri; Douglas Reis, president of Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital in St. Louis; Ted Frey, president of St. Louis Children's Hospital; and Randall O'Donnell, president and CEO of Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in addition, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hutchison of Texas be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BOND. I am ready.

Mr. BOND. That was my understanding.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are a couple of people who want to speak. I think 20 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Disproportionate share of hospital payments, sense of the Senate.

Mr. BOND. We would like very much to have a vote on it. If they were stacked, that would be acceptable. But this one is a very serious matter to the States of Missouri, Texas, and Washington.