Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues for their consideration and will keep them apprised of the disposition of this important issue.

Mr. BOND. Will my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, agree that this situation warrants the full attention of the Immigration and Naturalization Service?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing on ``Small Business Investment Company Reform Legislation'' on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, at 10:00 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Keeping Up With the Trend: Issues Affecting Home-Based Business Owners'' on Tuesday, April 23, 1996, at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Noreen Bracken, 224-5175. committee on energy and natural resources subcommittee on parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we are working on many important matters, including wrapping up of the appropriations conference, on which we, unfortunately, are not able to close all sections today, we also are, I hope, going to resolve the issue of whether the Whitewater Committee is extended. There have been a lot of questions asked. What has Whitewater found? Why are we here? I have a very lengthy analysis which I will make available, because many people who have not had the pleasure and the privilege--as the occupant of the Chair and I have had--of sitting through the lengthy hearings may not appreciate what we have learned and how many more questions there are. Mr. President, the investigation of the matters involving financial land transactions of the President, the First Lady and top officials in Arkansas, and subsequent actions by these officials, or their subordinates to interfere with, obtain information about, or delay investigations into those matters has come to be known generally as Whitewater. From the beginning of this episode, we saw efforts to mislead Congress or to deny information. My first encounter with this matter came over 2 years ago when, before the Banking Committee, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury misled us in answering my question as to when the White House was first advised of the significant nonpublic information that a criminal referral was pending in the investigation of the financial irregularities in Arkansas. He said they were not. They were. The most recent example was the unexplained, mysterious reappearance of the critically important billing records of Mrs. Clinton's law firm, which, although subpoenaed more than 2 years ago by the independent counsel and the Resolution Trust Corporation and this past fall by the Whitewater Committee, only found their way to all of us in January 1996. Investigation of records further demonstrated that Mrs. Clinton--and other representatives of the White House--had not spoken truthfully about her involvement with the failed savings and loan in Arkansas and, in specific, her transactions involving one of the most egregious and costly land transactions utilized to loot the savings and loan known as Madison Guaranty in Little Rock, AR. Throughout this process, many of us have had questions about why the administration has been so deeply involved in what appears to be improper efforts to cover up and interfere with the Arkansas activities investigation. Had the role of the President and the First Lady been limited solely to an investment in a failed land development--as the White House initially contended, and was contended in the campaign of 1992--it would not have made any sense for so many officials to risk charges of perjury or obstruction of justice. The cost to many of these individuals for activities involved in this coverup have been significant, as colleagues on the other side of the aisle have noted. The cost of legal counsel has been burdensome for many. More important, however, is the fact that the broad Washington misconduct has led to resignations of the White House counsel, a Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, a general counsel of the Treasury, as well as a rapid turnover in the post of White House counsel ever since. Indeed, the nature and extent of the activities directed by the White House toward the investigations in Arkansas made it incumbent upon us to determine what happened in Arkansas that was potentially so dangerous that they warranted these extensive coverups. Although the committee is still reviewing the delayed production documents and has not been able to interview central figures in Arkansas, it appears that the Whitewater matter involves substantial abuse and misuse of gubernatorial power in Arkansas, the use of official positions for private gain, possible violations of Federal tax laws in the reporting of deductions, and active legal representation by the First Lady of individuals and institutions involved in fraudulent activity resulting in the significant losses to the savings and loan insurance fund and the rest of the taxpayers. So far in Arkansas, there have been nine guilty pleas. These include guilty pleas by the real estate appraiser who appraised a fraudulent land value on land in one of the scam transactions; a judge who defrauded a Federal agency; two bankers who attempted to bribe a Federal loan agent; three Madison employees who made false statements to defraud a Federal agency; and a friend of the Clinton's who had concealed cash payments to the 1990 Clinton campaign. In addition, as most of us know, there is, right now, a criminal trial underway against the Clintons' major fundraiser, who was also a former business partner and the President's key political ally, who is now the Governor of Arkansas. Indictments are pending against the Clintons' friend and former business partner and criminal indictments against two Clinton supporters for concealing cash payments to his 1990 campaigns. Mr. President, we have learned this. We have learned this in the course of hearings. I set this out today not because the investigation or the hearings have concluded. We have not answered all of the questions that need to be answered. But some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this body--and on the Whitewater Committee-- have said we have not learned anything, that there is not anything there. Well, Mr. President, there has been a tremendous amount of smoke with the recent revelations of the documents that just mysteriously have started appearing in the last several months. We have found out why they all hang together. The documents--the billing records of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm--would have told us, would have enabled us to phrase our questions and come to an earlier resolution. These were taken out of the White House. Webster Hubbell had them and apparently gave them to Vince Foster, and then somehow, mysteriously, they just appeared in the book room, in the reading room of the White House in January. They were under subpoena. They were under subpoena. And, lo and behold, they just turned up. The assistant in the White House who picked them up initially realized in January that these were records that had been subpoenaed, and she brought them forward. Notes of a never disclosed, heretofore secret meeting in the White House between White House lawyers and Government officials and the defense attorneys representing the Clinton's personally--notes from this meeting which told about so many interesting activities--all of a sudden started appearing from everybody's files 2 weeks before the hearings were to conclude. Those memos, those notes, suggest possibly that the meeting engaged in efforts to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses. The billing records themselves show that Mrs. Clinton and others did not speak truthfully about her role in Madison Guaranty representation and in her work on Castle Grande. We have been unable in the Whitewater Committee to interview central witnesses to these transactions because they have been subpoenaed to testify in the trial being conducted by the special prosecutor in Little Rock. I hope that we are near to an agreement to extend the life of this committee so that we can complete the analysis of all the documents that have just turned up, so that we can determine whether the author, Mr. James Stewart, of ``Blood Sport,'' may have had access to relevant documents that we have been denied, so that we will be able to question people who may be able to give us direct testimony on many of the things that we have now seen by strong circumstantial evidence, though it is only circumstantial evidence. I believe there is clear evidence of wrongdoing. There is clear evidence that we have not been told the truth in political campaigns, in press statements by the White House, and in sworn testimony to us, to the committee, and to others. Mr. President, I had a draft report prepared that represents my views of what we have learned as of the current time on the Whitewater Committee, and also listing the questions that must be answered by the committee before we can close this; questions like: Who placed Mrs. Clinton's subpoenaed records in the White House book room? Where were they for the years that they were under subpoena but not brought forward? Was there obstruction of justice by the White House officials who met and as a result of that meeting people visited a key witness in Arkansas? Did the White House improperly receive confidential information about the SBA investigation into certain wrongdoings in Little Rock? Was there witness tampering by the White House response team? Did some of the people who have in the past testified that they lied to their diary come up with other falsehoods that are totally inconsistent with written records? These are questions that must be answered. Mr. President, I send this report forward, and I ask if anyone would like to receive a copy of this report, please contact my office. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on March 19th by a vote of 100 to 0, the Senate passed S. 942, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, legislation to implement some of the most important recommendations of the White House Conference on Small Business. Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 3136, the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 which incorporates the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act as amended in the House by the Hyde amendment. The Senate has now approved H.R. 3136 by unanimous consent and Senator Bumpers and I would like to take this opportunity to further explain the purpose of the act. On March 15, we gave a detailed explanation of the managers amendment adopted by the Senate prior to passage of S. 942. The amendment offered by Representative Hyde is substantially similar to S. 942 as passed by the Senate. Three changes are worth noting. First, the amendments to the Equal Access to Justice Act were revised by the House to take into account some of the concerns raised by the administration in the Statement of Administration Position. The new language embodies the intent of our managers amendment but clarifies that attorneys fees would be awarded when there is an unreasonably large difference between an agency demand and the final outcome of the case. Second, the House dropped the second phase of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panels. Thus the panels now only apply at the proposal stage of EPA and OSHA rulemakings. Finally the time period for the congressional review of regulations, adopted as part of the Nickles-Reid amendment, was extended from 45 to 60 days. We expect the authors of the Nickles-Reid amendment will have a detailed explanation of the Congressional Review Subtitle. In order to provide additional guidance for agencies to comply with the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, I ask to have printed in the Record a section-by-section analysis of the subtitles A through D of act as modified by the Hyde amendment. Since there will not be a conference report on the act, this statement and a companion statement in the House should serve as the best legislative history of the legislation as finally enacted.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing chaired by Senator Warner on Small Business and Employee Involvement. The TEAM Act Proposal on Thursday, April 18, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Melissa Bailey at 224-5175. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed as if in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 3521 and 3522 Withdrawn

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. No, it was not.

Mr. BOND. Yes, they will. I believe that the ranking member of the Subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland, also supports this view.

Mr. BOND. I believe the State of North Dakota would be eligible to receive CDBG funding under title II of this bill, provided the administration concurs with the congressional designation of the appropriation as an emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and submission of an official budget request to this end.

Mr. BOND. Yes, the Senator is correct. If local programs currently being funded through Federal agencies are doing a good job, then I would encourage them to either work with national groups to apply for funding or work with the commission in the State in which they reside. These local programs have the experience and expertise to compete very well for AmeriCorps grants. I expect the Corporation for National and Community Service and the State commissions to take this experience into consideration when reviewing new grantees. The bottom line is that we do not want Federal agencies capitalizing on funds that should be going directly to nonprofit organizations.

Mr. BOND. It is my understanding that CDBG funds have been used for acquisition and relocation in the past and would be an allowable use of these funds under HUD guidelines for the CDBG program.

Mr. BOND. I would be happy to yield for a question from the junior Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the Senators from South Dakota to earmark $13 million from the CDBG program to enable the city of Watertown to replace a failed sewage treatment plant without burdening that city with unfair additional debt and devastating economic consequences. This grant will be matched by the city. The city of Watertown participated in an innovative wastewater treatment project which failed. When that city undertook this demonstration, it was with the encouragement of EPA, and with the understanding that if the plant were to fail, that Federal grant funds would be provided to enable the city to meet its secondary treatment responsibilities. Unfortunately, the plant has failed, and the authorization to make such grants by EPA also has expired, since Congress has directed that henceforth such assistance only be available in the form of formula allocated capitalization of state revolving loan funds. It has been argued that we should over-ride this statutory direction and make specific grants to certain communities. Throughout the consideration of this bill I have opposed such earmarks from the EPA state revolving loan account, and I remain opposed to the diversion of EPA funding for such site specific concerns. Mr. President, despite my concern over such use of EPA revolving loan funds, I reluctantly have accepted the argument of the Senators from South Dakota that this city would be unfairly burdened with a massive additional cost of financing a replacement wastewater treatment plant, a cost that they were assured previously they would not have to pay. More importantly, this additional cost, necessitated by the failure of a technology recommended by the Federal Government, will have devastating economic consequences for this city. As such, amelioration of these consequences is one which the HUD CDBG program was intended to address: that of creating or preserving employment in a community. While I also am generally opposed to such earmarks in the CDBG program, this is a program which has such purposes under its current authorization, and as such, is a more appropriate means of addressing the legitimate concerns of this community. the committee for minority veterans and the committee on women veterans

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. That is correct.

Mr. BOND. I agree. Again, our purpose is to ensure that the concerns of small business and other small entities be fully and carefully considered by rulemaking agencies. If those concerns lead to a significant change in the regulatory proposal, the process should be reopened to allow all interested parties to comment on the revised proposal.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues for the overwhelming endorsement of this small business regulatory relief measure. Particularly, I want to thank my ranking member, Senator Bumpers. He and all the members of the committee worked very hard on this bill. The purpose of the bill is to provide targeted relief to small businesses, small entities such as townships, counties, and cities, and not-for-profit organizations who feel overwhelmed by Government regulation. This is a measure providing judicial enforcement and therefore, putting teeth into the requirements of the measure that Congress adopted in 1980 saying that regulations affecting small business and small entities must have an analysis to make sure that flexibility for these small entities was included and was a No. 3 priority for small business. At the White House Conference on Small Business held in Washington last year, 2,000 delegates from all across the country said this was the third most important item on their agenda. We took that message from the small businesses, from small entities, from people who attended our hearings across the country and in Washington, and people who contacted us in our States, and we crafted a measure that had the strongest bipartisan support. Our staffs worked with a wide variety of groups. We had the full support of the President and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration. But lots of people had lots of concerns and lots of little issues that needed to be addressed in this bill. As a result, we made significant numbers of minor changes to make sure that the bill did what it accomplishes. I believe that while the project is not perfect, it is an excellent measure. I hope we will see quick action on it in the House so that we may come to conference and agree, and send to the President something at least very close to this measure. I wish to extend a very special thanks to the counsel for the minority, John Ball, to the director of the Small Business Committee, Louis Taylor, and to Keith Cole. Among them, they listened to many, many hours of telephone calls and concerns from people who had a little fix here and a little fix there. The end product, I think, reflected much good advice and some advice that could not be taken. But I express appreciation, first, to the members of the Small Business Committee themselves who worked hard on this, to all of their staffs, and to the representatives of small business who showed the strength and the resolve to keep us focused on this, a measure designed to provide regulatory relief to an area which has experienced tremendous burdens from Government regulations. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. BOND. The Senator's interpretation of the change in language is correct. My goal is to reduce the instances of excessive and abusive enforcement actions. Those actions obviously originate in the acts of individual enforcement personnel. Sometimes the problem is with the policies of an agency, and we are very definitely trying to change the culture and policies of Federal regulatory agencies. At other times, the problem is really that there are some bad apples at these agencies. It is for that reason that we specifically included a provision to allow the ombudsman, where appropriate, to refer serious problems with individuals to the agency's inspector general for proper action. The ombudsman's report to Congress should not single out individual agency employees by name or assign an individual evaluation or rating that might interfere with agency management and personnel policies. The intent of the bill is to give small businesses a voice in evaluating the overall performances of agencies and agency offices in their dealings with the small business community.

Mr. BOND. Yes; my colleague from Ohio has correctly summarized the review panel process.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President I would like to take a moment to outline what the increases for EPA are in the Bond-Mikulski amendment which we will be voting on tomorrow. The amendment is a complete substitute for the pending Lautenberg amendment. First, the amendment takes the $162 million of EPA addbacks included in title IV of the bill, removes their contingency status, and finds offsets for them. These four provisions are: [In millions of dollars] Safe drinking water State revolving fund.............................50 Clean Water State revolving fund.....................................50 EPA buildings and facilities.........................................50 Program & Management.................................................12 Second, the amendment then provides another $325 million for EPA in the following manner, also fully offset: [In millions of dollars] Safe Drinking water State revolving fund............................125 Clean water State revolving fund.....................................75 Superfund............................................................50 Operating programs...................................................75 Thus the total new noncontingent funding for EPA is $487 million--all now fully offset. The amendment attempts to continue our ongoing efforts to force the EPA to set priorities and to spend their resources in areas of greatest need. In particular--the unfunded mandates that the State revolving funds are designed to address. In the Bond-Mikulski amendment, of the additional $487 million, the two State revolving funds receive $300 million; Superfund is given $50 million; program management $87 million, and building and facilities the remaining $50 million. I believe this is a fair compromise and should be supported.