Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, a couple of months ago I never thought I would say I am glad to see Curt Schilling again. We saw far too much of him as a Cardinal fan. We congratulate the Diamondbacks on an outstanding year, a great victory and, as I think they used to say in Brooklyn, wait until next year we look forward to renewing the contest. The Diamondbacks were magnificent and, yes, I guess I am even glad to see Curt Schilling.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. My question is, Are you familiar with the role of the Counsel for Advocacy in Small Business? That is his job. Are you familiar with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act that we have adopted in the Small Business Committee to provide teeth for that act?

Mr. BOND. The answer to that is not yet, but if the manager of the bill would like to come to the committee and offer that, I would certainly be interested in supporting it. We are working on the farm bill here. I think most of us agree that farmers need some additional protection. They do not have a counsel for advocacy in USDA. We have not seen the Secretary of Agriculture take that role. This says specifically they should.

Mr. BOND. Will my friend yield?

Mr. BOND. Madam President, may I respond?

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may require. I certainly accept the manager's invitation to unwrap this package. I only wish we could do this on the southern border of Iowa and the northern border of Missouri, out where farmers live, away from the rarified atmosphere of this Chamber, and ask the farmers of Iowa and Missouri, the farmers of any other State, is this really a two-edged sword? Are you as a farmer really worried that the Fish and Wildlife Service is going to put out a regulation that would help farmers and the Secretary of Agriculture would oppose it and try to overturn it and get the President to overturn it? That one won't meet the laugh test. That dog won't hunt in farm country. People know what is going on out there. It is not a danger to farmers that we have too much regulation. Actually, when regulations are overturned, it is usually when a regulation affects a large metropolitan area--building a bridge, something like that. Maybe if there are a lot of people around who are affected, then they can get some relief. When it is just a few farmers, when they need some irrigation water, then other things come to the fore. Ask the farmers on the Klamath River about the sucker fish. Ask the farmers in Texas about the Arkansas shiner. Who is being protected there? The Fish and Wildlife Service has the power, overwhelming power, to jump in and protect endangered species. Some people think it is time somebody had the power to jump in and protect endangered farmers. That is the difference. It is time we turn around the balance of the Federal regulatory juggernaut that has been running over farmers in the name of all kinds of other interests and give the farmers some protection, give the farmers a chance to be heard. The President has to weigh these issues carefully and find out if they protect public health or safety or the national interest before he turns it around. The Senator from Vermont said the Secretary could overturn it. That is not what this bill proposes. Only the President can issue such an order, only under the most unusual circumstances. And my friend from Iowa is not correct; the Congress does have power. The Congress does have power to overturn that action. I can tell my colleagues with that threatened action facing a President, a President is not going to do this lightly. That is why we say it ought to be elevated to the highest level because it would only be used in the most serious of circumstances. My friend from Iowa says there are all kinds of protections. The Administrative Procedure Act is a great protection for farmers. That is laugh line No. 2. You go to the elevators or the livestock market around my State or your State or anybody else's State and ask: How much protection are you getting from the Administrative Procedure Act? If you are lucky, they will give you a smile. They know that doesn't work for the individual farmers. If there are all these protections working for farmers, how come the farmers are not being protected? Just ask. I urge my colleagues, if you are undecided, get on the phone and call a couple of farmers back in your home State and see how safe they feel with all these protections that my friend from Iowa says are on the books. They are not there, Madam President. They are not there. When you unwrap it, you see that this is a very important measure to move the Secretary of Agriculture into an active advocacy role which, frankly, USDA has not provided. They may have the power, but they haven't used it. This tells the Secretary she must use that power. And I believe she will. It gives the President power in unusual circumstances--the highest level of circumstances--to make an order which has to be in the public interest and which is immediately reviewable by Congress. I think that is a protection we need. Again, I urge the support for this amendment.

Mr. BOND. I ask my colleague this: He said maybe the Secretary of the Interior would want to come in. Does my friend know that, under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't even have to go to the President? The Fish and Wildlife Service can shut down an agricultural operation, a road-building operation. The Fish and Wildlife Service has already, in the current law, the power we would seek to give the President, only there is no congressional review. So would the Senator explain to us the difference between the power of the Fish and Wildlife Service and what we hope to give the President on a congressionally reviewable basis.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, this doesn't change in any way the powers of Congress. As a matter of fact, it gives Congress a new power for expedited congressional review.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Certainly.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Grassley, Senator Enzi, Senator Hagel, and Senator Miller, and I ask that it be considered pursuant to the time agreement just entered.

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

Mr. BOND. Madam President, there are a number of cosponsors who wish to speak in support of this amendment. My thought is maybe not everybody in this body will support it. By tomorrow morning, I think there may be others who will wish to present opposing ideas. It would be my desire after my cosponsors speak on it, if there is no opposition, that we could yield back some of that time. I simply asked for 90 minutes tomorrow in case there are other people who want to weigh in. I expect there will be more than the number who have registered as cosponsors. I think this has a significant impact on the entire agricultural community across the country. I would like to have the possibility of using the 90 minutes in the light of day so people understand all sides of this issue.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, the staff has advised me they are working on getting a time agreement which would lead to a vote on this measure tomorrow. I will be proposing an amendment that has a number of bipartisan cosponsors. I think the cosponsors will want to speak on it. I imagine there will be others who wish to speak in opposition. Since this will be of some import, I hope we can work out an agreement on both sides for effective consideration of this amendment. Let me describe my amendment so people will get a flavor of what we are talking about in order to come to an agreement on the time and perhaps others may want to speak on it. I hope they will because I think it is a very significant amendment. The purpose of the amendment I wish to propose is to provide some protection to farmers. The farm bill is designed to preserve and promote the agricultural base of this country and provide a safe, abundant, and affordable food supply for our people. Farmers continue to do more with less than any other sector of this economy and remain the backbone of our economy providing our Nation and a large part of the world with an inexpensive and safe source of food and fiber. There are many ways to help farmers. One is to send them financial assistance. Another is to help provide know-how through research and to help open foreign markets, and they are all very important. I support the efforts that are being made to provide that assistance to farmers, but another way to help farmers is for Government not to hurt them, the absence of pain. This is important. However important or well intentioned Government seems to be, one of the problems facing those in agriculture is the demands placed upon farmers by various agencies of the Federal Government through the regulatory process. I have farmers in my State who tell me they spend more time preparing for public hearings than they spend on their combines. Some of the regulatory requirements and new rules clearly are necessary and justified, but for those who may not meet the test, it is critical that we provide the Department of Agriculture, specifically the Secretary, with tools to represent the interests of farm families when conflicts arise. We need to empower the USDA Secretary to have a stronger voice when she represents the needs of farmers in interagency matters. The bipartisan amendment I will offer is cosponsored by Senators Grassley, Enzi, Hagel, and Miller. It is supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council, and the Southern Peanut Farmers Federation. I also have a letter in which the Missouri organizations support the amendment, including many of the significant entities in Missouri. The amendment simply authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to review proposed Federal agency actions affecting agricultural producers to determine if an agency action is likely to have a significant adverse economic impact or to jeopardize the personal safety of agricultural producers. Should the Secretary find that an agency action would jeopardize the safety or the economic health of agricultural producers, i.e., farmers, it authorizes the Secretary to consult with the agency head and to identify for the agency alternatives that are least likely to harm farmers. It makes sense that the agency serving agriculture looks at other regulations which may have a significant impact on farmers and say: This is going to cause a real problem. Can we not achieve the objectives of your regulation? Can we not carry out your purposes without having such a harmful impact on agriculture? If the USDA and the Secretary cannot come to an agreement with the other agency proposing the regulatory action and the agency decides, despite the USDA's best efforts to push forward with a final action that will have a significant adverse economic impact on or jeopardize the personal safety of agricultural producers, then the Secretary can elevate the decision to the White House, and the President is authorized under limited circumstances to reverse or amend the agency action if doing so is necessary to protect farmers and if it is in the public interest. Under this amendment, the President would not be authorized to do so if the agency action is necessary to protect human health, safety, or national security. The President would have to consider the public record, the purpose of the agency action and competing economic interests, if any. Finally, the legislation provides that a Presidential action taken pursuant to this authority could be subjected to expedited congressional review. In other words, the Secretary of Agriculture tries to work out an agreement with the agency. If the agency says, no, we are not going to make any changes, we are not going to work with you, then the Secretary has an option. The Secretary can take it to the President. The President says to the agency proposing to take this action: Stop, you are not going to do it. At that point, Congress, by expedited action procedures we have already approved in other laws, can vote to overturn that Presidential action. So Congress has a role in this regulatory procedure that would not be subjected to filibuster. In short, this proposal is designed to give farmers through their advocates and USDA a limited but considerable voice in agency actions that impact them directly. In offering this amendment, it is my intention to provide additional discretion to the President to solve disputes between agencies when mandates may be in conflict and they are unable to come to terms and discretion would better serve the public than gridlock, legal action, or other delaying actions or unnecessary confusion. With discretion comes responsibility and accountability. I believe very strongly it is in the public interest to have political accountability and to limit the circumstances where the elected officials who are accountable to the citizens are not hiding behind bureaucrats when controversial issues arise. Too many times we have had people say: That agency has sole discretion. Somebody in an agency, never elected by the people, not with any visibility or public accountability, makes a decision with a serious impact on agriculture. Then the Secretary of Agriculture can raise it to the highest elected official in the land and say: You look at it, Mr. President. If you agree that it is an unwarranted overreaching action that has an economic impact or health and safety impact on farmers, then the President can act. But we in Congress could, if we wished, overturn that action of the President. So Congress has a built-in protection against an overreaching Presidential action. We are bringing questions with major impact on the agricultural sector up to the level of public discourse by people elected by the American electorate. This amendment, I believe, is an excellent opportunity to prompt USDA to play a more active and visible role fighting on behalf of farmers. Frankly, I have always thought they should take a more active role. They have not always done so, much to the disappointment of the farm community, which is supposed to be served by them and much to the distress of those who support farmers. Further, this amendment should help make other agencies more responsive to USDA when USDA raises concerns on behalf of farmers. We are debating farm legislation because we care deeply about our agricultural base. We care deeply about the economic and social value of farm families. We want to protect our food security and thus, by extension, our national security. While we can help many farmers with $170 billion in spending, we want USDA to be better able to take the simple role of standing up for farmers if another agency that may know little, if anything, about food production is taking action that will harm farmers economically or physically. The Government can help farmers by providing economic assistance. But the Government can also help by trying not to hurt them. That is what this amendment is all about. We are rightly concerned in this country if an ant is endangered or any other species, but we should also be concerned if a farm community is threatened or endangered. I believe we should give farmers an extra measure of leverage at the table if it is their personal livelihoods or their personal safety which is jeopardized. This limited, and I believe measured, amendment is designed to do just that. What we are doing is strengthening laws that protect farm families. I urge my Senate colleagues to consider this amendment very carefully, to provide their support, and to send a message to farmers that we believe farmers are worthy of protection; we want the Government to make every sensible attempt to act as advocates for farmers. We believe USDA should be active and visible, fighting for farmers, and we believe the President and the Congress are capable of and can be trusted to weigh the public interest. This says to the administration that farmers don't always have to be at the very bottom of the food chain. Frankly, they start the food chain and they should be treated as part of that food chain. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters of support, one from various national organizations dated December 7, and one dated December 10 from Missouri organizations.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, we had discussed a 90-minute time agreement on this amendment. First, what is the pending business so we may be sure the amendment is to the appropriate measure?

Mr. BOND. Amendment number 2471?

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy. We look forward to continuing this debate in the morning. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that John Stoody, a detailee to my office from the Environmental Protection Agency, be given the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the consideration of S. 1731.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I concur wholeheartedly with my colleague from Massachusetts. The needs of small business are great. Not only the small businesses directly impacted in New York and in Virginia by the tragic terrorist actions, but many other small businesses throughout this country are suffering. I think every Member of this body can tell you about general aviation companies in their States who were shut down, put out of business for up to a month, some even longer because of the FAA restrictions. The bill we have sponsored is very modest, $851 million. We are talking about the need. We just passed $40 billion in relief. We passed another $20 billion on Friday night, an allocation of $20 billion for antiterrorism. We are talking about a stimulus that could be anywhere from $40 to $80 billion. The beauty of 1499 is that it only spends money if the small businesses that have been crippled as a result of this terrorist action will borrow the money and put it to work hiring people, buying goods, getting the economy moving again. It is absolutely critical. I ask my colleagues to let us debate the bill. Let us bring out the problems on the floor. If the administration were ultimately to decide we have not made the case, then they still have the right to veto it. We cannot get into the details of this legislation. My last count was we had 64 Members--at least we have over 60 Members supporting the bill. It is something we need to do this month because small businesses may be out of business, if they are not already, by the time we get back next year. I urge my colleagues to let us debate the bill. I also join with my colleague from Arizona in saying that it is absolutely unconscionable that we not act on the nomination of Eugene Scalia, ultimately qualified to be the lawyer for the Secretary of Labor. If people have objections to him, let them bring them to the floor. I don't think they will withstand the scrutiny of the light of day. We have just a few days remaining. It is very important that we act on the Secretary of Labor nomination, the lawyer the President selected, who is adequately qualified and deeply committed to this cause. It is absolutely essential that we act now to provide small business the stimulus it needs by making it easier to get over the hurdles that have been caused by the terrorist acts of September 11 to borrow money to get back in business to expand their business. I hope we can vote on both of these measures. I strongly support my colleague from Massachusetts on the need to move to 1499 and my colleague from Arizona on the need to move to the appointment of Eugene Scalia. I hope we can get on with both of them.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to support passage of the Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act of 2001, S. 1196 and an amendment being offered by Senator John Kerry, which I strongly support. Time is of the essence since a critical component of the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, Program was shut down on November 28, 2001, when the Commerce Justice State appropriations bill became law, while the bill modifying the annual fees paid by the Participating Securities SBICs had not been enacted. Once S. 1196 becomes law, it paves the way for more investment capital to be available for more small businesses that are seeking to grow and hire new employees. When the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship unanimously approved S. 1196 on July 19, 2001, the Committee adopted a fee increase from 1.0 percent to 1.28 percent. At that time, some members of the committee believed they could obtain an appropriation for the SBIC Participating Securities Program that would offset part of the fee increase. The final version of the Fiscal Year 2002 Commerce Justice State appropriations bill did not include any funds for the SBIC program. Consequently, it is critical that legislation be enacted increasing the program fee to 1.38 percent. So long as the fee is not increased, the SBIC Participating Securities will remain shut down as required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. Last month, on November 15, the Senate unanimously passed S. 1196, after approving a managers' amendment increasing the annual fee to 1.38 percent. When the House of Representatives considered the bill, it included an amendment that changed the fee structure for two other credit programs at the Small Business Administration, SBA: the 7(a) Guaranteed Business Loan Program and the 504 Development Company Program. Today, Senator Kerry and I are offering an amendment to S. 1196 that makes minor modifications to the House-passed amendment on the 7(a) and 504 loan programs. There has been a significant growth in the small business sector of the U.S. economy over the past two decades. Today, small businesses make up over one-half of the entire U.S. economy. Over 99 percent of all employers in the United States are small businesses. They employ over 50 percent of workers and provide 75 percent of the net new jobs each year. Small businesses generate 51 percent of the Nation's private sector output. In light of the ongoing dip in the U.S. economy with the accompanying retrenchment by many businesses, both large and small, S. 1196 will serve as part of the solution to move us toward a recovery. In 1958, Congress created the SBIC program to assist small business owners in obtaining investment capital. Forty years later, small businesses continue to experience difficulty in obtaining investment capital from banks and traditional investment sources. Although investment capital is readily available to large businesses from traditional Wall Street investment firms, small businesses seeking investments in the range of $500,000--$3 million have to look elsewhere. SBICs are frequently the only sources of investment capital for growing small businesses. Often we are reminded that the SBIC program has helped some of our Nations best known companies. It has provided a financial boost at critical points in the early growth period for many companies that are familiar to all of us. For example, Federal Express received a needed infusion of capital from two SBA-licensed SBICs at a critical juncture in its development stage. The SBIC program also helped other well-known companies, when they were not so well-known, such as Intel, Outback Steakhouse, America Online, and Callaway Golf. What is not well known is the extraordinary help the SBIC program provides to Main Street America small businesses. These are companies we know from home towns all over the United States. Main Street companies provide both stability and growth in our local business communities. A good example of a Main Street company is Steelweld Equipment Company, founded in 1932, which designs and manufacturers utility truck bodies in St. Clair, Missouri. The truck bodies are mounted on chassis made by Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. Steelweld provides truck bodies for Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Texas Utilities, Paragon Cable, GTE, and GE Capital Fleet. Steelweld is a privately held, woman-owned corporation. The owner, Elaine Hunter, went to work for Steelweld in 1966 as a billing clerk right out of high school. She rose through the ranks of the company and was selected to serve on the board of directors. In December 1995, following the death of Steelweld's founder and owner, Ms. Hunter received financing from a Missouri-based SBIC, Capital for Business CFB, Venture Fund II, to help her complete the acquisition of Steelweld. CFB provided $500,000 in subordinated debt. Senior bank debt and seller debt were also used in the acquisition. Since Ms. Hunter acquired Steelweld, its manufacturing process was redesigned to make the company run more efficiently. By 1997, Steelweld's profitability had doubled, with annual sales of $10 million and 115 employees. SBIC program success stories like Ms. Hunter's experience at Steelweld occur regularly throughout the United States. In 1991, the SBIC program was experiencing major losses, and the future of the program was in doubt. Consequently, in 1992 and 1996, the Committee on Small Business worked closely with the Small Business Administration to correct deficiencies in the law in order to ensure the future of the program. Today, the SBIC Program is expanding rapidly in an effort to meet the growing demands of small business owners for debt and equity investment capital. And it is important to focus on the significant role that is played by the SBIC program in support of growing small businesses. When Fortune Small Business compiled its list of 100 fastest growing small companies in 2000, 6 of the top 12 businesses on the list received SBIC financing during their critical growth years. The ``Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act of 2001,'' as amended, would permit the annual interest fee paid by Participating Securities SBICs to increase from 1.0 percent to no more than 1.38 percent. In addition, the bill would make three technical changes to the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (`58 Act) that are intended to make improvements in the day-to-day operation of the SBIC program. Projected demand for the Participating Securities SBIC program for FY 2002 is $3.5 billion, a significant increase over the FY 2001 program level of $2.5 billion. It is imperative that Congress approve this relatively small increase in the annual interest charge paid by the Participating Securities SBICs before the end of the fiscal year. The fee increase included in the bill, 1.38 percent, will allow the program to operate at its authorized level--$3.5 billion--an amount needed to help support small businesses as they help lead our country to an economic recovery. The Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act of 2001 would also make some relatively technical changes the `58 Act that are drafted to improve the operations of the SBIC program. Section 3 would remove the requirement that the SBA take out local advertisements when it seeks to determine if a conflict of interest exists involving an SBIC. This section has been recommended by the SBA, that has informed me that it has never received a response to a local advertisement and believes the requirement is unnecessary. The bill would amend title 12 and title 18 of the United States Code to insure that false statements made to the SBA under the SBIC program would have the same penalty as making false statements to an SBIC. This section would make it clear that a false statement to SBA or to an SBIC for the purpose of influencing their respective actions taken under the `58 Act would be a criminal violation. The courts could then assess civil and criminal penalties for such violations. Section 5 of the bill would amend section 313 of the `58 Act to permit the SBA to remove or suspend key management officials of an SBIC when they have willfully and knowingly committed a substantial violation of the `58 Act, any regulation issued by the SBA under the act, a cease-and-desist order that has become final, or committed or engaged in any act, omission or practice that constitutes a substantial breach of a fiduciary duty of that person as a management official. The amendment expands the definition of persons covered by section 313 to be ``management official,'' which includes officers, directors, general partners, managers, employees, agents or other participants in the management or conduct of the SBIC. At the time section 313 of the `58 Act was enacted in November 1966, an SBIC was organized as a corporation. Since that time, SBIC has been organized as partnerships and Limited Liability Companies, LLCs, and this amendment would take into account those organizations. The Kerry-Bond amendment would reduce the fees paid by the participants in two SBA programs: the 7(a) guaranteed business loan program (7(a) program) and the 504 Development Company program (504 program). The need for this legislation to reduce fees has been growing in recent years. The issues surrounding the fees paid by small business borrowers and the banks came to a head earlier this year, when the General Accounting Office determined that the Federal government had collected over $950 million in excess fees paid by the borrowers and lenders and taxpayers' funds appropriated by the Congress. The driving force behind this amendment is to adjust the fees paid by small business borrowers and lenders to reflect more accurately their appropriate share of the cost of the program. On May 4, 2001, Senator Kerry, Mr. Manzullo, Ms. Velazquez, and I asked the Comptroller General to undertake an in-depth analysis of the SBA's 7(a) credit subsidy rate calculations. Specifically, we asked the GAO to assess the level of difference between the projected cost of the 7(a) program's financing account, or loan loss reserve, and the actual cost. This calculation is required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The purpose of the credit subsidy rate is to determine the amount of funds that should be appropriated each year to cover expected losses when the Federal government guarantees 7(a) loans. What the GAO uncovered confirmed our worst concerns. The GAO pointed out that defaults and recoveries are key variables in the calculation of the 7(a) credit subsidy rate. Since FY 1992, the first year under the rules of the Federal Credit Reform Act, defaults and recoveries were significantly overestimated by the SBA and OMB. Defaults have been overestimated by nearly $2 billion and recoveries by $450 billion. What the overestimates mean in real costs is that the Federal government collected significantly more money than needed to fund its loss reserve accounts. Specifically, the Federal government collected over $950 million in excess fees paid by borrowers and lenders and by taxpayers' funds appropriated by Congress. My shade tree analysis leads me to believe that small business borrowers, banks and taxpayers have been and continue to be overcharged for the 7(a) program. First, it is clear that they are paying too much because each year the SBA and OMB overestimated the default rate for the 7(a) program. Second, if a more accurate default rate were adopted, the credit subsidy rate could be reduced. Third, a lower credit subsidy rate could mean lower fees paid by small business borrowers. And fourth, the 7(a) loan program could expand to meet the demands of small businesses without requiring a larger appropriation. Mr. President, time is of the essence. We need to act promptly and pass the Small Business Investment Company Act of 2001 today, so that the House of Representatives has time to act before the Congress adjourns in the coming weeks.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, Today I rise to recognize John K. Sheridan and Christopher A. Benson from the University of Missouri- Columbia for their outstanding accomplishment as journalism students. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the subsequent American response has caused a huge upsurge in American patriotism. Flags are proudly flying everywhere from balconies and lapel pins. ``God Bless America'' is the spontaneous song of note in arenas, ballparks, and homes. The fervor is evident in all walks of society, not the least of which is the college campus. In my home State of Missouri, we have the world's first journalism school at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Recently, two of the top journalism students published articles in the Columbia Missourian, one calling for the reinstatement of the draft with universal service and the other criticizing Harvard University for refusing to reinstate ROTC on the Campus. I commend John K. Sheridan and Christopher A. Benson for their thoughtful and Intriguing commentary.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment is an attempt to close a gap that was opened as a result of the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. During the consideration of that bill, the conference committee deleted funding for a small but important program known as the Hubzone program. We enacted it in this body in 1997 with unanimous, bipartisan support to direct Federal contracting dollars to the Nation's most depressed areas of high poverty and high unemployment; that is, in the inner cities, in the rural areas, in the Native American communities, and in the Alaskan Native villages. We find small firms do not normally want to locate in these areas because they do not have enough customer traffic to buy their products, but as a result they cannot find a customer base. In the Hubzone program, the Government acts as a customer and it buys about $190 billion of goods and services each year. This amendment does not appropriate new money. It simply restores the program to be implemented using the recommendations made in a General Accounting Office report. I ask the support of my colleagues in adopting this amendment.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.