Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenberg amendment. I also must point out to my colleagues that the partisan rhetoric that we are hearing about the environment is reflective of the fact that this is an election year. I have listened with great interest to some of the wild charges and political claims being made. I keep checking to find if it has anything to do with the measure before the Senate. I find, unfortunately, that it has to do more with somebody's campaign than with talking about the issues that are relevant to this bill. My colleague from Massachusetts has just denounced the fact that we are breaking the law because there has been no appropriation for veterans, housing, environment, and space--the main subject areas of the subcommittee I chair. Well, I can tell you, Mr. President, quite simply why there has been no bill passed and signed by the President. It is because the President vetoed the bill that we presented to him that was within the budget allocation and passed by both Houses of Congress. I can tell you, also, that beginning last November when we sought to work with the White House to find out what would be acceptable, what we need to do to accommodate their interests, we were stonewalled, absolutely stonewalled. Leon Panetta came and said, ``Well, the only way we can sign this bill is to spend $2 billion more.'' This was at a time when the President was stating that he was for a balanced budget. However, he was asking that we break the budget by $2 billion. He vetoed the bill and said we need $2.5 billion. No longer the original $2 billion. Mr. President, how much is enough? How much is enough? How far do they want to break the budget? I have fought hard on this bill, and I believe we have fought responsibly to raise the amount of money appropriated for vital environmental cleanup efforts, and within the appropriations available to us under the budget agreement, we have done a good job. (Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)

Mr. BOND. In this measure before us, we have added additional funds and we have put in a provision that if the President will agree to sign a balanced budget amendment that would make the budget balance in 2002, there will be even more money available for what I regard as a high priority, and that is environmental cleanup. My friend from Massachusetts said, ``You are supposed to compromise and negotiate.'' Well, on that matter, I agree with him 100 percent. But let me ask my colleagues, Mr. President, if we are supposed to negotiate and compromise, if we are supposed to come to an agreement with the White House, how do you do it when they do not show up? This Chamber is essentially empty. But this Chamber is just what I have had in attempting to deal with the White House--nobody. I have talked to the Agency head, Administrator Browner. I have talked to Ms. McGinty in the White House, head of the Council for Environmental Quality. I have talked to the Vice President. I have talked to OMB director, Alice Rivlin. I said, ``We want to compromise and work with you to make sure we meet the objectives of the programs funded by this bill.'' We do not have a bill, Mr. President, quite simply, because the President has chosen the political tack. His political advisers say it is far better to veto and throw hot rhetoric than to sit down calmly and negotiate. I hope the time has come when we are ready to negotiate, because I believe we have made great progress in the environment in past years. I want to see that continue. I believe the bill before us will continue that progress. I will be happy to work along with the leadership on this side and the leadership on the other side of the aisle to come to a reasonable compromise that keeps us on our budget goal of balancing the budget, so we do not put the burdens of our debt on future generations, but which will meet the objectives that are funded in this bill in the environmental area. Let me return to the Lautenberg amendment. The Lautenberg amendment is about pumping up the rhetoric and the polarization surrounding environmental issues. I must say that the supporting remarks are completely in that vein. It is not about ensuring that limited dollars are spent on EPA programs and activities which most effectively reduce risk to human health and the environment. The Lautenberg amendment includes funding for the administration's entire wish list for EPA, totaling $726 million. I would like another billion dollars, too. It is always nice to have that. Maybe the stork or the tooth fairy will bring it. I am sure we can spend more money well. But it is not possible, unless we reach other agreements that will lead us to a balanced budget, that we can accomplish that goal and put additional sums in. There are additional sums in this measure introduced and presented by Senator Hatfield, which will provide more funding when we come to an agreement on a balanced budget. The offsets proposed in the Lautenberg amendment are phony. They are being used in the other Democratic leadership amendment to be offered to the bill. How many times can you trod out that same old ghost of imaginary cuts? Imaginary cuts are a great offset, but they make awful thin soup because there is nothing there. As chairman of the VA-HUD subcommittee, I have worked very hard to fund EPA adequately within the very constrained budget allocation available to the subcommittee. The bill before us today increases EPA's budget by $402 million above the conference level, including $240 million within title I that would be available upon the passage and the signing into law by the President of this bill, and another $162 million in title IV of the bill, the contingency section. We can spend the $162 million if we reach a broader budget agreement. The total for EPA is $6.1 billion. This, I believe, represents a good-faith effort to meet the administration's concerns, even though they are not willing to discuss those concerns with us or present us with an honest prioritized list of needs and wants. We have made these efforts because we are concerned about the environment. We have made these efforts, and we have taken these steps because Members of this body on both sides of the aisle are interested in protecting the environment. This is a bipartisan issue. The arguments about the Republican opposition to the environmental cleanup are absolute hogwash. It is embarrassing that we have to answer those inane charges on the floor of the Senate. It is appalling to me that someone would come down and make those assertions. But they have been made, and they are nonsense. They do not deserve further discussion. The additional funds in title I, which are funded within the subcommittee 602(b) allocation, are provided for State revolving funds, for the Superfund and the enforcement activities, all of which were included on the administration's wish list. As a matter of fact, they were the first ones mentioned by the Administrator of EPA when I asked her to set priorities--assistance to the States for water infrastructure construction, toxic waste cleanups for sites posing real and immediate risks, and funding to ensure that there are no employee furloughs or RIF's. Reductions to ongoing contractual support are high priorities. Let me be clear. The amount provided in title I--that is not subject to contingency. The only contingency is that it be passed by the Congress and signed by the President. This appropriation ensures that the EPA does not have to fire or furlough a single employee. And the enforcement budget is increased, Mr. President, by $10 million over fiscal year 1995, in a year when total funds available for commitments by this subcommittee were reduced by 12 percent from the preceding year. We have held EPA at a higher level and even increased the enforcement budget. In addition, this legislation recommends another $162 million in title IV, the contingency section, for additional State revolving funds operating programs and a new laboratory facility in the North Carolina Research Triangle Park, where EPA space is sadly deficient. This legislation recommends a total of $6.1 billion--just $300 million, or 4 percent, less than the total fiscal year 1995 actual spending level in a bill that is 12 percent overall below. Where did we have to cut? We had to choose priorities. We cut earmarked water and sewer projects--the pork that Members love to bring home. Bringing home the bacon is unfortunately a sport that is still popular around here. Last year's appropriations contained some $800 million in these bringing home the bacon projects. This bill all but eliminates such earmarks. I note that the Senator from Massachusetts, a staunch defender of the amendment that is being offered, would see funding for his State to go up by another $75 million. Certainly it does enhance one's enthusiasm for an amendment. But I will address that part later. H.R. 3019 provides $1.825 billion for State revolving funds. This includes an increase of $100 million over the President's request of $500 million for drinking water--State revolving funds to be distributed by a formula based on need--a formula based on need and not a formula based on who can offer an amendment. It is a formula for which we hope the Environmental Protection Agency and State agencies will use good, sound science and prioritizing in determining where the money needs to go. In fiscal year 1995 the States received only $1.235 billion in revolving funds. This year's bill ensures that States will receive $1.725 billion, and an additional $100 million if title IV spending is released; that is, if the President agrees on a balanced budget. That would be an increase of almost 50 percent. The occupant of the chair and I have served as Governors. We know where the pedal hits the metal and where the rubber hits the road, which is in the States where they actually do the cleanup. In Washington we talk about it and we pontificate about it. It is the States that have to do the cleanup. It is the States that take care of the needs of their communities. It is the States that take care of the environmental risk to their citizens. And we increase that money by 50 percent in this bill. I note that it is especially ironic that the pending amendment seeks to add back pork barrel sewer projects. This is not environmental protection so much as old-fashioned parochial political pork. That is what is involved here. In addition to the State revolving funds this legislation fully funds State agency grants. We have recognized that the States have been assigned burdensome responsibilities by the Federal Government to protect and clean up the environment. We have tried to provide sufficient funds for them to do that despite the budgetary constraints under which we must act. Despite very serious concerns with the Superfund program--and there are serious problems with that program, Mr. President, and everybody in this body knows there are problems with it and reservations about putting a lot of money into a program which virtually every one agrees needs to be reformed--the legislation before us actually recommends $1.263 billion for Superfund, $100 million more than the conference agreement. This appropriation would result in an increase in the dollars spent on actual cleanups in fiscal year 1995 and would provide level funding for enforcement activities. The Senator from Massachusetts and other proponents of this measure have talked about the slowdown in Superfund. Slowdow is synonymous with Superfund. That is what Superfund has become--a tremendous slowdown project. It has had some tremendous benefits. It has had tremendous benefits for the lawyers who file the lawsuits and argue over who is going to be responsible. The more money we put in the Superfund the more fees we generate. This is a litigation machine. This is a lawyer's dream. The law provides more dollars for lawyers and too little for cleanup. We cannot just throw more and more dollars at it without changing the law. If we are serious about the Superfund and toxic site cleanups--and we must be--then we have to reform the program. We are working to reform the Superfund Program so that the money in Superfund goes to what people thought it ought to, and perhaps think it still goes to; that is, cleaning up the sites. Mr. President, many of the recommendations included in the committee reported bill for EPA were made by the National Academy of Public Administration. This is a nonpartisan organization which was asked by my predecessor, my Democratic colleague and ranking Member, Senator Barbara Mikulski, to undertake a report on reforming EPA 2 years ago. I want to say once more for the Record that Senator Mikulski has been a leader in promoting environmental progress and using the best management and the best science to do so, and the work that was done at her request in the National Academy of Public Administration, I think--in common forums away from the political diatribes on the floor and on the hustings--is recognized as the way we should go to make sure that we deal with the threats to health and the threats to the environment from toxic waste. We followed the recommendations in this bill of the National Academy of Public Administration. They were presented to Congress almost a year ago, and they said turn over more responsibility to the States; turn over responsibility to the States which have developed capacity over the past 25 years to manage environmental programs. Do not step on their efforts, if they are doing a good job. If they are not doing a good job, Mr. President, there is every reason to have a Federal agency which says, ``You are not doing a good enough job.'' If we in Missouri were polluting the air of Illinois, polluting the water of Arkansas or Mississippi or Louisiana, the national agency should step in. But if we are doing the job in Missouri in cleaning up the environment to standards set on a national basis to protect the national health and well being of the environment, then we ought to give the States the flexibility to do it. According to NAPA, ``EPA should revise its approach to oversight, regarding high-performing States with grant flexibility, reduced oversight, and greater autonomy.'' That sums it up. This is what we have tried to do through the appropriations bill. We have even included authority for EPA to begin issuing block grants for maximum flexibility. We have tried in this bill to get EPA to focus on the areas of highest risk to human health and the environment, and to reduce spending for the time being on those programs which produce less bang for the buck, either in terms of the cleanup progress or the risk that they are dealing with. Rather than spending time organizing press conferences and news events, I believe that EPA should follow the recommendations of NAPA to get its own house in order. Despite EPA's claims to support NAPA's recommendations, we have seen little in terms of real change. As I have mentioned before, Mr. President, I have been trying unsuccessfully--I have been waiting for 5 months to forge a compromise with the White House within the allocation available to my subcommittee. Since last November I have placed phone calls, I have written letters, and I have held hearings--nothing, zip, nothing. Unfortunately, the White House seemingly has decided that portraying me and those on this side of the aisle as antienvironment is a better political strategy than compromise. My phone calls have not been returned. My letters have not been responded to. I held a hearing on January 26. EPA administrator Carol Browner refused to admit there can--and, indeed, must be--priorities within the EPA's budget. The Administrator, when I asked her for her priorities, claimed that the entire $966 million of add-backs demanded by the White House were critical, including earmarks for sewer construction, the pork barrel part of it. Is there anything that is more important than the environment? When you cannot set any priorities you do not have any priorities. If you refuse to prioritize, to live within a budget, then you do not have any idea of what you are trying to do. Two weeks ago, I held a second hearing on EPA. We heard from former EPA Administrator Bill Ruckelshaus, State environmental commissioners, EPA Science Advisory Board members, and others. These witnesses confirmed the importance of setting priorities and reordering spending to achieve the most gains for the environment with the available dollars. These witnesses recognized that spending was not unlimited and there must be management discipline to ensure we allocate resources effectively. Unfortunately, instead of attempts to compromise, we have seen nothing but incendiary rhetoric from the administration. Two weeks ago, EPA Administrator Carol Browner, at a press event staged by House Democrats, stated that the Republican budget would force her to choose between setting drinking water standards for cryptosporidium and controlling toxic water pollution in rivers, lakes, and streams. There is not a shred of truth in that. I think cryptosporidium and controlling toxic water pollution are top priorities. How come she cannot see that? How come she wants to put pork-barrel projects and corporate welfare projects in a budget and say that those are equal in priority? They are not establishing any priorities. If they give us some priorities, we will work with them. Let us talk about things that really can clean up the environment. The appropriation for EPA does require EPA to begin to set priorities--a novel concept. The National Academy of Public Administration, the General Accounting Office, EPA's own Science Advisory Board, and other experts who have testified before our committee recognize that EPA should begin to do it, but in no way does it force the sort of tradeoff that the Administrator described. Let me get to one of my favorites. I am sure you read or heard or saw on TV about the President's campaign event in New Jersey. Oh, that was a bell ringer. The political pundits and spin masters must have been rubbing their hands together in glee. He attacked Congress as being antienvironment. He accused the Congress of shutting down cleanup at a Superfund site in Wallington, NJ. He pointed out that right next to the site was a school and children were in danger. Why? It was because the Republicans in Congress wanted to subject these children to the dangers of toxic waste. We listen to a great commentator named Paul Harvey back in our part of the country, and he says, ``Now let me tell you the rest of the story.'' Well, the rest of the story gets pretty interesting because what he did not say, what the President did not say was that EPA chose--not Congress, EPA chose--to slow down the work at that site. We gave them the dollars and told them: You set the priorities. You prioritize your cleanup dollars to put them into the areas which pose the greatest risks to human health, and do that first. Why did we do that? Why did we do that, Mr. President? Because we had a GAO study of existing Superfund cleanup actions. This study showed that 32 percent of the sites reflected an immediate threat to human health and the environment, and those are under present or current land uses; 15 percent would not pose any risk to human health in any event; 50 percent would pose a threat to human health only if they changed the land use. Therefore, if you went into an industrial site where they had had manufacturing and transportation and did not clean it up and set up a kindergarten playground or a day care center, that would pose a risk. So you do not do that. Fifty percent of them pose no risk to human health under the current land use. And unless you brought in kids and had them eating the dirt, there would be no human health risks--15 percent, no human health risks. Only 30 percent of the taxpayer dollars were being spent on human health risks. So we told EPA: Go out and spend your money where there is a human health risk. You have more than enough money to do that. So either one of two things, Mr. President. Either EPA decided that the Wallington, NJ, site was not posing a risk to human health, which would have been a vitally important factor that reporters could ask the President about at his news conference. Or if there was a real risk to human health and EPA had staged the slowdown to give the President a political forum. One of two choices. Maybe EPA will tell us which. Did they allow the President to hype as a risk something that was not a risk, or did they slow down funding for something that really was a risk in order to give the President political gain and political mileage? Whichever answer, it is not very pleasant. It is not something that I think the people of America would tolerate. If there is a risk to human health, we said we will give you the money; go forward and clean up those risks first. Prioritize them. EPA has a little trouble focusing on the priorities. It is about time they did. The amount of spending provided in the current continuing resolution and in the conference agreement is the same as the fiscal year 1995 level for actual Superfund cleanups. That is $800 million. And the bill before us today would increase the Superfund cleanup budget by an additional $100 million, as I have already indicated. We have told EPA they have to prioritize Superfund cleanups--something they have never done in the past--and it needs to be based on real threats to human health and the environment. If the Wallington, NJ, site where the President staged the press event meets EPA's own risk-ranking process, there is money and that site should receive cleanup funding this year under the terms of the bill before us today. The Lautenberg amendment continues the misinformation campaign of the White House. It seeks to add more funds for programs we have already increased in this bill. It seeks to add funds for programs which are not high priorities such as the environmental technology initiative. The environmental technology initiative has funded private sector conferences on energy efficiency lighting. In the past, they have funded studies on how large corporations can save dollars. That is a great idea if they save dollars by energy efficiency, but for a large corporation, I think that they probably ought to be willing to fund that themselves. We have heard in the past about studies to control and study bovine emissions and many other areas that may be of scientific interest, although not of great personal interest, I would say. We add back money for funds for enforcement. We have already increased enforcement spending over the fiscal year 1995 level. Now, perhaps most amazingly, the amendment seeks to add funds for Boston Harbor when this bill already has $25 million. We did accede to the request of Governor Weld of Massachusetts to continue funding it at a lower level because of the magnitude of the problem and the fact that they have to have some funding as we phase down the availability of dollars. But Boston Harbor has received almost $600 million over the past several years, even while such earmarks are not authorized and are unfair to thousands of communities which do not receive such largesse. Surely, it cannot be a priority to move one site above every other site in the Nation. We have said that we are making funds available to be allocated on the basis of need, on the basis of sound science. If that, in fact, is such a need and sound science requires it, then money will go there. But, as indicated by the Senator from Massachusetts, there are lots of requests in lots of other areas. I have had many, many Members tell me about the very difficult situations they face in their States. They have talked about water system supplies, and I said, ``Yes, I understand that.'' And we have not done a good job in the political process of determining which of those projects has the highest priority need in terms of science, in terms of human health, and in terms of the environment. So we put the money into State revolving funds, we put the money into programs where it will be allocated on the basis of sound science, where it will be allocated on the basis of how much danger is posed. That is how the money should be allocated. I believe we can establish decent priorities. Mr. President, if the Lautenberg amendment goes to a vote, I will oppose it because I believe in this bill there is adequate funding for EPA within the constraints imposed by the needs to balance the Federal budget. I think it is time for EPA to begin prioritizing and instill management disciplines to ensure Federal funds are spent effectively on environmental protection activities. There have been encouraging words. I have been approached by the Democratic leadership. I have had a conversation with my ranking member and colleague, Senator Mikulski. They have indicated that perhaps we can reach a compromise with the administration. And if the administration does not want to play, we will reach a compromise with the Senate Democratic leadership on what we are going to do. I am tired of guessing what the priorities of the administration are. We are more than willing to work in a reasonable manner to allocate the funds that are available and to make sure the EPA and the State agencies have the funds they need to move ahead as we work on reauthorizing and changing Superfund and other programs. If the administration is serious, if the Democrats are serious, in case they have lost my telephone number, my phone number is 224-5721. I have left a lot of messages. They have probably been erased from the e-mail screens by now, but I can be reached by fax or by message from the cloakroom. I will be waiting for a call. This is serious business. It is time that we end the partisan charges that I think have been totally unwarranted, and talk about how we can pass a measure which actually provides funding within the budget constraints to do the vitally important environmental cleanup and enforcement work that the people of America have a right to expect. Mr. President, because we are hoping there will be further discussion of this, we have conferred with the minority side and I have not heard objection. I therefore ask unanimous consent that this amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, seeing no other Member seeking the floor, I now suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, determining worker classification is one of the most important tax issues facing small business today. Indeed, and in fact, it was rated No. 1 by the delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business. They said this is something that must be dealt with because the ambiguity in the current law makes it extremely difficult for business owners to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. Today I will be introducing the Independent Contractor Tax Simplification Act on behalf of myself, Senator Nickles, Senator Dole, Senator D'Amato, Senator Murkowski and Senator Lott. For years, now, the Internal Revenue Service has used a 20-factor common law test to determine worker status. Frankly, the test is a nightmare of subjectivity and unpredictability for small business owners who often get their tutorial on the subtleties of the issue during an IRS audit--certainly an unfortunate time to be learning how tricky the law is. IRS agents are required to consider 20 different factors to determine whether an employer/employee relationship exists. The problem is that the small business taxpayer is not able to predict which of the 20 factors is going to be more important to a particular IRS agent, and finding a certain number of these factors present in a case does not always determine the result. Inevitably, what has been happening is that agents are resolving far too many cases in favor of the IRS and its tendency to find the existence of an employment relationship at the expense and disruption of bona fide independent contractor arrangements. Let me make perfectly clear, the IRS has every right to obtain information on payments, whether they are made to an employee or to an independent contractor. It is our position that simplifying IRS collection does not warrant the IRS going beyond tax law to determine business organization, so long as the organizations are legitimate structures and the IRS has the information on payments so they may collect appropriate taxes. This lack of a clear standard in existing law has made some small business owners reluctant to hire independent contractors and put others in great concern and risk of being pursued for back taxes. In some cases, the concern is so great that it stifles business expansion. As I indicated earlier, the depth of the problem was made clear last summer when the White Conference on Small Business, a nationwide group of almost 2,000 small business delegates, voted the independent contractor issue first on its list for recommended changes. Today, together with Senator Nickles and the other Senators whom I mentioned, Senator Nickles having been a long and consistent supporter of small business legislation, we introduce a bill that solves this problem. Our bill provides a short list of simple, clear objective standards that will allow all taxpayers to understand what the law says about who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. When this law is enacted, IRS agents will have clear direction, small business will have clear direction, but the IRS will no longer have the upper hand in today's confusing independent contractor law, which gives the IRS agent, when they deal with our country's small business taxpayers, advantage in determining their business organization. I especially thank Senator Nickles for his willingness to allow us to work on this bill together. Last September at a hearing, I held in the Small Business Committee, Senator Nickles testified about his personal experience with this issue dating back to the small business that he began while he was a college student. For Senator Nickles' company, like many startup companies and small businesses, it seemed to make perfect sense to hire independent contractors in certain situations. More established, larger businesses also need to hire independent contractors to accomplish specific tasks that may require specialized skill. In fact, many of America's entrepreneurs are in business as independent contractors whose livelihood is dependent upon the fact that other companies need their service and expertise. These entrepreneurs have no desire, nor do they have any need, to become employees of the businesses who purchase their services. Others in our Small Business Committee hearing testified about their experiences with IRS agents regarding worker status, telling us about receiving IRS penalties as high as a quarter of a million dollars. Between these outrageously high penalties and the complexity of the 20- factor test, this issue, understandably, infuriates many small business taxpayers. Mr. President, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Honorable Margaret Richardson, in a speech to last summer's small business conference delegates, told them the IRS does not care whether someone is an employee or independent contractor, as long as they properly report their income, and that is as it should be. Yet, the IRS continues to pursue this issue fiercely during its audits. It has been reported that in a recent 4-year span, the IRS reclassified 338,000 workers as employees. The same report indicates the IRS prevails in 9 out of 10 worker classification audits. Little wonder when they have the upper hand with a very confusing, very complex 20-factor test. Just last week, I received a copy of the ``Revised Internal Revenue Service Worker Classification Training Materials.'' This was distributed by Commissioner Richardson. In her memo accompanying the document, she describes the purchase of the document as an attempt to identify, simplify and clarify the factors that should be applied in order to accurately determine worker classification. There could be no more compelling justification for the importance of our immediate passage of the legislation than this document. We commend Commissioner Richardson for seeking to simplify, but this document is over 100 pages long. If it takes that much paper and that much ink to instruct IRS agents on how to simplify and clarify a small business tax issue, I think we can be pretty sure how simple and clear it is going to seem to the taxpayer sitting across the desk from an IRS agent during an audit. As those who follow this issue know, what makes this problem especially frustrating is that unlike most interpretive actions of the IRS where they must determine the proper amount of income or deductions so Treasury can collect the amount of tax legally due to it, the independent contractor issue is not about how much tax the Government receives. The classification decision does not alter aggregate tax liability to the Government at all. This problem exists because of IRS's apparent desire to recast economic relationships between private parties that these parties have already determined for themselves. The Independent Contractor Tax Simplification Act will help move the IRS out of its de facto role of setting employment policy and back into its role of revenue collection. Our bill sets out three simple questions to be asked in determining whether a person providing services is an employee or independent contractor. First, is there a written agreement between the parties? Second, does it appear the worker has made some investment, such as incurring substantial unreimbursed expenses or being paid primarily on a commission basis? Third, does the worker appear to have some independence, such as having his or her own place of business? In other words, under this bill, if there is a written contract between the parties and if basic investment and independence criteria are met, then the worker is an independent contractor. Plain, simple, predictable. Fine. To take advantage of this simple rule, the party must properly report payments above $600 to the IRS just like under current law. This ensures all taxes properly due to the Treasury can be collected. The legislation is written to provide immediate clarification and relief to taxpayers undergoing IRS examinations currently. The change, no doubt, would save many businesses from a protracted and expensive battle with IRS. For some, it may even save the business. When we in Congress find an opportunity to take action in a tax area so strongly supported by many small businesses, and when it is one that does not involve any loss to the Federal Treasury, we should act without delay. I am confident the Finance Committee can find an acceptable revenue offset for this worthy purpose to the extent that any revenue is lost. The revenue estimate for the bill should be fairly simple, reflecting the bill's provisions that assure continued collection of all taxes due the Federal Government. Small businesses cannot afford to wait any longer for resolution of this problem, and they should not be expected to do so. They have waited for decades. We now have a bill that will solve the problem. The companion bill has been introduced in the other body. I am told it has over 200 cosponsors. It is time Congress steps up to the plate and delivers for small business. I urge members of the Finance Committee to work with Senator Nickles and others to report out a bill that provides this much-needed change. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the bill, a section-by-section analysis and copies of some letters of support for the bill we have received. I also ask unanimous consent that Senators Dole, D'Amato, Lott, Murkowski, and Inhofe be shown as original cosponsors.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hollings amendment. The amendment includes $62 million for EPA's environmental technology initiative, a program which the conference agreement on the VA-HUD bill sought to reduce funding for, in order to fund higher priority EPA programs. During consideration of the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD bill last fall, not a single member raised concerns about the reduction to this program in the committee markup, on the floor, or in conference on the legislation. This program was initiated by President Clinton 3 years ago, and a total of $100 million has been appropriated for the first 2 years. What has the program accomplished? Not a whole lot as far as I can tell. We have funded energy efficient housing conferences, lighting research centers' education of electric utilities about the benefits of energy efficient lighting, and marketing programs to increase the purchase of energy efficient lighting products. Mr. President, what the environmental technology program has amounted to is corporate pork. Mr. President, we cannot afford this sort of corporate subsidy. These sort of activities are not geared to ensuring the U.S. gains a strong foothold in the market for environmental technology, as the administration has claimed. I should also add that the budget request for this program has quadrupled from $30 million in fiscal year 1994 to $127 million in fiscal year 1996. Much of that funding has been passed through from EPA to other agencies--NIST, DOE, agencies which have their own budgets for technology activities. This, at a time when the administration claims it cannot find funds to set drinking water standards for cryptosporidium or control toxic water pollutants. Given the importance of ensuring that EPA's limited resources are spent on those activities resulting in the most direct and significant gains to environmental protection, additional funding for this program above the $10 million available in this bill is not acceptable.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to express my sincere thanks both to Senator Burns and to Senator Coverdell, two members of the Small Business Committee who have been very active participants. They have held hearings in their own States. They have brought us good ideas from their States that we have incorporated in S. 942. I share the sentiments expressed by Senator Burns. We have had great cooperation, as mentioned before, from Senator Bumpers, all of the Democratic members of the Small Business Committee, and their staffs. I think we have a good piece of legislation. Senator Coverdell, at my request, introduced a letter of endorsement from the National Association of Towns and Townships. They, too, are going to be affected and benefited. This is not for small profitmaking corporations only or individuals; this affects small entities like not for profits and small local units of government. So we have made an offer for a very tight unanimous consent request to move forward on this bill. We asked to do it today. That was objected to. We asked to do it Tuesday. That was objected to. My plea is, small business, small entities want some relief. They have given us good ideas. We worked on it in the committee. Let us go forward. I ask the Members on the other side who are objecting, let us go forward and get on with this, because small business deserves to have an answer. So do the other small entities affected. I hope that we will be able to move forward early next week. But right now it still depends upon whether the objections will be raised on the other side. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as I said earlier today, we are trying to move to Calendar No. 342, S. 942, the small business regulatory reform bill. I understand, if I ask unanimous consent to move to consideration of the bill at this moment, there will be an objection; so I ask.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it says, in part: On behalf of the more than 600,000 small business owners of the National Federation of Independent Business, I urge all your colleagues to support S. 942, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The Bond-Bumpers legislation includes important provisions that have been top priorities for NFIB members for many years. It also includes provisions that were recommended by small business owners at the 1995 White House conference on small business. It then goes on to describe it. It says, in closing, ``The vote on S. 942 will be a key small business vote of the 104th Congress.'' I see my colleague from Arkansas is on the floor so I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I appreciate the position of my colleague and neighbor from Illinois. I realize there is objection on the other side. Let me suggest what the framework of the debate itself is. We will continue to discuss additional items to be brought up. I discussed with my ranking member, Senator Bumpers, the objectives of keeping this bill narrow. I believe we are in agreement. Whenever we can get the agreement of the minority to proceed, I will propose that we enter into an agreement on this basis so that we keep the amendments limited, and so that we can come to closure on this very important matter. Mr. President, since my good friend and neighbor from Arkansas is here, let us lay out some of the reasons that this bill is important. I have talked briefly about it before. Last June, almost 2,000 delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business came to Washington to give their best advice and counsel to the President and Congress. They voted on an agenda of the top concerns of small business. The Washington conference came after a year-long grassroots effort, where over 20,000 small business people sifted through more than 3,000 policy recommendations, some 59 conferences at the State level, and six regional hearings. Over 400 of the most important policy recommendations were voted on by delegates to the White House conference. The top 60 recommendations were published by the conference last September as a report to the President and Congress, entitled ``Foundation for a New Century.'' Not surprising, this gathering echoed the findings that we in the Small Business Committee have heard as we have held hearings in Washington and around the country. Three of the top findings of the White House Small Business Conference were calling for reforms in the way that Government regulations are developed, the way they are enforced, and reforming Government paperwork requirements. The common theme of all three recommendations is the need to change the culture of Government agencies, the need to provide an ear--a responsive ear--and a responsive attitude toward the small business and small entities that are the backbone of this country, the dynamic engine driving the growth of this economy. The Vice President said to the conference delegates last year, ``Government regulators need to stop treating small business as potential suspects and start treating small business like a partner sharing in a common goal.'' The Vice President also noted that this change in the culture of Government may take years of effort to accomplish. Mr. President, I would say, parenthetically, that if we cannot even bring the bill up, it is going to take more than years. I am extremely disappointed that we cannot even get an agreement to bring the bill up next week. We have here before us a measure that is designed to deal with one particular area of great importance to small businesses all across the country. One of the measures included in this bill is the Small Business Advocacy Act, recommended by Senator Domenici, filed in the form of S. 917, which focused on the early involvement by small business in the development of new regulations. The bill was referred to the Small Business Committee, as was S. 942, the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act, which I introduced. We have been working to combine elements of both bills in legislation that already had been considered on the Senate floor, which was the measure to provide judicial review and enforcement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which says, quite simply, that Federal agencies have to take into consideration the impact on small business of the regulations they issue. We had hearings before the Small Business Committee which confirm the importance of having this kind of reform. The SBA chief counsel for advocacy released a report that said that small businesses bear a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden. When you take a look at regulations as they affect large businesses and as they affect the smaller businesses with up to 50 employees, the cost for a small business is some 50 to 80 percent more per employee. Small business is put at a disadvantage not only in making a profit, but in competing with a larger business. Throughout our efforts in the Small Business Committee, I am proud to say that we have worked very closely and had the greatest cooperation from my ranking member, Senator Bumpers of Arkansas, and his staff. We have had great input from members of the committee, who have taken a very active role in holding hearings in their States and coming back with recommendations to give to us on how we can flesh out this bill and make it work better for small businesses in our States and across the country. This bill, S. 942, came out of the committee without any opposition, and the more people have talked about it, the more offers we have had to cosponsor it. I think the bill delivers on the legitimate regulatory concerns of small business, as well as the major recommendations of the White House Conference on Small Business, and it really does do something to address the disproportionately heavy impact that these regulations have on small business and on the paperwork burdens of small business. This legislation is narrowly focused on small business. It does not go into the big debates over more expansive and, I think, needed broader regulatory reform. These efforts need to go forward, but I think we have something we can deliver here now, today, and, if not today, for Heaven's sake, let us deliver it next week so small business in America can begin to see that somebody is listening. If there is one plaintive comment I have heard, both in my State of Missouri, at other hearings, and at the hearings up here, it is small business asking: ``Is anybody listening? Does anybody really care what the burdens the Federal Government places on small business are doing to the small businesses?'' I think it is time we answered the question, and I think it is time we answered, ``Yes, we are willing to listen and do something about it.'' I do not think that we can abandon these efforts. We need to move forward with regulatory relief this year. I think, as I said in my remarks earlier today, judicial review of reg flex, the 1980 provision that said regulatory agencies are supposed to consider small business, that has to be implemented, and there has to be teeth put in it. They have not done so. Regulatory agencies have routinely ignored the impact on small business. We need to give them some enforcement powers so that they will be heard. Equally important, we need to give enforcement reform some outlet to change the culture of regulators when they deal with small business so that somebody who has examples of regulators that have been overreaching can get a fair hearing and a fair shake from the regulators. These measures would level the playing field and bring some accountability into small business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Federation of Independent Business from the Vice President of Federal Government Relations.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have heard some concern expressed that this measure may become a broad measure and involve many other items, such as controversial items that are included in the major regulatory reform bill, S. 343, which I personally hope is moving toward resolution. There are a significant number of Members on both sides moving forward on that, but in order to assure my colleagues that we want to keep the focus on small business, we have a consent decree which would, I think, narrow it. I want to read this consent request carefully so that other Members can listen to it, so they can think about it and see whether this would be the format under which we could bring the bill up. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, March 12, at 11 a.m., the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 342, S. 942, the small business regulatory reform bill, and it be considered under the following limitation: Ninety minutes of total debate, equally divided between the two managers; that the only amendments in order to the bill be the following: A managers' amendment to be offered by Senators Bond and Bumpers; an amendment to be offered by Senator Nickles regarding congressional review; and one additional amendment, if agreed to by both leaders, after consultation with the two managers. Further, that following the expiration or yielding back of all time, any pending amendments and the bill be temporarily set aside; further, that immediately following any ordered cloture votes on Tuesday, March 12, the Senate resume consideration of the bill, the Senate immediately vote on any pending amendments to the bill; and, further, following disposition of all pending amendments, the bill be read a third time, the Senate proceed to a vote on final passage, all without any intervening debate or action.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if the Senator from Washington will yield.

Mr. BOND. The thing that is striking to me is that we have been working on these bills for many months. I have been working on the title which funds veterans, housing, environment, Federal emergency management, and as I think my distinguished colleague knows, we have been trying to find out from the administration what they want. I remember when our son was 2 or 3 years old, he would come in and say he wants more. From a 2- or 3-year-old maybe more is a reasonable request, but when you get it from a Budget Director who is supposedly supporting a President who now recognizes the need for a balanced budget, when the President and the Budget Director refuse to give you any specifics, it, to me, is amazing that they can get by with doing nothing but issuing veto threats. I ask the Senator, maybe he has heard, because I have not heard, from the White House, the Office of Management and Budget, of any changes that they wish to see so that they can utilize the funds better? It is a great gimmick. It is a great political campaign to say, ``I am going to spend more on everything. Of course, I'm for a balanced budget. Of course, I'm for a balanced budget, but I want to spend more on everything.'' Do they tell you where they want to make any cuts, I ask the Senator? Did they tell you where they want to save money?

Mr. BOND. You have not heard from them either. I thought I was the only one who was completely stiffed by them. In November, I put in requests. I asked the Agency heads, the Department heads whose budgets we fund, ``If there is an adult in supervisory authority, please have them contact us and say what changes they want to make.'' I had a conversation with the Vice President. I said, ``This is a process in which the executive and the legislative branches need to sit down and compromise.'' Every government I have ever served in, and I served at the State level where I was a Republican chief executive with a Democratically controlled legislature, we always sat down and worked together, and the people expected us to do that. How can the people of the United States expect us to negotiate a budget or appropriations bills when one side will not even talk to us and all they do is send veto threats? I ask my colleague, how do you compromise? How do you work with, how do you negotiate with somebody who will not talk with you?

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with regret, I tell my colleagues today, that we are not able to proceed at this time with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, S. 942, which was marked up by the Small Business Committee yesterday. We had hoped to be able to go forward on what is a very sound, bipartisan bill that responds to the major regulatory reform requests of the delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business. At this time, there is an objection on the other side of the aisle to calling that measure up for consideration today. Frankly, I am very disappointed that we are not able to go forward, because this is something that we in the Small Business Committee, with the help of others in this body who are concerned about small business, have worked on for a long time. I want to pay a very special thanks to my ranking member, Senator Bumpers, and his staff who worked with us and the other members of the committee to get what I think is a good bill. It was passed out of the committee on a 17 to 0 vote. It was one which I had hoped we would be able to move quickly. We are coming up very shortly on the 1-year anniversary of the White House Conference on Small Business. A number of small businesses do not understand how slowly this place moves. Sometimes I do not understand how slowly this place moves. It would seem to many that the time has come to respond to their requests. There are several simple requests. One of them is to put some teeth in the measure that is supposed to give small businesses an opportunity to be heard in the regulatory process. Congress passed, and the President signed about 16 years ago, a measure called the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The objective of that act was to make sure that Government regulations which affected small business took a look at the impact on small businesses and choose a means of minimizing the hassle, the redtape, the wasted energy, the wasted effort that a regulation might impose on a small entity. I say small entity because that is only small business. It has a small profit. We have had people from colleges and universities who wring their hands and tell us that the same hassles the small businesses face affect them. I cannot tell you the number of county and city officials in my State who say, I wish we had the ear of some of the regulators in Washington because they do not take into account what some of these regulations that might be perfectly workable for a large corporation, or even a State government, do when it comes down to the local level to a small business. Well, for years, the White House conference delegates and other small business groups have said that if you want to make regulatory flexibility work, you have to put some teeth into it. When the reg flex bill was passed initially, there was an exclusion of judicial enforcement. In other words, you could not go to court and say a Federal regulatory agency failed to take into account the impact on small business. Well, we have, by a bipartisan effort, a measure which provides judicial enforcement for regulatory flexibility. The President has called for it, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration has called for it, leading Members of both sides of the aisle in this body have called for it. We would make regulatory flexibility subject to the judicial enforcement. Why? Because, quite frankly, right now, when the Small Business Council for Advocacy goes to a Federal agency and says, ``You did not take into account how this is really going to tie up small business, and you are putting a tremendous recordkeeping burden on them, putting them through a tremendous hassle,'' too often those agencies say, ``Tough luck.'' So what are you going to do about it? The answer is nothing. He cannot do anything about it. Under this bill, he could do something about it. Under this bill, a small entity could do something about it. Well, that is what is being held up today. That is what we had hoped to bring to the floor this afternoon, to do what the small businesses of America have asked us to do, and that is let their voice be heard in Washington. Let them have an opportunity to express their concerns and their complaints to the agencies that are driving them nuts. I might add, parenthetically, that even the Small Business Administration itself came out with a bunch of regulations, some of them in its loan programs, and others, which we think might make it more difficult for small businesses. It would not be a bad idea for the Small Business Administration to take a look at how its own regulations impact small business. We can give them some help. Well, we cannot do it until we have S. 942, or the contents of that bill, passed by both Houses and signed by the President. This measure also does some other things that are very important. It says when you write a regulation, you have to tell, in plain English, commonsense language, how an entity can comply with it, what you are really getting at in a regulation. We are saying that if you do not do that, if a regulatory agency wants to bring an enforcement action against a small entity, the small entity can look and say, here are your guidelines; or, if you do not have any guidelines, you can publish guidelines. Sometimes the simplifying guidelines a Federal agency puts out are very thick. For a small business with one, two, or three employees, not many of them have the time to read through hundreds of pages of directions. That is not simple language. I think that is a tool the small businesses need. Senator Domenici, as a result of small business hearings we had in New Mexico, had a good idea, one that we need to try out, which is included in this bill. It would give small businesses an opportunity to participate in making the regulations in the first place. Let them be heard. Bring them in and let them have a crack at it. Let them have an opportunity to say how the goals of the legislation--that is, what the regulations are supposed to do to help achieve the goals of legislation--how those goals can better be achieved as they affect small business. That is also included in it. And then we have a final provision that also came from the hearings that we held around the country, from Georgia to Alaska, Tennessee, and Missouri. We have had hearings in Minnesota, all around the country, and we have heard a lot of small businesses say that it is not just the regulations; sometimes it is the regulators themselves. Sometimes the regulators themselves come in and act like they have been sent by the king rather than by a popularly elected Government. They act like they represent a monarch, and they tread on the rights of the people who do not have the resources to fight them. So we would set up an ombudsman, who would be available for a small business or a farmer, or other small operators, to raise an objection as to how an inspector operates. I asked the small businesses before, ``Why do you not object if OSHA sends in an inspector who is overreaching, who does not listen to your side of the story, who says it is his way or the highway? Why do you not just object to the agency?'' They say, ``If we object to the agency, that same guy is going to come here next month, and instead of fining us $4,000 for not having a label on some dish-washing soap, he could increase the fine, or it could get even worse.'' So we set up a means where an affected small business or entity that gets stepped on by these enforcers could register a complaint. We set up regional regulatory fairness boards to hear these complaints. I think it will help the agencies themselves to root out a bad apple, or to bring in an inspector, examiner, or representative who is out of hand and say, ``We have had complaints about you. You are not helping the citizens we are supposed to serve and represent to comply with the laws and with the regulations. You need to shape up the way you are acting.'' Well, that ombudsman provision, the regulatory fairness provision, is also included in S. 942. Finally, equal access for justice. We want to make it easier if you are a small business and the Federal Government comes in and says, ``We need a million dollars in penalties,'' and you say, ``That would put me out of business. It is not a willful violation, and I did not cause serious harm. It is the first time I have done it.'' That is totally out of whack. If they proceed against you and get a $10,000 fine, then you ought to be able to get your attorney's fees from the agency that tried to run over you. It makes them accountable. It makes sure that the agency comes in with demands that are not out of reason. That, too, is in S. 942. Unfortunately, at this point, there is an objection on the other side. I know that we have very strong support, particularly from the members of the Small Business Committee, on both Republican and Democratic side. We would like to move this bill. We have time set up on the floor. This is valuable time that we are wasting that we are not moving forward on this bill. This is the time that we could be doing something that would respond to the concerns that the small businesses of America have about how the Federal Government acts. Unfortunately, as long as there is that objection, it will take us some time to bring it up. We will bring it up. I know everybody seemed to be ready for it. The people who were involved in crafting it were ready to come to the floor. I say by way of explanation to our other colleagues that I truly regret we cannot pass this measure. It is one I know had total bipartisan support in the committee. I think it will have strong bipartisan support on the floor. The President has already indicated his support for the basic principle of judicial enforcement of regulatory flexibility. Mr. President, I only say we are still ready to do business if the Members on the other side change their mind. It is too bad we have valuable time set aside on the floor and we are not able to move. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we consider instituting the provisions of title III of the Cuban Sanctions Act, I am troubled that in a rush to exact retribution for the heinous act of shooting down United States unarmed civil light aircraft by Cuban MiG fighters, we will accomplish nothing more than antagonizing our worldwide trading partners. First, monetary restrictions and filing procedures currently in the language, prevent compensation to by the vast majority of Cuban exiles and benefit only large business concerns which look to use the offices of the U.S. Government to practice international tort law through legislation. This course of action can only lead to the muddying of the legal trade policies and agreements which we have long supported. Second, though we are unarguably the leader in free trade throughout the world, this action will isolate us from our loyal and historic trading partners. Even as we contemplate this drastic course of action, our trading partners have vociferously objected to its long-term ramifications. Some of our closest allies are considering equally harmful measures in response and you know that once we start down this type of road, it will be extremely difficult to halt until an economic disaster occurs. Third, the further starving of the Cuban people in an attempt to force a change in their government is not the way to promote a democratic movement. In order to win the hearts and minds of a subjugated people one doesn't beat them even more. We want to see them change their government from within and view us as a benefactor and not as a martinet. I too, want the Cuban Government to change. I too, want the Cuban Government to bear full responsibility and consequence for their totally unwarranted and illegal actions. I don't believe that unilaterally attacking world wide trading policies and harming our relationships with our allies and partners is the way to do it.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure called the HUBZone Act of 1996. The purpose underlying this bill is to create new opportunities for growth through small business opportunities in distressed urban and rural communities which have suffered economic decline. This legislation will provide for an immediate infusion of cash and the creation of new jobs in our Nation's economically distressed areas. During the 8 years I served as Governor of Missouri, I met frequently with community leaders who were seeking help in attracting businesses and jobs to their cities and towns. We tried various programs. The enterprise zone concept met with some limited success in Missouri but the concept was good. Our incentives were limited to State tax relief, which was not a very significant element, but I believe that the idea of providing incentives for locating businesses in areas of high unemployment makes sense. Now, in my position representing my State and serving as chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I continue to receive pleas for help. We have not yet found the perfect formula to bring economic hope and independence to these communities. But I believe we are working on it. I think we are on the right track. The message for help has changed somewhat. Although help has been forthcoming from the Federal Government, high unemployment and poverty remain. One community leader, for example, has stressed to me that his city has all the job training funds it is capable of using. He said, ``Don't send us any more training funds. Send us some jobs.'' What the city, the inner city, and people there need is more jobs. Too many of our Nation's cities and rural areas have suffered economic decline while others have prospered often with Federal assistance. In October of last year, I chaired a hearing before the Senate Committee on Small Business on ``Revitalizing America's Rural and Urban Communities.'' We heard insightful testimony about the importance of changing the U.S. Tax Code, for example, and providing other incentives to attract businesses to the communities in need of economic opportunity. Their recommendations have merit, and I urge my colleagues in the committees with jurisdiction over appropriate legislation to take swift action to bring these legislative changes to the Senate floor. What distinguishes the HUBZone Act of 1996 from other excellent proposals is that there is an immediate impact this bill can have on economically distressed communities. The HUBZone proposal would benefit entire communities by creating meaningful incentives for small businesses to operate and provide employment within America's most disadvantaged inner-city neighborhoods and rural areas. Specifically, the HUBZone Act of 1996 creates a new class of small businesses eligible for Federal Government contract set-asides and preferences. To be eligible, a small business must be located in a historically underutilized business zone--that is the basis for the acronym ``HUBZone''--and not less than 35 percent of its work force would have to reside in a HUBZone. I will contrast the HUBZone proposal in this legislation today with a draft Executive order that is being circulated by the Clinton administration to establish an empowerment contracting program. I commend the President and the administration for focusing on the value of targeting Federal Government assistance to low-income communities. However, I think that program falls short of meeting the goal of helping low-income communities and its residents. For example, under the President's proposal, any business, large or small, located in a low-income community would qualify for a valuable contracting preference, even if it does not employ one resident of the community. This is clearly a major deficiency or loophole when trying to assist the unemployed and underemployed who live in those target areas. A further weakness in the President's proposal is the failure to define clearly and objectively the criteria which makes a community eligible for his program. We need to avoid creating a new Federal program that ends up helping well-off individuals and companies while failing to have a significant impact on the poor. The HUBZone Act of 1996 makes the contracting preference available only if the small business is located in the economically distressed area and employs 35 percent of its work force from a HUBZone. That is a significant difference. It is one that is clearly designed to attack deep-seated poverty in geographic locations within the United States. To qualify for the program, the small business would have to certify to the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration that it is located in a HUBZone and that it will comply with certain rules governing subcontracting. In addition, a qualified small business must agree to perform at least 50 percent of the contract in a HUBZone unless the terms of the contract require that the efforts be conducted elsewhere; in other words, a service contract requiring the small business' presence in Government-owned or leased buildings, for example. In the latter case, no less than 50 percent of the contract would have to be performed by employees of the eligible small business. Mr. President, the HUBZone Act of 1996 is designed to cut through Government redtape while stressing a streamlined effort to place Government contracts and new jobs in economically distressed communities. Many of my colleagues are familiar with the SBA's 8(a) minority small business program and some of the rules which are cumbersome for small businesses seeking to qualify for the program. Typically, an 8(a) program applicant has to hire a lawyer to help prepare the application and shepherd it through the SBA procedure, which can often take months. In fact, Congress was forced to legislate the maximum time the agency could review an application as a last-ditch effort to speed up the process. Today, it still takes the SBA at least 90 days, the statutory maximum, to review an application. The HUBZone Act of 1996 is specifically designed to avoid bureaucratic roadblocks that have delayed and discouraged small business from taking advantage of Government programs. Simply put, if you are a small business located in the HUBZone, employing people from a HUBZone, you are eligible. Once eligible, the small business notifies the SBA of its participation in the HUBZone program, and it is qualified to receive Federal Government contract preferences. Our goal in introducing this measure is to have new Government contracts being awarded to small businesses in economically distressed communities. Therefore, we have included some ambitious goals for each Government agency. In 1997, 1 percent of the total value of all prime Government contracts would be awarded to small businesses located in HUBZones. The goal would increase to 2 percent in 1998, 3 percent in 1999, and 4 percent in 2000 and each succeeding year. HUBZone contracting is a bold undertaking. Passage of the HUBZone Act would create hope for inner cities and distressed rural areas that have long been ignored. Most importantly, passage of the HUBZone bill will create hope for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed or underemployed people who long ago thought our country had given up on them. This hope is tangible; it is jobs and income. We are going to be holding hearings before the Committee on Small Business on the HUBZone Act of 1996 and the role our Nation's small business community can play in revitalizing our distressed cities and rural communities. I really think the HUBZone proposal has great merit. I ask my colleagues to look at it, offer comments, if you agree with what we are trying to do, the goal of this program and its objective. I welcome cosponsors. I welcome constructive discussion and input from those who have an interest in seeing economic opportunity brought back to inner-city areas and distressed rural communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague from Ohio on his very moving, very touching appeal, certainly one that I think is extremely important for all of us. While our hearts and our sympathies go out to him and his lovely wife in their loss, we do commend them for using this opportunity to assist others. (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 1574 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure called the HUBZone Act of 1996. The purpose underlying this bill is to create new opportunities for growth through small business opportunities in distressed urban and rural communities which have suffered economic decline. This legislation will provide for an immediate infusion of cash and the creation of new jobs in our Nation's economically distressed areas. During the 8 years I served as Governor of Missouri, I met frequently with community leaders who were seeking help in attracting businesses and jobs to their cities and towns. We tried various programs. The enterprise zone concept met with some limited success in Missouri but the concept was good. Our incentives were limited to State tax relief, which was not a very significant element, but I believe that the idea of providing incentives for locating businesses in areas of high unemployment makes sense. Now, in my position representing my State and serving as chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I continue to receive pleas for help. We have not yet found the perfect formula to bring economic hope and independence to these communities. But I believe we are working on it. I think we are on the right track. The message for help has changed somewhat. Although help has been forthcoming from the Federal Government, high unemployment and poverty remain. One community leader, for example, has stressed to me that his city has all the job training funds it is capable of using. He said, ``Don't send us any more training funds. Send us some jobs.'' What the city, the inner city, and people there need is more jobs. Too many of our Nation's cities and rural areas have suffered economic decline while others have prospered often with Federal assistance. In October of last year, I chaired a hearing before the Senate Committee on Small Business on ``Revitalizing America's Rural and Urban Communities.'' We heard insightful testimony about the importance of changing the U.S. Tax Code, for example, and providing other incentives to attract businesses to the communities in need of economic opportunity. Their recommendations have merit, and I urge my colleagues in the committees with jurisdiction over appropriate legislation to take swift action to bring these legislative changes to the Senate floor. What distinguishes the HUBZone Act of 1996 from other excellent proposals is that there is an immediate impact this bill can have on economically distressed communities. The HUBZone proposal would benefit entire communities by creating meaningful incentives for small businesses to operate and provide employment within America's most disadvantaged inner-city neighborhoods and rural areas. Specifically, the HUBZone Act of 1996 creates a new class of small businesses eligible for Federal Government contract set-asides and preferences. To be eligible, a small business must be located in a historically underutilized business zone--that is the basis for the acronym ``HUBZone''--and not less than 35 percent of its work force would have to reside in a HUBZone. I will contrast the HUBZone proposal in this legislation today with a draft Executive order that is being circulated by the Clinton administration to establish an empowerment contracting program. I commend the President and the administration for focusing on the value of targeting Federal Government assistance to low-income communities. However, I think that program falls short of meeting the goal of helping low-income communities and its residents. For example, under the President's proposal, any business, large or small, located in a low-income community would qualify for a valuable contracting preference, even if it does not employ one resident of the community. This is clearly a major deficiency or loophole when trying to assist the unemployed and underemployed who live in those target areas. A further weakness in the President's proposal is the failure to define clearly and objectively the criteria which makes a community eligible for his program. We need to avoid creating a new Federal program that ends up helping well-off individuals and companies while failing to have a significant impact on the poor. The HUBZone Act of 1996 makes the contracting preference available only if the small business is located in the economically distressed area and employs 35 percent of its work force from a HUBZone. That is a significant difference. It is one that is clearly designed to attack deep-seated poverty in geographic locations within the United States. To qualify for the program, the small business would have to certify to the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration that it is located in a HUBZone and that it will comply with certain rules governing subcontracting. In addition, a qualified small business must agree to perform at least 50 percent of the contract in a HUBZone unless the terms of the contract require that the efforts be conducted elsewhere; in other words, a service contract requiring the small business' presence in Government-owned or leased buildings, for example. In the latter case, no less than 50 percent of the contract would have to be performed by employees of the eligible small business. Mr. President, the HUBZone Act of 1996 is designed to cut through Government redtape while stressing a streamlined effort to place Government contracts and new jobs in economically distressed communities. Many of my colleagues are familiar with the SBA's 8(a) minority small business program and some of the rules which are cumbersome for small businesses seeking to qualify for the program. Typically, an 8(a) program applicant has to hire a lawyer to help prepare the application and shepherd it through the SBA procedure, which can often take months. In fact, Congress was forced to legislate the maximum time the agency could review an application as a last-ditch effort to speed up the process. Today, it still takes the SBA at least 90 days, the statutory maximum, to review an application. The HUBZone Act of 1996 is specifically designed to avoid bureaucratic roadblocks that have delayed and discouraged small business from taking advantage of Government programs. Simply put, if you are a small business located in the HUBZone, employing people from a HUBZone, you are eligible. Once eligible, the small business notifies the SBA of its participation in the HUBZone program, and it is qualified to receive Federal Government contract preferences. Our goal in introducing this measure is to have new Government contracts being awarded to small businesses in economically distressed communities. Therefore, we have included some ambitious goals for each Government agency. In 1997, 1 percent of the total value of all prime Government contracts would be awarded to small businesses located in HUBZones. The goal would increase to 2 percent in 1998, 3 percent in 1999, and 4 percent in 2000 and each succeeding year. HUBZone contracting is a bold undertaking. Passage of the HUBZone Act would create hope for inner cities and distressed rural areas that have long been ignored. Most importantly, passage of the HUBZone bill will create hope for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed or underemployed people who long ago thought our country had given up on them. This hope is tangible; it is jobs and income. We are going to be holding hearings before the Committee on Small Business on the HUBZone Act of 1996 and the role our Nation's small business community can play in revitalizing our distressed cities and rural communities. I really think the HUBZone proposal has great merit. I ask my colleagues to look at it, offer comments, if you agree with what we are trying to do, the goal of this program and its objective. I welcome cosponsors. I welcome constructive discussion and input from those who have an interest in seeing economic opportunity brought back to inner-city areas and distressed rural communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I say to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, perhaps because of the fact that the President submitted five budgets last year, the White House sent down five budgets--the last one did not even pass the smile test--they may have lost their enthusiasm. I certainly do share the concerns expressed by the Senator from New Mexico. We had the last budget, I guess it was called No. 5, that purported to reach balance by making somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of the cuts in appropriated accounts in the 6th and 7th years. I traveled around my State the last couple of weeks and asked how many people believed the budget was honest if you said you would get to balance by making all the cuts in the 6th and 7th years. That is one of the best laugh lines around. I should have been using that in one of the roasts we had in town because that, from the commonsense folks I talk to, draws that kind of response.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Let me move on to another item that was included in that Balanced Budget Act of 1995 that was vetoed by the President and that has been addressed already today on the floor. That is a new farm bill. During the last several days, when farmers and all the rest of us came inside, I had the opportunity to talk to and hear from and answer a lot of questions from farmers in my State. They said, ``Why don't we have a farm bill?'' I said, simply, the President vetoed the first one and we were unsuccessful in getting the votes to end the filibuster. They said, ``What are they filibustering?'' I said that is the difficult point. They do not have an alternative. These people said, ``We cannot go back to the old farm bills. What are we going to do?'' I said, ``Well, we are going to try again to break the filibuster so the farmers of America and the people who depend on and work with the agricultural sector will know what the ground rules are.'' These people who talk to me said, ``We want flexibility. It is a lot better for our land. It is a lot better for the environment. It is a lot better for us if we can rotate our crops and we are not locked in to planting corn to keep our corn base,'' or other crops in which they have a base. They said, ``We need to be able to choose what is right for our farming operation, our land, and what we think is best for the market.'' I said, ``Basically, that is the Freedom To Farm Act.'' I think the Leahy-Craig substitute amendment represents the opportunity that the people of America, certainly the farmers in my State, have been looking for: to move forward in a bipartisan way to shape policy on behalf of our Nation's farmers and consumers. The modified freedom-to-farm legislation offers reform, opportunity, flexibility and predictability in a fiscally responsible way and with the growing support of Members on both sides of the aisle. I have said farmers in my State have supported the bill. We have reform groups, such as Citizens Against Government Waste, who support this because it does save money. We have the Farm Bureau, corn growers, Cotton Council, cattlemen, pork producers, and the many others who have already been named by my colleagues who have spoken before. I concede we do not have all of the fringe groups who are working to come up with something that fits their particular interest. I know there is apprehension by some, simply because the reform measure represents change. But I will tell my colleagues, the young farmers, the men and women who are going to be providing food and fiber for the future are ready for change. They want to move away from farming for the mailbox to farming for the marketplace. They want to be able to determine what is best for their operations and get their returns from the marketplace. We all know this reform package is the only show in town. There have been some good ideas. Others have come up with things. But there is simply no consensus alternative that has been offered by those who are filibustering. There is no constituency for these alternative ideas that spring up and disappear. Neither producers nor farmers that I know of are supporting it. I must say, I am deeply troubled by one proposal opponents have offered, which would cut farm payments by 60 percent. Some have said on this floor that farmers have high prices, are making money, and having high income. Mr. President, my farmers are not in that situation. My farmers have been hit by flood, by drought, by frost. They have no crop to sell in some instances. They are faced with a refund of last year's advance deficiency payments. It does not matter if the crops are bringing high prices if you do not have anything to sell. Farmers want and deserve predictability, flexibility, and simplicity associated with a 7-year contract. A known stream of payments will provide certainty to farmers, lenders, and the taxpaying public. It will promote security during difficult economic times, and I think farmers can manage a predictable income stream to mitigate economic risks better than Washington can. I applaud Senator Dole, Senator Lugar, and Senator Leahy for bringing this bipartisan approach together. We need the votes to end the filibuster. I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion. Several Senators addressed the Chair.