Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 895, the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act of 1995. This bill will increase the availability of business loans under the Small Business Administration's 7(a) Guaranteed Business Loan Program to meet the growing borrowing demand from the small business community. If S. 895 is enacted, the 7(a) program will be able to expand to provide over $10 billion in small business loans--the largest loan program in SBA's 42 year history. As many of us know, the popularity of SBA's 7(a) loan program has one unfortunate consequence. Administrator Phil Lader has notified all members of the Committee on Small Business that this popular guaranteed loan program will run out of money by September 1 of this year. When I introduced S. 895 in early June, I believed the bill provided the tools necessary to put the 7(a) program on an even keel for the remainder of this fiscal year and for fiscal year 1996. I am pleased to report that there was great interest in the bill among the members of the Committee on Small business. As the result of my colleagues' support and the hard work by their staffs, we have created an amended version of S. 895 that builds on the initial bill. In particular, I want to recognize the support and cooperation I have received from my good friend from Arkansas, the ranking minority member, Senator Bumpers. He and his staff worked very closely with us in crafting the bill before the Senate today. In addition, I am very pleased that Senators Burns, Snowe, and Wellstone also have agreed to be cosponsors. The Small Business Lending Enhancement Act of 1995 will provide a much-needed expansion of the 7(a) loan program. S. 895 will lower the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) loan program from 2.74 to 1.29 percent, a 54 percent reduction in the subsidy rate. This change has a significant impact on the volume of loans that can be made to small businesses. In fiscal year 1995, $214 million was needed to support a loan program of $7.8 billion. Under S. 895, in fiscal year 1996, only $133 million needs to be appropriated to support $10.5 billion in loans, reduction of 39 percent with a 35-percent increase in loan volume. To help fund the 7(a) program, S. 895 imposes a modest increase in guarantee fees paid by the borrower, except that the guarantee fee for LowDoc Loans is not increased. In addition, an annual fee of 50 basis points, one-half of 1 percent of the outstanding guaranteed portion of the loan, will be paid by the lender to SBA. For the first time, the bill gives the Administrator of SBA the discretion to lower the credit subsidy rate still further--to 1.09 percent. He would exercise this discretionary authority if estimated borrowing demand is so high to require an increase in the availability of SBA guaranteed business loans. When the subsidy rate is lowered, the [[Page S 12516]] total loan authorization amount increases without a corresponding increase in appropriations. Some of my colleagues on the committee are very interested in expanding the Preferred Lenders Program under the 7(a) loan program. I support their goal. S. 895 includes a provision to raise the guaranteed percentage rate for preferred loans from 70 percent to 75 percent. All other loans, except for those under the LowDoc program, also will carry a 75 percent guarantee. This change eliminates the disparity that exists under the current 7(a) program where preferred loans carry only a 70 percent guarantee and all other loans have guarantees ranging from 90 percent to 75 percent. This has deterred preferred lenders from maximizing use of the Preferred Lenders Program, and S. 895 will correct this inequity. Further reliance on lenders is necessary to reduce future SBA overhead and exposure under the business loan guarantee programs. Later this year, it is my intention that the committee will undertake an indepth study of the 7(a) program. Additional measures may be considered, if necessary, to increase further the percentage of 7(a) loans originated and administered with the type of substantial lender involvement required under the Preferred Lenders Program. S. 895 also makes a small adjustment in the credit subsidy rate for the 504 Certified Development Program. Earlier this year, the Administration recommended that the credit subsidy rate for the 504 Program be reduced to zero. The Committee on Small Business has some concern that taking the credit rate to zero might threaten the success of this program. Therefore, S. 895 imposes a modest fee increase on borrowers to reduce the credit subsidy rate for the 504 Program to 0.33 percent from 0.57 percent. Mr. President, S. 895 is before the Senate today because we need to make adjustments in the credit subsidy rate, which has been mandated by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. It is the annual calculation of the credit subsidy rate that determines the level of appropriation required to support the 7(a) guaranteed loan program. Each year, the Office of Management and Budget determines the credit subsidy rate for the upcoming year. OMB makes critical assumptions about the future performance of 7(a) loans and SBA's liquidation recovery effort. Usually, this calculation is made without prior explanation to the Committee, even though it has a dramatic impact on the cost the 7(a) loan program. The current manner in which the credit subsidy rate is calculated and the subsidy fund is managed needs a much closer review by the Congress. While the Committee on Small Business has accepted the present credit subsidy rate calculation for the purposes of determining borrower and lender fees under S. 895, the committee intends to enter into a careful study of this matter as it considers additional long term reforms for SBA's small business finance programs. Mr. President, S. 895, the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act of 1995, is a sound bill. In the upcoming fiscal year, it will make commercial loans available to tens of thousands of small businesses, who otherwise might not have access to critical business financing. By a vote of 18 to 0, S. 895 was unanimously supported by the Committee on Small Business. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation that is so important to small business owners across the United States.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Chairman Stevens, this year, as in the past, your subcommittee has demonstrated its continued commitment to insuring the Army National Guard remains adequately supplied with modern and effective combat equipment. Currently, the Army Guard is wrestling with how best to modernize its artillery inventory. A key component of this modernization plan is the upgrade of 51 battalions and 7 additional batteries with the M109A6 Paladin system. The initial cost estimates of this modernization effort are prohibitive. I suggest an affordable altnernative--one that is already endorsed by the Senate Armed Services Committee. I suggest that the Army develop an upgrade of the M109A5 currently in use by the Army National Guard, using components of the Paladin system. This upgrade would include digital and survivability enhancements which would significantly improve the combat performance of this weapon system. I would encourage the Department of the Army to evaluate this upgrade project and urge the committee to establish an M109A5 upgrade RDT&E program element with funds from the Paladin line to enable the Army to procure and evaluate a platoon of four M109A5 upgrade systems for use by the Army National Guard.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a matter of importance to our Army National Guard Forces.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Secretary, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force and the officers, men and women of the United States Air Force Air Mobility Command for their performance during the recently concluded reliability, maintainability, and availability evaluation of the C-17 Globemaster III. This aircraft, though controversial at the start has more than proven itself under intense scrutiny by the USAF testers, but most importantly it has proven itself to the men and women who load it, fly it, and maintain it. During the RM&A evaluation, the C-17 and their crews transported 5,500 tons of Air Force and Army equipment, airdropped nearly 770,000 pounds, including Sheridan tanks and accommodated over 3,000 paratroopers of the 82d Airborne from Fort Bragg, NC and I send my congratulations to them as well. The C-17 flew more than 2,250 flight hours and 500 sorties with a 99-percent launch reliability rate. We look for jointness in many of our procurements, the C-17 was built with this in mind. Its load capacity has been designed to carry Patriots, helicopters, humvees, main battle tanks, multiple launcher rocket systems and the Army's huge communications vans. These items can not only be transported but driven on and driven off of the aircraft * * * and in an austere environment. It can take the mission essential equipment to where the troops need it. It truly can carry the fight to the enemy * * *wherever he is. And so Mr. President, I hope this puts to rest those critics of the C-17 who look to less flexible, limited commercial freight haulers to support the combat requirements of this Nation's military personnel. Again, I pass my congratulations and ``a job well done'' to all those involved in the C-17 program.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am most grateful to my friend from South Dakota, the minority leader. I will try not to use the full 10 minutes. I wish to say based on what we have heard here today that there may be differences among us. We do have some questions about the Democratic leadership amendment that has been introduced, but I gain a great deal of encouragement from hearing the comments of my friend from Connecticut, who was talking about work and the emphasis we must place on work. I personally am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the welfare bill the majority leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee have introduced. I think that after 30 years of ever more expensive and less effective approaches to poverty, we are on the threshold of developing a plan that will reform welfare in a meaningful way. We have heard from a lot of our colleagues who spent the last 2 days describing the problems of the current system. I agree with that. There are problems. We all recognize the current system is a disaster and it does not well serve those down and out in society who need a hand up, and it does not serve the taxpayers of the country who fund it. If any of us have questions about that, I think we can just go home and ask the folks in our home State. We are going to hear that clearly. I would like to describe in brief some of the reasons I think the Dole-Packwood approach will work in that it strikes a fair balance between the role of the Federal Government in providing a safety net and giving States increased responsibility. I think it is a sound approach in fixing the system and clearly the best alternative to those who would completely dismantle public assistance and those who would simply tinker around the edges. We have heard some very eloquent statements in the last hour about how important all the individual programs are and how great they are and what wonderful things they have done and how much better they would be if we spent more money. I do not think that is the real world. I hope we can come together on a bipartisan basis to say more and more individual Federal programs with more and more money is not getting us out of the hole. I have been working on welfare reform 8 years as Governor and longer than that in this Congress in past legislative sessions. I have been very pleased to work on a bipartisan basis with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, over the last 2 years, and I am delighted that some of the ideas we have worked on are included in the bill before us. The centerpiece of the bill that we included on a bipartisan basis was a personal responsibility contract. This is a fundamental change in the way we would approach public assistance. Since the creation of aid to families with dependent children, public aid has been regarded as an entitlement. If you meet the requirements, if you have the problems and if you have the lack of money for eligibility and you have the children, you get the cash with no strings attached. That just does not work. The current system has rightly been condemned by persons from all walks of life: researchers, advocates, pastors, politicians, even the recipients themselves. The system is impersonal. It is inefficient, and it encourages continued dependency. Recipients continue to get cash month after month after month without thinking about their future and without giving any help or any encouragement or any prod to become self-sufficient. Treating public assistance as a contractual relationship such as is being done in Iowa, Missouri, Utah, and elsewhere where both parties have responsibility for changes, both parties need to do something, recipients themselves have to work or perform for their benefits, is the way out of the trap. I believe a large reason for the stagnation in the welfare programs today is that we have not required anything in return for benefits. It is a one-way street. The lack of reciprocity has bred an ethic of dependence rather than a work ethic. The only way we can turn this around is to require something in return for what the taxpayers are paying out. Most Americans believe our Government has a responsibility to help families in need, and certainly we are going to pursue that. But we also know that individuals have a responsibility to help themselves if they can. I believe that this approach will do a better job of helping people to create a better life for themselves and their families. I am concerned that if we do not require recipients of public assistance to work or behave responsibly, then our efforts at reform will fail. The principle should be, public assistance is a two-way street. You want benefits? You have got to work and behave responsibly in return. The Dole-Packwood bill has a real work requirement. We have, I think, in this measure, since we last took on welfare reform in 1988, learned that the States are moving well ahead of the Federal Government. That is why we are going to look to the States to lead the way in finding new ways and better ways to get out of welfare dependency. We have tinkered with the problem. We have tinkered with eligibility. But we have not come close to solving the problem of poverty. I am pleased that we take steps to move responsibility back to the States. I think we are doing an excellent job in reforming the supplemental security income program, which has grown out of control and has brought real outrage. I think that we need to change the system with respect to noncitizens. These elements are all in the bill. The Dole-Packwood plan has a real work requirement, unlike the existing system. There would be no automatic exemption from work requirements. Currently, over half the caseload on average in every State is exempt from participation in work and job training [[Page S 11841]] programs. No wonder the American people think the system is a sham. Since we last took on the welfare reform issue in 1988, we learned that our Nation's Governors are far ahead of Washington in generating reform ideas and in implementing them. Currently States must undertake a lengthy and cumbersome waiver process in order to obtain permission to implement commonsense reforms. States that want to require welfare recipients to obtain preventive health care for their children, or to ensure that their children stay in school, or wish to allow recipients to keep more of their earnings from a parttime job--good ideas all-- must now obtain a waiver from HHS. This is costly, time consuming, and silly. Dole-Packwood permits States to try a variety of ideas to move people into meaningful work and off public assistance, without permission from the Feds. Senator Harkin and I had also proposed that recipients be permitted to keep more income earned on the job, that teens be allowed to work without counting against family income, and that States be permitted to subsidize private sector jobs for welfare recipients on a trial basis. We also proposed that benefits be denied to those who fail to behave rsponsibly--those who fail to have their children immunized or to attend school. Under the system set up by the Dole-Packwood plan, States would be able to try any combination of these ideas, and many more we have not even thought of yet, without permission from Washington bureaucrats. Mr. President, in past attempts to reform welfare we have erred on the side of caution. We have tinkered with the programs and generally expanded eligibility. We have not come close to solving the problem of poverty; in fact, there are more children living in poverty now than 30 years ago. So we do not want to be overly cautious in our approach to this issue. But neither do we want to throw the problems back to the States. Some of my colleagues propose a mega-block grant which would encompass virtually all means-tested assistance. I would argue that just because we no longer have to deal with the issue on the Federal level does not mean that there is no longer a problem. While their plan has the appeal of simplicity, I do not believe it is workable. I have tried to work with those in my State who have the responsibility of running these programs to determine what reform efforts make sense. I have come to the conclusion that we should not include certain programs in this bill, particularly child welfare and foster care programs, and public housing reform. Children who are abused and neglected and who become wards of the State are our society's most vulnerable, and their needs should be addressed separately. And I am pleased that the majority leader and the Chairman of the Finance Committee have left these programs out of this bill. Another highlight of this plan, in my view, is its reform of the Supplemental Security Income [SSI] Program, which provides benefits to low-income disabled individuals. SSI is one of the fastest growing welfare programs in the Federal budget, costing $22 billion per year, and without the reforms in this bill, projected to grow 50 percent by the year 2000. SSI provides perhaps the best example of what happens when the Federal Government provides cash and asks for nothing in return. Over the last 2 years, we have investigated abuses in the program. We have discovered that many drug addicts and alcoholics are using the cash payments to subsidize their addictions, that children are being coached by their parents to fake a disability, and that new immigrants are being coached to fake disabilities to qualify for benefits. Dole-Packwood would reform the SSI Program without denying benefits to those who truly need them. The bill would no longer treat drug addiction and alcoholism as disabilities or purposes of qualifying for SSI. Noncitizens would only be eligible after working and paying taxes for 5 years. And only children who were diagnosed with a real disability, rather than being said to behave inappropriately for their age level, would qualify for benefits. Mr. President, the bill before us is not perfect. No legislative document ever is. Over the course of this week I hope we will make improvements in the area of child care and job training. Certainly there are a number of loose threads. But I am throwing my support behind this plan because I believe it is fundamentally sound from a philosophical and practical standpoint. It recognizes that the Federal Government cannot possibly provide the innovation and compassion necessary to solve the problem of poverty. It permits States, private organizations, and individuals to assume more responsibility in caring for our neighbors. And it recognizes that persons in need of assistance in our society will not become self-sufficient unless they are required to give of themselves in return. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from South Dakota.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I am most grateful to the leaders. I will accept the admonition to make it brief and do it within 8 minutes. Mr. President, I know there is an old saying that a good sermon in a house of worship wins no souls after 20 minutes. I think we have probably gotten to the point in the debate over welfare where even the most compelling statement on welfare does not win too many votes after about 10 minutes, and I will accept the challenge to summarize some of the things that I think are very important.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am releasing a report prepared at my request by the inspector general of the Federal Emergency Management Agency regarding the integrity of the disaster relief fund which raises some serious concerns about how disaster relief funds are being spent. Last week, the President signed into law a supplemental appropriation of $6.55 billion for the FEMA disaster relief fund. These funds are needed for expenses related to last year's Northridge earthquake as well as other disasters in 40 States, including my own. I'm pleased that the supplemental appropriation is now law, so that eligible expenses related to these catastrophic occurrences can be reimbursed. Ensuring that these funds are expended to meet the critical disaster- related needs of individuals and communities, so that they can rebuild their lives and neighborhoods, is vital. However, ensuring that these funds don't serve as a slush fund for FEMA is absolutely essential, and the inspector general has raised questions about whether the disaster relief fund is indeed serving as a slush fund of sorts. Specifically, the inspector general found that charges to the fund totaling $87 million were for nonspecific disasters, some of which may be inappropriate. There are no explicit guidelines to define those activities that directly support disaster relief and are therefore legitimate charges. The FEMA Director must address this issue immediately to give us confidence that the funds are being spent consistently with the intent of the law. The inspector general also found that the disaster relief fund data are often unreliable, grants management is weak, disaster loan management is inadequate, and certain FEMA policies do not appear to encourage the prudent use of disaster dollars. Mr. President, let me make clear, I believe FEMA Director James Lee Witt has done a superb job of responding to each and every disaster he has been responsible for--from the Northridge earthquake to the Oklahoma City bombing. He and the Agency should be commended. But we must ensure that FEMA disaster relief funds--which now total about $7 billion FEMA's accounts--are spent carefully and judiciously. I intend to ask FEMA to come up with a plan for strengthening controls on disaster relief funds and issue explicit guidelines and criteria. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a brief, 6 page executive summary of the FEMA inspector general's audit of FEMA's disaster relief fund be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge the 25th anniversary of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation [Freddie Mac] and recognize Freddie Mac for its outstanding contribution in making financial credit available for home ownership. In 1970, Congress created Freddie Mac to help ensure the nationwide availability of low-cost mortgage funds to home buyers everywhere. Freddie Mac has risen to this challenge by dedicating its resources and ingenuity to making the American dream of home ownership a reality. Since 1970, Freddie Mac has purchased some $1.2 trillion in mortgage loans, including $16 billion in Missouri, enabling some 16 million American families to own their own home. By purchasing mortgage loans from lenders, packaging loans into securities, and selling the securities to investors, Freddie Mac has been a primary participant in developing a secondary mortgage market that provides a continuous flow of funds to finance home ownership. I emphasize that Freddie Mac has made a real commitment and continuing contribution to the mortgage finance system. Part of this commitment is Freddie Mac's effort to encourage fair lending and eliminate barriers to home ownership. Freddie Mac also has made a commitment to revitalizing neighborhoods by emphasizing community development mortgage lending for owner-occupied or rental housing which is affordable to low-, moderate-, and middle-income families. The shared commitment of Freddie Mac and its nonprofit partners have produced programs that are helping to revitalize neighborhoods throughout America. The contribution of Freddie Mac to home ownership in America cannot be minimized. Congratulations to Freddie Mac on its 25th anniversary.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to draw my colleagues attention to a report just released by the General Accounting Office that I requested on May 24, 1995. The report is entitled ``Superfund: Information on Current Health Risks,'' and it examines the actual, current health risks at Superfund sites. I believe the results of this study are very surprising, and may have very important implications for the Superfund budget and possibly for Superfund reauthorization. At the recent White House Conference on Small Business, Superfund reform was voted the No. 5 issue out of literally hundreds of topics of concern to small business. As these small businesses representatives know all too well Superfund liability is literally killing many small businesses. As chairman of the Small Business Committee in addition to being a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for the EPA, I asked GAO to prepare this report because I wanted to get a better understanding of the reduction in health risks and other benefits of the money spent on Superfund. The GAO report looked at EPA's own data from 225 recent records of decision signed between 1991 and mid-1993. These are the sites that will soon be moving into the expensive construction phase and will be driving a big portion of the Superfund budget in the next few years. The report found that less than one third of the sites posed health risks serious enough to warrant a cleanup under current land uses. Some of the sites in this category have no current exposure and hence no current risk. However, under current land uses, there could be a risk in the future if, for example, a ground water plume migrated to a currently used drinking water source. So this category is over- inclusive if anything. In addition, about one-half of the other sites in this category used to pose a health risk but a removal action has already been completed to address any immediate risks. Over one-half of the 225 sites do not pose any risk warranting a cleanup under existing conditions, although they might pose a risk in the future if current land use patterns change. The remaining 15 percent of the sites do not pose risks serious enough to warrant cleanup under existing conditions or under foreseeable future conditions. They are already in EPA's target risk range for completed cleanups. The implications of these findings are profound. Superfund sites clearly do not threaten the health of millions of Americans. As is often stated in fact, if we stopped conducting Superfund remedial actions altogether there are only a few sites that would have any impact on human health today. However, I do not think we can conclude from this report that Superfund should be abolished entirely, this report shows that some sites do indeed pose a risk to health, and other sites may pose environmental risks sufficient to warrant cleanup, but dramatic reform is clearly needed. I believe this report can help us to use our increasingly scarce Federal dollars more wisely, without putting anyone's health at risk. In fact, I think we can use this report to protect people's health by better prioritizing EPA's efforts on sites posing current health risks. This doesn't mean we should ignore environmental risks or future risks, but current health risks should be our first priority. The decline in overall discretionary spending in forcing us to make significant changes in the EPA's budget. As chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, I must make reductions totaling more than $9 billion in budget authority from the fiscal year 1995 VA- HUD bill. This is a reduction of about 12 percent, and will impact virtually all of the agencies under my subcommittee's jurisdiction, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, HUD, NASA, EPA, and the National Science Foundation, to name a few. This reduction in discretionary spending will mean that increases for any program will be nearly impossible. Clearly, in coming years, the Agency will simply have to get used to doing more with less. The Superfund Program will not be exempt from these changes. With decreasing resources available to EPA, Superfund can be expected to take its share of cuts. In this tight budgetary climate, it is only prudent to plan for smaller budgets by focusing on prioritizing among Superfund NPL sites. The taxes funding the Superfund trust fund are set to expire on December 31, 1995. Legislation to reauthorize Superfund is currently moving through Congress that will bring much needed reform to the program. Fiscal year 1996 will likely be a transition year for the Superfund Program. I want to ensure that the transition is an orderly one and the Agency can avoid the problems encountered by the program during the last transition in 1985 and 1986. In my opinion, the highest priority of the Superfund Program should be to protect current risks to human health and to ensure that sites on the national priorities list are not currently causing illness. It is inappropriate to expend significant resources on remedial action at sites that will only pose a risk in the future, and only under changed circumstances, while sites that pose a health risk today--that are making people sick today--go unaddressed. Currently, the Agency is not doing a sufficient job or prioritizing its resources to address the worst sites first, in part because it does not distinguish between current risks, future risks under current land uses and future risks that will only exist under changed circumstances. In response to a question by the Appropriations Subcommittee on how the Agency prioritizes its Superfund resources, EPA responded, ``Once sites are listed on the NPL, Ban effort is made to maintain a stable pipeline of projects in the remedial process through resource allocation decisions.'' I am very concerned that by its own admission, EPA is placing a greater emphasis on bureaucratic convenience than on ongoing impacts to human health. Our first obligation must be to protect the health of people who live around Superfund sites to stop people from getting sick due to real, ongoing exposures. It seems wrong to divert funds from these sites to sites that might only pose a risk warranting cleanup under changed circumstances simply ``to maintain a stable pipeline of projects.'' This GAO Report shows that Superfund is even more broken than we realized. I urge all my colleagues to read this report and consider its findings as we move forward to fund the program in fiscal year 1996 and to reauthorize the Superfund Program. I ask that the GAO Report be printed in the Record. The report follows: SUPERFUND--Information on Current Health Risks U.S. General Accounting Office, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, Washington, DC, July 19, 1995. Hon. Christopher S. Bond, Chairman, Committee on Small Business, U.S. Senate. Dear Mr. Chairman: Superfund cost estimates are growing at a substantial rate. The Superfund program was authorized through 1994 at $15.2 billion, covering over 1,100 nonfederal sites on the National Priorities List (NPL).\1\ These figures could grow to $75 billion (in 1994 dollars) and 4,500 nonfederal sites, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).\2\ Because of these escalating costs, congressional decision makers want to know more about the human health risks addressed by the program. Although the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently testified to the Congress that approximately 73 million people live fewer than 4 miles from at least one Superfund site, much debate has occurred about the extent to which these sites pose health risks for cancer or other conditions, such as birth defects or nerve or liver damage. Footnotes at end of article. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To help measure the health risks from Superfund sites, you asked us to provide the best available information on (1) the extent to which sites may pose health risks under [[Page S 11337]] current land uses, as opposed to the risks that may develop if land uses change in the future; the nature of the current risks; and the types of environmental media (e.g., groundwater, soil, or air) that pose these risks and (2) whether EPA's short-term response actions to mitigate the health risks from Superfund sites have reduced the risks under current land uses. This report presents our findings on these issues as they relate to the 225 nonfederal NPL sites contained in EPA's data base on health risks from Superfund sites--the most comprehensive automated information available as of early 1995. These sites constitute most of the sites where EPA made cleanup decisions between 1991 and mid-1993. As agreed with your office, in our ongoing work for you we will examine other related issues, such as the nature of health risks from the Superfund sites under future changes in land use. Results in Brief About one-third (or 71) of the 225 sites contained in EPA's data base posed health risks serious enough to warrant cleanup, given current land uses.\3\ About another one-half (or 119) of the 225 sites did not pose serious health risks under current land uses but posed such health risks under EPA's projections about future changes in land use. The remainder of the sites did not pose health risks serious enough to warrant cleanup action under either current or future land uses. However, EPA may decide to clean up these remaining sites to comply with other federal or state regulations or because of a threat to the environment, such as contamination endangering a wetland. The current health risks at the 71 sites usually occurred through a single environmental medium, most commonly groundwater or soil. Of these 71 sites, 28 percent posed cancer risks; 30 percent posed risks for noncancer conditions, such as birth defects or nerve or liver damage; and the remainder posed risks for both cancer and other, noncancer conditions. According to officials from EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA's short-term response actions have temporarily mitigated the health risks that could immediately endanger the population surrounding the 71 sites that posed serious health risks under current land uses. Under EPA's policy, whenever a Superfund site poses such a health risk, a short-term response, known as a ``removal action,'' will be undertaken. EPA's data indicate that various removal actions have occurred at 31 of the 71 sites. EPA officials caution that while removal actions clearly reduce health risks, information is not readily available to determine the extent to which the removal actions taken at these 31 sites affected the risks reported in the data base. The remaining 40 sites did not pose immediate risks substantial enough to warrant removal actions, according to the officials, although the sites still pose longer-term health risks under current land uses. For example, at some sites contaminated groundwater that does not immediately endanger surrounding populations may eventually reach the drinking water supplies used by current residents, thereby posing an eventual health risk. Background With the enactment of CERCLA in 1980, the Congress created the Superfund program authorizing EPA, among other things, to clean up contamination at hazardous waste sites. CERCLA also created a trust fund available for various cleanup activities and authorized EPA to compel the parties responsible for these sites to help conduct or pay for the cleanup. The Superfund program was extended in 1986 and in 1990 and is now being considered for reauthorization. Under CERCLA, EPA assesses contaminated areas and then places the sites it considers to be the most highly contaminated on the NPL for further investigation and cleanup. EPA responds to hazardous substances at Superfund sites through ``removal'' and ``remedial'' actions. Removal actions are generally short-term (less than 1 year), low-cost (under $2 million) measures intended to address actual or potential releases of hazardous substances that pose a threat to human health or the environment. Although many removal actions are temporary measures to prevent exposure by stabilizing conditions at a site or limiting access to the site, some removal actions may permanently clean up contamination.\4\ Typical removal actions include installing security measures at a site, removing tanks or drums of hazardous substances from a site, or excavating contaminated soil. By contrast, remedial actions are long-term measures intended to permanently mitigate the risks from a site. Typical remedial actions include treating or containing contaminated soil, constructing underground walls to control the movement of groundwater, and incinerating hazardous wastes. Once a site is on the NPL, EPA conducts a ``remedial investigation'' to determine whether the nature and extent of the contamination at the site warrant remedial action. One component of this investigation is a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the health risks the site would pose if no cleanup occurred.\5\ For the baseline risk assessment, EPA evaluates health risks under both ``current land-use conditions'' and ``alternate future land-use conditions.'' As an example, a site would pose health risks under current land-use conditions if local residents used groundwater containing a hazardous level of contaminants from the site as drinking water or if contaminated groundwater could eventually reach the wells of distant residents. By contrast, a site would pose health risks under alternate future land- use conditions if future land development would expose people to health risks from the site's contaminants, even if the site may not pose risks under current land uses. At each site, EPA assesses the cancer risk, as well as the risk for other ill health conditions (noncancer risk), posed by the contaminants in groundwater, soil, surface water, sediment, air, and other environmental media to determine if these risks warrant cleanup. In the case of cancer, EPA considers the risk serious enough to warrant cleanup if the risk assessment indicates more than a 1 in 10,000 probability that exposure to the site's contaminants may cause an individual to develop cancer. In the case of noncancer health effects, such as birth defects or nerve or liver damage, EPA considers the risk serious enough to warrant cleanup if the risk assessment indicates that exposure to the site's contaminants might exceed the level that the human body can tolerate without developing ill health effects. EPA's Responsive Electronic Link and Access Interface (RELAI) data base, from which we drew information for this report, is the most comprehensive and current automated source of EPA's data on the health risks of Superfund sites. Created in 1993, this data base contains information about health risks from EPA's risk assessments and other documents related to 225 nonfederal sites, which constitute most of the sites where EPA made cleanup decisions between 1991 and mid- 1993. One-Third of Sites Posed Risks Under Current Land Uses About 32 percent (71) of the 225 sites in EPA's data base posed serious health risks under the land uses current at the time of the risk assessment. About 53 percent (119) of the 225 sites did not pose risks warranting cleanup under current land uses, but posed such risks under EPA's projections about future changes in land use.\6\ The remaining 15 percent (35) of the sites did not pose health risks serious enough to warrant cleanup action under either current or future land uses. As we noted earlier, EPA may still decide to clean up these remaining sites because of federal or state regulations or because of a threat to the environment, such as contamination endangering a wetland. Our analysis of EPA's data on the 71 sites posing health risks under current land uses indicates the following: At 77 percent (55) of the sites, a single environmental medium, usually groundwater or contaminated soil, posed the health risks, and at the remaining 23 percent (16) of the sites, multiple environmental media posed the health risks. EPA's data for the 71 sites also indicate that 28 percent posed cancer risks, 30 percent posed noncancer risks, and 42 percent posed both cancer and noncancer risks. EPA's noncancer risk category includes such conditions as birth defects or nerve or liver damage. removal actions have reduced immediate health risks According to officials from the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), EPA's removal program has mitigated the immediate health risks from Superfund sites, at least temporarily. EPA's policy requires a short-term response whenever a Superfund site poses a health risk that immediately endangers the surrounding populations. According to the OERR officials, under the removal program EPA has periodically evaluated the NPL sites and has taken intervening steps at those sites determined to pose immediate threats to health. EPA's data indicate that removal actions have occurred at 31 of the 71 sites that posed risk under current land uses. OERR officials caution that while removal actions have mitigated the immediate health risks at these sites, information is not readily available to determine the extent to which removal actions have affected the health risks reported in the data base. According to these officials, the available information does not indicate whether the removal actions removed or treated only enough contaminants to mitigate the risks that immediately endangered a site's surrounding population. For example, a small pile of highly contaminated soil might have been removed, mitigating the immediate risks to children playing nearby but having little effect on the site's more extensive soil contamination. OERR officials also caution that the available information does not indicate the extent to which the health risks reported in the data base may already reflect the effect of the removal actions. In some cases, a removal action may have taken place before the risk assessment. OERR officials are uncertain about whether, in such cases, risk assessors might have considered the effect of the removal in reporting the site's health risks. Of the 71 sites posing risks under current land uses, 40 sites did not pose immediate threats substantial enough to warrant removal actions, according to OERR officials. These officials explained that although these sites did not pose risks that immediately endanger nearby populations, they still pose risks under current land-use conditions. For example, according to these officials, at some sites contaminated groundwater has not yet reached drinking water. However, under current land uses, the groundwater could eventually reach a drinking water supply, thereby posing a health risk. Table 1 categorizes these 40 sites by the environmental media posing the current health risk. [[Page S 11338]] Table 1--Forty sites posing health risks under current land uses that have not warranted removal action Environmental medium that posed health risks Number Groundwater..........................................................18 Soil.................................................................13 Sediment..............................................................2 Air...................................................................1 Surface water.........................................................0 Multiple media........................................................6

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I strongly support the increase in stockpile management provided by the committee. There is a clear need for the Department to ensure that its capabilities that currently reside at the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, TN; the Kansas City plant in Kansas City, MO; the Pantex plant in Texas; and the Savannah River site in South Carolina, are modernized to meet the requirements of the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I will make every reasonable attempt, within available funds, to provide EPA with the ability to satisfy the Agency's obligation.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his remarks. Let me assure him that I understand how important this project is to his State. The bill rescinds funds for this project primarily because EPA is in the midst of a major reorganization of its research laboratories. EPA already has 39 laboratories, and there is great concern as to whether a new facility is needed or can be afforded at this time. I understand the plans for the center include a super computer center, a training center, a docking and maintenance facility, and environmental research and analytical chemistry laboratories. As part of the Agency's laboratory reorganization, EPA should study whether the docking and maintenance facility is critically important in Bay City, and if so, determine the associated construction and operating costs. This information should be provided to the Appropriations Committee as soon as possible so that it may be considered in the fiscal year 1996 appropriation bill for EPA. The committee will give close consideration to the Senator from Michigan's recommendation for this project, as well as information from the EPA. While I cannot provide any guarantees for funding. I ensure my friend from Michigan that it will receive our serious and careful consideration.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, over 2 months ago, the President first announced his determination to veto H.R. 1158, the rescission and supplemental appropriations bill agreed to by the joint House-Senate conference committee. In part, he decried the agreement on the basis of the rescission proposed for HUD. At the time, I said that rationale for the veto was groundless. It is ironic, and very significant, that this measure, H.R. 1944, which the President now finds acceptable, rescinds $137 million more from HUD than did the bill which he vetoed. Some have questioned why HUD is being cut by nearly $6.5 billion, more than three-quarters of a total rescission of $8.4 billion for the subcommittee. The answer is simple: That cut is roughly proportionate to that Department's available budgetary resources. Although HUD received new appropriations for fiscal year 1995 of $25.7 billion, about 39 percent of the funding for our major agencies, it also carried into this fiscal year $35.2 billion in unobligated prior year balances. In other words, it more than doubled its total available budgetary resources with this massive influx of unspent, unobligated funding. We must cut HUD, and we must begin now if there is to be any hope of surviving the very constrained freeze-minus future for discretionary spending reflected in the budget resolution. The Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of the President's original budget submission for subsidized housing demonstrated a 50-percent expenditure increase over the next 5 years. This is a crisis. Unless we act now to curb the spiraling growth in outlays, we will have to make truly draconian cuts in the forthcoming fiscal year, including widespread evictions of low-income families from subsidized housing and accelerated deterioration in public and assisted housing across the country. The solution is simple: Turn-off the pipeline of new subsidized units. That is the fundamental focus of the rescission bill. We have also restored cuts proposed by the House in CDBG, modernization, and operating subsidies, and redirected available resources toward another urgent aspect of restoring budgetary sanity to this out of control Department: demolish the failed housing developments, and put the rest on a sound footing to survive the competition and subsidy reductions coming down the pike. Amid all the debate over the future of HUD, it's important to keep in mind that over 4.8 million families receive Federal housing assistance, and half of them are elderly and disabled. It's also important to note that such housing assistance is expensive. This year HUD will expend $26 billion for these programs, and costs are rising. In fact with the long-term contractual commitments previously made by HUD, the Government is currently obligated to pay over $187 billion over the life of these contracts, some stretching out 40 years. Given the long-term nature of these obligations and commitments, halting the budgetary growth of the Department can only be accomplished with a focused, determined, multiyear effort. Unless we begin now, with this bill, we will lock ourselves into another multi-billion-dollar increment of long-term budget obligations. And this is only a first step, one of many in which we will go beyond the limited fixes and cuts that can be accomplished in a rescission bill. We must enact major reform legislation later this year, but this is a good, and very necessary beginning. The program reforms and initial reductions contained in the rescission bill are desperately needed to avoid a budgetary train wreck with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Immediate enactment of this bill, and the enactment of further budgetary and legislative measures to address this crisis later this summer, provide us our best and perhaps only opportunity to avoid the displacement of thousands of low-income families, as well as further deterioration and loss of desperately needed affordable housing stock. The President criticized a number of specific actions contained in the original conference agreement. Frankly, there are a number of recommendations in the revised measure before us which are even more troubling. But this bill is a compromise, not only between what was originally passed by the House more than 3 months ago and what was worked out in conference 2 months ago on H.R. 1158, but also with what the administration has subsequently demanded. I believe the agreement goes a long way toward minimizing adverse program impacts while increasing our contributions to deficit reduction. The bottom line, however, is that it provides almost $8.4 billion in deficit reduction while protecting funding for activities critical to our Nation's veterans, investments in science and technology, the environment, and to meet the housing needs of lower income families. For example, the rescission agreed to for national service was cut in half to $105 million. While many of us are dubious of the whole premise of paying people to become volunteers, regardless of their financial resources, and we have heard of instances where excessive payments have been made, the conferees decided to hold this program closer to the funding level established for fiscal year 1994. I might add that the rescission is only a quarter of the original House-passed rescission of $416 million. The GAO is completing its report on the cost of this program which appears to confirm many of the concerns some of us have expressed. This report will serve as an important new factor in our consideration of funding for this program for fiscal year 1996. In the case of housing for AIDS victims, the current rescission totals only $15 million, a small fraction of $186 million included in the House bill. Moreover, the rescission provides an increase in funding over the level requested by the President for this fiscal year. The bill includes $6.6 billion requested by the President for the disaster relief fund. This will enable FEMA to respond to needs in California resulting from the Northridge earthquake and disasters in other States, and to meet emergency needs arising out of the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City and flooding in the Midwest. Mr. President, I would also note that the bill contains $5 million requested by the administration to enable FEMA to initiate flood mitigation activities authorized by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. So this bill not only provides the resources to help flood victims recover from these disasters, but we are also taking steps to help avoid such flood damage in the future. The bill also rescinds $81 million from the Department of Veterans Affairs, including $50 million from excess personnel costs and $31 million from excess project reserves. This rescission will not impact VA's ability to provide patient care in any way. The rescission to personnel costs does not affect staffing. Simply, VA's budget included $50 million more than they now estimate they need to pay salaries. Despite the assertion in the President's previous statement, no funding is being rescinded for medical equipment needs of VA hospitals and clinics. In terms of the construction account, funds are rescinded from projects which are costing less than what was originally appropriated. Rescinding the funds ensures more careful management of the VA construction budget. This measure rescinds a total of $1.3 billion from EPA. Of the total, $1.1 billion is rescinded from the drinking water State revolving fund. Because this program has not been authorized, EPA has been unable to obligate the funds. While I support the need for this program, until it is authorized no funds may be spent. The rescission bill leaves $225 million for the drinking water State revolving fund should authorizing legislation be enacted. Within the Superfund Program, $100 million is rescinded. Because EPA fails to obligate on average $100 million in Superfund appropriations each year, this rescission is not expected to have a dramatic effect on program activities. On the other hand, it is intended to slow program spending pending enactment of major reform legislation which will likely change the scope and nature of cleanup activities previously planned. This measure contains number of legislative provisions impacting EPA programs including the automobile inspection and maintenance program to ensure EPA is flexible in reviewing States' plans for I/M programs and considers assigning additional credits for effective decentralized programs. Also included are two key EPA reforms: first, a moratorium on new Superfund site listings for the balance of this fiscal year, unless requested by the Governor or unless reauthorization legislation is enacted, and second, a prohibition on EPA from enforcing vehicular trip reduction programs. Mr. President, this compromise bill is a good one. Rescissions for programs under the jurisdiction of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee total $8.4 billion. The contribution toward deficit reduction is $1.5 billion more than the level originally passed by the Senate, but is $900 million less than that passed by the House. It is a compromise, but one which fairly balances the differing priorities of the two Houses and still maintains funding for critical activities. Mr. President, this bill must be enacted without further delay to assure timely delivery of assistance to disaster victims in 41 States, including my own, as well as the Federal response in Oklahoma City. Perhaps equally important, immediate enactment of this measure is absolutely critical to beginning the process of expenditure reduction to prevent widespread disruption and dislocations as we enact the legislation necessary to bring the Federal budget back into balance in 7 years. We must eliminate this spending before Federal agencies obligate even more of the funds we have identified for rescission, making the task of saving money in low priority programs even more difficult. This is a responsible bill. It cuts funding and contributes to deficit reduction. It provides emergency funding which is urgently needed to assist victims of disasters. It makes long overdue reforms and corrections in programs which need fixing. And this bill needs to be enacted without further delay. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and I thank the managers of the bill for giving me this opportunity. I rise as a Senator from Missouri and, as important, as cochairman of the National Guard Caucus to register strong objections to this amendment. I appreciate very much the thoughtful comments of the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I think his report on the review done by his staff on these projects should allay any fears that any of our colleagues may have about the projects in this bill. As has already been noted, the Senate this year was again forced by the administration to make sure that defense infrastructure would be adequately funded. Active force infrastructure has traditionally been adequately funded, or at least better funded, whereas the National Guard forces traditionally have been underfunded. Why has it been this way, many have asked? The answer which is whispered through the halls of this building is that the Department of Defense relies on Congressmen and Senators to take care of the Guard. It is no accident that most of the people in the Pentagon are active military, and they realize that if they take care of their needs, they hope those of us who live in the real world will take care of our citizen soldiers. We have done so before. We are trying to do so now and we will in the future, because most of us--I think a significant majority of this body--care about the welfare and the readiness of the National Guard and the Air National Guard even if there are some who do not. Now, this year the administration proposal funded the Army Guard infrastructure to the tune of $18 million--$18 million for the entire Army Guard infrastructure for all 50 States and Puerto Rico; $18 million for the entire Army Guard as against $473 million for the Army, which in and of itself was shortchanged by some $38 million by the administration. If the Senators respect our citizen soldiers and the vitally important missions that they provide in our States, as well as in support of our national defense mission, then they must rectify this shoddy treatment of those who protect us. My colleague from Montana, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and his ranking member, the Senator from Nevada, have done just that. They have done it with strict adherence to the rigorous set of standards for the necessary quality of life and readiness projects included in the mark of the bill that came out of the Appropriations Committee. The Air National Guard received $85 million, approximately half of the funding required for much-needed projects. Let me state that in my State of Missouri, for instance, we had sought money, and this bill provides money, to improve sewer systems in order to ensure that our disaster relief headquarters, located at an Air National Guard facility, can be utilized during flood disasters. Do the sponsors of the amendment want to deny the citizens of Missouri adequate protection? I found with great interest, as I looked on page 45 of this bill, that the State of New Mexico has this same kind of project. It happens to be that the storm drainage system and other storm drainage system provisions, two different provisions for New Mexico, are included because they happen to be at active bases. I do not believe that our needs for disaster relief protection and services are any less because they happen to be at an Air National Guard facility rather than an active base. The distinguished chairman of this committee considered each of the programs added to this military construction bill for the practicality of it being executed in fiscal year 1996, assured it was the highest priority for the base commanders and the National Guard tags, site availability, its inclusion in the FYDP and its overall quality of life and readiness importance. These are critically important projects, and I am very pleased that the managers of the bill decided to include these measures in this appropriations measure. If any of my colleagues are thinking about voting for this amendment, let me assure you, it is to turn your back on our National Guard personnel. Currently, this is the only place we have to maintain the infrastructure readiness and the quality of life necessary to make sure our National Guard can function in its civil and national defense mission. We are trying to get the administration to acknowledge the Guard's requirements, but let us not hamstring our Guard for the administration's shortsightedness. I urge my colleagues to support the managers of the bill and to defeat this amendment. I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am encouraged that we could have some movement on the rescissions bill. There are many important issues that are facing this body right now. I happen to think that regulatory reform is extremely important, not only for small businesses, for farmers, but for the growth of our American economy. But, as we look at these long-range programs, we have a very severe short-term problem. I have the distinction of chairing the Veterans Administration, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. This so-called rescissions bill is actually an emergency and rescissions bill. It is the supplemental emergency bill because the Federal Emergency Management Agency is getting very close to running out of money. We have had disasters, such as the California earthquakes and fires and floods, we have had the bombing in Oklahoma City, we have had floods in the Midwest, and the money available for FEMA is about at its end. Nobody expects a disaster to occur and the Feds to say, ``Sorry, we cannot come. We do not have any money.'' But we are about at that point. That is why this bill, the emergency supplemental and emergency rescissions bill, is vitally important. That is No. 1. Second, we have had our defense budget drawn down because of police actions, responding to needs in various parts of the country. The distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee will tell you, if we do not get this bill through, in September we are going to have to shut down operations for ships, for airplanes. That means that American pilots, who have to maintain their currency, will not be getting that currency. It will be dangerous to them. These are the needs for the emergency supplemental. But let me tell you first hand, as one who worries every day about funding the vitally important functions of assisted housing, of medical care for veterans, of EPA, NASA, and others, what is going to happen if we do not pass the rescissions bill. This is not a question of reprogramming and we are going to fine tune things here and there. We have taken a rescission hit. We have, in this rescissions bill, given up $8 billion in budget authority. That is money appropriated for the current year but which will not be spent until future years. The reason we had to do that is because HUD, primarily, has been spending out of control. And, in HUD, when you appropriate money 1 year, you get the budget authority out there but it starts spending out in future years. So 60 percent of the dollars that will be spent next year in the subcommittee that I chair are spent as a result of previous years' appropriations. And our limit, what we can spend in that year, is determined by the actual outlays. We have, in all, over $6 billion of budget authority rescinded in HUD under this bill. We have worked with Housing and Urban Development, we have worked with our colleagues on the other side, and while nobody likes to cut budget authority, they have agreed that this is the least harmful. Let me tell you what happens if that rescissions bill does not go through. If that rescissions bill does not go through, we have another billion dollars of outlays in the Department of Housing and Urban Development that we cannot control. And that is likely to mean that we will not have the money to continue to provide public housing in federally assisted housing for all of the 4.8 million families that depend upon HUD funding for their housing during the coming fiscal year of 1996. We are going to be hard pressed to fund that housing and other vitally important programs like CDBG, and HOME, and the work of the Veterans Administration and NASA, as it is. I think we can do it if this rescissions bill passes. If this rescissions bill continues to languish as people try to work out reprogramming for the last 2\1/2\ months of this fiscal year, if we do not get the rescissions bill, those who hold up the rescissions bill will have to go home and explain why some people are going to be thrown out, thrown out of federally assisted housing they now occupy. The subcommittee on Labor and HHS has $1.3 billion in outlays that depend upon this bill. This rescissions bill is vitally important. I urge my colleagues to move it. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of this bill. He has done an excellent job with respect to the negotiations. They have been going on since February. We have been working on this bill for over a month. The last package that was presented to us by the other side actually gutted the provisions that small business needs in regulatory flexibility. They took out three other main provisions that small business wants. As I have said on this floor before, small business has made regulatory reform a top priority. The number three item of the delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business was making regulatory flexibility work for small business. We have just successfully negotiated with the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, a commonsense change in regulatory flexibility that harmonizes it with the provisions in cost-benefit. So you have cost-benefit and regulatory flexibility for small business. So they work together. Mr. President, we have gotten down to what we call in Missouri ``Show me time.'' We have had a lot of talk, a lot of nice words. But the time has come to show me whether you are for small business or against it. Small business and agriculture, working men and women in America today want reasonable, commonsense regulations. We have had good input from both sides in this body. We now have a bill that ought to move forward. We are in a position to do so. So I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture, to cut off the filibuster. Let us get about the job of reforming regulations and see that we can have the commonsense protections that regulations give us without unnecessary burdens. I thank my colleague from Utah.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I rise to support S. 343, the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, and in strong opposition to the amendment offered by our friends, the Senators from Ohio and Rhode Island. Let Members know at the outset that the Dole-Johnston substitute is not a regulatory repeal act. It is not a regulatory prohibition act. It is, in fact, a strong, regulatory reform act. It reforms the way Government regulations are issued, with three goals in mind: First, to bring accountability to the bureaucrats writing the regulation and, just as importantly, to those in Congress, who, after all, write the laws that generate those regulations; second, it attempts to bring a little common sense to the regulations that are issued; third, it brings a little more honesty to the way we talk about what we are regulating and why some truth in regulating is necessary. I am afraid that the Glenn-Chafee amendment comes up short when measured by these criteria. This is an effort to go back to the status quo. It will ensure we stay where we are. It would fail to ensure that Government agencies obey the law and follow common sense like the rest of Americans have to do. If the Glenn-Chafee amendment were to be adopted, we might as well do nothing--for that is, in fact, what will happen. There will be no change. Same old 6's and 7's, the same old way we have been doing things. It is my contention that we simply cannot afford to do nothing. We cannot accept the status quo. Regulations are like water: Too little and you cannot live; too much and you drown. In our crowded society, there is no question that regulations are needed to help make our communities a better place. As has been pointed out at length in the recent discussions on this floor, over the last 25 years, environmental regulations have helped ensure that the air we breathe is cleaner, the water we drink is safer, and the rivers we fish and play in are increasingly less polluted. Workplace regulations have made our jobs safer. One would think from listening to the recent debate that we were going to change all that. That is not the point. Those who argue for 25 years are not being contested. But the argument is about here, today, and where we go from here. That is the point that has been missed in some of the discussions we have just heard. In recent years, the fact is that government regulation has risen to the level where it is choking off the growth of jobs, the growth of economic opportunity and the betterment of the way of life of everyone. Just like the waters of the Missouri River that recently rose to flood part of my home State of Missouri, we are suffering a flood tide of regulation. The Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 will go a long way to stop the rising tide of overregulation. When the President signs this legislation, as I believe he eventually will, because he must, we are going to reduce the burden of government regulations below the flood stage so that regulations continue to enhance the quality of life, not interfere. Now, opponents of this legislation have taken the approach that there is no problem with overregulation; regulation is only good. We have heard stated how many good things regulation has done. They say, Do not worry, be happy; regulatory burdens are all in your imagination. To that I say, respectfully, Bunk. Get outside the beltway, ask the people who live and work in the rest of America what they think. Ask the people who have to comply with the regulations. Ask small businesses. I have had the opportunity as chairman of the Small Business Committee and as cochair of the Regulatory Relief Task Force to hear plenty from people in small business. Last week, I spoke on this floor about a series of field hearings the Small Business Committee has held around the country. I can say that the Senators who attended those hearings had our eyes open to what is going on with small business and the cumulative burden of regulations. As the Chair well knows, we heard in Memphis from people from all different areas of small business how the burdens of government regulation were making it impossible for them to continue to bring the jobs, to provide the products that were essential, not only to the economy, but to the well-being of the people in that area. Just last month, I heard the same message from delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business. They made it very clear to anyone who was willing to listen that excessive overreaching regulations and outrageous enforcement zeal are a top priority for the Nation's small entrepreneurs who create large numbers of new jobs. These delegates came to Washington, took time away from their business, spent their money, and devoted resources and effort of extraordinary magnitude to speak on behalf of small business. They voted on the biggest concerns to small business from a list of several hundred proposals, from judicial review of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to cost-benefit analysis, to protection for self- audits, to sunsetting old regulations, to reform of OSHA--the delegates sent a clear message to us and to the President. Maybe some people stuck inside the beltway do not know that regulations are a big problem. But small business knows that it is drowning in a floodtide of regulations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the end of my remarks the list of the top 30 concerns as voted on by the delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business, so everyone can see how important this legislation is to small business.

Mr. BOND. I do not believe the delegates to the White House conference would want to see this bill weakened by the Glenn-Chafee amendment. Let us look at environmental regulations as an example of the rising cost of regulation. In the past, environmental regulations were based on common sense and they have been responsible for giving us a much improved quality of life. But increasingly they are now choking off American entrepreneurship and producing fewer and fewer benefits. I think I understand why this is happening. Because, to me, solving our environmental problems is a little like harvesting a Missouri soybean field. You can get most of the soybeans quickly and efficiently with a modern combine. It is an expensive machine but it is worth the cost because it is fast, efficient, gets the soybeans that provides a vital food source supply, and it does so in an economical way. We could build a superefficient combine, designed to harvest almost every single soybean, leaving almost none behind, but it would sure be a lot slower and it would undoubtedly be far more expensive. And very few farmers in Audrain [[Page S 10113]] County, MO, where I am from, could afford it because it would only get a few more soybeans. You could even take that one step farther. You could get every last bean, perhaps, if you hired an army of people to crawl through the fields on their hands and knees, looking for any single bean the machine has missed. The point of all this is, simply, there is a diminishing return on investment at some point. Sooner or later, you have to say enough is enough and move on to another field. When is it that you say enough is enough? You say enough is enough when science says that it is enough. If there is something truly dangerous, if the gathering of that last soybean out of the field has to be done for critically important human health, welfare and environmental needs, then yes, let us talk about getting that last bean. But when there is no real danger to the environment, or to human health, what good is there to pursue perfection? Environmental regulations work just like that. Initially, our regulations were based on common sense and well worth the money we spent to reduce pollution. Nobody wants to go back--and nobody is talking about going back--to the days of dirty water, dirty air, dirty food. We have made great gains in environmental quality and significantly reduced pollution at moderate costs. But in the last few years, I will tell you, something has gotten out of whack. In many areas of environmental protection we have found the costs to get those last few molecules of pollution skyrocketed. Achieving additional gains is exorbitantly expensive, with more and more money being spent on fewer and fewer results. In these areas we have reached the point of dramatically diminishing returns. If we cannot achieve zero risk--and most scientists I talk to tell me that nature and this world is not a zero risk environment--does this mean we should stop writing regulations to protect our health and environment? No. Not at all. It simply means we cannot afford to regulate unwisely, as if we were going to achieve a zero risk, absolute perfection ideal, without regard to costs. The current effort before us today in this body is to pass regulatory reform. Foremost, it is to ensure that regulation is done wisely. Those of us who are pushing for reform believe that knowledge, scientific knowledge and common sense, are important parts of wisdom. If we are going to spend $160 billion on the environment, we think everyone should get a better understanding of what kinds of risks we are protecting against, the benefits of specific regulations and the cost of those regulations. The real tragedy of this is that our desire for perfection will bankrupt us and divert our efforts away from more significant risks. Every day of every year, real people die because we have misallocated our resources. One study conducted at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has shown that if EPA did a better job of prioritizing the resources consumed by a sample of 90 average regulations, 1,200 needless deaths would be avoided. That is just 90 rules at just 1 agency. Across the Government, this same study showed that by using common sense and getting the most bang for the buck, we could save tens of thousands of additional people every year without imposing any additional cost on our cities or businesses. These are the real victims of the status quo. The complaints of how this bill might lead to someone being exposed to some increased theoretical risk pale in comparison to the deaths that occur every day because we have spent our resources responding to the latest media scare instead of basing our decisions on sound science and cost-benefit analysis. Those on the other side who are exposed to regulatory reform--there are some who are opposed to any kind of regulatory reform, they like it just the way it is--like to trout out the phoney scare stories of the victims of E. coli food poisoning. They know that this bill contains clear safeguards for regulations that protect us from food poisoning. But the other side does not say much about those who are inquired or killed every year because we waste resources on trival risks, instead of focusing on the real health and safety risks. These are the victims who are left with no hope if the Glenn-Chafee amendment passes. The Dole-Johnston substitute has three simple goals: we want Government regulators and the Congress to be more accountable for their actions. We want Government regulators to be honest. And we want them to use a little common sense. Central to increased accountability are the congressional review and tailored judicial review provisions of this bill. Judicial review of the Regulatory Flexibility Act was the third highest vote-getter at a recent White House conference. Let me take just a moment to explain why this is important. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, for those who are not familiar with the terminology, refers to a measure passed in 1980 by Congress. It was supposed to give a break to small business by telling agencies that they had to be flexible in passing regulations that deal with small business. They were supposed to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis to see if there are other ways of getting the same job done if it affected small business. Unfortunately, the problem was that Congress in its wisdom--and I apologize for the oxymoron--struck any kind of judicial enforcement out of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. So what happened? Every time the Advocacy Council and the SBA went to another agency and said, ``You did not comply with the Reg Flex Act,'' or a small business went in and said ``You did not comply with the Reg Flex Act,'' the answer in too many cases was, ``Tough. There is nothing you can do about it.'' There we see the provisions of the Glenn-Chafee amendment making judicial review almost ineffective, totally ineffective in many instances, if there is only a show of cost-benefit analysis. We do not want to make that same mistake again. We put in an appropriate judicial review for reg flex, and on decisions such as cost-benefit analysis. The judicial review provisions of S. 343 will provide a much-needed check on the actions of agencies, without subjecting rules to judicial scrutiny of minute procedural steps. This provision strikes the right balance between accountability and a desire not to clog up Federal courts. The bill provides for greater congressional accountability by including the provisions of the Nickles-Reid Congressional Review Act passed by the Senate 100 to 0. There are two important changes. First, the period for congressional review is extended from 45 to 60 days. Second, the threshold for rules whose effectiveness is delayed during the congressional review period is tied to the overall definition of a major rule. The second goal of the bill is more honesty in the pronouncements of the Federal Government. S. 343 would for the first time require Federal agencies, not only to tell us what they know, but also to tell us what they do not know, when it comes to assessing risks. EPA would no longer be able to hide the ball from the public in their analysis of regulations. From now on, Federal agencies will have to come clean on the assumptions they make and the quality of the science they use in making regulatory decisions. This is a provision that ought to be called truth in regulating legislation. I expect and hope that as a result of this legislation, many so-called risks that EPA tries to regulate will turn out--like the alar scare--to be based more on fear than fact. After passage of this legislation, if sound science indicates that a significant risk needs to be addressed, then, of course, we must support sensible and cost-effective regulations. That is what this is all about, making sure that we get regulations focused on the design to get rid of those risks. This bill is also about a return to common sense in regulating. Federal agencies spend too much time focusing on the small risks and not enough time on the big risks. This legislation would go a long way toward fixing that. This bill directs agencies to set priorities with the goal of achieving the greatest net reduction in risk with the public and private sector resource expended, and to incorporate those priorities in the agency budget, regulatory agenda, and enforcement and research activities. As I mentioned last week, over the last several years in the Appropriations Committee, the ranking member [[Page S 10114]] on the HUD-VA Subcommittee, Senator Mikulski, and I, have been pushing agencies to use comparative risk assessments to prioritize their budgets to focus on the biggest risks. The National Academy of Public Administration recently released a report to the Committee on the EPA entitled ``Setting Priorities and Getting Results.'' One of its top recommendations was to ``Use comparative risk analysis to inform the selection of priorities and the development of specific program strategies.'' It only makes sense that agencies use their resources to tackle the worst problems facing the country. Sound like common sense, but the sad fact is that is not what's happening today. The bill includes an additional way to bring some common sense to regulatory decisions--cost-benefit analysis. The basic idea is a simple one. We should spend more resources and effort on big problems and less on small problems--that is cost-benefit analysis, that is what is so scary to the opponents of this bill. We say that in meeting the requirements of existing laws, Government agencies should pick a regulatory solution with costs that are justified by the benefits. It seems astounding to me--and I think it would to most people in America--that today Government regulators write rules for the rest of us without an established procedure to evaluate costs and benefits, but frankly that is what is happening. And it is even more astounding that some people have been using emotional appeals to generate irrational fears of this commonsense approach that all of us use in our everyday lives. Finally, the bill repeals the Delaney clause, one of the worst examples of regulation with no basis in sound sciences. Public health protections are maintained with a replacement provision that allows regulation unless there is only a negligible or insignificant foreseeable risk to human health. American farmers will no longer be hamstrung from using safe and effective crop protection products simply because our technology lets us measure parts per trillion or parts per quadrillion. We have had testimony before our committee from scientists, including the President's own Science Advisory Board, saying the Delaney amendment is no longer good science. The Delaney amendment cannot be justified in a time and day when we are able to measure the most minute parts, parts per trillion or even quadrillion. This is not sound science they have told us. It is time to get the Delaney amendment off the books. Mr. President, the Dole/Johnston substitute will help small business that are hamstrung by Government redtape. That is why it has the overwhelming support of the small business community, including the National Federation of Independent Business, the Small Business Legislative Council, National Small Business United, and other small business groups. I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks, several letters of support for the bill from these small businesses.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, small business is not alone in its support of this bill. The Dole/Johnston substitute will also help the farmer who cannot use products that good science shows have no risk to health. Small towns will have less to fear from arbitrary pronouncements from Washington. I have a letter from the National Association of Towns and Townships that has written me in particular support of the language in the bill pertaining to the judicial review of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You see, these towns know that for too long, Government agencies have ignored the impact of regulations on small and rural communities. They are counting on this legislation to force Government agencies to obey the law and minimize the impact of regulations on small communities. The Dole/Johnston substitute will bring some much needed accountability to the faceless regulators sitting in their Washington office buildings cranking out the stream of new rules. It will also bring accountability to Congress, where some of the blame lies for those regulations. It brings sunshine and openness to the way the Government analyzes and talks about health risk, to give us a more honest discussion of the problems facing us. Finally, it brings some common sense to the decisions that the bureaucrats make. Just like every family in America who looks at the costs and benefits of going on vacation or buying a smoke detector, Government regulators are going to have to take a hard look at the cost and benefits of their actions. The claims made by some of the extremist pressure groups that this legislation will harm the environment are simply false. By grounding our health and safety rules on sound science we can avoid wasting our money on phantom risks. By dealing with the worst problems first, and spending our resources wisely, this bill will help afford a safer and cleaner environment for us and our children. In contrast, the Glenn/Chafee amendment ensures that we will continue on our present course, the flood waters of regulations will rise ever higher and more and more small and large businesses will drown in the flood. Make no mistake, a vote for this amendment is a vote against small business, a vote against common sense, and ultimately a vote against the environment--because unless we reform the way we do business we will continue to waste our resources on trivial risks, and have nothing left over for the very real health, safety, and environmental problems that call for commonsense solutions. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1

Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield the floor?

Mr. BOND. I wonder if the Senator is aware that Prof. John Graham, of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, who is an expert on risk assessment, started off his analysis by finding that a regulation requiring airbags, for example, was precisely the kind of regulation that was worth the cost, and that Professor Graham is currently or has just concluded a session with the media next door to the Chamber, pointing out that the Dole-Johnston bill precisely does meet the criteria which he developed in the Harvard Center for Risk Assessment as developed for determining what are reasonable regulations and, in fact, has stated that the Dole-Johnston substitute does permit the kind of analysis which would lead to the kind of life-saving regulations such as the requirement for airbags.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and my distinguished friend from New Mexico. Mr. President, I will abide by the suggestion that we keep this short because I do believe, first, thanks are in order to Senator Domenici for the concept of this amendment. I was pleased to join with him on adding provisions with respect to the ombudsmen, but sincere thanks to Senator Glenn, Senator Levin and their staffs because they made very helpful and constructive suggestions that we think can improve the working of these provisions. The part of the amendment which I had earlier introduced legislation on provides a means for small businesses who feel that they are being abused by a particular regulator to get some relief without having to risk heightening the animosity of that particular regulator by going through the Small Business Advocacy Council in the Small Business Administration. This, we think, will respond to the many complaints we have heard in hearings we had in New Mexico, in my State, and other places around the country, where they think the enforcement is excessive. There was a suggestion by the Senator from Michigan that we have the appointment of the regional small business regulatory fairness board by the SBA Administrator so it would not be burdensome, having to go through Presidential and congressional leadership appointment. I think that improves the bill. I express my appreciation to the managers on both sides for their help in getting this amendment through. I really think this is going to be a significant step forward for small business. As Senator Domenici has pointed out, small business has expressed their frustration with regulations. Now they will have an opportunity to sit in on the crafting of the regulations. They will also have a place to go if they are treated unfairly by particular regulators or the particular agencies. I hope that there will not be a need for the small business ombudsmen. I hope that with the establishment of this procedure, there will be a strong push and a greater effort on behalf of all agencies to become servers of the businesses and the people they regulate and the people of the United States. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the need for the Domenici-Bond-Bingaman amendment. This amendment opens a new front in our fight against oppressive, onerous, and overly meddlesome Government regulations. This new front will, for the first time, take the fight outside the beltway and attack regulations and agencies where they impact people in their day-to-day lives. Since the election, there has been tremendous activity in reforming the way Federal agencies develop and issue regulations, and I have been deeply involved in this effort as cochair of the regulatory relief task force. S. 343 is so important because it makes fundamental changes in the way Government regulations are developed. It is vitally important if we are to reduce the flood of runaway regulations. And it is particularly important for small business to add meaningful judicial enforcement provisions to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and I am very pleased to see the strong reforms of the Reg Flex Act in this bill. So far, most of our efforts have focused on changing the way agencies enact regulations. The Domenici-Bond-Bingaman amendment begins to reform the way Government officials enforce Federal regulations. After all, most people, most small business people, do not have the time to concern themselves with the process of reviewing and commenting on proposed and final rules in the Federal Register. Small businesses have to deal with regulations when the regulator shows up on the doorstep to inspect their facility or to enforce a new Federal mandate. As I have taken the Senate Small Business Committee around the country, I have heard numerous horror stories about burdensome regulations. But as I have listened and learned from business men and women with real life problems, I have become increasingly convinced that the enforcement of regulations is a problem as troublesome as the regulations themselves. The Domenici-Bond-Bingaman amendment will begin to make fundamental changes in the way regulatory agencies think about small business. It should be every regulatory agency's mission to encourage compliance by making rules easier to understand and by not enforcing their regulations in a way that unnecessarily frustrates law-abiding small businesses. This is the essence of President Clinton's call for Government regulators to treat small businessmen as clients and not criminals, partners not adversaries. In fact, the administration should support this amendment. It establishes a type of performance-based standard for regulators that the Vice President has talked about in the national performance review. This allows the customers--small business--to rate the regulators. The Domenici-Bond-Bingaman amendment is designed to give small businesses a place to voice complaints about excessive, unfair, or incompetent enforcement of regulations. It sets up regional Small Business and Agriculture ombudsmen through the Small Business Administration's offices around the country to give small businesses assurance that their confidential complaints and comments will be recorded and heard. These ombudsmen also will coordinate the activities of volunteer Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards, made up of small business people from each region. These Boards will be able to report on and make recommendations about troublesome patterns of enforcement activities. Any small business that is subject to an inspection or enforcement action will have the chance to rate and critique the inspectors or lawyers they deal with. In dealing with small businesses today, agencies seem to assume that every one is a violator of their rules, trying to get away with something. Some agencies do a good job of fulfilling their legal mandate while assisting small business, but many agencies seem stuck in an enforcement mentality where everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent. I think we should let small businesses compare their dealings with one agency to dealing with another so the abusive agencies or agents can be weeded out and exposed. Agencies should be trying to see who can fulfill their statutory mandate in a way that helps and empowers small business. This is an important amendment. It has the strong support of small business. I believe it will help to bring about a more cooperative relationship between regulators and small business. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. In recent weeks, we have heard from the President about all the ways he is going to reduce the burdens of Government regulations. I commend him for recognizing the forces at work in Congress and responding quickly to it. He has found a parade and now is hustling to get in front of it, as a good politician will do. Presidential directives and agency policies can change as often as the weather, though, and I want the comfort of knowing that Congress has passed a law that permanently changes the enforcement attitudes of Federal regulators so small business can get on with what they do best, creating jobs and driving the engine of America's economy. I appreciate the willingness of the managers to accept the measure.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as chairman of the Small Business Committee and chairman of the Regulatory Relief Task Force, I am looking forward to the opportunity to discuss the problems at OSHA and some potential solutions. I believe we will have this debate in earnest after next January 1, when Congress will finally have to comply with the Congressional Accountability Act. For the first time, thanks to the new Republican Congress, we will ourselves get a feel for what we have foisted upon the private sector for a generation, through OSHA regulations and the Fair Labor Standards Act and many others from which we have until now exempted ourselves. This amendment focuses attention on the Gregg-Bond OSHA reform bill sooner than I expected. When the Senator from New Hampshire and I introduced the OSHA reform bill in April, we tried to address many of the problems we had heard about from our constituents. And believe me, we have had complaints. We have had complaints of OSHA overreach and OSHA overzealousness from virtually every sector of employment: from bakeries to construction companies to restaurants and retailers to roofers to colleges and universities--we have heard about problems. Now, I don't for 1 minute advocate abolition of the agency. I believe they are charged with an important public purpose: that is, protecting the health and safety of the American worker. No one disputes the importance of the purpose of the agency. But in this case, enforcement has been a problem. Yesterday I outlined some of the examples of OSHA silliness: material safety data sheets for common household products, material safety data sheets which are required at every worksite but never looked at by the people they are supposedly protecting, and fines without purpose and without merit. I hate to tell some of the inside-the-beltway, stuck-in-the-past crowd this, but safe business is good business. I have always believed that most employers have the best interests of their employees at heart. In many cases, employer and employee are neighbors, or members of the same church or parish, or have kids that attend school together. Employers want the best for their employees, and vice versa. But even those few employers who do not care are concerned about the bottom line. With the rising costs of worker's compensation, most employers want to do everything in their power to promote safety and health. But OSHA still lives in the past, and takes an adversarial role to business. Instead of helping businesses comply with the many rules and regulations they set forth, they send an inspector--who may or may not know anything about the type of business they are inspecting--to a worksite to try to find as many violations as possible. The Gregg bill would codify OSHA's little used onsite consultation program, through which Federal funds are used to provide technical assistance to employers to assist them in complying with OSHA standards. That way, a hospital administrator who is uncertain about specific steps her nurses should take to comply with the bloodborne pathogen standard or the foreman at a construction site uncertain about how many ladders and rails should go up to meet the fall protection standard could call the regional OSHA office and have someone come out to help them come into compliance with the law. Consultation is a part of our bill, but the Senator from Massachusetts has left that, and other good provisions, out of his amendment. I would like to devote a few moments to discussion of the cost benefit and risk assessment provisions the Senator from Massachusetts has included in his amendment. As he indicated, he has taken language directly from the Gregg bill. I am delighted that he agrees we should examine all OSHA rules, and not just those over $100 million. Perhaps it would not be too big a step to support the rest of the Gregg OSHA reform bill as well. But I must say, frankly, the cost benefit and risk assessment provisions in S. 343 are an improvement over what we envisioned in this bill. I think the Senator from New Hampshire would agree that we did not envision S. 526 as the ``be all and end all'' of OSHA reform. We are open to new ideas and improvements. And many of us--Senators Dole, Johnston, Roth, Nickels, and others--have spent the last several months working on the fine points of what is needed to achieve a fair regulatory system. There are several important elements of S. 343 that Senator Kennedy has left out of his amendment, including judicial review, the requirement that agencies use the least costly option to implement a proposed rule, and the opportunity for affected businesses to petition the agency for permission to implement an alternative method of compliance. To carve out a special exemption for OSHA from the regulatory process we have laid out in S. 343 is just plain silly. S. 343 clearly permits rules affecting the health and safety of the American people to go into effect without delay. But if the Kennedy amendment were adopted, we would not have the opportunity to get rid of some of the silly OSHA regulations already on the books, that we have heard about over and over during the last few days. Businesses would not have the opportunity to petition for a review of material safety data sheets for Joy detergent, for instance. So the Senator from Massachusetts has suggested that he will take our old language on the cost benefit and risk assessment verbatim, knowing that we prefer the new language. So I must ask my colleague from Massachusetts, why not take the whole bill? Why not release the small business men and women of this country, including those in Massachusetts, from the burden of excessive paperwork and the threat of recordkeeping fines, as the Gregg bill does. Why not release the small business men and women of Massachusetts, Missouri, and every other State from the threat of an OSHA citation-- that is, fine--in each and every circumstance where a violation is found--even those that do not put workers at risk or where the employer acts immediately to correct the program. Our bill would give OSHA inspectors the discretion to issue a warning in lieu of a citation in those cases where either there is no danger to the workers or the employer has acted in good faith to correct a violation quickly. Further, why not release the small business men and women of this country, who create the new jobs that provide paychecks to families, from the burden of large fines for paperwork, recordkeeping, or other relatively minor violations, as the Gregg bill does. Those are the reforms we need in OSHA; we do not need to change the good language we have agreed on regarding reform of the regulatory process to accommodate the bureaucrats at OSHA. I urge my colleagues to reject the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my very distinguished colleague from New Mexico and the other Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, in offering this amendment. I commend Senator Domenici for all of the work that he has been doing on the very difficult budget process, and for the great work he has put in this early on this year. He asked if I would join him to listen to the small business people who had come to him in New Mexico and who wanted to share with us in Washington the concerns they had about how the Federal Government was making it far more difficult for small businesses to thrive and even to survive. We had an excellent field hearing in Albuquerque, NM, where we learned a great deal about the concerns of small businesses about excessive regulations and excessive and abusive enforcement tactics by Government agencies. Here in Washington those might seem like overused phrases. But outside the beltway, in the real world, where the men and women of small business are trying to earn a living for themselves and their families, to create jobs and to improve their communities, they are suffering real harm from precisely those excessive regulations and excessive and arbitrary enforcement. We heard from Ms. Angela Atterbury, owner of a small business in Albuquerque, NM. She told us of a small businessman who was a first- time offender of an OSHA regulation and was fined $8,000; no education or explanation, just a fine, which almost put the man out of business. She told us of a small pest-control company transporting one to two pints of pesticide who must comply with the same regulations as a large shipper of chemicals. And a candymaker who cannot legibly print all the information required by the FDA on the candy bar wrapper. You have to have a separate sheet of paper attached to each candy bar to get all the information on it. We also heard from Mr. Gregg Anesi, a small businessman from Farmington, NM, who testified that too often there is no practical recourse for a bad regulation or a bad regulator. This is something that we have heard time and time again. Many, many small businessmen and women have asked us, ``What do you do if you are small business and you cannot afford to hire a hoard of lawyers, and you cannot afford to carry on a battle with an agency? You have somebody who seems to be overstepping their authority or misinterpreting regulations. How do you get out of it?'' This is really a crushing problem for many small businesses who run head on into the Federal Government and feel like they have been hit by a truck. And many, many more small businessmen who were literally drowning in the flood of government regulations. The Small Business Committee has held field hearings in several other States since that time, and the message from small business owners at each of these hearings is strikingly similar. In my own State of Missouri, I heard from Mr. Leon Hubbard, the owner of a small homebuilding company in Blue Springs, MO. Mr. Hubbard persuasively describes the disproportionately burdensome impact on a company like his of regulatory paperwork obligations. OSHA requires companies like his to have files of Material Safety Data Sheets for all hazardous products on a home construction site, in spite of the fact that most products carry their own warning labels and despite a 1992 OSHA study that indicated less than 1 percent of all construction fatalities resulted from chemical exposure. We know from other instances where people have been hit by OSHA because they did not have a safety material data sheet on a bottle of Dove soap, the kind that any of us may use in household cleaning activities. This is the length to which some of them have gone. He also pointed out the unfairness of OSHA's multiemployer work site policy. Arbitrary enforcement of this rule makes builders like himself legally responsible for the safety practices of employees of independent subcontractors working on the same job site even though he might not have any direct authority over the employees. This means that one employer could be cited for safety violations of another employer. Another piece of very compelling and interesting testimony came from Mr. James M. White, senior program director for the Local Initiative Support Corp. in Kansas City describe his frustrations with the problems created for central city redevelopment by the unpredictable enforcement of environmental regulations. Mr. White is a senior program director for a national non-profit organization funded by the private sector to provide support to community development corporations. He testified about his personal involvement in six proposed development projects in central Kansas City where the projected development costs were escalated to excessive levels by uncertainty over cleanup requirements under environmental laws. The defensive and over cautious approach taken by lenders and others as a result of inconsistencies and uncertainties about potential environmental liabilities dramatically increase project costs and reduce redevelopment opportunities. Factories and jobs often are driven to locate in distant suburbs rather than in the central city where they would be welcomed by thousands of job seekers. As a result of our hearings, Senator Domenici introduced S. 917, the Small Business Advocacy Act--to give small business a greater voice in development of regulations of EPA and OSHA--and I introduced S. 942--to give small business a greater voice in dealing with the enforcement of regulations, to give small businesses who feel they are being oppressed either by excessive regulations or by the enforcement of them some place they can go, some voice where they can be heard. The amendment that Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and I have proposed draws on both bills to produce what we think is a strong amendment for small business. The part of the amendment drawn from S. 942 is designed to give small businesses a place to voice complaints about excessive, unfair or incompetent enforcement of regulations, with the knowledge that their voices for once will be heard. The amendment sets up regional small business and agricultural ombudsmen through the Small Business Administration's offices around the country to give small businesses assurance that their confidential complaints and comments will be recorded and heard. I cannot tell you how many times a small businessperson has come up to me and said, ``Man, this inspector from OSHA was really tough on me, but I am scared to death because if I complain to his supervisor, I am going to get it doubly bad the next time.'' Well, there ought to be some kind of check, some kind of confidential process in which he can place that complaint. And if there are others like him who are also being abused by that particular inspector, perhaps the ombudsman can do something about it. The ombudsman also would coordinate the activities of the volunteer Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards, made up of small business people from each region. The board would be able to investigate and make recommendations about troublesome patterns of enforcement activities. Any small business subject to an inspection or enforcement action would have the chance to rate and critique the inspectors or lawyers with whom they deal. Now, they may not like them all, but you can sure find out, when you listen to the people who are subjected to the inspections and the regulations, who are the responsible officials and who are the overly aggressive and excessively burdensome and overbearing regulators. In dealing with small businesses today, too many times an agency seems to assume that everyone is a violator of the rules, trying to get away [[Page S 9885]] with something. Many agencies do a good job of fulfilling their legal mandate while assisting small business, but there are some that seem stuck in an enforcement mentality where everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent. That is not our system. That is not the American way. From your experience and mine, we know that most people want to comply with the law if they know what it is. We still need sanctions. We still need enforcement for those who willfully refuse to do so. But let us not assume that everyone wants to violate the law and wants to overlook the requirements for safety, for health and other legitimate regulatory purposes. I think we ought to let small businesses compare their dealings with one agency to dealings with another so that the abusive agencies or agents can be weeded out and exposed. Agencies should be vying to see which can fulfill their statutory mandate in ways that help and empower small business to accomplish their purposes, whether it be safety in the workplace or cleanliness of the environment. The agencies ought to be helping first the people involved to do the job that they want done and to do it properly. We need direct feedback, and I think the agencies need direct feedback from small business women and men around the country on how well regulators are doing their job. In my view, the Domenici amendment will for the first time take the fight outside the beltway and attack the regulations and the agencies where they impact people in their day-to-day lives. Now, most of my colleagues in this body have received complaints. If you have not heard thousands of those complaints, you must not be listening because every day they come to Washington to tell the Members of Congress how bad they are being treated. Let us give them a chance to get a hearing out in the area where they live to identify at the location where it is happening those agencies or representatives of agencies who are overstepping their boundaries. Mr. President, last month the President told the White House conference that he wants Government regulators to stop treating small business men and women as criminals and start treating them as partners or customers. I commend him for that, and I believe this amendment will help to make that goal a reality and bring much needed relief to small businesses across the country. I really hope the President will follow through on his speech to small business and join with the National Federation of Independent Businesses in supporting this amendment. I point out, since I am talking about the conference, that this White House Conference on Small Business which just completed brought a lot of good ideas and a lot of information to Washington, and the No. 3 priority which the small business delegates put on the agenda was dealing with regulation and paperwork. They had a vote of 1,398 who said the third priority should be amending the Regulatory Flexibility Act, making it applicable to all Federal agencies including IRS and DOD, and including the following--and this I note parenthetically, that the Dole substitute, this measure under consideration, does just that. It strengthens the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It also does the other following things set forth in that priority listing: A. Require cost-benefit analysis, scientific benefit analysis and risk assessment on all new regulations. B. Grant judicial review of regulations, providing courts the ability to stay harmful and costly regulations and requiring agencies to rewrite them. C. Require small business representation on policymaking commissions, Federal advisory and other Federal commissions or boards whose recommendations impact small businesses. Input from small business representatives should be required on future legislation, policy development and regulationmaking affecting small business. The regulations go on, but I think any of us who travel in our States and listen to the small businesspeople will agree that even if you were not fortunate enough to attend the conference, these are the concerns of small business. I believe the Domenici amendment helps this excellent substitute that is before us to address those needs.