Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in addition to the arguments that the distinguished Senators from Oklahoma and Idaho made about the need to revise the Superfund law, let me simply point out that this amendment would add $100 million more to Superfund spending. You can call it coming from the Superfund trust fund, but it is still spending, and it still scores against the budget. It goes over the agreement that we had with the President. The current bill funds Superfund activities and cleanup at $1.273 billion for fiscal year 2003. This is what the administration requested, and that is what is needed. The Superfund cleanups are adequately funded. Does my colleague from Oklahoma wish to add anything further?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, that was a very enlightening speech, but I wonder how long the Senator wishes to speak. There are several others who want to speak. I understand it is only for 3 minutes; therefore, I will not object.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if the Senator from Minnesota will yield.

Mr. BOND. I commend the Senators from Minnesota for their tribute to our colleague, to Paul Wellstone and to Sheila Wellstone, Senator and Mrs. Wellstone. We know what a priority this is for them and for the people of Minnesota. We commend their devotion. I know I speak for my colleagues in the Chamber when I say we want to do everything we can to help ensure that the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community Building serves as a successful living memorial to the two fine friends we have lost. In order to do this, we have, working with my distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Maryland, increased the appropriations in this bill from $3 million to $5 million. I assure the Senators that Senator Mikulski and I will work together with our counterparts in the House to achieve full funding, $10 million, for the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center. This is something which we understand is very important, and they have our commitment to work very hard to see that those dollars are made available. I thank the Chair and my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the Feingold amendment. The Feingold amendment, as my colleagues probably know, deals with Indonesia and makes not too subtle suggestions about evil doings and suggests that we can only work with them in certain circumstances. As one who has traveled frequently to that region, I am very much disturbed by the intent and the apparent direction of this amendment. It is very clear to the Government of Indonesia and its people that there is a legitimate terrorism threat in that country today. The tragic bombing in Bali, a major international tourist destination and the source of essential revenue in the country, brought the reality of terrorism squarely on the heads of the Indonesian Government. This is a country which, if superimposed geographically on the United States, would extend from San Francisco to Bermuda. It is the fourth largest country in the world, with the largest Muslim population in the world. It is also, unfortunately, home to many elements of al-Qaida and Jamaah Islamiyah, another Islamic terrorist group. The tragic bombing in Bali, with almost 300 people killed, has brought home to that country the real threat of terrorism, and they are taking that threat seriously. I have talked with our resources in the area, our embassies. I have talked with neighboring countries that are very much concerned about the future of Indonesia. We believe they are performing a credible and thorough investigation of the bombing. Arrests have been made. But the investigation continues and the Government is committed to arresting all those involved. Indonesia is a majority Muslim nation. Many of its citizens, regrettably, hear continually from extreme elements within the country that the United States is targeting Muslims and is anti-Islam. This creates a very difficult political climate for the country's moderate Muslim President. She is one who has visited this country. I have met with her on a number of occasions, and I know she understands the importance of our relationship and the importance of their efforts against terrorism. The country is making an effort now to investigate the terrorists who committed the bombing, to control the terrorism problem, and to strengthen the military. I ask, Is this the best we can offer in the Senate to encourage cooperation between the two countries, to pursue a warmed-over agenda, to embarrass the military because some activist groups are not satisfied with the results of the tribunals that investigated the outrages in East Timor? This is a time when we in the United States have to be serious about our relationship with moderate Muslim nations. We need to support the people within these countries who are resisting the extremists. It is a tremendous challenge for them to stand up to extreme voices. We should be supportive. We ought not to be sticking a finger in their eye. We ought not to be gratuitously slapping them in the face. In the case of Indonesia, we should encourage strengthening those institutions which the Government will rely on to investigate terrorism, apprehend terrorists, and prevent further attacks. In Indonesia, the only institution with that capacity is the military. I have talked with our Secretary of State and our Secretary of Defense, and I have asked them what we can do to improve our relations with Indonesia to assure they have the strength to resist terrorism and to provide their share of the role in the international battle against terrorism. What they have said, quite frankly, to bipartisan groups in front of them is to stop congressional interference and slurs on the Indonesia military. Unfortunately, rather than moving in a sensible direction to encourage military-to-military contact, to take actions to raise the standards of their military to levels we are comfortable with and to promote relationships between officers, we would, by adopting this measure, pursue a course that insults the people, strains relations, and will aid the extremist elements in their efforts to demonize the United States. This may be presented as a harmless amendment, one that can be satisfied easily by us and the Indonesians, but those people are our friends. Our allies in Southeast Asia take note of what we do; they hear our message. What we pass is loud, and it is clear; it resonates. It is not only a bad idea, it is dangerous. We need to stand up and support our friends, especially in these challenging times. As I have met with friendly nations in Southeast Asia, they have been dumbfounded that we continue to insult, denigrate, and downgrade Indonesia. We should be supporting them. This amendment is not grounded in legitimate policy concerns but, rather, in an ongoing interest by some to refight the East Timor battle year in and year out, despite the fact that East Timor is now an independent country. It is hollow all the way through. I urge my colleagues to join with me in defeating this amendment, to send the message that we will support moderate Islam countries, struggling democracies trying to fight terrorism. I thank the managers and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the administration's New Source Review, or NSR review, will benefit the environment. Right now companies face an average delay of 8 months, sometimes as long as 18 months, to get an NSR permit. Therefore, many companies avoid the process altogether. That means that there are environmental losses because companies stick with old, outdated technologies instead of the most modern, efficient pollution control measures. There is a specific example. EPA has done a plantwide application limits, or PALS, test and the results are striking. Many companies have multiple emissions from many different sources, including big to extremely small pipes. If you tried to do it under the existing framework, you would have to have a permit for each one. As a facility wants to upgrade or modernize, they have go through a time-consuming process but PALS allows a plant to calculate its total emissions from all sources. As long as they stay below the plantwide total, they can do it. A striking example is at the DaimlerChrysler plant in Newark, DE, where they make Dodge Durango trucks. They needed to upgrade their process. They did it. PALS allowed them to make over 90 changes. The environment was benefited. An amazing thing happened. With the new flexibility, the plant was able to cut pollution in its painting process, cut smog-forming volatile organic compounds and hazardous plant pollutants. Plant managers cut 400 tons of air pollution from the clean air process and cut paint odors by 50 percent. We have auto assembly plants in Missouri. We make light trucks and vans. I would love for my constituents to breathe cleaner air because of the PALS program reforms. That is why the Clinton administration's EPA, led by Carol Browner, supported the NSR reforms. We should and I urge support for the Inhofe amendment and the defeat of the Edwards amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the minority whip for his explanation. I can assure the Senator that on this side we want to accommodate Senators from both sides of the aisle. We are here in a week when many Senators had other things to do and we need to move forward. It is critically important that we get these appropriations bills passed because we will be getting close to halfway through the year before these bills can be implemented. I know wherever we can make accommodations, we will do so, and the Senator from Nevada has been very gracious in working with us. I know the Senator from Kentucky will work with him. With that, I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have before us, although not under lively debate, an amendment by the Senator from North Carolina with reference to the New Source Review air program. This is a very important program that we have debated extensively in the Environment and Public Works Committee. There have been many hearings on this issue and, frankly, the issue has been resolved. But unfortunately, it has become an example of the polarized, confrontational, contentious nature of the environmental debate. I wish it were not this way. I believe the administration's New Source Review reforms are good for the environment, good for energy security, and good for the economy. I will not go into all the details here because I know there are many other Senators wishing to speak. So I will await further discussions when they have had their say. I think it is important--I want to lay down a marker--for my colleagues to understand that the EPA's New Source Review reforms--what we call the NSR reforms--will improve air quality and benefit the environment. EPA has already done the environmental analysis. It shows that four of the five provisions in the final rule will reduce air pollution. That is correct. I said ``will reduce air pollution.'' The other provision will have no significant effect on air quality. NSR will no longer stand as a barrier to facilities installing state- of-the-art pollution control technology. Anybody who has been around Washington very long knows the law of unintended consequences. We do things we think are going to help, and they turn out to be a hindrance. The New Source Review, as it has worked, has been a hindrance because companies cannot make routine improvements and upgrades to their facilities to make them operate more efficiently, take less energy, burn less fuel, emit less pollution or polluting substances, anywhere from volatile organic compounds to the other emissions from powerplants. They do that because the New Source Review says that anytime you want to do anything significant on a major plant, you have to go through the whole process. It takes a very long time, and you are required to make very significant upgrades beyond what the available dollars in the company would sustain. The incremental continuing improvements, day by day or actually month by month or even year by year, cannot be made because of NSR. If you change it the way the EPA Administrator has proposed, NSR will no longer stand as a barrier to facilities installing state-of-the-art pollution control technology. The NSR reforms that EPA has proposed will actually cut emissions of tens of thousands of tons per year of volatile organic compounds. NSR reforms will reduce ground level ozone and smog. The NSR reforms will also cut hazardous air pollutants and ozone-depleting substances. Our families will suffer fewer cases of premature mortality, asthma, and other respiratory diseases. I would say further that EPA's NSR reforms are good for the Nation's energy security. Why? Simply because they will allow facilities to install modern technologies which use energy more efficiently. We all ought to be able to agree on that. Using energy efficiently conserves energy and reduces the polluting byproducts of energy production. The facilities will be able to reduce their energy consumption, reduce their dependence on foreign energy sources, and reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy supplies. What is wrong with that? In our current troubled times, we should not stand in the way of any proposal which reduces our dependence on foreign and Middle Eastern oil. I would also say that the EPA NSR reforms are good for the economy. Companies would now be able to make rapid changes to meet their changing business climates without getting bogged down in time-consuming Government redtape. The reforms will continue to protect the environment while giving companies the flexibility they need to get new products to the market quickly. We have all of the elements that should go into a forward- looking environmental program. We have made great progress, but we have also developed glitches in our system, and anybody who has thought about the system knows that we need to make it more efficient. We need to rationalize it. We need to give it flexibility so environmental improvements can be made with the least hassle. I am talking about environmental improvements. That is what this NSR proposal does. It allows not only energy conservation, improved economic performance, but environmental progress as well. What is wrong with that? I have yet to hear what is the objection to providing better environmental performance in a way that is flexible, that encourages companies to move forward. This is such a good idea that the last administration supported it. Yes, Mr. President, you heard me right. The last administration supported it. This was one of their proposals. The reforms EPA finalized this winter were actually proposed in 1996 during the Clinton administration by EPA Administrator Carol Browner. I thought it was a good idea then; I think it is a good idea now. The only change is there is a new administration, with a different President. I hope this is not the reason behind some of my colleagues seeking to raise the issue and challenge it. If it was a good idea in the Clinton administration, does it become a bad idea in the Bush administration? I don't think so. I think we are on the right track with what the Clinton administration started. The NSR reforms are good for the environment, they are good for energy security, and they are good for the economy. I urge my colleagues to reject the Edwards amendment. I look forward--if there is further debate--to responding so that we can deal with this amendment in a timely manner. I yield the floor and, seeing none of my colleagues wishing to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Edwards amendment be temporarily set aside to recur at the hour of 1:30 today, with the majority leader or his designee recognized when the Senate resumes consideration of the amendment; further, I ask that Senator Dodd now be recognized in order to offer an amendment related to IDEA, and that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendment until Senator Gregg or his designee is recognized.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to share some memories with my colleagues. As I watched what is going on in this body, I was trying to think of something. I have seen this before. It is sort of a deja vu all over again. I was thinking back to maybe 14 or 15 years ago when my son was playing T-ball. You remember T-ball? That is the kids' game. The kindergarteners played T-ball. They had a lot of fun. But in one game we had a problem because after the other side was out, they had their outs and they were finished, they wouldn't put down their bats and go out in the field. They didn't want to play the game. They thought that once they had been at bat they were going to stay at bat, even though their side was out and it was time for them to leave. The more I thought about it, the more I thought maybe that is what is happening in the Senate today. We had an election and the people of America sent some new Republicans, a new Democrat or two, to Washington, and they established a 51-to-48-plus-1 majority. I mean, 51 is more than 48. It is more than 48 plus 1. It seems to me it would be common math, it would be reasonable politics, it would be just common civility, to say once you have a majority and the people of America have voted for members of the Republican Party to be the leadership, to be the majority party in the Senate, it ought to move forward. All the time I have been here, once we have had an election we have shifted power, if there has been a shift in power. A year and a half ago when one of our Members switched and we lost the majority, I handed over the gavel immediately to my ranking member and she became the Chair. That is because this is a democracy. That is how this is supposed to work. We are supposed to have reasonable rules. But today I am reminded of that T-ball game when the side that was out, they had lost but wouldn't put down their bats and go out in the field. Guess what. The game can't go on. Everybody is a loser. This is not a T-ball game. This is time to handle the business of this Nation. The people of America voted for us. They voted for Republicans and Democrats. They voted for House Members and Senate Members because they expected us to come to Washington and be serious about doing the people's business. One of the defining marks of democracies in the modern day is that there is a peaceful transition of power. The winners take over and lead. The losers relinquish their leadership and join in the governmental efforts. That is the rule in democracies throughout the world. Here is the U.S. Senate sticking out like a sore thumb, an exception to the principle that when there is an election and there is a change of power, the winning side takes over. This is truly regrettable when we have so much business to be done. We have all the business that did not get done last year. Unfortunately, I believe the leadership last year would not let us go to a budget. They wouldn't let us pass appropriations bills. As a result, we are now funding 11 of the 13 appropriations bills for the jurisdictional functions of the Federal Government based on a continuing resolution. Things have changed. We need more money for these functions. We need to pass appropriations bills. We are ready to move on appropriations bills, but we can't set up a committee. We can't get the committee set up until we pass a resolution and find out who is on the committee. This is a serious failure to live up to our responsibility, to do the work the people of America have a right to expect us to do. The longer we wait, the more difficult the appropriations process is going to be, and the more difficult it will be for us to do this year's work, which is to do the 2004 appropriations bills. There are a lot of things we really shouldn't even have to bother with on the floor. The T-ball team is not just keeping the bats. They are saying some of our people who have assumed new leadership positions can't even get into leadership offices. This is a new day. This is 2003. There was an election in November of 2002. The people in the United States by their votes said you as Republicans should move forward. We can't do that. We can't do that until we get cooperation. This is a body that operates on common decency, respect, and civility. It works on unanimous consent. Obviously, we can't get unanimous consent. We haven't so far. There are a lot of arguments in the negotiations. But the fact is we need to get on to the people's business. I can tell you, I know our majority leader, Bill Frist. He is a man who is more than willing to make decent provisions for the minority, and he will do that. But nothing we say is good enough. We can't move forward in this circumstance. I think that is a real tragedy. We have a lot of work to do this year. We need to confirm judges to make sure our judiciary works. We need to pass an energy bill. We are looking at possible hostilities in the Middle East where we face potentially a cutoff of some of our supply of petroleum. What are we going to do about it? We haven't had an energy policy for 9 or 10 years. Our energy policy bill last year was blocked. This year wouldn't it be nice if we allowed the Energy Committee to work on a bipartisan basis and report a bill out to the floor, then vote on it, send it over to the House, work in conference, and bring it back to vote it up or down? We ought to be doing that. But we haven't done that. There are some who suggest maybe the Democratic Party lost the election because they were obstructionist. I happen to think that is true. I happen to think that was one of the most telling arguments in campaigns in which I participated. People of America don't want to see obstruction, roadblocks, and red tape. There are others who say, Well, maybe the Democrats lost because they weren't confrontational enough and they weren't obstructionist. It looks like those people have won the day, or at least they are calling the shots. I believe many of my Democratic colleagues would feel the way I do. They know the election is over. They know we have some very important work to do this year. We have to do the basic appropriations to get the Government operating and to fund programs. We need to do an energy bill. We have to do a highway bill this year. If you are worried about where we are going to get stimulus, as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, we need stimulus to make sure we have a highway bill that continues funding of the vitally important construction on our Nation's highways. That is one of the most important bills we are going to have to pass this year. But we can't do it when we can't even get the Senate organized. I am very discouraged. I am very discouraged that we have run into this problem. I hope the people who are listening or watching back home will call, write, or e-mail. I guess you can't write anymore. You can't write us here. You can write to our offices in our States, call, and send faxes and messages, and tell those of us who are in the Senate it is time for us to get to work. All of last year I waited to bring an appropriations bill to the floor under the good leadership of my colleague and friend who was chairman at the time. I am still waiting to bring an appropriations bill to the floor. It is a bipartisan bill. It is one we have worked on. We will work on it together, and it will be a bill which we hope reflects the interests of people on both sides of this aisle. But we can't do it until the other side lets us move forward. A lot of people do not understand the Senate is a deliberative body. It requires unanimous consent. Most of the time I have been here, we have been a deliberative and decent body. We are a decent body, and we will move forward. But now we have become the world's greatest dilatory body. We can't get anything moving until the other side lets us. We need a stimulus bill. I will address that later. I think the President has put forth a good plan to help families. A typical family of four with two wage earners with a combined income of $39,000 would receive a total of $1,100 in tax relief. The Council of Economic Advisers said the plan would create 2.1 million jobs over the next 3 years. As one who has spent a lot of time since I have been here working for small business, I can tell you this is a bill small business needs. We in the Small Business Committee have long urged an increase in the amount of expenses a small business can do from $25,000 to $75,000. So the smallest of the small businesses under $300,000-plus revenue can write off immediately and they don't have to go through depreciation and write off against immediate income capital expenditures up to $75,000. Second, by bringing the reduction in individual rates forward, you are benefiting small business. Twenty-three million small businesses are taxed as individuals. They are set up either as proprietorships, partnerships, or subchapter S corporations. So those 23 million small businesses are taxed at the individual rate. Putting this money back into their pockets will give them the money to hire workers, to invest and to expand and grow their business. That is an argument for the day when we actually can get to work in the Senate and we can have committees. God bless the committee system. Have them work and have them put out bills. They have to put them out on a bipartisan basis. We will bring them to the floor, and we will debate them and discuss them and work on them on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately and regrettably, that can't happen until this gridlock is broken. I call upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize the tremendous needs. These are more compelling needs than in previous years because we didn't get our work done last year. Let us get over this gridlock--this deadlock. Let us get going with the business of the Senate. I urge all our colleagues to come together and work on this. I hope we can do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in 1998, the Senate passed the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act, which I strongly supported. This landmark legislation set the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, on a new course, one that most Members of this body would agree is the right one. Today, the IRS is much more focused on customer service and education to achieve compliance with the Nation's tax laws. It takes more than a new law, however, to change the way an agency fulfills its mission. It takes talented people committed to those reforms in order to turn the words in the statute into reality. We all know the role that former Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti played in restructuring the agency, and I commend him again for his invaluable service to the IRS and the Nation. Today, I rise to recognize one of Mr. Rossotti's key aides, Jerry Songy, who is retiring after 34 years of dedication to agency. In early 1998, Jerry was selected to lead an organizational modernization effort that was intended to transform the IRS into a more customer-focused organization. Jerry's contributions to this business-process reengineering effort have greatly improved the delivery of products and services to all of America's taxpayers, and small businesses and the self-employed taxpayers in particular. In addition to serving as Executive Director, Modernization Design, Jerry was instrumental in the design of the Small Business/Self- Employed, SB/SE, operating division, which serves approximately 45 million small businesses and self-employed taxpayers. He was also a driving force in the creation of the Taxpayer Education and Communication, TEC, section and has led the SB/SE division in its outreach and education efforts to small business and self-employed taxpayers. As the former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I had the pleasure of working with Jerry in that capacity. Through his efforts, the IRS has created innovative web site applications, multilingual CDs, and a series of web cast programs to assist taxpayers with their tax filing and payment responsibilities. The IRS has partnered with tax practitioner and payroll organizations, trade and professional organizations, educational institutions, and corporate America on joint tax education initiatives. In short, our constituents are seeing the tangible benefits of Jerry's hard work on behalf of small enterprises across the nation. Jerry was born and raised in New Orleans, LA and graduated from Loyola University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting. He has two sons, three grandchildren, and will be joined in retirement by his wife, Lea, who also has had a distinguished career with the IRS. On behalf of the 45 million small businesses and self-employed taxpayers throughout the country that have benefitted from his hard work and dedication, I commend Jerry Songy for his exemplary contributions to public service.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Senator Inhofe accurately states that transportation dollars have a direct effect on jobs and the economy in this country. For example, earlier this year there was a proposed $8.6 billion reduction in fiscal year 2003 proposed spending from fiscal year 2002 enacted level for highways. This would cost an estimated 6,600 jobs in Missouri alone. Fortunately, the Environment and Public Works Committee in working with our colleagues on the Senate Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee have proposed full funding for fiscal year 2003. More importantly, we need to recognize that our nation's transportation infrastructure is also an issue of safety. There is no question that increased investment in our nation's transportation system saves lives. For these reasons and more, I stand with my colleagues on Environment and Public Works in doing everything in our power to maintain a robust highway program as we go into reauthorization.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding soldier who has distinguished himself in his service to the United States Senate and the Nation as a United States Army Fellow. Lt. Col. Thomas Stapleton's fellowship officially ends upon the adjournment of this session and before he leaves, I wish to extend my most sincere thanks and appreciation for his exemplary service to myself, the citizens of Missouri and our great nation. Lt. Col. Stapleton is a seasoned military leader with over 17 years of tactical, budget and acquisition experience that have been a tremendous contribution to my office. Lt. Colonel Stapleton served his nation in Operation Just Cause and Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm from 1989-1991. He is a Distinguished Military Graduate from Canisius College, Buffalo, New York, holds a Master of Business Administration from Rochester Institute of Technology and attended Georgetown University's Government Affairs Institute. Throughout his career, Lt. Colonel Stapleton's level of commitment and service have been evident in his various decorations and awards including the Bronze Star which he was awarded for exceptional service in Operation Desert Storm. Lt. Colonel Stapleton has proven his abilities and has consistently performed above and beyond the call of duty. During his tour as a military fellow, Tom fulfilled crucial functions and carried out critical assignments within my office. His budgetary experience as an Army comptroller served him well in resolving numerous defense appropriations issues. His tactical experience was an invaluable resource as evidenced by the many dependable information briefs I received after the devastating attacks of 9-11. These attributes further served Tom as he traveled the roads of Missouri on my behalf meeting with veterans, military service-members and constituents at various installations, veteran's facilities and town hall meetings. In addition, I relied heavily on Lt. Colonel Stapleton's strong volley and solid serve in crushing two of my distinguished colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner, on the tennis court. Lt. Colonel Stapleton is not just a soldier but a devoted husband and committed father of three children. Whether he was coaching soccer with his son, enjoying family vacations or throwing a birthday party for his children, Tom consistently made time for his family throughout his very demanding tour as a fellow. Anyone familiar with Lt. Colonel Stapleton's numerous achievements, awards and much deserved commendations knows that Tom's top priority is to be a dedicated family man. Tom embodies the values that we as Americans all hold dear. His commitment to family and country set the standard for a professional soldier and solid role model. The Military Congressional Fellows programs affords members of Congress with a critical military perspective coupled with invaluable service and professionalism. The tremendous reputation and success of this program are a direct reflection of Fellows like Lt. Colonel Stapleton. Tom has distinguished himself as a member of my staff and my defense team. On behalf of the citizens of Missouri and a grateful Nation, we wish Lt. Col. Thomas Stapleton, his wife Anne, and three children Toni, Carly and Jack the best as he continues his distinguished career.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding soldier who has distinguished himself in his service to the United States Senate and the Nation as a United States Army Fellow. Lt. Col. Thomas Stapleton's fellowship officially ends upon the adjournment of this session and before he leaves, I wish to extend my most sincere thanks and appreciation for his exemplary service to myself, the citizens of Missouri and our great nation. Lt. Col. Stapleton is a seasoned military leader with over 17 years of tactical, budget and acquisition experience that have been a tremendous contribution to my office. Lt. Colonel Stapleton served his nation in Operation Just Cause and Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm from 1989-1991. He is a Distinguished Military Graduate from Canisius College, Buffalo, New York, holds a Master of Business Administration from Rochester Institute of Technology and attended Georgetown University's Government Affairs Institute. Throughout his career, Lt. Colonel Stapleton's level of commitment and service have been evident in his various decorations and awards including the Bronze Star which he was awarded for exceptional service in Operation Desert Storm. Lt. Colonel Stapleton has proven his abilities and has consistently performed above and beyond the call of duty. During his tour as a military fellow, Tom fulfilled crucial functions and carried out critical assignments within my office. His budgetary experience as an Army comptroller served him well in resolving numerous defense appropriations issues. His tactical experience was an invaluable resource as evidenced by the many dependable information briefs I received after the devastating attacks of 9-11. These attributes further served Tom as he traveled the roads of Missouri on my behalf meeting with veterans, military service-members and constituents at various installations, veteran's facilities and town hall meetings. In addition, I relied heavily on Lt. Colonel Stapleton's strong volley and solid serve in crushing two of my distinguished colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner, on the tennis court. Lt. Colonel Stapleton is not just a soldier but a devoted husband and committed father of three children. Whether he was coaching soccer with his son, enjoying family vacations or throwing a birthday party for his children, Tom consistently made time for his family throughout his very demanding tour as a fellow. Anyone familiar with Lt. Colonel Stapleton's numerous achievements, awards and much deserved commendations knows that Tom's top priority is to be a dedicated family man. Tom embodies the values that we as Americans all hold dear. His commitment to family and country set the standard for a professional soldier and solid role model. The Military Congressional Fellows programs affords members of Congress with a critical military perspective coupled with invaluable service and professionalism. The tremendous reputation and success of this program are a direct reflection of Fellows like Lt. Colonel Stapleton. Tom has distinguished himself as a member of my staff and my defense team. On behalf of the citizens of Missouri and a grateful Nation, we wish Lt. Col. Thomas Stapleton, his wife Anne, and three children Toni, Carly and Jack the best as he continues his distinguished career.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation that has just been introduced to permit the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to use a recently-completed econometric model to calculate the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) small business loan guarantee program, the flagship loan program at the Small Business Administration. This bill, once signed into law by President Bush, will allow the 7(a) loan program to meet the borrowing demands of our Nation's small businesses, which is approximately $10 billion for Fiscal Year 2003. Without this bill, the program would limit 7(a) loans to less than $5 billion for FY 2003. In addition, the bill will permit unobligated, no-year funds previously appropriated for the STAR terrorist disaster recovery loans to be used for the 7(a) loan program. The ``econometric model'' is a significant reform in the way the SBA and OMB calculates the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) loan program. The bill provides that the OMB and SBA will adopt the new econometric model effective retroactively to October 1, 2002. Developed by the SBA and OMB, the econometric model will use far more comprehensive data about individual borrowers and loans when forecasting anticipated defaults and establishing loan reserves to cover them. Under the Credit Reform Act of 1990, the annual appropriation for the SBA must, in advance, provide sufficient funds to cover the cost of a Federal loan guarantee, after taking into consideration the fees paid by small business borrowers and lenders under the 7(a) program. This amount, referred to as the credit subsidy rate, is determined by the OMB prior to the submission of the President's annual Budget Request to the Congress. Critics of the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) program have cited the use of historical loan-performance data that pre-dates the enactment of the Federal Credit Reform Act as a major cause of a credit subsidy rate that greatly exceeds actual loan performance. The consequence is the use of the most conservative loan-default rates, year-in and year-out, and the failure by the OMB and the SBA to adjust historical loan performance data to reflect 7(a) program changes, both statutory and regulatory, that have led to real reductions in the default rates and improved program performance. According to an in- depth analysis undertaken by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the excessively high credit subsidy rates have resulted in nearly $1 billion in unnecessary fees being paid by small business borrowers and lenders to the U.S. Treasury. It is very unrealistic to believe that a 100% accurate credit subsidy rate estimate can be derived for the 7(a) loan program, or for any other Federal credit program. The econometric model, designed to calculate the 7(a) credit subsidy rate, is a major improvement over the ``old'' model. Originally, the Administration stated that the econometric model would not be available until FY 2004. After exhaustive negotiations with the senior White House staff, I was able to secure an agreement to accelerate their use of the model retroactive to October 1, 2002, the beginning of FY 2003. The bill before us today is designed to waive a key provision of the Federal Credit Reform Act that prohibits the Congress from changing a credit subsidy rate estimate once it has been transmitted to the Congress as part of the President's annual budget submission. This may be the first time this provision has been waived since implementation of the Act in FY 1992. We would not be where we are today resolving this important matter without the tireless efforts of my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Mr. Manzullo, Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, fought for this change every step of the way. The Ranking Member, Ms. Velazquez, was especially vigilant in her efforts. In the Senate, my colleague from Massachusetts and Chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, John Kerry, has kept the Committee focused on resolving this issue for the past year and has insisted that we resolve the credit subsidy rate controversy for FY 2003. Resolving the 7(a) credit subsidy rate issue is good for small businesses. It will mean more jobs and economic fuel to grow start-up and growing small businesses. I urge each of my colleagues to vote a resounding ``Aye'' for this important bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the 75th anniversary of Vashon High School. In the early quarter of the 20th century, the high school that most African-American students attended in St. Louis was overcrowded and quite a distance from their homes. Consequently, in 1922, a citizens group called the Central School Patron Association led by Reverend George Stevens and other community alliances began formulating plans for a second high school designated for African-American students. On September 6, 1927, Vashon High School opened and has been educating and changing the lives of students since. Over time, Vashon High School has established itself as a premier educational institute, known for its athletics as well as academics. There are several outstanding individuals who have contributed to the founding and success of Vashon High School. The school was named for a family with a long tradition of struggle and sacrifice dedicated to the importance of education while battling to secure civil and human rights for African-Americans. Specifically, the school was named for George B. Vashon, 1824-1878, the first African-American graduate of Oberlin College, OH in 1844, and his son John B. Vashon, 1859-1924, an outstanding educator in the city of St. Louis for 34 years, James W. Meyers served as the first principal of Vashon from 1927-1932 and Otto Bohanan, a member of the faculty, composed the school song, ``Vashon We Love''. Many students honed their talents, skills, and abilities to become future educators and community leaders from the positive influence and support of these and other influential faculty members. Over the past 75 years, Vashon High School has undergone changes and relocated to several different locations, but irrespective of physical location, the spirit of Vashon High School continues to inspire students to pursue their dreams and achieve their goals. Congratulations to the students, faculty, and alumni of Vashon High School.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the bravery and courage of Anthony Lamar who saved the life of his schoolmate, fifth grader Walter Britton. While working the tree house, Walter lost his balance and reached back to grab onto a branch, but instead he grabbed a live wire. Anthony pulled Walter off the live wire saving his life and helped Walter home. I commend Anthony for his bravery and courage and hope his example will encourage others to assist those in need.