Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I would be agreeable with that.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I know that this is an extremely difficult time. The analogy of loading frogs in a wheelbarrow is very apt when dealing with scheduling budget proceedings. The chairman has done an outstanding job. Amendment No. 324

Mr. BOND. I call up amendment No. 324.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the modification be included.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I had several other cosponsors who wished to speak. I would like to reserve 5 minutes for them to speak and yield back the remainder of the time. In the meantime, until they come to the floor, I would be happy to ask unanimous consent to have the amendment temporarily set aside so I can confer with the chairman and give an opportunity for the cosponsors to speak.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I must start by saying that this is not an ISTEA amendment, this is not a formula amendment, this is not a 4.3 cents amendment, this is not an Amtrak amendment, this is not an off- budget amendment. This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment concerning reestablishing the linkage between the revenues deposited in the highway trust fund and transportation spending. Mr. President, if I can take just a moment I want to read this short sense-of-the-Senate. The Senate finds that-- One, there is no direct linkage between the fuel taxes deposited in the Highway Trust Fund and the transportation spending from the Highway Trust Fund. Two, the Federal budget process has served this linkage by dividing revenues and spending into separate budget categories with fuel taxes deposited in the Highway Trust Fund as revenues; and most spending from the Highway Trust Fund in the discretionary category. Three, each budget category referred to has its own rules and procedures. Four, under budget rules in effect prior to the date of adoption of this resolution, an increase in fuel taxes permits increased spending to be included in the budget, but not for increased Highway Trust Fund spending. It is the sense of the Senate that in this session of Congress, Congress should, within a unified budget, change the Federal budget process to establish a linkage between the fuel taxes deposited in the Highway Trust Fund, including any fuel tax increases that may be enacted into law after the date of adoption of this resolution, and the spending from the Highway Trust Fund. Changes to the budgetary process of the Highway Trust Fund should not result in total program levels for highways or mass transit that is inconsistent with those allowed for under the resolution. This sense-of-the-Senate is self explanatory, but let me provide some background. Mr. President, back in 1956 the Federal highway trust fund was established as a way to finance the Federal-Aid Highway Program. This was a dedicated trust fund supported by direct user fees/taxes. It was called a trust fund because, once the money went in, we were suppose to be able to trust that money would come back out for use on our roads, highways, and bridges. However, the 1990 Budget Act eliminated the linkage between the revenues raised by the user taxes and the spending from the transportation trust fund. We know that we promised ourselves and our constituents that the highway user taxes deposited into the highway trust fund would be used for highways, but we now have an illogical process that does not always result in the desired outcome. With the process currently in place balances are accumulating in the trust fund and not being spent on the vitally important transportation needs we have. To correct the problem, we must reform our budget process. Mr. President, status quo is not sustainable. Senator Chafee and I have introduced S. 404, the Highway Trust Fund Integrity Act. I know that not everyone agrees with the revenue constrained fund approach taken in that bill. However, I think everyone can agree with this sense-of-the Senate that we must work something out. We must establish the linkage to ensure that the taxes deposited into the highway trust fund are spend on transportation. I share the concerns that many of my colleagues have--on both sides of the aisle--that we need to find ways to spend more on transportation. This budget resolution moves us closer to that goal. I want to thank the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member for including in the budget resolution the assumption of spending all of the estimated highway trust fund tax receipts that comes in each year for highways. All of us share the same belief that transportation funding is critical to our individual States and the entire country. Transportation links our communities, towns, and cities with markets. It links our constituents with their schools, hospitals, churches, and jobs. An effective transportation system will help move this country into the 21st century. Mr. President, it is my hope that as this Congress moves forward on one of the most important and probably most difficult pieces of legislation--ISTEA--we also continue our efforts to ensure that ``trust'' is in the highway trust fund. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we do.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment can be accepted. Basically it points out the fact that in the State of Missouri and other States, the disproportionate share of the hospital Medicaid payments is used to provide health care to the most vulnerable population, a quarter of a million pregnant women and children and, as we look at it, when the Finance Committee addresses this DSH program, they need to keep in mind that no harm must befall these very vulnerable people. We ask they consider use of the funds in the legislation, other legislation that is being adopted. We urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the good advice from my very wise leader on the Budget Committee.

Mr. BOND. I yield 1 minute.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have reserved time. I see one of the cosponsors of the amendment on the floor. When she finishes, I would be willing to have this set aside to accommodate the Senator from Pennsylvania. May I ask the Senator from Washington how much time she requires?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I send two amendments to the desk, one a sense-of-the- Senate resolution regarding protection of children's health on behalf of myself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Ashcroft, reflecting on the disproportionate share of hospital payments; a second sense-of-the- Senate resolution on behalf of myself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Reid, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Graham, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Sessions, asking that the Senate reestablish linkage between the revenues deposited into the highway trust fund and transportation spending from the trust fund. I send these to the desk and ask they be filed and I ask that they may be set side.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues. Amendment Nos. 324 and 325

Mr. BOND. I ask they be set aside.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I have two amendments that I would like to file and have set aside. Both of them are sense-of-the-Senate amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside so that I may introduce and set aside two amendments.

Mr. BOND. May I ask the status of the unanimous consent request that began this whole process?

Mr. BOND. For the purpose of presenting two amendments which I would then ask be set aside simply to comply with the filing requirement.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Small Business Perspectives on Mandates, Paperwork, and Regulation.'' The hearing will be held on June 4, 1997, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Suey Howe at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. We are discussing the partial-birth abortion ban, a horrible procedure likened to infanticide--late-term abortions as our distinguished and knowledgeable colleague from Tennessee has described to us. Normally, when we come to the floor, we talk about subjects about which we have read in books or what we have learned from briefings, but we have just heard the Senator from Tennessee, who is an accomplished and distinguished surgeon, describe as best one can describe why this is an objectionable, totally unnecessary and unwarranted procedure--a fully developed fetus, viable, brought down the birth canal feet first, and then delivered all but the head. Then the abortionist takes a pair of scissors, inserts them in the back of the baby's neck, collapses the brain and the baby is delivered dead. The overwhelming majority of people in America and Missourians will vote against this. Last night, the Missouri General Assembly passed a ban by veto majority. When we debated the issue last summer and fall, I received over 50,000 letters and post cards supporting the ban. No other issue has generated that amount of mail. The issue would be settled if President Clinton had not vetoed the bill last year against the wishes of an overwhelming number of Americans. A word about the amendments now before us. These amendments were written by opponents of the ban, supporters of the procedure. They contain loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. The Feinstein amendment contains a loophole big enough to drive a train through. The amendments we are considering will do nothing to stop partial-birth abortions or other forms of late-term abortions, as Senator Frist has so eloquently noted. I hope the Senate will reject the Feinstein and Daschle amendments and pass the partial-birth abortion ban today. I yield the floor. I thank my colleague for the time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to call on the Small Business Administration (SBA) to fulfill its role as advocate for the hardworking men and women who have made small business the backbone of our nation's economy. As Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have heard countless hours of testimony from small businesses who look to the SBA for information assistance and advocacy. The SBA's role as an effective voice for small business within the executive branch recently came under fire during the final days of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) review of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation to expand the number of industries covered by the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements. The proposed inclusion of two industries, comprised predominantly of small businesses, was brought into question by the SBA and numerous Members of Congress. The affected small businesses had data to support their case for exclusion, and some of the data on which EPA had based its proposed rule was inaccurate. Despite the strength of their case, these small businesses found their views unwelcome at EPA. They appropriately turned to SBA to articulate the small business views to the administration. As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, I was dismayed when effective advocacy by the SBA on behalf of small business was criticized as improper. In a letter sent to SBA Administrator Aida Alvarez, efforts to communicate the small business perspective were characterized as ``elements within [SBA] . . . actively working to undermine [the TRI] initiative.'' The important working relationship between SBA and its small business constituency was alleged to be an improper use of ``taxpayer funds to conduct lobbying efforts on behalf of private lobbyists. . . .'' In response to this criticism, the SBA temporarily removed staff from working on TRI and asked the Inspector General to review the matter. The Ranking Minority member on the Committee, Senator Kerry, joined me in sending a letter to the Administrator of the SBA, expressing our support for the Office of Advocacy and the SBA's role on behalf of small businesses. I ask that the text of our letter and the response I recently received from James F. Hoobler, Inspector General for the SBA, be printed in the Record. I am delighted to say that the role of the SBA, the Office of Advocacy and the individual staff member, whose dedication to the cause of small business was unfairly criticized, were found to have ``acted properly and ethically.'' The Inspector General added, ``SBA is statutorily mandated to support and speak up for the interests of small business. . . . To do otherwise would be contrary to its mandated responsibilities.'' The SBA worked closely with the affected small businesses in an effort to ensure that their side of the story was heard. The SBA's voice apparently caught the ear of OMB, which prolonged its consideration of the rule beyond the usual 90-day review period. The debate that ensured on the merits of the rule and the basis for regulating the small employers is exactly the type of policy discussion the SBA should facilitate. In fact, during her confirmation hearing before the Committee on Small Business, SBA Administrator Aida Alvarez announced her commitment to being an effective voice for small business within the Administration. Ms. Alvarez pledged to carry the views and concerns of small business to the agencies involved and to be an advocate for small business at the Cabinet table and in her interactions with the President. I sincerely hope Administrator Alvarez will keep to her word. On the TRI rule, however, the Clinton administration did not. No accommodation, such as a threshold for reporting to cover only those sectors of the industry that arguably merited coverage, was made for the small businesses in the affected industries. Mr. President, it is well known that federal regulations have historically imposed a disproportionate burden on small business. Last year, we enacted the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act--better known to small businesses as the Red Tape Reduction Act--to provide tools to ensure that small businesses get a fair shake in agency rulemakings and enforcement actions. As the author of the Red Tape Reduction Act and Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I am committed to ensuring that small businesses have the opportunity to use the tools provided by Congress, including access to and effective representation by SBA. The SBA and its Office of Advocacy has an important advocacy role to play on behalf of the hardworking men and women whose entrepreneurial spirit makes the small business sector so vibrant. In addition to providing information and assistance, the SBA must rededicate itself to being an effective voice for small business. The material follows: U.S. Senate, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC, April 16, 1997. Hon. Aida Alvarez, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC. Dear Administrator Alvarez: Questions have been raised regarding the activities of the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. As the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business, we would agree that any credible allegations of improper conduct should be looked into. We are equally convinced, however, that being a determined advocate for the concerns of small businesses is not improper conduct by the Chief Counsel of Advocacy or his employees. The statutory role of SBA as the voice for small business within the executive branch, a role that has been enhanced after last year's passage of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, must not be compromised. As the Administrator of SBA, you are keenly aware that the Office of Advocacy is expected to work with and on behalf of small business and their representatives as an essential part of its statutory mission. The effectiveness of SBA on behalf of our nation's small entrepreneurs and employers depends on communication with individual small businesses, their trade associations and other representatives. We trust that as SBA Administrator you will reject any attempt to chill proactive advocacy for small businesses by the Chief Counsel and others at SBA. To do otherwise would send a clear and alarming signal to small businesses, and would call into question the ability of SBA to carry out the critical responsibilities given to it under SBREFA and other laws. We hope you share our commitment to ensuring that the unique concerns and interests of small businesses are given appropriate consideration by executive branch agencies. We look forward to learning what efforts you will take to support the important role historically played by the SBA and its Office of Advocacy as an effective voice for small business. Sincerely, Christopher S. Bond, Chairman.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to those law enforcement officers who have given their lives while protecting the lives of so many others. When I was the Governor, with command of the Highway Patrol of the State of Missouri, the hardest part of my job was, without question, dealing with the loss of a law enforcement officer. Not only did these men and women faithfully serve their communities in life, they imparted the greatest sacrifice of all: they gave their lives. In 1996, 117 law enforcement officers lost their lives in the line of duty, and 13,692 officers in total have been killed while protecting their communities. Every year 1 in 9 officers is attacked, 1 in 25 is injured, and 1 in 4,000 is killed while trying to preserve the peace and safety of the United States. My sincerest condolences go out to the families of these men and women who have died in the line of duty. I can only be thankful that organizations such as Missouri Concerns of Police Survivors [MOCOP] exist to help in the aftermath of such tragedy. Every year, this nonprofit support group honors those men and women who have laid down their lives for Missouri. According to MOCOP any local, State, or Federal peace officer serving Missouri as an elected, appointed, deputized, temporary, or permanent officer who was killed or died of wounds or injuries received while performing an act to enforce the law and/or keep the peace from 1820 to the present is eligible to have his or her name inscribed on a monument in Jefferson City, MO. Two men whose names will be added to the monument this year, Detective Willie Neal, Jr.--January 29, 1997--and Deputy Sheriff Christopher Lee Castetter--November 28, 1996--sacrificed their lives within the past 6 months. It saddens me to hear of these officers in the prime of their lives killed needlessly as they attempted to do their jobs. I can only hope that it is of some comfort to their families that they will forever be remembered as heroes by being etched into this historic monument. The other six being honored this year include: B.H. Williamson, May 26, 1867; Horace E. Petts, August 3, 1868; Jasper Mitchell, August 3, 1868; George C. Walters, March 3, 1873; J. Milton Phillips, September 20, 1873; Ed Daniels, March 17, 1874; Anderson Coffman, February 14, 1878; and Hardin Harvey Vickery, March 8, 1879. As Abraham Lincoln once said, ``It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us * * * that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion; that we were highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain.'' It is important that we remember why these men and women gave their lives and that we work to ensure that their sacrifice was not in vain. Law enforcement men and women risk their lives every day in order to protect ours. Each day we walk down the street safely or get a good night's sleep without fear of robbery or assault, we should thank those officers who protect us every day and remember the ones who lost their lives in the process.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, during the Memorial Day weekend, Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 280 in Columbia, MO will recognize 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,'' 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, made it safely to shore. Even after this frightening turn of events, to it's 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 partook in this operation and of those, nearly a quarter was reported missing or dead. Records from the Department of Defense estimate 749 men died in addition to 441 Army and 198 Navy casualties. Approximately 200 of these men were from 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. VFW Post 280 has the great privilege of being the 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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.