Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 660, the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995. This legislation recognizes that elderly housing is special housing for seniors, that the elderly are a special population that deserve to live in housing reserved for the elderly, and that this legislation does not constitute discrimination against families. HUD recently published regulations to clarify what constitutes elderly housing. HUD published these regulations because the Congress in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 required HUD to clarify what constitutes elderly housing. I remind my colleagues that HUD has failed for years to provide the proper guidance and leadership on what constitutes elderly housing, despite confusion and costly litigation over this issue. Moreover, the new HUD regulations remain sorely lacking. It is time that we provide clear guidance on what constitutes elderly housing and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 660.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the conference report to H.R. 1058 addresses an issue of great concern to many Americans--securities litigation reform. While this is a subject that I believe needs to be addressed and one I have some personal views and experiences in, I will not be participating in the debate or votes on the floor. I have previously informed the Senate that I am engaged in securities litigation of the kind this legislation seeks to reform. Given the status of this suit and the pending legislation, I will again recuse myself from the proceedings on the matter. I thank the President and fellow Senators for their understanding of my personal situation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing regarding proposals to strengthen the SBIC Program on Tuesday, December 12, 1995, at [[Page S 17926]] 9:30 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Louis Taylor at 224-5175. subcommittee on parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a joint hearing with the Committee on Labor and Human Resources regarding OSHA reform on Wednesday, December 6, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Melissa Bailey at 224-5175. committee on small business

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today the Senate has the opportunity to demonstrate that the Federal Government is responsive to needs of the States and localities as they seek to provide quality drinking water to their citizens. It [[Page S 17744]] is imperative that Congress move forward on a Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] that revises the standard setting process that bases drinking water standards on an analysis of costs and public health benefits, eliminates unnecessary monitoring requirements, and has regulations based on the occurrence of a given contaminant and existence of public health risks instead of an arbitrary and escalating schedule of contaminants. Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 following public concern over findings of harmful chemicals in drinking water supplies. The intentions were admirable, but today's SDWA is a law that is too rigid and fails to prioritize risks. The current law operates under the notion that EPA bureaucrats are better able than local public health officials to determine the public health needs of a local community. Because of this, contaminants like cryptosporidium that ought to be regulated go unregulated because water operators are too busy expending limited resources on testing for so many random and sometimes obscure substances. In addition, the law fails to acknowledge that today's drinking water systems are capable of efficiently delivering 40 million gallons of safe water to American homes every day. The current SDWA is also an excellent example of a statute where litle or no science is required to regulate; there is no flexibility to set priorities based on risk to public health until 83 contaminants are regulated. The 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act required EPA to regulate a specific list of 83 contaminants, allowing the Agency seven substitutions. Regardless of the health risk associated with each of the contaminants listed in the statute, EPA was told to regulate 9 contaminants 1 year after enactment of the statute; 40 contaminants within 2 years of enactment; and the remainder 1 year later. Once EPA completes the list of 83, the statute goes on to require EPA to finalize regulations for 25 new contaminants every 3 years regardless of whether the contaminants occur in drinking water, or whether they are of public health concern. Nowhere in the statute does it say that the Agency should have good science, or peer-reviewed science or that if there are contaminants in drinking water supplies of greater health concern than those on the list, that EPA should regulate them first. EPA acknowledges that they have found it impossible to keep up with the statute's requirements and recognizes that the requirement has resulted in some pretty poorly drafted rules. In fact, in EPA's 1993 report to Congress, the Agency was quite frank about the statute's required deadlines and the quality of the data used. The Agency said in its report: To meet these deadlines, data collection and analysis have not always been as thorough as desired. Document drafting and management review had to occur simultaneously and documents have needed to be rewritten and rereviewed. Short review periods have resulted in oversights and the need to publish correction notices. Regulations covering multiple contaminants have often been lengthy and complex. Thus, the public had difficulty providing thoughtful comments and the Agency had limited resources for gathering and analyzing additional data in response to comments. In some cases, unrealistic deadlines have contributed to the Agency's difficulty in addressing the unique technical and economic capacity problems of very small systems. The current drinking water law, in other words, has played a large role in creating the information vacuum that now exists on the regulation of cryptosporidium for instance. One reason it has taken EPA so long to focus on cryptosporidium is the current law. Its rigidity and lack of flexibility have created a situation where even EPA's resources have gone to complying with a requirement to regulate an arbitrary list of 83 contaminants, most of which according to EPA occur in drinking water seldom and rarely at levels of public health concern, rather than concentrating efforts on priority contaminants. Even more wasteful is the significant amount of funds being spent by local communities monitoring for contaminants that do not occur in their particular source of water. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year are spent on monitoring for the contaminants regulated currently. If we are not looking at what is occurring in the drinking water supply and we are not required to have adequate or even good science to regulate, it is not surprising that we wind up regulating contaminants that may not be of the highest concern--and those priority contaminants, such as cryptosporidium, go unregulated. Local water suppliers, however, have recognized the need to move ahead without EPA regulations and have led the effort to develop a voluntary partnership with the States and EPA to enhance existing treatment processes to help safeguard drinking water from cryptosporidium in advance of the knowledge needed to develop an appropriate national regulation. It is past time that the Federal Government get in step and develop reforms that allow for prioritization of standards based on risk to the human population. It is past time to bring common sense to both laws and regulations. I commend Senators Kempthorne, Reid, Chafee, and Baucus for working diligently to get this broad, bipartisan supported legislation to the floor. I will support this legislation because it goes a long way in improving the current law. It eliminates the arbitrary schedule of contaminants, provides much-needed assistance to small systems, requires good, peer-reviewed science, changes standard setting requirements, implements voluntary sourcewater protection initiatives, and many more things. It is imperative that these changes are made. However, I do have some concerns with the legislation and this is why I have not cosponsored the bill. I believe we need to do more to ensure that those responsible for providing safe drinking water can adequately pursue the activities deemed most important in protecting public health with the resources available. We need to continue to address seriously the issues of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. According to the National Academy of Public Administration, the NAPA report: The tools of risk analysis and economic analysis help clarify regulatory and priority-setting issues confronting EPA and Congress. The discipline of analyzing risks, costs, and benefits encourages a degree of consistency in approach to understanding problems and defining solutions. The tools can and do provide information that is important for decisionmakers to consider. Shelving any of these tools, as some advocate, would be foolish and counterproductive, an invitation to muddle through rather than to learn and think. By setting risk based priorities we have the best opportunity to allocate, in the most cost-effective manner, the resources of the Government and private sector in protecting the public from contaminants in drinking water. We need to do all we can to provide greater protection to the public at less cost than the current system mandates. Once again, the NAPA report urges that: Congress should ask the agency to explain its significant regulatory decisions in terms of reductions in risk, and in terms of other benefits and costs. The agency should support state and local efforts to engage the public in comparing environmental risks, report periodically to Congress on a national ranking of risks and risk-reduction opportunities, and use comparative risk analysis to help set program and budget priorities. One of the reasons that I stress the issues of risk assessment and cost benefit as they relate to budget priorities is because that is the only way we are going to get the ``biggest bang for the buck.'' My colleagues on the committee have already heard my concerns regarding the authorization for appropriations in this bill. I was hoping that my concerns were going to be addressed, but I understand my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have objected. Therefore, I am compelled to share with everyone, once again, my views regarding this issue. Every single one of us, Republican or Democrat, has a responsibility to balance the budget. We have seen over the last several weeks that our views might not be identical on how to achieve this objective, but the objective is the same--a balanced budget. As authorizers, not just on this committee, but all committees, we must start to be more realistic in our funding expectations. Do not get me wrong, I know that as an authorizer I would probably authorize more than I know would be appropriated--so as not to tie [[Page S 17745]] the hands of the appropriators and just in case the slim chance would exist that full funding could be achieved. However, authorized pie-in- the-sky numbers have contributed to our budget problems and in my opinion, when we know from the beginning that the proposed authorization for appropriation is not possible we are being unfair to all our constituents. Reality is that discretionary spending is declining. The EPA budget was reduced this year. We have no choice but to try to do more with less. We must prioritize. As chairman of the relevant appropriations committee I would love to appropriate what everyone wants--point me to the money machine. Since the funding does not exist--how can we continue to mislead and give the impression that things are possible when they are not. Unfortunately, there is a wide gap between the wish list in this bill and available resources. Once again, I was hoping that this concern would be addressed, and am disappointed that it was not. I guess I will follow the direction that the distinguished committee chairman, Senator Chafee, provided during markup. The decisions will have to be made solely in appropriations. I also need to address one final concern in relation to the proposed disinfection-disinfection byproducts rule. The provision in the bill, in my opinion, greatly discourages the use of chlorine in water treatment despite the many health benefits chlorine provides. The language exempts this rule from cost-benefit analysis, sound science and comparative risk assessment. Considering the proposed cost of this rule, I am concerned that this will be an unfunded mandate to the States and localities. Once again, I thank Chairman Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Reid for their leadership and diligence on this issue. I learned long ago that you do not always get what you want. Maybe next time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would ask to be notified when 1 minute is gone. I want to give the prime sponsor the final minute. Basically, the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota says that the Clayton Act standards--will there be lessening of competition in any line of commerce--be applied to rail mergers. All of us have seen the case in airlines where there is no competition [[Page S 17596]] from one nearby city to another and find the cost of that travel is greater than the cost of travel coast to coast. That is because competition is not in effect. I agree that we ought to get rid of Government regulation, but we need competition to protect the customers in the marketplace, and we can only have competition if the Transportation Board has to apply the same standards to rail mergers it does to other industries. I urge support of the Dorgan amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this amendment, the Dorgan amendment, was to be debated in this time period. There are some brief points that could be made, and I wonder if the floor manager would include 2 minutes for the proponents and 2 minutes for the opponents so that we may conclude discussion.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I might ask the sponsor of the amendment if he wishes additional time. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I am very pleased to rise in support of the amendment by my friend and colleague from North Dakota. I have a very clear-cut philosophy on economic issues. Government regulation is the least desirable and the least effective way to make sure that the customers-- you and I as customers; we may be customers down the line--but as customers of businesses which are buying from other businesses or seeking services from them, we are all best served if the free market, rather than Government regulation, tells us how the service or products are delivered, what cost they are, and how readily available they are. Now, to achieve this, it requires there be competition. You cannot rely on the marketplace to regulate provision of services or goods or their cost if there is no competition. We have in law the Clayton Act, section 7 of the Clayton Act, which requires mergers in almost any other industry to be judged, and they cannot go forward if the proposed transaction would substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce in any section of the country. That is basic American philosophy going back almost 100 years. We need in this country to have the marketplace work. And the marketplace works when there is competition. Right now we have a situation in rail mergers under the Interstate Commerce Act that competition is not necessarily a criteria. The role of competition in rail mergers, in my view, should be the same as its role in any other mergers. If it does not leave a marketplace which can work, then we should not permit it. That is why we have laws against monopolization in section 2 of the Sherman Act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. That is why we have the FTC. That is why we have the Department of Justice. That is why we have access to the Federal courts. The amendment proposed by the Senator from North Dakota would just say that we have to apply this same test when it comes to rail mergers. It seems to me to make a lot of sense. Mr. President, I really got involved in this when shippers in my State expressed concern about their ability to both ship grain out in small lots of several cars, not unit trains, and purchasers who purchase inputs coming in by rail said, ``Hey, we need to have competition so we can get the best service at the best price.'' We had our second joint hearing of the Senate and House Small Business Committees on November 8 in the House Office Building. I thought I would just share with my colleagues a couple of the points made by the witnesses. Obviously, we did not have jurisdiction over this, but as a matter affecting small business, we advised the distinguished chairman and my predecessor in the Republican slot on the Small Business Committee that we wanted to hear from the shippers and others affected. We tried the get a good cross-section. But several of the points made by those witnesses I think should be called to the attention of my colleagues. Prof. Curtis Grimm, who is professor and chair of the Transportation, Business, and Public Policy, College of Business and Management at the University of Maryland, College Park, said: Under current standards, the ICC could approve a significantly anticompetitive merger, based on claims of speculative efficiency gains which would outweigh competitive harms. Mr. President, just because two companies want to merge and they say they can be more efficient, it does not necessarily mean that competition and the people they serve are going to benefit if we wind up with a monopoly situation. Sure, a lot of people would merge if they could take care of all their competition and be the only supplier in the marketplace. We have seen that before. We have seen that in transportation. Did you ever try to buy a ticket on an airline flight between two cities where there is only one carrier? Wow. It is usually cheaper to go around the world, no matter how close those two cities are. There was a time when only one carrier served Kansas City and St. Louis. You had to mortgage the home to fly back and forth. When competition comes in, you are going to find the best price and the best service. The same thing ought to be true, I believe, in other forms of transportation and, in this instance, in rail mergers. One of the witnesses testifying before us, Ed Emmett, is the president of the National Industrial Transportation League, the trade association representing over 1,000 shippers. He said: We are at a critical juncture in U.S. rail transportation policy. It is essential that the Congress act now to change the standards for judging rail mergers to focus more on competition. A fellow who relies on rail transportation for his inputs and his products, James F. Jundzilo, transportation manager, Tetra Chemicals in Texas, testified: We must put more focus on competition, involve anti-trust laws, competition in the public interest will then be maintained and protected. A manager of Lange Co. of Conway Springs, KS, William F. York, said: The current merger standards should be revised to focus more on the loss of competition and less upon so-called ``efficiency gains'' or allow the Department of Justice to review rail mergers as they do for other modes, including airlines. Finally, one other private sector witness, Fredrick D. Palmer, General Manager and CEO of Western Fuels Association, said: I submit that a virtually deregulated railroad system in serving a virtually deregulated electric utility industry cries out for the sorts of antitrust regulation to which both the electric utility and telecommunication industries are subjected. Finally, we were pleased to have testify before us the Secretary of Agriculture, the Honorable Dan Glickman, who said: If this latest railroad consolidation is approved, there will only be two major rail carriers west of the Mississippi. This could have serious implications for the rates and availability of rail transportation for the agriculture industry because of the reduced level of competition. It is for that reason that we should provide the Clayton Act section 7 standards to judge rail standards. I am advised the groups supporting this amendment include the National Industrial Transportation League, the Society of Plastics, the American Farm Bureau, Western Fuels Association, AFL-CIO, Railway Labor, Western Shipper's Coalition, the Chemical Manufacturer's Association, and I believe that the administration also supports this amendment. Mr. President, I think as we move toward a leaner and more efficient, more streamlined Federal Government, many functions of the Federal Government are excess, we do not need them. And there is one real area where we can get rid of a lot of regulation. It is where the marketplace forces competing suppliers of services or goods to compete on the quality of the service and the price. You do not need Government bureaucracies. You do not need rate setting. You do not need the whole plethora of rules and regulations for Government to run it if to make a buck they have to provide better service or better products at a better price than their competitors. That is the way we get the best deal. That is where our country has been most successful in making progress. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman for this clarification. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank my good friend and colleague from Virginia. On February 16 of this year, I joined with Senator Warner, my distinguished colleague, with Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, and others in introducing S. 440, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. From my standpoint, the NHS is a key component of the changes for which we fought so hard in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The NHS will demonstrate our commitment to a modern national system of high quality interconnected highways, the step beyond interstates, the next phase, the future for transportation in America. The good thing about NHS is that it was developed from the bottom up. It was developed with input from those agencies at the State and local level who best know the traffic needs in their area. In my case, obviously, the State of Missouri, that was the Missouri Highway and Transportation Department. They coordinated with metropolitan planning organizations, regional planning agencies, highway groups and local officials to determine the highway priorities of the State. Mr. President, if you have ever followed the process of determining where a highway should go, telling one city that it will get it and two other cities they will not get that particular highway, you know how much work that is. But it is work best done by the State and the locally responsible agencies. Frankly, it saves the Federal Government a lot of headache and keeps them out of a job that they probably do not know how to do as well as the Federal Government and cannot do as well. I think this is a great example of cooperation between Federal, State, and local governments. We ought to encourage and continue this priority. There are also some things that we have in the measure that are very important, I think, to all Americans who are concerned about good transportation--the intermodal connections. And we will be presenting a colloquy on the floor. It is vitally important, if we have these wonderful new highway systems, that they be able to plug into the airports, the ports, the rail facilities. Let us make sure that our entire transportation system works together. Now, as you take a look, on a State-by-State basis, I am sure that every Member who has any kind of highway transportation --and this is almost all States--some have more, some have less. In Missouri, we have great need for highways, as do other States like ours. It is particularly important because Missouri and Missourians need access for every community of any size to a modern, safe highway designed for high-volume traffic. We need high-quality roads that connect communities within our State in a grid and connect up similar roads in States adjacent to us, all the way to the markets which others now dominate because they already enjoy such access. For my State, the National Highway System is about 4,500 miles of our most economically important roads, which carry almost half of all motor vehicle traffic and the vast majority of heavy truck traffic. It is our map to future economic development. On its signing into law, this measure will bring an estimated $156 million for Missouri in this fiscal year--a first step in building for the future, and a vitally important economic development project in and of itself. I extend my very special and most sincere thanks to Senator Warner, Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, and their staffs, who have worked with my office very closely, and with me, not only providing leadership on this whole measure, but providing a response to particular needs that we have identified--and I mentioned intermodal connectors, inspection and maintenance, and designating I-35 as a high priority corridor. The assistance of these leaders of the Senate and their staffs was invaluable. Now we ought to urge the President to sign this legislation as soon as possible, so that my State, Missouri, and other States will no longer have to wonder about their highway funding. Senator Warner and I have fought for a long time to make certain that everyone understands the importance of highways. The legislation that he championed and which he has brought to the floor today will be the backbone of the national transportation network in the 21st century. It will affect every American, directly and indirectly, by increased economic growth, job creation, and reduction in congestion levels. I offer my sincerest congratulations to you for not only meeting the obstacles you confronted in accomplishing this legislation, but in overcoming successfully those obstacles. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner, Congressman Shuster, and the other conferees for agreeing to include a provision in the National Highway System bill ensuring that public highways connecting the NHS to ports, airports, and other intermodal transportation facilities will be eligible for NHS funds without further delay. One of the main reasons for creating the NHS was to establish intermodal facility connections. But few of the connectors are included on the current NHS map and the Department of Transportation is not expected to have a list of additional connectors ready until after enactment of this legislation. To ensure that NHS funding for the connectors on DOT's list is not further delayed, the bill makes them eligible for such assistance on an interim basis. While I would have preferred the Senate passed bill language, this provision represents a reasonable compromise and should achieve the same results. There is one matter dealing with the interim eligibility provision on which I would appreciate the chairman's clarification, however. The provision refers to a project to construct a connector to an intermodal transportation facility. It is my understanding that the word ``construct'' is to be read very broadly to include not only construction and reconstruction projects, but also ones involving resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and operational improvements, such as the installation of traffic surveillance and control equipment and computerized signal systems.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to the 1995 Youth Volunteers at the Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans' Hospital. I am very pleased to recognize the 41 youth volunteers for their superior service and their fine example of the true spirit of voluntarism. This past summer, the 1995 Youth Volunteers contributed over 5,700 hours to the hospitalized veterans and staff at the Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans' Hospital in Columbia, MO. Their hard work and untiring commitment provided valuable assistance to the members of the medical community and demonstrated selfless dedication to those in need. The Veterans Affairs Voluntary Service commended the 1995 Volunteer Youth at a ceremony on September 23, 1995. It is my great pleasure to congratulate the 1995 Youth Volunteers for their significant accomplishments. I ask that the names of the volunteers be printed in the Record. Youth Volunteers--1995 The list follows: Gretchen Adibe, Neha Aggarwal, Schann Bryan, Shannon Bryan, Amanda Cochran, Katie Deal, Brian Dube, Sarina Finklestin, Brea Foster, Tiffany Foster, Marsha Grieshaber, John Griffith, Abe Haim, Clint Hake, Amy Hanley, Jeff Heidenreich, Jamie Huggans, Maryke Kelly, Jesse Langley, Laura Loftus, Katie Marienfeld, Gina McGuire, Katie Mitchell, David Mueller, Dennis Payne, Jessica Pike, Chrissy Rahmoeller, Michael Rahmoeller, Justin Redmond, Laura Sanders, Samantha Scheard, Sarita Scheard, Cynthia Singleton, Melissa Smarr, David Staats, Shanta Subramanian, Neda Taj, Laweda Turner, Marlisa Turner, Carley Utterback, Matt Webster.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Finance, it is my responsibility to monitor our trade agreements relating to financial services. It is a responsibility we take seriously. Earlier this year, the subcommittee held a hearing on the WTO negotiations regarding financial services. We heard testimony from both administration and industry representatives. Based on those hearings and close monitoring of the talks, we took a strong position in opposition to the proposal that was put forward. The administration, correctly, took the same position. In recent weeks, the subcommittee staff has been monitoring the implementation of other agreements including the United States-Japan insurance agreement which is formally known as ``Measures by the Government of Japan and the Government of the United States Regarding Insurance.'' Based on those initial reviews, we have some significant concern regarding implementation of the accord. Ambassador Mickey Kantor has often emphasized the importance of ensuring faithful implementation of our trade agreements. Great effort is invested in reaching agreements--once the investment is made, vigilance is needed to ensure that they bear fruit in terms of new opportunities for our businesses, U.S. exports, and jobs. Senators will remember the considerable efforts expended recently by the USTR to conclude accords under the United States-Japan Framework Agreement. More than a year has passed since the first agreements were reached; I believe it is now an appropriate time to conduct an assessment of those initial agreements and what, if anything, they have accomplished. One of the first agreements reached was the one covering insurance. Japan has the largest life insurance market in the world, and the second largest nonlife market, after the United States. Despite the enormity of this market, all foreign insurers hold less than a 3- percent market share, a far lower share than every other advanced industrialized country. Japan is currently deregulating its insurance market following the Diet's passage of a new insurance business law in July of this year. If pursued in accordance with the bilateral insurance agreement, we can expect deregulation to provide significant new benefits for Japanese consumers and businesses, as well as new opportunities for competitive foreign insurers. However, developments occurring in Japan today indicate that new threats may be confronting United States insurance interests. These threats can be prevented if the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement is faithfully implemented. Specific provisions of the insurance agreement were designed to ensure that the interests of foreign insurers were not undermined by the deregulation process. In a letter from Ambassador Kantor to the U.S. insurance industry of October 11, 1994, detailed definitions of the key terms of the agreement were outlined, together with [[Page S 17187]] USTR's expectations of what would result. Full compliance with these terms, as defined in Ambassador Kantor's letter, is essential if the agreement is to achieve its objectives. Because faithful implementation of this accord is so important, Senator Boxer, the ranking member on the subcommittee, and I recently sent to Ambassador Kantor a letter requesting a detailed and comprehensive report to the committee this month on all actions taken to date by the Government of Japan to implement its obligations under the insurance agreement. It is my hope that the Senate's interest will serve as a constructive influence to help ensure that this important agreement, and other agreements, stay on track and live up to their full potential. Mr. President, I ask that our letter to Ambassador Kantor, as well as Ambassador Kantor's letter to the U.S. insurance industry of October 11, 1994, be printed in the Record. The letters follow: U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Washington, DC, November 8, 1995. Hon. Michael Kantor, U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Ambassador: We are writing to share with you our commitment to ensuring full and effective implementation of trade agreements between the United States and Japan. You have often stated it is not enough simply to reach agreements with our trading partners, but that we must also be vigilant in guaranteeing that the rights gained under those agreements are fully realized. We could not agree more strongly. As part of our Subcommittee's ongoing oversight responsibilities in this regard, we would like to request a detailed report on the results of actions taken to date to implement the commitments defined in the U.S.-Japan Insurance Agreement and in your October 11, 1994 letter to the U.S. insurance industry concerning certain key aspects of the Agreement. We are concerned about reports that, as the implementation date for the new Japanese Insurance Business Law approaches, developments in Japan may pose serious threats to U.S. insurance interests. For example, plans by large Japanese insurers to enter the ``third sector'' through newly created subsidiaries, pose both a major commercial threat to U.S. insurers and a probable violation of the insurance agreement. The Subcommittee is particularly concerned about the inadequacy of actions taken to date by the Ministry of Finance to ensure compliance with those provisions related to this activity. Accordingly, we request you provide a report to the Subcommittee on these and other actions taken to date by the Government of Japan to implement obligations under the agreement, as well as the results of those actions. Please also describe additional actions USTR will take to ensure ongoing implementation of the agreement's other provisions. We would appreciate receiving your report within the next two weeks so we may proceed with our review. The Subcommittee is considering a future hearing to review the results of various U.S.-Japan trade agreements; your report on the insurance agreement will help us prepare for any such meeting. We appreciate your efforts on behalf of U.S. insurers, and look forward to your report. Sincerely, Barbara Boxer Christopher S. Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing opposition to including this provision to eliminate the Commerce Department on this measure. Regardless of the position one takes on the issue of eliminating the Commerce Department, I do not believe it is proper for it to be included in the measure before us today. Personally, I have strong concerns about one section of this proposal to eliminate Commerce--that is the section which reorganizes the trade functions. I take a second seat to no one in my desire to cut government spending and eliminate the budget deficit. Removing this huge burden from the backs of our children and grandchildren should be our top priority. I believe that one way to reduce the deficit is to eliminate and downsize agencies--and there are several agencies which I have suggested for elimination. Certainly, the Commerce Department can stand some severe downsizing and reorganization. No one can argue that it is a well-thought-out, streamlined agency. That does not, however, mean we ought to do that trimming with a meat-axe. Instead, we must do it carefully--in a way that ensures we do not destroy programs critical to our national or economic security. I am concerned that the proposal before us today will have just such an impact--that is, it will harm our economic security and it will cost jobs. Exports are absolutely critical to our Nation's economic health and security, and they will become even more so in the global economy of the 21st century. If we are to maintain our place as the world's leading economy, we will have to increase our share of the world market. The competition will be tough and other companies will come to the field armed with a wide array of tools provided by their governments--from high-level sales assistance to concessional financing, and even in some cases, outright bribes. American firms need at least a helping hand if they are to remain able to compete in this rough atmosphere. Providing that edge is the job of our trade promotion and finance agencies, led by the International Trade Administration of the Commerce Department. Generally, I would be the last one to argue that government ought to be playing a more active role in any aspect of business. As chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, I hear daily from business owners who have suffered at the hands of government bureaucracy and overregulation. The fact is, however, that if smaller firms are to enter and be successful in the global marketplace, they will, in many cases, need the support and encouragement of the government. Companies entering the international marketplace are vying with foreign competitors who have the active assistance and involvement of a wide range of government agencies and officials. Without the support of agencies such as the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service, the Export- Import Bank, OPIC, and TDA, American firms would often be left behind. I would note, however, that it is not only small firms that need this assistance. Even huge companies cannot compete if their foreign competitors are getting special assistance from their home governments in terms of financing and marketing help. In many parts of the world, customers are used to dealing with government officials and private firms need the added help of a senior official--such as the Secretary of Commerce--to win sales. And it is important to remember that the support of government is critical in other areas, as well--ensuring a level playing field in trade with other countries, for example, as we saw earlier this year with the Japanese auto parts talks; and in the type of hands-on, high- level marketing we have seen by Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and President Clinton. Government can also play a role by ensuring that our laws and regulations do not impede exports. For example, in the International Finance Subcommittee which I chair, we are working on a rewrite of the Export Administration Act, a step which is badly needed to eliminate outdated and unnecessary controls and ensure that controls are doing the job they were intended to do--keeping critical technology out of the hands of our enemies, rather than keeping U.S. firms from being competitive. Certainly, government cannot--and should not--do it all. But it is clear these agencies can provide the extra little bit needed to turn a near loss into a win. Unfortunately, the debate in Washington this year has not focused on the importance of exports or the importance of ensuring that American firms remain competitive. Instead the debate has turned to the need to eliminate ``corporate welfare,'' and unfortunately--and I believe wrongly--these programs have been labeled corporate welfare. Members can criticize these programs, but the fact is they are responsible for creating and saving thousands of good-paying American jobs that would otherwise go to Paris, Ottawa, London, or Osaka. I don't want to see that happen, and I am certain most other Senators do not either. This is not just an abstract argument I am making--we are talking here about real contracts and real jobs. Earlier this year, Secretary Brown testified before my subcommittee in a closed session to present a classified report detailing some of the activities that other countries are using to win deals for their companies. The report noted activities that are widely accepted such as high-level marketing. However, it also detailed questionable and illegal activities such as threats of aid cutoffs and outright bribes. It is a fascinating report, and I urge my colleagues to go to S-407 and read it before voting to weaken our trade promotion and finance agencies which I would note, are funded at the lowest level of any major trading nation. The proposal before us today is significantly better than proposals that were offered earlier this year, at least with regard to the trade portions. Instead of eliminating huge parts of the trade promotion and finance staff, it eliminates only a portion, and consolidates them into a single agency--the new Office of the Trade Representative. This new organization would bring together the existing Office of the Trade Representative, the Trade and Development Agency and the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration and Bureau of Export Administration. It would be headed by the U.S. Trade Representative, who would be designated a Cabinet officer by this administration. It would not, however, be a department. There are a number of problems I see with this proposal. First, it brings together under one roof our good cop and bad cop on trade. I believe it will be very difficult for the head of this agency to do both jobs--to travel to a country and beat up on them at one meeting for not buying enough U.S. automobiles and then turn around and offering to sell them American built airplanes. It just does not seem like it will work as well as the current system where Mickey Kantor negotiates and enforces, and Ron Brown sells. Second, this proposal would downgrade the status of many of our trade official which will have significant consequences in other countries where rank and face are important. Third, this provision mandates spending cuts that would have a devastating impact on our export agencies. Already this year, I had to fight off an attack on the funding for these trade agencies--cuts that would have brought 600 layoffs out of the International Trade Administration alone [[Page S 16900]] and which would have forced us to close nearly half of all domestic offices, and which would have left us without Commercial Officers in many parts of the world. There was overwhelming support for restoring the money when the bill was considered on the floor. I would note that the funding cuts would also hit the Bureau of Export Administration--the agency charged with enforcing our export control laws on high-tech exports. That is a problem for two reasons. First it will mean U.S. firms selling computers, telecommunications equipment, machine tools and other high-tech products will likely have to wait longer for licensing--likely losing sales as a result. Just as important, however, it is likely to result in poorer enforcement of the export laws designed to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That is precisely the wrong way to go at a time when we are seeing the growth of groups such as the AUM sect in Japan. Perhaps we ought to be considering reorganization of our trade agencies. If we do, however, I think it should be with a clear understanding of what we are doing. And, I for one, am not convinced that we have that understanding. Thus, I urge my colleagues to reject this provision and to allow the Senate to get on with the pressing business at hand.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Senate Committee on Small Business will hold a joint hearing with the House Committee on Small Business regarding ``Railroad Consolidation: Small Business Concerns'' on Wednesday, November 8, 1995, at 2 p.m., in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. For further information, please contact Keith Cole at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, earlier this morning I joined my good friends of the Local Initiatives Support Corp. to kick off LISC's new rural LISC initiative. I was pleased to be joined by Roger Young, the commissioner for the Eastern District of Audrain County, MO; David Thayer of Central Missouri Counties HDC; and David Stanley, chairman and CEO of Payless Cashways, Inc., who support this initiative. I thank them for their tireless efforts in support of finding new ways to leverage funding through public-private partnerships for addressing the housing and economic needs of rural, distressed communities. I emphasize that rural communities face an economic decline of substantial [[Page S 16466]] magnitude. Nearly 17 percent of rural Americans live below the poverty level, and across all major racial, ethnic, and age groups, these residents are poorer than those in metropolitan areas and have less opportunity. While most of the rural poor are working, their wages are at or below minimum wage. The rural poor also face a bleak housing situation--one in four poor rural families live in substandard housing, and nearly half pay over 50 percent of their income for rent. A lack of human and financial capital, as well as an inadequate physical and communications infrastructure, compound the economic and housing difficulties that face the rural poor. Earlier this month, I chaired a hearing before the Senate Committee on Small Business which focused on proposals to revitalize rural and urban communities and Paul Grogan, president of LISC, provided insightful testimony at that time. At this hearing, we had the opportunity to discuss legislation I am drafting to target Federal contracts to small businesses that locate in economically distressed communities, which I call HUBZones. To be eligible, small businesses would need to hire at least 35 percent of its work force from the HUBZone to receive valuable preference in bidding on Government contracts. I believe this is one way the Federal Government can provide a significant incentive to encourage small businesses to provide a value added in terms of jobs and investment to economically distressed rural communities. I applaud the efforts and commitment of LISC for establishing the rural LISC initiative which will be responsible for a public-private partnership that will commit over $300 million to 68 nonprofits in 39 States and Puerto Rico for community revitalization efforts in rural areas. LISC has a longstanding commitment to finding new approaches and strategies to address the problems of distressed communities through public-private partnerships. Moreover, LISC has long operated as a linchpin to successful community-based investment in urban areas through community development corporations. I emphasize that I support the need to develop public-private partnerships as the primary vehicle to implement positive and community-based policies to address distressed communities, in both urban and rural areas. For too long, the Federal Government has acted as a ``Mother-May-I'' that has lost touch with the individual needs of individual communities. Most of the current housing reform legislation, whether in through the appropriation or authorization process, recognizes the need to consolidate housing and community development programs and to redirect the responsibility for decisionmaking from the Federal Government to State and local governments. In particular, like many urban areas, the Federal Government has been unable to establish effective policies to meet the many and unique needs of rural areas. LISC deserves particular praise for taking a leadership role in organizing and focusing its expertise, resources, and the marshalling of public and private sector capital on the unique and individual needs of rural areas. Rural LISC represents a major and significant new public-private partnership which will direct critical new investment to rural CDC's. I emphasize these CDC's are committed to transforming rural distressed communities from the grassroots up. Finally, the Federal Government has failed to understand the needed dynamic to solve local problems in distressed communities. Instead of mandating one-size-fits-all policies at the Federal level, Congress and the Federal Government need to refocus the decisionmaking for local communities from the Federal Government back to States and localities. LISC brings to the table expertise and a history of commitment of listening and responding to local needs. I expect the rural LISC public/private partnership approach to provide a powerful tool and model for how best to address the needs of rural areas effectively and efficiently.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3005

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in many respects this is an amazing debate we are having today, a debate I was not sure I would ever see--should we, or should we not, pass a bill which will get our budget into balance over the next 7 years. It is historic. It is bold. It is unprecedented. And judging by the reaction, it is real. Unfortunately, $5 trillion in debt has piled up waiting for this day, so even with this action, we are still passing on a huge debt to our children and their children. When I first got to Washington, after coming from State government where we had to balance the budget every year, I was amazed at the cavalier attitude taken by so many about budget crisis. It did not take me long to learn that walking away from budget problems had become so ingrained that success was defined as holding the deficit to only $200 billion--meaning we only added $1 trillion to the debt every 5 years. Unfortunately, that is where President Clinton remains today. While we are willing to put before the public the real questions--when do we stop adding to the debt? When do we get serious about slowing the growth of runaway programs? When will Congress be willing to actually say No to a special interest, or a pet program and say ``Sorry, I'm worried about adding to my kid's debt.'' No one said it would be easy--but with the leadership of Senator Domenici, and the willingness of Members to stand up and vote for action instead of just talking a good game--this Senate will soon take that step. Make no mistake, the step is a big one, as for the first time in 25 years Congress has the opportunity to pass a budget which will get us to a surplus--rather than just keep adding to our debt. The budget before us is tough. It sets priorities. It recognizes that government cannot do it all. And it makes the statement that the time has come for leaders of today to start paying attention to the financial and economic devastation thy are creating for tomorrow's generations. We have heard many speeches about the need to cut spending, reduce the deficit, and get our Nation's books into balance. Everyone who looks at our nearly $5 trillion debt recognizes the need to do something so that we don't keep piling on that debt for our children and grandchildren. Over the next few days the American people will have a rare opportunity to see exactly what the political leadership's visions for our country's future are. Too often Congress legislates for the present, ignoring the costs for the future. Political expediency replaces thoughtful debate, and at the end of the day it is with shock and dismay that the public finally realizes what has occurred--and recognizes what additional debt they or their children will be forced to pay. It takes a long time to build up a $5 trillion debt. And even starting today it will take 7 years to get us to a balance, meaning that we won't even begin paying off a dime of debt until 2002. Some would like us to put off the tough choices for a little longer. Others have abandoned finding a solution to the real budget crisis we are facing in their zeal to make political points. And still others claim to be on board with the concept of balancing the budget--they just don't like our approach. But as I have said before--talk is cheap. If you say you want to balance the budget, let's see your plan. If you say you understand Medicare is going broke, and must be fixed, let's see your plan. Unfortunately, what we have seen and heard so far is much heat--and no light. Medicare is one of the best examples. Medicare today is paying out in claims more than it is collecting in premiums. It is only because of the interest earned on the trust fund's surplus that Medicare is not insolvent right at this moment. This means that as I speak, for every dollar a senior is paying in, more than a dollar in claims is being paid out. So why is everyone not saying stop, something has to be done? Next year even including the interest earned on the trust fund's won't be enough to pay out all the claims. Thus next year Medicare will be insolvent, and it will be forced to start eating into its rainy day fund--the money which has been built up in order to be available for the baby boomers who start to retire in the next decade. And then if nothing is done, by the year 2002 the surplus will be gone and the entire program will be bankrupt and will be forced to shut down. So again I ask, why is the President not saying we must do something to fix this drastic problem--not just delay it again like has been done so often before--but actually fix it? Why are my colleagues in the Democratic party not saying let us get to work on this problem? Instead they want to paper over the problems in Medicare, only fiddling around the edges, while making no effort to make fundamental changes in the program as we realize must be done. We want to make savings by giving seniors a real choice--they offer a 2-year bandaid to get them beyond the next election. So what does our bill do? It takes on the task of reforming and overhauling Medicare--both to protect it for today's seniors, as well as preserve it for tomorrow's. It also expands choices, and bring the program of the 1960's into the health care system of the 1990's. And it gives us 25 years of additional solvency--versus the 25 months of the Democrats' plan. How much clearer can the choice be? A thoughtful long-term solution-- or a get-me-through one more election BandAid. Mr. President this debate is much bigger than Medicare. It is much bigger than Medicaid, agriculture, civil service retirement, or welfare. It is about what financial legacy we want to leave to our next generations. It is about whether people believe that $5 trillion in debt is enough, and whether we in Congress have the courage to hit the spending brakes. I hope we do. And hope that the President will find the courage to do the same. Finally, I would like to express my opposition to the amendment that the senior senator from Arizona has indicated he plans to offer. That amendment would, allegedly, eliminate 12 pork programs--a goal I would support if it delivered on that promise. Unfortunately, however, the amendment would target several programs which are critical to our international competitiveness and our ability to create high-paying export jobs. Let me quickly touch on just a few examples: First, the amendment would require the Export Import Bank to raise loan fees which would have the impact of making Exim financing uncompetitive vis-a-vis other countries' export finance agencies. That means U.S. companies will lose deals and U.S. workers will lose jobs. Second, it would reimpose recoupment fees on commercial sales of military equipment overseas. The Bush administration eliminated this fee because it was making U.S. export uncompetitive and costing jobs. It makes no sense to reimpose it. Third, it would cancel NASA's subsonic and supersonic research programs. These programs are aimed at ensuring U.S. aerospace companies retain their technological edge into the 21st century. If it becomes technically possible, it will be economically viable to build only one supersonic airplane. I want that plane to be built by Boeing or McDonnell Douglas, not by Airbus.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, who has been a champion of this deduction for a long time. It is a pleasure to work with him on this amendment. I want to advise my colleagues that we have received strong letters of support from a whole host of organizations--agriculture and small business, including the Farm Bureau Federation, ABC, Chamber of Commerce, H.E.A.L., Association for Self-Employed, Association of Home Builders, Cattlemen's Association, National Restaurant Association, NFIB, National Retail Federation, Small Business Legislative Council, Society of American Florists. I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. There is a great injustice in our tax law, an injustice that I suspect everyone in this body has addressed at some time or another. That is the inequity in the deductibility of health insurance costs. I do not think I need to tell my colleagues that corporations historically can deduct 100 percent of the health care insurance premium that they pay for employees, and the employees do not have to declare any of the employer-paid health insurance premiums as income. At the same time, the self- employed farmers, the small business men and women of this country cannot deduct more than 30 percent. This body took a great step forward earlier this year when we reinstated for last year the 25-percent deduction and increased that to 30 percent. Frankly, that is not enough. In my role as chairman of the Small Business Committee, I have heard from small businesses in my State and across the country who are concerned, and greatly concerned, rightfully so, about health care. The occupant of the chair and I know, because we have worked on health care issues over recent years, one of the biggest problems we face are those who are uninsured, because they are limited to a 30- percent deduction as self-employed people for health care insurance premiums. Under the amendment that I am offering today with Senator Pryor, we will increase the deduction for self-employed to 60 percent next year, 60 percent the following year, and then in the year 1998, increase that to 100 percent. Mr. President, I believe that is the way to achieve equity and ensure that more of the self-employed are insured. The offset to this provision--we seek to offset by taking out the new program for long-term care insurance included in the Finance Committee markup. I think it is a good idea down the road, or perhaps even before we complete work on this bill, to start providing some incentives for long-term insurance. I think it makes a great deal of sense. I think first we have to address the basic inequity. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and eminent leader of the Budget Committee for this time. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Pryor and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND. We would like the yeas and nays since everybody is here.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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