Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 15, Force modernization in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 1996 and the future years defense program.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet for the session of the Senate Wednesday, March 15, 1995, at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on effective health care reform in a changing marketplace, during the session of the Senate Wednesday, March 15, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 15, 1995, beginning at 2:30 p.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building on S. 349, a bill to reauthorize appropriations for the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing Program.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet Wednesday, March 15, 1995, in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, beginning at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a markup on H.R. 831.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 15, 1995, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have already said how much I appreciate the opportunity to work with Senator Glenn. He has shown great dedication and concern about disaster declarations and how we provide assistance. I think he has given, in his remarks, an excellent overview of the contents of this report. I join him in commending the GAO, CRS, and the other agencies that worked on this, as well as the members of the task force and their staffs. As my colleagues can see, this is no small task. The information was very difficult to compile. It had not been done before. I believe it is a useful effort and I commend it to my colleagues. The good news is you do not have to read the whole thing. There is an executive summary so you can see what we are talking about. I also want to highlight the comments that Senator Glenn made about the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the National Guard, the other organizations, individual volunteers, and the State and local governments that respond in these disasters. I have had more experience than I want in dealing with disasters as Governor of Missouri. I found that out of the hardship, death, injury, damage, and widespread devastation that nature frequently visits on our country comes a tremendous human response that is probably one of the most gratifying and encouraging things one can see in a disaster. I also appreciate Senator Glenn's comments about the funding difficulties that Senator Mikulski, my ranking member, and I on the Veterans' Administration, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittees on Appropriations will face if we have to make cuts solely in our subcommittee in order to handle the disaster implications. This is something we do need to address because in no subcommittee in Appropriations is there a great deal of slack to cover the costs of major disasters. Let me share just briefly some of my observations. There are a couple of points I want to highlight about this report. As most of my colleagues will remember, nearly 2 years ago the Midwest experienced one of the worst floods in the Nation's history. It was deemed a 500- year flood in some areas. We in Missouri saw firsthand the devastating power of Mother Nature. Families were forced out of homes. Businesses and infrastructure, in some cases whole communities, were under water. Over the 3-month period of June to August 1993, northern and central Missouri received over 24 inches of rain. We thought that was a lot of rain. North of us, in east central Iowa, they dwarfed us with over 38 inches of rain. The Missouri and Mississippi Rivers crested and fell, crested and fell, and then crested again. When the waters finally receded, because the ground was so saturated it took weeks, not days, before people could begin the nasty, dirty business of cleaning up. If you never had to be in an area of cleaning up after a major flood, you cannot really appreciate how difficult and how unpleasant a task that is. Needless to say, the damage which resulted was extraordinary, and efforts to repair roads, levees, airports, and communities are continuing in some areas even today. It was with this experience still fresh in my mind that I accepted with pleasure the opportunity to serve as cochair, with my friend Senator Glenn, and accepted the responsibilities for the Senate's Bipartisan Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief last February. As a former Governor who saw several disasters during my two terms as well as a 500-year flood, I was very pleased to be given the opportunity to take on the task of reviewing the Federal Government's disaster relief programs and policies. Our task force was asked to do several things: review the history of disaster relief and its funding; evaluate the types and amounts of Federal financial assistance provided to individuals as well as State and local governments; review the relationship between funding disaster relief and our budget enforcement rules; and report our findings, options, and any recommendations. As mentioned earlier, this proved to be an immense task and one which could not have been done without the massive amount of work done by the professionals at GAO, CBO, and CRS, who teamed up to put together this first-ever comprehensive review. Our colleagues in Congress have been concerned, and rightfully so, that the cost of disaster assistance was growing exponentially while at the same time the temptation to declare anything and everything a disaster in order to get out from under the budget caps was also increasing. Thus, after seeing the sixth large supplemental moving through the Senate, our colleagues decided the time had come to take a longer look at our disaster programs. This report is the result of that decision, and tomorrow I plan to hold a hearing with the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], and a panel composed of GAO, CBO, and CRS, to begin exploring where we go from here. Several of our report's findings are worth highlighting. First, the actual amount obligated by the Federal Government on disaster assistance, as has already been stated, from fiscal year 1977 to fiscal year 1993 has been, in constant 1993 dollars, $120 billion. as Governor of Missouri, was on the receiving end of some of that assistance. I know he and our other colleagues around the country know how important that assistance can be. Of this figure, $55 billion are in the form of loans, with $34.5 billion originating from the Farmers Home Administration and nearly $21 billion from the Small Business Administration. The other major expenditures have been $16 billion from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for crop losses, $25 billion from the Corps of Engineers for hazard mitigation efforts, and $10 billion for FEMA's disaster recovery programs. But of interest to many of my colleagues is the number of disasters since 1988. That year there were 17 disasters with a total cost of $2.2 billion. In fiscal year 1989 there were 29 disasters; fiscal year 1990, 35; fiscal year 1991, 39; fiscal year 1992, 48; and by fiscal year 1993, there were 58 disasters at a cost of $6.6 billion. And then last year, not included in this report's totals, an $8.4 billion supplemental appropriations was agreed to. As I speak, we have pending before the Veterans Administration, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee a fiscal year 1995 supplemental request for an additional $6.7 billion FEMA request. As has been said in many other instances, that begins to mount up to real money. Mr. President, I believe this report will serve as a very useful tool in two basic ways. First, it reminds our colleagues of the costs which have been occurring as a result of natural disasters and our responses to them; second, that we need to get everyone to take a second look at how we have been evaluating the successes or failures of our disaster responses. For the past few years, we have been concentrating on improving the speed of response and the timeliness of the payments--how fast we can shovel the money out the door. For the most part, there have been dramatic improvements. We can really shovel it out the door quickly. However, it is about time that we look to see how the money is being spent. Senator Glenn has already referred to that. It is not just the fact that we shovel it out in a timely fashion. Where does it go and what does it do? I think that his comments are right on target. And this will be the subject of the hearing we will be holding tomorrow to begin to explore how this money is actually spent. Where does it go when it is shoveled out the door? I invite my colleague, or others who are interested, to sit in or to have a staff member sit in as we begin to explore where the money goes, what it does, and if it is the kind of expenditure that we really need to make. In the past 5 years, Congress, through FEMA alone, has provided $12 billion in emergency relief. We now are faced with another request by FEMA of $6.7 billion for this year. It should be obvious to everyone, as I think it is obvious to me, that in the budget climate we face, we must address these escalating costs to ensure that the billions we are spending is spent wisely. I hope that this report will jump start the effort. I ask our colleagues to review at least the executive summary of the report so that they will have an idea of how we are spending billions and billions of dollars--$120 billion since fiscal year 1977. That is a significant amount of money, and one which we should take care to assure we are spending properly. Mr. President, that concludes my remarks. I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent on behalf of myself and Senator Glenn that the report of the Senate Bipartisan Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief be printed as a Senate document. In addition to the usual number of copies, I also ask an additional 300 copies be printed for the use of the Senate. As noted, the task force was established by Public Law 103-211 in February 1994. Subsequently Senator Glenn and I were named cochairs of the task force. I understand this request has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing on Wednesday, March 8, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. The subject of the hearing is the Regulatory Flexibility Amendment Act. For further information, please contact Louis Taylor at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise in support of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, S. 244. As an original cosponsor, I see this legislation playing a critical role in the broader initiative to minimize Government regulatory and paperwork burdens imposed at the Federal level. I want to say a very special thanks to Chairman Roth for moving this bill through his committee. We have given his committee the great blessing of about two-thirds of the urgent legislation to be brought before the Senate. We thank him for moving this bill forward. In addition, a very special thanks to the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] who has long been a champion of paperwork reduction who has worked long and hard. With his leadership we passed this several times in the Senate. As he indicated in his opening remarks, it now looks like we have a receptive majority in the House. I am hopeful that the good work that those two friends, as well as the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn, have put in, along with Senator Bumpers, my predecessor, will bear fruit. Small businesses are especially hard hit by excessive regulatory and paperwork burdens imposed by the Federal bureaucracy. Each time I return home to my State of Missouri, small business owners come up to me and say how the unnecessary burdens of Federal regulations are really crushing them. The Federal requirements too often force these hard-working men and women and small business owners to divert time, energy, and their resources away from productive activities, reducing the competitiveness of the business and impeding their growth. As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I have had the opportunity to hear a lot from people around the country in the last few months. They are the ones who seem to be crying ``enough'' during last November's election. They have told us they are fed up with Government that is inefficient and wasteful. They want that to change. They are unhappy with the Government's failure to meet their expectations in carrying out its responsibility. People want Government to work well. Basic governmental functions to insure we have clean water to drink, safe medicines to take, and safe food to eat are sought by all Americans. But they look at our Government today and see an institution that must be brought under control. And it is not hard to understand their frustration. The paperwork burden imposed on Americans in 1993 totaled 6.6 billion hours. Small businesses alone spend 1 billion hours simply filling out Government paperwork at an annual cost of $100 billion. Furthermore, Government regulation costs individuals and businesses more than $500 billion annually or about $5,000 per family. Just imagine the potential benefit to our economy if some of this valuable time could have been spent on product development or sales. First, let me assure my colleagues that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 will not impose new regulatory burdens on individuals and businesses. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we expect more from the agencies, not from the public. Whenever an agency imposes a paperwork requirement, it must estimate the total amount of time needed to fulfill the requirement. The burden is not merely how long it takes to complete the Government form, report or survey. A greater burden is likely to be the time necessary to understand the requirement, identify the information needed to respond, compile the data, and then submit it in the required format. It is likely the Government format is vastly different from how the small business owner maintains the data. The Council on Regulation and Information Management [C-RIM], a group which has sought since 1942 to rationalize and minimize the Federal regulatory and paperwork reduction processes, believes that Federal agencies underestimate the total time burden imposed by their paperwork by nearly one-third. C-RIM believes the actual burden is closer to 10 billion hours, not the 6.6 billion claimed by Federal agencies. If you estimate compliance cost at $50 per hour, the annual cost of federally imposed paperwork burdens totals $500 billion. As a nation, we cannot afford to continue to heap new paperwork and regulatory burdens on individuals and businesses. While recognizing that the total Federal paperwork burden has continued to grow, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 has brought some successes. First, the 1980 act assures that the public will have an opportunity to comment upon proposed Federal paperwork burdens and to suggest burdensome way. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 strengthens participation by the public. Small businesses will have an opportunity earlier in the process to shed light on the practical business reality on a proposed paperwork requirement. In this bill, we are giving them opportunities to point out when nearly identical information is being collected by another Federal agency. In addition, small businesses will be able to comment on the timing of the submission of the data as well as the format. Recently, the House of Representatives passed its version of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. It is very appropriate that we in the Senate act on this important legislation today. This act is part of a broad down payment on the regulatory relief program we must pass if we expect Americans to maintain trust and respect in their Government. Another bill I hope we will consider soon is S. 350, the Regulatory Flexibility Amendments Act of 1995. Earlier this year, I introduced this bill to remove the prohibition against judicial review of agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The purpose of the Reg Flex Act is very simple. It rejects the notion that one size fits all under Government regulations. Under this act, Federal regulators must take into account the needs of small business in drafting new regulations. The SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy is charged with monitoring Federal agency compliance with the Reg Flex Act. Unfortunately, too often regulators in some Federal agencies give mere lipservice to the Reg Flex Act requirements, because the Reg Flex Act specifically prohibits judicial enforcement of the law's requirements. As a result, too many Federal regulators have ignored their responsibilities under the act, even when the Chief Counsel for Advocacy notifies the agencies of their failure to comply. My bill is intended to encourage Federal agencies to comply with their reg flex obligations by permitting small businesses to go into Federal court to enforce compliance by an agency. The judge also will have the freedom to stay implementation of a regulation until the agency comes into compliance. On March 8, I will chair a hearing before the Senate Committee on Small Business to receive testimony from public and private witnesses on how to implement better the Reg Flex Act. It is my intention to review other administrative remedies to enforce the Reg Flex Act so new regulations are written correctly in the first place, so the need to challenge agencies in Federal court might be minimized. Mr. President, when I first elected to the U.S. Senate, I did not realize so much of my time would be devoted to getting the Government off the backs of individuals and small businesses. As the co-chair of the Senate Regulatory Relief Task Force, we have targeted for reform the 10 worst regulatory burdens. This move will help small businesses, who are the hardest hit by many of these burdensome regulations. We need to reinforce the notion that our Government should be a friend of small business. Government should not be an enemy of growth and new jobs. Unfortunately, today we find a regulatory environment that creates too many roadblocks that impede the growth of small business. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is an important step toward bringing our Government under control. For our Government to demand paperwork requiring 10 billion hours per year to fill out is a sign that much work needs to be done to reach this goal. This bill will help move us in the right direction, and I urge to support its passage.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this joint resolution with my friend and colleague, Senator Ashcroft; the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Illinois, Senator Simon; and my colleague and junior Senator from the State of Illinois, Senator Mosely-Braun. The Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District is an interstate compact agency. The purpose of this joint resolution is to seek congressional approval for legislation enacted by the States of Missouri and Illinois which grants additional powers to the agency. Since the agency's passenger transportation systems operate through various local jurisdictions, the agency has had difficulty insuring that fare evasion and other conduct prohibited on agency facilities and conveyances, and the penalties therefore, are uniform. In addition, issues have arisen regarding the jurisdiction of various local peace officers to arrest for conduct occurring on the light rail system. The legislatures of the States of Missouri and Illinois have enacted legislation to confer the additional powers necessary to resolve the uniformity issues which the Bi-State Development Agency faces. To move forward, these changes approved by the elected officials of Missouri and Illinois now need congressional approval. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, at the end of last session this body passed legislation to provide relief to the Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., a company in St. Louis, MO, that performed emergency work, at the request of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, following the Northridge earthquake in California. Unfortunately, the House did not act on this legislation. It was not until after several weeks into the emergency repair work on rail lines in the Los Angeles area that Benchmark learned of a provision in California State law that requires State agencies to only hire contractors licensed to do work in the State of California. This provision disqualified Benchmark from receiving payment owed-- approximately $500,000. FEMA, following the direction provided under section 406(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, contributed 90 percent to the net eligible cost of repair, restoration, reconstruction, and replacement of public facilities as a result of the earthquake. On August 23, 1994, funds were obligated by FEMA for various projects undertaken by the Metropolitan Transit Authority, including Southern California Regional Rail Authority and the work performed by the Benchmark Rail Group. Because of the provision of California State law, unfortunately the funds obligated cannot be awarded to Benchmark by the State of California or the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. In a letter to Governor Wilson, FEMA stated that: Benchmark Rail Group of St. Louis, MO, travelled halfway across the country at the invitation of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority to help people in dire need of assistance. this action was clearly an example of the concept of people-helping-people at work According to the letter: FEMA is precluded from directly paying Benchmark or otherwise effectuating or facilitating payment to Benchmark because of limitations imposed by both State and Federal law. FEMA cannot pay Benchmark for two reasons. First, ``the Federal Government, in the performance of its duties and responsibilities, cannot ignore or abrogate State law. Since the failure to have a particular California license is the obstacle to payment by the State, FEMA is not legally in a position to do what the State of California, the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority cannot do.'' Second, the Stafford Act prohibits FEMA from providing funds directly to Benchmark, since the company is not an eligible grantee. Section 406(a) of the Stafford Act and the applicable regulations authorizes reimbursement by FEMA only to the grantee of the Federal share of disaster assistance funds which must be a State or local government. The State of California, like FEMA, recognized the problem and tried to resolve it last summer. Governor Wilson worked with the California State Legislature to amend California law to authorize payment to Benchmark. The effort got underway late in the legislative session and failed. Governor Wilson wrote to FEMA and stated: We are hopeful that this problem can be resolved if FEMA obtains the administrative flexibility to make the Stafford Act payment directly to Benchmark. The legislation that was introduced by the former senior Senator of Missouri, Senator Danforth, and passed this body last year, and which I am reintroducing today, would do just that. This legislation directs FEMA to reimburse Benchmark for all work which is eligible for reimbursement under the Stafford Act, including the 90-percent share that FEMA would ordinarily pay and the 10-percent share that the non- Federal entity would pay. It is unfortunate that Benchmark Rail Group has gotten caught in the middle of State and Federal bureaucracy. Benchmark, who rushed to help others suffering from a natural disaster, now is suffering and cannot get help because of the inflexibility in both Federal and State law. I believe we have a responsibility to make certain that Benchmark is compensated for the work performed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, birth defects are the leading cause of infant death in this country, and a national research and prevention strategy is desperately needed. The infant mortality rate in the United States is higher than in most other industrialized nations and higher than some Third World countries. One out of every five infant deaths results from a birth defect. Birth defects cause more infant deaths in this country than any other single factor. In Missouri, birth defects account for 21 percent of total infant deaths. Today, I am introducing the Birth Defects Prevention Act. This bill lays out a national strategy to prevent birth defects. Congressman Solomon Ortiz is simultaneously introducing this bill in the other body. In 1991, I introduced the Families in Need Act, S. 1380, to address many important health, nutrition, and housing needs of families in crises. In that bill, I proposed efforts that would lead to a coordinated effort to reduce the incidence of birth defects. Simultaneously, I worked in the Appropriations Committee to obtain funding for this effort at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This funding is the basis for CDCP's efforts in this area today. This bill is a continuation of efforts in this area. More than 100,000 children are born each year with a serious birth defect. Many more children have serious disorders from a birth defect that are discovered later in life. Birth defects are the leading cause of disability in infants who survive their first birthday. Infants of all races, economic classes, and in every State are at risk. This is a serious public health problem. More children die before their first birthday because of birth defects than from any other cause. More infant deaths result from birth defects than from prematurity and low birth weight. In 10 States, over 25 percent of infant deaths were caused by birth defects. Birth defects are also a leading cause of childhood disability that leads to a lifelong suffering. This is a serious problem that has a terrible impact on the well-being of many children in our Nation. It may surprise you to learn that the United States has no coordinated strategy for reducing the incidence of birth defects. It is shocking how few resources are devoted to preventing this devastating problem. That must change. A tragic situation in the State of Texas a few years ago exemplifies how the lack of a coordinated birth defects prevention strategy can affect a community. The result was a delayed response to an outbreak of birth defects and the needless cost of innocent lives. In the incident in Texas, health professionals observed that six infants were born with anencephaly over a 6-week period. Anencephaly is a fatal birth defect in which the infant is born without a brain. The Texas Department of Health conducted a thorough study after this information was reported. This study revealed that, since 1989, at least 30 infants in south Texas had been born without any or with very little brain tissue. However, like many States, Texas does not have a birth defects surveillance program. As a result, the severity of the problem was not recognized until the incidence of anencephaly was so high that it was difficult to miss. It is only because so many infants were born without any brain tissue that this terrible catastrophe was discovered. This tragic story from south Texas underlines the need for a coordinated national effort to research the causes of birth defects and develop prevention strategies. Infants are being born today somewhere in America with serious birth defects that could have been prevented. Without a coordinated surveillance system, we may not discover these defects and discover how to prevent them. Many birth defects are preventable. Tragically, many opportunities at prevention are missed because few States have prevention strategies. One example of a serious, yet preventable, birth defect is fetal alcohol syndrome or FAS. Pregnant mothers cause FAS when alcoholic beverages are consumed. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a leading cause of mental retardation. It affects an estimated 8,000 newborns each year plus, 36,000 who suffer a related set of birth defects. It is completely preventable. Neural tube defects are one of the top three causes of birth defects that result in the death of the infant. Neural tube defects are severe defects of the brain and spinal cord. They include spina bifida and anencephaly. This birth defect is also preventable. The majority of neural tube defects could be prevented through the consumption of a simple folic acid vitamin supplement by pregnant women and women of childbearing age. The Birth Defects Prevention Act lays out a strategy to prevent children from being born with defects and to find possible cures for those already afflicted with certain defects. Under this bill a national birth defects surveillance and prevention research system would be established. Regional birth defects research programs would be established as centers of excellence to provide the comprehensive surveillance data and epidemiological research needed to study clusters of birth defects, identify their causes, and develop and evaluate prevention efforts. Such centers also would provide training and education to health professionals. The surveillance and monitoring of birth defects would be carried out using vital records, hospital records, and other data while protecting privacy. This bill would develop and implement birth defects prevention and intervention programs. When the cause of a birth defect is known, we must have a prevention strategy. This bill would authorize prevention demonstration programs to develop new strategies to reduce the incidence of birth defects. This bill would also provide funding and technical assistance to State health departments to implement programs of proven effectiveness and safety in prevention of birth defects. And finally, this bill would broaden public and professional awareness of birth defects and prevention opportunities. To do this, a clearinghouse at the Centers for Disease Control would be established for the collection, storage, and interpretation of data generated from State birth defects surveillance programs and regional birth defects centers. This bill would also enhance public information and education programs for the prevention of birth defects, such as programs using folic acid vitamin supplementation to prevent spina bifida and alcohol avoidance strategies to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome. Without a strategy to discover the causes of birth defects and prevent them, the terrible tragedy of birth defects will continue. Too few resources are devoted to reducing birth defects which are the leading cause of infant infant morality to 7 death per 1,000 live births by the year 2000 without a national birth defects prevention strategy. The March of Dimes has done such important and tireless work toward the prevention of birth defects. This country and its children certainly owe the March of Dimes a heartfelt thank you. In particular, Kay Johnson and Vivian Gabore of the March of Dimes staff deserve a special thank you for their seemingly never-ending efforts to get the Birth Defects Prevention Act passed. It is their research, study, and work that has resulted in this bill, and I am exceedingly grateful to them. In addition to the March of Dimes, this bill also has the endorsement of 18 organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Epilepsy Foundation, the National Easter Seal Society, the Spina Bifida Association, and many others. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, pursuant to Senate, rules, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business' rules for the 104th Congress be printed in the Record at this time. The Committee rules follow: Committee Rules (As adopted in executive session January 11, 1995) 1. general All applicable provisions of the Standing Rules of the Senate and of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, shall govern the Committee. 2. meetings and quorums (a) The regular meeting day of the Committee shall be the first Wednesday of each month unless otherwise directed by the Chairman. All other meetings may be called by the Chairman as he deems necessary, on 3 days notice where practicable. If at least three Members of the Committee desire the Chairman to call a special meeting, they may file in the office of the Committee a written request therefor, addressed to the Chairman. Immediately thereafter, the Clerk of the Committee shall notify the Chairman of such request. If, within 3 calendar days after the filing of such request, the Chairman fails to call the requested special meeting, which is to be held within 7 calendar days after the filing of such request, a majority of the Committee Members may file in the Office of the Committee their written notice that a special Committee meeting will be held, specifying the date, hour and place thereof, and the Committee shall meet at that time and place. Immediately upon the filing of such notice, the Clerk of the Committee shall notify all Committee Members that such special meeting will be held and inform them of its date, hour and place. If the Chairman is not present at any regular, additional or special meeting, the Ranking Majority Member present shall preside. (b)(1) A majority of the Members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for reporting any legislative measure or nomination. (2) One-third of the Members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of routine business, provided that one Minority Member is present. The term ``routine business'' includes, but is not limited to, the consideration of legislation pending before the Committee and any amendments thereto, and voting on such amendments. 132 Cong. Rec. Sec. 3231 (daily ed. March 21, 1986). session, a quorum for the asking of testimony, including sworn testimony, shall consist of one Member of the Committee. (c) Proxies will be permitted in voting upon the business of the Committee by Members who are unable to be present. To be valid, proxies must be signed and assign the right to vote to one of the Members who will be present. Proxies shall in no case be counted for establishing a quorum. 3. hearings (a)(1) The Chairman of the Committee may initiate a hearing of the Committee on his authority or upon his approval of a request by any Member of the Committee. Written notice of all hearings shall be given, as far in advance as practicable, to Members of the Committee. (2) Hearings of the Committee shall not be scheduled outside the District of Columbia unless specifically authorized by the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member or by consent of a majority of the Committee. Such consent may be given informally, without a meeting. (b)(1) Any Member of the Committee shall be empowered to administer the oath to any witness testifying as to fact if a quorum be present as specified in Rule 2(b). (2) Interrogation of witnesses at hearings shall be conducted on behalf of the Committee by Members of the Committee or such, Committee staff as is authorized by the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member. (3) Witnesses appearing before the Committee shall file with the Clerk of the Committee a written statement of the prepared testimony at least 48 hours in advance of the hearing at which the witness is to appear unless this requirement is waived by the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. (c) Witnesses may be subpoenaed by the Chairman with the agreement of the Ranking Minority Member or by consent of a majority of the Members of the Committee. Such consent may be given informally, without a meeting. Subpoenas shall be issued by the Chairman or by any Member of the Committee designated by him. A subpoena for the attendance of a witness shall state briefly the purpose of the hearing and the matter or matters to which the witness is expected to testify. A subpoena for the production of memoranda, documents and records shall identify the papers required to be produced with as much particularity as is practicable. (d) Any witness summoned to a public or closed hearing may be accompanied by counsel of his own choosing, who shall be permitted while the witness is testifying to advise him of his legal rights. (e) No confidential testimony taken, or confidential material presented to the Committee, or any report of the proceedings of a closed hearing, or confidential testimony or material submitted voluntarily or pursuant to a subpoena, shall be made public, either in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless authorized by a majority of the Members of the Committee. 4. Subcommittees The Committee shall have no standing subcommittees. 5. Amendment of rules The foregoing rules may be added to, modified or amended: provided, however, that not less than a majority of the entire Membership so determine at a regular meeting with due notice, or at a meeting specifically called for that purpose.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced S. 350, the Regulatory Flexibility Amendments Act of 1995, to provide for judicial enforcement under the Reg Flex Act. This bill is vitally important to America's small businesses who are suffering from the excessive burdens of Federal Government regulations. In support of my bill, S. 350, I have received letters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Legislative Council, and the National Roofing Contractors Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters and the bill, S. 350, be printed in the Record. be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the future of Federal housing and community development policy and the financial and management crisis currently facing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Last November, the American people declared their anger and frustration with inefficient, ineffective, and wasteful Government programs of the past and demanded change. This new Congress must deliver on that mandate, not with more promises and debates, but with specific action and workable solutions. I emphasize that this mandate has provided the House and Senate with a real opportunity to revitalize Federal housing policy; namely, to redirect Federal housing and community development policy from HUD micromanagement to a policy of consolidation based on State and local decisionmaking. I look forward to working with my colleagues, including my new ranking member, Senator Barbara Mikulski, our new chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato, Senator Sarbanes, and the new chairman of the Housing Opportunities Subcommittee, Senator Mack, and my friends across the aisle, to find the appropriate reforms and meaningful approaches to address the many housing and community needs of this country. Primarily, I seek to sound an alert to my colleagues to the budgetary crisis at HUD and use this opportunity as a call to action. HUD has been likened to a massive bureaucratic and budgetary Titanic drifting inexorably on the shoals of spending reductions and a balanced budget amendment. We can't stop it, and we can't turn it around on a dime. No doubt some of our colleagues would just as soon fiddle with the deck chairs, and others would simply scuttle the vessel. Moreover, I share many of those concerns. Despite my reservations about the great difficulty of finding real and meaningful solutions to the budgetary and management crisis facing the Department of Housing and Urban Development, I accepted the responsibilities of chairman of the Senate VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee for the 104th Congress. In order to reach a better understanding of the HUD budgetary crisis, I HUD management, program status, program reform, and HUD funding before the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. We have completed these three initial hearings and the subcommittee has heard compelling testimony from a number of sources, including HUD Secretary Cisneros, the National Academy of Public Administration, the General Accounting Office, Ms. Susan Gaffney, the HUD inspector general, the Congressional Budget Office, the FHA Commissioner, Nicolas Retsinas, as well as testimony from witnesses representing housing organizations, and State and local officials. I hope that these hearings will help both me and my colleagues in the weeks and months ahead to formulate, craft, and implement the changes-- in some cases profound changes--which are necessary to sustain the Department and to serve the needs of our communities. First, these hearings clarified that HUD programs as they currently stand cannot be sustained in this era of a freeze on discretionary spending. But if we are to preserve the billions of dollars of prior investment in the assisted housing inventory, and provide hope to millions of lower income families, senior citizens, the disabled, and the communities in which they reside, then we must chart a new course, and put steady and firm pressure at the helm. I believe it important that I highlight and share some of the key issues we have identified and discussed over the last several weeks. HUD, with an estimated $22 billion in annual outlays in fiscal year 1994, is one of the largest Federal agencies in terms of domestic discretionary spending with almost 12 percent of the federalwide total. HUD is also one of the fastest growing Departments in terms of domestic discretionary spending, increasing at a rate of 9 percent per year. Moreover, HUD has amassed over $225 billion in unexpended budgetary authority, more than the entire Department of Defense and dwarfing all other Federal agencies. In fact, even were HUD abolished in fiscal year 1995 and no additional budget authority appropriated, HUD's outlays-- actual dollars spent--for fiscal year 1996 would still go up. Finally, in addition to substantial evidence of organizational, management, and program deficiencies, HUD faces a thicket of complex problems of enormous magnitude, including: First, the need to minimize mortgage loan defaults and address the physical inadequacies of insured multifamily properties, an area of critical importance since HUD expects to lose some $10 billion in multifamily loan defaults over the next 6 years; second, the need to resolve the billions of dollars of backlogged housing rehabilitation needs, increased vacancy rates, and declining tenant incomes for public housing residents; and third, the need to address the spiraling costs of providing Federal housing subsidies to lower income families. Despite these problems, I emphasize that previously enacted limitations on discretionary spending do not allow any increase in current appropriations, even for inflation. In fact, the most recent analysis indicates that even with a hard freeze on overall discretionary spending, current budget caps will be breached by a total of $15 billion in budget authority and $11 billion in outlays over the next 3 fiscal years. Nevertheless, the notion of a hard freeze is totally incompatible with HUD's projection of program needs. The HUD budget baseline, for example, suggests that we will increase budget authority by almost $70 billion and outlays by $26 billion over the next 5 fiscal years. The Department has indicated that the President's budget will reduce this increase down to an estimated $20 billion in budget authority and $13 billion in outlays. I again stress that these funding requirements are still substantial increases over the current rates of spending. Not only are we in the dark on how the Department plans to make these reductions and meet these projections, but, if accepted, Congress must find this $20 billion in budget authority and $13 billion in outlays from other programs over the next 5 years. I want to make it clear about the extent of the HUD problems and the costs associated with these problems. Resolving them is a particularly difficult task since HUD has grown from an agency with some 50 programs in 1980 to an agency with the responsibility for over 200 programs currently. Therefore, I will address two broad categories of programs with which we are all familiar--the public housing program and the section 8 program. While I describe these programs in the singular, I remind my colleagues that there are many subsets of programs within each program. Public housing: As for the public housing program, there are currently some 13,200 public housing developments, administered by 3,200 PHA's. These developments contain some 1.4 million units, with 92 percent occupancy as of 1991, providing shelter for more than 3.4 million low-income, public housing residents, 40 percent of whom are elderly or disabled. Public housing has become, in general, housing of last resort; the assisted housing stock that tends to warehouse the poorest of the poor. In particular, median income in public housing is approximately 16 percent of the local area median income, down from 33 percent in 1980. The average income of nonelderly public housing residents is less than $7,000. Operating subsides continue to cost about $2.7 billion per year. Yet, much of this stock is in physical distress and aging, with modernization needs that exceed $20 billion. Moreover, many of the older public housing developments are in neighborhoods that are distressed. Nearly all 700,000 nonelderly public housing households live in areas that are characterized by extreme poverty and high crime rates. Nevertheless, the public housing program continues to stagnate, strangled by bureaucratic redtape and unworkable legislative mandates. Section 8: The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program is a microcosm of the budgetary crisis facing the Department. About 2.8 million lower income families receive assistance under the section 8 program. To be blunt, HUD estimates that by fiscal year 1996 the total cost of renewing section 8 tenant-based assistance known as vouchers and certificates will exceed $9.5 billion in budget authority, whereas the current appropriation is less than $3.3 billion. This budget estimate assumes a HUD shortening of contract term renewals from a traditional 5 year period to a 3-year contract term. By the year 2000, the annual cost of these section 8 contract renewals would approach $20 billion in budget authority. In the current fiscal climate, the Federal budget cannot begin to meet these renewal commitments; thus threatening hundreds of thousands of families currently receiving assistance with eviction or dramatic rent increases. The cost of section 8 project-based assistance similarly is reaching crisis proportions. Some 940,000 units were developed under the section 8 new construction and substantial rehabilitation contracts of the 1970's and 1980's. Most of these units have been financed with section 8 project-based contracts that exceed the local fair market rents or the rents of comparable units, and in many cases these contracts represent 140 percent or more of the fair market rent. The budget authority for these contracts was appropriated to cover contract costs for 20- to 40-year periods, and many of these section 8 project-based contracts are now starting to come up for renewal. These section 8 project-based contracts represent another hard decision and another high cost for the Government. However, these projects continue to house poor families, with some 47 percent of the units occupied by the elderly. Many of these projects are insured by the Department or financed with direct loans by the Department. Estimates show that approximately 390,000 of these projects, or 41 percent are insured or held by the Department. Another 240,000, or 25 percent, constitute section 202 elderly and disabled projects. The majority of the remaining one-third of the inventory are projects financed by State housing finance agencies. Finally, there is the issue of the prepayment program first initiated in the 1987 Housing Act and permanently authorized as part of the 1990 National Affordable Housing Act where Congress projects not to prepay their mortgages and keep their units affordable for low-income tenants. Owners of some 400,000 rental units are, or soon will be, eligible to apply for these financial incentives, including equity take-out loans. In these cases, the Government will pay increased section 8 assistance to owners to cover the cost of the incentives. The HUD IG Susan Gaffney recently identified this program as a ``rip-off'' to the American taxpayer. In fact, the costs for these additional subsidies will run into the billions of dollars. As I have indicated these are issues that require congressional attention and responsible action. It took decades of neglect, through many Congresses and several administrations, both Democratic and Republican, to create a problem of this enormous magnitude and complexity. HUD cannot be fixed overnight, or by simply passing a law with the word ``reform'' in its title. I stress that we need to redirect Federal housing and community development policy from Federal micromanagement to the consolidation of programs with an emphasis on State and local decisionmaking. We need to get away from the one-size-fits-all mentality and provide flexibility at the State and local level--we need to do this by making housing more affordable through approaches such as public-private partnerships, employment incentives for low-income families, mixed income projects, and the demolition of substandard housing where the demolition makes sense. Mr. President, I raise these issues now because it is important that all of my colleagues and those in the administration and those who are concerned about housing focus on the difficult problems we face and help us develop the drastic solutions that we need to continue our commitment to housing, yet to do so without bankrupting the budget or taking away from other very needed programs. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Regulatory Flexibility Amendments Act of 1995. The Regulatory Flexibility Act is of paramount importance to the 21 million U.S. small businesses. Small businesses employ 54 percent of the U.S. work force, account for 44 percent of all sales, and generate 39 percent of our gross domestic product. Government regulations place extraordinary burdens on small businesses, and the result is to hinder their ability to compete at home and in the global marketplace. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Reg Flex Act, if properly implemented and appropriately strengthened, can help ease the regulatory burdens on small businesses. I am very pleased the small President Clinton has expressed his strong support for judicial review to permit small businesses to challenge Federal agencies under the Reg Flex Act. the regulatory flexibility act The Reg Flex Act is based on two premises. First, Federal departments and agencies often do not recognize the impact of rules on small businesses. Second, small businesses are disproportionately affected by Federal regulations compared to their larger counterparts. The Reg Flex Act was enacted to reduce, where appropriate, the impact of Federal regulations on small business. The Reg Flex Act requires Federal agencies to assess the impact of their proposals on small businesses. Agencies have two options under the statute--performing a regulatory flexibility analysis or issuing a certification. An agency certifies a rule if it determines the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The certification must be announced in the--Federal Register and must be accompanied by ``a succinct statement explaining the reasons for such certification.'' Boilerplate statements that the rule will not have such an effect are inadequate under the Reg Flex Act. An agency assessment that reveals the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses requires the agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. The analysis must contain: a description of the reasons why the action is being considered; a succinct statement of the objectives of and legal basis for the action; a description and estimate of the number of small businesses affected by the agency action; a detailed description of the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements with special attention to the affected small businesses; and any duplicative Federal regulations. Additionally, the analysis must describe and examine significant alternatives to the proposed rule which can accomplish the objectives of the agency, but which minimize the economic impact on small businesses. Significant alternatives may include but are not limited to: First establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements that take into account the resources available to small businesses; second, the use of performance rather than design standards; and third, exemptions of small businesses from all or part of the rule. When an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of the Reg Flex Act, it must explain why it did not adopt other alternatives to minimize the effects on small businesses which were presented to the agency during the rulemaking process. why amend the reg flex act? Unfortunately, too many Federal regulators fail to exercise their responsibilities under the Reg Flex Act. When government agencies fail to comply with the act, they impose significant and burdensome requirements on small businesses and thereby threaten their viability. All too often, these agencies view the act as nothing more than another procedural impediment to the adoption of a particular rule. As a result, agencies issue boilerplate certifications without performing the underlying assessment of impacts on small businesses required by the Reg Flex Act. As long as Federal departments and agencies continue to act in this manner, small businesses will be the big losers. means to strengthen agency compliance with the reg flex act My Regulatory Flexibility Act Amendment has one critical element: repeal the prohibition against judicial review. The Reg Flex Act requires Federal departments and agencies to consider the impact of their actions on small businesses. However, in 1980, the authors of the act were concerned a litigation explosion might result under this law. The rationale being that businesses would attempt to delay the implementation of regulations through court action. To prevent this problem, the sponsors included a provision excluding separate judicial challenges to agency compliance with the Reg Flex Act. Today, we realize it is highly unlikely there would be a flood of litigation if judicial review is permitted under the Reg Flex Act. The fact is, most small businesses do not have the financial resources to bring frivolous, unfounded lawsuits. However, my bill will insure that small business have the opportunity to challenge regulators who attempt to avoid the Reg Flex Act. As a consequence, my colleagues should not be fooled by the ``red herring'' of a threat of litigation explosion. The ability of agencies to ignore their responsibilities under the Reg Flex Act is enhanced by the conspicuous absence of judicial review under the act. Without judicial review, compliance rests upon each agency's voluntary commitment to utilize the Reg Flex Act in its quest for rational rulemaking mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act [APA]. Small businesses do not need voluntary commitments, they need concrete action. The primary means to accomplish mandatory compliance will be to authorize small businesses hurt by an agency's failure to comply with the Reg Flex Act to challenge that agency in federal court. That is what my bill does. conclusion Mr. President, the Regulatory Flexibility Amendments Act of 1995 will help curtail excessive regulation by Government bureaucrats. Furthermore, it will add teeth to the Reg Flex Act and give small businesses a legal means for countering continued violations of the act. The Reg Flex Act, if properly implemented and appropriately strengthened, can help ease the regulatory burdens on small businesses. Regulatory relief will create greater opportunities for small businesses, more jobs for American workers, and will expand the U.S. economy. I urge my colleagues to support this reform of the Reg Flex Act.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Committee Amendment on Page 27 Line 9

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my colleague from Missouri comes to the floor for his first floor statement on an issue that will not surprise any of his fellow Missourians, and that is a message of change. Change is what John Ashcroft talked about so clearly during his campaign, and now he is doing exactly what he told the people of Missouri he would do if they sent him here--to be a leader for change. I take great pleasure in cosponsoring this legislation for term limits, because I think this is a very important first step toward doing actually what the people so clearly indicated they wanted done last November 8. It is no surprise to me that John Ashcroft is leading the way. John is an old and very dear friend. I have come to know him as an American patriot. He believes in this country and its people. He is able to cut through the fog of confusion that so often surrounds public policy issues. Missourians know him as a plain speaker in the finest Missouri tradition. He knows what he believes and how to say it so everyone knows just exactly what he believes. We once had a President with the same reputation from Missouri. What John Ashcroft believes is shaped by an upbringing that reflects the essence of middle-American values, its traditions and beliefs. John is one of three boys raised in Springfield, MO. His family was modest of means, but rich in respect for their community, for each other, and for their God. Earlier this month, John's father, Dr. J. Robert Ashcroft a highly respected educational and religious leader, passed away after returning home to Missouri from witnessing John's swearing-in as a U.S. Senator in this Chamber. Dr. Ashcroft's passing was a great loss to Missouri, but his contribution, his memory, and his commitment will live on. We have suffered the loss along with John and his family, but we know that he knew his son would continue his efforts to serve, and to serve his fellow man. We all give thanks for Dr. Ashcroft's life and the many lives which he touched while he was with us. John Ashcroft has served as Missouri's State auditor--he followed me in that job--and then he served as attorney general, following John Danforth. He followed me as Governor. He understands State government and its relationship with the Federal Government. He also knows something about cleaning up the problems that have been left behind. At a time when Congress will reexamine the relationship and hopefully return much of the decisionmaking back to the States, Americans will have no better leader than John Ashcroft. So we hear today from a plain-spoken Missourian what will undoubtedly be the first of many clearly reasoned, morally grounded floor speeches from our good friend, John Ashcroft. I would say that our fellow Senators will understand very well his contributions. We value John Ashcroft's friendship. We welcome him and his wife, Janet, to Washington. I am confident that all my colleagues will come to know and respect him as I have. It will be a great and very meaningful friendship for all Members.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my colleague from Missouri comes to the floor for his first floor statement on an issue that will not surprise any of his fellow Missourians, and that is a message of change. Change is what John Ashcroft talked about so clearly during his campaign, and now he is doing exactly what he told the people of Missouri he would do if they sent him here--to be a leader for change. I take great pleasure in cosponsoring this legislation for term limits, because I think this is a very important first step toward doing actually what the people so clearly indicated they wanted done last November 8. It is no surprise to me that John Ashcroft is leading the way. John is an old and very dear friend. I have come to know him as an American patriot. He believes in this country and its people. He is able to cut through the fog of confusion that so often surrounds public policy issues. Missourians know him as a plain speaker in the finest Missouri tradition. He knows what he believes and how to say it so everyone knows just exactly what he believes. We once had a President with the same reputation from Missouri. What John Ashcroft believes is shaped by an upbringing that reflects the essence of middle-American values, its traditions and beliefs. John is one of three boys raised in Springfield, MO. His family was modest of means, but rich in respect for their community, for each other, and for their God. Earlier this month, John's father, Dr. J. Robert Ashcroft a highly respected educational and religious leader, passed away after returning home to Missouri from witnessing John's swearing-in as a U.S. Senator in this Chamber. Dr. Ashcroft's passing was a great loss to Missouri, but his contribution, his memory, and his commitment will live on. We have suffered the loss along with John and his family, but we know that he knew his son would continue his efforts to serve, and to serve his fellow man. We all give thanks for Dr. Ashcroft's life and the many lives which he touched while he was with us. John Ashcroft has served as Missouri's State auditor--he followed me in that job--and then he served as attorney general, following John Danforth. He followed me as Governor. He understands State government and its relationship with the Federal Government. He also knows something about cleaning up the problems that have been left behind. At a time when Congress will reexamine the relationship and hopefully return much of the decisionmaking back to the States, Americans will have no better leader than John Ashcroft. So we hear today from a plain-spoken Missourian what will undoubtedly be the first of many clearly reasoned, morally grounded floor speeches from our good friend, John Ashcroft. I would say that our fellow Senators will understand very well his contributions. We value John Ashcroft's friendship. We welcome him and his wife, Janet, to Washington. I am confident that all my colleagues will come to know and respect him as I have. It will be a great and very meaningful friendship for all Members.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the manager of the bill. I rise as a very strong supporter of S. 1, the unfunded mandates bill. I came to this body having served 8 years as Governor of Missouri, and I found that State government budgets were devastated by the costs of Federal mandates. I also know that they have been devastating in their impact on local governments. Kansas City, MO, finds the one-time cost to the city of implementing all the federally mandated environmental regulations in 1993 was some $56.2 million. Local governments are seeing their budgets robbed by Federal mandates. State governments find that they cannot utilize the tax dollars they want to, as they believe their voters and constituents want to, because they are preempted by the Federal Government. I believe this is a good measure. I took a look at this amendment that has been crafted by my good friend from Connecticut. I read it, and it is absolutely stunning in its simplicity. It says that Federal or governmental mandates does not include any provision in any bill that would apply in the same manner to activities, facilities, or services of State and local or tribal governments and the private sector. Madam President, that wipes out a tremendous sector of where the Federal mandates hit the State and local governments. That is not just a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, that is a loophole big enough to push this whole Capitol through. Motor-voter, as mentioned by my colleague from Connecticut, may be one of the few areas that would not be exempted. But all of the other laws that impose the burdens on State and local governments would be wiped out. Is this an automatic requirement that we fund State governments and local governments in competition with the private sector? No. It simply says that you have to consider that; you can waive that. There is no requirement that we cannot change by a majority vote--and that will be brought to the attention of this body--if there is an impact on governmental and private-sector entities. I have been made almost breathless by the statements of concern for the private sector from some sectors where I have not traditionally heard that support. I hope that those same people will support us in privatization efforts. Frankly, what we are talking about here is an exemption that is so broad that it will make the basic provisions of S. 1 not applicable in most of the expensive areas where State and local governments are significantly oppressed by Federal Government mandates. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. This bill is vitally needed. Governors, mayors, legislators, Republican and Democrat, across this country, particularly in my State, know that we need S. 1. They cannot afford to have S. 1 with this kind of loophole put in it. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the State of Missouri is very proud of the enormous contribution more than 2,000 of its aerospace workers have made in producing the C-17 Globemaster III at the McDonnell Douglas Corp. plant in St. Louis. Yesterday, Gen. Robert Rutherford, Air Mobility Command Commander, declared the initial operational capability of the first C-17 squadron at Charleston Air Force Base, SC. The C-17's capability to airlift in excess of 160,000 pounds strategic distances and land on runways as short as 3,000 feet is now available for everyday operations anywhere in the world. I am very proud that the skilled aerospace workers in Missouri had a part in this significant achievement. But, more so, I am encouraged that we are seeing the achievement of another major step in the plan toward building a fleet of 120 critically needed C-17's. As the centerpiece of America's ability to respond in a crisis quickly with the right military force or humanitarian aid, the C-17 will take this Nation well into the 21st century as the most capable and flexible airlifter ever to take flight. The declaration of initial operational capability of the C-17 is a milestone we can all be proud of.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I support the Farmers Home Administration Section 515 Rural Multifamily Housing Program Extension Act of 1995. The Section 515 Program, now administered by the Rural Housing and Community Development Service [RHCDS] at the Department of Agriculture, is an important program that makes multifamily rental housing available for low-income families in rural America. I emphasize the importance of this program. Since the program's inception in 1963, section 515 has financed some 440,000 affordable, low-income rental units in rural America. This legislation permanently reauthorizes the Section 515 Program and allows RHCDS to administer $220 million in funding appropriated as part of the HUD/VA fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill. I believe the fiscal year 1995 $220 million appropriation provides adequate authority for RHCDS to administer the Section 515 Program. Nevertheless, RHCDS refused to administer this program without a new reauthorization. Therefore, I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation. I emphasize that this bill enjoys strong bipartisan support and industry support. I ask for quick consideration of this bill to help ensure the continued availability of low-income affordable housing in rural America. Moreover, I want to rest the concerns of my colleagues about reported problems with the Section 515 Program. In response to past concerns, the Housing important reforms to the program, including reforms to safeguard the program from unscrupulous developers. The Department of Agriculture, through Farmers Home and RHCDS, has also recently put in place a number of additional needed regulatory reforms. Finally, I expect all rural housing programs, including the Section 515 Program, to be part of a major housing policy overhaul during this Congress. This bill also allows the Department of Housing and Urban Development to extend, for up to 18 months, certain expiring section 8 project- based contracts. These contracts can only be renewed on terms identical to the current contracts. This is a stop-gap measure designed to provide some certainty to the section 8 project-based programs as Congress considers major reforms to address the cost and designs of these programs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.