Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Nickles-Reid amendment. My friend and colleague from Arizona has done an excellent job of pointing out some of the burdens of regulation. I will not reiterate those, but I will make them a part of my full statement in the Record. He has talked about the annual costs and economic terms of regulations. This is a study--I understand done in 1992--by Thomas D. Hopkins on the regulatory policy in Canada and the United States. He is talking about billions of dollars, in 1991 dollars, and shows back in 1977 they were running slightly under $550 billion, but at that time we projected that the 1995 burden would be about $600 billion annually. Now, as chairman of the Small Business Committee, I suppose the one thing that I hear most from small businesses in my State and in the other States I have visited is that you are killing us with all these regulations. We are in business to make money, to hire people, to provide a product or a service. How are we going to keep up with the minute details, the tremendous volume of directions that you are giving to us. How are we supposed to run our business and still read all this stuff? Now, before me, I have two stacks of regulations the Clinton administration has put forward since the election. I would have stacked them one on top of the other for more dramatic impact, but I am sure I would have been in violation of some regulation of OSHA because they could be very dangerous if you stacked up all of this material and put it where it could fall over on somebody. Unfortunately, it is the business person, the individual, the farmer, the retail store owner who is supposed to know everything that is in here. Oh, by the way, just received today, March 27, 1995. You think you have problems getting to sleep tonight. This is what you need to read today as the regulatory burden that the Government is proposing to put on you today. This is today's reading. The admonition that the problems of today are sufficient, do not worry about tomorrow; well, the Bible did not understand that the Federal Register could make the burdens of today as significant as this. But this is what the small business person is supposed to know and supposed to follow. The Clinton administration has proposed 4,300 regulatory actions and has some 2,000 final rules planned. This is going to enable this administration to surpass the dubious record of the Carter administration in the issuance of new regulations. Another way of looking at the volume of regulations is how many bureaucrats does it take to write the regulations? In 1970, we had 28,000 people in the Federal bureaucracy telling us how to run our lives and what kind of regulations we have to obey. By today, glory be, that number has risen to 127,842 people trying to tell the small business person in my hometown, your hometown, or anyplace in this country how they live their lives and what they ought to do. Now, let me make clear as we begin this debate, we are not saying all regulations are bad. And I do not believe any of the proponents of this legislation or this amendment are going to say that. People still rely, as they functions to ensure that we have clean water to drink, ensure safe and effective medicines to take, and safe food to eat. I want to be able to rely on that. But the people I talk to, the people I am hearing, want Government brought under control. They are tired of looking at Government and seeing how it runs and thinking to themselves, ``You could never run a business that way.'' The question I suggest, Mr. President, is how to get the best results from the regulations we must have? How do we use our finite resources best? If we waste time and effort and energy on complicated or unwise or overly prescribed regulations, we cannot put those resources and that time into being productive. It results in loss of jobs and a lower standard of living. We ought to take a look at these regulations and ask some important questions. And that is what this 45-day period under the Nickles-Reid amendment would permit us to do. It would enable us to say: Would this regulation actually improve things or would it endanger lives? Could the same amount of spending be applied better in another way? Is this regulation the best way to allocate the resources in our globally competitive economy? Let me just take two examples that might be under the heading of risk assessment. According to the Office of Management and Budget, under the EPA's hazardous waste disposal ban, $4.2 billion would have to be spent before one single premature death is prevented. Again according to OMB, under EPA's formaldehyde occupational exposure limit, $119 billion to prevent one premature death. That is not to say that it is not a laudable goal to prevent deaths that would result from exposure to hazardous substances. The question we must ask is whether this is the best way to allocate these billions of dollars in resources? If resources were used a different way, could we not, in fact, save more lives and prevent more illness? The money spent complying with regulations might be better spent. If society could take the resources spent to comply with the formaldehyde occupational exposure limit, $119 billion, and spent it on developing new lifesaving drug therapies, then 331 new drugs could be developed and brought to market. If the $92 billion that it will take to avoid one death under the atrazine/alachlor drinking water standard were used for cancer research, we could quadruple the research budget at the National Cancer Institute for the next 12 years. If we took the $168.2 million that it is estimated to cost to avoid just one death under the benzene nesahp standard, we could put 3,064 more police officers on the street. Let me give you just a couple of examples, Mr. President, of some of the things that we have heard about before. I think our colleagues have heard about how dangerous it is to rescue a colleague, a fellow worker, who is in danger of death in a collapsed trench. Senator Kempthorne has talked about it. My one of my favorite columnist Dave Barry, wrote in ``Wit's End'' about this story in Idaho. He said: But before we do anything, let's salute the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) office in Idaho for its prompt action regarding. . . Improperly attired rescue personnel: Here's what happened, according to an article in the Idaho Statesman. On May 11, two employees of DeBest Inc., a plumbing company, were working at a construction site in Garden City, Idaho, when they heard a backhoe operator yell for help. They ran over, and found that the wall of a trench--which was not dug by DeBest--had collapsed on a worker, pinning him under dirt and covering his head. ``We could hear muffled screams,'' said one of the DeBest employees. So the men jumped into the trench and dug the victim out, quite possibly saving his life. What do you think OSHA did about this? Do you think it gave the rescuers a medal? If so, I can see why you are a mere lowlife taxpayer, as opposed to an OSHA executive. What OSHA did--I am not making this up--was fine DeBest Inc. $7,875. Yes. OSHA said that the two men should not have gone into the trench without (1) putting on approved hard hats, and (2) taking steps to ensure that other trench walls did not collapse, and water did not seep in. Of course this might have resulted in some discomfort for the suffocating victim (``Hang in there! We should have the OSHA trench-seepage- prevention guidelines here within hours!''). But that is the price you pay for occupational health and safety. Unfortunately, after DeBest Inc. complained to Idaho Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, OSHA backed off on the fines. Nevertheless this incident should serve as a warning to would-be rescuers out there to comply with all federal regulations, including those that are not yet in existence, before attempting to rescue people. Especially if these people are in, say, a burning OSHA office. But let me tell you what OSHA came up with. They did repeal the fine. They pushed it through in the first place, and then they pulled it back. And now OSHA has decided to provide for that. So if you are thinking about a rescue situation, and here you are, this is any worker, this is any small contractor on a hazardous site, you have to know this before you try to rescue somebody. This is from the Federal Register of Tuesday, December 27, 1994, volume 58, page 66,613--that will tell you something. And I quote: (f) No citation may be issued to an employer because of a rescue activity undertaken by an employee of that employer with respect to an individual in imminent danger unless: (1)(i) Such employee is designated or assigned by the employer to have responsibility to perform or assist in rescue operations, and (ii) the employer fails to provide protection of the safety and health of such employee, including failing to provide appropriate training and rescue equipment, or (2)(i) such employee is directed by the employer to perform rescue activities in the course of carrying out the employee's job duties, and (ii) the employer fails to provide protection of the safety and health of such employee, including failing to provide appropriate training and rescue equipment; or (3)(i) such employee is employed in a workplace that requires the employee to carry out duties that are directly related to a workplace operation where the likelihood of life-threatening accidents is foreseeable, such as a workplace operation where employees are located in confined spaces or trenches, handle hazardous waste, respond to emergency situations, perform excavations, or perform construction over water; and (ii) such employee has not been designated or assigned to perform or assist in rescue operations and voluntarily elects to rescue such an individual; and (iii) the employer has failed to instruct employees not designated or assigned to perform or assist in rescue operations of the arrangements for rescue, not to attempt rescue, and of the hazards of attempting rescue without adequate training or equipment. (4) For purposes of this policy, the term ``imminent danger'' means the existence of any condition or practice that could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm before such condition or practice ban be abated. And I close the quote there. Is that not refreshing to know what the good Samaritan must know before he or she rescues somebody's life? Mr. President, I think that is the kind of thing that, if it came up here for a 45-day look, we could say, ``I don't think so.'' I do not think we really need to go into all that detail. I do not think we really need to have everybody in America read this in case they would become a good Samaritan and rescue somebody in serious, serious condition. These are the kind of things that are driving small businesses, individuals in all walks of life nuts in this country today. Another example: The head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration testified before Congress the horror stories were not true. He testified OSHA does not require material safety sheets for the normal use of consumer products, and workers must be informed of risks only when they are regularly exposed to high levels of substances that actually pose health risks. This is a copy of a citation issued last July to a specialty food shop in Evanston, IL, for a serious violation and a proposed $2,500 fine. What is the violation? The company did not have a written hazard communication program. The primary chemicals used are used in the kitchen and bathroom areas. The chemicals used that were so dangerous were not limited to but included automatic dishwashing detergent and bleach. And for failure to have a hazardous notification--this is a serious violation and ``the employer did not develop, implement and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication which describes how the criteria will be met.'' As I said, the primary chemicals used were automatic dishwashing detergent and bleach. My goodness, I used automatic dishwashing detergent this imminent danger? I do not think so. But, Mr. President, businesses across the country, small companies, are in imminent danger of being hit with a $2,500 fine if they do not have that kind of written hazardous communication warning them about dishwashers and bleaches and automatic detergent. I think these problems are what the bill, as amended by the Nickles- Reid amendment, intends to fix. Under this bill, Congress is held accountable, as it should be, for delegating responsibility to implement regulations. This measure would give Congress 45 days to review significant regulations and to pass a joint resolution of disapproval to block the implementation. The 45-day layover adds to the checks and balances between the legislative branch and the executive branch by bringing back to Congress major regulations so that we can see if they really do what we meant and, second, if we meant what we said, and, third, are they unnecessarily restrictive or proscriptive? Too long we in Congress have taken the credit for solving problems. We have somebody come in and talk about regulations and we say, ``Oh, well, I'll get after somebody and we won't have to have you comply with that particular provision.'' But rather than try to come in after, would it not make sense for us to take a good hard look up front? That is what Congress needs to do. Frankly, I think that a 45-day period before Congress will have a very salutary effect because I just believe that many people in the executive agencies are getting the message: We are going to start taking a look at what you write, and if you do not want it to be overturned, let us make it simple. Do not write it so complicated that people cannot understand it. I have a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development notice to renters on lead-paint poisoning. These are all single-spaced sheets. There are four sheets. You tell me somebody who may be getting assistance in housing is going to be able to read all that and understand it? I tell you, I have gone through it and I have gotten lost and I have had some training, supposedly, in reading regulations. I do not think that we are serving our people well when we put burdens of tremendous regulations on them, kill a lot of trees to boot and wind up with systems that often do not make any sense. I believe one of the messages that the people of America gave us in November 1994 was: Enough is enough, get off our back. Stop weighing us down with these kinds of overly restrictive, proscriptive regulations. Regulations to protect health and safety, simple ones that people can understand, that is fine. We anticipate those when we pass legislation calling for regulations. It is time that we in Congress got back into the process and made sure that we stop some of this idiocy before it is placed on the backs of an already overburdened economy, dragged down by more than $600 billion worth of regulatory burden each year. For small businesses, the burden is disproportionately high. No one can say how many new small businesses were never started, or new products that never get developed, or how many jobs are destroyed because of the burden of regulations out of control. One group that thrives on the confusion and fear of regulators is regulatory consultants. All across this country consultants profit from helping businesses, especially small businesses, navigate the regulatory maze and figure out how to comply. A new and complex regulation is a boon to these consultants. In the environmental sector, the consulting market was estimated at $9 billion on 1993 by Farkas, Berkowicz & Co., a Washington-based consulting firm. These firms also conduct mock OSHA inspections and make inquiries to OSHA for their clients. Businesses do not want to call OSHA themselves because they are fearful it would trigger an inspection and fines. These are businesses who want to comply and are trying hard to comply, but are too afraid to call the agency themselves. Congress has been unaccountable for the burdens it creates. Most of the regulatory burden results from the ways laws are written here in Congress. Let me quote from the special report on regulatory overkill published by the Kansas City Business Journal: The Congress passes laws in a very sloppy manner. They don't spell things out in great detail the way they should, because that requires hard work and technical expertise, and those are two things that are in short supply in Congress. Congress' reliance on agency bureaucrats to flesh out lawmakers' intentions gives unelected officials vast discretionary powers, but ``oftentimes regulators are confused about what Congress wants and then Congress loses control over what regulators do. The regulators prescribe very unworkable solutions, and Congress says that's not what we had in mind, but by then, we're all stuck with the regulations.'' Lost jobs, businesses that can't grow, products that can't be developed, a loss of research and development. All of these are fundamental dangers that affect not just business, but ultimately every citizen in this country if the system is allowed to continue unchecked. That problem, Mr. President, is what this bill seeks to fix. Under this bill, Congress is held accountable for the regulations that result from the laws it passes. The Nickles-Reid substitute will give Congress 45 days to review significant regulations and a chance to pass a joint resolution of disapproval to block implementation. The Nickles substitute brings accountability to Congress and the Federal agencies. The 45-day layover adds to the checks and balances between the legislative branch and the executive branch by returning major regulations to Congress to see if they match congressional intent. For too long Congress has taken the credit for solving the crisis of the hour--but when the check comes due, Congress has ignored the costs to States, cities, business, and individuals--no more. This makes Congress accountable for its laws--many of our environmental laws do not allow the agency to take costs into consideration. Example: RCRA requires EPA to issue rules for land disposal of hazardous wastes that establish treatment standards using the best demonstrated available technology without regard for cost or risk. This makes Federal agencies accountable for their rules--too often EPA ignores the discression it has. Example: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required major sources of hazardous air pollutants to engage in enhanced monitoring. EPA has taken these two words into a huge new regulatory program. EPA estimates the proposed rule would cover 30,000 sources at 10,000 facilities at a cost of over $1 billion. This is not for emissions reductions, it's just for monitoring. This forces us to confront antiquated laws--sometimes the facts of the situation changes, so today the law means something quite different than when it was passed. Example: When the Delaney clause was adopted in 1958, we were measuring contaminants in parts per million, today we're measuring in parts per billion or parts per quadrillion. The advance in technology has converted the Delaney clause from a reasonable rule to a ridiculous one. A vote for the Nickles amendment is a vote for accountability in Congress and the agencies. Who can disagree with that? If a majority in Congress believe a regulation should not be put in place to implement a law passed by Congress, then proper oversight action should be taken. Congress might weigh the consequences of the laws it passes and must ensure that regulatory agencies do not overstep the boundaries set by Congress. Congress delegates a great deal of decisionmaking authority to the regulators and if the regulators abuse that power, Congress should have the power to act quickly and decisively. Mr. President, I strongly support the Nickles-Reid amendment, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to express my sincere appreciation to my good friend, the senior Senator from New York. We have worked together on many important projects. This is a measure before the Senate today that is very important to small business people all across this country. Today, the person who operates a small business has many problems. There is nothing so glaring as the failure of the code, as it now stands, to give any deduction for the payment of health insurance for the business owner or that owner's family. This 25-percent deduction level, as we all know, expired December 31, 1993. According to the Treasury Department, approximately 3.2 million self-employed taxpayers cannot currently deduct any of their health insurance premiums, unless this is corrected. The 3.2 million taxpayers represent approximately 30 percent of the unincorporated business owners in America today. We had hoped last year, and we talked a great deal in health reform, about the need to put the small business owner on the same footing as the employee of a large corporation who can receive, essentially, 100 percent deductions for the cost of health care premiums. Large corporations already are able to exclude these costs, and their employees do not have to report them on their tax returns. We are putting entrepreneurs at a very, very serious disadvantage. This problem afflicts small business owners who are farmers, who are ranchers, who are truck drivers. These people deserve fair tax credit treatment. One of the biggest concerns that we have today is that without this deduction many families are left without health insurance because of its already high cost. We think this is a terrible impact on the families. It is very hard to imagine a more difficult problem for them to face. Nearly one-quarter or 23 percent of the self-employed are uninsured today. About 4 million of those who do not carry health insurance are in families headed by a self-employed worker. This deduction makes insurance more affordable and helps to get the families the health insurance that they need and deserve to get. Whether these are small businesses in the town or the city, or farmers, or truck drivers, as I said, or ranchers, these people deserve to have the same kind of tax treatment. The bill provides for a permanent extension of the deduction, which I think is long overdue, and would provide retroactive deduction for the 1994 returns. These returns are due April 17. We must act swiftly so that those people who have paid the health insurance claims last year will be able to deduct them. Unfortunately, we were not able to act in time for farmers' returns, which were due on March 1. If we delay this bill further and are not able to get it to the President on time, even more people who are eligible for the deduction will have to file amended returns. This is going to burden the IRS with paperwork, not to mention what is even more important, the burdens on the people who have to refile. Mr. President, it is tough enough to have to file an income tax return one time. It is certainly no pleasure to have to file one again. I think it is also very, very important--and I commend the managers of the bill and the sponsors of the legislation--that we are making this measure permanent. For years the self-employed have been subjected to the uncertainty of not knowing whether the extension would be granted for the deduction. I think it has made it very difficult for those people to plan. This should take that problem away. I am concerned about the fiscal pressures and the need for deficit reduction, but this is not an area where we ought to economize. Small business, farmers, ranchers, truck drivers--they and their families need to have the health care that this will encourage them to have. I would like to go further. If we have an opportunity, if the money its available, count me in on seeing if we cannot get the deduction to a par with those people who work for large corporations. But I am very pleased we are moving on this. I commend the managers of the bill, the chairman and ranking member of the committee as well as the sponsors. This will have important impacts on the health of many, many people, many of those who are in small businesses and their families. I thank the distinguished Senator from New York for yielding the time and I urge my colleagues to support this very important measure. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing on Tuesday, April 4, 1995, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. The focus of the hearing is the Small Business Administration's 8(a) Minority Business Development Program. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator. Let me first begin by allocating 1 minute to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommitee, the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. After that, I would like to give 2 minutes to the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer].

Mr. BOND. How much?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need. Mr. President, our committee has recommended substituting $400 million in public housing new construction funds for rescission rather than the wind tunnel appropriation. Very simply, this is an effort to get us back on track for transforming the out-of-control Housing and Urban Development policies. We need to stop spending in areas where we cannot spend money wisely, but we also need to save manufacturing jobs. New science and real manufacturing jobs are the things that depend upon this wind tunnel. My colleague from Arkansas has said, ``Well, we do not want to be in disagreement with the House.'' Mr. President, if we were not in disagreement with the House, life might be a lot simpler around here, but I do not think that we would be earning the trust that the citizens of our States have put in us, because I happen to think that the House, if, in fact, they have rescinded the wind tunnel authorization, has made a major mistake. The commercial airplane market in the United States is a $40-billion- a-year enterprise which the United States dominated until foreign competition, specifically Airbus, with strong governmental support, weighed in with aggressively priced technically advanced aircraft. Airbus has captured about 30 percent of the market and now increasing competition is expected from Russia, China, Japan, and others. Critical to the continued U.S. competitive position in this growing market is the development of new technically advanced aircraft. Access to wind tunnels, such as the ones currently under study, are necessary for such development and such facilities do not currently exist in the United States. Airbus, by contrast, has several facilities available to it in European countries, including a new transonic facility in Germany. The development of these wind tunnels will be a joint venture between the Government and industry, with significant industry financial contributions. NASA and industry participants have underway an extensive study of design configuration of this wind tunnel complex, along with an assessment of financial and legal arrangements for a Government-industry consortium to build and operate the national wind tunnel facility. These studies began last year and will not be completed until fiscal year 1997. The appropriation of $400 million for the wind tunnel facility was made determined. The contingency included for this appropriation--which call for further funding in fiscal year 1996--therefore, did not adequately reflect the time necessary to conduct the study. Only after the analysis is completed will we be in a position to make recommendations on industry participation and further funding the complex. As I noted before, these decisions will be made in fiscal year 1997, and the administration has requested supplemental language to change the previously enacted limitation to extend availabilities of this funding to that fiscal year. It is the committee's intention to recommend enactment of the administration's requested supplemental language. This item was not appropriate for inclusion in this defense supplemental and recision bill. It will be considered in connection with the next supplemental appropriation bill. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I allocate 1 minute of time to the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison].

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the time remaining with the exception of 30 seconds, which I reserve to offer a tabling motion, to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues from Montana, from Texas, and from Tennessee for their very strong arguments in favor of the wind tunnel. It is extremely important for the commercial development of aeronautics. It is vitally important that we keep this technology and our developments on our shores. Because of the military applications, the distinguished ranking member and chairman of the subcommittee on defense also support the wind tunnels. Our future and our children's future in this area of science and technology depends on that. I now move to table and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I was going to ask that this letter dated March 16 from the science adviser to the President, which says ``The administration strongly supports the retention of the $400 million appropriated in FY 1995 to build the National Wind Tunnel Complex and reiterates its request that the funds remain available until a decision whether to proceed can be made during the FY 1997 budget process,'' be printed in the Record. If this is the same letter dated March 16, if it is already printed, I will not need to ask for its printing. Mr. President, might I ask the distinguished Senator from Arkansas if he would be so be kind as to yield us 5 minutes of the time he has remaining. His wonderful oratory has brought forth far more speakers than we had envisioned. If the Senator could allocate us some of his time.

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

Mr. BOND. No.

Mr. BOND. Procedurally, Mr. President, do we need to adopt the underlying amendment to which the substitute has just been adopted?

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for working out what would have been a very troubling first-degree amendment that would have held hostage a very important cooperative scientific and space technology venture to address a foreign policy issue which, though widely important, was unrelated to the space station. The shuttle-MIR rendezvous program was a cooperative effort between NASA and Russia which has important benefits for both nations, and is being paid for by both nations. It is not a paid grant for assistance to Russia. The United States has contracted with the Russian Space Agency for a number of services and activities, excluding the launch and support of an American astronaut to their MIR space station. As we heard on the news today, the American astronaut has in fact come aboard the Russian space station. Our astronaut will utilize this Russian facility to conduct scientific experiments and will return to Earth aboard the space shuttle when it docks with the MIR space station in June. This mission will provide important experience and understanding of such docking procedures which are critical to the deployment of the international space station. In addition, the experiments conducted by the astronaut aboard the Russian MIR space station will provide the United States our first opportunity to obtain long-term microgravity scientific data. The amendment, as originally proposed, therefore attempted to threaten the Russians by saying that unless you which did not make a great deal of sense because we made the mistake when Russia invaded Afghanistan. We punished our own farmers by cutting off grain sales to the Soviet Union. In that case, Russia was free to purchase cheaper foreign grain on the foreign market. Only U.S. producers were hurt. This amendment avoids the temptation to shoot ourselves in the foot again by denying our scientists and engineers the opportunity to utilize the investment made by Russia in the MIR space station. I am very pleased to say that with the efforts of Senator Hutchison, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Feinstein, we have worked out a compromise with our colleague from Arkansas. We all share concerns over the potential sale by the Russians of nuclear reactors to Iran. We believe that adequate safeguards against the proliferation of nuclear technology must be secured. The revised amendment, however, targets the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy for loss of United States assistance should any sale be carried out without adequate nonproliferation guarantees. This, in fact, targets our efforts on the agency which is causing us great concern. With this modification, the amendment is strengthened, and focuses on the parties in Russia responsible for this sale of the reactor technology. I commend the Senator from Arkansas for calling our attention to this very troubling development. But I believe the substitute amendment is a good amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the nature of a substitute on behalf of myself, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Mikulski, and Mrs. Hutchison, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, there is one issue I would like to bring to the attention of the chairman of our Defense Subcommittee--the proposed rescission of $77.6 million from the Apache A procurement program. Although this funding is no longer needed to prevent a gap in the Apache production line, the Army claims that it is needed to prevent a delay in the Apache Longbow modernization program, which is one of the U.S. Army's priority programs. I have been informed that the Army currently faces a significant funding shortfall for long lead procurement program. These funding shortfalls may cause significant downsizing and delay in both efforts. A delay in exercising the long lead contract options and in providing the RDT&E funding, may result in key suppliers ceasing work and may cause delays in production planning, tooling acquisition, and component production. Technical publications may be placed at risk, and total program costs may increase. I ask the chairman whether he would be willing to address this issue in conference and to work with me to find some kind of accommodation to avoid shortfalls in this critical program.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Missouri's 3A State High School basketball champions, the Mexico Bulldogs. The team members, Aaron Angel, Chris Azdell, Cookie Belcher, Jason Brookins, Joey Dubbert, Jay Frazer, Kyle Henage, Doug Hoer, Tony Miller, Lance Parker, Scott Pitts, Matt Qualls, Jerrod Thompson, Dimos Tzavaris, and Brennen VanMatre; Head Coach Keith Miller and Assistant Coach Todd Berck; the student body; and the community of Mexico are all to be commended on their teamwork and commitment to do their best. Last year, the Mexico ball club finished second; this year they were determined to go all the way. That determination paid off, as they displayed teamwork and commitment in reaching their goal--that had never before been reached in the school's history. Teamwork in basketball is essential; individual effort is also essential. The Mexico Bulldogs were lead by team members such as Cookie Belcher, who hit a jump shot to tie the score at 68-68 with only 4 minutes left in the game; Jerrod Thompson who matched Belcher's 30- point contribution; reserve player Brennan Van Matre who hit the rebound basket that put the Bulldog team ahead to stay; Jason Brookins who delivered the final points with a fantastic alley-oop dunk with only 86 seconds left to play. Individual contributions by all the team members helped to make the game one for the history books. Individual and team efforts on behalf of the Mexico fans also played an important part in the Bulldogs' win. Mexico has long been a community dedicated to improving its way of life. Families, business owners, and employees strive to enhance opportunities for all and are to be commended on their efforts. This dedication truly came to light when the Bulldogs were fighting their way to the top to achieve their goal. The Mexico Bulldogs, Missouri's State 3A Basketball Champs deserve to be recognized for their work, and I am proud to be a fellow Mexicoan.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I express my sincere thanks to my good friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Glenn. On this as on other matters he has been very easy to work with. I appreciate the tremendous efforts he and his staff put in and the great leadership he showed on this task force. Order for Printing of Report

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment be granted permission to meet Wednesday, March 15, at 9 a.m. to consider S. 534, a bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide flow control authority and authority for States to limit the interstate transportation of municipal solid waste.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on March 15, 1995, at 3 p.m. on the Coast Guard authorization for fiscal year 1996.