[Senate Report 107-19]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     107-19
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     




                        SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE


                       AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES


                       DURING THE 106TH CONGRESS

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE




                  June 1, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
    Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of May 26, 2001

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-010                     WASHINGTON : 2001



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
  I. Introduction.....................................................1
 II. Oversight of the Small Business Administration...................1
          A. General Oversight--First Session....................     1
          B. General Oversight--Second Session...................     5
          C. SBA Performance and Accountability Review...........     7
          D. SBA Loan Monitoring System..........................    10
          E. Small Business Innovation Research Program..........    11
          F. Small Business Technology Transfer Research Program.    14
          G. Access to Equity Capital............................    15
          H. HUBZone Program.....................................    15
          I. Other Government Contracting Issues.................    24
          J. Additional Oversight Issues.........................    28
III. Small Business Regulatory Issues................................29
          A. OSHA's Promulgation of an Ergonomics Standard.......    29
          B. S. 1156, ``Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 
              Technical Amendments Act of 1999''.................    41
          C. SBREFA and Other Small Business Activities..........    42
          D. Federal Acquisition Regulation on Contractor 
              Responsibility.....................................    49
          E. Family and Medical Leave Act/Unemployment Insurance 
              Proposed Regulation to Provide Paid Leave for New 
              Parents............................................    51
          F. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Administration, 
              Survey of Poultry Industry.........................    51
 IV. Small Business Tax Issues.......................................52
          A. Deductibility of Health-Insurance Costs for the 
              Self-Employed......................................    52
          B. Independent Contractor Reform.......................    54
          C. Tax Simplification and Filing Burdens...............    55
          D. Internal Revenue Service Oversight..................    58
          E. Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999..............    65
          F. Estate Tax Reform...................................    67
          G. Marriage Penalty Relief.............................    67
          H. Small Business Accounting Issues....................    67
          I. Taxpayer Relief Act of 2000.........................    69
          J. Other Tax Issues....................................    71
  V. Small Business Environmental Issues.............................72
          A. Industrial Laundry Effluent Limitations.............    72
          B. McLaughlin Gormley King/Whitmire Micro-Gen 
              Pesticides Application.............................    72
          C. Lead TRI Rulemaking.................................    73
          D. Small Business Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 1999    74
          E. Ozone Depleting Substances Rulemaking...............    74
          F. Acrylamide Rulemaking...............................    74
          G. Compliance Assistance...............................    75
          H. Nitrates Reporting Enforcement......................    76
 VI. Assisting Small Businesses in Preparing for the Year 2000 Date 
     Change..........................................................77
          A. Legislation.........................................    77
          B. Other Committee Efforts.............................    79
VII. Fighting Fraud..................................................80
          A. Internet Cramming...................................    80
          B. Toner Fraud.........................................    81
VIII.Slotting Allowances and Retail Competition Issues...............81

 IX. Increasing Small Business Exporting.............................85
  X. Creating a Dialogue Among Businesses on Education...............85
 XI. Oversight of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation...........86
          A. General Accounting Office Studies...................    86
          B. Computer Security...................................    86
XII. Bankruptcy Reform...............................................87
XIII.Hearings of the Committee.......................................88

          February 5, 1999: Organizational Meeting, Markup of 
              Pending Legislation, and Nomination of Phyllis K. 
              Fong to be Inspector General of the Small Business 
              Administration.....................................    88
          March 10, 1999: Roundtable--Oversight of the Regulatory 
              Flexibility Act (RFA) and the Red Tape Reduction 
              Act (SBREFA).......................................    89
          March 16, 1999: Hearing--The President's Fiscal Year 
              2000 Budget Request for the Small Business 
              Administration.....................................    91
          April 12, 1999: Hearing--Buried Alive: Small Business 
              Consumed by Tax Filing Burdens.....................    93
          April 21, 1999: Roundtable--Office of Advocacy and 
              SBIR/STTR Programs.................................    95
          April 27, 1999: Roundtable--SBA's 7(a) and 504 Loan 
              Programs...........................................    96
          May 12, 1999: Roundtable--Small Business Roundtable on 
              SBA's SBIC and Microloan Programs..................    98
          May 20, 1999: Roundtable--Small Business Roundtable on 
              SBA's Management Assistance Programs...............    99
          May 20, 1999: Roundtable--Small Business Procurement...   100
          May 25, 1999: Hearing--Education Success = Business 
              Success............................................   102
          June 14, 1999: Field Hearing--Small Business and 
              Environmental Technologies: The Challenges and 
              Opportunities......................................   104
          June 15, 1999: Forum--E-Commerce: Barriers and 
              Opportunities for Small Business...................   106
          August 4, 1999: Roundtable--Small Business Innovation 
              Research (SBIR) Program............................   107
          August 13, 1999: Field Hearing--Issues Important to 
              Women in Businesses................................   109
          August 24, 1999: Joint Field Roundtable--Building a 
              Stronger Agricultural Community....................   110
          September 9, 1999: Roundtable--Business Supporting 
              Education..........................................   112
          September 14, 1999: Hearing--Slotting: Fair for Small 
              Business & Consumers?..............................   113
          October 19, 1999: Roundtable--National Conference on 
              Small Business Act.................................   115
          October 25, 1999: Hearing--Internet Cramming: The 
              Latest High-Tech Fraud on Small Businesses.........   117
          November 9, 1999: Roundtable--Ensuring the Maximum 
              Practicable Opportunity............................   119
          December 14, 1999: Forum--The Future of Small Business 
              Exporting..........................................   121
          February 24, 2000: Hearing--The President's Fiscal Year 
              2001 Budget Request for the Small Business 
              Administration.....................................   123
          March 9, 2000: Forum--CyberCrime: Can a Small Business 
              Protect Itself?....................................   125
          March 28, 2000: Hearing--Swindling Small Businesses: 
              Toner-Phoner Schemes and Other Office Supply Scams.   126
          May 18, 2000: Forum--B2B: An Emerging E-Frontier for 
              Small Business.....................................   128
          May 23, 2000: Hearing--IRS Restructuring: A New Era for 
              Small Business.....................................   130
          July 20, 2000: Hearing--GAO's Performance and 
              Accountability Review: Is the SBA on PAR?..........   132
          September 13, 2000: Roundtable--What Is Contract 
              Bundling?..........................................   134
          September 14, 2000: Hearing--Slotting Fees: Are Family 
              Farmers Battling to Stay on the Farm and in the 
              Grocery Store......................................   136
          September 21, 2000: Joint Hearing with the Senate 
              Special Committee on Aging--Pension Tension: Does 
              the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Deliver 
              For Retirees?......................................   138
          October 4, 2000: Hearing--The U.S. Forest Service: 
              Taking a Chain Saw to Small Business...............   140

107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     107-19

======================================================================



 
   SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES DURING THE 106TH 
                                CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

                  June 1, 2001.--Ordered to be printed

    Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of May 26, 2001

                                _______
                                

Mr. Bond, from the Committee on Small Business, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                            I. Introduction

    As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business 
during the 106th Congress, I organized the Committee's agenda 
to focus on the highest priorities of the small business 
community. The Committee has listened carefully to the concerns 
expressed by small business owners across the nation. We 
concentrated on those concerns, which include, among others, 
small business tax issues, access to capital, regulatory 
fairness, equitable government procurement, and workforce 
preparedness. This report summarizes the legislative and 
oversight activities of the Committee on these key issues of 
concern and interest to small businesses.

           II. Oversight of the Small Business Administration


                  A. General Oversight--First Session

    During 1999, the Committee on Small Business undertook a 
more aggressive approach to oversight of the programs and 
activities of the Small Business Administration (SBA). The 
Committee approved the nomination of Ms. Phyllis Fong to be 
Inspector General of SBA. In addition, the Committee conducted 
four mark-up meetings to report legislation and conducted 
hearings on the President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget request for 
SBA and on the impact of ``slotting allowances'' on small 
businesses. To improve its oversight activities, the Committee 
conducted Roundtable Meetings on programs at SBA and other 
issues of importance to small businesses.

1. Action on legislation

    The Committee approved eight bills in 1999, and seven were 
signed into law. The eighth bill, the ``Independent Office of 
Advocacy Act,'' passed the Senate and is pending before the 
House Committee on Small Business. It is likely to be cleared 
for the President's approval in 2000.
    On February 5, 1999, the Committee marked up S. 364, 
``Small Business Investment Improvement Act of 1999.'' The bill 
included two technical changes in the SBIC program. The first 
change removes a requirement that at least 50 percent of the 
annual program level of the approved participating securities 
under the SBIC Program be reserved for funding with SBICs 
having private capital of not more than $20 million. The second 
technical change requires SBA to issue SBIC guarantees and 
trust certificates at periodic intervals of not less than 12 
months.
    S. 364 also made a relatively small change in the operation 
of the program. This change, however, would help smaller, small 
businesses to be more attractive to investors. SBICs would be 
permitted to accept royalty payments contingent on future 
performance from companies in which they invest as a form of 
equity return for their investment. Importantly, the royalty 
feature provides the smaller, small business with an incentive 
to attract SBIC investment when the return may otherwise be 
insufficient to attract venture capital.
    Lastly, the bill increased the program authorization levels 
to fund participating securities from $800 million to $1.2 
billion in Fiscal Year 1999 and from $900 million to $1.5 
billion in Fiscal Year 2000. This bill passed the Senate on 
March 22, 1999 and was signed into law on April 5 (P.L. 106-9).
    On March 25, 1999, the Chairman obtained a unanimous 
consent agreement to discharge S. 388, a bill to establish a 
disaster mitigation pilot program at SBA, from the Committee 
and to pass the full Senate. The bill established a pilot 
disaster mitigation program at the SBA. It was similar to 
legislation approved unanimously by the Committee and Senate in 
1998; however, the House of Representatives was not able to 
consider the bill before the Congress adjourned. After passing 
muster in the Senate, S. 388 was approved in the House on April 
2, 1999 and signed into law on April 27, 1999 (P.L. 106-24).
    Early in the year, the Committee entered into informal 
discussions the House Committee on Small Business on the final 
content of H.R. 774, ``Women's Business Center Act Amendments 
of 1999.'' Consequently, the bill was passed by the House of 
Representatives on March 16, 1999. It was held at the desk in 
the Senate and on March 24, 1999, it passed the Senate 
unanimously. H.R. 774 was signed into law on April 6, 1999 
(P.L. 106-17).
    H.R. 774 increased the authorization level for the Women's 
Business Center Program to $11 million and simplified the 
matching amount paid annually by the Women's Business Centers. 
With passage of the bill, the SBA was permitted to continue to 
fund 35 eligible Centers and provide seed funding to new 
eligible applicant Centers in states not yet served by the 
Program. Each center provides business and education training, 
including marketing, finance, and management assistance.
    The Senate Committee continued its fast-paced efforts in 
early 1999 to approve bills that it considered and approved in 
1998, but which were not approved by the House before 
adjournment of the 105th Congress. On March 25, 1999, Chairman 
Bond received unanimous consent to discharge the Committee from 
further consideration of H.R. 440, ``Microloan Program 
Technical Corrections Act of 1999.'' The bill passed the Senate 
that same day and was signed into law on April 27, 1999 (P.L. 
106-22).
    The primary purpose of H.R. 440 was to improve the loan 
loss reserve requirement established for lending intermediaries 
operating under the Microloan Program operated by the SBA. The 
bill also made certain technical corrections to the program.
    On June 9, 1999, the Committee approved S. 918, ``Military 
Reservists Small Business Relief Act of 1999,'' after adopting 
a substitute amendment offered by the Ranking Democrat, John 
Kerry. As amended the bill authorized special relief delaying 
repayment of an SBA-guaranteed loan for small businesses that 
have been adversely affected by the departure of an essential 
employee who is a military reservist ordered to active duty 
during a period of military conflict, such as the Kosovo 
conflict. Further, the bill encouraged maximum used of the 
SBA's existing entrepreneurial development programs for 
affected small businesses.
    The bill passed the Senate on July 27, 1999, and was 
referred to the House Committee on Small Business. S. 918 was 
subsequently incorporated into the final version of H.R. 1568, 
the ``Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development 
Act of 1999,'' which was signed into law on August 17, 1999 
(P.L. 106-50).
    H.R. 1568, ``Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business 
Development Act of 1999'' was approved by the House of 
Representatives on June 29, 1999. At the Committee mark-up on 
July 15, 1999, the Committee Members agreed unanimously to 
include the full text of S. 918 in Title III (Technical 
Assistance) and Title IV (Financial Assistance) of H.R. 1568.
    In addition, H.R. 1568 established the Federal government's 
policy to help veteran small business owners, and it further 
created a government corporation to coordinate and monitor 
special initiatives on behalf of veteran entrepreneurs and 
veteran-owned small businesses. The bill provided assistance to 
veteran-owned small businesses to enable them to start-up and 
grow their businesses. It places a special emphasis on small 
businesses owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans.
    H..R. 1568, including the full text of S. 918, was approved 
by the Senate and House of Representatives on August 5, 1999, 
and signed into law on August 17, 1999 (P.L. 106-50).
    On July 15, 1999, the Committee considered S. 1346, 
``Independent Office of Advocacy Act,'' and adopted an 
amendment offered by Senators Bond and Kerry. As amended, the 
bill would provide for the independent and nonpartisan 
operation of the Office of Advocacy at the SBA. S. 1346 would 
establish for the first time in the Small Business Act that the 
Office of Advocacy has the statutory independence and adequate 
financial resources to be an advocate for the small business 
community. In addition, the bill would provide for a separate 
authorization to fund the Office of Advocacy, and there would 
be a separate account in the SBA budget, similar to the 
separate accounts for the Office of Inspector General and the 
Business Loan Program.
    S. 1346 was approved by the full Senate on November 5, 
1999, and referred to the House Committee on Small Business.
    On September 29, 1999, the Committee considered and passed 
S. 791, ``Women's Business Center Sustainability Act of 1999,'' 
after adopting a substitute amendment offered by Senator Kerry 
and an amendment offered by Senator Spencer Abraham on Federal 
procurement opportunities for women-owned small businesses. As 
amended, S. 791 authorized a four-year pilot program that 
allows graduating and graduated Women's Business Centers to 
compete for new five-year matching grants, known as 
``sustainability grants.'' They also included three provisions 
intended to assist the SBA in its evaluation and selection of 
recompeting centers.
    S. 791 incrementally raised over four years the annual 
levels of authorized appropriations from $13 million in Fiscal 
Year 1999 to $17 million in Fiscal Year 2003 and established 
specific requirements for use of available appropriations. The 
bill was approved by the Senate on November 5, 1999, and the 
House on November 18, 1999. It was signed into law on December 
9, 1999 (P.L. 106-165).

2. Roundtables

    One of the most effective initiatives undertaken by the 
Committee in 1999 was the decision to conduct Roundtable 
discussions, which allowed the Committee to study issues and 
legislation in detail. For each Roundtable, an extensive record 
was created. The information obtained at the Roundtables in 
some cases established a sufficiently detailed record that will 
allow the Committee to mark-up legislation without further 
hearings.
    --Roundtable on the Office of Advocacy and SBIR/STTR 
Programs (April 21, 1999). Statements made at this Roundtable 
helped establish a record used for drafting S. 1346, the 
``Independent Office of Advocacy Act,'' which was subsequently 
approved by the Committee and passed the Senate on November 5, 
1999.
    --Roundtable on SBA's 7(a) guaranteed business loan program 
and the 504 development company loan program (April 27, 1999).
    --Roundtable on SBA's SBIC and Microloan Programs (May 12, 
1999).
    --Roundtable on SBA's Management Assistance Programs (May 
20, 1999).
    --Roundtable on Small Business Procurement (May 20, 1999).
    --Roundtable on S. 1111, the ``National Conference on Small 
Business Act.'' The testimony at this Roundtable establishes a 
basis for making changes to the original version of this bill, 
which the Committee will mark up in 2000.

3. Hearings

    As the result of the use of Roundtables, there were only a 
few Committee hearings held in 1999. On March 16, 1999, the 
Committee conducted a hearing on the President's Fiscal Year 
2000 budget request for SBA. Normally, at least two hearings 
annually have focused on the SBA budget request. In 1999, 
Roundtables produced a greater opportunity for the private 
sector to discuss issues in the SBA budget before the 
Committee. This was a successful change and should be continued 
in the future.
    The Committee also conducted a hearing into the impact of 
``slotting allowances'' on small businesses. The hearing was 
the result of a four month investigation by the Committee staff 
and marked the beginning of a more in depth study of this 
practice.

                  B. General Oversight--Second Session

    During 2000, the Committee continued its more aggressive 
approach to oversight of the programs and activities of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). The Committee devoted a 
considerable amount of its time to the Small Business 
Reauthorization Act of 2000. This legislation was passed on 
several occasions by the full Senate, after being approved by 
an 18-0 vote in the Committee. The House of Representatives was 
unwilling to appoint Conferees to iron out the differences in 
the Senate and House versions of the bills. Consequently, the 
final bill was not approved until the December 15, 2000, the 
last day of the 106th Congress. In addition, the Committee 
conducted mark-ups of S. 1594, the ``Community Development and 
Venture Capital Act of 2000'' and the ``Certified Development 
Company Program Improvements Act of 1999'' (H.R. 2614). The 
complete provisions H.R. 2614 were subsequently included in the 
final version of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 
2000, which became H.R. 5667. S. 1594 was re-numbered H.R. 5663 
and was incorporated along with H.R. 5667 to become part of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act 2001 (P.L. 106-554).

1. Action on legislation

    The Committee approved three bills in 2000 that were passed 
by the full Senate and became law as part of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act 2001 (P.L. 106-554). In addition, Chairman 
Bond introduced S. Res. 311, a sense of the Senate resolution 
expressing support for Federal procurement opportunities for 
women-owned small businesses, which was adopted unanimously by 
the Senate.
    Every three years, it is Congress' role to consider and 
pass legislation re-authorizing most programs at the SBA. On 
March 21, 2000, the Committee marked-up S. 3121, ``Small 
Business Reauthorization Act of 2000.'' As approved by the 
Committee and passed by the full Senate, it included the 
following major components:
          Incorporated a separate bill to establish the 
        ``Quadrennial Small Business Summit;''
          Incorporated the ``Small Business Advocacy Review 
        Panel Technical Amendments Act of 1999'' (S. 1156), 
        which had passed the Senate but had not been taken up 
        in the House;
          Incorporated the ``Independent Office of Advocacy 
        Act'' (S. 1346), which had passed the Senate but had 
        not been taken up in the House;
          Established three-year authorization levels for most 
        of the programs at SBA;
          Amended the Small Business Act and the Small Business 
        Investment Act making changes in the 7(a) guaranteed 
        business loan program, 504 Development Company program, 
        and the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) 
        program;
          Amended the HUBZone program;
          Increased the authorization for the National Women's 
        Business Program to $1 million annually and made some 
        technical amendments;
          Extended the SDB and Drug Free Workplace Programs.
    This legislation was amended extensively and debated in the 
Senate and House over an extended period of time. Although the 
House refused to appoint Conferees after a Conference was 
requested by the Senate and it had appointed its Conferees, 
there were lengthy, intense negotiations between the staffs of 
the Senate and House Committees on Small Business. The House 
insisted that the sections of the Senate-passed bill on the 
Independent Office of Advocacy, Quadrennial Small Business 
Summit, and the Advocacy Review Panel be dropped. After over 
three months of discussions and negotiations without any 
concessions from the House, Chairman Bond agreed to drop these 
sections in order to insure that the re-authorization bill 
passed before the end of the 106th Congress.
    The House insisted on a last-minute provision to expand the 
power of the SBA Administrator to challenge Agency decisions to 
bundled contracts to the detriment of small businesses. This 
provision was dropped after the Senate Government Affairs and 
Armed Services Committees blocked Senate consideration of the 
final version of the legislation.
    The legislation re-authorizing the SBIR Program (H.R. 2392) 
was incorporated in the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 
2000, as amended (H.R. 5667). This version of the bill was next 
incorporated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2001, which 
passed on the last day of the 106th Congress and was signed 
into law the following week (P.L. 106-554).
    On July 26, 2000, the Committee considered and approved S. 
1594, the ``Community Development and Venture Capital Act of 
2000.'' The Committee adopted by unanimous voice votes a 
substitute amendment offered by Senator Kerry and two 
amendments offered by Chairman Bond with respect to investments 
in low-income urban areas and the percentage of investments to 
be made in HUBZone areas. As amended, S. 1594 authorized the 
establishment of a comprehensive economic development program 
that seeks to stimulate venture capital investment and 
intensive management assistance in small businesses located in 
the country's most distressed and under-invested communities.
    Specifically, S. 1594 authorized the New Market Venture 
Capital Program for six years (Fiscal Years 2000-2005) 
including a total of $150 million in New Market loan guarantees 
(debentures) and $30 million in technical assistance grants. 
The bill established the BusinessLinc program to promote 
relationships between large and small businesses and authorized 
$6.6 million a year for Fiscal Years 2001-2005. The bill also 
established the Community Development Venture Capital Program 
to provide technical assistance to community-based 
organizations to enable them to make investments in businesses 
located in low- and moderate-income communities and authorized 
a total of $20 million over a four year period (Fiscal Years 
2000-2003).
    This legislation was reported unanimously from the 
Committee after it adopted an amendment from Chairman Bond 
which limited the New Market Venture Capital investments to 
small businesses located in low-income communities, including 
HUBZones. Although approved by the Committee, the bill was not 
passed by the full

 Senate. It became part of a package of legislation that was 
worked out between Speaker Hastert and President Clinton, 
referred to as the ``America Community Renewal/New Markets'' 
bill.
    As the Congress completed its negotiations on the final 
bills to be debated in the 106th Congress, S. 1594 became H.R. 
5663, which was incorporated into the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act 2001. H.R. 5663 passed the Congress on the 
last day of the 106th Congress and was signed into law the 
following week (P.L. 106-554). The final version of this bill 
dropped the section creating the Community Development Venture 
Capital Program, and it retained the New Market Venture Capital 
Program and BusinessLinc.
    On May 23, 2000, Chairman Bond introduced S. Res. 311, to 
express the sense of the Senate regarding Federal procurement 
opportunities for women-owned small businesses. Ten cosponsors 
joined Senator in the Resolution which was introduced to 
highlight the importance of women-owned small businesses to the 
U.S. economy. S. Res. 311 also criticized the Administration 
for its failure to achieve the 5% Federal procurement goal for 
women-owned small businesses that was established in 1994 as 
part of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA).
    The Resolution urged the President to hold the heads of 
each Federal agency accountable for meeting the goal. S. Res. 
311 was adopted in the full Senate by unanimous consent on May 
23, 2000, the day it was introduced by Chairman Bond.

2. Hearings

    The number of hearings, roundtables and forums held in 2000 
were fewer than in 1999. Much of the work in 1999 paid off with 
legislation being enacted in 2000. For example, in 1999, 
Roundtables were conducted on the Office of Advocacy, the 7(a), 
Microloan, and SBIC programs, small business procurement, and 
the Quadrennial Small Business Summit legislation. In 2000, 
legislation on each of these programs was approved by the 
Committee and passed the Senate. In some cases, as noted above, 
the legislation became law, and in other cases, it was dropped 
when the House Small Business Committee refused to consider and 
approve it.
    On February 24, 2000, the Committee conducted a hearing on 
the President's Fiscal Year 2001 budget request for SBA. In the 
years prior to 1999, the Committee had often held two or more 
hearings annually that were focused on the SBA budget request. 
The use of Roundtables have allowed the Committee to provide 
the private and public sectors with greater opportunities to 
discuss issues and SBA programs before the Committee. 
Therefore, one hearing on the Administration's annual budget 
request for SBA creates the record necessary to enable Chairman 
Bond to address budget issues and to make recommendations to 
the Committee on Appropriations.

              c. SBA Performance and Accountability Review

    As part of the Committee's monitoring and oversight efforts 
to determine the SBA's ability to achieve its mission 
effectively, the Committee requested that the GAO begin a 
review of the SBA's mission critical programs. The review is 
intended to review systemic problems in an agency, not just the 
symptoms of such problems that might appear in the way a 
particular program operates. The GAO has entitled this review a 
``Performance and Accountability Review'' or ``PAR.''
    The PAR is intended to provide an overall assessment of an 
agency's major performance and management challenges. The PAR 
is a comprehensive review of agency operations, including an 
agency's strategic and performance planning, information-
systems management, financial management, human capital, and 
budget formulation and execution. The PAR also calls for a 
review of mission-critical programs and ties the problems an 
agency might have with its programs to systemic issues related 
to general agency operations. The Committee intends that the 
reports compiled from the PAR serve as a blueprint for the 
incoming administration on how operations of the SBA can be 
made more efficient and effective.
    On May 31, 2000, July 19, 2000, and July 20, 2000, 
respectively, the GAO released its first reports prepared as a 
result of the PAR. These reports were on three distinct topics, 
including: (1) a report on the SBA's information technology 
management; (2) testimony on the SBA's human capital 
management; and (3) two reports on the 8(a) program. In a 
hearing held by the Committee on July 20, 2000, Chairman Bond 
requested that the SBA take steps to immediately fix the 
problems identified by the GAO.

1. Information technology management

    The GAO reported the results of its review of IT management 
in a May 31, 2000, report entitled ``Information Technology 
Management: SBA Needs to Establish Policies and Procedures for 
Key IT Processes.'' The GAO found that the SBA has failed to 
develop policies and procedures to manage its IT system. The 
GAO report breaks out these policies into five broad 
categories: (1) IT investments; (2) architecture; (3) software 
development and acquisition; (4) security; and (5) human 
capital. The GAO report finds that policies and procedures for 
these five categories are only partially implemented, are in 
draft form or do not exist in any form.
    The GAO found that the SBA has failed to establish policies 
and defined processes to select, control or evaluate SBA's 
investment. IT investment management entails the selection, 
control and evaluation of investment in the IT system. Thus, 
the GAO concluded that the SBA has no assurance that its IT 
projects benefit the SBA or maximize the return on investment 
and cannot assure that its projects are developed within time 
and budget limits and according to requirements.
    The report also stated that the SBA does not have 
established architecture maintenance procedures, although it 
has prepared some draft policies. IT architecture is the 
blueprint that guides and limits the development of the IT 
systems and ensures that a structure and description exist for 
the system. Thus, the GAO concluded that the SBA has no 
assurance that the agency's current and future information 
processing needs will be met or that new systems and software 
changes will be compatible with other systems.
    The GAO also found that the SBA lacks policies for software 
development and acquisition to produce information systems that 
meet system needs and established budget and time constraints. 
As a result, the report stated that project plans and software 
user needs may not be met, software acquisition plans may not 
be developed and contract requirements may not be specified.
    In addition, the report provided that the SBA lacks 
information security procedures, including conducting periodic 
risk assessments for all mission critical systems and providing 
training and education to promote security awareness among 
staff. In addition, the SBA has not centralized its security 
management duties or established a comprehensive disaster 
recovery and business continuity plan. Thus, the GAO found that 
the security of SBA's systems are compromised, because security 
problems are not identified or addressed, and staff is not 
advised of security policies.
    Finally, the report found that the SBA has no policies and 
procedures to assess or address its IT staff's current and 
future needs or inventory of IT knowledge and skills. It has 
not evaluated its progress in improving human capital 
capabilities. Thus, the GAO determined that the SBA cannot 
effectively manage its hiring or retention practices.

2. Human capital

    In its testimony at the July 20, 2000 hearing, the GAO 
stated that its review of the SBA's human capital demonstrated 
that while the SBA has defined the vision for the agency and 
has begun to take steps for better managing its human capital 
activities, more steps need to be taken. The GAO found that the 
SBA has not conducted the workforce planing it needs to 
determine whether it has the appropriate personnel to conduct 
its mission now or in the future. Also, the report provides 
that the SBA has not prepared for succession of its current 
senior management or trained its current staff to ensure that 
they can perform their current jobs. In sum, the report 
provided that while the SBA has undertaken useful human capital 
initiatives, these efforts are incomplete and place at risk the 
success of the agency's attempt to redesign its business 
processes and to transform its workplace.

3. 8(a) Program

    The GAO prepared two reports on the 8(a) program during its 
Performance and Accountability Review. The first report 
concludes that the SBA's 8(a) database does not meet the 
information needs of headquarters or district officials, 
despite that fact that it was only implemented in 1995. The 
second report provides that the SBA is not focusing its efforts 
in the 8(a) program on the objectives of 8(a) firms.
    With respect to the SBA's 8(a) database, the GAO report 
finds that the SBA has incomplete contract information, does 
not track its business development activities and has data 
quality problems with demographic information. Like other SBA 
systems, the security is inadequate. Resulting problems include 
the inability of headquarters and districts to determine the 
number of contracts awarded to 8(a) firms or to analyze the 
best and worst practices in the districts.
    The second report addresses the business assistance the SBA 
provides to 8(a) firms. The report found that the assistance is 
inconsistent with the goals of 8(a) companies. The GAO reported 
that a substantial number of firms in the 8(a) program do not 
obtain contracts, even though that is the primary reason firms 
enter the program. The concentration of 8(a) contracts within a 
few firms has been cited as a material weakness in this program 
in the SBA's Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act report 
every Fiscal Year since 1994. Additionally, the GAO report 
states that the SBA does not focus on providing 8(a) firms with 
contracting assistance, but concentrates on management 
assistance and ensuring that 8(a) firms have complied with 
SBA's reporting requirements. As a result, participant firms 
have reported widespread dissatisfaction with the program.
    Additionally, the GAO reported that SBA provides management 
assistance to only a small fraction of firms per year. The SBA 
does this through either executive training (which has served 
only about 10 percent of 8(a) firms) or through their mentor-
protege program (which, as of April 2000, only 40 such 
agreements existed). The report raised the concern that much of 
the executive training has been geared towards firms that are 
already successful. Accordingly, the GAO recommended that the 
agency should reassess whether to devote most of the 7(j) 
funding they receive to develop the abilities of 8(a) firms to 
obtain contracts or to restrict the business development 
training to firms with a demonstrated need.
    Finally, the report addresses the SBA's measure of program 
success. The report provides that the SBA's measure bears no 
relation to the actual success of 8(a) firms. Instead, the 
report concludes that the SBA measures success by the number of 
firms that complete an elementary training session and stay in 
the program for nine years.

                     d. SBA Loan Monitoring System

    The SBA is undertaking a significant effort to replace most 
of its major computer systems. One of the most important of 
these is the Loan Monitoring System (LMS) which will permit SBA 
to keep track of its loan portfolio. Since the SBA's initial 
request for funding of this system, there have been a number of 
problems that have required the Committee's attention. The 
House Small Business Committee requested that the GAO study the 
proposals as outlined by the SBA. The GAO's efforts to date 
have shown many inadequacies with the proposals outlined by the 
SBA and the Committee has been working with staff from the 
House Small Business Committee, the GAO and the SBA IG to 
ensure that the systems development project is successful.
    In the second session of the 106th Congress, the 
Committee's efforts continued as part of both the Performance 
and Accountability Review (PAR) conducted by GAO and the 
original GAO efforts concentrating on the LMS. It is clear that 
while SBA has taken many steps to improve their internal 
procedures and to produce an adequate design for their system, 
that many problems remain. The Committee remains concerned that 
an insufficient amount of planning and design will result in 
excessive spending and a system that will not meet the 
expectations of both the SBA and the Congress. The Committee 
intends to continue to work closely with SBA and GAO to reduce 
the risk of failure and to ensure that these design problems 
are rectified.

             E. Small Business Innovation Research Program

1. Legislation

    To prepare for the reauthorization of the Small Business 
Innovation Research (SBIR) program, the Committee held two 
roundtable meetings in 1999. On April 21, 1999, the Committee 
held its first roundtable on the SBIR program. The participants 
agreed that the program has been successful and has established 
a basis for collaboration between small businesses, 
universities, government, large companies, venture capital 
firms, and commercial banks which increases the already proven 
abilities of small businesses to innovate and commercialize 
technology successfully. A significant concern of certain 
participants, however, was the geographic distribution of SBIR 
awards. This issue was also highlighted in a GAO report 
released on June 4, 1999 (GAO/RCED-99-114), which found that 
companies in one-third of the states received 85 percent of the 
SBIR awards from Fiscal Year year 1993 through 1996.
    To address the concerns raised by the GAO report and by 
individuals active in the SBIR program in prior Committee 
proceedings, the Committee held a follow-up roundtable on 
August 9, 1999, to consider specifically the geographic 
distribution of awards made under the SBIR program and to 
examine proposals to encourage greater participation by 
companies located in states that receive a disproportionately 
small share of SBIR awards. At the roundtable, Chairman Bond 
requested recommendations on how the Federal government could 
best assist underachieving states to encourage the development 
of high-technology small businesses that could, if interested, 
participate in the SBIR program and alleviate the geographic 
concentration of SBIR awards.
    Most participants at the August roundtable agreed that 
using existing state infrastructure to provide assistance to 
high-technology small businesses that may participate in the 
SBIR program is the most efficient and effective manner of 
encouraging such participation. As businesses in different 
states may have different needs, many participants also agreed 
that economic development organizations in each individual 
state should have the discretion to determine which activities 
would best assist small firms in the state.
    On March 21, 2000, the Committee marked-up the Small 
Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act of 
2000. The bill considered by the Committee was H.R. 2392, the 
House-passed legislation, with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The substitute amendment: (1) reauthorized the SBIR 
program for ten years; (2) ensured that small businesses are 
granted the same data rights when provided Federal non-SBIR 
third-phase awards that they are granted when receiving phase-
one and phase-two awards; (3) required program agencies to 
submit to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget 
annual performance plans for program activities; (4) required 
the SBA to maintain a database containing (i) the name, size, 
location and identifying number of each small business 
receiving a first- or second-phase award, (ii) an abstract of 
the award, (iii) the Federal agency making the award, (iv) the 
date and amount of the award, and (v) an identification of any 
concern established for the commercial application of an award; 
and (5) required agencies to report annually to the SBA on the 
methodology used to calculate their extramural budgets.
    In addition, the bill established the Federal and State 
Technology Partnership Program (the FAST program), a proposal 
of the Chairman. The FAST program is a competitive matching-
grant program to encourage states to assist in the development 
of high-technology small businesses. Under the FAST program, 
organizations in every state (including state economic 
development agencies, small business development centers, or 
any other entity involved in the development of high-technology 
firms), either individually or on a regional basis, are 
eligible to apply for matching grants or to enter into 
cooperative agreements. Such grants or cooperative agreements 
can be used to enhance or develop: (1) technology research and 
development by small business concerns; (2) technology transfer 
from university research to technology-based small business 
concerns; (3) technology deployment and diffusion benefitting 
small business concerns; and (4) the technological capabilities 
of small business concerns through the establishment of 
consortia comprised of state and local development agencies, 
small business concerns, industries and universities. The FAST 
program also permits grants to be used by states for SBIR 
outreach, financial support and technical assistance, 
including: (1) providing grants or loans to companies to pay a 
portion or all of the cost of developing SBIR proposals; (2) 
operating a mentoring network to provide technical assistance 
to small businesses; and (3) encouraging the commercialization 
of technology.
    Prior to requesting consideration of the bill on the Senate 
floor, Chairman Bond began negotiations among the leadership of 
the Senate Committee on Small Business and the House Committees 
on Science and Small Business to reach compromise language for 
reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research 
(SBIR) program. On July 19, 2000, the Committee substitute to 
H.R. 2392 was considered on the floor. Chairman Bond offered a 
Manager's amendment that was the result of the negotiations 
between the three Committees with legislative jurisdiction over 
the SBIR program and was an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The Manager's amendment contained all major House 
and Senate provisions, some of which had been amended to 
reflect a compromise position. The Manager's amendment, and the 
underlying bill, were adopted by unanimous consent. The amended 
legislation was then referred to the House for approval.
    Eventually, the Senate passed the Small Business Innovation 
Research Program Reauthorization Act of 2000 and it was 
included in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
appropriations act which was passed by both the Senate and 
House of Representatives on December 15, 2000. The President 
signed the bill into law on December 21, 2000. Additionally, at 
the request of Chairman Bond, the FAST program was appropriated 
$3.5 million for Fiscal Year 2001.

2. Oversight

            a. Management of Agency programs
    On November 18, 1999, the Committee received a report from 
the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of 
Health and Human Services regarding the administration of the 
SBIR program at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The 
report detailed the NIH's failure to ensure that SBIR grantees 
comply with invention reporting requirements and its failure to 
evaluate the success of SBIR grantees at commercializing 
products developed under the SBIR program.
    In the report, the OIG independently reviewed 100 SBIR 
phase two grants awarded in fiscal years 1994 and 1995. The OIG 
verified that 12 patents were granted as a result of such 
awards. The NIH, however, was only aware of one of the patents. 
Each agency that provides Federal research and development 
awards is required to have provisions in its funding agreements 
with small businesses or nonprofit organizations that obligate 
the business or organization to disclose each subject invention 
to the Federal agency within a reasonable time after it becomes 
known. This requirement permits the Federal government to track 
such inventions so that it may exercise its rights regarding 
them, including, but not limited to, its right to a 
nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable and paid-up license 
to utilize the particular invention. According to the report, 
the primary reason for NIH's ignorance of existing patents is 
that the NIH had not been providing clear information to SBIR 
grantees regarding invention reporting requirements or the 
intellectual property rights of the Federal government that 
arise from such inventions.
    In response to the report, Chairman Bond sent a letter to 
SBA Administrator Alvarez on November 19, 1999, requesting that 
the SBA comply with its statutory obligation to oversee the 
SBIR program and alleviate this problem. The letter pointed out 
that the Small Business Act requires the SBA to survey and 
monitor the operation of SBIR programs within participating 
Federal agencies. Additionally, Chairman Bond's letter referred 
to the SBA's own policy directives that require each SBIR 
program agency to ensure that ``each funding agreement under 
the SBIR program shall include provisions setting forth the 
respective rights of the United States and the small business 
concern with respect to intellectual property rights . . .''
    The letter also addressed another example of unsatisfactory 
record-keeping and oversight relating to the SBIR program. In 
the Fall of 1999, the Committee received disturbing information 
regarding the data the SBA maintains on SBIR awardees. 
Specifically, the Committee learned that the GAO, in preparing 
its reports on the SBIR program in 1998 (RCED-98-132) and 1999 
(RCED 99-114), spent substantial resources correcting and 
updating information in the SBA's database on SBIR awardees.
    Chairman Bond's letter requested that the SBA describe to 
the Committee how it planned to ensure that each Federal agency 
with an SBIR program provides clear instruction to SBIR 
grantees regarding the Federal government's intellectual 
property rights and invention reporting requirements. Moreover, 
the letter requested that the SBA provide information to the 
Committee explaining how it is appropriately maintaining a 
database on SBIR grantees. In response to Chairman Bond's 
letter, the SBA began drafting a notice to the ten SBIR Federal 
agencies directing them to comply with the patent reporting 
requirements and is updating its database on SBIR awardees.
            b. Management of the SBIR Rural Outreach Program
    On April 26, 2000, Chairman Bond and several other members 
of the Small Business Committee sent a letter to SBA 
Administrator Alvarez regarding the SBA's handling of the SBIR 
Rural Outreach Program. The Rural Outreach Program provides 
grants to those states whose businesses have historically 
received fewer SBIR awards than a majority of other states. The 
letter was in response to an SBA decision to provide a $19,000 
grant to each eligible state, regardless of the quality of a 
state's proposal of the services that it planned on conducting. 
The letter specifically requested the SBA withdraw its decision 
and provide funding on a competitive basis. In addition, the 
letter pointed to the SBA's failure to request funding for the 
Rural Outreach Program in its budgets for Fiscal Years 1999, 
2000 or 2001. Accordingly, the letter requested that the SBA 
support full funding for the Rural Outreach Program for Fiscal 
Year 2001. As a result of the letter, the SBA rescinded its 
plan to provide each state with the same grant amount and, 
instead, distributed grant awards based on the proposals the 
states had prepared.
            c. SBIR programs at the National Aeronautic and Space 
                    Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense
    Between the end of Fiscal Year 2000 and enactment of the 
Small Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act 
of 2000, the Department of Defense and NASA delayed the funding 
of contracts with small businesses that had already been 
awarded phase one and phase two contracts under those agencies' 
SBIR Programs. As a result of these actions, the Committee 
received information that some small businesses were prepared 
to begin laying off employees because the funding that they had 
relied upon was not being provided to them in a timely manner.
    On November 20, 2000, Chairman Bond, along with Ranking 
Member Kerry, wrote to the Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, 
and the NASA Administrator, Daniel Goldin, requesting that they 
utilize their discretion to fund immediately SBIR awards that 
their agencies had already determined to award. Following 
enactment of the SBIR Program Reauthorization Act of 2000, 
Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Kerry, along with other 
members of the Committee, again wrote Secretary Cohen and 
Administrator Goldin to request that they make all pending SBIR 
awards without further delay. Additionally, the letter 
requested that the agencies set aside the full 2.5 percent of 
their extramural research and development budgets for Fiscal 
Year 2001 for their respective SBIR programs. In response to 
the letters, Secretary Cohen and Administrator Goldin assured 
Chairman Bond that their agencies were proceeding with 
diligence to fund all pending SBIR awards. Secretary Cohen and 
Administrator Goldin also confirmed that their agencies would 
set aside at least 2.5 percent of their extramural research and 
development budgets for Fiscal Year 2001 for their SBIR 
programs.

         f. Small Business Technology Transfer Research Program

    In anticipation of Committee action to reauthorize the 
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program in 2001, 
Chairman Bond requested the General Accounting Office to review 
certain issues related to the program. Among other matters, the 
GAO is reviewing the extent to which the STTR program promotes 
actual transfer of under-utilized technology from research 
institutions to the commercial sector. The GAO report is due to 
the Committee in late Spring of 2001.

                      g. Access to Equity Capital

    An ongoing concern of small businesses has been access to 
equity capital. In response to such concerns, Chairman Bond 
requested the GAO to undertake a review of the costs and 
processes of small businesses obtaining equity capital, 
including conducting public offerings, engaging in private 
placements of securities and receiving funds from venture 
capitalists. On September 29, 2000, the GAO provided a report 
to the Committee focusing on: (1) the major sources of external 
equity capital for U.S. small businesses and the SBA's Office 
of Advocacy estimate of its perceived needs for equity capital 
financing; (2) trends for the period of 1994-1999 in small 
business equity capital financing; (3) how market practices and 
securities law regulations for equity capital-raising 
activities could affect small business; and (4) any efforts 
undertaken by Federal and state agencies to facilitate small 
businesses' access to equity capital.
    The Committee is reviewing the findings of the report and, 
based on such findings, considering appropriate policy 
responses in the 107th Congress.

                           h. HUBZone Program

1. Program roll-out

    As of January 1, 1999, the HUBZone program enacted in the 
Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 had still not been 
officially unveiled nor were applications available to 
prospective participants.
    Revisions to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) had 
been published as interim rules in the Federal Register on 
December 18, 1998. The FAR agencies had included a 
determination that ``urgent and compelling reasons'' existed 
for putting the rule into effect prior to a period of public 
comment. This, plus the rules' effective date of January 4, 
1999, would have allowed the program to begin operations at 
that time--which was already well behind the schedule set forth 
in the HUBZone Act. However, SBA had not been ready to unveil 
the program when the regulations were in place. (It should be 
noted that Chairman Bond submitted comments on the FAR rules on 
February 16, 1999).
    On February 25, 1999, Chairman Bond sent a letter to 
Administrator Alvarez, formally expressing concern at the delay 
in unveiling the program. Chairman Bond asked Administrator 
Alvarez to provide a timetable for the remaining activities 
associated with unveiling the program: finishing the electronic 
application, hiring an Associate Administrator for the program, 
and hiring support staff. Chairman Bond also requested a 
detailed explanation of how SBA used its Fiscal 1998 HUBZone 
program appropriation of $2 million without managing to get the 
program up-and-running. Chairman Bond requested this 
information by March 5.
    On March 8, 1999, Administrator Alvarez responded with a 
letter that provided no timetable, but did discuss the status 
of each of the remaining activities yet to be accomplished. The 
letter also indicated that the agency had managed to obligate 
virtually the entire Fiscal 1998 appropriation, and provided 
broad categories of how those funds were allocated. 
Administrator Alvarez also stated SBA had decided to delay 
implementation until the comment period expired on the FAR 
interim rule, thereby defeating the purpose behind the FAR 
agencies' determination that ``urgent and compelling reasons'' 
existed for the rule to take effect on January 4 while the 
comment period was still in progress.
    During a Small Business Committee hearing on March 16, 
1999, on the President's Fiscal 2000 budget request for SBA, 
Chairman Bond hand-delivered a letter to Administrator Alvarez 
expressing ``disappointment'' at the ``lack of specificity'' in 
her March 8 response letter. Chairman Bond's letter requested 
greater detail on SBA's use of the Fiscal 1998 HUBZone 
appropriation and asked eight specific questions. Chairman Bond 
also pointed out Administrator Alvarez' failure to provide a 
timeline as requested. The letter also challenged SBA's 
decision to wait for the FAR interim rule comment period to 
expire.
    During the hearing, Administrator Alvarez announced that 
SBA would unveil the HUBZone program and begin accepting 
applications the following Monday, March 22, 1999. On March 26, 
1999, Administrator Alvarez responded to Chairman Bond's March 
16 letter, confirming that SBA had begun receiving applications 
that day. Administrator Alvarez provided additional information 
on the Fiscal 1998 appropriation, noting that the funds had 
been obligated but not necessarily been outlaid (spent) yet. 
SBA transferred 10% of the HUBZone appropriation to cover the 
agency's indirect costs in setting up the program (such as use 
of staff detailed from non-HUBZone offices at SBA) and expected 
to do the same in Fiscal 1999. Moreover, SBA obligated $350,000 
of the HUBZone appropriation for grants to the Tribal Business 
Information Centers (TBICs), which provide an outlet for 
HUBZone information (and other SBA program information) on 
Indian reservations. Of the total of $607,000 provided to the 
TBICs, 58% of the funds came from the HUBZone account.
    A staff discussion on April 13, 1999 provided further 
detail about the Fiscal 1998 appropriation. In past years, 
TBICs had received funding from the Department of Interior. 
Accordingly, SBA had not requested funds for them in the past, 
but had requested money for TBICs in 2000 ($1 million). 
Moreover, the grants for the TBICs had not actually been 
outlaid; they were simply obligated to keep the funds available 
for the TBICs and to keep the funds from lapsing to the 
Treasury at the end of the Fiscal Year.

2. Implementation issues

    As the HUBZone program proceeded, implementation problems 
arose and progress was made on some fronts to address those 
problems.
    Tribal Enterprises and Alaska Native Corporations. Efforts 
continued during the 106th Congress concerning the eligibility 
of Tribally owned enterprises and Alaska Native Corporations 
for the HUBZone program. Because the HUBZone Act requires that 
small businesses be 100% owned by U.S. citizens, all HUBZone 
applicants needed to be owned by flesh-and-blood human beings 
(who can be born or naturalized and therefore citizens). An 
ownership stake by Tribes as units or by Alaska Native 
Corporations disqualifies a firm from the HUBZone program under 
the original legislation.
    A preliminary version of legislation to correct this 
problem was included as subtitle A of Title VI in S. 3121, the 
Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, as approved by the 
Committee on Small Business on March 21, 2000. However, 
negotiations continued with the expectation that more 
definitive language would replace subtitle A when the bill was 
taken up by the full Senate. Continuing negotiations on this 
issue, as well as on the commodities issue, caused a delay in 
filing the Committee's report with the full Senate. The report 
on the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 was filed on 
September 27, 2000 (S. Rpt. 106-422).
    As approved in the Committee-reported version of S. 3121, 
the legislation created a parallel structure in which the types 
of firms eligible under the program would be listed as 
``HUBZone small business concerns'' and each type of firm would 
have a corresponding obligation under the program to be 
certified as a ``qualified HUBZone small business concern.'' No 
firm would be deemed presumptively qualified merely because of 
the type of firm; it would have to do something to advance the 
program's goals to participate. Alaska Native Corporations 
would be able to be deemed ``qualified'' under a relaxed 
standard, due to the unique nature of Alaska, and this relaxed 
standard would be available to all Alaska small businesses 
under a pilot program. Finally, the legislation included 
language previously used by the Committee on Indian Affairs to 
address Indian lands issues in Oklahoma, where the entire state 
was at one time a reservation, and language to ensure that 
isolated plots of lands placed into trust (e.g., in prosperous 
areas far from a current reservation) would not be eligible for 
HUBZone status.
    The final negotiated package retained the parallel 
structure and the Indian lands provisions of the Committee-
reported package. It moved the entire relaxed standard for 
Alaska (for both Alaska Native Corporations and small 
businesses generally) into the proposed pilot program. The 
final language also altered the ``cap'' in the pilot program to 
reflect corrected data supplied to the negotiators; the pilot 
program would shut down if Alaska's share of contract dollars 
doubled (which would indicate that the standard was probably 
too relaxed). This was the intent of the Committee-reported 
version, which set the cap at 1.5% of all small business 
contract dollars nationally; corrected information supplied 
subsequently indicated that this cap should be set at 2%. This 
package was introduced into the Senate as S. 2569 on May 16, 
2000. A statement by Chairman Bond and a section-by-section 
analysis of the bill appear in the Congressional Record for May 
16, 2000, at S4019-20.
    The language ultimately replaced the ``placeholder'' 
subtitle A in the Committee-reported bill, except that the 
Committee-reported short-title, ``HUBZones in Native America 
Act of 2000,'' was retained. The pilot program was ultimately 
eliminated in negotiations with the House. The language became 
law as part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 
(H.R. 5667, passed by reference in Public Law 106-554, the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, Sec. 1(a)(9))
    Commodities Procurement. During 1999, the Small Business 
Committee was informed of a potential loophole in the manner 
the HUBZone program was structured that could result in anti-
competitive results in procurement of certain agricultural 
commodities in the Food for Peace program. In particular, the 
allegation was that a single HUBZone small business concern 
could use the benefits of the HUBZone program to lock up the 
vast majority of the corn-soy blend market, causing other 
vendors to abandon the product and reducing the number of 
competing vendors available to bid on the product.
    The concern was that the ten percent price evaluation 
preference in full and open competition would be overwhelmingly 
decisive for commodities that trade in a relatively narrow 
price range. Ultimately, it appeared that a HUBZone firm could 
contract for up to twice its plant capacity, subcontract out 
the half that it would be unable to produce, and sell its corn-
soy blend to the Government at up to ten percent higher prices.
    Chairman Bond agreed that this may have revealed a 
potential unintended abuse with the HUBZone program's 
application to commodities. However, he was unwilling to make 
permanent changes to the HUBZone program based on the single 
hypothetical example of corn-soy blend. Changes that might make 
sense in that market might have additional unintended 
consequences for other commodities. He therefore sought to put 
a ceiling on any potential abuses that might result while 
leaving the issue unresolved for further investigation and 
correction in the 2000 small business reauthorization bill.
    On June 28, 1999, Chairman Bond filed an amendment to the 
Fiscal 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill. (The amendment was 
erroneously assigned two numbers as S. Amdt. 1038 and S. Amdt 
1039.) This amendment would have prohibited expenditure of the 
Agriculture Appropriations funds to award contracts through the 
HUBZone program if more than 50% of the dollar value of the 
contracts would be awarded to any single vendor. This amendment 
was filed but not formally called up for consideration.
    Negotiations continued on the amendment language, and the 
approach outlined in S. Amdt. 1038/1039 ultimately was 
abandoned as impracticable. It would be impossible to know over 
the course of a year when 50% of the contracts had been awarded 
to a single vendor, since the amount of commodity to be 
purchased over the course of the year would not be known. 
(Amounts to be purchased in a given month are determined by the 
Agency for International Development, which notifies USDA's 
Commodity Credit Corporation to do the actual purchasing.)
    The Agriculture Appropriations bill was set aside from 
Senate consideration on June 30, 1999. When the Senate returned 
to the Agriculture Appropriations bill, Chairman Bond offered a 
revised amendment (S. Amdt. 1527) on August 4, 1999. This 
amendment placed a different limitation on HUBZone contracts, 
in that a HUBZone firm would be able to receive contracts only 
up to its own production capacity and would not be able to 
subcontract out performance of the contract to another firm 
only to sell the product to the Government at a higher price. 
This amendment was offered by Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee Chairman Thad Cochran on behalf of Chairman Bond, 
and it was agreed to by unanimous consent as part of en bloc 
consideration of several pending amendments. Chairman Bond's 
explanatory statement submitted for the record appears in the 
Congressional Record for August 4, 1999, at S10198-99.
    The Bond amendment was further modified in conference to 
limit the price evaluation preference to 5% (half of the 10% 
provided in the HUBZone Act) for contracts of up to 50% of the 
total monthly tender for the commodity, and to 0% for amounts 
above 50%. Subcontracting limitations in the Senate-passed 
amendment were also retained. Finally, the conferees included 
report language reminding contracting officers of their 
authority under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 to 
exclude a particular vendor in a given purchase if that vendor 
has received such a large market share as to jeopardize USDA's 
vendor base. Additional report language was included that this 
authority did not allow USDA to make this determination for an 
entire class of vendors (e.g., pre-emptively to exclude all 
HUBZone vendors) but only on a case-by-case, as-needed basis. 
The conference-modified Bond amendment became law as Sec. 751 
of the Fiscal 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill (Public Law 
106-78 of October 22, 1999).
    Having obtained a temporary bandage for the potential 
problem of HUBZone purchases of commodities, Chairman Bond set 
out to keep his commitment to make a long-term fix in the Small 
Business Reauthorization Act of 2000. Consistent with his view 
that the proper fix should be broadly applicable to all 
commodities, to avoid unduly complicating the HUBZone program 
with special rules, Chairman Bond sought to collect information 
on the magnitude of the problem. On March 9, 2000, Senators 
Bond and Kerry sent letters to Agriculture Secretary Dan 
Glickman, Defense Secretary William Cohen, and Veterans Affairs 
(VA) Secretary Togo West, to obtain specific information on 
these agencies' purchases of commodities. (During the OSDBU 
roundtable on November 9, 1999, these three agencies had been 
identified as purchasers of commodities. S. Hrg. 106-401, at 
24.)
    Responses from the agencies revealed that the Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) was substantially different in this regard 
than the Departments of Defense or VA. To avoid additional 
unintended consequences in those Departments, legislation 
tailored to USDA commodities purchases would be appropriate.
    The Committee-reported version of the Small Business 
Reauthorization Act of 2000, S. 3121, therefore included a 
provision (Sec. 612) waiving the 10% price evaluation 
preference in full and open competition if the contracting 
officer set aside at least 10% of the purchase for the HUBZone 
program, if an additional 10% were set-aside for some other 
small business program, or set aside at least 20% of the 
purchase for the HUBZone program in the absence of other small 
business program set-asides. This would use the price 
evaluation preference as an incentive to get contracting 
officers to set aside portions of commodities procurements for 
the HUBZone program and to ensure that such procurements would 
contribute approximately their fair share toward the 
Government-wide goal of 23% of prime contracting dollars for 
small business. The legislation was approved by the Small 
Business Committee on March 21, 2000, with the understanding 
that negotiations would continue on an outstanding issue: what 
to do in the case where only one HUBZone firm existed, since a 
set-aside is appropriate only in cases where two or more such 
firms exist (two or more being required to ensure competition 
in a set-aside, in which a procurement is set aside for 
competition restricted to a certain class of business concern). 
Final language representing the outcome of negotiations would 
be spliced into the bill prior to passage by the full Senate, 
in lieu of the language approved at markup. Negotiations on the 
commodities procurement provision, as well as on the Tribal 
enterprise and Alaska Native Corporation provision, delayed the 
filing of the Committee's report on the bill until September 
27, 2000.
    The final language abandoned the approach of the Committee-
reported bill, of waiving the price evaluation preference as an 
incentive to make set-asides. The situation in which only one 
firm was a HUBZone concern (which was the case in the 
procurement of corn-soy blend, the instant case that brought 
the matter to the Committee's attention initially) proved 
unresolvable. Instead, the final language adopted a general 
prohibition on subcontracting in HUBZone purchases of 
commodities, and phased-down the price evaluation preference. 
The price evaluation preference would be the full 10% for the 
first 25% of a commodity being procured in a given invitation 
(solicitation), then would be reduced to 5% for the fraction 
between 25% and 40% of the invitation, and then phased-out 
entirely to 0% above 40% of the invitation.
    The provision passed as part of the Small Business 
Reauthorization Act (H.R. 5667), included by reference in 
Sec. 1(a)(9) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 
(Public Law 106-554).
    Parity with the 8(a) Program. At a staff briefing on 
February 10, 2000, SBA indicated several revisions the agency 
intended to pursue in the HUBZone regulations. One of those was 
an automatic preference for the 8(a) program over the HUBZone 
program.
    On February 16, 2000, Chairman Bond wrote SBA Administrator 
Aida Alvarez to comment on the intended regulatory revisions. 
After supporting SBA's proposal to remove its existing 
affiliation restriction on HUBZone firms, Chairman Bond 
declared his absolute opposition to the automatic preference 
for 8(a), as contrary to the agreement struck in the Senate 
Small Business Committee during markup of the HUBZone Act in 
1997.
    On February 25, 2000, Administrator Alvarez responded to 
Chairman Bond's letter, stating that an automatic preference 
for 8(a) was already in effect under current regulations and 
was not being proposed. She stated that she had committed to 
protect the 8(a) program at the time the HUBZone Act was 
adopted. She also stated this during a question-and-answer 
period at a Small Business Committee hearing on the President's 
Fiscal 2001 budget request for SBA (S. Hrg. 106-543, at 49) and 
in subsequent response to written questions submitted at the 
hearing (Id., at 52-54, 103-116).
    During markup of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 
2000, the Committee included language to state expressly that 
neither SBA nor the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council 
could establish a priority for either the 8(a) or the HUBZone 
program ahead of the other. The same provision would give 
statutory authority for SBA's current regulations providing a 
preference for firms that are both 8(a) and HUBZone certified.
    On May 2, 2000, SBA Administrator Aida Alvarez wrote 
Chairman Bond to express her ``strong opposition'' to the 
parity language included in the Committee's markup of the Small 
Business Reauthorization Act. The letter did not threaten a 
Presidential veto, however.
    The language on parity was dropped when the Small Business 
Reauthorization Act was passed, on direction from Chairman 
Bond, who determined that the bill could not be passed 
otherwise.
    Other Legislative Provisions. Subtitle B of the HUBZone 
title (Title VI) of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 
2000 (H.R. 5667, passed by reference in Sec. 1(a)(9) of Public 
Law 106-554) includes provisions to make technical corrections 
in the original law, as well as corrections of a more 
substantive nature. Most significant of these provisions is an 
additional category of HUBZone area, to be known as 
``redesignated areas.'' This provision addressed a problem that 
was barely noticeable in 1999, but threatened to do major harm 
in 2000.
    Nonmetropolitan counties that qualified because of 
disproportionately high unemployment were subject to change 
annually, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued new 
annual unemployment statistics. In 1999, only a handful of 
firms were affected by the new BLS data, because so few firms 
were certified. However, in 2000, a larger number of firms 
could have been affected, since more firms had been certified 
and they were more widely distributed across the country. 
Decertifying large numbers of firms that had not seen any 
benefit to the program would have threatened the HUBZone 
program by giving it a reputation as not worthwhile. Also, 
counties that could change into and out of HUBZone status 
annually would not attract small business concerns through the 
HUBZone program, because business owners would not want to 
invest in a location that would not allow them to recoup their 
investments.
    In recognition of this problem, the Committee included a 
``grandfathering'' provision in the Small Business 
Reauthorization bill (S. 3121) marked up on March 21. The 
Committee-reported version sought to stabilize the designation 
of qualified nonmetropolitan areas by using a three-year 
average of unemployment data, then giving firms a one-year 
period to conclude their activity in the HUBZone program once 
their county became ineligible. This complicated provision was 
subsequently simplified by providing for areas to move into a 
new category of ``redesignated area'' once they ceased to be 
eligible on the basis of economic data. An area could remain a 
``redesignated area'' for three years. Essentially, this 
ensures that an area currently qualified on the basis of 
economic statistics will remain eligible for three years. To 
ensure simplicity, the ``redesignated area'' classification 
would also be available to counties and census tracts that 
qualify on the basis of income.
    Due to the imminent release of new BLS data, Chairman Bond 
considered this an urgently needed provision. Accordingly, he 
authorized the provision to be placed on H.R. 2614, the 
Certified Development Company Program Improvements Act of 2000, 
when it passed the full Senate. However, the House refused to 
agree to this provision, with Members objecting to any HUBZone 
provision as long as the matter of HUBZone/8(a) parity was 
unresolved. When the bill was in conference, it became the 
Senate Leadership's preferred vehicle for the tax relief 
package (prompting a Presidential veto threat), and the small 
business provisions were consolidated with the broader 
reauthorization package to be passed by reference as H.R. 5545. 
The ``redesignated area'' provision was retained when the final 
version of the Small Business Reauthorization Act was 
introduced as H.R. 5667 and passed by reference.
    Subtitle B of Title VI also revised the definition of 
``qualified nonmetropolitan county'' to freeze the definitions 
of ``nonmetropolitan'' as of the preceding decennial census. 
The Office of Management and Budget occasionally changes its 
classification of certain counties as they become more 
integrated into the economic life of a nearby metropolitan 
area. In Chairman Bond's home state of Missouri, for example, 
Andrew, Clinton, Lincoln and Warren, and Webster Counties were 
added to the St. Joseph, Kansas City, St. Louis, and 
Springfield metropolitan areas (respectively) after the 1990 
census. These counties were effectively excluded from the 
HUBZone program as a result. They were nonmetropolitan areas at 
the time of the census, so no census tracts were selected in 
those counties to reflect their economic position relative to 
the urban area. However, once they were reclassified as 
metropolitan counties, they could no longer qualify under the 
HUBZone tests for nonmetropolitan counties. The rewritten 
definition of ``qualified nonmetropolitan county'' keeps both 
the nonmetropolitan and metropolitan classifications as of the 
preceding census.
    The revised definition also eliminates an erroneous 
placement of the unemployment test for nonmetropolitan 
counties. The original HUBZone Act had placed that test outside 
the language referring to nonmetropolitan areas, potentially 
making it possible for metropolitan counties to qualify if they 
have high enough unemployment. Under a literal reading of the 
former definition, the City of St. Louis, MO and Bronx County, 
NY would be qualified nonmetropolitan counties. This is not 
desirable because it does not target the program adequately for 
a metropolitan environment. Designating an entire city as a 
HUBZone would simply allow firms in relatively prosperous areas 
of the city to win contracts, without relocating to truly 
distressed areas as the program intends.
    The new HUBZone provisions also extend eligibility to small 
businesses owned wholly or partly by Community Development 
Corporations, provided all other owners are U.S. citizens or 
small business concerns, and provided they maintain a principal 
office in a HUBZone and hire 35% of their employees from a 
HUBZone.
    SBA Revisions to the HUBZone Regulations. On February 10, 
2000, SBA provided a staff briefing on a prospective rulemaking 
to revise the HUBZone program. (This discussion also included 
the question of the 8(a) program's automatic preference over 
the HUBZone program, although that turned out to be a matter of 
interpretation of existing rules rather than a new rulemaking.) 
The new rules would delete the existing restrictions on 
affiliates with HUBZone firms, clarify the relationship of the 
HUBZone program to State and local procurement programs, revise 
the definition of ``principal office,'' and provide for limited 
participation by retail firms notwithstanding the non-
manufacturer rule. Chairman Bond wrote SBA Administrator Aida 
Alvarez in support of eliminating the affiliation requirements 
on February 16, 2000, in addition to disagreeing with SBA's 
views on the 8(a) preference relative to the HUBZone program. 
Administrator Alvarez responded February 25, 2000, agreeing to 
remove the affiliation restriction but continuing to disagree 
on the HUBZone/8(a) parity matter.
    On September 19, 2000, Chairman Bond spoke about the 
affiliation provision on the Senate Floor, as part of a general 
speech on HUBZone implementation. He noted that seven months 
had elapsed since the February staff briefing, yet the 
regulations had still not been proposed. Congressional Record, 
September 19, 2000, at S8732-34 (see especially S8734).
    SBA published the proposed rules in the October 3, 2000, 
Federal Register, at 58963, with public comment due on November 
2. Chairman Bond submitted comments in support of the new rules 
on November 1, 2000, and Administrator Alvarez sent an 
acknowledgment letter on November 13.
    Training of Federal Employees and Contracting Officers. 
Following frequent reports that contracting officers for 
various agencies were not carrying out the HUBZone program due 
to lack of training or direction from their agencies, Chairman 
Bond sent a circular letter to 15 agencies, covered by the 
HUBZone Act as amended, that did more than $1 billion in 
contracting in Fiscal 1999, according to the Federal 
Procurement Data Center. The July 24, 2000 letter asked 
specific information about what agencies had done to train 
their contracting staff, what role the agency Offices of Small 
and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) played in that 
function, and where the OSDBU was located on the agency 
organization chart. The 15 agencies receiving this letter were: 
the Departments of Agriculture, Air Force, Army, Commerce, 
Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, Navy, 
Transportation, and Veterans Affairs (VA), the Defense 
Logistics Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration (NASA). The Air Force and the VA sent 
the most comprehensive responses to the letter, while NASA's 
response indicated serious deficiencies.
    On October 17, 2000, Chairman Bond wrote NASA Administrator 
Daniel Goldin concerning the agency's failure to act on the 
HUBZone program and its failure to train its contracting staff. 
The letter mentioned a further example of failure to train 
contracting staff: a specific case in which NASA, by its own 
admission, had improperly handled a contract under the Small 
Disadvantaged Business program and had taken no corrective 
action. Chairman Bond called on NASA to prepare a corrective 
action plan and to report monthly on implementation of that 
plan. Chairman Bond stated that his goal was to have all NASA 
contracting staff trained properly by the end of Fiscal 2001. 
NASA Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs Edward 
Heffernan responded briefly on November 13, 2000, but did not 
provide a corrective action plan. However, NASA did commit to a 
``mandatory, centrally-administered training requirement'' and 
to making ``periodic status reports.'' By the end of the 
calendar year, NASA had still not submitted either a corrective 
action plan or a monthly report for December 15.
    In a related vein, on October 9, 2000, the Federal Times 
published an article by SBA's Acting Associate Deputy 
Administrator for Government Contracting and Minority 
Enterprise Development, Kerry Kirkland, announcing a series of 
training seminars for the HUBZone program. Chairman Bond wrote 
a letter-to-the-editor to the Federal Times on October 25, 
2000, calling on agencies to take full advantage of SBA's 
training sessions ``if they would like to avoid oversight 
scrutiny.'' Chairman Bond's letter was published in the Federal 
Times on November 13, 2000.

                 I. Other Government Contracting Issues

1. Department of Energy small business contracting

    The Committee continued its oversight of the Department of 
Energy's (Department) small business program, especially 
concerning the Department's reporting of small business 
subcontracts by certain contractors as if they were prime 
contract awards by the Department itself. The Department relied 
on permission granted to it in a 1991 letter from the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in reporting subcontracts by 
its Management and Operating (M & O) contractors as if they 
were small business achievements by the Department. Moreover, 
the Department sought to treat subcontracts by its Management 
and Integration (M & I), and Environmental Restoration and 
Management Contract (ERMC) contractors in the same manner, 
arguing that the logic of the 1991 OFPP letter applied to M & I 
and ERMC contractors as well as the M & O contractors that were 
the subject of that OFPP letter.
    Chairman Bond contended, however, that the rationale behind 
the OFPP letter no longer existed. At the time of the letter, 
the Department had a much closer relationship with its M & O 
contractors, and it was arguable that the M & O contractors 
were in practice surrogates for the Department itself. Since 
the early 1990s, the Department had revised its regulations 
substantially to distance itself further from the M & O 
contractors. Thus, the M & O contractors no longer acted as 
surrogates for the Department, and the reporting of M & O 
subcontracts as prime contracts needed to stop in recognition 
of current practices. Further, this approach could not be 
applied to the treatment of subcontracts awarded by M & I and 
ERMC contractors without approval from OFPP, since those 
contracts were not the subject of the 1991 letter. It would 
make no sense to extend this treatment to M & I and ERMC 
contractors, however, if it no longer applied even to the M & O 
contracts that prompted the original policy.
    On March 2, 1999, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson 
submitted the Department's proposed small business contracting 
goals for Fiscal 1999 (already well underway) to SBA 
Administrator Aida Alvarez. The goals included subcontracts 
awarded by M & O, M & I, and ERMC contractors as part of the 
agency's prime contracting goals. Administrator Alvarez 
responded on May 28, 1999, directing that the Department apply 
these subcontracts toward the Department's subcontracting 
goals, not its prime contracting goals.
    On August 11, 1999, the Department submitted another letter 
to Administrator Alvarez restating its position and calling for 
her to appeal to OFPP if she continued to disagree. Chairman 
Bond then filed his complete brief on the matter with OFPP on 
September 15, 1999, to provide his point of view. The letter 
was also signed by Ranking Member John Kerry. Finally, SBA sent 
a formal appeal letter to OFPP on October 7, 1999.
    On November 3, 1999, OFPP issued a decision letter. OFPP 
Administrator Deidre Lee directed that subcontracts awarded by 
M & O, M & I, and ERMC contractors be reported as subcontract 
awards, not as Department prime contract awards. This change 
would take effect with the goals for Fiscal 2000, since Fiscal 
1999 had concluded.
    A staff briefing on January 10, 2000, indicated that SBA 
was encountering difficulties achieving a 23% Government-wide 
contracting goal, as required by the Small Business Act. The 
change in the Department of Energy's reporting of these site 
and facility contracts caused an apparent drop in the 
Department's small business participation, since subcontracts 
to small businesses were no longer permitted to be reported as 
if they were prime contracts made by the Department. SBA 
indicated they were having difficulty negotiating increased 
goals for the other agencies to make up for the decline, and 
sought the Committee's guidance.
    On February 1, 2000, Chairman Bond wrote SBA Administrator 
Aida Alvarez, saying that SBA needed to find ways to reach 23%, 
since that goal was statutory. He was unable to offer a 
``waiver'' from statutory requirements. On February 9, 2000, 
Administrator Alvarez responded that 23% was indeed mandatory, 
and saying that the Department of Energy, and other agencies, 
had received challenging goals to achieve the 23% level.
    The Committee continued to track the Energy Department's 
efforts to improve its contracting with small business during 
2000. On February 10, 2000, Senators Bond and Kerry wrote 
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, calling on him to review 
whether small business teams might be able to handle some of 
the smaller site and facility management contracts. The letter 
also urged the Secretary to contact the existing contractors to 
remind them of their obligations to subcontract to small 
business. Secretary Richardson responded on April 4, with a 
discussion of various initiatives underway to improve small 
business participation.
    A staff briefing on October 5, 2000, suggested that 
adoption of a three-year plan for improving the Department's 
performance, as part of the Department's annual report to the 
Congress, would be helpful in giving direction to the 
Department's efforts. On December 13, 2000, Senators Bond and 
Kerry wrote Secretary Richardson again, encouraging the 
Department to prepare and submit such a three-year plan. In 
addition, the letter included several questions concerning the 
Department's site and facility contracts that were renewed 
during Fiscal 2000. A response was still pending at the 
conclusion of the 106th Congress.

2. Department of Defense authorization

    During Senate consideration of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal 2000 (S. 1059), the Small Business 
Committee was informed of a pilot program in the Armed Services 
Committee-reported bill that could have grave effect on small 
business participation in certain contract opportunities. 
Section 805 of the bill proposed to extend commercial 
acquisition practices, currently available for procurement of 
commercially available products, to procurement of certain 
services on a pilot program basis.
    The Small Business Committee has been concerned with 
commercial acquisition practices in the past, often because 
they result in contracts being awarded without reaching out to 
small business to encourage their participation (e.g., through 
small business set-asides). This concern must be balanced by 
understanding that commercial acquisition has benefitted some 
small businesses by allowing the Government to purchase 
products as if it were any other consumer visiting a store 
(i.e., finding what is available and buying that) without 
demanding that the product be made to conform to special 
standards unique to the Government and irrelevant to other 
consumers. Not having to tailor their products to the 
Government has made some small businesses able to sell their 
products at lower cost to the taxpayer. However, this logic is 
not likely to apply in the acquisition of services, rather than 
products. Accordingly, the Small Business Committee was 
concerned that commercial acquisition of services would result 
in all the harm to small business of commercial acquisition 
practices while delivering none of the benefits.
    With Ranking Member John Kerry, Chairman Bond filed an 
amendment (S. Amdt. 401) on May 26, 1999, to strike all of 
Sec. 805. Ultimately, Chairman Bond agreed to a compromise 
amendment (S. Amdt. 440) that would exclude these commercial 
services acquisitions from streamlined acquisition procedures 
under the Clinger-Cohen Act, thus lessening the possibility 
that the pilot program would become yet another means of 
bypassing the small business program in procurement. Senator 
Kerry joined this amendment, which Armed Services Committee 
Chairman John Warner offered on behalf of Senators Bond and 
Kerry, and the amendment was agreed to by unanimous consent, as 
part of a package of amendments considered en bloc on May 27, 
1999.
    During conference committee consideration of the bill, 
Senators Bond and Kerry sent a letter on July 30, 1999 to Armed 
Services Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Carl Levin. The 
letter recounted the events leading up to the adoption of the 
Bond/Kerry amendment on the Floor and urged inclusion of that 
language in the conference report. Alternatively, the Senate 
could recede to the House and drop the commercial services 
pilot entirely.
    Ultimately, the conference report removed all of the Bond/
Kerry language and further eliminated, from the report on the 
pilot program to be made to the Congress, any study of the 
pilot program's impact on small business. This provision was 
adopted as Sec. 814 of the conference-reported bill.

3. Contractor responsibility (``blacklisting'') regulations

    On July 9, 1999, the agencies that jointly promulgate the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)--the Department of 
Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration--published a proposed rule 
in the Federal Register expanding the meaning of ``contractor 
responsibility'' in the FAR. The FAR requires that only 
contractors deemed ``responsible'' may participate in Federal 
procurement. Under the proposed rule, contractors that do not 
comply with Clinton Administration policy on labor, employment, 
environmental, antitrust, consumer protection, or tax laws 
would be deemed non-responsible and would be effectively barred 
from Federal procurement. Chairman Bond filed comments opposing 
the proposed rule on November 12, 1999.

4. Contract bundling

    On May 18, 2000, the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
released a report on contract bundling, stating primarily that 
insufficient data were available on the extent and small-
business impact of the practice. Chairman Bond wrote SBA 
Administrator Aida Alvarez, noting the GAO's finding that the 
Federal Procurement Data Center was waiting on SBA to issue the 
final contract bundling rules before modifying their data 
collection procedures to gather the bundling data required 
under the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997. He also 
noted the need to hire and train sufficient Procurement Center 
Representatives (PCRs) to carry out the statutory review of 
bundling. Chairman Bond also noted that SBA had identified 42 
cases of possible bundling that were still unresolved, 
according to GAO.
    On June 1, 2000, Administrator Alvarez responded that SBA 
had submitted the final contract bundling rules to the Office 
of Management and Budget for final clearance. She noted that, 
on May 9, SBA had announced its intention to hire 13 additional 
PCRs.
    On June 16, Chairman Bond wrote Administrator Alvarez to 
inquire about the 42 unresolved bundling cases mentioned in the 
GAO report, which Chairman Bond had mentioned in his May 18 
letter. On June 28, SBA Deputy Associate Administrator for 
Government Contracting and Minority Enterprise Development 
James Ballentine responded that only 13 cases remained 
unresolved and that SBA expected to close out those cases 
within 90 days.
    On July 26, 2000, SBA published its final contract bundling 
regulations in the Federal Register, at 45831-35.

5. Inspector General audit of the Small Disadvantaged Business Program

    On June 30, 2000, SBA's Office of Inspector General 
released an audit of the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 
certification program. Under that program, other Executive 
agencies transferred funds to SBA to certify firms for the SDB 
minority business contracting program. The audit found that SBA 
had improperly charged $3.0 million in expenses to the SDB 
certification program, and that SBA could not produce 
justification for charging an additional $3.2 million to the 
SDB program.
    On June 29, the day before the audit was released, SBA 
Administrator Aida Alvarez had promised the funds would be 
returned to the agencies that provided them. On June 30, the 
day the IG audit was released, Chairman Bond wrote 
Administrator Alvarez to ask specifically how much she planned 
to refund and how those funds would be distributed among the 
contributing agencies. On July 18, Administrator Alvarez 
responded that she planned to refund $3.9 million. She wrote 
Chairman Bond again on August 4, indicating that the refunds 
had been made on July 27, and that the amount refunded had been 
$4.1 million, because of additional funds that had previously 
been obligated but not expended.

6. Department of Commerce Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 
        Utilization (OSDBU)

    The Department of Commerce provided staff briefings on June 
8 and 22, 2000, concerning a proposed reorganization that would 
change the reporting relationship for the Commerce Department 
OSDBU. The proposal was said to be a lateral change, in that 
OSDBU would not move further down the organization chart, but 
would simply report to a different person. Further, under both 
current and proposed practice, OSDBU would report directly to 
the Deputy Secretary for policy purposes, as the Small Business 
Act required; the change would alter the reporting relationship 
for budget and administrative purposes.
    On June 30, 2000, Senators Bond and Kerry wrote Office of 
Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew to urge that he reject 
the proposed reorganization. It was not necessary to resolve 
whether the change was in fact a reduction in stature for the 
OSDBU. Even if it were a lateral move, it would still not be in 
compliance with the Small Business Act, which did not 
contemplate a bifurcated reporting relationship. Further, 
budget and administrative matters are inherently policy 
matters, since a policy initiative that is not funded does not 
really exist. Senators Bond and Kerry called on Director Lew to 
terminate the bifurcated reporting relationship, as contrary to 
the Small Business Act and the President's Executive Order 
12928.
    On August 7, 2000, Director Lew responded that the Commerce 
Department had withdrawn its proposed reorganization. He also 
said that he had asked the Department to review its existing 
organization to ensure compliance with both the Small Business 
Act and Executive Order 12928.

7. Office of Federal Procurement Policy subcontracting guidance

    On March 30, 1999, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
(OFPP) provided the Small Business Committee an advance copy of 
a proposed policy letter, to give guidance on subcontracting 
opportunities and plans. OFPP solicited comment on the draft 
letter. Chairman Bond filed a short comment on May 18, 1999, 
urging that the letter be revised to reflect subcontracting 
policy changes being developed for the new HUBZone program. The 
draft policy letter had omitted discussion of the HUBZone 
program-related changes.

                     j. Additional Oversight Issues

1. Travel by SBA employees

    On June 25, 1999, the Committee requested all travel 
documents for SBA employees GS-14 and above for travel during 
Fiscal Year 1998 and through the date of the letter for Fiscal 
Year 1999. Committee staff reviewed the documents and examined 
the relevant laws, regulations and standard operating 
procedures that govern travel expenditures at the SBA. The 
preliminary results of that effort were troubling.
    Members of the Committee assisted greatly in studying the 
documents and the travel policies of SBA. Initially Senator 
Coverdell's efforts resulted in concerns raised about the 
travel practices at SBA. In particular, Senator Coverdell was 
concerned about the practice of self-approval and self-
authorization of travel by senior agency personnel with only 
minimal oversight. In addition, Senator Coverdell was concerned 
about the practice of using advance teams to advance the 
extensive travels of the SBA Administrator Aida Alvarez. With 
the sudden death of Senator Coverdell, Senator Enzi continued 
to probe the issues raised by Senator Coverdell.
    Given the importance of the concerns raised by both Senator 
Coverdell and Senator Enzi, that Chairman Bond felt it 
necessary to assist Senator Enzi in his efforts to gain a 
better understanding of SBA travel practices. Among the issues 
raised by Chairman Bond and Senator Enzi were the use of an 
agency hired limo service to provide home to work service, 
expenditures by the SBA for makeup and hair care service for 
the Administrator and the expenditures of a senior SBA employee 
whose travel documents were not provided to the Committee 
despite repeated requests. The SBA has implemented new 
procedures to reduce the risk of fraud or abuse, but the 
Committee still has not completed all aspects of its review and 
intends to complete it in the 107th Congress.

2. Computer security

    In response to an audit finding that there was very little 
in the way of appropriate computer security policies and 
procedures in use at the SBA, Chairman Bond wrote to 
Administrator Alvarez to express his concern and requested that 
the SBA report to the Committee on a monthly basis it efforts 
to comply with the recommendations of the auditors. That effort 
is ongoing.
    The Committee has also worked with the IG at the EPA to 
address the EPA's lack of attention to protection of agency 
computers from computer hackers. In particular, the EPA lacks 
any formal Internet ``firewall'' that would provide some level 
of protection of agency computers. The Committee is monitoring 
the EPA's efforts to rectify this important problem.

3. Million Mom March

    On July 6, 2000, Chairman Bond wrote SBA Administrator Aida 
Alvarez with a series of questions concerning her use of SBA 
resources to promote the Million Mom March on gun control. 
Administrator Alvarez had sent Administrator's Memo No. 423 of 
May 12, 2000 to agency employees to provide information on the 
march. It included material prepared by March organizers that 
encouraged readers to register. Chairman Bond inquired about 
the ethics of using Government resources to benefit an outside 
organization, particularly on a subject that had nothing to do 
with small business.
    On July 28, 2000, Administrator Alvarez responded that the 
Government resources used to promote the Million Mom March were 
de minimis.

                 III. Small Business Regulatory Issues


            A. OSHA's promulgation of an ergonomics standard

    By far the dominant source of activity was responding to 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's efforts to 
promulgate a regulation on ergonomics. This generated a variety 
of activities and concerns.

1. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel

    On March 2, 1999, a panel was convened as mandated by 
SBREFA to explore the impact of this regulation on small 
businesses. The draft of the proposal had been released on 
February 19, 1999 in preparation for the Panel's review.
    The Panel was chaired by Marthe Kent of OSHA and consisted 
of Jere Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy from the Small 
Business Administration; Don Arbuckle, Acting Administrator 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at Office of 
Management and Budget; Joseph Woodward, Associate Solicitor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Labor; and Robert 
Burt, Senior Economist from OSHA. In addition, 20 small entity 
representatives (SERs) representing a wide variety of 
industries that would be covered by the regulation were invited 
to participate in the process by providing direct input to the 
Panel on how this regulation would impact their businesses, and 
the problems they anticipated from attempting to comply with 
it.
    The Panel held teleconferences with the SERs on March 23, 
24, and 25, during which the Panel and the SERs were able to 
discuss different provisions of the proposal and their impact. 
The three different teleconferences were necessary so that all 
SERs could have a chance to participate and express their views 
fully. After the teleconferences, 15 of the 19 SERs who 
participated submitted written comments describing their views 
on the draft proposal.
    The SERs raised many specific concerns with the draft 
proposal. Among these were: whether a regulation is necessary 
given the reduction in recent year of reported musculoskeletal 
disorders (MSDs); whether an employer was in the best position 
to determine whether an MSD was work related--many felt this 
determination should be made by a medical professional; and 
whether OSHA had seriously underestimated the costs of 
implementing the proposal including the costs for developing a 
program, training, conducting job hazard analyses, controlling 
jobs, covering medical management, implementing the medical 
removal protection provisions, and using outside consultants. 
The SERs also pointed out their inability to pass on these 
costs, and some mentioned that this could lead to companies 
relocating outside of the United States, or being less able to 
compete with foreign companies.
    The medical removal protection (MRP) provision was 
especially criticized by the SERs. Under the draft proposal 
this would require employers to provide, for up to six months, 
an employee with 100% of their take home pay and full benefits 
if they must take leave to recuperate from a work related MSD. 
This provision caused many SERs to be concerned because it will 
be in addition to the coverage provided by their normal 
workers' compensation for which they are already paying 
premiums. Many SERs felt this would lead to fraud and abuse by 
employees since there is no objective way to establish whether 
an MSD exists, or to measure its severity.
    Another provision that drew extensive criticism was the 
``one injury trigger'' which specified that if one employee 
reported a work-related MSD, then the employer would be 
required to implement the full ergonomics program for any 
``similar jobs.'' Many SERs raised concerns about how to 
determine whether a job was similar to one associated with an 
MSD, and whether this meant that a company could be forced to 
implement the full program based on one injury which might have 
been caused by factors not part of the workplace.
    Many SERs also pointed out that they felt this regulation 
would lead to greater selectivity in hiring practices that 
would favor those who would be less likely to incur an MSD or 
trigger compliance with the regulation.
    A report from the Panel was issued on April 30, 1999, which 
contained the concerns as expressed by the SERs. Although the 
report also disputed the validity or merits of those concerns, 
or assumed the best case scenario which would mute these 
concerns, it recommended various ways that OSHA should respond 
to the SERs' comments: OSHA should consider alternatives to the 
MRP; OSHA should clarify various terms of the standard such as 
``similar jobs,'' ``feasibility,'' and personal protective 
equipment; OSHA should re-examine their cost estimates in light 
of SER comments regarding the number of hours required to 
implement the program, the training requirements, the use of 
consultants, the MRP requirements, job hazard analysis, and job 
control; OSHA should discuss their assumptions underlying the 
benefits estimate; and OSHA should clarify when employers have 
done enough to satisfy the standard.
    The report also discussed alternatives to the draft 
proposed regulation and recommended that OSHA solicit comments 
on alternatives such as: non-regulatory guidance; issuing only 
a Safety and Health Program Standard; waiting until the 
National Academy of Sciences study on whether there is 
sufficient evidence to support a regulation is issued; changing 
the trigger of the regulation from the one injury in the draft 
proposal; changing the scope to cover only manufacturing jobs; 
and exploring further whether to include the MRP provisions and 
how best to include them if they are retained.
    When released, the report also included all written 
comments submitted to the Panel by the SERs.

2. National Academy of Sciences study on musculoskeletal disorders and 
        the workplace

            a. Initial contact with the study
    Included in the Omnibus Spending measure passed by Congress 
and signed by the President at the end of the 105th Congress 
for Fiscal Year 1999 was $890,000 for the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) to conduct a literature review to determine 
whether the scientific studies provide adequate data to support 
a regulation on ergonomics in the workplace. These funds were 
appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services 
along with a list of seven questions that the study was to 
address.
    The seven questions were as follows: (1) What are the 
conditions affecting humans that are considered to be work-
related musculoskeletal disorders; (2) what is the status of 
medical science with respect to the diagnosis and 
classification of such conditions; (3) what is the state of 
knowledge, characterized by the degree of certainty or lack 
thereof, with regard to occupational and non-occupational 
activities causing such conditions; (4) what is the relative 
contribution of any causal factors identified in the literature 
to the development of such conditions in the general 
population, specific industries, and specific occupational 
groups; (5) what is the incidence of such conditions in the 
general population, specific industries, and specific 
occupational groups; (6) does the literature reveal any 
specific guidance to prevent the development of such conditions 
in the general population, specific industries, and specific 
occupational groups; and (7) what scientific questions remain 
unanswered, and may require further research, to determine 
which occupational activities in which specific industries 
cause or contribute to work-related musculoskeletal disorders.
    The contract that was executed between the National 
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH--an agency 
within the Department of Health and Human Services) and the NAS 
contained the following six tasks as the scope of work: (1) an 
assessment of the medical and biomechanical literature 
describing the load response relationships and their 
consequences for musculoskeletal structures; (2) an examination 
of the contribution of the medical and behavioral science 
literature to understanding links between musculoskeletal 
disorders and job characteristics, organizational factors, non-
work-related activities, and variations; (3) an evaluation of 
existing core data sets characterizing the patterns of 
incidence occurrence in the workplace; (4) an evaluation of the 
state of knowledge on prevention strategies; (5) an examination 
of likely effects of changes in work and the workforce on the 
incidence of musculoskeletal disorders; and (6) recommendations 
for research.
    The first meeting of the Panel convened for this study was 
held on May 10, 1999, and included remarks from staff 
representing the offices of Chairman Bond, Senator Jeffords, 
Senator Nickles, and Congressman Bonilla. In their remarks the 
Congressional staff emphasized Congress' intent that this study 
be a de novo review of the literature and that this study 
should adhere to the most stringent standards of scientific 
review.
    In 1998, NAS conducted a workshop on Work Tasks and 
Musculoskeletal Disorders which attempted to survey the 
scientific literature and assess the strengths and weaknesses 
of it. It was a hastily arranged and non-scientifically 
rigorous effort which merely clouded further the question of 
what the scientific literature says on this subject. NIOSH had 
also conducted a literature review in 1997, but this did not 
examine the studies under sufficiently critical criteria such 
as evaluating the weight of the evidence supporting each study.
    A follow up letter to the May 10 meeting was sent to the 
NAS on May 28, 1999, which reiterated the concerns expressed at 
the meeting as well as elaborating on the specific reasons why 
previous studies should not be considered as starting points 
for this study. The letter also sought to ``ensure that the six 
tasks outlined in the Panel's statement of work are designed to 
address each of the seven questions delineated in the report 
accompanying last year's House-passed Labor-HHS Appropriations 
bill.'' This letter was signed by Senators Bond, Nickles, Enzi, 
and Congressmen Talent, Blunt, Bonilla, Goodling, DeLay, and 
Ballenger.
    The NAS responded with a letter dated June 18, 1999, which 
committed the NAS to conducting a ``comprehensive and critical 
evaluation of disparate data bases and studies * * * according 
to criteria adopted by the study committee.'' The letter also 
stated that ``you can be assured that our project is focused on 
the seven questions that were raised in your original letter. 
We have sought to design the study to address the needs in your 
original letter, as well as the legislation, and we appreciate 
your continued input concerning Congress' intent for this 
study.'' NAS also promised to ``keep your staff apprised of all 
aspects of this project on a regular basis. * * *'' The letter 
was signed by Drs. Alberts and Shine, the President of the NAS 
and the President of the Institute of Medicine, respectively.
            b. Follow-up contact with the study
    On March 15, 2000, a second letter to NAS was sent from 
Chairman Bond with additional signatures from Congressmen Blunt 
and Bonilla. This letter expressed dismay that the NAS had not 
fulfilled its commitment to keep the Congressional offices 
``apprised'' of developments of the study as there had been 
absolutely no contact since the letter of June 18, 1999. 
Because the meeting format for the Panel does not allow outside 
observers into the sessions where the literature reviews are 
discussed, there is no way to determine whether NAS' efforts 
are on track with Congress' intent.
    This second letter also criticized the NAS for pursuing a 
study that was inconsistent with the seven questions specified 
by Congress when it appropriated the money for the study. A 
Congressional Research Service analysis was included that 
identified discrepancies between the seven questions as posed 
by Congress and the six tasks that comprised the statement of 
work for the contract. The letter requested a detailed oral 
briefing from the NAS staff about how they were addressing 
these concerns and for NAS to provide full documentation 
describing the project and all committee meeting minutes.
    A meeting was held on April 5, 2000, attended by staff from 
the offices of Senators Bond, and Nickles, and Congressman 
Bonilla, as well as the following staff from NAS: Jim Jensen 
(NAS/National Research Council), Andrew Pope (Institute of 
Medicine), Alexandra Wigdor (NAS), and E. William Colglazier 
(NAS/National Research Council). During the course of this 
meeting, the NAS representatives confirmed that the study is 
being conducted in accordance with the six tasks as enumerated 
in the statement of work, but that the seven questions 
identified by Congress are being ``kept in mind'' and that in 
the final report these questions will be ``recognizable.'' NAS 
also conceded that the contract was executed without giving 
Congressional offices an opportunity to review it and determine 
whether it was consistent with the legislative mandate. NAS 
further indicated that the literature reviews are being 
performed in a number of cases by reviewers that have been 
``commissioned'' by the Panel and who have not been screened 
for bias or prior history of involvement in this issue. These 
reviewers were selected by members of the Panel because they 
were known to be ``experts.'' Furthermore, the criteria by 
which the studies are being reviewed is not available to the 
public, but will be included in the final report and is subject 
to the peer review that the report will undergo before being 
published.
            c. HHS OIG audit
    Also on March 15, 2000, a different letter was sent to the 
Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and 
Human Services requesting an inquiry into whether the funds 
that had been appropriated were being spent consistent with 
Congressional intent, and whether the NAS was being responsive 
to its legislative mandate.
    A meeting was also held on April 11, 2000, with staff from 
the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and 
Human Services to brief them on the request that they inquire 
into how the appropriated funds are being spent. The OIG agreed 
to pursue the questions of whether the funds are being spent 
consistent with the legislative mandate and to conduct a review 
of NIOSH's oversight of this contract.
    The results of this inquiry were transmitted to the 
Chairman in a letter dated January 3, 2001. The Office of 
Inspector General determined that although the tasks which form 
the work order for the contract between HHS and NAS are not the 
questions which Congress intended to be answered, those 
questions will be answered in the study. Therefore the funds 
appropriated for the study are being spent appropriately. 
Furthermore, while NIOSH's oversight of the committee's 
activities is less than might occur with other projects, this 
is largely because of the NAS's policy with regard to the 
involvement of sponsors and the Academy's desire to maintain 
its credibility by keeping sponsor involvement and input to a 
minimum. Therefore, NIOSH's oversight is appropriate under the 
circumstances.
            d. Report of NAS panel on musculoskeletal disorders and the 
                    workplace, low back and upper extremities
    On January 16, 2001, NAS delivered to members of Congress 
and relevant agencies, the final report from the panel. The 
panel concluded that a ``clear relationship'' exists between 
back disorders and tasks associated with work. It also 
concluded that work-related psychosocial factors such as 
stress, low job satisfaction, low decision latitude, and 
monotonous work are also associated with MSDs such as low back 
disorder and upper extremity disorders. Additionally, 
individual factors such as weight, age, and gender can play 
significant roles in determining whether a person is likely to 
develop an MSD. Significantly, there was also a dissent from 
the consensus by one member of the panel (a hand and wrist 
surgeon) who raised questions about whether studies dealing 
with carpal tunnel syndrome should have been included, and 
whether conclusions drawn from these studies were valid. The 
report also called for more research in areas such as exposure 
assessment, measures of outcomes and case definitions for 
epidemiologic studies, further quantification of the 
relationship between exposures and outcomes, as well as 
research into specific body and scientific discipline areas.

3. Legislative activities on ergonomics

            a. S. 1070/H.R. 987
    On March 4, 1999, Congressman Blunt (R-MO) introduced H.R. 
987, The Workplace Preservation Act, which would stop OSHA from 
continuing its efforts to promulgate an ergonomics standard 
until the NAS completed its study of the scientific literature. 
The bill was marked up out of subcommittee on May 19, 1999, and 
reported out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce on 
June 23, 1999. On August 3, 1999, the House passed H.R. 987 by 
217-209.
    Chairman Bond introduced a companion bill, S. 1070, The 
Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific Evidence (SENSE) Act on 
May 18, 1999 which has been referred to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. S. 1070 now has 48 
cosponsors and has been the subject of three Dear Colleague 
letters as well as countless grass roots letter campaigns and 
constituent visits to Senate offices.
    During the floor debate on October 7, 1999, to consider the 
Labor/HHS Appropriations bill, S. 625, Chairman Bond offered 
Amendment No. 1825 which was perfected by Amendment No. 2270 
that would have prevented any funds appropriated to the 
Department of Labor from being spent by OSHA to promulgate or 
issue an ergonomics standard. The amendment survived a vote to 
table, but was subsequently withdrawn by the Majority Leader, 
Senator Lott, when it was clear that the Democrats would not 
permit a vote on it. At the time he withdrew the amendment, 
Senator Lott committed to bringing the subject of the amendment 
back to be voted on by the Senate on a piece of legislation 
that would pass before the end of the year. This never 
occurred. S. 1070 expired at the end of the 106th Congress.
            b. Northup/Enzi riders to fiscal year 2001 Labor/HHS 
                    Appropriations Act
    In the second session of the 106th Congress, Representative 
Anne Northup (R-KY) introduced an amendment to the Labor/HHS 
Appropriations (H.R. 4577) in the House Appropriations 
committee that would block the ergonomics regulation from being 
completed during Fiscal Year 2001. The amendment was accepted 
on a party line vote (32-22) and set the stage for a floor 
fight on the ergonomics rider. The Northup language survived a 
motion to strike offered by Representative James Traficant (D-
OH) by a vote of 203-220. The Northup amendment would prevent 
OSHA from spending any funds ``to promulgate, issue, implement, 
administer, or enforce any proposed, temporary, or final 
standard on ergonomic protection.''
    With the successful amending of the Labor/HHS bill in the 
House, the focus was on whether the Senate could match this 
achievement. Because of Senator Specter's support for OSHA's 
ergonomics regulation, it was necessary to offer the amendment 
on the floor. Small Business Committee staff worked with 
leadership staff as well other Senate staff to develop the 
floor strategy and resources to pass an identical amendment on 
the Senate's version of the Labor/HHS Appropriations Act.
    Senator Enzi offered the amendment on the floor immediately 
after the bill was brought up on June 22. As the first 
amendment to the bill, the bill would not be allowed to move 
until the ergonomics amendment was voted on. Opponents 
threatened to filibuster the bill and offered various 
procedural maneuvers to push the debate into the late afternoon 
and evening. Finally, Senator Lott negotiated a compromise that 
allowed for a vote on the ergonomics amendment and a vote on an 
amendment that would add a prescription drug benefit to 
Medicare. The ergonomics amendment was accepted 57-41 with all 
Republicans except Senator Specter and three Democrats (Sens. 
Hollings, Breaux, and Lincoln) supporting it. The language 
passed was identical to the language passed in the House which 
should have insured that the amendment would not be disturbed 
in conference.
    Throughout the summer and into the fall the conference on 
the Labor/HHS bill continued to look for a compromise on the 
ergonomics issue as well as Administration requests for more 
funds. The Administration announced that the bill would be 
vetoed if it contained the ergonomics amendment. On October 30, 
a deal was announced that would allow the ergonomics regulation 
to be issued, but not take effect until June 2001. This deal 
was immediately killed by Republican leadership in both houses 
who recognized that this would give nothing to the Republicans. 
Soon after this deal fell through, Congress passed an extended 
continuing resolution to fund the government past the elections 
on November 8. With the extended resolution of the presidential 
election, further CRs were passed until the Labor/HHS bill was 
combined with the other outstanding appropriations measures 
(Treasury/Postal Service, and Legislative Operations) and 
passed on December 15, as Congress adjourned on the same day. 
The final total for the Labor/HHS bill was $108.9 billion which 
included an increase of $44 million for OSHA over the Fiscal 
Year 2000 appropriation. The final package contained no mention 
of the ergonomics issue at all. OSHA had published the final 
rule on November 14.

4. OSHA's notice of proposed rulemaking on ergonomics

            a. Comments filed by Chairman Bond
    On November 23, 1999, the week after Congress adjourned on 
Friday November 19, OSHA published their proposed regulation on 
ergonomics in the Federal Register. The full publication was 
312 pages of which the last 12 were the proposed regulatory 
text. Initially, the agency set a deadline for comments to be 
received by February 2, 2000. After pressure from Congress led 
by Chairman Bond along with 61 other members of the Senate and 
House, and a widespread outcry from all sectors of industry, 
OSHA extended the deadline for comments to March 2, 2000.
    The proposed rule required employers with manufacturing or 
manual handling jobs to implement some elements of the full 
ergonomics program regardless of whether any employees have 
reported any MSDs or any symptoms have been discovered. If an 
employee does report an injury in any general industry 
workplace, that employer must implement the full ergonomics 
program specified in the proposal or implement a modified 
program called a ``Quick Fix.'' OSHA's proposal was heavily 
criticized by all sectors of the business community.
    Chairman Bond submitted comments to the docket on the 
proposal which made the following points:
    The proposal is riddled with vague terms such as 
``periodically,'' ``promptly,'' ``considerable physical 
effort,'' ``feasible controls,'' ``same motion over and over 
again,'' and ``sitting for a long time.'' It also defines an 
OSHA recordable MSD as one where the ``exposure at work caused 
or contributed to the MSD or aggravated a pre-existing MSD.'' 
This is inconsistent with current regulatory language at 29 CFR 
1904 which defines a recordable injury as one which results in 
lost workdays or medical treatment without reference to work 
place exposure causing or contributing to the injury. The 
language relied upon by OSHA on this point has been taken from 
a 1996 proposal to revise the Recordkeeping Standard at 29 
C.F.R. 1904 which has yet to be finalized.
    Other problems with the proposal include the Worker Removal 
Protection (WRP) provision which requires employers to pay 90% 
of workers' take home pay if they must take leave to recuperate 
and 100% of the take home pay if they are moved to lighter duty 
because of a work related MSD. Benefits are to be maintained at 
the full level in both cases and this coverage is to be 
available for up to six months (in the draft for the SBREFA 
panel, this provision was called medical removal protection 
(MRP)). Apparently, in response to the heavy criticism this 
provision received in the SBREFA report, the requirement for 
take home pay protection was reduced from 100% to 90%. This 
would be in addition to any benefits the employee receives 
through the worker's compensation coverage.
    This provision would create a tremendous financial burden 
on small employers and businesses in general. Although 
employers are permitted to balance this requirement against 
what an employee would receive under the available workers' 
compensation benefits, workers' compensation typically only 
provides two thirds of an employee's salary up to a specified 
maximum amount. Furthermore, there is usually a waiting period 
of at least one week before an employee can qualify to receive 
workers' compensation benefits. Under OSHA's WRP provision, the 
employee is eligible as soon as they are placed on work 
restriction. Thus, employers will still have to provide 
substantial payments even if an employee qualifies for workers' 
compensation. In addition, in many cases, the employer may also 
have to hire replacement help to fill the role vacated by the 
injured employee, adding to the overall cost of this provision.
    The WRP provision singles out MSD injuries for benefits 
that no other injury would receive. Even such a debilitating 
injury as a broken bone would only qualify an employee for the 
standard workers' compensation benefits, yet if an employee 
developed an MSD through activities outside of the workplace 
which was aggravated by his or her workplace activities, they 
could qualify to take leave and still receive 90% of their take 
home pay. This provision thus creates an enormous potential, 
and indeed, an incentive for fraud. It also makes this 
provision inherently unfair to other employees who may suffer 
more traditional, less lucrative injuries.
    As a result, this provision appears to conflict with a 
requirement in the Occupational Safety and Health Act which 
prohibits OSHA from interfering with workers' compensation 
programs. Section 4(b)(4) of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act of 1970 states:

          Nothing in this Act shall be construed to supersede 
        or in any manner affect any workmen's compensation law 
        or to enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner 
        the common law or statutory rights, duties, or 
        liabilities of employers and employees under any law 
        with respect to injuries, diseases, or death of 
        employees arising out of, or in the course of, 
        employment.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 
Sec. 653(b)(4), emphasis added.
    OSHA is therefore exceeding its legislative authority by 
imposing the WRP provision which interferes directly with 
states' worker compensation programs.
            b. Other correspondence on OSHA's proposed ergonomics 
                    regulation
    On June 13, 2000, Chairman Bond sent another set of 
comments to OSHA criticizing the agency for not having included 
employees in the railroad industry, United States Postal 
Service, and state and local governments in the economic 
analysis for the regulation. The total number of employees was 
over 10 million. Furthermore, OSHA admitted that they relied on 
AFL-CIO data for the number of injuries suffered by employees 
in the state and local government sectors. These admissions by 
the agency were published in the Federal Register on May 23, 
2000. Chairman Bond stated that these failures confirmed his 
belief that the agency was ``clueless about the impact of the 
proposed ergonomics regulation'' and called on Assistant 
Secretary Jeffress to withdraw the proposed regulation.
    On June 16, 2000, Chairman Bond joined with Rep. Henry 
Bonilla (R-TX) and spearheaded a letter to Office of Management 
and Budget Director Jack Lew requesting that OMB conduct a 
thorough review of OSHA's cost estimates when the regulation is 
sent over for review before being issued as a final rule. The 
letter was signed by 47 other bipartisan senators and 166 other 
bipartisan members of the House.

5. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General review and General 
        Accounting Office review of OSHA's use of contractors during 
        ergonomics rulemaking

    On May 9, 2000, Chairman Bond requested the Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Labor to review 
OSHA's use of contractors in the ergonomics rulemaking. 
Specifically, he posed the following questions:
    --Is OSHA engaging contractor(s), or other third parties 
unrelated to the Executive Branch, to review the comments and 
testimonies submitted to the ergonomics docket (S-777), and if 
so how many?
    --Has OSHA done this for other rulemakings, and if yes, 
which ones?
    --If this is taking place for the ergonomics rulemaking, 
what quality controls and other checks are in place?
    --How was the contractor(s) selected?
    --What are the deliverables from the contract(s)?
    On June 15, 2000, Chairman Bond expanded his request to 
cover whether OSHA had paid contractors to testify at their 
hearings and if so how much had these contractors been paid?
    On September 20, 2000, staff from the OIG briefed staff 
from Chairman Bond on their findings. OSHA had engaged 
contractors to review the docket and develop software to 
catalog the comments submitted on the proposed ergonomics 
regulation. Contractors have been used in previous rulemakings 
to review and catalog comments. OSHA staff were in close 
contact with the contractors to monitor quality of the software 
development and assure complete summarizing of the comments. 
Contractors were selected under a competitive bidding 
procedure, although those used for testimony were selected 
because of their expertise. The contractors selected to review 
the comments and testimony were required to deliver summaries 
thereof. Contractors selected to testify at the hearings 
delivered their statements. OSHA paid contractors to testify at 
the hearings on the following schedule: $3000 to prepare 
testimony; $5000 to present testimony; $2000 to provide record 
analysis and posthearing review; total of $10,000. The OIG also 
concluded that their ``ability to assure a complete list [of 
contractors] is impaired because systems to control and 
summarize procurement actions related specifically to the 
ergonomics rulemaking are nonexistent.''
    On June 29, 2000, Chairman Bond joined with Senators 
Jeffords, Thompson, and Enzi in requesting the GAO to review 
OSHA's use of contractors and specifically expert witnesses at 
the hearings for the ergonomics regulation. Specifically, the 
requesters sought to learn:
    --Whether OSHA directed witnesses on the drafting, content 
or presentation of their testimony, or participated in editing 
testimony, or preparing the witnesses to testify? What are the 
documented procedures OSHA has for working with witnesses 
regarding their testimony?
    --What are the practices and standards regarding payment of 
contractors as witnesses for regulatory agencies? What types 
and amounts of payments (travel, per diem, other) does OSHA 
generally give to witnesses? How does this compare with the way 
OSHA paid their witnesses during the ergonomics hearings? How 
do OSHA's practices during the ergonomics rulemaking compare 
with other agencies?
    --What are the practices and standards of OSHA and other 
regulatory agencies regarding public disclosure of the fact 
that witnesses are paid by the regulatory agency? Did OSHA or 
its ergonomics witnesses disclose the fact that the witnesses 
were being paid by OSHA, as well as the amount being paid? To 
what extent do other agencies or their witnesses generally 
disclose this information?
    This audit was delayed because of OSHA's insistence on 
negotiating a confidentiality agreement preventing GAO from 
divulging specific information to the Congressional requesters. 
This audit is not yet complete because OSHA neglected to reveal 
the presence of documents submitted to them from the 
contractors such as drafts of testimony. Negotiations are also 
continuing on access to electronic mail messages that could 
reveal agency involvement in shaping testimony.

6. OSHA's final ergonomics regulation

    OSHA published its final regulation on ergonomics on 
November 14, 2000, notwithstanding that both houses of Congress 
had indicated with bipartisan majorities that OSHA should not 
finalize the regulation. The Administration was able to extend 
the negotiations on the ergonomics amendment to the Labor/HHS 
Appropriations Act long enough to allow OSHA to complete the 
regulation, notwithstanding questions about whether OSHA had 
given the comments received on the proposal and testimony taken 
during five weeks of hearings sufficient consideration. 
Questions also remain about OMB's level of review. OMB never 
admitted to having the rule under review until after it was 
published as final rule. The notice in the Federal Register 
totaled 609 pages.
    The final rule represented a dramatic departure from the 
proposed rule and is a much more burdensome and troubling 
regulation than the proposed rule would have been, even though 
that version would have been unacceptable. The most significant 
changes in the final rule versus the proposed rule were:
    --The final rule covers all general industry employers 
which is essentially defined as all employers not in the 
construction, maritime, or agriculture industries. The proposed 
rule focused on jobs with manufacturing and manual handling 
characteristics, although any employer could be covered if an 
employee reported an injury. The final rule does away with the 
facade and sweeps every employer not otherwise excluded under 
the rule. This means an increase in the number of small 
businesses covered by the regulation.
    --The final regulation includes a ``screening tool'' that 
employers are to use in determining whether an employee's tasks 
present ergonomic risk hazards. This ``tool'' is a table of 
various body positions, weights and motions with the thresholds 
that OSHA has determined constitute a hazard in each case. If 
an employee is exposed at these threshold levels, they are said 
to have reached the ``action triggers.'' These thresholds do 
not represent any level of medical or scientific consensus, 
rather this table was taken directly from the Washington State 
ergonomics regulation which was developed by former OSHA 
ergonomics program director Barbara Silverstein. Significantly, 
this ``screening tool'' and the ``action triggers'' were never 
included in the proposed rule meaning that there was no 
opportunity to comment on this major provision in the final 
rule.
    --Although the final rule attempts to clarify terms which 
were criticized as vague in the proposed rule, it merely 
substitutes new vague terms for the old ones. The proposed rule 
would have required employers to ``eliminate hazards'' or 
``reduce hazards to the extent feasible.'' The final rule 
requires employers to ``control'' ``hazards'' until they are no 
longer ``reasonably likely to cause'' injuries, ``reduce'' 
``hazards'' to extent feasible, or ``reduce'' ``hazards'' to 
strict quantitative levels mandated by regulatory appendix. 
Because there is no way to reliably know what ``reasonably 
likely to cause'' means, employers will be forced to default to 
the quantitative thresholds contained in the ``screening tool'' 
which lack any scientific foundation.
    --The Worker Removal Protection (WRP) provision was 
modified so that an employer now must provide an employee 90% 
of take home pay to recover from an injury, but only for 90 
days instead of the proposed six months. This still raises the 
same questions as the proposed provision with respect to 
conflicting with the OSH Act's prohibition on interference with 
state workers' compensation laws.
    --The grandfather clause was streamlined so that employers 
have a year to implement the MSD management provisions which 
include the WRP requirements. This was done ostensibly so that 
more employers could qualify for the grandfather clause, thus 
reducing opposition to the regulation. However, to qualify, 
employers will still need to have OSHA's program in place, 
instead of a program they may now be using.
    --The final regulation will still be triggered by symptoms 
reported by employees which were not caused by workplace 
exposure. Under the proposed rule, the regulation was triggered 
by an ``OSHA recordable'' injury which was defined to include 
any injury that was caused by workplace exposures, contributed 
to by workplace exposures, or a pre-existing injury which was 
aggravated by workplace exposures. Under the final rule, this 
definition has been moved from that of a ``recordable injury'' 
to that of ``work related'' and the aggravation level for a 
pre-existing injury has been modified to be ``significantly'' 
creating more vagueness in the regulation.
    This regulation has triggered extreme criticism from all 
sectors of the business community. Immediately upon its issue 
legal challenges were filed and over 60 parties have joined the 
litigation. Organized labor has also challenged the regulation 
charging that it is not protective enough since it requires an 
employee to report symptoms before an employer must implement 
the full ergonomics program, as compared to other OSHA 
standards that require protective measures to be taken before 
an injury is apparent. In addition to the litigation, a 
challenge in Congress is expected under the Congressional 
Review Act which gives Congress to invalidate a regulation if 
both houses pass a joint resolution of disapproval and the 
president signs it. The Bush administration is also expected to 
consider undertaking a rulemaking to change or revoke the 
ergonomics regulation.
    Chairman Bond issued a statement describing the regulation 
as a ``monument to regulatory excess'' and predicting that it 
will ``devastate small businesses.'' He also issued a statement 
supporting the legal challenges that have been filed.
    The final rule took effect on January 16, 2001, just before 
the Clinton Administration was concluded.

B. S. 1156, ``Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Technical Amendments 
                             Act of 1999''

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) was passed in 1996 to provide small businesses with an 
opportunity to provide more input into the regulatory 
rulemaking process. The signature provision of SBREFA requires 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to convene panels 
with representatives from the agency, the Small Business 
Administration's Office of Advocacy, and the Office of 
Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs. The panels then receive input from selected small 
entity representatives (SERs) who will be impacted by the 
regulation. For other agencies, SBREFA requires outreach to 
small businesses to solicit their input on the impact of the 
rule to their industries.
    Since 1996, EPA had convened 14 panels and OSHA had 
convened three. As a result of these experiences, it became 
clear that some amendments to the process were necessary in 
order to enhance the ability of small businesses to participate 
in the panels. In addition, members of the small business 
community believed it would be beneficial to small businesses 
to have the IRS and the Department of Treasury included as 
agencies that are required to convene review panels in addition 
to OSHA and EPA.
    On May 27, 1999, Chairman Bond, with Senator Kerry as an 
original cosponsor, introduced the Small Business Advocacy 
Review Panel Technical Amendments Act of 1999 (S. 1156). The 
bill would require IRS to convene SBREFA panels in the same way 
as OSHA and EPA. It would also give the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy a role in helping to select the SERs, and allow 
organizations that ``primarily'' represent small entities to 
serve as SERs.
    S. 1156 was marked up and reported out of the Small 
Business Committee on a unanimous vote on July 15, 1999, after 
two amendments by Senator Wellstone were accepted. The 
amendments changed the role of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
to that of ``consulting'' in the selection of SERs, and 
specified that an organization must ``primarily'' represent 
small entities to qualify as an SER.
    On September 28, 1999, S. 1156 was passed by the Senate 
under Unanimous Consent. A companion bill in the House, H.R. 
1882 was reported out of the House Small Business Committee, 
but was never approved by the Ways and Means Committee which 
had jurisdiction because of the IRS issue.
    S. 1156 was under consideration for inclusion in the SBA 
Reauthorization bill, but opposition to the IRS provisions kept 
it out and it died at the end of the second session.

             C. SBREFA and Other Small Business Activities

1. Roundtable on SBREFA and Regulatory Flexibility Act issues

    On March 10, 1999 the Small Business Committee staged a 
roundtable for interested parties to discuss issues related to 
the implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA), also known as the ``Red Tape Reduction Act,'' which 
amended the RFA. Twenty-eight representatives of small business 
interests participated in the discussion.
    The agenda included discussions on: the coverage and 
applicability of the RFA/SBREFA, including agency 
interpretations of non-applicability and non-NPRM rulemaking; 
RFA/SBREFA components to agency rulemakings such as the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, and SBREFA Panel Review process; judicial review of 
agency compliance with RFA/SBREFA; Section 610 periodic review 
of rules to determine if any changes are necessary to assist 
small businesses; agency responses to the compliance assistance 
requirements of SBREFA; and experiences with agency enforcement 
under SBREFA.
    The transcript of the Roundtable was printed as S. Hrg. 
106-292.

2. Agricultural issues roundtable in Kansas City, MO

    The Senate and House Committees on Small Business held an 
agricultural issues roundtable entitled, ``Building A Stronger 
Agricultural Community'' in Kansas City, Missouri on August 24, 
1999. Chairman Bond, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Small Business, and Congressman Jim Talent, the Chairman of the 
House Committee on Small Business co-chaired the Roundtable. 
Twenty one representatives of agricultural interests 
participated.
    The agenda included discussions on: tax issues critical to 
the agricultural sector; regulatory reform and the role of 
SBREFA and RFA in agricultural regulations with agencies like 
EPA, the Forest Service, and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture; and ways to increase trade of agricultural 
products.
    The transcript of the Roundtable was printed as S. Hrg. 
106-456.

3. B2B issues forum: B2B--An Emerging E-Frontier for Small Business

    The Senate Small Business Committee held a forum on May 18, 
2000 to explore the use of electronic commerce for Business to 
Business transactions (B2B) and how this trend may affect small 
enterprises. In opening the forum, Chairman Bond raised three 
primary questions for the participants to address: How can 
small businesses take advantage of this trend?; What obstacles 
do small businesses face in trying to advantage of this trend?; 
and Is this trend a benefit or a problem for small businesses? 
He explained that the Committee's goal in holding this forum is 
to help the small business community better understand the 
opportunities that are becoming available through the use of 
the Internet and the computer revolution in general. Although 
many in the high technology industries are very familiar with 
these possibilities, many small businesses still lag behind and 
are unaware of how their businesses could benefit. Chairman 
Bond described the Internet as ``the latest toolbox available'' 
to help small businesses compete in the marketplace.
    The forum consisted of opening statements from three 
panelists who described the Internet-based B2B trend, the range 
of its impact, the amount of small business participation, and 
how this technology can be adapted to help small firms. In 
addition to the three panelists, 20 invited participants, 
representing a cross section of small business and high 
technology interests, engaged in a discussion following the 
opening statements.
    The transcript was printed as S. Hrg. 106-707.

4. GAO study of SBREFA section 610 compliance

    On April 2, 1999, GAO released a study (GAO/GGD-99-55) on 
how agencies were complying with Section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act which requires each Federal agency to develop a 
plan to review all of its existing rules within 10 years of the 
RFA and any new rules within 10 years of their implementation 
that have or will have a ``significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' The review is to 
determine whether the rules should be continued without change 
or should be amended or rescinded to minimize their impact on 
small entities. Agencies are also required to publish an annual 
notice in the Federal Register of the rules they have 
designated for Section 610 review in the succeeding 12 months. 
This notice is often handled through the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions which appears each 
November and April in the Federal Register, although the RFA 
does not specify that this must be done in the Unified Agenda.
    The report found that in the April 1998 Unified Agenda 
there were 61 Federal departments, agencies and commissions. 
Only seven agencies included a total of 22 Section 610 entries. 
Therefore, 54 Federal departments, agencies, and commissions 
had no Section 610 listings at all. Furthermore, only two of 
the 22 listings appeared to satisfy the requirements of Section 
610. The results were similar for the November 1988 Unified 
Agenda. Only eight agencies out of 61 posted a total of 31 
Section 610 entries, and only one was determined to actually 
satisfy the requirements. In addition, 21 of the 31 entries 
were determined to have appeared in the April 1998 Unified 
Agenda and had merely been updated for the November 1998 
edition.
    GAO documented how agencies have different interpretations 
of the requirements of Section 610. For example, agencies 
differ on whether they should conduct a Section 610 review of 
rules based on whether the rule had a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities at the time 
the rule was published, or at the time the review would have to 
be conducted. GAO recommended that Congress consider clarifying 
its intent in future legislation.
    A follow-up symposium was conducted by GAO on February 1, 
2000, to help agencies come to a more common understanding of 
the requirements of Section 610. The symposium revealed 
legitimate differences of opinion on how to interpret critical 
terms in Section 610. Terms in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
such as ``significant economic impact'' and ``substantial 
number of small entities'' are wide open to interpretation and 
will determine what actions an agency takes. There was also 
wide disagreement among agencies about whether Section 610 
requires a review of rules based on their impact at the time of 
publishing or after 10 years of implementation. Because the RFA 
does not establish any specific authority to resolve these 
different interpretations, agencies have been left to follow 
their own interpretations leading to widely different levels 
and styles of compliance.

5. EPA lead TRI inquiry

    EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program requires 
entities to report use or release of certain chemicals beyond 
threshold amounts. On August 3, 1999, EPA proposed to reduce 
the reporting threshold for lead from 25,000 pounds per year to 
10 pounds per year. The Small Business Committee met with 
representatives from the metal finishing and electronic circuit 
board industry who complained the rule would significantly 
affect their industries and that EPA had failed to conduct the 
required small business outreach to determine the rules' 
impacts on small businesses and reduce its burden on small 
businesses while still meeting the rules' environmental goals.
    On September 8, 1999, Chairman Bond wrote EPA Administrator 
Browner expressing his concern that EPA failed to conduct the 
needed small business outreach and analysis mandated by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and 
EPA's own small business policy. The Senator urged EPA to 
conduct meaningful outreach to small businesses impacted by the 
rule and reconsider its SBREFA certification of no significant 
impact on any small businesses. Chairman Bond also encouraged 
EPA to extend the rules' comment deadline to allow for 
meaningful outreach.
    Further analysis of the proposed rule and its supporting 
economic analysis, and an almost complete lack of EPA action, 
confirmed EPA ignored its obligation to consider the rule's 
impacts on small businesses. On October 15, 1999, Chairman Bond 
wrote EPA Administrator Browner requesting that the Agency 
withdraw the proposed rule until the Agency gave proper 
consideration to the rule's impacts on small businesses. 
Chairman Bond scheduled a hearing for October 28, 1999, to 
explore EPA's failure to meet its SBREFA obligations in this 
case unless EPA withdrew the rule.
    Preparations for the hearing included small business 
testimony, CRS analysis of EPA's failures, industry 
representative testimony and an invitation to EPA Administrator 
Browner on October 20, 1999. On October 22, 1999, EPA responded 
with an offer to conduct additional small business outreach. In 
a meeting with EPA on October 26, 1999, Small Business 
Committee staff expressed its concern that the input of small 
businesses impacted by the rule would not impact the rule 
unless EPA reconsidered its proposed rule.
    On October 27, 1999, EPA agreed to extend the public 
comment period for two additional months, hold three small 
business stakeholder meetings in Los Angeles, Chicago and 
Washington, and reconsider its impact certification and 
proposed rule if the additional information and testimonies 
indicated this was warranted. As a result of these concessions, 
the Senator postponed the hearing indefinitely pending further 
Agency action on the proposed rule.
    On October 28, 1999, Chairman Bond requested GAO conduct an 
investigation into the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides 
and Toxic Substances which was responsible for developing the 
Lead TRI rule to examine its historic treatment of its SBREFA 
responsibilities. EPA expects to have alternative options to 
the Lead TRI rule by May 2000.
    GAO concluded in its report (number GAO/GGD-00-193) that 
EPA's economic analysis was flawed, although still sufficient 
for EPA to rely upon it in certifying the regulation would not 
have a ``sufficient economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.'' GAO determined that the regulation could have 
1 percent gross revenues impact upon as many as 1,500 small 
companies, and as many as 78 companies, in 32 manufacturing SIC 
codes, could experience 3 percent gross revenue impacts from 
the rule. EPA's internal threshold for triggering SBREFA 
requirements is for a gross revenue impact of between 1 and 3 
percent. EPA agreed that the rule will have a higher impact 
than originally projected, and high enough to otherwise trigger 
SBREFA requirements, but EPA has declined to conduct an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or convene a small business 
review panel.
    In the interim, serious questions were raised about the 
science supporting EPA's rule suggesting that lead does not 
meet the definition of a persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) 
chemical, which was the underlying reason for reducing the 
reporting threshold of lead so dramatically. These science 
questions have been raised by industry concerns who have 
suggested EPA refer the issue to the Science Advisory Board for 
an opinion. Notwithstanding these issues, on January 17, 2000, 
EPA published a final rule for reducing the reporting of lead 
under the TRI program. The threshold was reduced to 100 pounds 
and the issue of whether lead is a ``highly bioaccumulative'' 
toxic was referred to the Science Advisory Board for further 
review. SBA's Office of Advocacy played a significant role in 
negotiating this outcome.

6. FCC treatment of small incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) 
        under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Chairman Bond, joined by Senators Brownback and Kerry, sent 
a letter on November 16, 1999 to Federal Communications 
Commission Chairman William Kennard, raising concerns that the 
Commission was not using an appropriate definition of a small 
business, and consequently was ignoring its obligation to 
conduct Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses before 
regulations affecting ILECs were proposed.
    Chairman Kennard responded on January 12, 2000 that before 
issuing any proposed regulation, which requires a departure 
from the size standards specified by the SBA, they work closely 
with the SBA Office of Size Standards to come up with an 
appropriate definition. Chairman Kennard also claimed that 
since 1996 the Commission ``has consistently addressed the 
impact of its rules on small ILECs in its RFA analyses.''

7. FCC treatment of small businesses in spread spectrum regulation

    On August 8, 2000, Chairman Bond and Senator Kerry sent a 
letter to FCC Chairman Kennard criticizing the Commission for 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act used in the FCC's 
rulemaking to permit wide band frequency-hopping spread 
spectrum systems in the 2.4 GHz band. The letter criticized the 
FCC's IRFA for failing to state the purpose of the rulemaking, 
failing to identify an alternative approach that would minimize 
the impact on small businesses, and failing to discuss the 
nature and extent of the reporting requirements and 
professional skill necessary to satisfy them. The FCC also 
failed to examine the impact of the rule on the purchasers and 
users of this equipment. By offering such an inadequate IRFA, 
the FCC failed to give interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on the impact the rule will have on small businesses. 
Therefore, Senators Bond and Kerry requested that the FCC not 
finalize the rule until a proper IRFA was done and comments 
were taken on it. These positions and requests were consistent 
with comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of SBA, 
and were also supported by the House Small Business Committee.
    Chairman Kennard responded in a letter on August 25, 2000. 
The FCC's position was that the notice adequately described the 
purpose of the rulemaking even if the IRFA did not; alternative 
approaches were not necessary because this rulemaking would be 
beneficial to small businesses; and similarly, the rulemaking 
would not alter any recordkeeping requirements. The FCC noted 
that it had received over 200 comments on the rulemaking, 
including comments from small businesses enthusiastically 
supporting the rule change. Nevertheless, the FCC amended its 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to address the concerns 
raised by the Small Business Committees and the Office of 
Advocacy. In addition, Commissioners Susan Ness and Harold 
Furchtgott-Roth noted in their concurring opinion that the 
``Commission's IRFA in this proceeding was unquestionably 
terse.'' They recognized that the Commission should pay closer 
attention to the small business impacts of their decisions: 
``We believe the Commission should recommit itself to a close 
examination of the issues raised by the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. We have a statutory obligation to do so and the small 
business community deserves nothing less.''

8. Small Business Committee hearing on the U.S. Forest Service's 
        treatment of small businesses

    On October 4, 2000, the Senate Small Business Committee 
held a hearing to examine the U.S. Forest Service's approach to 
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA). The hearing was chaired by Senator Mike Enzi, who 
stressed that a growing pattern of Forest Service actions are 
shutting out small businesses from public lands and 
contributing to the destruction of rural communities. Senators 
Mike Crapo and Conrad Burns echoed the concern that the Forest 
Service has ignored the impact of its regulations and not 
followed the mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The hearing featured four panels: the first panel consisted 
of Senators Craig Thomas and Larry Craig; the second panel was 
composed of representatives from industries that are directly 
affected by U.S. Forest Service actions: logging, timber mills, 
ranching, and outdoor guiding; the third panel featured two 
professors who have studied the impact of Forest Service 
actions on these industries; and the final panel consisted of 
James Furnish, Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service.
    Senator Thomas noted that public lands were designed for 
both economic and recreational use, and these two interests 
should not be pitted against each other when they can coexist. 
He emphasized that local residents have been given no recourse 
to the mandates from Washington. In particular, the Forest 
Service's Roadless Initiative was designed from the top down, 
contrary to all previous Forest Service policies and has 
resulted in a proposal that would be devastating to the local 
interests. Senator Larry Craig offered two conclusions from his 
experience of chairing the Forests and Public Land Management 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
First, the Forest Service is the single most important agency 
affecting small business interests in the western states, 
determining the future of small businesses in many cases. 
Second, there is not an agency in the Federal government that 
is less sensitive to the needs of small businesses.
    The second panel consisted of four small business owners 
who have been adversely affected by Forest Service policies. 
Jim Hurst, President, Owens & Hurst Lumber Co., Inc., testified 
that big environmental groups and the large timber companies 
work together to influence the Federal government to lower 
timber harvest limits, which has severe implications for small 
timber operators. Since the large lumber companies harvest most 
of their timber on their own lands, they remain largely 
unaffected by decisions of the Forest Service. Joel Bousman, 
Cattle Rancher and Regional Vice President, Wyoming 
Stockgrowers' Association, explained that if he loses his 
Forest Service grazing permit, he would probably have to sell 
his business, most likely to some type of developer, which 
would sacrifice the wild and unspoiled nature of the land that 
the Forest Service intends to preserve through its restrictions 
on grazing permits. Del Tinsley, Owner/Publisher, Wyoming 
Livestock Roundup, and Advisory Board Member, University of 
Wyoming College of Agriculture stressed the need for an 
economic impact study, as opposed to an environmental impact 
study, to be conducted for each new rule and regulation that 
the Forest Service proposes. He asserted that the ``unintended 
consequences'' of these rules and regulations could be greatly 
reduced, and rural communities would not be destroyed. The 
final witness on the panel, Al Bukowsky, Owner/Operator, 
Solitude River Trips, described the adverse impact of the 
Forest Service's manipulation of the permit process. He 
stressed that outfitters depend on camping permits in order to 
provide their recreational services. With Forest Service 
rangers closing down campsites and suspending river usage on as 
little as 12 hours notice, outfitting businesses are in serious 
jeopardy.
    The third panel consisted of two academic experts on the 
effects of Forest Service rules and regulations on small 
businesses. Larry W. Van Tassel, Professor and Head of the 
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, 
University of Idaho, discussed a study he conducted that 
demonstrated that reducing Forest Service grazing permits for 
ranches leads to greater economic instability, lower profits, 
and job losses. The study also concluded that reduced grazing 
permits can increase the potential for the sale of the property 
to developers with ensuing loss of habitat for wildlife and 
other losses associated with converting natural land to 
developed land. William McKillop, Professor Emeritus, College 
of Natural Resources, University of California at Berkeley, 
discussed statistics demonstrating the decline of the timber 
industry in the West. He noted that this data shows that the 
decline disproportionately affects the small sawmills. The 
decline has also had a ripple effect, taking many other 
industries down with it.
    The final panel consisted of James Furnish, Deputy Chief, 
U.S. Forest Service, who testified that the Forest Service 
regulations do not negatively affect small businesses. He 
asserted that the Forest Service takes pride in working with 
SBA's Office of Advocacy to examine the effects of the agency's 
regulations on small businesses. He also advanced that when 
local communities face hardship, the Forest Service is 
committed to helping them strengthen and diversify their 
economies through the wise, and more complete use of forest 
resources. Due to an objection to the Committee's request to 
meet beyond the Senate's two-hour limitation, the Committee was 
forced to adjourn the hearing without a full period of 
questioning for Mr. Furnish. Senator Enzi noted that the 
Committee would submit written questions to the Forest Service 
and asked that the agency's responses be included in the 
hearing's written record.
    On January 12, 2001, the U.S. Forest Service published its 
final rule on Roadless Area Conservation which will establish 
prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and 
timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas on National 
Forest System lands. The Forest Service's new regulations would 
impact just over 58 million acres of forest land and could 
threaten countless jobs, particularly in Western states.
    Chairman Bond issued a press release describing the impact 
of the regulation on small businesses. Without logging 
companies taking out dead wood, fuel will accumulate, leading 
to another round of devastating forest fires. Additionally, the 
restriction on roads and the access they provide to forest 
lands is expected to curtail use of the forests by river and 
tour guides, which play critical roles in helping people 
appreciate the natural wilderness as well as logging that 
sustains many independent small businesses. Ranchers, who 
depend on forest land to provide their herds alternate acreage 
for grazing, fear the new restrictions on roads ultimately will 
make it impossible to get permits for such grazing in the 
future. In that event, they say their private lands could not 
sustain year-round grazing for cattle and would likely force 
the sale of their property for other uses such as residential 
development.
    When the regulation was proposed in May 2000, the Forest 
Service admitted that it would have a negative impact on a wide 
range of small businesses. At that time, the rule did not 
include the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, one of the 
largest national forests in the country. However, the Forest 
Service later decided to include the Tongass forest in the 
final rule, thereby increasing the number of small businesses 
that will be harmed by this regulation. The change could cost 
up to 400 jobs dependent on the Tongass and cut timber harvests 
there by 95 percent, according to Forest Service studies.

     D. Federal Acquisition Regulation on Contractor Responsibility

    On July 9, 1999, the Department of Defense, General 
Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration published a proposed rule that would amend the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to clarify coverage and 
give examples of suitable contractor responsibility 
considerations. In determining whether the contractor had a 
``satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics,'' 
contracting officers would be allowed to take into account 
examples such as ``persuasive evidence of the prospective 
contractor's lack of compliance with tax laws, or substantial 
noncompliance with labor laws, antitrust laws or consumer 
protection laws. . . .'' They would also be allowed to consider 
whether a contractor has ``necessary workplace practices 
addressing matters such as training, worker retention, and 
legal compliance to assure a skilled, stable and productive 
workplace.''
    In response to many complaints from small businesses that 
would be affected, Chairman Bond submitted comments to the FAR 
Secretariat on November 12, 1999, opposing the proposed 
changes. The comments criticized the proposal for violating 
contractors' due process by allowing contractors to be debarred 
based on mere ``persuasive evidence.'' This standard is not a 
legally recognized level of evidence and would give a 
contracting officer unbridled discretion. In addition, the FAR 
Secretariat wrongly claimed that the proposal would have no 
impact on small businesses and thus did not conduct an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as required by the RFA. 
Chairman Bond described the proposal as ``not salvageable'' and 
requested that it be withdrawn.
    The Contractor Responsibility rule was re-proposed on June 
30, 2000, with minor changes made to the original proposal. 
Under the second proposal, contracting officers would be 
required to follow a hierarchy in considering offenses and 
other evidence relevant to determining whether a contractor has 
a ``satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.'' 
While contracting officers are to give ``greatest weight'' to 
decisions within the past three years, they would still be 
allowed to consider ``all relevant credible information.'' The 
re-proposal also contained an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) in response to comments received on the first 
proposal, including those from Chairman Bond, who criticized 
the FAR Council for not conducting one.
    Chairman Bond submitted comments on August 29, 2000, 
criticizing this second proposal as still being unfair to small 
contractors and calling for its withdrawal. He also pointed out 
how the IRFA was incorrectly conducted. In the IRFA, the FAR 
Council concluded that the regulation would not have ``a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' This is the threshold for whether an IRFA should be 
conducted, and not a valid conclusion for the IRFA to reach. 
The FAR Council indicated that the regulation would affect 
approximately 171,000 small entities, but did not indicate what 
SIC codes these would be in, how this number was derived, or 
what the level of impact would be. Chairman Bond also 
reiterated his earlier criticism that this rule would deny 
contractors' their due process by imposing a penalty before a 
contractor had exhausted its legal options. Because small 
businesses often have less resources to pursue legal resolution 
of citations, this regulation will result in more small 
businesses being penalized for citations than large businesses 
who can contest them fully.
    On September 28, 2000, Chairman Bond joined with 29 other 
Republican Senators on a letter to Majority Leader Lott, urging 
him to include S. 2986, the Just Opportunities in Bidding Act, 
as an amendment to any appropriate conference report or 
legislative vehicle. S. 2986 would have stopped the Contractor 
Responsibility regulation from being finalized until the 
General Accounting Office has reviewed the proposal and 
reported to Congress on its necessity. S. 2986 was a companion 
to an amendment to the Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill 
passed in the House. The amendment was later dropped in 
conference, and S. 2986 was never attached to a conference 
report or enacted.
    On September 29, 2000, Chairman Bond sent a letter to the 
President urging him to withdraw the proposal on the basis that 
two agencies including one which helps comprise the FAR Council 
had submitted comments criticizing the proposal and arguing 
against it being implemented. The General Services 
Administration and the Environmental Protection Administration 
had both commented that the rule would be too cumbersome and 
that current regulations were adequate to protect the 
government's interests.
    On December 20, 2000, the FAR Council published the final 
rule which reflected the changes made in the second proposal. 
The final rule requires contracting officers to ``consider all 
relevant credible information'' but ``give greatest weight to 
violations of laws that have been adjudicated within the last 
three years preceding the offer'' and establishes a hierarchy 
under which to consider violations and adjudications. The final 
rule also requires contracting officers to coordinate 
nonresponsibility determinations with legal counsel. Finally, 
the certification requirement for contractors to indicate 
whether they have been convicted within the previous three 
years of a felony or had a civil judgment against them was 
simplified to reduce the paperwork burden.

    E. Family and Medical Leave Act/Unemployment Insurance Proposed 
            Regulation to Provide Paid Leave for New Parents

    On December 3, 1999, the Department of Labor's Employment 
and Training Administration published a proposed rule which 
would allow states to enact laws to provide paid leave for 
parents of new born children or children placed for adoption by 
allowing these parents to be eligible for state Unemployment 
Insurance (UI) funds.
    The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) explicitly allows 
employers to meet the leave requirements of the FMLA with 
unpaid leave. The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) requires 
states to determine what requirements an employee must satisfy 
to qualify for benefits. Typically, states have imposed 
requirements of being able and available for work. The proposed 
rule would allow an exception to this requirement so that new 
parents could qualify for UI benefits.
    Chairman Bond submitted comments on February 2, 2000, 
criticizing the proposed rule as being against Congressional 
intent in the FMLA and the FUTA. The Department also 
misconstrued the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
and therefore wrongly certified that no small businesses would 
be affected and did not conduct an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis. Finally, if implemented and pursued by 
the different states, this approach would put the financial 
stability of the UI funds in jeopardy, possibly causing them to 
be unavailable for the truly unemployed who were intended to be 
protected under FUTA. Chairman Bond called for the withdrawal 
of the proposal.
    On June 13, 2000, the Department of Labor issued the final 
rule allowing states to provide paid leave to new parents 
through their unemployment benefits programs. The Department 
ignored all critical comments and issued the rule without 
significant changes. The Department continued to describe the 
rule as an ``experiment'' but without a definable end point or 
an analytical framework to evaluate the results. Finally, the 
Department continued to maintain that the rule does not trigger 
the ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities'' trigger of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
because it will only apply to states. The Office of Management 
and Budget determined that the regulation qualifies as a 
``major rule'' for purposes of the Congressional Review Act 
because it will have an impact of $100 million or more on the 
economy.

F. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Administration, Survey of Poultry 
                                Industry

    On October 29, 1999, Chairman Bond joined with Senators 
Hutchinson, Lott, Cochran, Lincoln, Helms, Shelby, Sessions, 
McConnell, Bunning, Roth, Biden, Coverdell, Cleland, Gramm, 
Hutchison, Warner, Inhofe, Grams, Robb, and Hollings on a 
letter to the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour 
Administration objecting to an upcoming survey of the poultry 
industry to determine compliance with overtime regulations. The 
letter pointed out that the issues of the survey were in 
litigation and, therefore, a survey would not generate any 
useful information.

                     IV. Small Business Tax Issues


    A. Deductibility of Health-Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed

    Continuing his commitment to immediate full deductibility 
of health insurance for the self-employed, Chairman Bond 
introduced the Self-Employed Health Insurance Fairness Act of 
1999 (S. 343) on February 3, 1999. In his floor statement and 
the Dear Colleague letter that accompanied the bill's 
introduction, the Chairman noted that significant progress had 
been made in the prior two Congresses, but the self-employed 
are still not on a level playing field with their large 
corporate competitors who can deduct 100% of their health-
insurance costs.
    Under the bill, the self-employed health-insurance 
deduction would increase from the current level of 60% to 100% 
beginning in 1999. This change represents an acceleration of 
four years over current law, which provides full deductibility 
starting in 2003.
    The bill would also correct a disparity under current law 
that bars a self-employed individual from deducting any of his 
or her health-insurance costs if the individual is eligible to 
participate in another subsidized health-insurance plan. This 
provision affects self-employed individuals who are eligible 
for, but do not participate in, a health-insurance plan offered 
through a second job or through a spouse's employer. That 
insurance plan may not be adequate for the self-employed 
business owner, and this provision prevents the self-employed 
from deducting the costs of insurance policies that do meet the 
specific needs of their families. In addition, this rule 
provides a significant disincentive for self-employed business 
owners to provide group health insurance for their employees. 
The bill would end this disparity by clarifying that a self-
employed person loses the deduction only if he or she actually 
participates in another health-insurance plan.
    By the end of the 106th Congress, the bill garnered 31 co-
sponsors. In addition, Chairman Bond received strong support 
from the small business community and the major small business 
advocacy groups for championing the self-employed health-
insurance issue in S. 343. The Chairman spoke on the need for 
immediate full deductibility at several events including a 
forum on small business health-care issues, which the Senate 
Small Business Committee and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
hosted on May 27, 1999, as part of Small Business Week.
    During the Senate Budget Committee's consideration of the 
FY2000 budget resolution, Chairman Bond prevailed in having the 
Committee report address the self-employed health-insurance 
issue. Specifically, the committee report to the budget 
resolution states that tax relief to be provided through 
revenue reconciliation should include an acceleration of the 
deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed.
    In a May 7, 1999, letter to Finance Committee Chairman 
William Roth, Chairman Bond urged the Finance Committee to 
address the issues when it considered tax provisions relating 
to managed-care legislation. When the Patient's Bill of Rights 
(S. 1344) was ultimately considered by the full Senate in July 
1999, Chairman Bond joined with Senators Santorum and Nickles 
in an amendment that provided for full deductibility beginning 
in 1999 and also that corrected the ``other coverage'' issue 
addressed in S. 343. The amendment (number 1234) was agreed to 
by a vote of 53 to 47. The Senate later approved S. 1344 by a 
vote of 53 to 47. Unfortunately, the conference on the managed-
care bill was not completed before the 106th Congress 
adjourned.
    Later in July 1999, Chairman Roth included 100% 
deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed in the 
Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 (S. 1429). During the floor debate 
on the bill, Chairman Bond filed an amendment to include the 
``other coverage'' provision from his S. 343. This amendment 
was accepted by unanimous consent. Full deductibility beginning 
in 2000 and the ``other coverage'' provision were both included 
in the final conference report to the Taxpayer Refund and 
Relief Act of 1999 (H.R. 2488), which the Senate approved on 
August 6, 1999, by a vote of 50 to 49. Regrettably, that bill 
was vetoed by President Clinton on September 23, 1999.
    In November 1999, full deductibility was included in the 
package of small business tax relief to offset the negative 
effects for small firms of the three-year increase in the 
minimum wage. The provision would have provided 100% 
deductibility beginning in 2000. Although the minimum-wage 
increase and small business tax package were adopted by the 
Senate as an amendment to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999 (S. 
625), the underlying legislation was not adopted by the Senate 
until February 2000. Due to procedural hurdles, the minimum-
wage and small business tax provisions of S. 625 were not 
reconciled with the corresponding House legislation. As a 
result, a stand-alone minimum-wage package with small business 
tax offsets was not sent to the White House during the 106th 
Congress.
    During the Second Session of the 106th Congress, full 
deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed 
continued to be a top priority for Chairman Bond and the small 
business community. Chairman Bond led the effort to add 
immediate full deductibility to the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief 
Reconciliation Act (H.R. 4810). His perfecting amendment 
(number 3851) to H.R. 4810 was adopted by voice vote on July 
17, 2000, and called for full deductibility of health insurance 
for the self-employed beginning in 2000. Regrettably, all 
amendments to H.R. 4810 were stripped from the bill just prior 
to passage in order to send a clean marriage-penalty bill to 
the White House, which the President later vetoed.
    As the Second Session neared its close, Chairman Bond wrote 
to Senate Majority Leader Lott urging him to include full 
deductibility in any legislation that the Senate considered 
concerning the minimum wage. While recognizing that tax and 
regulatory relief were unlikely to offset the damage that an 
increase in the minimum wage would cause for small businesses, 
the Chairman's September 27, 2000, letter emphasized that such 
an increase should not even be considered unless a solid 
package of tax relief, including 100% deductibility, was 
included.
    As a result of the Chairman's insistence, the conference 
report to H.R. 2614 included a tax-relief package that would 
have provided 100% deductibility for the self-employed 
beginning in 2001. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to vote 
on that legislation prior to adjournment.

                    B. Independent Contractor Reform

    On February 2, 1999, Chairman Bond introduced the 
Independent Contractor Simplification and Relief Act of 1999 
(S. 344). The bill was modeled on the Chairman's legislation in 
the 105th Congress (S. 460 & S. 473), which provided clear 
rules based on objective criteria for classifying a worker as 
an independent contractor; a bar against retroactive 
reclassifications by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and 
the repeal of section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which 
effectively bars an entire group of independent contractors 
from the protection available in section 530 of the Revenue Act 
of 1978.
    In response to feedback from small business groups and some 
labor organizations, Chairman Bond included an anti-abuse rule 
in the new version of this legislation. This provision was 
designed to prevent employers from inappropriately using the 
classification rules in the bill to force workers, who should 
be treated as employees, into being independent contractors. 
The addition of this protection was welcomed by the small 
business groups.
    Prior to introducing the bill, Chairman Bond circulated a 
Dear Colleague letter on January 14, 1999, urging all Senators 
to support his independent-contractor legislation. By the end 
of the 106th Congress, S. 344 had 13 co-sponsors.
    In the Spring of 1999, Representatives Kleczka (D-WI) and 
Houghton (R-NY), introduced H.R. 1525, which embodied the labor 
unions' proposed solution to the independent-contractor issue. 
The ``Independent Contractor Clarification Act of 1999'' would 
establish a presumption under the Internal Revenue Code that a 
worker is an employee. To rebut the presumption, the bill 
essentially codifies the IRS' long-standing 20-factor test, 
which is based on highly subjective criteria and provides no 
certainty for businesses. The bill would also repeal section 
530, which has provided critical, albeit limited, relief for 
many businesses since it was enacted in 1978. Lastly, and 
possibly most significantly, the bill would repeal the 1978 ban 
on the Treasury Department's ability to issue regulations and 
other guidance on this issue. This change would open the door 
for the Treasury Department to define once again all the rules 
governing independent contractors, despite the fact that the 
abusiveness of the Treasury Department's original rules led to 
the ban in the first place.
    Following the introduction of H.R. 1525, a coalition of 
small business groups mounted a concerted effort to educate the 
Congress on the significant negative implications of the bill 
for small businesses. On May 25, 1999, Representative Houghton, 
Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, held 
a hearing on the impact of complexity in the tax code on 
individuals and small businesses, during which several small 
business and tax professional organizations submitted testimony 
in opposition to H.R. 1525. Chairman Bond also submitted a 
detailed written statement for the record, which emphasized the 
need to address the pressing issue of worker classification, 
outlined his proposal as embodied in S. 344, and described the 
adverse effects that H.R. 1525 would have on small businesses 
across the country.
    By the close of the 106th Congress, no action had been 
taken on the Chairman's legislation or any other bill 
concerning the classification of independent contractors.

                C. Tax Simplification and Filing Burdens

1. Hearing on small business paperwork and compliance burdens

    On July 20, 1998, Chairman Bond requested that the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) identify the filing and reporting 
requirements that place significant burdens on small 
businesses. In his letter to the GAO, the Chairman asked the 
GAO to comment on ways that these burdens could be reduced or 
eliminated without compromising overall compliance with the tax 
code. As a result of the GAO's initial findings, the Committee 
held a hearing on April 12, 1999, to examine the paperwork and 
compliance burdens that the current tax system imposes on small 
businesses and the self-employed.
    At the hearing, the Committee heard from two small business 
witnesses. The first, Brian Gloe, Co-CEO of Rosse Lithographing 
Company in Kansas City, Missouri, testified that his company 
makes a minimum of 186 filings with the IRS each year. He also 
emphasized that the cost of tax recordkeeping and reporting are 
approximately $72,000 a year, which accounts for more than 16% 
of the company's net income. The Committee also heard from 
Roger Harris, President of Padgett Business Services, who 
documented the burden of hiring a single employee, which can 
entail as many as 31 Federal forms and 25 forms in a state like 
Georgia. He also testified about the overall compliance burdens 
that small business owners must master including depreciation 
rules, alternative-minimum taxation, estimated taxes, as well 
as the added burdens that occur if the business is selected by 
the IRS for an audit.
    The GAO presented the results of its work on the first 
phase of the Chairman's July 1998 request. The GAO testimony 
revealed that a small business owner faces more than 200 IRS 
forms and schedules that could apply in a given year. These 
forms contain more than 8,000 lines, boxes, and data 
requirements, and are accompanied by more than 700 pages of 
instructions, which does not include the tax code, regulations, 
rulings, and countless other guidance that the IRS issues. The 
Committee also learned that 76% of small business owners hired 
a tax professional to file their tax returns in 1995 (the most 
recent IRS data available), and that more than 350,000 small 
businesses were audited in 1995--nearly twice the rate of non-
business taxpayers. Even more troubling, the GAO reported that 
more than 37% of small business audits resulted in no 
additional taxes or penalties.
    The final witness at the hearing was IRS Commissioner 
Charles Rossotti, who reviewed the agency's modernization 
plans, which will include a division dedicated to small 
businesses and the self-employed. He also described a number of 
initiatives the IRS is undertaking to improve the current 
system. Mr. Rossotti emphasized to the Committee that the long-
term goal of the IRS is to organize the whole IRS into 
operating units that have specific responsibility for serving 
different groups of taxpayers, including small business, in 
order to provide top quality customer service.

2. IRS paperwork unpopularity poll

    During the question and answer period at the Committee's 
April 12th hearing, Chairman Bond raised with Commissioner 
Rossotti the issue of subjecting all the IRS' forms, 
publications, and letters to a common-sense review in an effort 
to provide more user-friendly communications for taxpayers. The 
Commissioner agreed that such an endeavor would be useful, and 
he committed to redrafting the worst offending documents if the 
Committee could help identify them.
    As a result, on May 26, 1999, the Chairman unveiled the 
``IRS Paperwork Unpopularity Poll'' on the Committee's webpage. 
In his letter to the Commissioner announcing the poll, the 
Chairman noted that the poll was designed to collect 
information about the IRS forms, schedules, instructions, 
publications, letters, and notices most in need of common-sense 
review and revision. He also stressed that ``There is much that 
the IRS and Congress need to do if we are to reduce the tax 
filing and recordkeeping burdens that small businesses 
encounter every day. This common-sense review of IRS forms and 
other documents is a first step, and one that could have far-
reaching benefits for small-business owners across the 
nation.''
    The Chairman's intention was to make the poll available for 
one year to capture an entire filing season. The Committee 
received considerable assistance from the small business 
advocacy groups in alerting their members that the poll was 
available.
    During the Committee's May 23, 2000, hearing on the IRS' 
new SB/SE Division, the Chairman delivered the results of the 
poll to IRS Commissioner Rossotti. The Chairman noted that as 
of May 15, 2000, the Committee received 516 votes for the 
forms, schedules, instructions, publications, letters, and 
notices most in need of common-sense review and revision by the 
IRS. Out of those votes, the five most often cited IRS forms 
and related schedules are:
          1. Form 1040--U.S. Individual Income Tax Return;
          2. Form 941--Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return;
          3. Form 4562--Depreciation and Amortization;
          4. Form 940--Employer's Annual Federal Unemployment 
        (FUTA) Tax Return;
          5. Form 1065--U.S. Partnership Return of Income.
    Chairman Bond presented IRS Commissioner Rossotti with a 
complete compilation of the comments and recommendations that 
the Committee received from the poll's participants concerning 
the forms, publications, letters, and notices. He applauded the 
Commissioner's willingness to examine these forms and documents 
as a testament to the IRS' overall efforts to provide greater 
service to America's taxpayers and as evidence of the IRS' 
commitment to reducing the tax filing and recordkeeping burdens 
that small businesses and the self-employed encounter every 
day.

3. IRS burden estimation model

    The second phase of the Chairman's July 1998 GAO evaluation 
of small business tax burdens involved the IRS' efforts to 
create a new model for estimating the compliance burdens facing 
small business. During 1999, the agency began work on a basic 
model for assessing the burdens imposed on taxpayers with wage 
and investment income only. The GAO reviewed the planning 
documents and the survey designed by the IRS during the Fall of 
1999 and briefed Committee staff on the agency's progress. The 
IRS is expected to use the new model and the survey results as 
the basis for a second model designed to assess the compliance 
burdens faced by small businesses and the self-employed.
    During the Committee's May 23, 2000, hearing, the GAO 
reported on the Chairman's request for an evaluation of the 
IRS' efforts to develop the new burden-estimation model. The 
GAO reported that the IRS has made progress on developing the 
model and was in the process of collecting survey data on which 
the model will operate. The data-collection survey was 
completed during the Spring of 2000, and the burden-estimation 
model is expected to be completed in the Spring of 2001. The 
Committee will continue to monitor the IRS' progress on 
developing the initial model and the subsequent efforts to 
expand it to cover small business taxpayers.

4. Increase in employment tax threshold

    In late November 2000, the Internal Revenue Service 
announced an increase in the threshold for payments of 
employment taxes from the current $1,000 to $2,500 beginning on 
January 1, 2001. The change will reduce the compliance burdens 
for nearly one million small businesses by allowing qualifying 
small businesses to make employment tax payments on a quarterly 
basis, instead of the current monthly schedule.
    According to the IRS, the increased threshold will diminish 
the potential for small businesses to make costly errors by 
reducing the number of payments they must file. As a result, 
the IRS will be able to send fewer notices to small businesses 
concerning errors and omissions of employment-tax payments. In 
addition, streamlining the payments will ease the cash-flow 
burdens for many small businesses.
    On November 27, 2000, Chairman Bond issued a statement, 
which accompanied the IRS' news release, applauding the 
increased threshold. The Chairman noted that ``This seemingly 
simple change will have far reaching effects on thousands of 
small businesses by reducing the compliance burdens when it 
comes to employment taxes. Anytime we can eliminate the need 
for a few more IRS forms means we can free up more time for 
small business owners to do what they do best--run successful 
businesses.''
    Chairman Bond also emphasized that the IRS' announcement 
was particularly timely for women-owned businesses. At the 
National Women's Small Business Summit, which was held on June 
4-5 in Kansas City, Missouri, the participants placed a high 
priority on changes to the payroll-tax system. The change also 
responded to the results of the Committee's IRS Paperwork 
Unpopularity Poll, which indicated that employment taxes are a 
significant burden for small businesses. The Chairman concluded 
his statement by noting that the new threshold ``is a clear 
signal that the IRS' new SB/SE Division is listening to the 
taxpayers it serves and is helping us make meaningful changes 
to the tax system.''

                 D. Internal Revenue Service Oversight

1. Electronic Federal Tax Payment System

    Continuing his long-standing fight to provide a small 
business exemption from the Electronic Federal Tax Payment 
System (EFTPS), which requires businesses to deposit their 
taxes electronically, Chairman Bond met with IRS Commissioner 
Rossotti on March 19, 1999, to discuss the impact of EFTPS on 
small enterprises. At that meeting, the Commissioner announced 
that the agency would implement the Chairman's request for an 
increase in the participation threshold for EFTPS from the 
current $50,000 in payroll taxes to $200,000 beginning in 2000. 
The Commissioner also assured the Chairman that the IRS would 
continue to waive penalties in order to provide relief for 
those small enterprises that have had difficulties converting 
to the electronic-payment system but continue to pay their 
taxes in a timely manner using the coupon system. In a March 
22, 1999, letter, the Chairman applauded the IRS' action, which 
will make EFTPS an optional payment system for the vast 
majority of small businesses across the nation.

2. Third-party notices

    A provision of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring 
and Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-206) added new section 
7602(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, which calls on the IRS to 
notify a taxpayer when the agency determines that third parties 
must be contacted as part of an examination or collection. In 
February 1999, Chairman Bond learned that the IRS was 
implementing this new provision in a manner contrary to its 
congressional purpose of providing taxpayers with an 
opportunity to provide information requested before the IRS 
turns to any third party. In addition, once the IRS determines 
that such information can only be obtained from third parties, 
the taxpayer has a right under the new provision to reasonable 
notice concerning the third parties that the IRS needs to 
contact and to receive such notice before the inquiries are 
made. The goal of the new provision was to minimize the damage 
to taxpayers' personal reputations and business relationships 
when the IRS needs to obtain information from third parties.
    In a February 25, 1999, letter to IRS Commissioner 
Rossotti, the Chairman expressed his concern that the agency 
was sending blanket notices to all taxpayers during an audit 
that warned ``the Internal Revenue Service may need to contact 
third parties * * * including neighbors, employers, employees, 
and banks. We may use these contacts to help us determine your 
correct tax liability, identify your assets, or locate your 
current address.'' The Chairman stressed that the IRS' notices 
were incorrectly implementing the new taxpayer protection and 
were causing unnecessary alarm as well as raising concerns 
about privacy and the confidentiality of taxpayer information. 
He called on the Commissioner to suspend the blanket notices 
and implement the new taxpayer protection as Congress intended.
    Shortly after receiving the letter, Commissioner Rossotti 
telephoned the Chairman and assured him that steps would be 
taken to address the third-party notice situation. 
Conversations between Committee staff and representatives of 
the Commissioner's office and IRS Chief Counsel also occurred. 
On March 2, 1999, the Commissioner issued a written statement 
acknowledging that the blanket notices were a mistake and 
committing to revise the contents of the notice to be more 
consistent with taxpayer rights. The Commissioner's office 
indicated that the review process would take approximately a 
month to complete and that the review process would include 
circulating rewritten draft notices among representatives of 
the tax practitioner and small business communities.
    Following reports that the IRS was continuing to issue the 
blanket notices, the Chairman wrote to Commissioner Rossotti on 
March 10, 1999, to express his concern that taxpayers under 
examination were continuing to receive these alarming notices, 
even while they are being rewritten. The Chairman also stressed 
that merely rewriting the notices would not solve the problem 
and that the IRS should adjust its procedures so that third-
party notices are issued to taxpayers only in those exceptional 
cases in which the IRS cannot first obtain all the necessary 
information directly from the taxpayer. ``Then, and only then, 
the notice is to provide sufficient information about whom the 
IRS needs to contact for the taxpayer to mitigate the damage to 
personal and business relationships, which results too often 
when an IRS agent starts asking questions of a taxpayer's 
friends, employer, bank, or other third parties,'' the Chairman 
wrote.
    On March 19, 1999, Chairman Bond met with Commissioner 
Rossotti to discuss the third-party notice issue. At that 
meeting, the Commissioner outlined the myriad situations in 
which third-party notification was now required and the steps 
he was taking to address the situation. He also indicated that 
revising the notices had become a much larger project than he 
had originally anticipated. The Commissioner assured the 
Chairman, however, that the review was a top priority and would 
include input from the tax practitioner and small business 
community. Chairman Bond followed up the conversation on March 
23, 1999, with a letter thanking him for the briefing and 
acknowledging that the Commissioner's ``directive to Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) personnel ordering that the notices only 
be sent to a taxpayer when outside contacts are required is a 
critical step in resolving concerns about the notices and 
implementing this new taxpayer right as Congress intended.''
    At the Committee's April 12, 1999, hearing on small 
business tax filing and reporting burdens, the Commissioner 
testified about the agency's efforts to revise the notices and 
again assured the Committee that they would be forthcoming 
shortly. Following the hearing, staff obtained copies of the 
draft notices. After review, the Chairman wrote the 
Commissioner on April 19, 1999, to express his concern that the 
new draft notices still did not implement the taxpayer 
protection under section 7601(c) as envisioned by Congress. The 
Chairman also offered a number of specific suggestions for 
revising the notices.
    Throughout the summer of 1999, Committee staff continued a 
dialogue with IRS personnel about the notice revision project. 
In September 1999, representatives of the Commissioner's office 
and IRS Chief Counsel briefed Committee staff on the near final 
rewritten notices. While every issue identified in the 
Chairman's previous letters was not completely resolved, the 
new notices reflected a more balanced approach designed to 
protect taxpayers when third-party contracts are required and 
also address several unanticipated confidentiality and 
retribution issues that IRS personnel had identified through 
their review efforts.
    On February 15, 2000, the Committee learned through an IRS 
press release that the agency had completed the revised 
notices. The following day, Chairman Bond wrote to IRS 
Commissioner Rossotti, noting the progress that the IRS had 
made to draft notices that are more clearly written with less 
potential for unnecessarily alarming the taxpayers who receive 
them. The Chairman expressed his concern, however, that the 
notices still do not clearly state whom the IRS intends to 
contact, and only a few letters indicate the type of 
information the agency expects to receive from the third 
parties. In addition, the Chairman emphasized that the notices 
should only be sent when third-party contacts are determined to 
be absolutely necessary, and they should clearly indicate who 
will be contacted and what information is needed. The IRS began 
using the new revised notices in February 2000.
    On December 29, 2000, the Treasury Department issued 
proposed regulations concerning third-party contacts. The 
proposed regulations addressed many of the Chairman's concerns, 
and requested comments from the business community on issues 
such as contacts with employees, contacts that may indirectly 
affect the liabilities of more than one taxpayer, requests for 
a record of persons contacted, the reprisal exception to the 
third-party contact rules, and contacts with other government 
agencies.

3. Clinton nominees to IRS Oversight Board

    The 1998 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act established an 
oversight board for the IRS and directed the President to 
nominate, within six months of the date of enactment, July 22, 
1998, six individuals from the private sector to serve on the 
board.
    On March 3, 1999, Chairman Bond wrote to President Clinton 
concerning his failure to make any appointments within the 
required time frame. The Chairman noted that while he advocated 
during the debate of the Act, and continued to believe, that a 
full-time independent board of governors would provide better 
management of the agency, the Oversight Board established by 
the Act is an important avenue for the private sector to 
monitor and provide input on the administration of our tax 
laws. He urged the President to satisfy his responsibilities 
under the Act and send the Senate, without further delay, 
nominations for each position on the IRS Oversight Board.
    The President's Assistant and Director of Presidential 
Personnel, Bob Nash, responded to the Chairman's letter on 
April 9, 1999, indicating that the Administration ``will 
expedite [the process of vetting appointment to the board] as 
quickly as we possibly can and the nominations will follow 
soonafter (sic).''
    On May 12, 1999, press reports disclosed the names of four 
individuals that President Clinton planned to nominate to fill 
the six private-sector seats on the board as well as a nominee 
to represent the IRS employees' union on the board. The 
following day, Chairman Bond joined Senator Bob Graham in a 
letter to President Clinton expressing their concern that none 
of the nominees appeared to have ``the hands-on small business 
background and expertise that the Act requires and Congress 
intended.'' The Senators were the sponsors of the amendment to 
the Act requiring that at least one private-sector member of 
the board have experience and expertise in the needs and 
concerns of small businesses. Shortly after this letter, 
President Clinton nominated the five individuals that the 
Administration had previously leaked to the press.
    In June 1999, one nominee, James Wetzler, withdrew his name 
from consideration after considerable criticism arose 
surrounding his nomination. Mr. Wetzler had served on the IRS 
Restructuring Commission in 1997 and was one of the 
commissioners to vote against the concept of establishing an 
oversight board for the IRS.
    In August, the White House nominated George Farr, retired 
Vice-Chairman of American Express to the board. In October, the 
President nominated Charles Kolbe, owner of Kolbe Cattle Co., 
as the sixth private-sector member of the Oversight Board. Mr. 
Kolbe's background in the agricultural sector will bring 
significant experience in the needs and concerns of small 
businesses and farmers to the board.
    Finally, in January, 2000, President Clinton sent his last 
nominee for the IRS Oversight Board--Nancy Killefer--to the 
Senate for confirmation, 18-months overdue. In February, the 
Senate Finance Committee held confirmation hearings on the 
private-sector nominees to the Board, and on March 2, 2000, the 
Finance Committee favorably reported the nominees to the 
Senate.
    As a result of holds placed on the nominations, the IRS 
Oversight Board nominees were not confirmed by the Senate until 
September 8, 2000. At that time, Chairman Bond issued a 
statement praising the confirmation of the board and especially 
applauding the inclusion of Charles Kolbe whose background will 
bring significant experience in the needs and concerns of small 
businesses and farmers to the Board. The Oversight Board held 
its first meeting on September 29, 2000.

4. TRAC audit prohibition

    As a result of the Committee's hearing on April 12, 1999, 
concerning small business tax filing and reporting burdens, 
Chairman Bond received copies of two letters sent by the IRS to 
a member of the American Hotel & Motel Association pertaining 
to the IRS' Tip Rate Determination and Education Program 
(TRDEP). The first letter notified the taxpayer that the IRS is 
conducting a ``compliance check'' on the business and invited 
the taxpayer to consider the Tip Reporting Alternative 
Commitment (TRAC). The second letter described the alternatives 
under TRDEP, including the Tip Rate Determination Agreement and 
TRAC, and again invited the taxpayer's participation in the 
program.
    In an April 27, 1999, letter to IRS Commissioner Rossotti, 
Chairman Bond called on the Commissioner to review these 
letters as part of the agency's efforts to provide clear 
communications to taxpayers. The Chairman also expressed his 
concerned that these letters could be viewed as strong-arming a 
taxpayer into using the TRAC program and may be in conflict 
with section 3414 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. That 
section directs the IRS to instruct its employees that ``they 
may not threaten to audit any taxpayer in an attempt to coerce 
the taxpayer into a Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment 
Agreement.'' The Chairman called on the IRS to suspend the use 
of these letters immediately until they are revised.
    The Commissioner responded on May 21, 1999, by informing 
Chairman Bond that the particular matter had been referred to 
the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 
for review and that the Commissioner had taken steps to ensure 
that such actions do not occur again. These actions included 
written direction to IRS personnel and educational training 
concerning the prohibition on threatening audits to obtain TRAC 
agreements.
    Staff has continued to monitor this matter as well as the 
TIGTA review of the cases in which the letters were used prior 
to the Chairman's April 27 letter.

5. Farm income-averaging

    During the 105th Congress, section 1301 of the Internal 
Revenue Code was enacted and made permanent allowing farmers to 
average their income. This provision was designed to help 
farmers weather the current agricultural crisis and became 
effective in tax year 1998. Despite the regulations having been 
enacted in July of 1997, the IRS had not issued any 
interpretive regulations on the new income-averaging rules as 
the 1998 filing season began.
    After receiving numerous complaints from farmers and their 
tax consultants concerning the lack of guidance, Chairman Bond 
and Senator Grassley wrote to IRS Commissioner Rossotti on 
March 26, 1999, to call attention to several areas of confusion 
under the rules that the regulations should address. The 
Senators urged him to issue immediate guidance and to waive 
penalties on farmers who filed their 1998 tax returns without 
the benefit of such guidance.
    On April 2, 1999, the Commissioner responded that 
regulations were in the final stages and would be issued ``in 
the near future.'' Staff inquiries revealed that the 
Commissioner had approved the regulations and forwarded them to 
the Treasury Department for final approval just after the 
Senators' March 26 letter. The Commissioner also assured the 
Senators that farmers would not be penalized for relying on the 
limited guidance provided in the instructions and IRS 
publications even though such sources are not binding 
authority. The agricultural community applauded the Senators' 
efforts and welcomed the ``no penalty'' assurances from the 
IRS.
    After several staff inquiries, the Treasury Department 
finally released proposed regulations on farm income averaging 
on October 7, 1999. Practitioners generally praised the 
proposed regulations, while making some suggestions for 
improving the guidance.

6. IRS reorganization

    Based on a proposal from Chairman Bond in January 1998, 
which was later incorporated into the Internal Revenue Service 
Restructuring and Reform Act, the IRS continued its efforts to 
restructure the agency into four operating divisions to serve 
particular groups of taxpayers better. One such division will 
be dedicated to the needs and concerns of small business and 
self-employed taxpayers.
    As part of the Committee's oversight responsibilities, 
Chairman Bond joined with Representative Houghton (R-NY), 
Chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, 
in a February 12, 1999, to request the GAO to conduct a review 
of the IRS' overall restructuring plans and their 
implementation throughout the 106th Congress. The request also 
asked the GAO to identify any challenges and obstacles facing 
the IRS in achieving its reorganization efforts. On March 5, 
1999, Chairman Bond also initiated a separate GAO review of the 
IRS' reorganization plans specifically relating to small 
business and self-employed taxpayers.
    Throughout the 106th Congress, staff received periodic 
reports on both of these initiatives. GAO briefings focused 
particularly on the IRS' new Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/
SE) Taxpayer Division, which became operational on October 1, 
2000. These briefings revealed positive plans for greater up-
front education and communication efforts for taxpayers. 
Initial plans also indicate that the SB/SE division will be the 
largest of the four divisions and will be a catch-all for 
various operations that do not fit into another division (e.g., 
estate and gift taxation). The GAO also identified various 
resource and communication challenges with respect to the IRS' 
overall restructuring efforts.
    The GAO completed its review of the IRS' reorganization 
plans relating to small business and self-employed taxpayers in 
May 2000. The GAO's findings were highlighted in the 
Committee's May 23, 2000, hearing on the IRS' new SB/SE 
Operating Division. During the hearing the GAO reported that 
the new SB/SE Division has the potential for providing improved 
service for small business taxpayers, although the agency faces 
several challenges as it implements the new division, including 
human resource needs, technological limitations, necessary 
improvements in performance management.
    IRS Commissioner Rossotti also presented the Committee with 
a progress report on the new SB/SE Division. He noted that the 
division will focus on three components, the first of which, 
Taxpayer Education and Communications, will work to improve 
compliance by assisting small businesses through education and 
other information before their tax returns are filed. The 
second component, Customer Account Services, will work to focus 
on resolving issues that arise after a tax return is filed. The 
third component will consist of the traditional compliance 
functions of examinations and collections.
    The Committee also heard from two private-sector witnesses 
on the IRS' efforts to include outsiders in its modernization 
and in the plans to create the new SB/SE Division. In closing 
the hearing, Chairman Bond noted that the real work of the new 
SB/SE Division will begin when the new division becomes 
operational, which occurred on October 1, 2000.
    In an effort to continue monitoring the success of the IRS' 
modernization efforts and the progress of the new SB/SE 
Division, Chairman Bond asked the GAO to undertake a follow-on 
review of the agency in these areas. In his September 27, 2000, 
request letter, Chairman Bond asked the GAO to focus on, among 
other things, the goals that the SB/SE Division has set and how 
they will be measured, the steps the Division is taking to 
identify the most cost effective and beneficial ways to provide 
help to small businesses, the actions the Division is taking to 
change the kind of service provided to small businesses and the 
self-employed, and the progress the Division is making in 
identifying and setting priorities for its information-system 
requirements. The Committee expects that the GAO's review will 
continue into the 107th Congress.

7. IRS early intervention programs

    Following on the Committee's April 12, 1999, hearing on 
small business tax burdens, Chairman Bond asked the GAO to 
undertake a review of the IRS' early intervention programs. In 
his July 26, 2000, request letter, the Chairman noted that 
timely intervention by the IRS can help prevent businesses from 
accumulating substantial unpaid taxes, and the associated 
interest and penalties, which, if allowed to compound over 
months or years, many small business taxpayers may be unable to 
pay.
    The GAO is expected to review existing early intervention 
programs at the IRS to assess the time and resources currently 
dedicated to identifying taxpayers with employment-tax 
delinquencies. The Chairman also requested that the GAO examine 
early intervention programs in use at other Federal agencies in 
order to identify best practices that might be useful to the 
IRS. The GAO will provide the Committee staff with regular 
briefings, and its work is expected to continue into the 107th 
Congress.

8. TIGTA review of IRS response rate to small business tax questions

    In late September, 2000, the Committee learned of a study 
undertaken by TIGTA concerning the accuracy of the IRS' 
response to small business questions posed through the 
Internet. Based on the study's findings, Chairman Bond wrote to 
IRS Commissioner Rossotti and SB/SE Division Commissioner 
Joseph Kehoe on September 28, 2000, to express his concern that 
out of the sample of 50 questions concerning small business tax 
issues, the IRS provided the small business taxpayer with the 
correct answer only 54% of the time. He emphasized that a 54% 
accuracy rate for the small businesses tax questions poses a 
grave risk to small business owners and the self-employed who 
turn to the IRS for help and rely on the accuracy of the 
agency's answers at their peril. Chairman Bond requested that 
the IRS take steps to improve the accuracy rate with respect to 
tax questions submitted by small businesses and self-employed 
individuals.
    In a November 17, 2000, response, Commissioner Rossotti 
agreed with the Chairman's concerns and assured the Committee 
of his commitment to improving the quality of assistance that 
the IRS provides to small businesses. The Commissioner stressed 
that the IRS is attempting to use specialized groups of 
employees focusing on narrow topic areas to improve the quality 
of responses rendered. In addition, he indicated that the IRS 
will make greater use of quality review programs to improve 
employee training and the agency's accuracy rates.

9. TIGTA review of IRS processing of small Business AMT exemptions

    The Committee learned in early December, 2000, that TIGTA 
had completed a review of the IRS' handling of corporate tax 
returns. The TIGTA study revealed that more than 2,000 small 
corporations may have overpaid their taxes due to an 
unawareness or misunderstanding of the small-corporation 
exemption from the alternative minimum tax (AMT) under section 
55(e) of the Internal Revenue Code. Of the small corporations 
sampled by TIGTA, 93% qualified for the small-corporation 
exemption and erroneously paid an average of $11,638 in AMT. As 
a result, in tax year 1998 these small-corporate taxpayers 
appear to have overpaid the Federal government by more than $25 
million.
    In a December 12, 2000, letter to IRS Commissioner Rossotti 
and SB/SE Division Commissioner Kehoe, Chairman Bond noted that 
there is no automatic system under which these taxpayers will 
receive a refund of their overpaid taxes or even be made aware 
of their error. He stressed that the small-corporate taxpayers 
will only receive a refund if they realize their own mistake 
and file an amended tax return. In light of this situation, 
Chairman Bond called on the IRS to give prompt attention to 
steps that can be taken to assist small corporations that have 
overpaid their taxes and to help all small-corporate taxpayers 
avoid such overpayment as a result of the AMT in the future. 
The Chairman also asked both Commissioners to look into the 
recommendations for addressing this issue, which TIGTA set out 
in its report.
    In addition to asking the IRS to address these 
overpayments, Chairman Bond also wrote to the major small 
business organizations. In his letter, he asked each 
organization to alert its small corporate members to the TIGTA 
report and urge them to review their tax returns in case a 
refund was due.
    The Committee also learned through staff conversations with 
the IRS that the agency was endeavoring to identify the small-
corporate taxpayers who overpaid their AMT. IRS officials 
indicated that the agency would be sending notices to such 
taxpayers reminding them of the small-corporation exemption 
from the AMT and advising them to file an amended tax return if 
they are entitled to a refund.

               E. Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999

    As a result of the Chairman's efforts, the Taxpayer Refund 
and Relief Act of 1999 included a substantial number of tax 
provisions directly benefitting individual taxpayers and small 
business owners. The significant provisions of the Act, which 
passed the Senate on August 5, 1999, by a vote of 50 to 49, and 
was vetoed by President Clinton on September 23, 1999, 
included:
    Rate reductions: The bill would have reduced each of the 
five tax rates by 1%, which translates into a 7% reduction in 
the bottom rate and a 2.5% reduction in the top rate. The 
current 15% lowest rate would have dropped to 14.5% in 2001 and 
then to 14% in 2003; the other rates would have dropped by 1% 
in 2005. The bottom tax bracket would also have expanded by 
$3,000 starting in 2006, bringing more taxpayers into the 
lowest tax bracket.
    Marriage penalty: The bill would have doubled the standard 
deduction for married couples over the first five years; in the 
second five years the income thresholds for couples in the 
lowest tax bracket would also have doubled. This provision only 
provides relief for couples who do not itemize. The Senate 
version of the bill permitted couples who itemize to file 
combined returns, which would provide greater marriage-penalty 
relief.
    Alternative minimum tax: The bill would have repealed the 
individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) over 10 years and 
would have continued to exclude from the AMT personal tax 
credits (e.g., the $500 child tax credit, HOPE scholarship and 
Lifetime Learning tax credit, adoption tax credit, tax credit 
for the elderly and disabled, and dependent-care tax credit) 
effective for tax year 1999. The bill also made significant 
changes to the corporate AMT and coordinated the AMT rules so 
that farmers using the new income-averaging provisions enacted 
as part of the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act would not lose a 
portion of the benefits due to the AMT.
    Self-employed health insurance deductibility: The bill 
would have accelerated the 100% deductibility of health 
insurance for the self-employed to begin in 2000 based on the 
Chairman's Self-Employed Health Insurance Fairness Act. The 
bill also included the Chairman's provision to ensure that the 
self-employed do not lose the deduction as a result of merely 
being eligible for another insurance plan.
    Health care: The bill would have provided an above-the-line 
deduction for employees who pay at least 50% of the health-
insurance costs, as well as a deduction for long-term care 
insurance.
    Small Business: In addition to the self-employed health-
insurance deduction, the conference agreement would have 
increased the small business equipment-expensing limitation to 
$30,000 starting in 2000, and repealed the Federal Unemployment 
Tax Act (FUTA) surtax of 0.2% in 2005. The agreement also would 
have increased the business-meal deduction from 50% to 65% by 
2005. Additionally, the bill included two provisions to reduce 
tax complexity and burdens on small banks organized as S 
corporations.
    Farm Provisions: The FFARRM (``Farm, Fish and Ranch Risk 
Management'') account provisions of S. 642, which Chairman Bond 
co-sponsored with Senator Grassley, were included in the bill 
and would have become effective in 2000. The accounts would 
also have been extended to fishermen.
    Capital gains: The bill would have reduced the capital-
gains tax rate from 20% to 18% (10% to 8% for taxpayers in the 
lowest bracket) effective January 1, 1999. Beginning in 2000, 
capital gains would have been indexed for inflation. The bill 
also would have reduced the ``depreciation recapture'' rate on 
commercial real estate from 25% to 23%, which was intended to 
help the troubled real estate industry.
    Estate tax: The bill would have lowered the estate and gift 
tax rates and ultimately would have repealed the ``death tax'' 
in 2008.
    Pension provisions: The bill would have phased in an 
increase in the contribution limits on IRAs and have increased 
the income limit and conversion limit for Roth IRAs. It 
included ``catch up'' provisions for older individuals as well 
as a host of other beneficial changes to the pension rules, 
which would have encouraged private retirement savings and 
assisted businesses in establishing and maintaining pension 
plans.
    Other provisions: The bill would have extended the research 
and development tax credit for five years. It would also have 
extended the exclusion for employer-provided educational 
assistance through 2003, and provided an array of other tax-
related educational benefits.

                          F. Estate Tax Reform

    In July 2000, the Senate took up the Death Tax Elimination 
Act (H.R. 8), which would have phased out the current estate, 
gift and generation-skipping taxes over 10 years. The bill 
would also have provided additional relief during the phase-out 
period by reducing the tax rates and by converting the current 
unified estate and gift tax credit with a tax exemption.
    In his floor statement on July 12, 2000, Chairman Bond 
stressed that repeal of the ``death tax'' has long been a 
priority for the small business community. Following on the 
heels of the National Women's Small Business Summit, held in 
Kansas City, Missouri on June 4 and 5, 2000, the Chairman also 
emphasized that the repeal of the estate tax was the number one 
priority of small, women-owned businesses in America, which is 
one of the fastest growing segments of the economy. He stressed 
that the current estate-tax regime costs small business owners 
both in terms of taxes that must be paid on the death of the 
owner and in terms of estate planning costs to avoid or reduce 
the estate tax. Chairman Bond concluded that the true victims 
of the estate tax are the small business jobs that are lost 
when the enterprise is forced to close in order to pay the 
death taxes and those that are lost due to funds wasted on 
estate planning to avoid the devastation of the estate tax.
    The Death Tax Elimination Act passed the Senate on July 14, 
2000, by a vote of 59 to 39. Regrettably, it was vetoed by 
President Clinton on August 31, 2000.

                       G. Marriage Penalty Relief

    Also in July 2000, the Senate took up the Marriage Tax 
Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 (H.R. 4810). The bill 
would have partially eliminated the marriage penalty by 
doubling the standard deduction for couples who do not itemize 
and by doubling the tax brackets for low and moderate income 
couples in the 15% and 28% tax brackets. The bill would also 
have expanded the phase-out range of the Earned Income Tax 
Credit (EITC) to $2,500 beginning in 2001, and have permanently 
extended the current exclusion from the alternative minimum tax 
(AMT) for personal tax credits (e.g., dependent care credit, 
adoption credit, $500 child credit, etc.). The bill passed the 
Senate on July 18, 2000, by a vote of 61 to 38.
    The conference agreement to H.R. 4810 modified the Senate 
bill by eliminating the adjustment to the 28% tax bracket and 
by reducing the EITC expansion to $2,000. The conference report 
was approved by the Senate on July 21, 2000, by a vote of 60 to 
34. Regrettably, the bill was vetoed by the President on August 
5, 2000.

                  H. Small Business Accounting Issues

1. Installment-sales limitation

    One of the revenue raisers included in the Work Incentives 
Improvement Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-170) turned out to have 
unexpected adverse consequences for small business owners 
seeking to sell their businesses. Despite Finance Committee 
hearings on this provision, which was included in the 
President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget proposal, the problems with 
the provision were not identified until the Work Incentives 
Improvement Act was set to be signed by the President.
    Under the bill, the installment sales method of accounting 
for a disposition of business property was repealed for accrual 
basis taxpayers, thereby restricting it only to cash basis 
taxpayers. As a result, a number of small businesses advocacy 
groups informed the Committee that some small firms would have 
to pay tax on the gains from selling their business or 
significant assets if they used seller financing, even though 
cash payments would be received over a period of years in the 
future.
    In an effort to discover the scope and breadth of the 
problem caused by this provision, Committee staff hosted a 
meeting on December 6, 1999, to dispel misinformation 
circulated in the press and to focus on solutions to the issues 
raised by the new provision. The meeting led to additional 
conversations between the small business community and the 
Treasury Department to see if there were administrative steps 
that could be taken to alleviate the impact on small 
businesses.
    Through the leadership of Senator Conrad Burns, the severe 
adverse impact of this limitation on the use of installment-
sales accounting was made clear. To remedy the unintended 
result, Senator Burns introduced S. 2005, which would restore 
the ability of small businesses to use seller financing in 
their business transactions. This legislation enjoyed strong 
bipartisan support, including the Chairman and seven other 
Members of the Committee. During the Senate's consideration of 
the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, 
Senator Burns' legislation was added as an amendment to the 
bill by a vote of 99 to 0. The legislation was also included in 
the conference report to H.R. 2614, which the Senate did not 
complete prior to adjournment.
    On December 15, 2000--the last day of the 106th Congress--
the House passed H.R. 3594, introduced by Congressman Herger. 
This legislation paralleled Senator Burns' S. 2005 to repeal 
the limitation on the use of the installment sales rules. Later 
that day, the Senate overcame several holds on the legislation 
and passed the bill by unanimous consent. The repeal was the 
primary tax victory achieved for small business during the 
Second Session and was widely heralded by the small-business 
community. The bill was signed into law on December 28, 2000.

2. Small Business Tax Accounting Simplification Act of 2000

    The controversy surrounding the limitations on the 
installment-sales rules fed into a larger debate over the 
application of the cash and accrual accounting rules for small 
businesses. Throughout the 106th Congress, the Committee 
received complaints from the small business community that the 
IRS was aggressively trying to force small businesses to use 
complex inventory and accrual accounting rules, instead of 
allowing them to use the simpler cash-accounting rules as 
Congress intended.
    In response to the calls from the small business community 
for a clarification of the cash accounting and inventory 
accounting rules under the Internal Revenue Code, Chairman Bond 
introduced the Small Business Tax Accounting Simplification Act 
(S. 2246) on March 9, 2000. The bill sets forth a clear $5 
million threshold for small businesses, below which they would 
be permitted to use cash accounting in their business 
operations. In addition, the bill would provide a simple test 
for application of the inventory accounting rules in small 
businesses. This legislation received broad support for the 
small business community.
    For its part, the Treasury Department issued Revenue 
Procedure 2000-22, which provides a safe-harbor from the 
accrual-accounting rules for small businesses with $1 million 
in gross receipts. On May 4, 2000, Chairman Bond and House 
Small Business Committee Chairman James Talent wrote to 
Treasury Secretary Summers in support of the Administration's 
effort to provide guidance and relief for small businesses 
inadvertently affected by the Work Incentives Improvement Act. 
In their letter, however, the Chairmen express reservations 
about the Treasury Department's statutory authority to set the 
threshold at $1 million, and they requested that it be raised 
to $5 million which is more consistent with statutory 
precedent. In addition, the Chairmen expressed their concern 
that the Treasury Department's guidance did not provide an 
opportunity for notice and comment by affected taxpayers since 
the agency circumvented the Administrative Procedure Act, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and the 1996 amendments to 
the RFA, contained in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act.
    In his September 27, 2000, letter to Senate Majority Leader 
Lott, Chairman Bond urged him to include a cash-accounting 
clarification in the minimum-wage legislation to reduce small 
business tax-accounting compliance burdens and provide much 
needed clarity and certainty. As a result of the Chairman's 
leadership, the conference report to H.R. 2614 included a 
modification of the Small Business Tax Accounting 
Simplification Act with a $2.5 million threshold. Regrettably, 
the Senate was unable to vote on the year-end tax legislation 
prior to adjournment.

                     I. Taxpayer Relief Act of 2000

    As the Second Session drew to a close, considerable 
attention was given to increasing the minimum wage and the 
detrimental effects that such a change would have on small 
businesses. On September 27, 2000, Chairman Bond wrote to 
Senate Majority Leader Lott advising him that tax and 
regulatory relief were unlikely to offset the damage that an 
increase in the minimum wage would cause for small businesses 
and emphasizing that such an increase should not even be 
considered unless a solid package of tax relief was included. 
The Chairman enumerated a list of tax priorities for small 
businesses including: full deductibility of health-insurance 
cost for the self-employed, repeal the limitation on the use of 
installment-sales accounting, increased expensing for equipment 
purchases, clarification of small-business tax accounting 
rules, increased deductibility of meal expenses for small 
businesses, repeal the Federal unemployment tax act (FUTA) 
surtax, and pension simplification and reform.
    In October 2000, the Chairman worked closely with the 
Senate leadership and the Finance Committee to develop a 
package of small business tax relief to offset the minimum-wage 
increase. In addition, the conference report to the Committee's 
Certified Development Company Program Improvements Act of 1999 
(H.R. 2614) was selected as the vehicle to move this package as 
well as the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion 
Act of 2000 (H.R. 4986), the Comprehensive Retirement Security 
and Pension Reform Act of 2000 (H.R. 1102), and a package of 
Medicare adjustments. Each of the conference report's 
components were introduced on October 25, 2000, in the House as 
the following separate bills:
          H.R. 5538 (the Minimum Wage Act of 2000);
          H.R. 5542 (the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2000);
          H.R. 5543 (the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits 
        Improvement and Protection Act of 2000);
          H.R. 5544 (the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 2000); 
        and
          H.R. 5545 (the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 
        2000).
    The provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2000 that 
pertain to small businesses include the following:
    Health care provisions: The bill would have accelerated the 
100% deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed to 
begin in 2001 based on the Chairman's Self-Employed Health 
Insurance Fairness Act. The bill also included the Chairman's 
provision to ensure that the self-employed do not lose the 
deduction as a result of merely being eligible for another 
insurance plan. In addition, this would have provided an above-
the-line deduction for employees who pay at least 50% of the 
health-insurance costs, as well as a deduction for long-term 
care insurance.
    Equipment expensing: The bill would have increased the 
small business equipment-expensing limitation to $35,000 
starting in 2001, which will help small businesses avoid the 
cost and complexity of capitalizing and depreciating equipment 
purchased and enable them to use the funds made available from 
immediate expensing to expand their businesses and create new 
jobs.
    Repeal of the limitation on installment sales: Following 
Senator Burns' S. 2005, the bill would have repealed the 
limitation imposed under the Work Incentives Improvement Act 
and restored the ability of small businesses to use seller 
financing in their business transactions.
    Clarification of small-business tax accounting rules: The 
bill also included Chairman Bond's Small Business Tax 
Accounting Simplification Act of 2000 (S. 2246) with a modified 
threshold of $2.5 million, which would have provided a 
safeharbor for small firms and dramatically reduce their tax-
accounting compliance burdens and provided much needed clarity 
and certainty.
    Farm Provisions: The FFARRM (``Farm, Fish and Ranch Risk 
Management'') account provisions of S. 642, which Chairman Bond 
co-sponsored with Senator Grassley, were included in the bill 
and would have become effective in 2001. The bill would also 
have coordinated the farmer income-averaging rules enacted in 
1997 with the alternative minimum tax (AMT) to ensure that 
farmers do not lose the benefit of income averaging to the AMT. 
The bill did not include Senator Brownback's Conservation 
Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act (S. 2344), which Chairman Bond 
co-sponsored on April 4, 2000, to force the IRS to recognize 
payments under the Conservation Reserve Program as rentals from 
real estate.
    Pension provisions: The bill would have phased in an 
increase in the contribution limits on IRAs and other types of 
pension plans, improved portability of pension savings from one 
plan to another, and provided a host of other beneficial 
changes to the pension rules, which would have encouraged 
private retirement savings and assisted businesses in 
establishing and maintaining pension plans. The bill also 
included ``catch up'' provisions for older individuals, 
significant simplifications to the current overly complex 
pension rules, and provisions for strengthening pension 
security and enforcement.
    Community Revitalization: The bill included provisions to 
designate renewal communities and expand empowerment zones 
through tax benefits such as tax credits, additional equipment 
expensing, and elimination of capital gains on qualifying 
assets. It would also have established a New Markets Tax 
Credit, increase the low-income housing tax credit, and 
expanded the private activity bond volume limits. Each of these 
provisions were intended to improve impoverished communities by 
attracting business investments and new-job potential. (These 
provisions were later enacted as part of H.R. 4577, the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, which the House and 
Senate enacted on December 15, 2000).
    Other provisions: The tax relief package also would have 
increased the business-meal deduction from 50% to 70%, repealed 
the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) surtax of 0.2%, 
extended the Work Opportunity Tax Credit through June 30, 2004, 
increased the maximum reforestation expenses qualifying for 
amortization and credit, and extended availability of Medical 
Savings Accounts for two years.
    The conference report to H.R. 2614, including the tax 
relief package for small businesses, was passed by the House on 
October 26, 2000, by a vote of 237 to 174, with 1 
Representative voting present. The Senate took up the 
conference report just prior to the November 7, 2000, election. 
Regrettably, the Senate was unable to vote on the conference 
report before Congress adjourned on December 15, 2000.

                          J. Other Tax Issues

1. Tax relief for farmers

    In a joint effort with the House Small Business Committee, 
the Committee hosted a roundtable on agricultural issues in 
Kansas City, Missouri, on August 24, 1999. The participants 
focused on regulatory, tax, and trade issues affecting farmers 
and ranchers, which are predominantly small businesses. The 
roundtable was well attended and provided Chairmen Bond and 
Talent with important feedback and suggestions as to issues of 
import to the agricultural community. Both Chairmen committed 
to pursuing opportunities to address the issues raised by the 
roundtable participants during the remainder of the 106th 
Congress.

2. Tax reform

    The primary focus on taxes during the 106th Congress 
continued to be on reforming the current tax system and 
providing tax relief, especially for small businesses and the 
self-employed. In order to maintain the momentum for overall 
tax reform, Chairman Bond again co-sponsored the Tax Code 
Termination Act (S. 627), sponsored by Senator Tim Hutchinson. 
The bill would sunset the current Internal Revenue Code at the 
end of 2003 in favor of a new tax system. No action occurred in 
the Senate on this legislation during the 106th Congress.

                 V. Small Business Environmental Issues


               A. Industrial Laundry Effluent Limitations

    In December, 1998, EPA proposed a rule to limit effluent 
emissions from the treatment of rags and other materials by 
industrial laundries. The proposal included a no regulation 
option with a voluntary industry program in lieu of categorical 
standards. Small businesses make up over 90 percent of the 
industrial laundry industry and would bear most all of the 
identified impacts of the proposed regulations. In February 
1999, members of the industrial laundry industry expressed 
concerns to the Small Business Committee that EPA estimates of 
the proposed rule's burden had been revised upwards while 
estimates of the benefits of the rule were lowered.
    On February 19, 1999, Chairman Bond, along with Senator 
Wyden, sent a letter to EPA Administrator Browner expressing 
concerns about the proposed rule and urging full Agency 
consideration of the voluntary alternative. In June 1999, EPA 
chose not to promulgate a categorical standard and instead 
pursued the voluntary program. On September 2, 1999, Chairman 
Bond received a letter from Jere Glover, Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy at the Small Business Administration (SBA), sharing 
this matter with the Senator as a recent success of SBA.

 B. Mc Laughlin Gormley King/Whitmire Micro-Gen Pesticides Application

    EPA is currently considering the application of McLaughlin 
Gormley King Company (MGK) to register the pesticide 
prallethrin for use in protecting food from contamination. 
Prallethrin would replace a more environmentally harmful 
pesticide currently in use. The new use for prallethrin would 
be marketed through a Missouri based distributor Whitmire 
Micro-Gen which is a small business.
    In February 1999, MGK expressed its concerns to the Small 
Business Committee that its application at EPA had been under 
review at the Agency for seven years with no approval or 
disapproval date in sight. On February 22, 1999, Chairman Bond 
wrote to EPA Administrator Browner expressing his concern over 
the Agency's extremely long delay in processing the application 
and requesting an explanation for the Agency's conduct. 
Correspondence to the Agency on this matter also came from 
Representative Talent, as well as, Senators Feinstein, Grams, 
and Wellstone.
    EPA failed to respond to Chairman Bond's February 22 
request and Chairman Bond again wrote the Agency on March 31, 
1999, seeking an explanation for EPA's failure to process the 
pesticides application in a timely manner and failure to 
respond to his inquiry on the status of the matter. Staff of 
the Senate Committee on Small Business as well as the House 
Committee on Small Business met with EPA in April where the 
Agency agreed to complete review of the application by the end 
of 1999. In January 2000, EPA completed its review of the 
application and requested further information from MGK to 
approve the application. MGK is reviewing that request.

                         C. Lead TRI Rulemaking

    EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program requires 
entities to report, the use or release of certain chemicals 
beyond threshold amounts. On August 3, 1999, EPA proposed to 
reduce the reporting threshold for lead from 25,000 pounds per 
year down to 10 pounds per year. The Small Business Committee 
met with representatives from the metal finishing and 
electronic circuit board industry who complained the rule would 
significantly affect their industries and that EPA had failed 
to conduct the required small business outreach to determine 
the rules' impacts on small businesses.
    On September 8, 1999, Chairman Bond wrote EPA Administrator 
Browner expressing his concern that EPA failed to conduct the 
needed small business outreach and analysis mandated by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Red Tape 
Reduction Act) and EPA's own small business policy. The 
Chairman urged EPA to conduct meaningful outreach to small 
businesses impacted by the rule and reconsider its Red Tape 
Reduction Act determination of no significant impact. Chairman 
Bond also encouraged EPA to extend the rules' comment deadline 
to allow for meaningful outreach.
    Further analysis of the proposed rule and its supporting 
economic analysis, and an almost complete lack of EPA action 
confirmed EPA short-circuited and circumvented its obligation 
to consider the rule's impacts on small businesses. On October 
15, 1999, Chairman Bond wrote EPA Administrator Browner 
requesting that the Agency withdraw the proposed rule until the 
Agency gave proper consideration to the rule's impacts on small 
businesses. The Chairman scheduled a hearing for October 28, 
1999 to expose EPA's failure to meet its Red Tape Reduction Act 
obligations in this case unless EPA withdrew the rule.
    Preparations for the hearing included small business 
testimony, CRS analysis of EPA's failures, industry 
representative testimony and an invitation to EPA Administrator 
Browner on October 20, 1999. EPA responded on October 22, 1999 
with an offer to conduct additional small business outreach. In 
a meeting with EPA on October 26, 1999, Small Business 
Committee staff expressed its concern that the input of small 
businesses impacted by the rule would not impact the rule 
unless EPA reconsidered its proposed rule.
    On October 27, 1999, EPA agreed to extend the public 
comment period for two additional months, hold three small 
business stakeholder meetings in Los Angeles, Chicago and 
Washington, and reconsider its impact certification and 
proposed rule based on submitted information. As a result of 
these concessions, the Chairman postponed the hearing 
indefinitely pending further Agency action on the proposed 
rule.
    On October 28, 1999, Chairman Bond requested GAO conduct an 
investigation into the EPA office responsible for developing 
the Lead TRI rule to examine its historic treatment of its Red 
Tape Reduction Act responsibilities.
    On September 20, 2000, GAO released its report, Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, Implementation in EPA Program Offices and 
Proposed Lead Rule. The report found EPA's analysis highly 
susceptible to the assumptions used by EPA. GAO estimations of 
the rule's impacts produced an additional 1,200 small 
businesses which would be significantly impacted by the rule. 
Based on these concerns and inter-agency disagreement regarding 
the science behind the need to lower the lead reporting 
threshold, EPA postponed final action on the rule into 2001.

        D. Small Business Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 1999

    On July 21, 1999, Senator Jeffords introduced the Small 
Business Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 1999. The bill seeks 
to link the SBA's successful loan guarantee and community 
development corporation programs directly to supporting 
brownfields financing needs. The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Small Business. Senator Jeffords wrote Chairman 
Bond on September 28, 1999 in hopes that the bill would be 
taken up by the Committee during reauthorization of the SBA in 
2000. While supportive of the need to provide incentives for 
small businesses to revitalize brownfields, members of the SBA 
loan community were concerned that loan program set asides for 
brownfields redevelopment would go unused without accompanying 
liability relief provisions.

                E. Ozone Depleting Substances Rulemaking

    On August 21, 2000, Chairman Bond received a letter from 
Foam Supplies, Inc., of Earth City, Missouri. Foam Supplies 
wrote regarding its concerns over an EPA proposal to increase 
regulation of foam materials manufactured with ozone damaging 
materials such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). Upon 
further inquiry, Chairman Bond discovered that EPA failed to 
consider adequately the impacts of its proposed regulation on 
small businesses using the product as required by the Red Tape 
Reduction Act. On September 26, 2000, Chairman Bond wrote EPA 
to raise these concerns, determine exactly who EPA had 
contacted in drafting its proposed rule, and to transmit 
information on small businesses which would be impacted by the 
proposed regulation.
    On October 25, 2000, EPA responded to Chairman Bond's 
inquiry with a list of corporations it consulted in determining 
the impacts of its regulation. Unfortunately, the list was 
comprised solely of large conglomerates, almost all with 
revenues surpassing $1 billion.
    On December 18, 2000, Chairman Bond responded to EPA's 
information submission by noting EPA's failure to include small 
businesses in its rulemaking as required by EPA policy and 
SBREFA. Chairman Bond informed EPA of his intention to hold a 
hearing by the Committee in the 107th Congress on EPA's 
performance under SBREFA and its small business policy 
requirements. This hearing would support legislative efforts by 
the Committee to close loopholes in SBREFA which may allow 
agencies to avoid meaningful inclusion of small businesses in 
rulemakings.

                        F. Acrylamide Rulemaking

    On September 18, 2000, Chairman Bond received a letter from 
Pitometer, Specialty Sewer, of Hazelwood, MO. Pitometer wrote 
the Chairman to express its concern over EPA's continued delay 
to finalize its proposed regulation of acrylamide. That 
substance is used as a grout to seal sections of sewer lines. 
In 1991, EPA proposed to ban acrylamide grouts, but has never 
been able to obtain inter-agency acceptance of the proposal. 
Instead of formally dropping the proposal, EPA left the 
proposal on the books and has periodically attempted to push it 
through full approval. This situation has left a cloud over 
whether acrylamide products will be banned by EPA, and has thus 
constrained their usage by the sewer service industry. There 
are currently no truly acceptable substitutes from a durability 
and cost-effectiveness perspective, leaving small business 
constituents such as Pitometer in a bind. Staff of the Small 
Business Committee contacted EPA and urged that EPA seek final 
resolution of the issue as soon as possible. At the end of 
November 2000, EPA scheduled final action on the rule for 2001. 
Chairman Bond will continue to work with EPA to ensure the 
Agency fully considers the impacts of its rulemaking on 
affected small businesses.

                        g. Compliance Assistance

1. Compliance assistance funding

    EPA's Compliance Assistance program provides assistance to 
entities which desire to meet their environmental obligations 
but lack the resources, expertise or understanding to follow 
EPA's complex and voluminous requirements. Compliance 
assistance provides access for the regulated community, and 
especially most small businesses, to a knowledgeable and 
reliable source of information without the threat of 
enforcement. Compliance assistance helps environmental 
protection occur sooner and much more efficiently rather than 
haphazardly and belatedly after an enforcement action. 
Compliance assistance also helps reach those members of the 
regulated community who may never be visited or contacted by 
the limited numbers of EPA or state inspectors and thus escape 
the effective reach of the Enforcement program.
    Fiscal Year 2000 EPA resource documents indicated the 
Agency planned to decrease funding for compliance assistance 
activities in the enforcement program. The Chairman included 
questions for the record subsequent to EPA's appropriations 
hearing on the proposed cuts. EPA denied that it was making 
cuts and instead asserted that it was increasing funding to the 
very programs which appeared to receive a cut.
    On September 30, 1999, Chairman Bond responded to this 
false and misleading information with a letter to Administrator 
Browner documenting EPA's cuts to compliance assistance and 
admonishing the Agency for its misleading conduct. To ensure 
sufficient funding for compliance assistance activities, 
Chairman Bond included a $25 million funding floor for OECA 
compliance assistance in the Fiscal Year 2000 Senate VA, HUD 
appropriations bill report language which was adopted by the 
Conference committee. The Chairman also requested and obtained 
additional detailed resource information on the compliance 
assistance program to aid in future oversight to ensure 
appropriate support and funding for the program.
    In December 1999, Chairman Bond received information from 
EPA that it was not complying with Congressionally directed $25 
million funding floor for compliance assistance.
    On June 5, 2000, Chairman Bond requested information 
documenting EPA's compliance assistance spending plans. Upon 
receiving the EPA information, Chairman Bond determined that 
EPA was not meeting Congressionally directed funding levels and 
diverting funds from compliance assistance programs to other 
programs such as civil enforcement. On July 12, 2000, Chairman 
Bond expressed his concern to EPA over this funding issue and 
requested EPA plans to meet the funding level. Staff of the 
Senate Small Business Committee met with EPA officials who 
reported on their compliance assistance funding.
    As part of the Fiscal Year 2001 VA, HUD and Independent 
Agencies appropriations law, passed on October 27, 2000, 
Chairman Bond included report language reiterating the $25 
million funding floor and prohibiting an EPA diversion of funds 
from compliance assistance to other activities. Chairman Bond 
continues to monitor EPA actions to ensure EPA devotes proper 
funding levels to compliance assistance activities.

2. Small Business Compliance Assistance Centers funding

    Reports came to Chairman Bond that despite public 
pronouncements, EPA was reducing funding available for Small 
Business Compliance Assistance Centers. The Chairman included 
questions for the record subsequent to EPA's appropriations 
hearing and EPA responded that the Centers remain a priority 
for the Agency.

3. Aiming for excellence report implementation

    In July 1999, EPA issued a report entitled ``Aiming for 
Excellence, Actions to Encourage Stewardship and Accelerate 
Environmental Progress.'' The report describes various 
reinvention activities undertaken by the Agency over the last 
few years. Included are two chapters on compliance assistance 
initiatives. The Committee followed the implementation of the 
Aiming for Excellence tasks and milestones to ensure EPA met 
the commitments of the report to increase compliance 
assistance. The tasks included efforts to plan, coordinate and 
promote compliance assistance activities as well as specific 
initiatives to provide compliance assistance tools for every 
new economically significant regulation issued by the Agency.
    In December 1999, Committee staff attended a compliance 
assistance providers forum hosted by EPA in Dallas, TX and 
attended by Federal and state agencies engaged in assisting 
compliance by the regulated community.
    On March 9, 2000, Chairman Bond requested a status update 
of the compliance assistance action items in the Aiming for 
Excellence report. EPA provided this update on March 28, 2000. 
On October 11, 2000, Chairman Bond requested another update of 
EPA's progress on achieving its compliance assistance action 
items in the Aiming for Excellence report. EPA provided 
Chairman Bond a status update on October 24, 2000. EPA 
continues to implement compliance assistance items, albeit 
behind schedule in many cases. Chairman Bond continues to 
monitor EPA performance in this area to ensure they fulfill 
their compliance assistance obligations.

                   h. Nitrates Reporting Enforcement

    In May 2000, EPA sent out nearly 600 ``show cause'' letters 
to facilities which omitted entries for nitrate compounds on 
their Toxic Release Inventory reporting forms. EPA determined 
that these facilities failed to report nitrates because they 
did report using nitric acid, which ``coincidentally'' produces 
nitrates upon treatment. EPA told the facilities to show cause 
why the Agency should not subject them to $5,000 penalties for 
each ``sin of omission,'' as EPA later described it, totaling 
up to $20,000 for four reporting years.
    According to EPA, over 50% of eligible facilities failed to 
report nitrates to TRI. Industry places noncompliance above 80% 
when facilities attempting to remedy their reports after the 
fact are excluded. This huge noncompliance rate reveals a 
problem more fundamental than a small number of ``bad actors'' 
intentionally ignoring Agency enforcement alerts. Instead, the 
most likely reason for this mass noncompliance was that 
facilities did not know or understand this obscure reporting 
requirement. This seems likely given that the reporting 
instructions for TRI run several hundred pages and instructions 
regarding this issue appear in different sections in different 
years. Indeed, professional consulting firms paid to know these 
requirements missed this obligation. Also telling was that over 
half of those failing to report are small businesses.
    While these facilities did not report nitrates, the only 
way EPA identified them is because they were reporting to TRI. 
The Agency counter argument that these facilities were 
reporting while trying to hide the toxic nature of their 
activities does not make sense. These facilities omitted 
nitrates but reported nitric acid itself or in many cases more 
toxic substances such as trichloroethylene.
    On May 24, 2000, Chairman Bond wrote to EPA to express his 
concern over the Agency's decision to use limited enforcement 
resources in an area with no direct environmental impact. 
Additionally, the Chairman noted that other more serious and 
direct environmental problems existed due to EPA's failure to 
renew a sizable percentage of expired water pollutant discharge 
permits. Chairman Bond suggested EPA target its enforcement 
resources to cases with more environmental impact and 
culpability by those involved. Subsequently, EPA offered 
concerned facilities a greatly reduced settlement amount and 
closed out the matter.

  VI. Assisting Small Businesses in Preparing for the Year 2000 Date 
                                 Change


                             a. Legislation

1. Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act of 1999

    On January 27, 1999, Chairman Bond introduced the Small 
Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, S. 314. The bill requires the 
SBA to establish a limited-term loan program (the ``Y2K loan 
program'') pursuant to which the SBA would guarantee loans made 
by private lenders to assist small businesses in correcting 
computer problems that could arise from the Year 2000 (Y2K) 
date change. The bill permitted small businesses to use loan 
proceeds for only two purposes. First, a small business could 
use loan proceeds to correct the problems that could arise from 
Y2K affecting its own information technology systems and other 
automated systems. Second, a small business could use loan 
proceeds to provide relief from economic injuries suffered as a 
direct result of its own Y2K problems or some other entity's 
Y2K problems.
    This legislation drew on testimony given before the 
Committee in 1998, from reports received by the Committee and 
from meetings held with small business owners, financial 
institutions, consultants, the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) and other persons with an interest in the small business 
community's efforts to fix their Y2K computer problem. On June 
2, 1998, the Committee held a hearing on the impact of the Y2K 
computer problem on small businesses. The Committee heard from 
witnesses that the companies most at risk from Y2K failures are 
small and medium-sized firms, not larger companies. Witnesses 
testified that this anomaly is caused by two factors. First, 
many small companies did not realize the extent that the Y2K 
computer problem could affect their businesses. Second, many 
small companies may not have the access to capital to cure such 
problems before they cause disastrous results.
    A study entitled ``Small Business and the Y2K Problem,'' 
sponsored by Wells Fargo Bank and conducted by the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses echoed this testimony, 
finding that an estimated four and three-quarter million small 
employers were exposed to the Y2K problem. The Committee also 
learned that while many small businesses were likely to be 
affected by the problem, relatively few had become compliant. 
The Gartner Group, an international information technology 
consulting firm in Connecticut, had estimated that only 5 
percent of small companies had remediated their Y2K computer 
problems as of the third quarter of 1998 and that between 50 
percent and 60 percent of small companies would experience at 
least one mission critical failure as a result of Y2K computer 
problems.
    The Committee also received information indicating that 
many small businesses could face large expenditures to 
remediate their Y2K problems. A survey conducted by Arthur 
Andersen's Enterprise Group on behalf of a nationwide small 
business trade association, National Small Business United, 
found that to become Y2K compliant 29 percent of small 
businesses would need to purchase additional hardware, 24 
percent would have to replace existing hardware and 17% would 
need to convert their entire computer system. When then asked 
about their most difficult challenge relating to their 
information technology, more than 54 percent of the businesses 
surveyed cited ``affording the cost.''
    The Committee responded to this information by approving, 
in the 105th Congress, the Year 2000 Readiness and Small 
Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (H.R. 
3412, 105th Cong., 2d Sess.) which would have established a 
loan program specifically designed to assist small businesses 
in becoming Y2K compliant. While that bill passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent on September 30, 1998, the House of 
Representatives did not adopt it prior to adjournment.
    So that a loan program specifically designed for the Y2K 
problem would be available to as many small businesses as 
possible, the Committee approved S. 314 early in the first 
session of the 106th Congress. On February 2, 1999, the 
Committee marked-up S. 314 by a unanimous vote. On March 2, 
1999, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 99-0. On March 
23, the bill passed the House of Representatives, without 
amendment, by a voice vote and the President signed the 
legislation into law on April 2, 1999 (Public Law 106-8).

2. The Y2K Act

    On June 9, 1999, the Senate considered legislation (S. 96) 
to limit damages in civil actions arising out of Year 2000 
computer problems. The bill established certain procedural 
rules to govern all court claims based on the Y2K problems of a 
private business and set specific limits on certain contract 
claims, tort claims and class actions. This bill was strongly 
supported by the small business community which was justifiably 
concerned that the pervasive litigation expected as a result of 
the Y2K problem would particularly harm small businesses. 
Chairman Bond spoke twice on Senate floor urging his colleagues 
to pass legislation to assist small businesses by establishing 
procedures to efficiently resolve disputes arising from the Y2K 
computer problem.
    Additionally, in response to concerns raised by the small 
business community, Chairman Bond co-sponsored an amendment to 
S. 96 with Senator Gregg to require Federal agencies to waive 
civil money penalties for blameless small businesses that in 
good faith attempt to correct their Y2K problems, but 
nevertheless inadvertently violate a Federal regulation or 
rule. Most experts that had studied the Y2K problem agreed that 
regardless of how diligent a business was at fixing its Y2K 
problems, unknowable difficulties were still likely to arise 
that may have placed the operations of such businesses at risk. 
The amendment was intended to ensure that the Federal 
government did not further punish small businesses that have 
attempted to fix their Y2K problems, but were nevertheless 
placed in financial peril because of these problems. On June 
15, the amendment was adopted by a vote of 71 to 28. The 
conference committee included language substantially similar to 
the amendment in the conference report to H.R. 775, the House's 
version of the Y2K limited liability bill. The conference 
report was passed by both the Senate and the House and signed 
by the President on July 20, 1999.

                       b. Other Committee Efforts

1. Funding for small business Y2K assistance

    On March 25, 1999, Chairman Bond sent a letter to Senator 
Gregg, Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Justice, State and the Judiciary, and to Senator Hollings, 
Ranking Democrat of that Subcommittee, to request an earmark 
appropriation of $20 million, in two-year money, specifically 
for the Y2K loan program established by S. 314. The letter was 
co-signed by 25 other senators. As a result of the letter, the 
report to S. 1217, the bill establishing appropriations for the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
related agencies for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2000, 
clarified that an additional $20,000,000 for Y2K guaranteed 
loans was set-aside to permit small businesses to address Y2K 
compliance issues.

2. Federal and State cooperation

    On February 16, 1999, Chairman Bond sent a letter to the 
governor of each state to request their assistance in educating 
small businesses regarding the Y2K computer problem and about 
the availability of the Y2K loan program, once the legislation 
is enacted into law. Additionally, the letter asked for a 
description of the activities each state was undertaking to 
assist small businesses in becoming Y2K compliant and any 
thoughts each governor may have on the activities the Federal 
government could undertake to assist their efforts.

3. Y2K and the agencies

    The Year 2000 (Y2K) computing crisis posed a formidable 
challenge to all organizations, including the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In that regard, the Committee requested 
that the GAO verify that SBA's mission critical systems are 
fully prepared for Y2K. The results of the GAO efforts were 
worrying in that while SBA had undertaken considerable efforts 
to be ready for Y2K, they had not completed all the work that 
would reduce the potential exposure of the SBA to a Y2K related 
failure. The GAO reported that because Y2K efforts were 
incomplete, that the SBA ``lacks reasonable assurance'' that 
its systems were ready for Y2K. The Committee was concerned 
about the result of the report, and requested that the SBA 
immediately remedy the situation to the satisfaction of the 
GAO. In this regard, the Committee required that the SBA report 
its efforts to the Committee on a monthly basis and Chairman 
Bond wrote a series of letters to SBA Administrator Alvarez 
outlining his concerns. By the end of the year, the SBA had 
rectified most of the issues to the satisfaction of the GAO and 
the Committee.
    At Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Committee was 
concerned that EPA had similarly not undertaken sufficient 
efforts to ensure that their mission critical systems were 
fully prepared for Y2K. The Committee worked with the GAO and 
staff from the EPA Inspector General (IG) to gain a better 
understanding of the efforts then underway. The Committee 
hosted two large scale briefings with all interested parties 
where all Y2K efforts underway at the EPA were discussed. The 
Committee was satisfied that the EPA had taken all the 
necessary steps to reduce the likelihood of a Y2K failure at 
EPA.

                          VII. Fighting Fraud


                          a. Internet Cramming

    On October 25, 1999, the Committee held a hearing entitled 
``Internet Cramming:// The Latest High-Tech Fraud on Small 
Business'' which focused on a scam that has specifically 
targeted small businesses. The scam occurs when a company 
engaged in web site creation and hosting places, or ``crams,'' 
charges for an allegedly ``free'' web site on the phone bills 
of small businesses that have not authorized the charges. 
Typically, the scam begins when a telemarketer contacts a small 
business and offers to design and host an individually-tailored 
web site free of charge for a 30-day trial period. Regardless 
of whether the small business authorizes the service or merely 
requests more information in the mail, charges for the web site 
may appear on its next telephone bill. In addition, the web 
sites usually have little value because they contain limited or 
inaccurate information about the business, frequently include 
misspellings, and are not easily located on the Internet.
    In response to the hearing, Chairman Bond directed the 
Committee to include on its web site a description of the fraud 
and a list of tips for small businesses to avoid being caught 
in this scam. Chairman Bond also wrote informational columns 
about this scam and tips on how to avoid being victimized that 
were published by the National Federation of Independent 
Business, International Mass Retail Association, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Women 
Business Owners in newsletters provided to their members. 
Chairman Bond also gave numerous interviews to the media to 
warn businesses about this fraud.

                             b. Toner Fraud

    On March 28, 2000, the Committee held a hearing entitled 
``Swindling Small Businesses: Toner-Phoner Schemes and Other 
Office Supply Scams,'' to examine the fraudulent telemarketing 
of office supplies to small businesses, particularly printer 
and copier toner. The hearing exposed office supply scams as an 
extraordinarily widespread problem. The Committee found that 
the fraudulent sale of toner alone costs businesses and non-
profit organizations one quarter of a billion dollars each 
year. The Committee also found that the perpetrators of this 
fraud can be very prolific. A single medium-sized telemarketer 
investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defrauded, 
on average, a small business every 90 minutes of every day for 
four years.
    In response to the hearing, Chairman Bond announced a list 
of tips for small businesses to avoid becoming a victim of 
office supply fraud and committed to continuing to work with 
the FTC to help deter office supply fraud. As part of that 
effort and in response to testimony at the hearing that the 
current civil money penalty authority of the FTC is 
insufficient to deter individuals committing fraud, Chairman 
Bond wrote FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky requesting the FTC's 
views on raising the maximum civil money penalty that the FTC 
is permitted to claim with respect to violations of section 5 
of the FTC Act. On July 6, 2000, Chairman Pitofsky responded by 
stating that a significant increase in the FTC's civil money 
penalty authority would signal to the public and the courts 
that Congress supports the FTC's efforts to obtain compliance 
with FTC orders, rules and statutes. In addition, Chairman 
Pitofsky argued that the potential for considerably higher 
civil money penalties would likely deter violations more 
effectively.
    Chairman Bond communicated with Senator John McCain, 
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation (Commerce Committee), the Committee with 
jurisdiction over the FTC Act, regarding increasing the civil 
money penalty authority of the FTC. In response to Chairman 
Bond's communication, Chairman McCain resolved that the 
Commerce Committee would consider increasing the FTC's civil 
money penalty authority in the 107th Congress. Chairman Bond 
intends on working with Chairman McCain in the 107th Congress 
to ensure that the FTC has appropriate authority to deter 
potential violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act.

        VIII. Slotting Allowances and Retail Competition Issues

    As a result of complaints from small manufacturers to 
Senator Kerry, about potential anti-competitive practices 
within the grocery industry, Chairman Bond instructed Committee 
staff to examine the issue. Slotting allowances are fees paid 
by manufacturers of consumer products to retailers for the 
privilege of placing and keeping their products on the 
retailers' shelves.
    As a result of the examination, the Committee became 
concerned that these fees have become a mechanism by which 
dominant manufacturers can drive their competition out of the 
market simply by paying retailer's for control of shelf space. 
Additionally, these fees can permit retailers to demand 
increasingly significant payments up-front, which can be 
harmful to both small manufacturers and small competing 
retailers.
    The majority of the small business manufacturers who were 
interviewed by Committee staff and who had been negatively 
affected by slotting allowances were reluctant to seek 
assistance from the FTC because their fear of retaliation was 
apparently overwhelming. Indeed, many of these same companies 
were reluctant to even be interviewed by Committee staff. 
Moreover, many small business owners who were interviewed by 
Committee staff spoke of marketplace abuses with dubious 
legality.
    After conducting interviews with over 70 small 
manufacturers, Chairman Bond determined that the Committee 
should hold a hearing on this issue and such a hearing was held 
on September 14, 1999. Given the fear of retaliation, it was 
particularly difficult to get small manufacturers to testify 
before the Committee. The Committee was successful in securing 
two small manufacturers to testify, but only with a guarantee 
of confidentiality. These two witnesses (Witness A & Witness B) 
testified from behind a screen with voice scramblers. Their 
testimony and that of a Baltimore Ice Cream manufacturer 
provided vivid evidence of existing abusive practices in the 
retail industry.
    The second panel focused on industry-wide issues rather 
than specific experiences. The first witness was Mr. Gregory 
Gundlach, an Associate Professor from the University of Notre 
Dame. In analyzing the problem of slotting allowances, 
Professor Gundlach concluded that while slotting allowances 
provide some distribution efficiencies, the result is higher 
consumer prices, less consumer information and fewer consumer 
choices. The next witness was Mr. Robert Skitol, an antitrust 
attorney and a former Federal Trade Commission attorrney. Of 
particular concern to Mr. Skitol was exclusive contracts that 
effectively shut out all competition, which in turn can lead to 
higher concentration, diminished competition, higher food 
prices, less innovation and less choice to consumers. The final 
witness of this panel was Mr. Ken Partch, who is the editor-at-
large of Supermarket Business. As a result of surveys carried 
out by his publication he observed that even the industry is 
divided as to the rationale for charging the fees. Mr Partch 
suspected that the real reason for their existence is a desire 
on the part of the retailer to get a greater amount of the 
consumers dollar.
    The third panel was made up of representatives from 
associations that are favorable to slotting allowances. The 
first witness was Mr. John Motley of the Food Marketing 
Institute (FMI) who outlined the various reasons why retailers 
charge the fees. The second witness was Mr. Jeffery Schmidt who 
is an anti-trust attorney and testified on behalf of the 
Grocery Manufacturers of America and he outlined GMA's 
position, which is neutral on the issue.
    In the aftermath of the hearing the committee received 
numerous faxes, e-mails and phone calls from all over the 
country that were supportive of the Committee's efforts. In the 
months after the hearing, Committee staff interviewed another 
130 small manufacturers who provided the Committee with further 
evidence of marketplace abuses that harm small manufacturers 
and small retailers. As a result of these communications, the 
Committee established a working relationship with staff from 
the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Bureau of Competition and 
made efforts to refer potential cases of anti-competitive 
practices directly to the relevant staff at the FTC. This 
process is ongoing.
    Chairman Bond also sent a letter on October 20th, 1999 to 
Robert Pitofsky, Chairman of the FTC, requesting the FTC to 
examine closely the practical effects of slotting allowances. 
Chairman Bond requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) to 
study the practice. Additionally, Chairman Bond requested that 
the Secretary of Defense brief Committee staff on the existence 
of such practices at DOD Commissaries and Exchanges.
    The Committee expanded their efforts to investigate this 
practice and started investigating other related practices in 
other retail industries such as home improvement stores, 
bookshops. The Committee also focused its efforts on current 
practices involving the marketing of fresh fruit and produce 
within grocery stores. The Committee also continued to meet 
with all relevant associations, including the Food Marketing 
Institute, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Independent Bakers 
Association, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, 
Western Growers Association, Florida Fruit & Vegetable 
Association, the Tortillia Industry Association, the National 
Grocers Association and others, to hear their concerns and to 
attempt to resolve the difficulties feared by small 
manufacturers.
    In the beginning of the second session of the 106th 
Congress, it became increasingly clear that the GAO was having 
problems obtaining the necessary information to respond to the 
Committee's request. The Committee attempted to assist GAO by 
asking for help from the trade associations, with only minimal 
success. At GAO's suggestion, the Committee provided a letter 
of confidentiality to trade associations who were concerned 
that corporate sensitive information might be made public as a 
result of the GAO's investigation. Ultimately, the GAO's 
efforts produced little information that could assist the 
Committee.
    In response to the Committee's letters, the FTC responded 
by putting together a two-day workshop on slotting allowances 
in order to gain a better understanding of the implications of 
the issue. As a result of that workshop and other efforts to 
study the problem, the FTC is currently preparing a preliminary 
report of their findings to be published in February 2001. To 
voice support for the efforts of the FTC to gain a better 
understanding of the complex issues Chairman Bond sent a letter 
to FTC Chairman Pitofsky on the opening day of the workshop. 
The letter was signed by Senators Bond, Kerry, Kohl, Enzi, 
Thomas, Shelby and Grassley.
    Throughout the second session of the 106th Congress, 
Committee continued its efforts to gain a better understanding 
of the implications of the issue. Through its investigations, 
the Committee became aware that slotting allowances were 
beginning to cause serious problems in the produce industry. 
The Committee undertook a series of interviews with produce 
industry associations and executives. As a result of these 
interviews the Committee determined that another hearing was 
necessary to address the concerns of the produce industry.
    The hearing was held on September 14, 2000 and was intended 
to address produce industry slotting and concentration issues 
and to provide an update to the efforts of the FTC and the GAO. 
The hearing's first panel consisted of representatives of the 
three of the most important produce trade associations in the 
country. Each witness addressed the concerns within the produce 
industry regarding the escalating practice of charging slotting 
fees for produce and, in particular, for loose fruits and 
vegetables. Each witness on the panel also stated that produce 
growers and shippers are being asked by retailers to pay off-
invoice fees, which are unrelated to actual product cost, 
merely to continue doing business. The witnesses also addressed 
how slotting allowances and other similar fees provide up-front 
profit to the retailer and, therefore, reduce the incentive 
that retailers have to sell produce to consumers. One witness 
addressed the price spread issue, whereby the price paid to 
farmers is significantly lower than the price paid by consumers 
for their products and another addressed the widespread 
concerns of the industry as to the effects of retail 
concentration on suppliers.
    In the second panel the GAO testified that they were 
unsuccessful in gaining the cooperation needed from the 
industry to conduct a study on slotting fees, despite pledges 
of confidentiality on the part of the GAO and the Committee. 
The second witness was from the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA), who testified about the results of a study 
being conducted by USDA on trade practices in the fresh fruit 
and vegetable markets. USDA testified that their studies have 
found that fixed or variable fees and trade allowances have 
increased in incidence and magnitude over the last five years. 
The final witness was Professor Gregory Gundlach, who had also 
testified in the first Committee hearing on slotting 
allowances. Professor Gundlach testified about the current 
state of academic and government research on slotting fees, 
emphasizing that without analyzing transaction-level data, the 
claims of pro-competitive or anti-competitive aspects of 
slotting and similar fees cannot be proven. Professor Gundlach 
also stated that the FTC has primarily focused on how slotting 
fees can be used by dominant manufacturers to exclude 
competitors, but the agency has not focused on the effect that 
retail concentration has on increasing the bargaining power of 
retailers to demand such fees. Professor Gundlach suggested 
that this is an important issue that should not be ignored.
    As a result of the difficulties in obtaining the necessary 
information to make hard public policy decision on the effects 
of these practices, Chairman Bond requested an appropriation 
for the FTC from the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations 
Chairman, Senator Gregg. Senator Gregg was very supportive of 
the Chairmans request and Congress appropriated $900,000 to the 
FTC to allow the FTC to study the issue in sufficient detail to 
allow the FTC to make a clearer determination of the pro-
competitive or anti-competitive aspects of slotting fees and 
related trade practices. This study began in January 2001 and 
is expected to take 16 months.

                IX. Increasing Small Business Exporting

    On December 14, 1999, the Committee held a forum to provide 
an overview of the barriers small businesses face when 
exporting and potential Federal solutions. The forum also 
focused on two specific issues that small business exporters 
have identified as primary concerns--financing and e-commerce. 
The Forum helped identify the recommendations to help increase 
small business exports.
    One of the recommendations at the hearing was to provide 
additional incentives to smaller banks to make export loans. 
Specifically, it was recommended that the Private Export 
Financing Corporation (PEFCO), a private corporation owned by 
commercial banks, industrial corporations and financial service 
companies, be permitted to purchase the guaranteed portion of 
SBA-guaranteed loans made under the Export Working Capital 
Program (EWCP). The Committee acted on such recommendation by 
including in the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 a 
change to the Small Business Act to permit the sale of such 
loans to PEFCO. That act was signed into law on December 21, 
2000.

          X. Creating a Dialogue Among Businesses on Education

    On May 25, 1999, the Committee held a hearing to discuss 
the current state of public education, how it affects small 
business, and how small businesses can contribute to the 
education of its future workforce. The Committee heard from 
operators of small businesses, the American Management 
Association, the National Alliance of Business, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce and a local chamber of commerce that has 
partnered with its school district to improve the relationship 
between the business and education communities. After the 
hearing, Chairman Bond sent a Dear Colleague letter to each 
senator requesting them to contact the Committee if they were 
interested in learning more about how businesses can become 
involved in education or promoting private-sector educational 
arrangements in their states.
    On September 9, 1999, the Committee followed the earlier 
hearing with a roundtable discussion that addressed the 
opportunities the business community has to become more 
involved in improving public education. The roundtable 
participants consisted of a variety of representatives from 
education and business associations. Chairman Bond opened the 
roundtable by noting that studies conducted by the National 
Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce rate education as the most pressing public policy 
issue today. Chairman Bond noted that the purpose of the 
roundtable was to encourage a discussion on this issue and to 
showcase initiatives that are working at the State and local 
levels.
    To disseminate the best practices of small businesses 
working with their local educational systems and encourage 
nationwide implementation of the most successful practices, the 
Committee requested the GAO to report on the best practices 
that secondary schools and institutions of higher education use 
to address the urgent need of businesses for skilled workers. 
The report is due out in Fall of 2001.

       XI. Oversight of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation


                  a. General Accounting Office Studies

    During 1999, the Small Business Committee began an intense 
review of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The 
first step in this review was to commission a study by the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) of the PBGC's operational 
efficiency and effectiveness, with particular emphasis on the 
PBGC's contracting practices. A letter requesting this study 
was sent to Comptroller General David Walker on February 16, 
1999; the letter was signed by both Chairman Bond and Senator 
Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Special Committee on Aging. 
The original study request was further amplified by a March 16, 
2000 request from Senators Bond, Grassley, and Breaux for 
information on the total PBGC human resources (PBGC employees 
plus contractor staff) and how those resources tracked with the 
PBGC's changing workloads over time; a further Bond/Grassley 
letter of July 25, 2000 asked questions concerning the 
applicability of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 
the PBGC.
    At a September 21, 2000 joint hearing of the Senate Small 
Business Committee and the Special Committee on Aging, the 
General Accounting Office unveiled results of these studies. 
The GAO found that the PBGC's approach to creating Field 
Benefit Administration (FBA) offices had been relatively ad 
hoc--creating an FBA office when a large plan failed, in order 
to keep the pension plan's administrative staff available for 
resolving the plan. Now that the PBGC has needed to handle 
fewer large pension plan failures on a crisis-management basis, 
the GAO found that the PBGC should engage in strategic planning 
to determine systematically the optimal distribution of FBA 
offices around the country. The GAO found that, while the 
PBGC's contracting may meet minimal legal standards, the PBGC 
could do more to enhance competition in contracting out the 
management of the FBA offices. The GAO was critical of the 
PBGC's failure to collect systematic data on each FBA office, 
to determine the effectiveness of incumbent contractors, and 
the GAO also was critical of the organizational placement of 
the PBGC's Contracts and Controls Review Department, which the 
GAO found was not truly independent under generally accepted 
government auditing standards.
    In a separate request on December 8, 1999, Senators Bond 
and Grassley requested the Comptroller General to clarify an 
October 7, 1986 opinion concerning whether the PBGC acted in a 
fiduciary capacity in its management of trust assets taken over 
from trusteed pension plans. The GAO responded on January 27, 
2000, finding that the PBGC did not act as a fiduciary to the 
extent that it was inconsistent with the PBGC's statutory 
obligations as a guarantor of benefits. Although the PBGC may 
be appointed a trustee, its fiduciary responsibility is not 
``coextensive'' with the fiduciary responsibilities of other 
trustees.

                          b. Computer Security

    On January 11, 2000, Senators Bond and Grassley wrote PBGC 
Executive Director David Strauss concerning weaknesses in the 
PBGC's information systems, as revealed in a penetration study 
conducted for the PBGC Inspector General by 
PricewaterhouseCoopers. Senators Bond and Grassley asked Mr. 
Strauss to prepare a corrective action plan and to submit 
monthly reports on the implementation of that plan, beginning 
on February 15, 2000. Senators Bond and Grassley stated that 
they intended to see all outstanding information security 
issues resolved by the end of Fiscal 2000.
    Mr. Strauss responded with a corrective action plan on 
February 15, 2000. Senators Bond and Grassley referred it to 
PBGC Inspector General Wayne Poll on February 25, 2000, for his 
opinion whether it would satisfactorily address the information 
security problems. Mr. Poll responded on March 2, 2000, saying 
that the plan addressed the specific issues identified in his 
penetration study, but withheld judgment whether it would 
ensure adequate information security.
    Mr. Strauss continued to report monthly on implementation 
of the corrective action plan, and reported completion on 
October 13, 2000. On November 30, 2000, Mr. Poll wrote Senators 
Bond and Grassley that the PBGC's implementation of the 
corrective action plan ``essentially satisfied'' his concerns 
over the reported security weaknesses and that it will 
``effectively strengthen'' the PBGC's overall security program. 
He identified two items that will require continuing attention 
by the PBGC's management. Senators Bond and Grassley wrote Mr. 
Strauss on December 8, 2000, thanking him for the PBGC's hard 
work in implementing the corrective action plan and for his 
responsiveness in submitting timely monthly reports. Senators 
Bond and Grassley requested comment on Mr. Poll's two items 
that require continuing attention. On December 21, 2000, Mr. 
Strauss agreed with one of Mr. Poll's two items of concern: 
that the PBGC's staff be reminded of security concerns 
frequently, in order to prevent a relapse. On the other point, 
regarding technical security standards for various PBGC 
computer platforms, Mr. Strauss responded with a list of 
actions taken to date as well as actions to be taken in the 
future to enforce security on a continuing basis.
    The status of the PBGC's information security was also a 
subject of the September 21, 2000 joint oversight hearing by 
the Senate Committee on Small Business and the Special 
Committee on Aging. At the hearing, Mr. Poll committed to 
making a follow-up penetration study. In follow-up 
correspondence on October 3, 2000, Senators Bond and Grassley 
re-stated their request for Mr. Poll to conduct a new 
penetration study, in addition to studying the accuracy of 
Initial Determination Letters (IDLs).

                         XII. Bankruptcy Reform

    In the 106th Congress, the Senate considered the Bankruptcy 
Reform Act of 1999. The Act would have amended Chapters 7 and 
13 of the Bankruptcy Code to eliminate certain abusive creditor 
practices and permit courts, in certain circumstances, to 
dismiss a bankruptcy case or convert a Chapter 7 case to 
Chapter 13. Of particular interest to the Committee, the bill 
also amended Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to expedite and 
simplify small business bankruptcies. The Committee advocated a 
balanced approach to Chapter 11 reform that takes into 
consideration the concerns of both small business debtors and 
creditors.
    In response to concerns of the small business community, 
Chairman Bond requested Senator Grassley, the sponsor of the 
legislation, to include an amendment to increase the 
participation of small business creditors in Chapter 11 
bankruptcy proceedings. The amendment permits a court to expand 
the membership of a creditors committee to include a creditor 
that is a small business if the court determines that the small 
business creditor holds claims of the kind represented by the 
committee and that are, in the aggregate, disproportionately 
large when compared to the annual gross revenue of the small 
business creditor. Further, the amendment increases a small 
business' right to access information considered by a creditors 
committee. As a result of Chairman Bond's actions, the 
amendment was included in the final conference report on the 
bankruptcy legislation that was passed by Congress prior to the 
end of the 106th Congress. That conference report, however, was 
subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. In the 107th 
Congress, the Committee intends to continue to advocate fair 
bankruptcy law for small business debtors and creditors.

                    XIII. Hearings of the Committee


ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING, MARKUP OF PENDING LEGISLATION, AND NOMINATION 
  OF PHYLLIS K. FONG TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE SMALL BUSINESS 
  ADMINISTRATION--WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 5, 1999

    On February 5, 1999, the Committee held its organizational 
meeting for the 106th Congress. The Committee also held a 
markup of two bills, and a confirmation hearing and Committee 
vote on Phyllis K. Fong to be the Inspector General for the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). Chairman Christopher S. 
``Kit'' Bond (R-MO) prefaced the meeting by welcoming new 
members to the Committee and emphasizing the bipartisan manner 
by which the Committee operates as a united voice for small 
business. He stressed that in the past the Committee has passed 
``legislation that is very helpful to small businesses, and we 
intend to continue to do that.''
    At the outset of the organizational meeting, Chairman Bond 
set out his broad agenda for the Committee during the 106th 
Congress. He noted that the main function of the Committee is 
to oversee ``the operation and effectiveness of the SBA, and 
its credit, procurement, and management assistance for small 
businesses.'' Chairman Bond and Senator Kerry John F. Kerry (D-
MA), Ranking Member, discussed a shared concern over economic 
injury loans from the SBA to address the year 2000 (Y2K) 
computer crisis and the availability of adequate funding for 
the existing 7(a) loan program. Both agreed that the Committee 
needs to be sensitive to any disincentive Y2K legislation may 
have on people trying to prevent Y2K-related problems, and to 
assure that necessary funding for the existing 7(a) loan 
program will be available. Other priorities discussed were tax 
relief for small businesses, 100% deductibility of health 
insurance for the self-employed, implementation of the Internal 
Revenue Service Restructuring and Relief Act of 1998, and 
easing the tax burden on small enterprises.
    Chairman Bond proposed one change in Committee Rules for 
the 106th Congress, which would require witnesses coming before 
the committee to submit their testimony two business days 
before the hearing. Previously, the Committee Rules had 
required testimony to be submitted 48 hours in advance. This 
change would allow staff to circulate testimony to Committee 
Members with more time for review. The Committee Rules were 
adopted by unanimous consent.
    The Committee also discussed that the Committee on Rules 
and Administration intends to change the Fiscal Year for Senate 
Committees to conform to the Federal Fiscal Year. As a result, 
the Committee on Small Business will operate on a transitional 
budget from March 1 until September 30, 1999, and the Committee 
will not submit a budget for this period. The Chairman noted 
that a full-year budget for Fiscal Year 2000 will be submitted 
for the Committee during the Summer.
    Having concluded the organizational meeting, Chairman Bond 
began the markup of the two bills before the Committee--S. 314, 
``Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act'' (Y2K bill), and S. 
364, the ``Small Business Investment Improvement Act of 1999'' 
(SBIC bill). The Y2K bill was introduced to ``provide 
assistance and to direct attention to small business about the 
need to make their computer and their software systems Y2K 
compliant.'' The SBIC bill provides modifications to strengthen 
the SBIC program and make it more accessible to small 
businesses. After discussion by the Committee, with a quorum 
present, both bills were favorably reported by the Committee by 
unanimous consent.
    Finally, the Committee turned to the nomination of Ms. 
Phyllis K. Fong to be the SBA Inspector General. After a brief 
introduction, Ms. Fong provided an opening statement in which 
she expressed her desire to develop a working relationship with 
the Committee and to be ``independent and responsive to all of 
you.'' She emphasized that one of her priorities, if confirmed, 
would be to reassess ``where the office has been and where we 
should be going.'' She commended the section 7(a) and 8(a) 
programs and expressed her desire to investigate new 
initiatives, based on priorities and available resources. Ms. 
Fong pledged to examine internal operations of the SBA, 
continually monitor various systems, and to ensure that 
programs function as intended. She concluded by welcoming the 
input of Committee Members and their staffs in the activities 
of the SBA's Office of the Inspector General. A roll call vote 
was ordered by Chairman Bond that the nomination of Ms. Fong as 
Inspector General of the SBA be reported favorably to the 
Senate, which was approved by the Committee 16 to 0.

 ROUNDTABLE--OVERSIGHT OF THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT (RFA) AND THE 
    RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (SBREFA)--WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 10, 1999

    On March 10, 1999, the Committee held a roundtable on 
oversight of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), also 
known as the Red Tape Reduction Act. The roundtable 
participants consisted of 28 representatives of small business 
groups from a wide cross section of the small business 
community. Chairman Bond noted that the roundtable was intended 
to ascertain the effect of RFA and SBREFA on government 
agencies and how they affected small business. Senator Kerry 
encouraged the participants to express both positive and 
negative comments with regard to various government agencies 
and their compliance with RFA and SBREFA.
    The first topic of discussion was agency compliance with 
RFA and SBREFA, which began with a discussion of coverage and 
applicability. Participants cited concerns with Internal 
Revenue Service's (IRS) interpretation of SBREFA and expressed 
the necessity for the IRS to reverse its narrow interpretation 
of both statutes. They emphasized that the IRS should be 
looking for ways to ease the burden on small businesses. Other 
participants commented on the failure of the Health Care 
Finance Administration (HCFA) and the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) to comply with certain aspects of RFA or SBREFA. 
Individual industries reported to the Committee on how their 
members are affected by Federal agencies and their regulations, 
as well as legislation passed by Congress.
    The roundtable participants then turned their attention to 
agency rulemakings and judicial review. This segment included 
such issues as economic analysis, the role of the Office of 
Advocacy, and experiences with the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA) and the EPA. The discussion opened 
with a review of the resources available to small businesses in 
dealing with various agencies. One participant commented on a 
deficient Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for OSHA's 
Safety and Health Program Rule, which was inaccurate and not 
understandable by those charged with using it when the rule was 
reviewed by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. Another 
participant raised concerns about agencies making rulings 
without having any knowledge about how the rulings will affect 
certain industries. Participants praised the Office of Advocacy 
for its work on behalf of small business, and they agreed that 
the office deserved continued support. Some participants 
contended that more funding is required for the Office of 
Advocacy, especially in the area of economic research.
    The roundtable concluded its discussion of agency 
rulemakings by addressing the Small Business Advocacy Review 
Panel process, which was established under SBREFA. One 
participant listed three problems with the panel process: (1) 
panels should be convened much earlier; (2) participants on the 
panel are not getting the data they need to participate fully; 
and (3) trade association representatives have not been allowed 
to participate in the panels directly. Other problems were 
identified with respect to OSHA and EPA, and actions they took 
during the panel process. Another participant commented that 
the panel process should emphasize the opportunity for small 
businesses with 50 or fewer employees to participate.
    The roundtable participants also addressed Section 610 of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires agencies to 
review their regulations to determine their impact on small 
businesses and whether any changes are in order. Suey Howe, the 
Committee's Regulatory Counsel, noted that there has been some 
progress with respect to agencies reviewing their regulations 
under Section 610. Many of the entries on the Unified Agenda, 
however, are still not in compliance with the notification 
required under Section 610(c). According to one participant, 
businesses need to be given the opportunity to comment on the 
current rules, and under most circumstances such opportunities 
do not exist. Another participant commented that the 10-year 
statutory requirement for review under Section 610 is not 
enough for small business; the review should be an annual 
affair.
    The roundtable's next agenda item was compliance 
assistance. Ms. Howe emphasized that agencies are required 
under SBREFA to provide informal compliance assistance, and 
also to provide plain English compliance guides. One 
participant commented that many agencies are placing too much 
emphasis on enforcement and are doing a poor job with 
compliance assistance. More resources should be committed to 
reaching compliance-assistance goals, rather than punishment 
techniques. Another problem highlighted was the failure of 
agencies to make small businesses aware of how to access the 
compliance assistance programs that are available.
    The final topic of discussion for the roundtable was agency 
enforcement activities. One concern, shared by several 
participants, was that many small businesses are unwilling to 
report complete information on enforcement issues to the Small 
Business and Agriculture Ombudsman for fear of reprisals from 
agencies that have a great deal of discretion in interpreting 
regulations. Another problem raised by participants, relative 
to the Ombudsman program, was the lack of authority for the 
Ombudsman or the Fairness Boards to resolve problems with 
issues of enforcement. As a result of these problems, many 
individuals do not participate in the process. One participant 
noted that penalty reduction efforts often will not work 
because businesses are unlikely to disclose violations 
voluntarily for fear of being targeted for future inspections 
by the governing agency.
    Chairman Bond concluded the roundtable by emphasizing the 
importance of communication between small businesses and the 
Committee on the effect that agencies are having on their 
operations. He added that his goal is to make government more 
helpful to businesses and to assure accountability of Federal 
agencies regulating small enterprises.

HEARING--THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE SMALL 
        BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION--WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 16, 1999

    On March 16, 1999, the Committee held a hearing to review 
the President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget request for the SBA. 
Chairman Bond opened the hearing by emphasizing the importance 
of maintaining the strength of the SBA and its advocacy for 
small businesses. He stressed that the goal of the Committee is 
to preserve and improve the programs that make the SBA so 
valuable to small business. He also noted that it was unusual 
for the SBA to seek Congressional approval of its Fiscal Year 
2000 budget request when the agency was unable to provide the 
Committee with an audited financial statement for its Fiscal 
Year 1998 expenditures.
    SBA Administrator Aida Alvarez provided the Committee with 
an overview of the agency's Fiscal Year 2000 budget request. 
She asserted that the proposed budget would fund record levels 
of loan and venture capital assistance for America's small 
businesses by building upon accomplishments like the General 
Business Loan Guarantee program (known as the 7(a) loan 
program), the Economic Development Loan Guarantee program 
(known as the 504 loan program), and the Small Business 
Investment Company (SBIC) program. She also illustrated the 
potential of the Chairman's HUBZone program, which the agency 
expected to initiate on March 22, 1999.
    Chairman Bond raised a number of issues about the SBA's 
Fiscal Year 2000 budget proposal. He expressed concern about 
accountability with regards to the SBA's request for an 
extension from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
the agency to submit its financial statements for Fiscal Year 
1998. Ms. Alvarez responded that the SBA has not identified any 
problems to date, but the reason for the extension request was 
due to the complex nature of the statement. Chairman Bond also 
raised the question of the magnitude of the errors that the 
agency's auditor, Cotton & Company, identified in the 7(a) and 
504 loan programs as well as the disaster re-estimate 
calculations that would be included in the financial 
statements. Greg Walter, SBA Deputy Chief Financial Officer, 
responded by stating that the errors have no budgetary impact 
since they were in the re-estimate process, not the original 
estimates that the agency prepared for the current year.
    The Members of the Committee questioned the Administrator 
about the SBA's Fiscal Year 2000 budget proposal. Chairman Bond 
questioned the implementation of a hiring freeze. Ms. Alvarez 
responded that the SBA has been under a hiring freeze for five 
of the last six years, although the agency had filled 200 new 
positions during the past Fiscal Year. She continued by stating 
that the SBA proposed $10 million less in spending for salaries 
and expenses in Fiscal Year 2000, and the agency wanted to be 
able to manage that level of appropriations.
    In addition to commentary on various aspects of the budget 
request, Ms. Alvarez testified that the Women's Business 
Centers are operating under legislation that was adopted last 
year, which extended to five years the time period for 
providing grants. She noted that many of the Centers are 
approaching their fifth year, which requires more Federal 
support. John Gray, SBA Associate Deputy Administrator for 
Capital Access, testified that the SBA's asset-sales program 
anticipates selling all held assets while developing a hold 
model within the agency. Senator Kerry voiced concerns that the 
initial asset sales not become part of the subsidy-rate 
calculation.
    Following the testimony from the SBA representatives, the 
Committee heard from a panel of small business stakeholders. 
Mark Barbash, President, National Association of Development 
Companies, and Executive Director, Columbus Countywide 
Development Corporation, emphasized that the recovery rate on 
the 504 loan program is decreasing, not increasing, and that 
the subsidy numbers are what drives the SBA to make the 504 
loan program cost effective for borrowers and ultimately for 
the taxpayers. Deryl K. Schuster, Chairman, National 
Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, and President, 
Mid-America Division, Business Loan Center, testified that 
funding for the 7(a) loan program for Fiscal Year 2000 will be 
approximately $11 billion. He stated that the Administration 
continues to use excessive default and repurchase estimates and 
stressed that as a result of the SBA's over-estimated subsidy 
rate, the 7(a) loan program has generated $851 million in 
losses since credit reform in 1992, including $513 million in 
the last year based on the SBA's 2000 budget.
    Agnes Noonan, Executive Director, Women's Economic Self-
Sufficiency Team, testified that the Federal government has 
invested in an infrastructure of women's business centers 
throughout the country. She stated that the SBA's Office of 
Women's Business Ownership (OWBO) has extended 65 grants since 
1988, which has provided funding to 79 women's business center 
sites in 36 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 
She testified that Federal funding is critical to building a 
strong network of women's business centers. To achieve that 
goal, she recommended that centers reaching the end of their 
five-year cycle and centers no longer funded by OWBO be allowed 
to recompete for funding on a five-year cycle subject to 
performance reviews.
    With respect to the SBA's proposals on Small Business 
Development Centers (SBDCs), Max E. Summers, State Director, 
Missouri Small Business Development Centers, on behalf of the 
Association of Small Business Development Centers, testified 
against the agency's proposal to impose fees on SBDCs. He 
stated that last year 42% of the SBDCs' counseling clients were 
women and 22% were minorities. Overall they help their clients 
acquire over $3 billion in loans and capital each year. Mr. 
Summers testified that reducing Federal funding for this 
program by 25% as proposed by the SBA would result in the loss 
of Federal and matching funds critical to small enterprises.

 HEARING--BURIED ALIVE: SMALL BUSINESS CONSUMED BY TAX FILING BURDENS--
                     WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 12, 1999

    On April 12, 1999, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the paperwork and compliance burdens that the current tax 
system imposes on small businesses and the self-employed. In 
his opening statement, Chairman Bond noted that most small 
business owners do not mind paying their fair share of taxes, 
but they do mind the countless hours of keeping the records, 
filling out the forms, and worrying that they did it all 
correctly. He pointed out that for more than three quarters of 
small business owners, the bulk of these tasks are performed by 
professional tax preparer, which cost small business owners 
thousands of dollars that could instead be reinvested in their 
businesses. Additionally, the Chairman questioned how a small 
business owner is supposed to know which forms and schedules 
are necessary, let alone how to complete them accurately, and 
where that entrepreneur is supposed to find the time it all 
takes and still be able to keep the business afloat.
    Chairman Bond explained that the hearing was based in large 
part on his July 20, 1998, request to the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) that it identify the filing and reporting 
requirements that place significant burdens on small 
businesses. In his request, he also asked the GAO to comment on 
ways that these burdens could be reduced or eliminated without 
compromising overall compliance with the tax code.
    The hearing consisted of three panels, the first of which 
included two small business witnesses. Brian Gloe, Co-CEO, 
Rosse Lithographing Company in Kansas City, Missouri, testified 
that his company makes of a minimum of 186 filings with the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) each year. He emphasized that 
the cost of tax recordkeeping and reporting are approximately 
$72,000 a year, which accounts for more than 16% of the 
company's net income. The Committee also heard from Roger 
Harris, President, Padgett Business Services, who documented 
the burden of hiring a single employee, which can entail as 
many as 31 Federal forms and 25 forms in a state like Georgia. 
He also testified about the overall compliance burdens that 
small business owners must master including depreciation rules, 
alternative-minimum taxation, estimated taxes, as well as the 
added burdens that occur if the business is selected by the IRS 
for an audit.
    On the second panel, Margaret Wrightson, Associate 
Director, Tax Policy and Administrative Issues, GAO, presented 
the results of GAO examination of tax filing and reporting 
burdens requested by the Chairman. The GAO testimony revealed 
that a small business owner faces more than 200 IRS forms and 
schedules that could apply in a given year. These forms contain 
more than 8,000 lines, boxes, and data requirements, and are 
accompanied by more than 700 pages of instructions, which does 
not include the tax code, regulations, rulings, and countless 
other guidance that the IRS issues. The Committee also learned 
that 76% of small business owners hired a tax professional to 
file their tax returns in 1995 (the most recent IRS data 
available), and that more than 350,000 small businesses were 
audited in 1995--nearly twice the rate of non-business 
taxpayers. Even more troubling, the GAO reported that more than 
37% of small business audits resulted in no additional taxes or 
penalties.
    The final witness at the hearing was Charles O. Rossotti, 
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, who reviewed the 
agency's modernization plans, which will include a division 
dedicated to small businesses and the self-employed. He also 
described a number of initiatives the IRS is undertaking to 
improve the current system, while the new small-business 
division is being developed. Mr. Rossotti emphasized to the 
Committee that the long-term goal of the IRS is to organize the 
whole IRS into operating units that have specific 
responsibility for serving different groups of taxpayers, 
including small business, in order to provide top quality 
customer service.
    Following the Commissioner's testimony, Chairman Bond 
raised the issue of subjecting all the IRS' forms, 
publications, and letters to a common-sense review in an effort 
to provide more user-friendly communications for taxpayers. The 
Commissioner agreed that such an endeavor would be useful, and 
he committed to redrafting the worst offending documents if the 
Committee could help identify them. Subsequently, on May 26, 
1999, the Chairman unveiled the ``IRS Paperwork Unpopularity 
Poll'' on the Committee's webpage. In his letter to the 
Commissioner announcing the poll, the Chairman noted that it 
was designed to collect information about the IRS forms, 
schedules, instructions, publications, letters, and notices 
most in need of common-sense review and revision. He also 
stressed that ``There is much that the IRS and Congress need to 
do if we are to reduce the tax filing and recordkeeping burdens 
that small businesses encounter every day. This common-sense 
review of IRS forms and other documents is a first step, and 
one that could have far-reaching benefits for small-business 
owners across the nation.''

ROUNDTABLE--OFFICE OF ADVOCACY AND SBIR/STTR PROGRAMS--WASHINGTON, DC, 
                             APRIL 21, 1999

    On April 21, 1999, the Committee held a roundtable to 
review the SBA's Office of Advocacy and the Small Business 
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology 
Transfer (STTR) programs. Chairman Bond prefaced the roundtable 
by stressing that the Office of Advocacy provides a critical 
voice for small business within the Administration. He also 
noted the success of the SBIR and STTR programs, which is 
evident through the thousands of small firms that have received 
research grants under the programs since 1982. The Chairman 
pointed out some concerns with respect to the programs, 
including the success of firms receiving multiple SBIR grants 
to commercialize their technologies and the geographic 
concentration of the SBIR awards in a few states.
    The roundtable began with participants focusing on the 
SBA's Office of Advocacy and its importance for small business. 
Todd McCracken, President, National Small Business United, 
emphasized that the Office of Advocacy serves an important role 
in the regulatory process by expressing the concerns of small 
businesses with regard to regulators. Many of the participants 
offered support of a separate budget line item for the Office 
of Advocacy in order to ensure its independence, stabilize 
staffing, and provide funding for economic research. Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy Jere Glover agreed that the Office of 
Advocacy would be strengthened with legislation that 
specifically addresses the independence of his office. Brad 
Frisby, Assistant General Counsel, National Mining Association, 
emphasized that the dedication of more money to the Office of 
Advocacy is an investment that would result in better 
regulations to the benefit of all small businesses.
    During the participants' discussion of the SBIR and STTR 
programs, Milt Stewart, President, Small Business High 
Technology Institute, stressed that the SBIR program is a 
success because it has established a basis for collaboration 
between small business and the collective group of 
universities, Federal government, large companies, venture 
capital and commercial banks. He and other participants urged 
Congress to adopt an authorization level that reflects the 
importance of this program in the upcoming Fiscal Year's 
appropriations bill.
    Robert Weiss, Chairman, Physical Sciences, Inc., remarked 
on the geographic distribution of the SBIR and STTR programs. 
He stated that small firms and universities have a very broad 
geographic distribution. In addition, the reason for lower 
awards in many states is that they have submitted fewer 
proposals. Chris Busch, SBIR Consultant, concurred with Mr. 
Weiss and went on to state that Congress should sustain the 
current SBIR outreach. He stressed that the outreach program 
should be increased and enlarged in an effort to involve small 
businesses in rural states. Rob Risser, CEO, Picometrix, and 
Chairman, Small Business Technology Coalition, stated that the 
ability and need to reach out to subcontract with universities 
across the country is based on the specialty, not geographic 
location, and is a necessary way of business for technology-
based companies.
    Dan Hill, Director, SBA Office of Technology, described the 
outreach activities occurring on a number of different fronts 
in several states. Jon Baron, SBIR Program Manager, Department 
of Defense (DOD/Defense), remarked that Congress should not 
look just at who gets the SBIR funds, but also at who benefits 
from the resulting technologies.

ROUNDTABLE--SBA'S 7(A) AND 504 LOAN PROGRAMS--WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 27, 
                                  1999

    On April 27, 1999, the Committee held the second in a 
series of five roundtables to discuss the programs and policies 
of the SBA. According to Chairman Bond, this series was 
intended to provide information for the Committee, the Members, 
and the staff as they prepare for the reauthorization of SBA 
programs and continue the Committee's oversight of the agency. 
The present roundtable focused on the two major loan programs 
administered by the SBA--the Guaranteed Business Loan program 
(known as the 7(a) loan program) and the Development Company 
Loan program (known as the 504 loan program). In Fiscal Year 
1999, these two programs will guarantee loans totaling in 
excess of $12 billion to more than 40,000 small business 
borrowers.
    In his opening statement, Chairman Bond explained that both 
7(a) and 504 loans were designed to make credit available to 
small businesses, despite tight economic conditions that often 
preclude banks from offering higher risk loans. Despite the 
economic prosperity of the last decade, the loans continued to 
serve small businesses whose credit needs were unmet by 
traditional financial institutions. The roundtable discussions 
were intended to bring to light many key issues affecting the 
7(a) and 504 loan programs.
    Overall, the roundtable participants expressed their 
support for both loan programs and offered recommendations for 
improvements. Deryl Schuster, President, Mid-America Division 
Business Loan Center, raised the issue of loan prepayments. 
Recently, an increasing number of borrowers have been prepaying 
their loans, adversely affecting the subsidy rate. Prepayment 
often occurs when companies withdraw early from their loans and 
refinance through other lenders that offer fixed-rate loans and 
lower fees. As a result, only borrowers who are unable to 
refinance, frequently due to poor fiscal health, keep their SBA 
loans, which could cause an increase in the credit subsidy 
rate. Tony Wilkinson, President and CEO, National Association 
of Government Guaranteed Lenders (NAGGL), proposed that a 
penalty be imposed for prepayment of loans of 15 years or 
longer, with the SBA benefitting from the resulting revenue. 
Prepayments cause a contraction of the availability of funds 
that the SBA can lend to other small businesses, and the 
imposition of a prepayment penalty would counteract this trend. 
Frank Swain, Partner, Baker & Daniels, suggested that educating 
borrowers regarding loan refinancing is a public policy issue 
since there are fiscal disadvantages to the borrower in rapidly 
refinancing loans due to closing costs. He also proposed that a 
prepayment penalty should apply only to businesses that prepay 
within the first three years of the loan period.
    The participants also addressed the subject of the 
programs' credit subsidy rates and re-estimate of the rates. 
Patricia Forbes, the Committee's Democrat Staff Director, noted 
that the credit-subsidy model currently in use consistently 
overestimates the capital needs of SBA loans. As a result, the 
agency must fight annually for the appropriation of extra funds 
that it will merely return to the Treasury at the close of the 
Fiscal Year. She proposed that this process could be avoided by 
lowering the default estimates in accordance with the 
corrected, year-end figures. Mr. Schuster cautioned, however, 
that the subsidy rate cannot be decreased so much that in times 
of economic difficulty there will be insufficient funds to 
support small businesses. He advocated the establishment of a 
floor on subsidy-rate levels.
    Lyle Frederickson, Senior Vice President, 1st Capital Bank, 
raised the topic of guarantee fees. These fees subsidize the 
loan programs, but in their present form they are burdensome 
for lenders to collect. Also, because they are an additional, 
monthly charge on the loan, the fees cause an increase in the 
frequency of prepayments. He recommended that the fee be 
converted to a one-time payment that would be charged when the 
loan was closed, decreasing both collection costs and the 
number of prepaid loans. It was also suggested that the fee 
could be paid at the beginning of the loan. James Hammersley, 
Director of SBA's Secondary Market Sales and 504 Sales, 
countered that a fee collected at the time of the loan's 
drafting would perhaps inhibit some companies from obtaining 
loans.
    With regard to the secondary loan market, Donna Faulk, Vice 
President, Mortgage-Backed Securities, Prudential Securities, 
noted that a gray area exists concerning refunding the premium 
to the purchaser in the event that the investor has prepaid 
using a premium pool security. In the present system, if a 
broker consolidates individual loans into premium pools, the 
premium is not refunded to the borrower but is instead placed 
by the SBA into the master reserve fund and used to pay 
delinquent loans. John Cox, Government Affairs Manager, 
National Tooling and Machining Association, recommended that 
the ``new market lending program'' proposal target particular 
geographic regions to encourage growth. In addition, he 
suggested that the program continue to rely on current lenders, 
rather than endeavor to attract new ones.
    With respect to the 504 loan program, Richard Jeffrey, 
President, National Association of Development Companies, 
recommended that the maximum size for debentures should be 
increased due to the effects of inflation. Presently the 
ceiling for regular debentures is $1 million, with $1.3 million 
allowable for public policy areas (achieving national 
objectives such as expanding exports, increasing minority 
business development opportunities, developing rural areas, 
revitalizing business districts). He also submitted that the 
category of women-owned businesses should be added to the list 
of public policy areas.
    In addition, Mr. Jeffrey suggested increasing or continuing 
authorizations for the Certified Development Companies (CDC) 
program and extending the sunset date on 504 loans for another 
three years. He also advocated establishing a new permanent 
loan liquidation program for the CDCs and making permanent the 
Premier Certified Lender (PCL) program, which permits loans to 
be processed in a relatively short period of time with reduced 
SBA involvement. Participants criticized the April 2, 1999, 
regulation that prohibited CDCs from receiving referral fees 
from participating third-party lenders because it did not allow 
the CDCs to be compensated when they have in fact performed a 
service for the borrower. With respect to multistate expansion, 
it was clear that the absence of regulations governing the 
practice had led to some confusion--the guidelines do not 
prohibit such expansion, but neither do they outline how to 
proceed. The SBA's current policy is to allow all previously 
expanded CDCs to remain in their enlarged territories.

   ROUNDTABLE--SMALL BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE ON SBA'S SBIC AND MICROLOAN 
                 PROGRAMS--WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 12, 1999

    On May 12, 1999, the Committee held the third in a series 
of roundtable discussions to examine the programs of the SBA. 
The focus of the roundtable was the SBA's Small Business 
Investment Company (SBIC) and Microloan programs. The 
roundtable participants included a variety of small business 
representatives with experience operating within these 
programs, in particular those involved in venture capital. 
Chairman Bond opened the discussion by reviewing the history of 
the SBIC and Microloan programs. He noted the importance of 
adapting these programs to meet the needs of borrowers/
recipients, while maintaining efficiency since they are funded 
through taxpayers' dollars.
    Initially, the roundtable participants focused on the 
importance of equity investment to small businesses, and there 
was general agreement that the SBIC program has been a 
successful force in bringing these equity investors to the 
small business community. Don Christensen, SBA Associate 
Administrator for Investment, pointed out that the 
Administration's budget request for the SBIC program of $27 
million for Fiscal Year 2000 would allow for $3.4 billion to be 
invested through the SBICs into the small business community. 
Several participants stressed the need for some of this funding 
to be focused in low-to-moderate-income rural and urban areas. 
Mr. Christensen also discussed the Administration's New Markets 
Venture Capital program, which he explained would solicit 
proposals from venture capitalists who would bring profit-
making companies into low-to-moderate-income areas.
    The participants then turned to a discussion of the 
traditional factors for ensuring future success of the SBICs 
and their investments. Small business investors explained how 
they placed their own staff in these companies to give real 
hands on help since many entrepreneurs need much more than just 
financial backing. The participants also applauded the SBA for 
realizing that technical support is of major importance. In 
addition, equity and technical support must work together in 
order for an investment in a small business to be successful. 
Several participants also raised issues concerning the SBA's 
regulations on control, noting that venture-capital companies 
are restricted in taking any real control over a company if 
they use SBIC money. Although venture-capital companies argue 
that accomplishing their financial goals is possible, 
regulations on control are a significant nuisance. Participants 
urged that the purposes of the Small Business Investment Act 
should be reexamined with respect to this issue.
    The discussion turned to the obstacles that prevent 
investment in low-to-moderate-income areas. Ray Moncrief, 
Executive Vice President, Kentucky Highlands Investment Corp., 
stressed that the Committee must understand that investors' 
motives are not simply goodwill, but to produce a profit. Last 
year the SBICs made $600 million worth of investments in low-
to-moderate-income areas with the average investment exceeding 
$1 million. This data shows that there are examples of 
successful investment in low-to-moderate-income areas, but 
these successes have usually been in large, traditional 
companies that have a low degree of risk. Participants stressed 
that investors believe that any investment in these areas must 
be sound, so that they produce jobs and a profit.
    Participants noted that one major problem was getting the 
necessary technical assistance in these low-to-moderate-income 
areas. Participants questioned how to attract qualified 
personnel to work in these areas, and how to locate and 
persuade investors to invest in rural areas where the return 
may only be moderate. Examples were given of lawyers and 
doctors who have gone into low-to-moderate-income communities 
to provide non-profit help. But as one participant pointed out, 
these examples of generous people are few and far between. All 
of the participants agreed there needs to be an economic reason 
to encourage long-term, consistent investments in these areas. 
Participants suggested that tax credits were one incentive that 
would be a credible way to start investing in low-to-moderate-
income areas. Another option was a low-to-moderate-income 
debenture program, which would ease or eliminate interest 
payments between the SBIC and the SBA for the first few years. 
This option, however, would not exempt small businesses 
receiving the investment from making interest payments to the 
SBIC.
    The final topic that the roundtable addressed concerned the 
Microloan program, which the participants generally deemed a 
success. Several participants, however, called for a change to 
the program's $25,000 loan cap. This restriction was put into 
place in 1991, but it was never adjusted for inflation or 
changes in the small business marketplace. The participants 
argued that the cap should be increased to $100,000, which 
would allow for the technical and general assistance needed to 
cover the cost of starting a business in today's market.

 ROUNDTABLE--SMALL BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE ON SBA'S MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE 
                 PROGRAMS--WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 20, 1999

    On May 20, 1999, the Committee held the fourth in a series 
of roundtables to review the SBA's programs. The present 
roundtable focused on the SBA's management assistance programs. 
Chairman Bond prefaced the roundtable with an overview of these 
programs, which include the Small Business Development Centers 
(SBDCs), the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), and 
the Women's Business Centers. The Chairman noted the successes 
of the programs and expressed confidence that the programs 
would continue to provide valuable assistance to small 
businesses in the future.
    The roundtable began with a review of the SBDC program. 
Woodrow McCutchen, Executive Director, Association of Small 
Business Development Centers, opened the discussion by noting 
his concern that the SBDC program would face a dismal future if 
the proposed budget cuts for this program were enacted. He 
explained that the SBDC program is based on matching funds from 
the private sector. As a result, every dollar cut from Federal 
funds for SBDCs will lead to a loss of private-sector funding. 
Mr. McCutchen expressed his belief that a reasonable budget for 
the program should be $98 million.
    The participants then addressed the merits of instituting a 
small fee that small businesses could pay SBDCs for counseling. 
Some participants raised concerns that such fees would only 
hurt the program because they would lead to paperwork and 
accounting costs and small businesses in need of counseling 
would likely shy away from the using SBDC services if a fee 
were imposed. Other participants remarked that a fee would 
prompt small businesses seeking counseling to be more prepared 
on their first visit to an SBDC, by having, for example, a 
business plan or solid ideas. The participants in favor of a 
fee also asserted that any paperwork or accounting problems 
that the SBDC might incur could be overcome by the SBDCs given 
their business expertise.
    The SCORE program was the next topic of discussion for the 
roundtable. Emmett Gumm, President, SCORE, reviewed a number of 
the program's recent successes, and he noted that the program 
is run by 12,000 volunteers, with only 13 paid employees. He 
asserted that SCORE needs an increase of $1.5 million primarily 
to enhance its Internet services. Its web page, which receives 
more than 1.3 million hits a month, allows counselors to work 
with people all over the country without the additional cost to 
travel. In fact, the program conducted 6,000 free e-mail 
counseling sessions in April 1999 alone. SCORE's Board of 
Directors plans to restructure the program so the Internet 
becomes an even bigger part of its overall resources.
    The final subject considered by the roundtable participants 
was the Women's Business Centers program. Andrea Silbert, 
President, Association of Women's Business Centers, reviewed 
the program and noted that helping women-owned businesses comes 
from three different areas--the SBA's Office of Women's 
Business Ownership (OWBO), National Women's Business Council, 
and the Association of Women's Business Center. Participants 
noted that the Women's Business Center Program had the greatest 
need for strengthening, primarily through accreditation. 
Several participants stressed that reporting by SBDCs, SCORE, 
and Women's Business Centers should be on a consistent basis in 
order to provide a uniform standard by which all programs could 
be evaluated. Discussion also centered on the Women's Business 
Centers' web site and some of the problems surrounding its 
implementation, including retaining technical staff. There were 
also difficulties with the web site initiative in matching 
counselors and clients in the same region, thereby allowing the 
counselor to assist the client adequately at the local level as 
well as through Internet counseling at the national level. 
Committee staff offered numerous suggestions on how the Women's 
Business Centers could handle the Internet counseling.
    Final Committee staff comments suggested that the three 
organizations work together on their Internet struggles with 
each contributing to and learning from the others what they 
have accomplished.

  ROUNDTABLE--SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENT--WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 20, 1999

    On May 20, 1999, the Committee held the fifth in a series 
of roundtables on the programs of the SBA. The present 
roundtable focused on small business procurement and was 
attended by participants representing women and minority small 
business owners and American Indian business groups. Chairman 
Bond opened the roundtable by noting that the Federal goal for 
procurement from small businesses is 23%. He expressed his 
disappointment with the government's failure to meet this goal 
and the continued practice of contract bundling by Federal 
departments and agencies. Both Chairman Bond and Senator Kerry 
expressed their expectation that the roundtable would raise 
proposals and suggestions on how the SBA could increase the 
level of procurement contracts awarded to small businesses.
    The roundtable began with a discussion concerning the need 
for the SBA to enforce the regulations intended to promote 
Federal procurement for small businesses. Several participants 
stated their dissatisfaction in the SBA's failure to live up to 
its responsibility of assisting small businesses in the Federal 
procurement area. The SBA participants asserted that the small 
business procurement statistics were extremely skewed because 
of the erroneous inclusion of certain large contracts. The SBA 
representatives also noted that contracts under $25,000, which 
total $9 billion, were also excluded from the statistics. As a 
result, by omitting the large contracts and adding back the 
small-size contracts, they contended that the percentage of 
Federal procurement to small business would be much higher.
    Participants on both sides of the issues maintained that 
different Federal departments and agencies were using disparate 
regulations to decide which contracts go to small businesses. 
The SBA representatives argued that in many instances a Federal 
agency will contract with a small business and will be 
satisfied with its work. Thereafter, the agency will want to 
use that small business again instead of offering a subsequent 
contract to a new small business.
    The discussion shifted from the SBA's handling of Federal 
procurement to a more general evaluation of the SBA's customer 
service. Participants expressed concerns that SBA employees are 
merely career government employees who care little about the 
small businesses they are charged with serving. Participants 
also expressed frustration with the high level of bureaucracy 
that many small businesses encounter when dealing with the 
agency. The SBA representatives affirmed the agency's policy of 
encouraging dissatisfied small businesses to contact a 
supervisor about their complaint, which ensures a response from 
the agency.
    The roundtable moved onto the issue of women small business 
owners. Several participants called for women-owned businesses 
to be considered with the same presumption of social 
disadvantage as minority-owned firms. Several women business 
owners explained situations in which they were excluded or 
discriminated against by different Federal agencies. The SBA is 
charged with enforcing a goal that 5% of Federal procurement 
goes to women-owned small businesses, although that goal has 
not been met since it became law in 1994. Several solutions 
were mentioned, including teaming different women-owned 
businesses together so they could handle large Federal 
contracts. Overall, the participants remarked that the SBA 
needed to improve its enforcement of procurement requirements.
    Other general problems discussed by the roundtable 
participants were contract bundling, paperwork, and 
certification. Contract bundling is a critical issue for many 
small businesses. Participants noted that when a government 
agency takes several projects and accepts bids on the total 
cost of the projects, only large firms will bid because they 
alone have the capacity to handle the entire job. While 
contract bundling helps the Federal government save costs, the 
participants echoed the Chairman's reflection that Federal law 
and policy are intended to direct a significant portion of 
government procurement dollars to small businesses. The 
participants noted that the Federal small business procurement 
goal has not been reached, and some participants expressed the 
need for the SBA to do a better job in reaching that goal.
    The roundtable participants noted that minority-owned 
business certification is a difficult process to maneuver. 
There was general aggravation among the participants by all of 
the paperwork involved because it often led nowhere and at a 
high cost. In addition, participants were frustrated at the 
many different levels of certification that are usually 
required of a small business--Federal, state, and local. There 
was some recognition, however, that the certification process 
was necessary to prevent fraud and waste of taxpayer dollars. 
Committee staff also expressed interest in streamlining the 
certification process.
    The final issue addressed at the roundtable was the role of 
tribal communities in the HUBZONE program. Participants 
remarked that the existing strict guidelines unfairly keep 
tribal-owned small businesses out of the HUBZone program. There 
was general agreement that the tribal communities and tribal-
owned small businesses should participate in the HUBZone 
program. Several participants offered suggestions for statutory 
changes to make such participation possible. Participants also 
focused on the issue of modifying the HUBZone program to 
include Alaskan Natives.

HEARING--EDUCATION SUCCESS = BUSINESS SUCCESS--WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 25, 
                                  1999

    On May 25, 1999, the Committee held a hearing to discuss 
the current state of public education, how it affects small 
business, and how small businesses can contribute to the 
education of its future workforce. Chairman Bond prefaced the 
hearing by emphasizing the importance of education in our 
society, the consequences of an uneducated child, and how the 
state of the nation's schools significantly affects Americans' 
futures. He pointed out that, ``education is vital for our own 
peace and security and it is vital to our business success.'' 
Senator Kerry concurred and raised concerns as to how prepared 
high-school graduates are for the modern work force.
    The first panel emphasized the overall decline in the basic 
skills of students entering the workforce. Eric Rolfe 
Greenberg, Director of Management Studies, American Management 
Association, reviewed research by his organization. This 
research was based on surveys of the association's 10,000 
member companies. He listed three primary reasons for a recent 
decline in worker employability. First, a greater share of 
employable Americans are working when qualified talent is 
comparatively scarce, so companies must sift through a larger 
number of applicants to find workers with necessary skills. 
Second, the increasing number of applicants for whom English is 
a second language has contributed to the decline. Third, the 
increasing complexity and technical nature of the actual work 
to be performed has reduced the pool of employable workers. Mr. 
Greenberg offered two solutions to these problems. Businesses 
must conduct training and skill development to give employees 
the skills they do not have. In addition, the business 
community must provide ongoing support to local elementary and 
secondary educational institutions.
    Mr. Greenberg went on to describe business involvement in 
local schools conducted by members of his organization. One 
corporation runs an on-site Kindergarten, while another 
corporation operates, a school with children from Kindergarten 
through Fourth Grade. Chairman Bond emphasized the need for 
supporting education for children from the time of birth until 
they reach school age, as well as once they begin attending 
formal schools. He cited as an example the success of the 
``Parents As Teachers Program,'' which he began in Missouri. 
Senator Kerry emphasized the need for business leaders to work 
with local schools to prevent graduates from being unskilled, 
while Senator Snowe highlighted the success of the ``Jobs for 
America's Graduates Program.''
    The second panel focused on efforts of businesses and 
communities to meet the demands of the economy and the needs of 
students. Carol L. Ball, President and CEO, Ball Publishing, 
Inc., emphasized that many high-school graduates lack basic job 
skills, in addition to being deficient in reading, writing, and 
math. She also stated that the Chamber of Commerce, in relation 
with its state and local affiliates, has worked hard to 
communicate best practices especially to small businesses (less 
than 100 employees). These best practices have proven to be 
beneficial to businesses in regard to the hiring of employees 
and training them in an ever-changing world. Barbara Seisler 
Goodling, Secretary/Treasurer, Albert Seisler Machine 
Corporation, addressed the problems her business and other 
small businesses have had finding employees who have basic 
reading and math skills and who can be relied upon to take 
responsibility for themselves. She also discussed efforts by 
local businesses to remove barriers for many workers seeking 
employment, such as providing day care, transportation, and 
matching employees' skills with potential jobs.
    Edward B. Rust, Jr., Chairman and CEO, State Farm Insurance 
Companies, and Chairman, National Alliance of Business, 
discussed the role of businesses advocating state-level policy 
initiatives to improve elementary and secondary education. 
Among their goals is to improve the quality of teachers, 
upgrade standards and contents of math and science education, 
integrate technology, and support quality management. His 
organization sponsors business roundtables, involving members 
of business and education communities, which have led to 
business-education coalitions in 42 states. The National 
Alliance of Business is seeking to incorporate the business 
principles of the Baldrige Quality Management Criteria, 
sponsored by the Department of Commerce, into education at the 
state, local, and school level in an effort to increase student 
performance. He concluded his testimony by advocating that the 
Federal government give greater flexibility to states and local 
school districts while maintaining their accountability.
    Kelly Fujiwara, Chair, Education Committee, Lexington/Rock 
Bridge (VA) Chamber of Commerce, described a business-education 
partnership program in effect in Rockbridge County, Virginia. 
The program entitled ``Prep 2000,'' was designed to provide 
businesses with information as to the academic preparation of 
job applicants and to create a forum for educators and business 
leaders to communicate their limitations and expectations. The 
program also allows students to become more familiar with the 
business community through luncheon programs and rewards high 
achieving students with scholarships. The program has been 
successful in enhancing the relationship between the schools 
and the business community. She suggested that improvement can 
be made by including middle schools in the services provided 
and by encouraging businesses to use the program as a screening 
tool to identify potential employees.
    Chairman Bond asked a series of questions of the panelists 
to address specific concerns. He emphasized the need to hold 
students accountable for their actions and for a reprieve on 
schools from burdensome Federal mandates. He also raised 
concerns about the Federal government deciding how success is 
measured, emphasizing local answers as opposed to national 
mandates.
    Chairman Bond concluded the hearing by stressing that 
another Federal law or mandate was not the solution to 
America's educational concerns. He stated that ``we have got to 
transfer and identify that responsibility, going back to the 
local community,'' emphasizing that businesses need to be 
encouraged to get involved in an educational system upon which 
they are so dependent.

   FIELD HEARING--SMALL BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES: THE 
        CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES--BOSTON, MA, JUNE 14, 1999

    On June 14, 1999, the Committee held a field hearing in 
Boston, Massachusetts on small business and environmental 
technologies. Chaired by Senator Kerry, the hearing focused on 
issues in the marketplace concerning environmental change, 
environmental enforcement, and environmental technologies. He 
noted that enforcement of environmental regulations has given 
birth to many new technologies, 90% of which are originating 
from small businesses, although in recent years the amount of 
investment and new technologies in this area has slowed 
significantly.
    The first panel consisted of small business owners who have 
used environmentally friendly practices in their businesses. 
The witnesses expressed their appreciation to the government 
agencies that have helped them create environmentally friendly 
businesses. In particular, the witnesses praised the EPA's 
Office of Technical Assistance for helping small businesses 
achieve compliance with environmental regulations. In addition, 
both witnesses noted that implementation of new environmental 
practices had led to an increase in productivity and a strong 
rate of return. Douglas DeVries, Environmental Manager, Hyde 
Manufacturing Company, which manufactures hand knives and 
machine blades, testified that his company has had on average a 
66% rate of return on its investments in new technologies that 
have helped his company become environmentally friendly. He 
offered as one example of such technology the development and 
use of a metal working fluids program that has decreased the 
discharge of coolants from 140,000 gallons per year to zero 
gallons in each of the last eight years. Mr. DeVries and Dennis 
Prifti, Co-Owner and General Manager, Fit To Print, noted that 
implementing new environmentally friendly technology has been 
less costly and entailed less downtime than originally 
anticipated. Both witnesses were confident that other small 
businesses would have similar successful experiences.
    The witnesses on the second panel represented firms that 
develop new technologies in the environmental field. The 
witnesses emphasized the importance of government grants from 
the SBA's SBIR program. They noted that while the SBIR program 
helped them launch and maintain their companies, the program 
was less beneficial when it came to trying to achieve the goal 
of developing marketable products. The witnesses also 
identified as an overall regulatory problem the many different 
levels of authorities with which a company must comply in order 
to develop new environmental technologies, and the fact that 
few of them utilize the same standards. The panelists concluded 
by noting that they saw a bright future for the environmental 
industry, based in part on their prediction of strict 
regulations on emissions and the discharge of pollutants, which 
will force the market to develop new technologies so that small 
businesses can comply with such new regulations in a cost-
effective manner.
    The final panel consisted of a witness from the U.S. 
Department of Commerce (DoC) and one representing the National 
Small Business United (NSBU) and the Smaller Business 
Association of New England. Kelly Carnes, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Technology Policy, DoC, reviewed some successful 
and some disappointing numbers with respect to the 
environmental industry. On the positive side, Ms. Carnes noted 
that the environmental industry is a $186 billion industry, 
which employs 1.3 million Americans. It includes 33,000 
companies in the private sector, 99% of which are small 
businesses, that generate $18 billion worth of export revenue 
per year with a trade surplus in excess of $9 billion. The 
disappointing figures are those that show the downward spiral 
in which the industry is caught. For example, in 1990 there 
were more than $200 million of venture-capital investments in 
the environmental industry, as opposed to only $30 million in 
1996. While the NASDAQ is appreciating at 22% annually and the 
Dow is increasing at 16%, the environmental industry is only 
gaining 6% annually. Of the total global market, American firms 
control only 10% of the market while French and German 
companies have 20%. The witnesses made several recommendations 
on how to stimulate the environmental industry and the public 
to implement new environmental policies and procedures. Ms. 
Carnes and Richard Herring, General Manager, Gloucester 
Company, Inc., agreed that minimum standards regarding 
environmental issues need to be set for all industries, with 
incentives for the companies who go above and beyond that base-
level standard. The witnesses also recommended that the 
standards and regulations become more consistent among agencies 
and levels of government and that the public become more aware 
of the strides that still need to be taken to achieve a truly 
environmentally friendly business community.
    Senator Kerry concluded the hearing by suggesting that the 
EPA's statistical arm be removed from the agency and that the 
Census Bureau be required to provide the government's 
statistics on how the EPA is performing and how the environment 
itself is fairing.

   FORUM--E-COMMERCE: BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESS--
                     WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 15, 1999

    On June 15, 1999, the Committee held a forum on the 
barriers and opportunities for small business in electronic 
commerce (``e-commerce''). The forum consisted of 5 panelists 
and 16 participants from various governmental and non-
governmental segments of the computer and Internet fields. 
Chairman Bond opened the forum by reviewing the successes and 
downfalls of small business in e-commerce. He pointed out that 
according to a University of Texas report, e-commerce accounted 
for the creation of 1.2 million jobs and $300 billion of 
revenue in 1998. Chairman Bond also noted that Congress is 
currently considering several issues that will have a direct 
effect on e-commerce including: Internet taxation, encryption, 
and electronic crimes.
    The first panelist, John Alden, Senior Vice President of 
Sales, Primary Network, described the structure of the Internet 
and how small businesses can integrate into it. The Internet 
can be broken down into three parts: access, content, and e-
mail. Of these three, he stressed that e-mail is the number one 
reason that people have Internet connections. It allows a 
person to communicate with anyone around the world that has an 
e-mail address. He stated that all three components are easy to 
obtain, usually at a low monthly fee. Mr. Alden also raised two 
concerns currently confronting small business. First, the need 
for a high-speed connection when a company has several 
workstations on a network. Second, he noted that suppliers are 
jumping past their usual small business vendor and going 
straight to the customer via the Internet. This practice is 
occurring in part because the bypassed small business vendor 
usually does not have the capital or technical staff to 
communicate with customers as efficiently as the large 
suppliers.
    Keith A. Rhodes, Director, Office of Computer and 
Information Technology Assessment, GAO, was the next panelist, 
and he explained the issues that a small business owner must 
consider when deciding whether to become involved in e-
commerce. First, the company must decide if its personnel has 
sufficient computer literacy and technical support for the 
company to engage in e-commerce. Second, the company must 
decide how it will present its business on the Internet--where 
will it advertise and how its web page will be designed in 
order to attract customers. Third, the company must understand 
that once it begins business via the Internet, the company will 
be open for business 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. As a 
result, the company will need the capacity to handle the 
success of increased business in a consistent and professional 
manner.
    The third panelist, Ken Perez, Senior Vice President of 
Marketing, CyberCash, Inc. described several new innovations 
that have occurred with respect to e-commerce. He noted that 
the Internet industry has conceived some integrated solutions 
that allow customers to go to a single source for all necessary 
information to enable a company to engage in business online. 
Questions about Internet access, storage, catalog software, and 
credit-card processing can all be answered and obtained from a 
single source based on a monthly fee ranging from $20 to $300. 
These integrated solutions have lowered the cost for small 
businesses to enter the online industry thereby lowering the 
financial risk. Mr. Perez also provided statistics on the 
success of e-commerce for small businesses. At the end of 1999, 
there will be 1.1 million small businesses online and engaged 
in e-commerce. Seventy-one percent of small businesses with e-
commerce sites indicate that the Internet is key to their 
success. Mr. Perez concluded his remarks by identifying some 
steps that need to be taken for small businesses to continue 
their success in e-commerce. For instance, much of the software 
currently available for developing e-commerce sites is designed 
for large corporations; small businesses need software 
specifically created to meet their needs. Also advertising 
needs to be more economical. Mr. Perez recommended that payment 
for advertisement should occur after a true sales lead has been 
generated, instead of before.
    Harris Miller, President, Information Technology 
Association of America, and Eric Fredell, International Trade 
Specialist, DoC, both described how the Internet has led to an 
increase in trade between businesses that, without the 
Internet, would not be conducting business with each other. 
Both panelists noted the reduced cost and increased speed of 
responses to business proposals, which the Internet has 
facilitated. It was emphasized that the laws and regulations 
that the government might impose on the Internet pose a 
potentially significant challenge to e-commerce. Both panelists 
proposed that the government allow e-commerce to stay free and 
open.
    The remaining time during the forum was dedicated to a 
discussion of the issues raised by the panelists with questions 
and comments from the other forum participants. A number of 
participants called attention to the enormous expansion in e-
commerce, which has occurred due to a lack of regulations 
blocking or slowing it down. In particular, participants noted 
that there are currently no taxes or regulations to stifle 
investment in and the productivity of e-commerce. Several 
participants observed that there is a need for faster 
connectivity, but that this problem will be resolved in time. 
In general, all of the participants expressed the view that 
small businesses must become involved in e-commerce to compete 
in the 21st century.

    ROUNDTABLE--SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR) PROGRAM--
                     WASHINGTON, DC, AUGUST 4, 1999

    On August 4, 1999, the Committee held a roundtable on the 
geographic distribution of awards made under the Small Business 
Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The roundtable was attended 
by 33 participants, including representatives of small 
businesses active in the SBIR program and small business 
advocacy groups, officials of Federal agencies that have SBIR 
programs, and representatives of organizations assisting small 
businesses desiring to participate in the SBIR program. An 
additional nine participants joined the roundtable via 
teleconference from Columbia, Missouri.
    The roundtable addressed the geographic distribution of 
SBIR awards and examined proposals to encourage greater 
participation by companies located in states that receive a 
disproportionately smaller share of SBIR awards. Chairman Bond 
noted that during Fiscal Years 1993 through 1996, companies in 
one-third of the states received 85 percent of the SBIR awards. 
Companies on the East and West Coasts received the vast 
majority of these awards, while companies in the South, Midwest 
and Rocky Mountain states generally received very few awards. 
For example, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that 
in Fiscal Year 1997, companies in Massachusetts and California 
received 202 and 326 Phase II awards, respectively, out of 
approximately 1,400 awards nationally. Chairman Bond indicated 
that the best way to encourage small businesses to participate 
in the SBIR program in the under-represented states is to 
provide a comprehensive outreach and assistance program in such 
states.
    The first topic of discussion during the roundtable 
centered on utilization of the Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) to assist potential 
SBIR awardees. The EPSCoR program provides grants to 
universities to increase research and development activities in 
states historically receiving fewer research grants. Many 
agencies with SBIR budgets also have EPSCoR programs. Susan 
Kladiva, Director of Energy, Resources and Science Issues, 
Resources, Community and Economic Development Division, GAO, 
and Kesh Narayanan, Director, Industrial Innovation Programs, 
National Science Foundation (NSF), noted that unlike other 
agencies, the NSF has linked its EPSCoR program to its SBIR 
program. First, SBIR proposals from states with EPSCoR 
activities that are ranked in the ``highly recommended'' or 
``recommended'' category in the review process, but were not 
selected because of funding restraints, receive a second review 
and an opportunity to be funded through EPSCoR. Second, NSF has 
used EPSCoR funds to provide grants to universities to afford 
technical assistance for businesses applying for SBIR awards 
(referred to as ``Phase 0'' funding). Other participants, 
including Carl Ray, SBIR/STTR Program Manager, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), acknowledged the 
usefulness of the NSF's efforts and discussed ways that 
agencies, such as NASA, could likewise coordinate their EPSCoR 
programs with their SBIR programs.
    The second topic of discussion focused on how best to 
coordinate SBIR outreach with state-based organizations, 
including universities, state agencies and consortiums. Several 
participants, including Bruce Gjovig, Director, Center for 
Innovation, University of North Dakota, and Chris Busch, an 
SBIR Consultant, agreed that the most efficient and effective 
manner of encouraging participation in the SBIR program by 
small businesses in states not historically receiving a large 
number of awards is to use existing state infrastructure to 
provide assistance to interested and qualified small 
businesses.
    The discussion then turned to the existing SBIR outreach 
program established by Congress in 1997. Under that outreach 
program, the SBA provides grants, on a competitive basis, to 
underperforming states. States provide matching funds and 
administer the outreach programs. Daniel Hill, Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Technology, SBA, noted that at the 
time of the roundtable, awards had yet to be provided to states 
under this program.
    The final topic discussed was legislation introduced by 
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) to establish a mentoring program 
whereby the SBA would provide grants of between $50,000 and 
$200,000 to associations representing small businesses. These 
associations would establish mentoring organizations that 
employ ``volunteers'' to provide technical assistance 
(including, marketing, proposal writing, accounting, audit 
assistance, etc.) to small businesses seeking SBIR grants and 
located in low participation areas in states. Most participants 
agreed that mentoring is an important aspect to assisting small 
businesses in the SBIR program. However, many participants 
raised concerns about the legislation, including that (1) it 
attempts to create a program to provide technical assistance 
without leveraging existing resources (i.e., state universities 
and state or Federal agencies); (2) the grants are more likely 
to go to either national associations or to states that have 
enough success in the SBIR program that they have formed or 
have the ability to form an association of small businesses 
active in the SBIR program; and (3) the size of the grants may 
preclude a nationwide scope.
    Chairman Bond closed the roundtable by announcing 
intentions to review the options for SBIR outreach and 
assistance as the Committee drafts legislation to reauthorize 
the SBIR program.

   FIELD HEARING--ISSUES IMPORTANT TO WOMEN IN BUSINESSES--TROY, MI, 
                            AUGUST 13, 1999

    On August 13, 1999, the Committee held a field hearing to 
discuss issues of importance to women in small business. The 
field hearing was chaired by Senator Abraham Spencer (R-MI). In 
his opening statement, he noted that the hearing was designed 
to focus attention on both the successes and obstacles that 
women business owners have experienced. He also stressed the 
need to identify new ways that government can better assist 
women business owners.
    The first panel of witnesses consisted of representatives 
from Women's Business Centers and provided the Committee with 
first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of these centers and 
how they might be improved. The witnesses described the 
business development programs available to women business 
owners, in particular, the Women's Initiative for Self-
Employment (WISE) and the Center for Empowerment & Economic 
Development (CEED). The panelists also addressed the needs of 
women-owned businesses and emphasized the critical need for 
access to capital, both in terms of debt and equity resources. 
Carolyn Arnold, Owner, Under the Rainbow of Love Learning 
Center, described the many denials she received from banks when 
requesting a business loan, despite having proven not only that 
her business had been successful, but that it had obvious 
potential to expand. Ms. Arnold, turned to the CEED program 
where she did not encounter the same problems that she had with 
the banks.
    The panelists noted that the lack of access to market 
opportunities from the private sector as well as the government 
decrease the potential revenue that women-owned companies can 
earn. In addition, the witnesses pointed out that the Federal 
government continues to fall short of its goal of directing 5% 
of primary Federal contracts to women-owned businesses.
    The first panel also discussed other obstacles facing 
women-owned businesses seeking to compete in the private 
sector, including equality issues. Nikki Olyai, President and 
Chief Executive Officer, Innovision Technologies, testified 
about the barriers that women-owned businesses encounter when 
trying to bid on contracts or enforce contractual agreements. 
She stated that most large companies have completely 
disregarded her company's attempts to make a competitive bid, 
despite public indications that they were seeking greater 
diversification. When dealing with contractual terms, Ms. Olyai 
testified that many corporations think they can take unfair 
advantage of women-owned businesses. She opined that when a 
woman business owner tries to get a company to respect the 
terms of a contract, the other party will often threaten to 
terminate the business relationship.
    The second panel consisted of witnesses from the private 
sector representing women's business associations. The 
panelists discussed social security reform, increasing Federal 
procurement for women-owned businesses, reducing taxes, and 
easing government regulation. The witnesses agreed that the 
Social Security system needs to be reformed and that Congress 
should avoid using Social Security surpluses for other 
programs, thereby forcing taxes to remain at a high level. 
Pamela Boyd, Owner, Workforce, Inc., and National Public Policy 
Representative, Greater Detroit Chapter of the National 
Association of Women Business Owners, also advocated that 
workers should be permitted to invest a portion of their 
payroll taxes in individually directed personal retirement 
accounts.
    With regard to tax issues, the panel focused primarily on 
the estate tax and strongly advocated its repeal. Jan Roncelli, 
President/Owner, Bermar Associates, Inc., noted that it is not 
fair for an individual and her company to pay income taxes 
throughout the life of the owner and then be taxed again upon 
the owner's death. Through a personal example involving her 
business, Ms. Roncelli, stressed that individuals affected by 
the estate tax have to invest too much time and money in estate 
planning to protect their businesses from being devastated by 
the tax. Finally, she argued that the amount of revenue that 
the estate tax produces is too low to justify the burdens of 
the tax.
    Lastly, the panel addressed the need for reform of 
government regulations. Noreen Dyczkowski, President, Advanced 
Display & Exhibits, Inc., and Chairperson, Women's Business 
Forum of the Troy Chamber, stated that the biggest problem in 
this area is the large amount of complicated paperwork a 
business owner must fill out to take advantage of beneficial 
government programs. Senator Abraham mentioned that he had 
introduced a bill that would require that all Federal paperwork 
be available online in an effort to reduce some of these 
burdens, thus allowing people to fill out required paperwork 
online and to respond immediately to any resulting problems. 
Ms. Dyczkowski agreed that such a change would be beneficial.

  JOINT FIELD ROUNDTABLE--BUILDING A STRONGER AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY--
                    KANSAS CITY, MO, AUGUST 24, 1999

    On August 24, 1999, the Committees on Small Business of the 
Senate and House of Representatives held a joint roundtable in 
Kansas City, Missouri, to discuss tax, regulatory, and trade 
issues of concern to the agricultural community. Chairman Bond 
and House Small Business Committee Chairman Jim Talent (R-MO) 
presided over the roundtable and were joined by 24 participants 
representing various agricultural sectors as well as 
researchers, collectives, and advocates.
    In their opening remarks, both Chairmen highlighted the 
current crisis in commodity prices and the need for steps to be 
taken in various areas to assist struggling farmers and 
ranchers. Chairman Bond expressed his hope that the roundtable 
would help identify issues of primary concern to the 
agricultural community and possibly suggestions for improving 
the current situation facing agricultural businesses.
    The first topic addressed by the roundtable concerned tax 
issues of importance to the agricultural community. The estate 
or ``death'' tax generated many comments about its impact on 
family farms and how much it can cost families both in terms of 
estate planning and in actual taxes. Tom Waters, Chairman, 
Missouri Levee and Water Drainage District Association, 
provided a descriptive account of the process he went through 
to file forms after his father passed away. Legal fees for 
handling the procedure amounted to $93,000, excluding the 
amount of the tax. Participants also discussed the pending 
proposal in Congress to create accounts that would permit 
farmers and ranchers to even out the cycles of high and low 
revenues. These accounts, called Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk 
Management (FFARRM) were included in the Taxpayer Refund and 
Relief Act of 1999, which President Clinton vetoed. The need 
for this type of account was bolstered by an extensive forecast 
presented by Abner Womack, Executive Director, Food Agriculture 
Policy Research Institute, who predicted that prices would not 
be turning up soon because of too much supply in most 
agricultural commodities. Participants also raised concerns 
about how capital gains taxes have hurt farmers who try to sell 
their land when they want to retire, and how the marriage 
penalty can hurt farmers when their spouses work off the farm.
    The roundtable participants next turned to the regulatory 
burdens facing farmers and specifically whether they had 
participated in or benefitted from the procedures implemented 
by agencies under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act (SBREFA). Under this law, OSHA and the EPA are 
required to convene panels of small businesses to review 
regulations before they are proposed and to conduct Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses, which describe the impact of the 
regulations on small businesses. Other agencies are required to 
conduct just the Regulatory Flexibility Analyses. Both chairmen 
stressed the importance of monitoring agency compliance with 
this law, and Chairman Talent pointed out that agencies are now 
aware of their obligations, although they do not always fulfill 
them. The chairmen encouraged all participants to seek 
opportunities to be involved in the EPA and OSHA rulemakings 
that are covered by SBREFA and to challenge the agencies to 
make sure that they are complying with the law. Toward that 
end, Jim Guest, President, Missouri Pork Producers Association, 
indicated that he had been contacted by the EPA to be part of a 
panel on an upcoming clean-water rule dealing with animal 
waste.
    Another regulatory area that received considerable 
attention by the participants was the Endangered Species Act 
and the Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement of the law. 
Richard Fordyce, a farmer and a Member of the Missouri Farm 
Bureau, described his experience at a hearing where he argued 
to keep the Topeka Shiner (a fish) off of the Endangered 
Species List (ESL). Mr. Fordyce and others instead wanted to 
make a voluntary effort at helping the Topeka Shiner survive. 
Unfortunately, representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service 
were unable to answer questions about specific actions that 
needed to be taken to protect the fish. In spite of efforts to 
the contrary, the agency added the Topeka Shriner to the ESL. 
Mr. Fordyce indicated that the agency had apparently made its 
decision well before the hearing and that the science used to 
support the decision was not current and did not reflect the 
need for balance in pursuing the objectives of the statute. 
Participants also raised concerns about the validity of science 
supporting regulations in conjunction with the EPA's recent 
decision to ban the use of certain pesticides under the Food 
Quality Protection Act.
    The roundtable's final topic dealt with trade issues 
affecting farmers and ranchers. The participants generally 
agreed that the agricultural industry is being injured by the 
inability of the United States to have its agricultural 
commodities sold as widely as possible in many countries. Mr. 
Womack described how domestic prices of certain commodities 
(soybeans, corn, wheat, pork, etc.) would increase 
significantly if U.S. businesses could sell slightly larger 
amounts of these commodities abroad. Additionally, such exports 
would reduce current stockpiles, which are depressing commodity 
prices. The participants expressed general frustration about 
the United States' failure to pursue aggressively trade 
agreements that would foster greater exports of these goods. 
They also noted the prevalence of sanctions being imposed for 
diplomatic reasons, which seem only to hurt producers whose 
products cannot be sold in the sanctioned countries. To that 
end, the participants welcomed the recent addition to the 
United States Trade Representative's office of an agricultural 
specialist.

ROUNDTABLE--BUSINESS SUPPORTING EDUCATION--WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 9, 
                                  1999

    On September 9, 1999, the Committee held a roundtable on 
opportunities for the business community to become involved in 
improving public education. The roundtable participants 
consisted of a variety of representatives from education and 
business associations. Chairman Bond opened the roundtable by 
noting that studies conducted by the National Federation of 
Independent Business (NFIB) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
rate education as the most pressing public policy issue today. 
The Chairman explained that education is important to the small 
business community given the current difficulties small firms 
are having in terms of finding and retaining skilled employees. 
Chairman Bond noted that the purpose of the roundtable was to 
encourage a discussion on this issue and to showcase 
initiatives that are working at the State and local levels.
    The roundtable's first topic of discussion focused on 
education activities at the state level. John Dornan, Executive 
Director, Public School Forum of North Carolina, provided 
examples of how school and business partnerships have resulted 
in successful improvements to the quality of education. He 
attributed that success to the commitment of national business 
organizations and the assistance of a great many small 
businesses. Other participants stressed that the business 
community's interest in higher standards, teacher quality and 
certification, and its commitment to the continued pursuit of 
educational reforms are instrumental to improving the quality 
of education. Roberts Jones, President, National Alliance of 
Business, and others noted that small businesses can improve 
local education with little effort by requesting school 
transcripts before offering employment, as this sends a 
significant message about the importance of academic 
achievement to the students. Participants also stressed that 
businesses can assist educators by donating technology and by 
providing onsite training for teachers at local businesses so 
that they can better understand the business world. To explain 
why more businesses have not entered into partnerships with 
their local school systems, Ruby Bradley-Cain, President and 
Chief Executive Officer, RBC International, Inc., representing 
the National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO), and 
others questioned the level of paperwork and bureaucracy 
required for businesses to get involved. Other participants 
expressed concern that such partnerships were lacking in focus 
without guidance from the state.
    The second topic of discussion centered on education 
activities at the local level. A number of participants 
emphasized that the needs of school systems had changed and 
that business involvement was critical to ensure that the 
quality of education was reflective of the needs of the 
business community. In addition, it was noted that the debate 
was not just about providing qualified employees for the 
business community, but about providing students with the 
skills necessary for the world that they are entering. Bret 
Lovejoy, Executive Director, American Vocational Association, 
described the extensive partnerships that his association had 
created with the auto industry and the hospitality industry 
through funding, vocational training and mentoring. He noted 
that the association's members benefitted from this program by 
attracting employees that might otherwise not consider 
employment in these industries. Daniel Merenda, President and 
Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Partners in 
Education, and many other participants emphasized the need for 
local leadership to coordinate and encourage businesses to get 
involved and to provide businesses with a plan that allows them 
to help local school systems effectively.

 HEARING--SLOTTING: FAIR FOR SMALL BUSINESS & CONSUMERS?--WASHINGTON, 
                         DC, SEPTEMBER 14, 1999

    On September 14, 1999, the Committee held a hearing to 
examine the effect on small businesses and consumers of 
``slotting'' allowances in the retail grocery industry. 
Slotting allowances are fees charged to manufacturers for the 
placement of products on retailers' shelves. In his opening 
statement, Chairman Bond noted that ``slotting allowances have 
generated a considerable amount of suspicion.'' Because of 
these fees small business products are often excluded from the 
marketplace simply because the small business cannot afford the 
heavy payments sought by retailers. Chairman Bond noted that 
``it almost seems to be a practice cloaked in secrecy,'' making 
it difficult for Committee staff to even get information on 
this issue. He stressed that all of the small businesses 
interviewed by Committee staff reported considerable fear of 
retaliation from dominant competitors and retailers for 
speaking out, with some providing first-hand experiences of 
such retaliation. Senator Kerry echoed the Chairman's concerns 
and emphasized his desire to see fair competition in the 
marketplace.
    The three small business witnesses on the first panel 
provided first-hand experiences concerning slotting fees. Two 
of the small businesses testified anonymously from behind a 
screen and with a voice scrambler because of the fear that 
testifying would prompt retaliation. Witness B described 
experiences with a dominant competitor, which effectively 
controls the retailers' shelves, and is focused on gaining a 
greater market share. As a result of its control over shelf 
space, the dominant manufacturer can drive down competitors' 
sales and essentially eliminate the competition, which in many 
cases are small businesses. Witness B's business is in 
jeopardy, not because it has an inferior product, and not 
because there is a lack of consumer demand, but because 
dominant manufacturers are literally buying the market. Witness 
A testified about the impact that dominant manufacturers have 
in terms of their market power. Given the demand for higher 
profits, retailers are excluding small businesses at a greater 
rate than ever before. Witness A also expressed concern that 
even after paying the fee, a manufacturer's product could be 
taken off the shelf within a short period of time. Witness A 
concluded by saying that with the virtually unlimited resources 
of large conglomerates, small business and ultimately the 
consumer pay the price for this concentration of retail power.
    The third small business witness, Scott Garfield, Vice 
President, Lee's Ice Cream, Baltimore, Maryland, described his 
attempt to get local grocery stores interested in his highly 
acclaimed ice cream products. He discovered that even though 
his company made a great product that was well known in the 
area, the grocery stores were only interested in how much money 
he would pay them to stock the ice cream in their stores. Mr. 
Garfield testified that based on his experience and the money 
he lost trying to break into the market, the grocery business 
is currently no place for a small manufacturer. He concluded 
his testimony by stressing that the consumer is harmed by a 
limitation of choice and like Witness A, asserted that the 
extra cost that a manufacturer pays in slotting allowances is 
ultimately passed on to the consumer.
    The second panel focused on industry-wide issues relating 
to slotting fees. Gregory Gundlach, Associate Professor, 
College of Business Administration, University of Notre Dame, 
described his extensive studies on slotting allowances and 
outlined the wide variety of payments that retailers demand 
from manufacturers. He estimated that slotting allowances 
amount to $9 billion a year or approximately 16% of all new-
product introduction costs. Mr. Gundlach noted that while 
slotting allowances provide some distribution efficiencies, the 
result is higher consumer prices, less consumer information, 
and fewer consumer choices. Unfortunately, small manufacturers 
often end up paying a disproportionate amount of slotting fees 
in comparison to dominant manufacturers. He noted that the 
practice is becoming more commonplace and that slotting fees 
are being charged for established products, as well as new, and 
at every stage of a product's retail life. In addition, 
slotting fee practices are becoming prevalent in other retail 
environments.
    Robert Skitol, an antitrust attorney appearing on behalf of 
the American Antitrust Institute, outlined the various 
applicable antitrust statutes and their history. He expressed 
particular concern about exclusive contracts that effectively 
shut out all competition, and in turn, lead to higher 
concentration, diminished competition, higher food prices, less 
innovation, and less choice to consumers. Kenneth Partch, 
Editor-at-Large, Supermarket Business magazine, testified that 
the majority of companies in the grocery industry ignore the 
relevant antitrust laws. According to studies conducted by 
Supermarket Business, the fees charged can be as much as 
$10,000 or more per item. In addition, Mr. Partch observed that 
the grocery industry itself is divided as to the rationale for 
charging the fees, although he suspected that the real reason 
for their existence is the retailers' desire to get a greater 
share of consumer dollars. Mr. Skitol called for the Federal 
Trade Commission (FTC) to take proactive steps to conduct an 
extensive, industry-wide investigation, and upon its 
completion, draft new enforcement guidelines with respect to 
slotting fees. While such a study would take time, he stressed 
that the FTC could use its merger-enforcement authority to 
expand the focus of merger approvals to include buying-power 
issues.
    The third panel was comprised of association 
representatives, some of whose members charge slotting 
allowances. John Motley, Senior Vice President, Food Marketing 
Institute (FMI), outlined the principal reasons why FMI's 
members charge slotting allowances. He stressed that roughly 
20,000 new products are introduced each year and suggested that 
slotting fees enable a retailer to weed out the good from the 
bad. He also pointed out that many of these new products fail 
to sell. As a result, the slotting fee is merely an insurance 
against failed products and an assurance to the retailer that 
the manufacturer is committed enough to share the risk of a 
failure. Mr. Motley cautioned that if slotting allowances were 
made illegal, small business would be at a greater disadvantage 
in trying to get their products on the shelf. Jeffery Schmidt, 
an antitrust attorney appearing on behalf of the Grocery 
Manufacturers of America (GMA), noted that GMA does not have an 
opinion as to the validity of the arguments for or against 
slotting fees. Mr. Schmidt noted that research GMA has 
conducted indicates that the number of new products introduced 
each year is much closer to 1,100 rather than the 20,000 that 
is more commonly quoted. He concluded by testifying that GMA 
does not believe that additional governmental intervention in 
this area is necessary.
    Chairman Bond concluded the hearing by pointing out that 
the FTC had done little work on slotting fees and that based on 
the testimony of the witnesses, he would request that the 
agency focus greater attention on this issue. He also said that 
he would request the General Accounting Office (GAO) and others 
to conduct a thorough investigation into the use of slotting 
fees as outlined by the witnesses.

ROUNDTABLE--NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SMALL BUSINESS ACT--WASHINGTON, DC, 
                            OCTOBER 19, 1999

    On October 19, 1999, the Committee held a roundtable to 
review the National Conference on Small Business Act (S. 1111), 
a bill introduced by Chairman Bond in May 1999. The Chairman 
opened the roundtable by highlighting the important role that 
small businesses play in the U.S. economy, both in rural towns 
and inner cities. The bill would require that the Federal 
government sponsor a national conference every four years to 
highlight the successes of small businesses and to focus 
national attention on the problems that may be hindering the 
ability of small businesses to start up and grow. The Chairman 
stressed that it is important to build on the past successes of 
the three White House Conferences on Small Business. Senator 
Kerry emphasized the importance of bringing a group of small 
business advocates together through the roundtable to discuss 
ideas for creating a regular national small business 
conference.
    The roundtable began with some participants giving their 
views on the need for a national conference focusing on small 
business issues. Mark Schultz, President and CEO, Research 
Institute for Small and Emerging Businesses, discussed his role 
as Executive Director of the 1995 White House Conference on 
Small Business. Mr. Schultz noted that his directive was to 
provide the small business community with an independent, 
bipartisan, and open forum. He pointed out that four years 
after the 1995 conference, 90% of the recommendations adopted 
by the small business delegates have been implemented in whole 
or in part. He also commented about the successes and obstacles 
facing the conference organizers. Mr. Schultz suggested that 
the title, ``White House Conference on Small Business,'' was an 
obstacle, since it implied that the forum would be political, 
and he believed a more generic, nonpartisan name would be best.
    Terry Neese, speaking on behalf of the NAWBO, emphasized 
her support for having the conference every four years and 
expressed her belief that future conferences should be de-
politicized, with the Executive Branch playing a lesser role 
than in previous conferences. Eric Blackledge, President, 
Blackledge Furniture, and an active former White House 
Conference delegate, stressed the importance of electing 
delegates from their individual states rather than relying on 
political appointment of delegates. Larry Mocha, President, Air 
Power Systems Company, Inc., discussed his role as the Chairman 
of the Governor's Oklahoma Conference on Small Business, 
following his service as a delegate to the 1995 conference. He 
underscored the importance of organizing small business owners 
at the state level, so that the state conference would provide 
meaningful ideas for the next conference on small business.
    As a group, the roundtable participants agreed that an 
independent commission is an appropriate organization for 
overseeing the National Conference on Small Business. Further 
discussion centered on the importance of electing small 
business delegates. The participants agreed that the majority 
of delegates should be elected. The participants also agreed 
that the more small business owners involved in the process, 
the better the results. In addition, there was a consensus that 
alternate delegates served a useful role in the 1995 conference 
and that there should be a provision in the law to allow for 
some alternate or substitute delegates from each state. Ms. 
Neese expressed concern that some employers transported 
employees to the state conventions in 1995 to vote in favor of 
their employers' election as delegates to the 1995 conference. 
Mr. Schultz stated that this problem had not been anticipated; 
consequently, rules need to be established to ensure that 
people who were voting were participating in a substantive 
manner. Mr. Schultz urged that limits be imposed on voting 
participation at the state conferences restricting it to owners 
and officers of small businesses.
    The roundtable included some discussion about how 
frequently a national conference on small business should be 
held. Mr. Blackledge stressed the importance of holding a 
conference every four years. Judy Obermayer, President, 
Adhesive Mart, Inc., expressed reservations about allowing 
sufficient time for the state conferences to be effective. Mr. 
Schultz suggested that the four-year cycle leading up to a 
national conference begin at the same time the previous 
conference concludes. This would allow sufficient time to 
prepare for the succeeding conference.
    Participants were concerned that holding both state and 
regional conferences would be too great an undertaking to 
coordinate, and recommendations were made to eliminate all 
regional conferences or to hold only regional conferences in 
lieu of state conferences. Mr. Schultz pointed out that he had 
a staff of 30 people who coordinated and planned the 
conferences. There was a consensus among participants that one 
or more independent, nonpartisan businesses would be better 
suited to conduct the state and national conferences rather 
than relying on the national conference staff.
    A lively conversation occurred among participants about 
issue development for the state and national conferences. 
Giovanni Coratolo, Director, Small Business Policy, U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, raised concerns about Federal agencies 
being responsible for issue development when it is often the 
case that the same Federal agencies are the ones causing 
problems for small businesses. He emphasized that the focus of 
the national conference should not be too heavily weighted 
toward legislative ideas and that greater attention be given to 
resolution of regulatory problems. In addition, Ms. Obermayer 
recommended that future national conferences focus not just on 
what is wrong, but also on the small business impact of what is 
likely to happen in the future.
    The roundtable concluded with a discussion about whether 
conference delegates should set the top issues identified by 
the national conference in a priority order. Although the 
delegates to the 1995 White House Conference were not supposed 
to rank key issues, they ended up doing so by publishing the 
votes on the top 60 issues. It was agreed that future national 
conferences should continue to rank the top issues in priority 
order. In addition, Edith Quick, Principal, Quick Tax & 
Accounting Service, stressed the importance of follow up by the 
delegates on key issues after the conclusion of the conference. 
As a tax chair from the 1995 conference, she reported that the 
tax chairs continue to hold periodic conference calls to share 
ideas on the promotion of issues raised at the last conference. 
Chairman Bond brought the roundtable to a close after stressing 
the important role played by delegates during the post-
conference follow-up period, when they bring key issues and 
solutions directly to the attention of their U.S. 
Representatives and Senators.

    HEARING--INTERNET CRAMMING: THE LATEST HIGH-TECH FRAUD ON SMALL 
              BUSINESSES--WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 25, 1999

    On October 25, 1999, the Committee held a hearing to 
examine the practice of Internet cramming. In his opening 
statement, Chairman Bond explained that ``cramming,'' 
generically, involves the placement of unauthorized, 
misleading, or deceptive charges for services or products 
unrelated to a consumer's telephone service on the consumer's 
telephone bill. ``Internet cramming,'' specifically, enables 
web site design and hosting companies to place a charge for a 
``free'' web site on the phone bill of a small business, 
church, or non-profit organization without proper 
authorization. The Chairman noted that prior to the hearing, 
Committee staff spoke to approximately 100 small businesses 
victimized by Internet cramming and found that only one 
business was even aware that it had a ``free'' web site and 
that the company was being charged for it on its telephone 
bill. The hearing exposed Internet cramming as a carefully 
constructed, multi-million dollar scam targeting approximately 
a million small businesses nationwide.
    On the first of four panels, Stanley Czerwinski, Associate 
Director, and John Finedore, Assistant Director, Housing and 
Community Development Issues, Resources, Community and Economic 
Development Division, GAO, provided the Committee with 
background on cramming and its latest use via the Internet. 
They testified that cramming was the second most common cause 
of written consumer complaints received by the FTC and the 
fourth most common complaint at the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC)--an increase of 3000% in two years. In 
addition, they revealed that although there was a slight 
downward trend in the number of complaints received at the 
Federal level, their ongoing research indicated that state-
level complaints were still increasing in a majority of states.
    Three victims of Internet cramming made up the second panel 
and testified about their personal experiences with this issue. 
Peter Franchino, Co-Owner, Elam Biggs Bed & Breakfast, Grass 
Valley, California, described how he and four other local bed-
and-breakfast proprietors had become victims of cramming. He 
explained that he agreed to receive information regarding a 
``free'' web site but never received any information. 
Nevertheless, charges were placed on his phone bill, and he 
spent months attempting to have them removed. David Pickering, 
a member of the First Baptist Church of Mexico, Missouri, 
testified that his church was entirely unaware that it was the 
victim of cramming until contacted by the Committee on Small 
Business. He stated that Committee staff contacted the church 
after identifying the church on a suspected Internet crammer's 
web site. Mr. Pickering said that his church unknowingly paid 
for the ``free'' website for approximately nine months. The 
third witness, Susan Toney, Office Manager, Creative Car Works, 
testified that she received and reviewed a ``free'' web site 
package; however, she immediately canceled the service because 
the web site developed was unsatisfactory. Ms. Toney noted that 
despite promptly canceling the web site service, she was 
charged for two months, which took nine months to have the 
charges reversed.
    The third panel, comprised of former telemarketing 
employee, a police officer and the manager of a telemarketing 
operation, testified about how Internet crammers operate. The 
former telemarketing employee, Kelly Cramer, a college student 
in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, testified about her experience 
working, while in a high school work-study program, for a 
company accused of Internet cramming. Ms. Cramer revealed that 
she quit her job because she was uncomfortable engaging in what 
she felt were unfair and fraudulent practices. Ms. Cramer's 
father, David Cramer, Police Officer, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, 
testified that he conducted an investigation when his daughter 
informed him of the telemarketer's tactics and found that Ms. 
Cramer's boss had a lengthy criminal history. Joel Bittner, 
Operations Manager, North County Distributions, testified about 
telemarketing tactics used by Internet-cramming companies and 
provided an insider's view into the cramming scam.
    On the final panel, Jodie Bernstein, Director, Bureau of 
Consumer Protection, FTC, testified about enforcement actions 
and new regulations against Internet cramming. In addition, she 
announced a new settlement with U.S. Republic Communications, 
Inc., a company accused of Internet cramming. Under the 
settlement, U.S. Republic Communications, Inc. is to maintain a 
$1.8 million letter of credit payable to the FTC, which will be 
used to provide refunds to an estimated 124,000 small 
businesses involved in their alleged cramming activities.
    At the close of the hearing, Chairman Bond announced a list 
of tips for small businesses to heed in order to avoid becoming 
a victim of cramming. He also stated his commitment to continue 
working closely with the FTC, FCC, and the Department of 
Justice (DoJ). The Chairman stated that he would closely review 
legislative options to stop unauthorized charges and require 
better disclosure of charges on telephone bills.

 ROUNDTABLE--ENSURING THE MAXIMUM PRACTICABLE OPPORTUNITY--WASHINGTON, 
                          DC, NOVEMBER 9, 1999

    On November 9, 1999, the Committee held a roundtable to 
consider issues affecting small business procurement policy and 
programs. The participants included Directors of the Offices of 
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), or their 
representatives, from 30 Federal agencies. The roundtable also 
considered the problem of contract bundling, the potential of 
subcontracting opportunities, the ability of contracting 
officers to manage the various programs, and the need to 
address specific implementation issues affecting the HUBZone 
and Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) programs.
    In his opening remarks, Chairman Bond noted that OSDBUs 
have special expertise in carrying out the procurement programs 
aimed at small business. He emphasized that the OSDBUs' 
experiences would be a vital resource that the Committee would 
draw upon in its efforts in 2000 to reauthorize the programs 
administered by the SBA. Moreover, he noted that the OSDBUs 
will be taking on new responsibilities under the contract-
bundling provisions adopted in the 1997 reauthorization 
legislation, helping to ensure that bundling occurs only when 
``necessary and justified'' under the terms of the Small 
Business Act.
    Durie White, Chair, OSDBU Interagency Council, and 
Director, OSDBU, Department of State (State), opened the 
discussion by describing the role of an OSDBU in negotiating 
with the SBA to establish goals for small business 
participation in contracts awarded by an OSDBU's parent agency. 
In addition, OSDBUs provide assistance to individual small 
businesses on specific problems with the agency, such as 
getting payment, providing contacts within the agency, and 
enhancing e-commerce opportunities. Other participants noted 
that their roles varied somewhat depending on whether their 
agency was centralized or decentralized. Ralph Thomas, 
Associate Administrator, OSDBU, NASA, said his agency tended to 
rely more heavily on Small Business Specialists located at 
NASA's 10 centers throughout the Nation.
    The participants provided mixed views on their agencies' 
experiences with contract bundling and the use of 
subcontracting to ensure continued small business 
participation. Ernest Woodson, Senior Procurement Analyst, 
Office of Enterprise Development, GSA, mentioned that 
subcontracting, as a tool to offset bundling, raises 
enforcement issues. Small business subcontractors complain 
that, even when included in subcontract plans submitted by 
successful large business prime contractors, they do not always 
receive actual work during the performance of the contracts. 
Mr. Thomas indicated that his agency has addressed this problem 
in cost-plus contracts by withholding 15% of the award fees. 
Mr. Thomas and Robert Neal, Director, OSDBU, DoD, both noted 
that a prime contractor's failure to subcontract in accordance 
with plans can be held against that prime contractor in 
evaluating its past performance during consideration for future 
procurement opportunities. Mr. Neal also noted that Defense 
Department subcontracting dollars to small business have 
remained steady, not increasing to offset prime contracting 
dollars lost due to bundling. Tim Foreman, Deputy Director, 
OSDBU, DoD, said the Department was preparing a study to 
ascertain the effects contract bundling have on small business 
more definitively.
    Scott Denniston, Director, OSDBU, Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA), suggested that establishing a statutory 
Government-wide subcontracting goal might give the agencies 
additional leverage in negotiating subcontracting plans with 
prime contractors. It could provide a benchmark for evaluating 
a prime contractor's particular goals in its subcontracting 
plan. Mr. Foreman expressed concern that current law already 
provides too many goals for contracting officers to monitor 
effectively, and for this reason a subcontracting goal would 
compound that problem. Mr. Thomas stressed that a statutory 
subcontracting goal could also provide an excuse for a prime 
contractor to reduce its subcontracting efforts, thereby making 
the goal a ceiling rather than a floor.
    Turning to the HUBZone program, the roundtable participants 
raised concerns about several implementation issues. Mr. Neal 
noted that the requirement that a qualified firm must have its 
principal office located in a HUBZone seems to be unnecessarily 
restrictive and limits contracting opportunities that otherwise 
would be available to participating firms. Instead, he 
emphasized the need for HUBZone residents to be employed by 
firms working on Federal contracts awarded through the program, 
shifting the focus to whether job opportunities are directed to 
the people who need them rather than on whether a firm's office 
is located in a HUBZone. Jeanette Brown, Director, OSDBU, EPA, 
echoed this concern with respect to contracts to clean up 
Superfund sites.
    The OSDBU directors were generally not as concerned about 
the requirement that a HUBZone firm hire 35% of its workforce 
from HUBZone residents. Sarah Summerville, Director, OSDBU, 
Department of Energy (DoE), pointed out that relaxing that 
provision would reduce the HUBZone program's effectiveness in 
creating job opportunities in HUBZone areas. She noted that 
information technology (IT) firms hire more than just IT 
specialists, such as administrative staff, so a scarcity of 
trained IT professionals in HUBZone areas should not 
automatically preclude participation by IT firms. Mr. Denniston 
remarked that one IT firm in Fairfax County, Virginia, had been 
able to meet the 35% threshold, by hiring and busing employees 
to their offices from the District of Columbia. Lloyd Alderman, 
Director, OSDBU, Defense Logistics Agency, suggested that the 
SBA consider regulations to check compliance with the 35% 
threshold based on employment levels over a period of time, 
rather than as of a particular date, which would allow for 
fluctuations as a company hires new employees to perform a 
contract.
    The roundtable also focused on the Small Disadvantaged 
Business (SDB) program. Some participants suggested that firms 
were not applying for certification because its benefits did 
not seem to justify the effort and cost. Tracey Pinson, 
Director, SADBU, Department of the Army, noted that the 
benefits tend to accrue to large prime contractors, who get 
credit for meeting SDB goals if they subcontract to certified 
SDB firms, and who therefore have reason to encourage their SDB 
subcontractors to apply. Thelma Toler, Small Business 
Specialist, OSDBU, Executive Office of the President, commented 
that she regularly receives complaints from potential 
participants about the certification costs and the time 
consumed by the necessary paperwork. Mr. Thomas suggested that 
certification applications would increase once firms begin to 
lose contracting opportunities for failure to be certified.
    The roundtable concluded with Chairman Bond thanking the 
OSBDU directors for sharing their insights and experiences, 
which will be helpful to the Committee in developing its 
reauthorization agenda.

FORUM--THE FUTURE OF SMALL BUSINESS EXPORTING--WASHINGTON, DC, DECEMBER 
                                14, 1999

    On December 14, 1999, the Committee held a forum to provide 
an overview of the barriers small businesses face when 
exporting and potential Federal solutions. The forum also 
focused on two specific issues that small business exporters 
have identified as primary concerns--financing and e-commerce. 
Five panelists made presentations to the Committee. In 
addition, the forum was attended by 17 participants, including 
representatives of small businesses active in exporting and 
officials from Federal agencies that promote and assist small 
business exporting.
    Chairman Bond stressed the importance of international 
trade for small businesses and the positive effects that 
increasing such trade will have on the nation's economy. Small 
businesses account for more than 50% of the gross domestic 
product, and since 1992 they have provided most of the 
approximately 20 million net new jobs added to the economy. 
Chairman Bond pointed out that while the number of small 
businesses exporting has increased in recent years, that number 
is still relatively low. He also stressed that the failed round 
of trade negotiations in Seattle demonstrates that it is 
imperative that associations and businesses educate their 
members, employees, and customers about the importance of 
international trade to the country's economic prosperity.
    The first panelist was Edmund Rice, President, Coalition 
for Employment Through Exports, who described the barriers that 
exist that preclude small businesses from exporting and the 
obstacles current small exporters encounter as they try to 
create a market for their goods internationally. Mr. Rice spoke 
specifically about the need for increased coordination of the 
trade promotion programs that exist in seven cabinet 
departments and eight independent agencies. Kirk Robertson, 
Executive Vice President, Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation (OPIC), spoke about OPIC's vision for expanding 
overseas opportunities for U.S. small businesses and the work 
ongoing at OPIC to achieve that objective, including the 
programs OPIC has available to assist small businesses with 
exporting.
    John Mueller, Chairman, G&W Electric Company, appearing on 
behalf of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 
addressed the problems small businesses have selling products 
to foreign governments and stressed the need for more open and 
transparent procurement by other countries. He also emphasized 
the need for development of voluntary standards within 
industries to facilitate international trade.
    Gerald Smith, President, Transcon Trading Company, and 
member of the Advisory Board for the Export-Import Bank of the 
United States, discussed the financing needs of small exporters 
and the extent to which the current government financing 
programs address those needs. Mr. Smith stated that the primary 
reason that small businesses are unable to access government 
export financing programs is that private banks are not 
generally interested in the smaller transactions that small 
businesses typically conduct. Larger banks have little economic 
incentive to participate in small business export loans, while 
smaller community banks generally do not have the export trade 
financing knowledge to make them comfortable with such lending.
    The final panelist, Harris Miller, President, Information 
Technology Association of America and President of the World 
Information Technology and Services Alliance, addressed the 
legal and societal obstacles to increasing exporting 
opportunities through e-commerce and options for overcoming 
those obstacles. Mr. Miller stressed the need for a single 
government Internet portal to provide information to small 
businesses on exporting.
    Following the presentations, the panelists and participants 
addressed how the Federal government could increase small 
business exporting opportunities for small businesses. The 
discussion focused primarily on two issues: (1) the need for 
financing and (2) increased coordination and promotion of 
export programs at the various Federal agencies. The 
participants and panelists agreed that the Federal agencies 
offering financing programs should make a concerted effort to 
increase participation in and small business access to 
government export financing programs. This would include 
reaching out to non-bank lenders and to small community banks 
and providing them with training on export finance issues. 
Additionally, the participants and panelists agreed that 
greater coordination by Federal agencies and better promotion 
of the information and programs available to small business 
owners will have a positive impact on the number of small 
businesses taking advantage of export opportunities.
    Chairman Bond closed the forum by announcing that the 
Committee will closely review the legislative options raised by 
the participants and panelists to ensure that the Federal 
government is providing effective exporting assistance to small 
businesses.

HEARING--THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE SMALL 
       BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION--WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 24, 2000

    On February 24, 2000, the Committee held a hearing on the 
President's Fiscal Year 2001 budget request for the SBA. 
Chairman Bond opened the hearing with a recitation of the 
successful role played by small businesses in the U.S. economy, 
and the record of successes that the SBA has achieved, in large 
part due to its credit and management assistance programs. He 
noted that during the past decade, there has been enormous 
growth in the SBA's 7(a), 504, Microloan and SBIC programs, 
with tens of billions of SBA-guaranteed dollars having been 
loaned or invested in small businesses. The SBDC program and 
SCORE programs have allowed the SBA to deliver management 
assistance and counseling to millions of small business owners 
and budding entrepreneurs.
    Chairman Bond also noted that the Administration's budget 
request proposed ambitious plans for various new initiatives, 
such as the New Markets Program, which includes the HUBZone 
program, authored by Chairman Bond in 1997. He noted that $5 
million in the Fiscal Year 2001 budget request is earmarked for 
the HUBZone Program, which the SBA has been very slow to 
implement. He recommended that the 1,000 centers and sub-
centers under the SBDC program start distributing information 
to small business owners about the HUBZone program.
    Chairman Bond also expressed some concerns about the New 
Markets Venture Capital (NMVC) program and took issue with the 
SBA's contention that the regular SBIC program was not helping 
local economies, such as San Jose, California. He pointed out 
that over the past three years, SBICs had made 98 investments 
totaling $67 million in 37 small businesses within the San Jose 
city limits. These investments are creating new jobs helping to 
fuel the local economy.
    Concerns were also raised about why the SBA's budget 
request called for the creation of new programs when the agency 
was having great difficulty managing its core small business 
programs. Although the SBA has received budget increases in 
recent years, its offices supporting key technological SBA 
programs are underfunded or understaffed according to reports 
received by the Committee. Chairman Bond cited four key areas 
where the SBA is failing to meets its mission requirements: (1) 
the GAO issued a report critical of the SBIR program; (2) the 
SBA Inspector General prepared an audit critical of the 7(a) 
guaranteed business loan program; (3) the Farm Credit 
Administration (FCA) issued a report critical of the SBA's 
management of the Small Business Lending Company (SBLC) 
program; and (4) the independent auditor of the SBA's Fiscal 
Year 1998 financial statements cited three material weaknesses 
calling into question the agency's internal controls designed 
to reduce the risks in its operations.
    Additional evidence of the agency's difficulties was found 
in the problems it continues to encounter in developing the 
Loan Monitoring System, a computer system to monitor the SBA's 
credit programs and the participating lenders. Although 
Congress had appropriated $24 million over the past three 
years, the SBA had not been able to complete planning for its 
first iteration. The agency, however, is anxious to spend money 
to implement the new system in spite of the planning delays. 
Chairman Bond included a status report from the GAO describing 
the delays in completing the initial planning phase of the 
computer system.
    Senator Kerry, commended SBA Administrator Aida Alvarez for 
submitting a sound budget request. He pointed out that he 
supports the NMVC program and the funds requested for the 
program. Senator Kerry cited his bill, the Community 
Development and Venture Capital Act, as a way to spur 
investments in inner cities and low- and moderate-income areas 
in rural counties. Senator Wellstone made a statement 
emphasizing his support for the Community Development Venture 
Capital Demonstration Program, which has been included in 
Senator Kerry's bill.
    SBA Administrator Alvarez testified on behalf of the 
Administration. She devoted much of her oral testimony in 
support of the NMVC program and the funding needed to implement 
the program should it be authorized. During questioning after 
her prepared testimony, Chairman Bond announced that he and 
Senator Kerry would request that the GAO undertake a review of 
economic stimulus programs that are complementary to or overlap 
with the NMVC proposal. Ms. Alvarez also reviewed some of the 
success stories at the SBA, reciting statistics about the SBIC 
and 7(a) programs, and she discussed the new budget initiative 
to provide $15 million in grants for Phase III 
commercialization efforts by SBIR program participants.
    In reviewing the Agency's efforts to make itself more 
technologically relevant, the Administrator stated that 69% of 
the loan transactions will be processed electronically by 
Summer 2000, representing 79% of the loan dollars guaranteed by 
the SBA. Ms. Alvarez pointed out how this change would create 
enormous efficiencies at the Agency; however, in the follow-up 
questions, Ms. Alvarez admitted that this change would occur in 
theory only. The actual number of transactions made 
electronically would be lower, and lenders would be free to 
continue to use alternate means to transmit this data to the 
SBA, such as fax machines and the U.S. Postal Service.
    Chairman Bond questioned the Administrator about the lack 
of progress to implement the Loan Monitoring System (LMS). Ms. 
Alvarez called on Kris Marcy, SBA's Chief Operating Officer, to 
help her respond to Chairman Bond's questions. Ms. Marcy 
explained that the LMS is a work in progress, thus 
acknowledging that there is much work to complete. She 
explained that the SBA has received $16 million from Congress, 
of which $7 million has been spent. Nine million dollars is 
``sitting'' in an organization called FEDSIM at the GSA, and it 
can be spent as needed on system development. An additional $8 
million has been appropriated but not released by the Senate 
and House Appropriations Committees.
    Chairman Bond questioned Ms. Alvarez about the staffing 
levels in the Office of Advocacy to which she deferred to Russ 
Orban, SBA's Assistant Chief Counsel for Advocacy. Mr. Orban 
explained there are 47 employees in the Office of Advocacy, a 
decrease from 62 positions in 1993. Ms. Alvarez went on to 
explain that the Agency would be reducing Fiscal Year 2001 
staffing about 5% from Fiscal Year 2000, which includes adding 
86 new employees at SBA.

 FORUM--CYBERCRIME: CAN A SMALL BUSINESS PROTECT ITSELF?--WASHINGTON, 
                           DC, MARCH 9, 2000

    On March 9, 2000, the Committee held a forum on cybercrime 
and its effect on small business. The forum followed up on the 
Committee's June 15, 1999, forum on e-commerce, which outlined 
many of the advantages and dangers of conducting business in 
the new electronic economy. Chairman Bond opened the cybercrime 
forum by reviewing the benefits of the new economy and 
contrasting them with the increasing number of computer crimes 
and their impact on small businesses. He also noted that the 
purpose of the forum was to increase awareness of and encourage 
discussion about these issues among small businesses.
    The forum consisted of a panel of four experts on 
cybercrime as well as representatives from a variety of 
business associations and government agencies. The first 
panelist was Joan Neptune, General Manager, LC Communication, 
who described her experience of having hackers attack her 
company and attempt to extort $30,000. Her report of the 
incident to the United States Secret Service resulted in an 
investigation that tracked the hackers to Germany, where they 
were apprehended. While the hackers received a relatively light 
sentence in the German courts, the resulting impact on Ms. 
Neptune's company was devastating. Damage caused by the 
hackers, curtailed services, and reduced consumer confidence 
caused the ultimate destruction of the business.
    The second panelist was Mary Riley, Special Agent, 
Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge, United States Secret 
Service. Agent Riley testified about the difficulties involved 
with cybercrime investigations, the need to collect information 
from many jurisdictions, the problems involved in locating 
hackers in foreign countries, local laws, the need for greater 
technical knowledge of the investigators, and the potential for 
harm to the victim due to reduced consumer confidence.
    The third panelist, Scott Charney, Partner, Pricewater
houseCoopers LLP, testified that the size of the problem is 
vastly understated as many incidents are never reported to law 
enforcement. He outlined many alternatives available for a 
business to protect itself. He cautioned, however, that these 
systems are expensive, and it is often difficult to obtain 
experienced staff. The final panelist was Mr. Roger Farnsworth, 
Manager of Product Marketing, Cisco Systems Inc. Mr. Farnsworth 
described the technology that is available for a small business 
to protect itself against cybercrime incidents. He also 
testified that small businesses should treat electronic crime 
as it would any other type of criminal threat and that small 
businesses can and should take steps to protect itself.
    The first topic of discussion was penalties for electronic 
crimes. Mr. Charney outlined the various laws and the 
associated mandatory sentences within the United States but 
noted that international cases are much harder to prosecute. Of 
greater concern is the perception that the detection rate is 
very low and thus many hackers feel that they are unlikely to 
get caught. As a follow up, Agent Riley outlined the efforts by 
Federal law enforcement officials to create links with other 
law enforcement organizations, both domestically and 
internationally, to improve the coordination of cybercrime 
investigations. In response to a question about where a small 
business person should go to report a cybercrime, Agent Riley 
said that there are many different law enforcement agencies, 
including local, state, and Federal, that could potentially 
investigate an electronic crime. She noted that the Federal 
government does not have the resources to investigate every 
cybercrime and that they frequently refer the case to other 
agencies for investigation.
    Mr. Farnsworth and Mr. Charney cautioned that despite the 
problems with these types of crimes, small businesses or 
consumers should not be deterred from using the Internet to 
conduct business. This was particularly important given that 
the industry is working toward a more secure Internet and that 
law enforcement has been much more responsive to these types of 
crimes.
    Participants and panelists agreed that the lack of 
experienced employees represented a major problem to all types 
of businesses. Many initiatives were discussed including H1-B 
visas and other technical training programs. Ms. Neptune 
pointed out, however, that in this difficult labor market such 
skills are in high demand, and there is a significant problem 
of losing experienced people.
    Chairman Bond concluded the roundtable by announcing that 
he would be writing to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to 
request that the DoJ provide a single point of contact for the 
reporting of computer crimes. He also announced that he would 
be writing to FBI Director Louis Freeh to request that the 
National Infrastructure Protection Center undertake outreach 
initiatives to small business associations in order to improve 
awareness of computer-security issues.

  HEARING--SWINDLING SMALL BUSINESSES: TONER-PHONER SCHEMES AND OTHER 
          OFFICE SUPPLY SCAMS--WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 28, 2000

    On March 28, 2000, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the fraudulent telemarketing of office supplies to small 
businesses, particularly printer and copier toner. The hearing 
exposed office supply scams as an extraordinarily widespread 
problem. The Committee found that the fraudulent sale of toner 
alone costs businesses and non-profit organizations one quarter 
of a billion dollars each year. The Committee also found that 
the perpetrators of this fraud can be very prolific. A single 
medium-sized telemarketer investigated by the FTC defrauded, on 
average, a small business every 90 minutes of every day for 
four years.
    In his opening statement, Chairman Bond explained that 
while these scam artists employ many tactics to persuade 
organizations to purchase their products, typically they will 
represent that they are associated with the firm's regular 
supplier of photocopier toner and falsely claim that prices are 
about to increase. A fraudulent telemarketer, however, will 
generally avoid quoting a specific price and quantity over the 
phone because the prices they charge for supplies are 
substantially higher than prices available from reputable 
suppliers--up to ten times higher.
    The Committee also found that these telemarketers will also 
use deceptive means to collect payments. For example, invoices 
may not arrive until a week or two after the merchandise so 
that the inflated price is not as obvious and there is a 
reasonable chance that the supplies have already been used. The 
scam artists also spend significant energy on collection 
efforts, and if they find an organization that is willing to 
pay for their products, they will typically ``reload'' and send 
unordered merchandise and invoices for as long as the 
organization continues to pay.
    The hearing consisted of four panels. The first panel 
included representatives from two small businesses and a St. 
Louis, Missouri, charity who testified about their personal 
experiences as targets of fraudulent telemarketers selling 
toner cartridges. Joan Bailey, Administrative Assistant, 
Brownstone Real Estate Company, testified that she was 
contacted by a telemarketer who misrepresented that the 
telemarketer was the realty company's normal supplier of copier 
toner. The telemarketer also stated that toner prices were 
increasing. The telemarketer pointed out, however, that the 
real estate company would be permitted to purchase toner at a 
lower price. Based on these representations, Ms. Bailey ordered 
what she believed to be four toner cartridges. Her company, 
however, received only one cartridge for which it was billed 
$549 plus $60.40 for shipping and handling. The real estate 
company typically purchases four cartridges for $371. Linda-
Easton Saunders, Database/LAN Administrator, Prospect 
Associates, testified that a telemarketer contacted her to sell 
a toner cartridge, which it represented was a newly 
manufactured cartridge that was part of a pilot program by a 
leading-manufacturer and that would last longer than regular 
cartridges. The trial toner cartridge turned out to be 
remanufactured, not approved by the manufacturer, and twice the 
regular price. Finally, George Everding, Communications 
Coordinator, Feed My People, testified that he was called by a 
telemarketer and consented to an order of four toner cartridges 
for $329.00. The charity was ultimately billed for $1,316.00 
for toner cartridges that Mr. Everding believes the charity 
never received.
    Peter Grosfeld, a former manager of a telemarketing 
company, testified on the second panel that his former employer 
instructed telemarketers to misrepresent their identity and 
misrepresent that toner was about to increase in price 
significantly. Additionally, he testified that his former 
employer would coerce consumers into paying invoices, by using 
tactics such as playing tapes for customers containing 
contrived verifications of sales and by requiring restocking 
fees for returned items. Mr. Grosfeld also stated that the 
civil money penalties levied against his former employer were 
merely a ``cost of doing business'' given the profits the 
company was making. He recommended that the civil money 
penalties imposed on businesses should be increased to provide 
a deterrent to deceptive business practices.
    The third panel consisted of William Duffy, President and 
Chief Executive Officer, Imaging Supplies Coalition for 
International Intellectual Property Protection, Inc., an 
association of office equipment manufacturers, and Ms. Tricia 
Burke, Vice President, Office Equipment Company, Inc., a small 
office product dealer. Mr. Duffy testified that the fraudulent 
telemarketing of office supplies is becoming more prolific, 
citing a 100% increase in the revenue impact of this fraud in 
the last three years. While he addressed the steps 
manufacturers are taking to decrease this type of fraud, Mr. 
Duffy also stated that larger civil money penalties should be 
imposed on convicted fraudulent telemarketers. Ms. Burke 
addressed the effects this type of fraud has had on her 
business, as well as the steps her company has taken to protect 
its customers.
    Jodie Bernstein, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 
FTC, testified on the fourth panel. Ms. Bernstein announced the 
results of the FTC's recent enforcement actions against 
fraudulent telemarketers, including the largest civil penalty 
imposed for a violation of the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule. 
Ms. Bernstein also announced the launch of an extensive, grass-
roots-based business education campaign called Project BOSS 
(Banish Office Supply Scams). Finally, she suggested that to 
provide a greater deterrent to this type of fraud, Congress may 
want to consider raising the maximum civil money penalty that 
the FTC is permitted to impose for violations of Section 5 of 
the FTC Act.
    At the close of the hearing, Chairman Bond announced a list 
of tips for small businesses to avoid becoming a victim of 
office supply fraud and committed to continuing to work with 
the FTC to help deter office supply fraud.

FORUM--B2B: AN EMERGING E-FRONTIER FOR SMALL BUSINESS--WASHINGTON, DC, 
                              MAY 18, 2000

    On May 18, 2000, the Committee held a forum to explore the 
subject of Internet-based business-to-business (B2B) 
transactions and how this trend may affect small enterprises. 
In opening the forum, Chairman Bond raised three primary 
questions for the participants to address: How can small 
businesses take advantage of this trend? What obstacles do 
small businesses face in trying to take advantage of this 
trend? Is this trend a benefit or a problem for small 
businesses? He explained that the Committee's goal in holding 
this forum was to help the small business community better 
understand the opportunities that are becoming available 
through the use of the Internet and the computer revolution in 
general. Although many in high-technology industries are very 
familiar with these possibilities, many small businesses still 
lag behind and are unaware of how their businesses could 
benefit. Chairman Bond described the Internet as ``the latest 
toolbox available'' to help small businesses compete in the 
marketplace.
    The forum started with opening statements from three 
panelists who described the Internet-based B2B trend, the range 
of its impact, the amount of small business participation, and 
how this technology can be adapted to help small firms. The 
first panelist was Rick Villars, Vice President for Internet 
and e-commerce, International Data Corporation (IDC), who 
described the extent of Internet-based e-commerce and the 
proportion attributed to small business. According to Mr. 
Villars, in the year 2000, B2B e-commerce will reach $210 
billion, accounting for 78% of all e-commerce worldwide. By 
2004, B2B e-commerce will reach $2.2 trillion or 88% of all e-
commerce. U.S. companies will lead this trend with an estimated 
$924 billion in transactions by 2004. Although U.S. small 
businesses have a 61% rate of Internet usage, Mr. Villars noted 
that they will only account for 28% of B2B e-commerce in 2000. 
He attributed this low level largely to the fact that small 
businesses frequently connect to the Internet through a dial-up 
modem that does not maintain a permanent connection, thereby 
making it impossible to use the Internet for selling 
merchandise. New application service providers and web hosting 
technologies may help alleviate this disparity. Mr. Villars 
also described some of the various formats for e-commerce, such 
as trading communities, industry exchanges, and auctions sites, 
which he referred to collectively as e-marketplaces.
    Angie Kim, President, EqualFooting.com, was the second 
panelist. Ms. Kim's company offers small businesses Internet-
based purchasing opportunities similar to larger companies. As 
a result, small businesses can get the benefit of large volume 
purchasing that typically give large companies a 10% to 30% 
cost advantage. They can also save time by getting different 
price quotes via their computer instead of having to go through 
multiple catalogs. Ms. Kim discussed the benefits and 
difficulties for small businesses seeking to operate over the 
Internet. One problem she identified is for small firms to 
develop their networks to generate traffic for their web site. 
Ms. Kim noted that small businesses can address this issue by 
joining an e-marketplace or exchange for their goods such as 
EqualFooting.com.
    The third panelist was Krish Krishnan, President and CEO, 
NetCompliance, Inc., which offers regulatory compliance 
assistance via the Internet. Mr. Krishnan described how the 
Internet has improved the delivery of information and 
communication to a wider audience. He cited statistics from 
Goldman Sachs that indicate small businesses accounted for $114 
billion in e-commerce sales in 1999 and will account for $1.5 
trillion by 2004. NetCompliance's web site offers users 
compliance assistance with all the regulations with which a 
particular industry would have to comply. Mr. Krishnan gave as 
an example gas stations that have to comply with Federal, 
state, and in some cases local environmental rules as well as 
safety and health regulations. NetCompliance identifies the 
relevant regulations and provides on-line filing for any forms 
that can be submitted in this manner. The site also offers 
employee training that can be completed by employees using the 
business' computer rather than having to take classes at remote 
locations. Mr. Krishnan encouraged Congress to require agencies 
to allow electronic filing of forms to make the requirement 
easier and faster for businesses.
    In addition to the three panelists, 20 invited participants 
representing a cross section of small business and high-
technology interests, took part in the forum. A discussion 
among the participants, panelists, Committee staff, and Members 
followed. Comments ranged widely from experiences of the 
association members who were engaged in e-commerce to 
cautionary descriptions of problems small businesses faced when 
trying to enter the e-marketplace. One participant noted that 
Internet-based auctions were too competitive for small 
businesses to be able to do well in them. Large businesses with 
wider profit margins on the other hand, could absorb the lower 
prices that auctions typically generate because small 
businesses do not have as great a margin on their products to 
be able to sell at such lower prices. Small businesses' product 
lines also may not be as diverse as those of large companies, 
which means that they will not have other products that might 
be able to make up for resulting losses.
    Participants were also asked what Congress could do to help 
encourage small businesses to get more involved in e-commerce. 
The consensus was that Congress should, at a minimum, do no 
harm. Congress should also focus on educating small businesses, 
perhaps by staging forums with computer demonstrations 
throughout the country. Some participants expressed support for 
the e-signature legislation that would give customers the 
ability to provide a ``signature'' on-line to verify their 
identity.
    Chairman Bond closed the forum by thanking all the speakers 
and participants. He predicted that within a few years, 
Internet-based B2B transactions will become commonplace and a 
major component in the small business community's approach to 
doing business.

 HEARING--IRS RESTRUCTURING: A NEW ERA FOR SMALL BUSINESS--WASHINGTON, 
                            DC, MAY 23, 2000

    On May 23, 2000, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the IRS' new operating division dedicated to small businesses 
and the self-employed. In his opening statement, Chairman Bond 
stressed that one of the most pervasive issues confronting 
small business owners continues to be their interaction with 
the IRS. He noted that nearly two years ago, Congress passed 
sweeping legislation, the Internal Revenue Service 
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, to transform one of the 
nation's most feared regulatory enforcement agencies. Congress' 
goal in that legislation was for the IRS to become an agency 
that balances the taxpayers' need for outstanding service with 
the agency's duty to collect tax revenues in a fair and uniform 
manner. For small businesses, a significant part of the IRS' 
transformation is expected to occur through the reorganization 
of the agency into four operating divisions, with the Small 
Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division dedicated to the 
particular needs of small business taxpayers.
    The hearing consisted of three panels of witnesses. On the 
first panel, Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner, IRS, provided 
the Committee with an overview of the steps that the agency is 
taking in the near term to provide better customer service and 
reduce the compliance burdens on small business taxpayers. 
These steps include new and broader information for small 
businesses on the IRS web site; a second edition of the CD-ROM 
with business and tax information for small businesses; and 
improvements in electronic filing and payment of taxes. The 
Commissioner also described a new initiative that will permit 
taxpayers to authorize the IRS to deal directly with third-
party tax preparers simply by checking a box on their tax 
return.
    Commissioner Rossotti also presented a progress report to 
the Committee on the IRS' new SB/SE Division, which is expected 
to ``stand up'' or become operational on October 1, 2000. He 
noted that the division will focus on three components, the 
first of which, Taxpayer Education and Communications, will 
work to improve compliance by assisting small businesses 
through education and other information before their tax 
returns are filed. The second component, Customer Account 
Services, will work to focus on resolving issues that arise 
after a tax return is filed. The third component will consist 
of the traditional compliance functions of examinations and 
collections.
    Following the Commissioner's testimony, Chairman Bond 
presented him with the results of the Committee's year-long 
``IRS Paperwork Unpopularity Poll,'' which developed out of the 
Committee hearing on April 12, 1999. Through the poll, the 
Committee collected input from small business owners on the IRS 
forms, instructions, publications, letters, and notices most in 
need of revision. Chairman Bond applauded the Commissioner's 
willingness to examine these forms and documents. He noted that 
it is a testament to the IRS' overall efforts to provide 
improved service to America's taxpayers and an important step 
toward reducing the tax filing and recordkeeping burdens that 
small businesses and the self-employed encounter every day.
    The second panel consisted of witnesses from the GAO. 
During his introduction of the panel's lead witness, Cornelia 
Ashby, Associate Director for Tax Policy and Administration 
Issues, GAO, Chairman Bond released the GAO's report on the 
IRS' efforts to construct a model that will estimate the tax 
burdens imposed on America's taxpayers. The Chairman noted that 
the first stage of this model focuses on taxpayers with wage 
and investment income and is expected to assess the prefiling, 
filing, and postfiling burdens that these taxpayers encounter. 
The model will serve as the foundation for the second stage, 
which is expected to include a burden model applicable to small 
business taxpayers.
    In her testimony, Ms. Ashby described the GAO's evaluation 
of the new burden model, and she reported on the agency's 
examination of the IRS' plans for the new SB/SE Division. With 
respect to the new division, she described the GAO's survey of 
small businesses to identify the problems that they have 
historically had in dealing with the IRS, and the GAO's review 
of the difficulties that IRS has had in dealing with the 
diverse nature of small business taxpayers. Finally, she 
described how the IRS expects the new SB/SE Division to address 
these issues. Ms. Ashby concluded that the new division has the 
potential for providing improved service for small business 
taxpayers, and she identified several challenges facing the 
agency as it implements the new division, including human 
resource needs, technological limitations, and necessary 
improvements in performance management.
    The third panel consisted of two private-sector witnesses 
who serve on IRS advisory panels. Sandra Abalos, President, 
Abalos & Associates, testified via videoconferencing from 
Phoenix, Arizona. Ms. Abalos is a member of the IRS Electronic 
Tax Administration Advisory Committee, and she provided the 
Committee with her insights into the plans for the new SB/SE 
Division. She focused significant attention on the IRS' efforts 
to encourage and improve electronic tax filing and stressed 
that the agency needs to incorporate small business feedback 
into its planning process if it is going to develop an 
electronic filing program that small businesses will embrace. 
Ms. Abalos stressed that such a program must be viewed as a 
voluntary option for small business and not as another 
government mandate.
    The final witness was Roy Quick, Jr., EA, Principal, Quick 
Tax & Accounting Services. Mr. Quick is also a member of the 
IRS Advisory Council, and he provided the Committee with his 
perspective on the new SB/SE Division as well as some of the 
agency's efforts to provide taxpayer education in the prefiling 
stage in order to reduce errors and provide better compliance. 
Mr. Quick praised a number of initiatives in the education and 
outreach areas that the IRS is currently implementing, and he 
recommended some changes to improve those efforts to the 
benefit of small business taxpayers.
    In closing the hearing, Chairman Bond noted that while 
great efforts have gone into the planning for the SB/SE 
Division, the real work will begin when the new division 
becomes operational. To ensure that the IRS' improvements in 
small business service do not stop in the planning stages, he 
announced that he would be asking the GAO to undertake a new 
evaluation of the SB/SE Division and report back to the 
Committee next year on the changes and improvements that the 
agency has made for small business taxpayers.

  HEARING--GAO'S PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW: IS THE SBA ON 
                  PAR?--WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 20, 2000

    On July 20, 2000, the Committee held an oversight hearing 
on the SBA's information technology management, human capital 
management, and the 8(a) business development programs. The 
hearing was the first in a series the Committee plans to hold 
on the Performance and Accountability Review (PAR) that the GAO 
is conducting at the SBA.
    In his opening statement, Chairman Bond introduced the PAR, 
which entails a comprehensive review of the major performance 
and management challenges that are critical to an agency's 
mission, and how such challenges affect an agency's ability to 
administer its core programs. The Committee and the GAO 
formulated the PAR to help root out systemic agency problems. 
The SBA was the first agency subject to a PAR and will serve as 
a test case for the GAO's plan to apply the PAR to other 
Federal agencies.
    David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, 
was the sole witness on the first panel. He addressed the 
importance of strategic oversight, noting that the focus of 
such oversight should shift to reviewing overall agency 
management and effectiveness and that the PAR is intended to 
provide such an assessment. He explained that a PAR entails a 
review of mission-critical programs and ties the agency's 
program problems to systemic issues related to general agency 
operations. Mr. Walker also explained the three primary reasons 
that the GAO selected the SBA for the first application of PAR. 
First, the SBA is a small agency that permits the GAO to hone 
the prototype for use in evaluating other agencies. Second, the 
SBA is in transition from a programmatic agency that conducts 
most activities in-house to a regulatory agency that oversees 
the conduct of out-sourced activities. Finally, the GAO and the 
Inspector General (IG) of the SBA have raised many concerns 
over the last several years about how the SBA operates its core 
programs.
    The second panel consisted of three GAO officials who 
addressed the first three areas reviewed under the SBA's PAR. 
Stanley Czerwinski, Associate Director, Housing and Community 
Development Issues, Resources, Community and Economic 
Development Division, GAO, testified about the GAO's two 
reports on the 8(a) business development program. He stated 
that the GAO found that the 8(a) program, as it is currently 
operated, does not meet the needs of the firms that use the 
program. In addition, the database that the SBA created to 
track the program does not contain the information the agency 
needs to manage the program effectively. Furthermore the 
business assistance provided by the SBA under the program does 
not focus on the businesses that truly need such assistance. 
According to the GAO's survey of firms participating in the 
8(a) program, while 86% of the firms surveyed joined the 8(a) 
program to obtain contracts, only a very small percentage of 
firms in that program obtain contracts. Mr. Czerwinski 
testified that the SBA focuses on providing 8(a) firms with 
management assistance rather than contracting assistance, 
despite the fact that many firms in the 8(a) program already 
have substantial management experience.
    The next witness on the second panel was Joel Willemssen, 
Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and 
Information Management Division, GAO, who testified about the 
GAO's report on the SBA's management of its information 
technology. He stated the GAO found that policies and 
procedures for the five categories examined are only partially 
implemented, are in draft form, or do not exist in any form. As 
a result, the SBA cannot ensure that its information technology 
meets current or future needs or that it has the human capital 
to implement the necessary reforms.
    The final witness on the second panel was Michael Brostek, 
Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues, 
General Government Division, GAO. Mr. Brostek testified about 
the GAO's report on the SBA's management of its human capital. 
He stated that while the SBA has undertaken useful human 
capital initiatives, these efforts are incomplete and place at 
risk the success of the agency's attempt to redesign its 
business processes and to transform its workplace. Mr. Brostek 
noted that the SBA has not conducted the workforce planning it 
needs to determine whether the agency has the appropriate 
personnel to conduct its mission now or in the future. He also 
explained that the SBA has not prepared for succession of its 
current senior management or trained its current staff to 
ensure that they can perform the duties and responsibilities of 
senior management.
    The third panel consisted of Aida Alvarez, Administrator, 
SBA, who testified at length about the various programs the 
agency operates to assist small businesses, and she provided 
statistics on the outputs of such programs. She added that the 
SBA intends to make the commitment of resources and effort 
necessary to improve its information technology management. She 
agreed that the GAO's recommendations will help the SBA develop 
information technology management. Ms. Alvarez also stated that 
the SBA has begun a comprehensive workforce planning effort by 
taking steps to manage its human capital activities better, 
including development of job descriptions and related training 
or retraining. She echoed some of the GAO's recommendations, 
stating that the SBA also must take the following steps: 
develop a succession plan for current senior management, 
reinstate management training, estimate the number of employees 
needed with certain skills, and ensure adequate employee 
training. Additionally, she noted that the SBA has begun to 
transform itself by transitioning its employees from making and 
servicing loans to overseeing private sector partners engaged 
in these activities.
    Ms. Alvarez concluded her remarks by agreeing that 
improvement is needed in tracking assistance provided to 8(a) 
firms and measuring the program's performance. She stated that 
7(j) funding limitations prevent the agency from providing 
management and technical assistance to 8(a) firms. She agreed, 
however, with the GAO's recommendation that the SBA must do 
more to improve the 8(a) program and assist the small 
businesses that it is designed to benefit.

 ROUNDTABLE--WHAT IS CONTRACT BUNDLING?--WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 13, 
                                  2000

    On September 13, 2000, the Committee held a roundtable 
comprising the Directors of the OSDBUs to consider matters 
related to contract bundling. The roundtable focused on the 
July 26, 2000, final regulations of the SBA, implementing the 
anti-bundling provisions of the Small Business Reauthorization 
Act of 1997. Specifically, the roundtable discussed whether 
small business advocates (including the SBA's Procurement 
Center Representatives and the OSDBUs) would have timely 
information about prospective bundling to enable their 
intervention. Also, the roundtable discussed the meaning of 
``measurably substantial'' benefits, which under the law and 
regulations permits a prospective bundling to be considered 
``necessary and justified.''
    In his opening remarks, Chairman Bond noted the importance 
of sound regulations to ensure a workable process for 
monitoring and controlling contract bundling. In FY1999, the 
government purchased $199 billion in goods and services through 
more than 10.5 million contract actions. These contracts 
averaged out to $378,000 in purchasing, and 20 contract actions 
for every minute of every day. An ongoing administrative review 
process is essential to ensure effective oversight of that 
volume of activity. Chairman Bond observed that publication of 
final bundling rules allows the Federal Procurement Data Center 
to make the necessary revisions to collect systematic data on 
bundling.
    Stan McCall, Small Business Specialist, NASA, commented 
that an ongoing relationship between the agency purchasers and 
the SBA's Procurement Center Representatives (PCRs) will help 
ensure that any significant matters are reviewed by a small 
business advocate. Ken Bryan, Director, OSDBU, DoJ, however, 
said that the scarcity of PCRs made it difficult to ensure such 
reviews. Linda Williams, Deputy Administrator, Office of 
Government Contracting and Minority Enterprise Development, 
SBA, agreed that PCR coverage was not sufficient, but she noted 
that the SBA has hired an additional 13 PCRs to help address 
that deficiency.
    Tracey Pinson, Director, Small and Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization (SADBU), Department of the Army, said that the 
Defense Department's Form 2579 required signatures from the 
contracting office's SADBU representative, as well as the PCR, 
if a PCR is assigned to that office. Mirinda Jackson, Deputy 
Associate Administrator, Office of Enterprise Development, 
General Services Administration (GSA), observed that GSA Form 
89 similarly allows a PCR to sign off on GSA procurements that 
are not set aside for small business. These forms help ensure 
that at least one small business advocate reviews the 
acquisition strategy.
    The roundtable also examined the elements constituting a 
contract to help determine when the bundling regulations might 
apply. Mike Gerich, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy, stated that a contract differs from 
a contract action; contract actions may also include 
modifications to existing contracts. Also, orders placed under 
an existing contract would not necessarily be considered new 
contracts, although some agencies are adopting supplemental 
procurement regulations to clarify that point. Mike Green, 
Deputy Director, OSDBU, Department of Agriculture, emphasized 
the potential for Government-wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) 
to become de facto bundled procurements by allowing many 
agencies to purchase goods or services off a single contract. 
Previously each agency might have had its own separate 
contract. Esther Aguilera, Director, OSDBU, DoE, said GWACs 
have a tendency to expand into new requirements and that the 
contract modifications must also be monitored. Durie White, 
Operations Director, OSDBU, Department of State, and Chair, 
OSDBU Directors' Interagency Council, warned that GWACs pose 
special problems for OSDBUs to monitor since their agency's 
procurement offices are purchasing off contracts awarded by 
another agency.
    With respect to specific standards used in the SBA 
regulations, Mr. McCall was concerned about too much focus on 
measuring potential benefits from bundling and not enough 
attention to its costs in reducing competition and effect on 
the tax base. Robert Neal, Director, OSDBU, DoD, noted that 
consolidations and efficiencies tend to encourage reliance on 
mature firms with established past-performance records, rather 
than emerging start-ups. He commented that the cost-benefit 
analysis tools developed under OMB Circular A-76 could be 
useful in assessing costs and benefits in contract bundling. 
Anthony DeLuca, Director, SADBU, Department of the Air Force, 
stated that the effects of contract bundling on small business 
and on the economy in general are not yet known.
    Scott Denniston, Director, OSDBU, VA, warned that the 
OSDBUs often are challenged by simply attempting to find out 
what is happening. His office resorts to reading the Commerce 
Business Daily as a way of finding out about VA procurements 
that may not otherwise be called to his attention. He noted 
that the procurement forecast published by his office should 
provide guidance to small businesses to market themselves to 
the VA as potential vendors of the forecasted purchases. Robert 
Neal emphasized that OSDBUs do not sign contracts. Thus, the 
commitment of the senior agency leadership tends to determine 
success or failure in an agency's small business program. 
Jeanette Brown, Director, OSDBU, EPA, said that contracting 
officers and program managers made the actual decisions about 
where to spend procurement dollars and that the small business 
program needs to ensure greater accountability on their part. 
Sharron Harris, Director, OSDBU, Department of Agriculture, 
stated that senior agency leadership often was concerned with 
the success of an agency's project, and unless the senior 
leadership understood how small business could enhance the 
agency's ability to succeed, their tendency was effectively to 
discourage contracting officers from relying on small business.
    The roundtable adjourned following a discussion by Mr. Neal 
of the preliminary findings his office was discovering in a 
review of 10 contract consolidation cases.

HEARING--SLOTTING FEES: ARE FAMILY FARMERS BATTLING TO STAY ON THE FARM 
      AND IN THE GROCERY STORE--WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000

    On September 14, 2000, the Committee held its second 
hearing on slotting allowances, which occurred exactly a year 
from the first Committee hearing on this issue. The hearing 
provided an opportunity for the Committee to receive an update 
on the status of government efforts to understand slotting 
allowances and to gain a better understanding of these fees as 
they pertain to the marketing of fresh produce.
    Chairman Bond recounted what the Committee had learned 
through its prior hearing and continued investigation of 
slotting fees. Specifically, he cited information received by 
the Committee that large-chain retailers routinely demand 
substantial up-front slotting payments from manufacturers to 
put products on the shelf or to keep them on the shelf. In 
addition, the Committee learned that the products of small 
businesses are often excluded simply because they cannot afford 
the excessive payments. A significant obstacle to understanding 
the actual effect of slotting allowances on competition, 
however, is the lack of detailed data available to government 
and academic researchers. Chairman Bond emphasized that in 
order to make policy decisions about this issue, Congress and 
the relevant Federal agencies must be able to examine 
transaction-level data covering the amount that retailers 
collect, how the fees are negotiated, and the use of such fees.
    Chairman Bond also addressed the request the Committee made 
to the GAO to gather such information from retailers and 
manufacturers. He noted that the retail-grocery and food-
manufacturing industries have been unwilling to provide data to 
the GAO on what is actually occurring in the marketplace. The 
industries' apparent resistance to an open and frank dialogue 
on the use and effects of slotting fees raises significant 
suspicion that these fees are regularly employed in an anti-
competitive manner and are not merely a risk-sharing mechanism 
that reflects actual costs of retailers. Given the industry's 
reluctance to provide information, Chairman Bond announced that 
he had secured $900,000 in the Commerce, Justice, State and the 
Judiciary appropriations bill for the FTC to conduct an in-
depth study into slotting fees and their competitive effects.
    The hearing's first panel consisted of Thomas Stenzel, 
President and CEO, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 
Association; David Moore, President, Western Growers 
Association; and Michael Stuart, President, Florida Fruit & 
Vegetable Association. Each witness addressed the concerns 
within the produce industry regarding the escalating practice 
of charging slotting fees for produce and, in particular, for 
loose fruits and vegetables. Each witness on the panel also 
stated that produce growers and shippers are being asked by 
retailers to pay off-invoice fees, which are unrelated to 
actual product cost, merely to continue doing business. Mr. 
Stenzel emphasized that transparency of industry practices will 
rein in the abuses that currently occur in the market. He also 
addressed how slotting allowances and other similar fees 
provide up-front profit to the retailer, thereby reducing 
retailers' incentive to sell produce to consumers.
    Mr. Moore testified that retailers are not reducing retail 
prices for produce when there is a corresponding reduction in 
the price a grower receives for produce. He stated that when 
combined with the fees charged for the privilege of doing 
business, the price received by growers can force them to sell 
their commodities at a loss. This not only harms produce 
growers, but denies consumers a choice of products. Finally, 
Mr. Stuart testified about the retail concentration in the 
grocery industry and indicated that as supermarket chains have 
become fewer and larger, they have developed considerable 
bargaining advantages over their produce suppliers, many of 
whom are small to medium-sized family businesses. The result 
has been that retailers continually try to reduce the prices 
paid to growers, thus jeopardizing the growers' ability to stay 
in business.
    Lawrence Dyckman, Director of Food and Agriculture Issues, 
Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, GAO; 
Susan Offutt, Administrator, Economic Research Service (ERS), 
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Gregory Gundlach, Professor, 
Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, appeared 
on the second panel. Mr. Dyckman testified that the GAO was 
unsuccessful in gaining the cooperation needed from the 
industry to conduct a study on slotting fees. He stated that 
neither grocery companies nor food manufacturers would make 
detailed information on slotting fees available to the GAO, 
despite a pledge by the GAO that it would take steps to ensure 
confidentiality of the documentation and a pledge by the 
Committee that it would not seek information that would 
identify any particular manufacturer or retailer outlet.
    Ms. Offutt testified about the preliminary results of a 
study conducted by the ERS on trade practices in the fresh 
fruit and vegetable markets. She stated that the ERS has found 
that fixed or variable fees and trade allowances have increased 
in incidence and magnitude over the last five years. The ERS 
did not, however, review the effect that such fees have on 
produce growers and shippers, and Ms. Offutt confirmed that the 
ERS intends to review this issue in future studies. Finally, 
Mr. Gundlach testified about the current state of academic and 
government research on slotting fees, emphasizing that without 
analyzing transaction-level data, the claims of pro-competitive 
or anti-competitive aspects of slotting and similar fees cannot 
be proven. He also stated that the FTC has focused on how 
slotting fees can be used by dominant manufacturers to exclude 
competitors, but the agency has not focused on the effect that 
retail concentration has on increasing the bargaining power of 
retailers to demand such fees. Mr. Gundlach suggested that this 
is an important issue that should be examined by the FTC.
    Chairman Bond concluded the hearing by announcing that the 
Committee would follow up with the FTC to receive assurances 
that it will use the additional $900,000 in the Commerce, 
Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill to collect 
detailed information on slotting allowances and related 
practices so that public policy decisions can be made on this 
issue.

JOINT HEARING WITH THE SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING--PENSION 
  TENSION: DOES THE PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION DELIVER FOR 
  RETIREES?--WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 21, 2000

    On September 21, 2000, the Committee held a joint hearing 
with the Special Committee on Aging to conduct oversight of the 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The hearing 
examined three major issues: (1) the ability of the PBGC to 
deliver timely and accurate determinations of benefit levels to 
retirees whose pension plans have failed and been taken over by 
the PBGC, (2) the security of the PBGC's information systems, 
(3) and the appropriateness of the PBGC's contracting 
practices.
    In his opening statement, Chairman Bond commented on the 
particular interests of the Committee on Small Business in 
overseeing the PBGC. Because defined-benefit pension plans pay 
insurance premiums to the PBGC, and because most pension plans 
(like most businesses) are small, the Committee has a 
responsibility to monitor whether participating plans are 
receiving adequate and appropriate benefits for their premiums. 
The Committee also has a long-standing concern with government-
contracting practices that may enhance or impede small business 
participation.
    The first two witnesses testified about individual 
experiences with the PBGC. Thomas A. Parks, a resident of Cedar 
Rapids, Iowa, told the Committee of his experiences and 
problems attempting to ascertain his definitive benefit level 
under the Kwik-Way Manufacturing Company's pension plan, which 
had failed and had been taken over by the PBGC. Mr. Parks noted 
that early in his interaction with the PBGC, he had received a 
check drawn from a bank other than the one the PBGC had 
previously indicated and drawn against a pension plan to which 
Mr. Parks had no connection. He subsequently received a 
duplicate check drawn on the correct bank for the correct plan, 
and he returned the erroneous amount. Mr. Parks wrote the PBGC 
in April of 1996 to recount a series of errors, including the 
erroneous check, and received no clarifying response. When Mr. 
Parks finally received his definitive statement of benefits, it 
differed from the estimate originally supplied him by the Kwik-
Way plan administrator by only five cents per month. He noted 
that the PBGC's determination occurred eight years after the 
agency had first become involved with the Kwik-Way plan 
failure.
    Bonne McHenry, a former employee of the Integrated 
Management Resources Group [the PBGC's contract manager for its 
Atlanta Field Benefit Administration (FBA) office], recounted 
her observations from her work for the PBGC. Ms. McHenry noted 
that the definitive statement of benefits, known as an Initial 
Determination Letter (IDL), is the most important document a 
pensioner receives from the PBGC. She commented that the PBGC 
had sent out IDLs with inaccurate benefit amounts, erroneous 
plan options selected, and incorrect names and Social Security 
numbers. Some IDLs had invalid data entered into the wrong 
fields, such as benefit levels printed in the space reserved 
for dates. She stated that, when participants who received such 
incorrect IDLs contacted her, she was able to consult the 
source documents from the failed plan and determine the correct 
information, which suggested that these errors arose when the 
plan information was transferred to the PBGC database. Ms. 
McHenry stated that she did not believe the PBGC's management 
was responsive to Atlanta employees' concerns about these 
errors.
    Wayne Robert Poll, Inspector General (IG), PBGC, testified 
that his office had conducted a penetration test of the PBGC's 
computer systems. He noted that prior to conducting the 
penetration study of computer security, he had informed three 
members of the PBGC's management that he would be conducting 
such a study. However, the computer systems were still found to 
be vulnerable. Mr. Poll indicated that the PBGC did not have an 
information security program and employees were not 
sufficiently aware of security concerns. His team was able to 
penetrate the PBGC's computer systems by dialing in from remote 
locations and by obtaining unauthorized access from computers 
at the agency. The team was able to gain systems-administrator 
level of access to the PBGC computers, giving them the ability 
to create, delete, and modify data in the PBGC database. Mr. 
Poll indicated that he would be conducting a follow-up 
penetration study after the PBGC had completed its 
implementation of his recommendations from the previous test.
    Mr. Poll also reported on studies he had conducted 
concerning the issuance of IDLs, particularly their timeliness. 
He found that approximately half of the IDLs were issued more 
than seven years after the PBGC became the trustee of a failed 
plan. Moreover, even when the PBGC had completed all of the 
calculations necessary to determine a participant's benefit 
levels, the agency often required an additional year to prepare 
the benefit letter and send it. Mr. Poll noted that when he 
first examined this issue, the PBGC sent out only 35% of IDLs 
within a year of completing these calculations. A follow-up 
study indicated that this percentage had later increased to 
80%.
    In addition, Mr. Poll commented that the PBGC's management 
did not seem sensitive to the impact that delayed IDLs have on 
the participants. The agency management thought that since 
participants received an estimated benefit payment until the 
definitive level was determined, the pensioners were not 
significantly harmed. Mr. Poll noted that this view was not 
shared by pensioners, who reported economic hardships, such as 
having to repay the PBGC for estimated benefits that turned out 
to be a higher amount than the actual benefits to which they 
were entitled.
    Barbara Bovbjerg, Associate Director, Health, Education, 
and Human Services Division, GAO, discussed findings of a GAO 
report on the PBGC's contracting practices. The report, 
requested by Chairman Bond and Chairman Charles Grassley (R-
IA), Special Committee on Aging, found that the PBGC had begun 
to rely heavily on contractors to address a large workload that 
accumulated due to several large pension plan failures in the 
mid-1980s. Although the PBGC's workload has diminished 
significantly due to economic strength and fewer new failures, 
the PBGC continues to rely heavily on contractors without a 
systematic plan to coordinate contracts with expected 
workloads.
    Ms. Bovbjerg also expressed concern that the PBGC's 
contracting practices were not designed to maximize competition 
and cited instances in which procurement strategies appeared to 
be designed to favor incumbent contractors. She also observed 
that the PBGC did not collect management data specific to each 
contractor-operated office to help assess the contractor's 
performance. Finally, she reported that the PBGC's contracting 
audit office was not organizationally placed to ensure 
independent judgment in reviewing contracts. Robert H. Hast, 
Assistant Comptroller General for Special Investigations, GAO, 
also testified about certain contracting matters that came to 
the GAO's attention in the course of its contract-management 
study, which would be referred to the DoJ for further 
investigation.
    David Strauss, Executive Director, PBGC, stated that he had 
confidence in the integrity of the PBGC's contracting staff and 
submitted for the record a history of past investigations into 
the contracting matter discussed by Mr. Hast. Mr. Strauss 
stated that he welcomed any further information from the GAO 
that would help put the allegations to rest. Mr. Strauss also 
emphasized the PBGC's commitment to carrying out its 
obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
(ERISA) to ensure continuous payment of benefits to pensioners. 
He stated that, in most cases, the estimated benefit payments 
made prior to the calculation of the definitive benefit levels 
have been very close to the correct amount. Mr. Strauss stated 
that he welcomed the recommendations of the IG and the GAO and 
indicated that the PBGC had been implementing the computer-
security recommendations made by the IG.

     HEARING--THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE: TAKING A CHAIN SAW TO SMALL 
               BUSINESS--WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 4, 2000

    On October 4, 2000, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the effect of U.S. Forest Service rules and regulations on 
small businesses. The hearing was chaired by Senator Mike Enzi 
(R-WY), who stressed that a growing pattern of Forest Service 
actions are shutting out small businesses from public lands and 
contributing to the destruction of rural communities. Senator 
Enzi noted that large timber companies are not affected by 
having the public lands closed off to them; in some ways, they 
are even helped. These large companies have private sources in 
the American Southeast and Canada that allow them to keep their 
mills running. In contrast, the small mills are closing because 
of Forest Service policies, which results in increased market 
share for the large lumber companies.
    Senator Enzi criticized the Forest Service for the agency's 
approach to the RFA. He stressed that, through the RFA, 
Congress has shown that it wants small businesses to be a 
partner with the Forest Service in developing rules and 
regulations that will let a healthy environment and small 
businesses flourish side by side. He pointed out that the 
current Administration has lost this sense of balance, 
preferring instead to promulgate regulations solely for the 
stated purpose of ``saving the environment,'' without any 
attention being paid to their effect on small businesses. 
Senator Enzi concluded by emphasizing that a healthy 
environment must have a healthy economy, and small businesses 
are the best hope to preserve the environmental resources for 
the future.
    Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Conrad Burns (R-MT) echoed 
the concern that the Forest Service has ignored the impact of 
its regulations and not followed the mandates of the RFA. 
Senator Crapo stressed that the Forest Service has not been 
held accountable for the economic impact of the agency's rules 
and regulations, noting for example the agency's Roadless 
Initiative. Senator Burns added that natural resources are 
going to waste while mills are being abandoned and roads are 
being closed. He called the Committee's attention to a slice of 
a large tree that had died as a result of pine borer beetles. 
Although the tree was close to a road, it would not be 
harvested under the Forest Service's Roadless Initiative 
because access would be impossible. He emphasized that leaving 
this timber to decay was not only a waste of available timber, 
but would also contribute to the fuel build up in the forests, 
which led to the massive fires of this summer.
    The first panel included two Senators from the Northwestern 
United States. Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) noted that public 
lands were designed for both economic and recreational use, and 
these two interests should not be pitted against each other 
when they can coexist. He emphasized that local residents have 
been given no recourse to the mandates from Washington. In 
particular, the Forest Service's Roadless Initiative was 
designed from the top down, contrary to all previous Forest 
Service policies, and has resulted in a proposal that would be 
devastating to the local interests. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) 
offered two conclusions from his experience of chairing the 
Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. First, the Forest 
Service is the single most important agency affecting small 
business interests in the western states, determining the 
future of small businesses in many cases. Second, there is not 
an agency in the Federal government that is less sensitive to 
the needs of small businesses. Senator Craig proposed to remedy 
this situation by creating an independent Office of Small 
Business Advocacy inside the Forest Service that would have the 
responsibility for approving the regulatory flexibility 
analyses and the agency's compliance with the RFA before a 
regulation could be issued.
    The second panel consisted of four small business owners 
who have been adversely affected by Forest Service policies. 
Jim Hurst, President, Owens & Hurst Lumber Co., Inc., testified 
that Forest Service regulations were a direct threat to the 
rural, western culture, which is dominated by small businesses. 
He noted that big environmental groups and the large timber 
companies work together to influence the Federal government to 
lower timber harvest limits, which has severe implications for 
small timber operators. Since the large lumber companies 
harvest most of their timber on their own lands, they remain 
largely unaffected by decisions of the Forest Service. Joel 
Bousman, Cattle Rancher, and Regional Vice President, Wyoming 
Stockgrowers' Association, explained that the Federal 
government could put him out of business with one stroke of the 
pen. As a rancher, his business depends on grazing. He stressed 
that if he loses his grazing permit, he would have either to 
downsize or buy more land; neither would be feasible. Instead, 
he would probably have to sell his business, most likely to 
some type of developer, which would sacrifice the wild and 
unspoiled nature of the land that the Forest Service intends to 
preserve through its restrictions on grazing permits. Mr. 
Bousman also described how his two sons hope to continue 
operating the ranch, but they may not be able to if the grazing 
permits are further reduced.
    Del Tinsley, Owner/Publisher, Wyoming Livestock Roundup, 
and Advisory Board Member, University of Wyoming College of 
Agriculture, echoed many of the same concerns as the other 
witnesses on the panel. He stressed the need for an economic 
impact study, as opposed to an environmental impact study, to 
be conducted for each new rule and regulation that the Forest 
Service proposes. He asserted that the ``unintended 
consequences'' of these rules and regulations could be greatly 
reduced, and rural communities would not be destroyed. The 
final witness on the panel, Al Bukowsky, Owner/Operator, 
Solitude River Trips, described the adverse impact of the 
Forest Service's manipulation of the recreational-permit 
process. He stressed that outfitters depend on camping permits 
in order to provide their recreational services. With Forest 
Service rangers closing down campsites and suspending river 
usage on as little as 12 hours notice, outfitting businesses 
are in serious jeopardy. Mr. Bukowsky recalled that there used 
to be a time when Forest Service rangers and outfitters worked 
together, and he expressed the hope that such a time would 
return soon.
    The third panel consisted of two academic experts who 
expounded on the effects of Forest Service rules and 
regulations on small businesses. Larry W. Van Tassel, Professor 
and Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural 
Sociology, University of Idaho, discussed a study he conducted 
that demonstrated that reducing Forest Service grazing permits 
for ranches leads to greater economic instability, lower 
profits, and job losses. The study also concluded that reduced 
grazing permits can increase the potential for the sale of the 
property to developers with ensuing loss of habitat for 
wildlife and other losses associated with converting natural 
land to developed land. William McKillop, Professor Emeritus, 
College of Natural Resources, University of California at 
Berkeley, discussed statistics demonstrating the decline of the 
timber industry in the West. He noted that this data shows that 
the decline disproportionately affects the small sawmills. The 
decline has also had a ripple effect, taking many other 
industries down with it.
    The final panel consisted of James Furnish, Deputy Chief, 
U.S. Forest Service, who testified that the Forest Service 
regulations do not negatively affect small businesses. He 
asserted that the Forest Service takes pride in working with 
the SBA's Office of Advocacy to examine the effects of the 
agency's regulations on small businesses. He also advanced that 
when local communities face hardship, the Forest Service is 
committed to helping them strengthen and diversify their 
economies through the wise, and more complete use of forest 
resources. Due to an objection to the Committee's request to 
meet beyond the Senate's two-hour limitation, the Committee was 
forced to adjourn the hearing without a full period of 
questioning for Mr. Furnish. Senator Enzi noted that the 
Committee would submit written questions to the Forest Service 
and asked that the agency's responses be included in the 
hearing's written record.

                                  
