Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I agree that EPA should make the funds available to the city of Ketchikan, not the borough government.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues for their important discussion. I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in strong support of a conference report on H.R. 2620, the VA-HUD fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill. The chair of the committee, Senator Mikulski, has done an excellent job in crafting this measure. I am deeply grateful for her leadership. She was kind enough to talk about the smooth transition. It was not something we desired, but it was something that worked extremely well because we have had the good fortune of being able to work closely on this measure for a number of years. In fact, it was a seamless transition. I believe the legitimate wishes and concerns of Members of this body, the needs of the veterans, those who depend upon housing for Federal Government assistance, those who depend upon the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up our rivers and our waters and our air, are well served by this measure. I add my compliments to Congressman Walsh, the chair of the House VA- HUD Committee, and Congressman Mollohan, the ranking member. This bill has been a very tough one because of the limitation on funding, but I believe it strikes the right balance. We have met many of the administration's funding priorities, and I compliment the administration for not looking to create a series of new programs but instead focusing on some exceptions, maintaining existing program levels and reforming program implementation to ensure that agencies can deliver assistance under existing program requirements. The Senator from New Mexico has asked for a few minutes out of my time, so I ask the Presiding Officer to notify me when I have used 9 minutes of time. I do wish to reserve some time for Senator Domenici for a very pressing issue he must address.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my chairman. I will try to be reasonably brief, but there are some important things I wish to include. To return to the analysis of the bill, the VA and veterans needs remain the highest priority of the bill. The funding decisions in this bill are designed to ensure the best quality of medical care for our veterans and to keep the best doctors in the VA system. Furthermore, Senator Mikulski and I are committed deeply to meeting the medical needs of veterans, and we are working with the VA and the administration to ensure the successful implementation of the new CARES process, which is designed to assure that VA has the facilities it needs, that targets the services and the medical care throughout the country, and gets rid of unneeded facilities that drain money away from needed care for veterans. In addition, the VA-HUD bill appropriates some $30.2 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, an increase of $1.7 billion. This includes funding to renew all expiring section 8 contracts and provides for 18,000 incremental vouchers. I do remain deeply concerned that vouchers do not work well in many housing markets. We do, as the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned, need to develop new production programs that assist extremely low-income families in particular. This is a need that we must address, and we look forward to working with the authorizing committees, the Millennium Housing Commission, and others, to ensure it is addressed. The bill also reflects our continuing support for CDBG, the HOME Program, homeless assistance, FHA mortgage insurance, and assistance for abatement of lead hazards in housing. As for the Environmental Protection Agency, the bill includes a $587 million increase to $7.9 billion, $74 million over the fiscal year 2001 level. The bill maintains funding of the clean water State revolving fund at $1.35 billion and drinking water at $850 million. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of continuing to maintain funding for these State revolving funds. The clean water infrastructure financing alone, there is a need in this country for some $200 billion over the next 20 years, excluding replacement costs and operation and maintenance. I want to address some comments made about spending characterized in this bill as porkbarrel. The Members of this body know this bill funds monies that go through to State and local governments. This is a measure that includes funds for the Community Development Block Grant Program. Under that program, we take Federal dollars and send it back to the local communities so Governors, mayors, and city council members can allocate the needs in their community. Is that porkbarrel? I happen to think that providing money for needed community improvements is not porkbarrel spending. This measure also sends, as I just said, $1.35 billion for the clean water state revolving funds to clean up sewers, and $850 million for safe drinking water. Is that porkbarrel? I do not think so. The greatest need for many of our communities, whether they be large or small communities, is to have the money they need to develop projects that will make them strong communities and to assure that the water systems are healthy. We provide that money. Now my colleague was addressing the fact that out of that money, we send back for community development block grants some 6.8 percent. Less than 10 percent has been designated by Members of the House or the Senate for particular high need activities and investments in communities in their State. Do Members of Congress somehow know less about the needs of their communities for community development? Do Members of Congress somehow know less about the need for critical improvements to water and sewer supply systems? I think not. This money goes to those communities that have needs for tremendous efforts to improve community life, whether it be facilities that will bring in more business or whether it be money to go to drinking water or cleaning up sewer water in the States. This is one of the areas where those legislators in Congress who are concerned and who pay attention to the needs of their State can find areas where there are pressing needs. I believe, by and large, they do an excellent job, and we do a good job. One may quarrel with some of the decisions made by local officials on community development block grants. One may quarrel with some of the decisions made on clean water in State revolving funds for drinking water, but the fact remains there are tremendous needs in all of these areas. So I am very proud of the fact we are able to assist States, communities, and localities in taking care of their needs. Mr. President, I do not see the Senator from New Mexico. I believe we have additional time remaining so I will continue and intend to address the subject he was going to address because I know he feels very strongly about it. One of the major controversial areas we have addressed in this bill concerns the level of arsenic in drinking water. In this case, the bill supports the current regulation of 10 parts per billion for arsenic levels in drinking water, and while this level is supported by a number of scientific studies, the requirement that the communities must meet these new requirements by 2006 is very troubling because there are communities in the United States, especially communities in the West, communities in New Mexico and Idaho and other States, where there are high levels of naturally occurring arsenic in the water. Unfortunately, for communities which are small and do not have the financial ability to meet these requirements, the possibility is some very unwanted consequences of forcing through a regulation on all communities. We provide some relief in these communities through a temporary waiver. Our colleagues on the authorizing committees objected to this approach even though the leaders of the committee on both the House and Senate sides believed it was warranted. The conference report defers to those committees and suggests the authorizing committees pay attention to an evaluation to be done by EPA on the affordability of these projects and how a small system variance and exemption programs should be implemented for arson. This is a serious issue. Congress will have to address and balance this need over the next few years, both the financial burdens and health concerns faced by the small communities on the new arsenic standards. To be blunt, the last thing we need is to push these communities, with high arsenic levels in their drinking water, to abandon local municipal water systems which are reducing the levels of arsenic and force residents to go back to untreated and unregulated wells where they would be getting potentially higher levels of arsenic and potentially being exposed to greater health risks, not only from arsenic but from other sources of water pollution that would be treated in the municipal water systems. For FEMA, the conference report includes $1.5 billion in emergency disaster assistance, funding for firefighters, and flood mapping and mitigation. I join with my colleague from Maryland in expressing my gratitude for the way FEMA moved in. They have our highest appreciation. They stepped up to the plate and assisted the citizens of our Nation during this time of need. I will address for my colleagues the fact, at the request of Representatives and Senators from New York, that we took special note of the economic needs of the people and businesses in New York that have been devastated by the tragic terrorist attack of September 11. The President allocated $700 million for New York for the VA/HUD community development block grant. In this bill we included authority for HUD to meet these needs through existing programs, including broad authority to waive a part of the statute--except for labor standards, environmental standards, fair housing, and antidiscrimination--to meet these truly pressing needs. I understand a community economic development corporation has been established to allocate these funds. I believe the Governor and the mayor set up a Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Corporation that will hand out the funds. I raise this point because today the Environment and Public Works Committee passed out of committee a new measure setting up a different form of allocating these funds. I caution members of that committee, on which I happen to serve, that we not set up a competing structure. We need to do the job well. We need to do it right. We need to do it one time and not have two different structures stumbling all over each other. We have, we think, dealt with the concerns, and we will be happy to work with friends and colleagues from New York to make sure we do it effectively. Finally, I mention in addition to funding NASA at $14.78 billion, we have expressed grave concerns about the serious cost overruns. The costs of the International Space Station have continued to grow, over $4 billion above more recently; it is probably now $5 or $6 billion. There seems to be a total loss of management control by NASA with regard to the space station. We have received a report from the Young commission to study the International Space Station. I believe it is a top priority for the administration to find a new Administrator as soon as possible to review the extensive analysis and major recommendations of the Young commission and make whatever program and management reforms are necessary to ensure the ISS and other NASA programs meet our expectations and not rob the funding for NASA. I express my strong feeling, as the chair of our subcommittee has, for the need to double the National Science Foundation budget. We have to meet pressing human priorities. But for the long run, the pressing human needs of this country are going to be met to the extent that we fund the scientific exploration that goes on in the National Science Foundation. We should not be shorting the basic scientific research. I hope we can have the support of our colleagues to get the money to increase it next year to put us on the path of doubling. In addition to thanking Senator Mikulski, I express my sincere thanks to the members of the subcommittee and my staff, Jon Kamarck, Cheh Kim, and Isaac Green, who worked long and hard. They have become very good friends and worked closely, particularly in the new setting with limited space, with our good friends, Paul Carliner, Gabrielle Batkin and Joel Widder, for their quality work and commitment to the process. They have done an excellent job, and we are very proud of the work they do. I, too, commend this bill to my colleagues and urge unanimous support. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr President, I rise today to introduce legislation recognizing the historical significance of downtown Sainte Genevieve, MO. Sainte Genevieve was one of the first European settlements west of the Mississippi River, and still contains many structures and artifacts that have survived from its rich early history. Establishing this area as a unit of the National Park System will provide an unparalleled opportunity for Americans to be educated about our Nation's colonial past. Sainte Genevieve was founded by French settlers in the mid Eighteenth Century. These early pioneers traveled south from French Canada, and built the rare French Colonial style structures that remain in place to this day. Today, the area contains an invaluable wealth of Native American and French Colonial sites, artifacts, and architecture. Perhaps most impressively, downtown Sainte Genevieve contains three of only five poteaux-en-terre (posts in the ground) vertical log French homes remaining in North America, dating from the 1790's. In addition to the historic downtown district, the area adjacent to Sainte Genevieve is rich in historic sites. The ``Grand Champ'' common field of the French colonists still retains its original field land pattern. The area's saline salt springs were an important industry source for Native American and European settlers. And nearby ceremonial mounds are evidence of a prehistoric Native American village. This area is a truly valuable asset to the State of Missouri, and I feel that it is only fair to share it with the entire nation by establishing the French Colonial Heritage Area as a unit of the National Park System. My legislation would take the first step toward such an establishment by directing the National Park Service to conduct a study of the historic features of Sainte Genevieve. After a thorough study, I am confident that the National Park Service will determine that Sainte Genevieve is the best tool with which to tell the important and fascinating story of the French in the New World.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr President, I rise today to introduce legislation recognizing the historical significance of downtown Sainte Genevieve, MO. Sainte Genevieve was one of the first European settlements west of the Mississippi River, and still contains many structures and artifacts that have survived from its rich early history. Establishing this area as a unit of the National Park System will provide an unparalleled opportunity for Americans to be educated about our Nation's colonial past. Sainte Genevieve was founded by French settlers in the mid Eighteenth Century. These early pioneers traveled south from French Canada, and built the rare French Colonial style structures that remain in place to this day. Today, the area contains an invaluable wealth of Native American and French Colonial sites, artifacts, and architecture. Perhaps most impressively, downtown Sainte Genevieve contains three of only five poteaux-en-terre (posts in the ground) vertical log French homes remaining in North America, dating from the 1790's. In addition to the historic downtown district, the area adjacent to Sainte Genevieve is rich in historic sites. The ``Grand Champ'' common field of the French colonists still retains its original field land pattern. The area's saline salt springs were an important industry source for Native American and European settlers. And nearby ceremonial mounds are evidence of a prehistoric Native American village. This area is a truly valuable asset to the State of Missouri, and I feel that it is only fair to share it with the entire nation by establishing the French Colonial Heritage Area as a unit of the National Park System. My legislation would take the first step toward such an establishment by directing the National Park Service to conduct a study of the historic features of Sainte Genevieve. After a thorough study, I am confident that the National Park Service will determine that Sainte Genevieve is the best tool with which to tell the important and fascinating story of the French in the New World.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to submit a concurrent resolution with the House of Representatives to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act next October 2002. Representative Sherry Boehlert is introducing the House version and joining me in the Senate are Senators Crapo, Graham, and Voinovich. Every time we look out onto a river, swim in a lake, or cast a line in search of a fish, we have the Clean Water Act to thank. Streams that were once devoid of fish and other aquatic life now support numerous and varied aquatic populations. Lakes that were once choked by pollution are now vastly improved. Wastewater discharges from municipal and industrial sources are being controlled. One of the first and most successful national environmental laws to be passed by the Federal Government, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act, was enacted in 1972 and set the goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. In the nearly three decades since its enactment, Clean Water Act programs have yielded measurable improvements in water quality. We have come a long way, yet much remains to be done to achieve the Acts' goals of ``fishable'' and ``swimmable'' waters. Nonpoint sources of pollution from urban, suburban and rural areas are remain a significant threat to the nation's water resources. Science has given us the ability to detect pollutants in ever decreasing amounts. Technological advances, while providing solutions to pollution problems, also pose new pollution concerns. Therefore, while commemorating a successful 30 years in clean water, we must also recommit ourselves to solving remaining clean water problems. The time until the 30th anniversary on October 18, 2002, will provide us a year to renew our commitment to clean our waters. As it did in 1992, America's Clean Water Foundation, ACWF, will coordinate the Year of Clean Water with activities: 1. highlighting the need to enhance collective appreciation for the importance of our water resources, 2. educating our nation's youth 3. building a better understanding of remaining challenges and solutions, and 4. rekindling the stewardship ethic begun in the 1970's. The Year of Clean Water activities, scheduled throughout 2002, will provide the opportunity for citizens and governments to come together in support of clean water and water resource protection programs. For example, program planning is under way for a World Watershed Summit, a Youth Watershed Summit, a National Stormwater Conference, a Legal and Economic Issues Forum, and a national water quality monitoring effort to gather water quality data from around the country. Please join me in support this legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is an issue that I brought to the attention of the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee when we marked up this bill in committee. I have been working over the past few years to protect the Missouri Medicaid program from the devastating impact of a potential recoupment of almost $2 billion. Confronted with such a recovery--or even a fraction of that amount-- Missouri would inevitably be forced to cut back on its Medicaid program, putting health care for many Missourians in jeopardy. I am hopeful that the State of Missouri and CMS can work together in good faith to find a resolution that protects the care that the Missouri Medicaid program provides to 479,091 children, 21,517 seniors in nursing homes, and close to 30,000 pregnant women across the state.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and my colleague, Senator Carnahan. We have talked about this a great deal. Over the last decade, Missouri's Medicaid Program has faced a series of difficult but important challenges. Not only has the program been forced to struggle with internal issues, such as transitioning to managed care, reaching out to Missourians who are eligible but not yet enrolled in the program, and providing adequate payment to health care providers who care for Medicaid patients. It has had to deal with a number of important challenges presented at the Federal level as well. Not the least were efforts by Congress, attempted in both 1995 and 1997, but foiled by me and other legislators and people in similar circumstances in other States, to limit States' abilities to make disproportionate share hospital payments to safety net hospitals. Another challenge has been to expand coverage to children in working poor families as called for by the creation of the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. I was an early supporter of this program and its efforts to expand coverage for low-income children. Missouri achieved this as part of its 1997 Medicaid waiver which is now in effect. In addition, in 1999, under the previous administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, then called the Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, initiated an investigation of the Missouri Medicaid Program. Since HCFA began the process, CMS has carried on this effort, moving down the path to contend that Missouri may owe the Federal Government portions of the Medicaid funding the State received beginning in 1992 based on concerns about whether the tax imposed on hospitals and nursing homes by the State of Missouri to help finance the Medicaid Program actually complies with Federal law. We all know that many States prior to 1992 tried to squeeze extra Federal funding by taking or accepting money from health care providers, essentially nursing homes and hospitals, in order to inflate artificially State level medical spending and, thus, increase the Federal share of costs in the joint State-Federal Medicaid Program. In 1991, of course, Congress passed the law to outlaw these contributions and to establish strict new controls on provider taxes. This law imposed a requirement on States that provider taxes be uniform and broad based, and it prohibited States from instituting hold harmless Medicaid schemes in which payments to a health facility, particularly including DSH payments, were directly or indirectly related to the amount of provider tax a facility pays. The State of Missouri believes it is fully in compliance with that law. CMS disagrees. Missouri does impose a tax on hospitals and nursing homes to finance a State's share of Medicaid expenses, but the State insists the tax is uniform and broad based. Furthermore, the payments the State makes to Medicaid providers recognize their proportion of indigent payments, but these payments are targeted to needy facilities and are in no way intended to facilitate or pay for compensation for the provider taxes by the facilities that receive the reimbursement. This is a unique setup in which the State sends Medicaid payments for some hospitals to a subsidiary of HMA, the hospital association, which then acts as an agent in distributing the funds. The CMS concerns about the Missouri situation center on this arrangement, and we have reason to believe they were on a course to attempt to seek $1.6 billion in repayments. This would be an enormous sum for the Missouri Medicaid Program whose annual budget in 2001 was only $3.5 billion, including both Federal and State funds. If this action were to be taken, it would devastate the Medicaid Program of the State of Missouri and the care it currently provides for over 479,000 children, 21,000 seniors in nursing homes, and close to 30,000 pregnant women. That is absolutely unacceptable, and that cannot go forward. The State of Missouri already faces huge budget shortfalls due to overspending and, in the near term, will have difficulty even in maintaining the current programs and services which are so vitally needed. If CMS were to succeed in taking these funds back, Missouri's Medicaid Program and over 800,000 people currently served could be grievously harmed. I come to the Chamber today with my colleague from Missouri to raise this issue for the Senate. We have entered into a colloquy with the managers of the bill because we believe, as a result of raising this issue when we discussed it in the Appropriations Committee markup, that we started the process of bringing the State of Missouri and CMS together in good faith negotiations on the issue. We strongly urge them to come to a resolution that meets CMS's concerns but that protects the integrity of Missouri's Medicaid Program and the care it provides to some of Missouri's most vulnerable citizens. I appreciate the time of the Senate, and I appreciate the understanding of the managers of the bill. My colleague from Missouri, Senator Carnahan, and I look forward to seeing a successful resolution that will take care of the concerns of CMS, but also not take away the vitally needed Medicaid support for needy children, for the seniors in nursing homes, and for the pregnant women. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Utah, the leader on our side on this committee. I want to talk just in specifics about one area with which this bill deals. We know that as a result of the tragedy of September 11 and the continuing problems we are having with anthrax and other threats from abroad, we need to do a better job of seeing who comes into this country to make sure people who wish to do us harm are, if possible, screened out before they get here so people who are visitors from abroad who engage in things that are inappropriate, who violate the terms of their visas or their other status, can be removed. So after the September 11 incident happened and people started talking about problems in immigration, I spent a full day traveling with representatives from the INS in my State. We are in the heartland, but Missouri is directly involved because many of these visitors come to Missouri as well. I know the people at our major ports have even greater problems, but we saw the problems firsthand. I said: Why can't you get somebody out of the country if they overstay their visa? And they asked a very logical question: How do you know where they are? We don't have a good system. I said: Is it possible? They said: You probably could not give us enough INS enforcement agents to make sure we could find every person. They come in, they say they are going to go to Branson, MO, or they are going to visit the Arch in Missouri, and they may go to one or two other lesser tourist attractions across the country, and we don't know where they are. As a result of discussions with them and some great assistance I received from my cosponsors, Senator Conrad and Senator Snowe, we put together what we think are some significant improvements in the way we deal with visitors to this country to lessen the likelihood that they will be able to participate in causing harm to citizens of the United States. So we have put together the Visa Integrity and Security Act. I express our sincere appreciation to the managers of this bill and to our colleagues in the House for adopting these principles and putting them into the bill. This is not going to be a total solution. Nobody can expect that we are going to do a 100-percent job. But when we look at what has happened in the past, we think this is going to be a significant improvement. As Senator Snowe pointed out, Sheik Rahman, who has been in prison for his part in the first bombing of the World Trade Center, had been on a watch list, the Foreign Intelligence Watch List, for years, and nobody told the State Department or the INS, and they gave him permanent status in the United States. That was after he had been identified. We are saying the criminal agencies, the law enforcement agencies have to talk with the State Department, the people who are issuing these visas, and let them know we should not let this guy back into the United States. He came and went five times. That is just not acceptable. I also trust the State Department will change the directions in their manual which has said in recent years that merely urging terrorist activities or belonging to a terrorist organization do not disqualify you from coming to the United States. I mean, if you are a member of al-Qaida, you say: Oh, well, he may not be one of the murderers? Give me a break. If there is any ground for keeping somebody out of the United States, it ought to be that they are a member of al-Qaida. I hope in the future we can share that information and make sure they do not come in. So one of the things we require is that the FBI share the National Criminal Information System with the State Department and the INS. We are going to ask the Director of Homeland Security to report to Congress on the need for any other Federal agencies, intelligence agencies, to share or feed their information into this database. One of the things we know now is that people can come in under one name and then change names and we don't know exactly who they are. We don't have a foolproof method of identifying these people who come into the United States. Isn't it about time we know for certain, before they even come in, who they are? Doesn't it make sense that we know for certain who they are when they are in the United States? I talked with the dean of the engineering school at the University of Missouri at Columbia. He said 10 years ago it wouldn't be possible but now, clearly, we have the technology to do this. So this bill instructs the Attorney General to implement an automated system to track the entry and exit of visa holders, to make sure who they are, where they are, and what their status is. Back in my time, we used to talk about fingerprints. Now the term is a biometric system. There are a number of different systems to review. There can be digitized facial profiles, digitized photos of the iris of the eye, whatever is most feasible and effective there--to select that. We need to put some money in putting the machinery in our consular offices overseas so when somebody comes in and presents himself to get a visa to get into the country, we can find out and make a record, permanently, of who they are. No more using stolen passports. One of our partners in Western Europe who operates under the visa waiver system has a problem with 60,000 stolen passports. Right now, if you buy a passport or take somebody else's visa, we have a tough time tracking them. But once they get that biometric card, we know positively. We have a modern-day thumbprint on them. We can check them out overseas; we can check them in our records. When they come to the port of entry, we check them at the port of entry to make sure they are who they say they are. And if they do not get out of the country in time, we turn that information over to law enforcement agencies, so if there is a contact with a law enforcement agency, this rings a bell: You are out of status. You stayed too long. Or if a student leaves the school, departs the school which he or she is supposed to attend or an H-1B visa holder leaves the job he or she is supposed to have, that is reported to the INS and they can turn over that information. Any law enforcement official in the United States who comes in contact with him will know that person is out of status. Somebody says: Why is it important to know if they are out of status? Many people who are out of status and performing activities that are highly suspicious may not rise to the level of criminal indictment or for a criminal information to be filed against them, but if they are involved in suspicious activities and they are out of status, they are violating the terms of their visa and they can be deported and we potentially can avoid problems before they actually occur. This is not going to be 100 percent effective. But when people are out of status, particularly if they are acting suspiciously, we will have a record on them, and we need to tighten up the system to know when they leave. Right now, it just depends upon the airlines, making sure they tell us who leaves the country. That is not good enough. We need to keep a record of who comes in and who leaves so we know who is overstaying their visa. They say 4 to 6 million people are here illegally because they overstayed their visa, and we don't have any idea how to find them. At least if we have a biometric card, when they come in contact with a law enforcement agency, then we can do that. Student visas are another thing. A lot of people focused on the student visas. That is a small portion of the people who come to the United States. There were a couple of people involved in the September 11 tragedy who were here on student visas. Hanni Hanjour came here supposedly to study English in California and never showed up at school. The school didn't know he was coming. They didn't tell anybody. The next time we heard from him he was apparently piloting the plane that went into the Pentagon. It is not the student visas that are the problem. All visas are problems. But in this bill we authorize almost $37 million to implement the system that Congress dictated 4 or 5 years ago to track the people who come into the United States and to get a solid tracking system to know if they are overstaying their visa. If they do not show up for school, then the schools would have to notify the INS. It would apply the same requirements to language schools, to vocational schools, and, yes, especially to flight schools. So we would know who was coming in. This data system which has been put on the slow road is to be speeded up and to be fully in effect by the beginning of January 2003. So we will have a better system. Let me say a brief word about student visa holders. The foreign students who come to this land are a vitally important part of our educational system. We are very proud in Missouri to have a number of schools with a significant number of foreign students who bring their culture, their experience, and their knowledge to this country. In my view, one of the best foreign relation tools we have is to share education with the future leaders of other countries. I have traveled extensively in Asia. I have found that many of the governmental leaders, scientific leaders, and leaders in journalism have studied in my State. They come up to me and ask how the Missouri Tigers are doing. They know what we are about. We have a good basis to talk with them. I was in Malaysia in August to talk about the potential that we have to gain great medical insight and perhaps advances through biotechnology using the information in genes in the Malaysian rain forest. Two of the leaders graduated from the University of Missouri. These are in the bill. The visa waiver program needs to be tightened up so countries that just send their citizens into our country without going through the visa process--we need to work with them and negotiate with them so they have a strong, positive identifier, and so we have the same kind of identification with them as we do with these other states. I know many people want to speak on this. I, again, express my appreciation to the managers of the bill. I thank my cosponsors, Senator Conrad and Senator Snowe. I urge adoption of this measure which I think is going to move us significantly in the right direction of preventing terrorist activities in the future.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the majority whip for his kindness in allowing me to express my appreciation and admiration for Senator Daschle and Senator Lott keeping us in session today. Today's statement is very important: That the work of the Senate is going on and will continue. Certainly, it was a very troubling thing to learn anthrax had been delivered to a Senate office building and 300 more people may have been exposed. We know the good news is exposure does not mean infection, and we also know from the public health professionals that this form of anthrax is easily treatable with all forms of antibiotics, from penicillin to the new Cipro. Really, this is not a threat to those people because our public health people moved very quickly. The medical teams were there, and we have taken the necessary steps. What the terrorists want to do is not necessarily kill anybody with anthrax because they are not going to do it, but they want to spread fear. The terrorists win if they cripple us psychologically, if they destroy our economy, if they turn us against ourselves, or if they interfere with the workings of our Government and our economy. We will not let them win if we do not give in to our fears. The medical experts tell us that anthrax is not contagious; but panic is. The message to our people, our bosses, the good people of America, is that they have been strong and their Government is going to continue to function. There will be more letters. Since we made the decision to stay in, there were letters that were delivered to Governor Pataki's security office, to the media. These will continue, and, unfortunately, there may be other evidence of bioterrorism or physical violence visited on us by terrorists, but we have strong leadership. On a bipartisan basis, we support the President. Most of all, we support the brave fighting men and women of America whose lives are on the line to limit the terrorists, to run them back into their holes, to destroy their safe havens, to take away their financial resources, and to terminate them. We will continue this fight, and the American people have responded marvelously. There has been a tremendous outpouring of charity, with billions of dollars that Americans have contributed to aid those who are victims. I urge we continue to support those organizations, from the Salvation Army to the Red Cross, and all of the other groups that are providing vitally needed services and who must continue to serve in our community. Continuing to support our local United Way is as important as helping to combat the direct impact of the terrorist activities. We are going to win this fight. The terrorists are not going to destroy us. We have seen the example of the brave people of London who survived and flourished when London was under fierce bombing attacks in World War II. We have seen the people in Israel who live with terrorism every day, and they are not deterred. They will continue their lives, and we as Americans must continue our lives. We are the bright and shining beacon for the world. We are the ones who inspire jealousy and inspire envy and inspire fear in others, but we have reached out the hand of friendship. The President has urged American children to contribute a dollar to help the children in Afghanistan, and that is the American way. We will fight against those who seek to rain violence down upon us, who seek to spread fear and concern among our citizens. We will be strong, but we will be humanitarian and we will take care of those in need. We will show people there is a better way. We will show people freedom and democracy can flourish in the face of terrorist activities. That is the strength of America. We are being tested today, and by having the Senate in session today we have shown that Government will go on. I urge my colleagues to continue their steadfast resolve. To our staffs and others who are frightened, be not afraid. You are not on the front lines where our young men and women are in danger of bullets and anti-aircraft missiles every day. They are showing the bravery. With their resolute strength and with our commitment to continue our jobs, terrorism will not win. We all in America can once again say, God bless America. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Technology Talent Act of 2001. As an original co-sponsor, I am pleased to have joined my Senate colleagues, Senators Joe Lieberman, Barbara Mikulski, Bill Frist, and Pete Domenici in introducing an important piece of legislation that will help strengthen the long-term economic competitiveness and health of our Nation. We are here to sound the alarm to the public that our Nation's innovation capabilities are at risk of falling behind other industrial nations if we do not aggressively increase the number and quality of our technologically- trained workforce. The number of American students receiving degrees in the natural sciences and engineering fields has fallen significantly. This decline has occurred despite the growth in population and increase in undergraduate enrollment. But in other countries, the proportion of degrees in the sciences has grown compared to the United States. As a result, the demand for scientists and engineers in this country is being filled by foreign workers. And with the demand for engineers and computer scientists expected to grow by more than 50 percent by 2008, the high-tech industry is deeply troubled that it will become increasingly difficult to fill this demand and remain competitive in the global economy. To respond to the shortage of technically-trained workers in this country, the Congress has had to raise the cap on H1-B visas for immigrant workers. Why was this necessary? In the past decade, growth in the number of Asian and European students earning degrees in the natural sciences and engineering has gone up on average by 4 percent per year. During the same time, the rate for U.S. students declined on average by nearly one percent each year. It was startling to learn that the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, ranked the United States 25 out of 26 industrialized nations surveyed in terms of the number of college and university degrees in science. The OECD found that South Korea led those nations surveyed and that we are behind countries like Finland, Japan, the Czech Republic, and Ireland! In my home State of Missouri, I have seen the same sort of disturbing trends. The University of Missouri has seen an overall decline in science, engineering, and math degrees as a proportion of total undergraduate degrees. For example, undergraduate degrees in engineering have declined by 16 percent over the past 5 years whereas non-science degrees have increased by 14 percent. Because of these troubling numbers, I am excited to work with my Senate colleagues to come up with a potential solution. I thank Senator Lieberman and his staff for taking the initiative in crafting this bill and working with me. I also thank Professor Romer of Stanford University for his vision and thoughts in developing this bill. Through the administration of the National Science Foundation, this legislation provides financial incentives to our colleges and universities to expand existing successful programs and create new, innovative ways that encourage our youth to enter and stay in the science and engineering fields. Our bill also encourages schools to develop programs that will attract more minorities and women. This is critical since there are few minorities and women employed in the high- tech sector. To jumpstart this program, I am pleased to note that we have included $20 million in NSF's budget as part of the Senate's fiscal year 2002 VA, HUD bill. I hope we can maintain this level in conference and later increase funding for this program to a level of $200 million if this program is successful and our subcommittee receives the necessary funding. Along with many of my Senate and House colleagues, I have been trying to increase support for NSF because we recognize the role NSF plays in stimulating our economy and supporting the biomedical work of the National Institutes of Health. That is why we believe in doubling NSF's budget and as part of this effort, increasing the Nation's technologically-trained workforce is a key element. Clearly, we need to invest in our students because they will be the booster rocket for the future success of our economy and allow this Nation to lead the world in this century.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the official opening in Kansas City, MO, of the Consulate of the Slovak Republic. Slovakia is a country full of rich history and tradition. It became a free and independent republic in 1993 and opened their new embassy in Washington, D.C. in June of 2001. Ross P. Marine, DHL, who is the Honorary Consul of the Slovak Republic to the States of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska was appointed by Eduard Kukan, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic, in September of 2000 and with approval by the United States Department of State established a Consulate of the Slovak Republic in Kansas City, Missouri. Currently there are consulates of the Slovak Republic in Colorado, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, California, Florida, and Michigan. The Honorable H.E. Martin Butora, PhD, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Republic to the United States and his wife, Zora Butorova, PhD, will be visiting the Kansas City area the week of October 16-19, for the purpose of officially opening the Consulate of the Slovak Republic. There are a number of outstanding events planned to mark this exciting opening and the visit by Ambassador Butora. On behalf of the citizens I represent, I am pleased to welcome them to the great state of Missouri. Kansas City is a city that continues to experience tremendous growth and advances toward the future, while still recognizing and celebrating its proud history and vibrant culture. The added presence of the Slovak Republic will only serve to enhance Kansas City's history and culture. Once again, welcome and please accept my very best wishes on this special occasion.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, among the many things that makes our country great is the freedom we possess to move about the country and exit and return to our country as we desire. Being a great Nation that believes strongly in that freedom and that has paid a tremendous price in defending that freedom, we like it to be on display to the rest of the world and we continually and generously open our doors to others. We as a Nation benefit from foreign visitors coming to the United States and other countries benefit when their citizens visit this country, whether it be to study at our schools and universities, learn at our institutions, use our medical facilities, do business with our dynamic private sector or visit our great cities and parks. However, on September 11, this great Nation endured a terrible tragedy, perpetrated by individuals who entered this country legally, as guests, on a visa. Nineteen people who were in this country on travel, work and student visas carried out the most deadly attack ever on our soil. Three of those people had stayed beyond the expiration of their visa. As the investigation of the Attorney General proceeds, many others have been detained. Initial reports indicated that a large number of these people were in this country on expired visas and I suspect we will find that a large number of those involved in the planning of the attack were in the United States on expired visas. At this time, the only system in place to track the entry and exit of visa holders is antiquated and completely inadequate. The government has little ability to track those who have entered the United States and to be notified if they violate the terms of their visa. As there are approximately 300 million immigrants and visitors that enter this country every year, getting a handle on this problem will not be simple. However, we must know if those who enter the United States to study arrive and attend school, if those who come her to work are at their jobs, if those who come here to do business do their business and return home and if those who we admit into the United States to vacation return home at the end of their time in the United States. We should strive to keep our borders open, to keep commerce flowing freely and not let the terrorist attack disrupt our relations with our good neighbors and other friends. But at the same time, we must have a better idea of who is entering this country, catch and screen out those who may pose a threat and know who has violated the terms of their visa and remained in the United States beyond the expiration date. I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleagues Kent Conrad and Olympia Snowe for their assistance and valuable input on this legislation. Specifically, this bill calls for the improvement of the information received by the Department of State for checking the backgrounds of visa applicants. It calls on law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share regularly information that will be useful to the State Department in identifying those who pose any type of threat to the security or people of this country. This bill calls for the improvement and implementation of the system to track foreign students. Including a requirement that universities notify the INS when foreign students do not show up for school, as Hani Hanjour failed to do before participating in the attack on the World Trade Center. It is time to begin the roll of the Integrated Entry and Exit Tracking system called for in legislation passed five years ago to record the entry of visa holders, record their exit and notify the INS and law enforcement agencies of the identity of anyone overstaying their visa. This system should also utilize the latest technology, including biometrics, to ensure that visas cannot be tampered with or stolen. Finally, it is time for the members of the task force to be appointed, including the Director of Homeland Security, so that the issues surrounding this system can be settled. The bill also calls for the tightening of the Visa Waiver Pilot program to ensure that passports for participating countries are not stolen or defaced by those trying to sneak into the country. It also calls for those employing work visa holders to report to the INS if that person leaves or is terminated from their job. These are all reasonable proposals that will not impact commerce, travel and relationships with friendly countries. It will also begin the process of having an accurate picture of who has entered the country and who has departed. It is one of many steps that needs to be taken to avoid further terrorist attacks. I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, among the many things that makes our country great is the freedom we possess to move about the country and exit and return to our country as we desire. Being a great Nation that believes strongly in that freedom and that has paid a tremendous price in defending that freedom, we like it to be on display to the rest of the world and we continually and generously open our doors to others. We as a Nation benefit from foreign visitors coming to the United States and other countries benefit when their citizens visit this country, whether it be to study at our schools and universities, learn at our institutions, use our medical facilities, do business with our dynamic private sector or visit our great cities and parks. However, on September 11, this great Nation endured a terrible tragedy, perpetrated by individuals who entered this country legally, as guests, on a visa. Nineteen people who were in this country on travel, work and student visas carried out the most deadly attack ever on our soil. Three of those people had stayed beyond the expiration of their visa. As the investigation of the Attorney General proceeds, many others have been detained. Initial reports indicated that a large number of these people were in this country on expired visas and I suspect we will find that a large number of those involved in the planning of the attack were in the United States on expired visas. At this time, the only system in place to track the entry and exit of visa holders is antiquated and completely inadequate. The government has little ability to track those who have entered the United States and to be notified if they violate the terms of their visa. As there are approximately 300 million immigrants and visitors that enter this country every year, getting a handle on this problem will not be simple. However, we must know if those who enter the United States to study arrive and attend school, if those who come her to work are at their jobs, if those who come here to do business do their business and return home and if those who we admit into the United States to vacation return home at the end of their time in the United States. We should strive to keep our borders open, to keep commerce flowing freely and not let the terrorist attack disrupt our relations with our good neighbors and other friends. But at the same time, we must have a better idea of who is entering this country, catch and screen out those who may pose a threat and know who has violated the terms of their visa and remained in the United States beyond the expiration date. I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleagues Kent Conrad and Olympia Snowe for their assistance and valuable input on this legislation. Specifically, this bill calls for the improvement of the information received by the Department of State for checking the backgrounds of visa applicants. It calls on law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share regularly information that will be useful to the State Department in identifying those who pose any type of threat to the security or people of this country. This bill calls for the improvement and implementation of the system to track foreign students. Including a requirement that universities notify the INS when foreign students do not show up for school, as Hani Hanjour failed to do before participating in the attack on the World Trade Center. It is time to begin the roll of the Integrated Entry and Exit Tracking system called for in legislation passed five years ago to record the entry of visa holders, record their exit and notify the INS and law enforcement agencies of the identity of anyone overstaying their visa. This system should also utilize the latest technology, including biometrics, to ensure that visas cannot be tampered with or stolen. Finally, it is time for the members of the task force to be appointed, including the Director of Homeland Security, so that the issues surrounding this system can be settled. The bill also calls for the tightening of the Visa Waiver Pilot program to ensure that passports for participating countries are not stolen or defaced by those trying to sneak into the country. It also calls for those employing work visa holders to report to the INS if that person leaves or is terminated from their job. These are all reasonable proposals that will not impact commerce, travel and relationships with friendly countries. It will also begin the process of having an accurate picture of who has entered the country and who has departed. It is one of many steps that needs to be taken to avoid further terrorist attacks. I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act of 2001. I thank Senator John Kerry for introducing this bill, and I am pleased to be its principal cosponsor. In this period immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I urge all my colleagues to review this bill closely. Its prompt passage will provide important tools to small businesses that were directly and indirectly harmed by the terrorist attacks. As the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I receive on a daily basis pleas for help from small business in Missouri and across the Nation: small restaurants who have lost much of their business due to the fall off in business travel; local flight schools that have been grounded as a result of the recent terrorist attacks; and Main Street retailers who are struggling to survive in the slowing economy. Clearly, we in Congress must act and act soon to help our Nation's small businesses. In response to these urgent calls for help, yesterday, I introduced the Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (S. 1493), which is designed to provide effective economic stimulus in three distinct but complementary ways: increasing access to capital for the Nation's small enterprises; providing tax relief and investment incentives for our small firms and the self-employed; and directing one of the Nation's largest consumers, the Federal Government, to shop with small business in America. The Kerry-Bond bill goes to the heart of the problem by addressing the access to capital barriers now confronting small businesses. This bill is a bipartisan collaboration between Senator Kerry and me and our staffs of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. We have worked together to devise one-time modifications to the SBA Disaster Relief, 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs because the traditional approach to disaster relief will not address the critical needs of thousands of small businesses located at or around the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in strategic locations throughout the United States. In New York City, it may be a year or more before many of the small businesses destroyed or shut down by the terrorist attacks can reopen their doors for business. Small firms near the Pentagon, such as those at the Reagan National Airport or Crystal City, Virginia, are also shut down or barely operating. And there are small businesses throughout the United States that have been shut down for national security concerns. For example, General Aviation aircraft remain grounded, closing all flight schools and other small businesses dependent on single engine aircraft. Regular small business disaster loans fall short of providing effective disaster relief to help these small businesses. Therefore, our bill will allow small businesses to defer for up to two years repayment of principal and interest on their SBA disaster relief loans. Interest that would otherwise accrue during the deferment period would be forgiven. The thrust of this essential new ingredient is to allow the small businesses to get back on their feet without jeopardizing their credit or driving them into bankruptcy. Small enterprises located in the presidentially declared disaster areas surrounding the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are not the only businesses experiencing extreme hardship as a direct result of the terrorist attacks of September 11. Nationwide, thousands of small businesses are unable to conduct business or are operating at a bare-minimum level. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk of being lost as small businesses weather the fall out from the September 11 attacks. The Kerry-Bond bill provides a special financial tool to assist small businesses as they deal with these significant business disruptions. Small businesses in need of working capital would be able to obtain SBA-guaranteed ``Emergency Relief Loans'' from their banks to help them during this period. Fees normally paid by the borrower to the SBA would be eliminated, and the SBA would guarantee 95 percent of the loan. A key feature of the bill is the authorization for banks to defer repayment of principal for up to one year. My colleagues and I have been hearing time and time again during the last three weeks since the terrorist attacks that small businesses are experiencing significant hardship. The downturn in business activity, however, was clearly underway prior to September 11. The downturn was further exacerbated by the terrorist attacks. Historically, when our economy slows or turns into a recession, the strength of the small business sector helps to right our economic ship, with small businesses leading the nation to economic recovery. Today, small businesses employ 58 percent of the U.S. workforce and create 75 percent of the net new jobs. Clearly, we cannot afford to ignore America's small businesses as we consider measures to stimulate our economy. The Kerry-Bond bill would provide for changes in the SBA 7(a) Guaranteed Business Loan Program and the 504 Certified Development Company Loan Program to stimulate lending to small businesses that are most likely to grow and add new employees. These enhancements to the SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs are to extend for one year. They are designed to make the program more affordable during the period when the economy is weak and banks have tightened their underwriting requirements for small business loans. Specifically, when the economy is slowing, it is normal for banks to raise the bar for obtaining commercial loans. However, making it harder for small businesses to survive is the wrong reaction to a slowing economy. By making these one-year adjustments to the 7(a) and 504 loans to make them more affordable to borrowers and lenders, we will be working against history's rules governing a slowing economy, thereby adding a stimulus for small businesses. Essentially, we will be providing a counter-cyclical action in the face of a slow economy with the express purpose of accelerating the recovery. The SBA has a very effective infrastructure for providing management assistance to small businesses located nationwide. The Small Business Development Center (SBDC), SCORE, Women's Business Center and Microloan programs provide much needed counseling to small businesses that are struggling or facing problems in their start-up phase. With the U.S. economy under unusual stress, many segments of the small business community are today unable to cope with daily management issues. The Kerry-Bond bill would authorize expansions in these programs so that the SBDCs, the SCORE chapters and the Women's Business Centers are positioned to address the needs of a large influx of small businesses looking for help. Our bill would create special authorizations for each program to provide assistance tailored to the needs of small businesses following the September 11 terrorist attacks. In addition, the bill would increase the authorization levels by the following amounts: SBDC program $25 million, SCORE $2 million, Women's Business Centers, $2 million, and Microloan technical assistance, $5 million. In order to measure the impact of the terrorist attacks on small businesses and the effectiveness of the Federal response to provide assistance, the Kerry-Bond bill directs the Office of Advocacy at the SBA to submit annual studies to the Congress for the next five years outlining its findings. Specifically, each annual report should include information and data on bankruptcies and business failures, job losses, and the impact of the assistance to the adversely affected small businesses. $500,000 annually is authorized for the Office of Advocacy to carry out this important five year project. The American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act of 2001 is important legislation that is needed to help the many struggling small businesses. I am pleased to join Senator Kerry and my colleagues who are cosponsoring the bill in urging an early debate on this bill. Swift passage will very helpful to the long-term survival of many of American's small businesses.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act of 2001. I thank Senator John Kerry for introducing this bill, and I am pleased to be its principal cosponsor. In this period immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I urge all my colleagues to review this bill closely. Its prompt passage will provide important tools to small businesses that were directly and indirectly harmed by the terrorist attacks. As the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I receive on a daily basis pleas for help from small business in Missouri and across the Nation: small restaurants who have lost much of their business due to the fall off in business travel; local flight schools that have been grounded as a result of the recent terrorist attacks; and Main Street retailers who are struggling to survive in the slowing economy. Clearly, we in Congress must act and act soon to help our Nation's small businesses. In response to these urgent calls for help, yesterday, I introduced the Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (S. 1493), which is designed to provide effective economic stimulus in three distinct but complementary ways: increasing access to capital for the Nation's small enterprises; providing tax relief and investment incentives for our small firms and the self-employed; and directing one of the Nation's largest consumers, the Federal Government, to shop with small business in America. The Kerry-Bond bill goes to the heart of the problem by addressing the access to capital barriers now confronting small businesses. This bill is a bipartisan collaboration between Senator Kerry and me and our staffs of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. We have worked together to devise one-time modifications to the SBA Disaster Relief, 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs because the traditional approach to disaster relief will not address the critical needs of thousands of small businesses located at or around the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in strategic locations throughout the United States. In New York City, it may be a year or more before many of the small businesses destroyed or shut down by the terrorist attacks can reopen their doors for business. Small firms near the Pentagon, such as those at the Reagan National Airport or Crystal City, Virginia, are also shut down or barely operating. And there are small businesses throughout the United States that have been shut down for national security concerns. For example, General Aviation aircraft remain grounded, closing all flight schools and other small businesses dependent on single engine aircraft. Regular small business disaster loans fall short of providing effective disaster relief to help these small businesses. Therefore, our bill will allow small businesses to defer for up to two years repayment of principal and interest on their SBA disaster relief loans. Interest that would otherwise accrue during the deferment period would be forgiven. The thrust of this essential new ingredient is to allow the small businesses to get back on their feet without jeopardizing their credit or driving them into bankruptcy. Small enterprises located in the presidentially declared disaster areas surrounding the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are not the only businesses experiencing extreme hardship as a direct result of the terrorist attacks of September 11. Nationwide, thousands of small businesses are unable to conduct business or are operating at a bare-minimum level. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk of being lost as small businesses weather the fall out from the September 11 attacks. The Kerry-Bond bill provides a special financial tool to assist small businesses as they deal with these significant business disruptions. Small businesses in need of working capital would be able to obtain SBA-guaranteed ``Emergency Relief Loans'' from their banks to help them during this period. Fees normally paid by the borrower to the SBA would be eliminated, and the SBA would guarantee 95 percent of the loan. A key feature of the bill is the authorization for banks to defer repayment of principal for up to one year. My colleagues and I have been hearing time and time again during the last three weeks since the terrorist attacks that small businesses are experiencing significant hardship. The downturn in business activity, however, was clearly underway prior to September 11. The downturn was further exacerbated by the terrorist attacks. Historically, when our economy slows or turns into a recession, the strength of the small business sector helps to right our economic ship, with small businesses leading the nation to economic recovery. Today, small businesses employ 58 percent of the U.S. workforce and create 75 percent of the net new jobs. Clearly, we cannot afford to ignore America's small businesses as we consider measures to stimulate our economy. The Kerry-Bond bill would provide for changes in the SBA 7(a) Guaranteed Business Loan Program and the 504 Certified Development Company Loan Program to stimulate lending to small businesses that are most likely to grow and add new employees. These enhancements to the SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs are to extend for one year. They are designed to make the program more affordable during the period when the economy is weak and banks have tightened their underwriting requirements for small business loans. Specifically, when the economy is slowing, it is normal for banks to raise the bar for obtaining commercial loans. However, making it harder for small businesses to survive is the wrong reaction to a slowing economy. By making these one-year adjustments to the 7(a) and 504 loans to make them more affordable to borrowers and lenders, we will be working against history's rules governing a slowing economy, thereby adding a stimulus for small businesses. Essentially, we will be providing a counter-cyclical action in the face of a slow economy with the express purpose of accelerating the recovery. The SBA has a very effective infrastructure for providing management assistance to small businesses located nationwide. The Small Business Development Center (SBDC), SCORE, Women's Business Center and Microloan programs provide much needed counseling to small businesses that are struggling or facing problems in their start-up phase. With the U.S. economy under unusual stress, many segments of the small business community are today unable to cope with daily management issues. The Kerry-Bond bill would authorize expansions in these programs so that the SBDCs, the SCORE chapters and the Women's Business Centers are positioned to address the needs of a large influx of small businesses looking for help. Our bill would create special authorizations for each program to provide assistance tailored to the needs of small businesses following the September 11 terrorist attacks. In addition, the bill would increase the authorization levels by the following amounts: SBDC program $25 million, SCORE $2 million, Women's Business Centers, $2 million, and Microloan technical assistance, $5 million. In order to measure the impact of the terrorist attacks on small businesses and the effectiveness of the Federal response to provide assistance, the Kerry-Bond bill directs the Office of Advocacy at the SBA to submit annual studies to the Congress for the next five years outlining its findings. Specifically, each annual report should include information and data on bankruptcies and business failures, job losses, and the impact of the assistance to the adversely affected small businesses. $500,000 annually is authorized for the Office of Advocacy to carry out this important five year project. The American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act of 2001 is important legislation that is needed to help the many struggling small businesses. I am pleased to join Senator Kerry and my colleagues who are cosponsoring the bill in urging an early debate on this bill. Swift passage will very helpful to the long-term survival of many of American's small businesses.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the contributions Missouri State Representative Linda Bartelsmeyer has made to her community, State and nation. Missouri State Representative Linda Bartelsmeyer is a native of Southwest Missouri and is serving her fourth term in the Missouri Legislature representing Barry, Lawrence and Newton counties. This year, during the annual conference, she will have the distinct honor of becoming President for the 2001-2002 National Organization for Women Legislators. The National Order of Women Legislators is the oldest and largest bipartisan organization of its kind, created in part to kindle and promote a spirit of helpfulness among present and former women State legislators. Missouri State Representative Linda Bartelsmeyer has devoted her life to public service by actively serving on the local, State and national levels for 27 years. She has led by example and proved be an outstanding citizen. I am privileged to call on the United States Senate to recognize her outstanding accomplishments.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001.'' The senseless terrorist attacks of September 11th have dealt a severe blow to the Nation and to our already struggling economy. The Small Business Administration estimates that 14,000 small businesses are within the disaster area in New York alone. These businesses clearly have been directly affected by this national disaster. But the economic impact does not stop there. For months small enterprises and self-employed individuals across the country have been struggling with the slowing economy. The recent terrorist attacks makes their situation even more dire. In light of these events, the increasing calls from the small business community for economic stimulus legislation have understandably increased. As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I receive on a daily basis pleas for help from small business in Missouri and across the Nation: small restaurants who have lost much of their business due to the fall off in business travel; local flight schools that have been grounded as a result of the recent terrorist attacks; and Main Street retailers who are struggling to survive in the slowing economy. Clearly, we must act and act soon. In response to these urgent calls for help, I have prepared the Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001, which is designed to provide effective economic stimulus in three distinct but complementary ways: increasing access to capital for the Nation's small enterprises; providing tax relief and investment incentives for our small firms and the self-employed; and directing one of the Nation's largest consumers--the Federal Government--to shop with small business in America. When the Disaster Relief Program at the Small Business Administration, SBA, was first established, the terrorist attack on New York City and the Pentagon was hardly contemplated. Now that we as a Nation are confronted with this nightmare, it is easy to see that are traditional approach to disaster relief will not be helpful to the thousands of small businesses located at or around the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In New York City, it may be a year or more before many of the small businesses destroyed or shut down by the terrorist attacks can reopen their doors for business. Small firms near the Pentagon, such as those at the Reagan National Airport or Crystal City, Virginia, are also shut down or barely operating. And there are small businesses throughout the United States that have been shut down for national security concerns. For example, General Aviation aircraft remain grounded, closing all flight schools and other small businesses dependent on single engine aircraft. Regular small business disaster loans fall short of providing effective disaster relief to help these small businesses. Therefore, my bill will allow small businesses to defer for up to two years repayment of principal and interest on their SBA disaster relief loans. Interest that would otherwise accrue during the deferment period would be forgiven. It is my intention that this essential new ingredient will allow the small businesses to get back on their feet without jeopardizing their credit or diving them into bankruptcy. Small enterprises located in the presidentially declared disaster areas surrounding the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are not the only business experiencing extreme hardship as the direct result of the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Nationwide, thousands of small businesses are unable to conduct business or are operating at a bare- minimum level. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk of being lost as our nation's small businesses weather the fall out from the September 11th attacks. My bill provides a special financial tool to assist small businesses as they deal with these significant business disruptions. Small businesses in need of working capital would be able to obtain SBA- guaranteed ``Emergency Relief Loans'' from their banks to help them during this period. Fees normally paid by the borrower to the SBA would be eliminated, and the SBA would guarantee 95 percent of the loan. A key feature of my bill is the authorization for the bank to defer repayment of principal for up to one year. My colleagues and I have been hearing time and time again during the last three weeks since the terrorist attacks that small businesses are experiencing significant hardship. Many small businesses were already experiencing a downturn in business activity prior to September 11th. As the White House Chief of Staff recently commented, our economy was in a downturn before September 11, and this downturn was further exacerbated by the terrorist attacks. Historically, when our economy slows or turns into a recession, the strength of the small business sector helps to right our economic ship, leading the nation to economic recovery. Today, small businesses employ 58 percent of the U.S. workforce and create 75 percent of the net new jobs. Clearly, we cannot afford to ignore America's small businesses as we consider measures to stimulate our economy. The Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001 also provides for changes in the SBA 7(a) Guaranteed Business Loan Program and the 504 Certified Development Company Loan Program to stimulate lending to small businesses that are most likely to grow and add new employees. These enhancements to the SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs are to extend for one year. They are designed to make the program more affordable during the period when the economy is weak and banks have tightened their underwriting requirements for small business loans. Specifically, when the economy is slowing, it is normal for banks to raise the bar for obtaining commercial loans. However, making it harder for small businesses to survive is the wrong reaction to a slowing economy. By tweaking the 7(a) and 504 loans to make them more affordable to borrowers and lenders, we will be working against history's rules governing a slowing economy, thereby adding a stimulus for small businesses. Essentially, we will be providing a counter- cyclical action in the face a slow economy with the express purpose of accelerating the recovery. I have agreed to cosponsor a bill that Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, intends to introduce in the near future to improve and strengthen the credit and management assistance programs at the SBA in response to the September 11th terrorist attack. I am pleased to report that his bill will incorporate key ingredients of Title I of the Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001 by adopting the three tier approach to enhance the SBA's credit programs so they can respond more effectively and efficiently to the September 11th disaster. With the contraction of the private-equity market over the past year, the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program has taken on a significant role in providing venture capital to small businesses seeking investments in the range of $500,000 to $3 million. In the current economic environment, the SBIC program represents an increasingly important source of capital for small enterprises. While Debenture SBICs qualify for SBA-guaranteed borrowed capital, the government guarantee forces a number of potential investors, namely pension funds, to avoid investing in SBICs because they would be subject to tax liability for unrelated business taxable income, UBTI. When free to choose, tax-exempt investors generally opt to invest in venture capital funds that do not create UBTI. As a result, 60 percent of the private-capital potentially available to these SBICs is effectively ``off limits.'' The Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001 corrects this problem by excluding government-guaranteed capital borrowed by Debenture SBICs from debt for purposes of the UBTI rules. This change would permit tax-exempt organizations to invest in SBICs without the burdens of UBTI recordkeeping or tax liability. More importantly, this change in the law could double the amount of private capital being invested in small businesses through the Debenture SBIC program. The access-to-capital provisions of the bill will go a long way toward easing the cash-flow burdens that small firms are now facing, but we can also tackle this problem from another perspective, reducing the tax burden of small businesses. Accordingly, the second component of my Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act provides substantial tax relief for small businesses. These provisions hold the greatest potential, in my opinion, for fast and effective tax stimulus for small enterprises. First and foremost, this bill would permit small businesses to expense substantially more of their new equipment purchases by raising the expensing limit to $100,000 per year and by increasing the expensing phase-out threshold to $500,000. In addition, for small businesses that cannot qualify for expensing, the bill reduces the depreciation-recovery period for computers, peripheral equipment and software to two years. Together, these provisions have several important advantages for America's small businesses, especially in light of the current economic conditions. By allowing more equipment purchases to be deducted currently and reducing the recovery period for technology purchases that must be depreciated, we can provide much needed capital for small businesses. With that freed-up capital, a business can invest in new computer equipment, which will benefit the small enterprise and, in turn, stimulate the sagging technology industry. Finally, new computer equipment will contribute to continued productivity growth in the business community, which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stressed is essential to the long-term vitality of our economy. Finally, these modifications will simplify the tax law for countless small businesses. Greater expensing means less equipment subject to the onerous depreciation rules. And for businesses that do not qualify for expensing, shortening the recovery period for computer equipment from the current five-year period will add some common sense to the tax law. Since most computers have outlived their usefulness after two to three years, let alone five years, too many businesses are left to depreciate this property long after it has become obsolete. In short, the equipment-expensing and depreciation changes I propose are a win-win for small businesses, the technology industry, and our national economy as a whole. But we do not stop there. The bill also addresses the limitation on depreciation that many small firms face with regard to the automobiles, light trucks and vans that are so essential to their operations. Specifically, the Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act amends the limitations under section 280F of the tax code, which currently prohibit a small business from claiming a full depreciation deduction if the vehicle costs more than $14,460, for vehicles placed in service in 2000. Although these limitations have been subject to inflation adjustments since they were adjusted in 1986, they have not kept pace with the actual cost of new vehicles in most cases. For many small businesses, the use of a car, light truck or van is an essential asset for transporting personnel to sales and service appointments and for delivering their products. Accordingly, the bill adjusts the thresholds so that a business will not lose any of its depreciation deduction for vehicles costing less than $25,000, which will continue to be indexed for inflation. This provision of the bill will help ease the cash flow strains for many small businesses, freeing critical capital that can be used for investments in new business vehicles. In turn, purchases of new cars, light trucks or vans will offer much-needed stimulus for the nation's automotive industry. Again, multiple benefits for a small change in our tax code. My bill also responds to the difficult times facing the nation's restaurant industry, which the National Restaurant Association estimates lost 60,000 jobs in September due to slower sales caused by the current economic conditions and the recent terrorist attacks. While by no means a complete solution, we can lend a hand to the restaurant industry, which is dominated by small businesses, by increasing the business-meals deduction to 100 percent. This will provide an incentive for businesses to return to their local restaurants, and at the same time assist non-restaurant businesses and the self-employed for whom business meals are an unavoidable fact of life. At the National Women's Small Business Summit, which I hosted last June, a number of participants noted that unlike their large competitors, small enterprises often sell their products and services by word of mouth and close many business transactions on the road or in a local diner. In many ways the business breakfast with a potential customer is akin to formal advertising that larger businesses purchase in newspapers or on radio or television. While the newspaper ad is fully deductible, however, the business meal is only 50 percent deductible for the small business owner. In addition, many self-employed individuals like sales representatives spend enormous amounts of time on the road with no choice but to eat in restaurants while away from home. For these individuals the current 50 percent limitation on the deductibility of business meals is a severe strain on cash flow, especially with the soft market conditions they face for selling their products and services. A 100 percent deduction will ease those strains and help small firms in these situations to weather the current economic storm. The final tax provisions of my bill relate to a growing problem for small businesses--the alternative minimum tax, AMT. For the sole proprietors, partners, and S corporation shareholders, the individual AMT increases their tax liability by, among other things, reducing depreciation and depletion deductions, limiting net operating loss treatment, eliminating the deductibility of state and local taxes, and curtailing the expensing of research and experimentation costs. In addition, because of its complexity, this tax forces small business owners to waste precious funds on tax professionals to determine whether the AMT even applies. For these reasons, the bill includes the recommendation of the Taxpayer Advocate to repeal the individual AMT. In light of the current economic situation facing our nation's small enterprises, my bill will repeal the individual AMT beginning this year. For small corporations, the AMT story is much the same, high compliance costs and additional taxes draining away scarce capital from the business. Accordingly, for small corporate taxpayers, the bill increases the current exemption from the corporate AMT. As a result, a small corporation will initially qualify for the exemption if its average gross receipts are $7.5 million or less, up from the current $5 million, during its first three taxable years. Thereafter, a small corporation will continue to qualify for the AMT exemption for as long as its average gross receipts for the prior three-year period do not exceed $10 million, up from the current $7.5 million. The tax component of the Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act will provide significant cash-flow relief for small enterprises and many incentives for them to continue investing in our economy for their long-term well being. Together with the access-to-capital component, the tax relief will give a significant boost to small businesses and our economy. But we can do more, we can call on the Nation's largest consumer, the Federal Government, to shop with small business in America. Toward that end, my bill would make some subtle changes in the laws governing Federal procurement that will have a dramatic impact on expanding contracting opportunities for small businesses. For example, when the Brooks Act was enacted in 1982, it prohibited small business set asides for contracts to provide architectural and engineering services valued at $85,000 or more. It has been almost twenty years, and the ceiling has not been adjusted, not even once, to reflect inflation or other changes in the economy. My bill would increase this ceiling to $300,000 and would create immediate opportunities for contracting officers in Federal agencies to increase the number of contracts set aside for small businesses. It is also the Federal Government's policy that contracts valued at less than $100,000 be reserved for small businesses. This policy, however, is not followed by the General Services Administration, GSA, with respect to the Federal Supply Schedule, FSS. Too often contracts for less than $100,000 are filed by large businesses. Therefore, my bill would require that all Federal agency contracts, requirements or procurements valued at less than $100,000 be reserved for small businesses. Again, this change in our law would have an immediate positive effect by making more contracting opportunities available to small businesses. For contracts for property or services not on the GSA's FSS, my bill would require that contracts valued at less than $100,000 be reserved for competition among small businesses registered on the SBA's PRO-Net and the Central Contractor Register, CCR, at the Department of Defense, DoD. By using the two registries, small businesses would know where to go to begin the process of competing for government contracts, and contracting officers would have at their fingertips a list of hundreds of thousands of small businesses listed by industry category. My bill would provide for a six-month announcement period, which would be followed by a one year phase-in period during which 25 percent of the dollar value of all contracts valued less than $100,000 would be set aside for small businesses. After the first year, the set aside would increase to 50 percent in the second and subsequent years. Minority-owned small businesses and small businesses located in economically distressed urban and rural areas are at a particular disadvantage when competing for Federal government contracts. My bill would offer improved opportunities for these small businesses as part of the disaster-recovery effort. It would provide that when a contracting officer directs a contract to a HUBZone or 8(a) small businesses, the current ceiling on sole-source contracting would be removed. This change would apply only to the money that is appropriated by the Congress specifically targeted to the September 11 disaster- recovery effort. The Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act is a comprehensive bill to help the Nation as well as the owners and employees of small businesses. Its relief is targeted and is designed to work tomorrow and in the immediate future. Now is not the time to focus on ten year plans and lengthy phase-in periods. Small businesses need help, today, and my bill will put cash in the business' bank account and in employees' pockets. Small businesses have been the champions of past economic recoveries. My bill gives small businesses the tools to accelerate a recovery, so that our Nation's economic fortunes are reversed sooner rather than later. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001.'' The senseless terrorist attacks of September 11th have dealt a severe blow to the Nation and to our already struggling economy. The Small Business Administration estimates that 14,000 small businesses are within the disaster area in New York alone. These businesses clearly have been directly affected by this national disaster. But the economic impact does not stop there. For months small enterprises and self-employed individuals across the country have been struggling with the slowing economy. The recent terrorist attacks makes their situation even more dire. In light of these events, the increasing calls from the small business community for economic stimulus legislation have understandably increased. As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I receive on a daily basis pleas for help from small business in Missouri and across the Nation: small restaurants who have lost much of their business due to the fall off in business travel; local flight schools that have been grounded as a result of the recent terrorist attacks; and Main Street retailers who are struggling to survive in the slowing economy. Clearly, we must act and act soon. In response to these urgent calls for help, I have prepared the Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001, which is designed to provide effective economic stimulus in three distinct but complementary ways: increasing access to capital for the Nation's small enterprises; providing tax relief and investment incentives for our small firms and the self-employed; and directing one of the Nation's largest consumers--the Federal Government--to shop with small business in America. When the Disaster Relief Program at the Small Business Administration, SBA, was first established, the terrorist attack on New York City and the Pentagon was hardly contemplated. Now that we as a Nation are confronted with this nightmare, it is easy to see that are traditional approach to disaster relief will not be helpful to the thousands of small businesses located at or around the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In New York City, it may be a year or more before many of the small businesses destroyed or shut down by the terrorist attacks can reopen their doors for business. Small firms near the Pentagon, such as those at the Reagan National Airport or Crystal City, Virginia, are also shut down or barely operating. And there are small businesses throughout the United States that have been shut down for national security concerns. For example, General Aviation aircraft remain grounded, closing all flight schools and other small businesses dependent on single engine aircraft. Regular small business disaster loans fall short of providing effective disaster relief to help these small businesses. Therefore, my bill will allow small businesses to defer for up to two years repayment of principal and interest on their SBA disaster relief loans. Interest that would otherwise accrue during the deferment period would be forgiven. It is my intention that this essential new ingredient will allow the small businesses to get back on their feet without jeopardizing their credit or diving them into bankruptcy. Small enterprises located in the presidentially declared disaster areas surrounding the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are not the only business experiencing extreme hardship as the direct result of the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Nationwide, thousands of small businesses are unable to conduct business or are operating at a bare- minimum level. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk of being lost as our nation's small businesses weather the fall out from the September 11th attacks. My bill provides a special financial tool to assist small businesses as they deal with these significant business disruptions. Small businesses in need of working capital would be able to obtain SBA- guaranteed ``Emergency Relief Loans'' from their banks to help them during this period. Fees normally paid by the borrower to the SBA would be eliminated, and the SBA would guarantee 95 percent of the loan. A key feature of my bill is the authorization for the bank to defer repayment of principal for up to one year. My colleagues and I have been hearing time and time again during the last three weeks since the terrorist attacks that small businesses are experiencing significant hardship. Many small businesses were already experiencing a downturn in business activity prior to September 11th. As the White House Chief of Staff recently commented, our economy was in a downturn before September 11, and this downturn was further exacerbated by the terrorist attacks. Historically, when our economy slows or turns into a recession, the strength of the small business sector helps to right our economic ship, leading the nation to economic recovery. Today, small businesses employ 58 percent of the U.S. workforce and create 75 percent of the net new jobs. Clearly, we cannot afford to ignore America's small businesses as we consider measures to stimulate our economy. The Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001 also provides for changes in the SBA 7(a) Guaranteed Business Loan Program and the 504 Certified Development Company Loan Program to stimulate lending to small businesses that are most likely to grow and add new employees. These enhancements to the SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs are to extend for one year. They are designed to make the program more affordable during the period when the economy is weak and banks have tightened their underwriting requirements for small business loans. Specifically, when the economy is slowing, it is normal for banks to raise the bar for obtaining commercial loans. However, making it harder for small businesses to survive is the wrong reaction to a slowing economy. By tweaking the 7(a) and 504 loans to make them more affordable to borrowers and lenders, we will be working against history's rules governing a slowing economy, thereby adding a stimulus for small businesses. Essentially, we will be providing a counter- cyclical action in the face a slow economy with the express purpose of accelerating the recovery. I have agreed to cosponsor a bill that Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, intends to introduce in the near future to improve and strengthen the credit and management assistance programs at the SBA in response to the September 11th terrorist attack. I am pleased to report that his bill will incorporate key ingredients of Title I of the Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001 by adopting the three tier approach to enhance the SBA's credit programs so they can respond more effectively and efficiently to the September 11th disaster. With the contraction of the private-equity market over the past year, the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program has taken on a significant role in providing venture capital to small businesses seeking investments in the range of $500,000 to $3 million. In the current economic environment, the SBIC program represents an increasingly important source of capital for small enterprises. While Debenture SBICs qualify for SBA-guaranteed borrowed capital, the government guarantee forces a number of potential investors, namely pension funds, to avoid investing in SBICs because they would be subject to tax liability for unrelated business taxable income, UBTI. When free to choose, tax-exempt investors generally opt to invest in venture capital funds that do not create UBTI. As a result, 60 percent of the private-capital potentially available to these SBICs is effectively ``off limits.'' The Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001 corrects this problem by excluding government-guaranteed capital borrowed by Debenture SBICs from debt for purposes of the UBTI rules. This change would permit tax-exempt organizations to invest in SBICs without the burdens of UBTI recordkeeping or tax liability. More importantly, this change in the law could double the amount of private capital being invested in small businesses through the Debenture SBIC program. The access-to-capital provisions of the bill will go a long way toward easing the cash-flow burdens that small firms are now facing, but we can also tackle this problem from another perspective, reducing the tax burden of small businesses. Accordingly, the second component of my Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act provides substantial tax relief for small businesses. These provisions hold the greatest potential, in my opinion, for fast and effective tax stimulus for small enterprises. First and foremost, this bill would permit small businesses to expense substantially more of their new equipment purchases by raising the expensing limit to $100,000 per year and by increasing the expensing phase-out threshold to $500,000. In addition, for small businesses that cannot qualify for expensing, the bill reduces the depreciation-recovery period for computers, peripheral equipment and software to two years. Together, these provisions have several important advantages for America's small businesses, especially in light of the current economic conditions. By allowing more equipment purchases to be deducted currently and reducing the recovery period for technology purchases that must be depreciated, we can provide much needed capital for small businesses. With that freed-up capital, a business can invest in new computer equipment, which will benefit the small enterprise and, in turn, stimulate the sagging technology industry. Finally, new computer equipment will contribute to continued productivity growth in the business community, which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stressed is essential to the long-term vitality of our economy. Finally, these modifications will simplify the tax law for countless small businesses. Greater expensing means less equipment subject to the onerous depreciation rules. And for businesses that do not qualify for expensing, shortening the recovery period for computer equipment from the current five-year period will add some common sense to the tax law. Since most computers have outlived their usefulness after two to three years, let alone five years, too many businesses are left to depreciate this property long after it has become obsolete. In short, the equipment-expensing and depreciation changes I propose are a win-win for small businesses, the technology industry, and our national economy as a whole. But we do not stop there. The bill also addresses the limitation on depreciation that many small firms face with regard to the automobiles, light trucks and vans that are so essential to their operations. Specifically, the Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act amends the limitations under section 280F of the tax code, which currently prohibit a small business from claiming a full depreciation deduction if the vehicle costs more than $14,460, for vehicles placed in service in 2000. Although these limitations have been subject to inflation adjustments since they were adjusted in 1986, they have not kept pace with the actual cost of new vehicles in most cases. For many small businesses, the use of a car, light truck or van is an essential asset for transporting personnel to sales and service appointments and for delivering their products. Accordingly, the bill adjusts the thresholds so that a business will not lose any of its depreciation deduction for vehicles costing less than $25,000, which will continue to be indexed for inflation. This provision of the bill will help ease the cash flow strains for many small businesses, freeing critical capital that can be used for investments in new business vehicles. In turn, purchases of new cars, light trucks or vans will offer much-needed stimulus for the nation's automotive industry. Again, multiple benefits for a small change in our tax code. My bill also responds to the difficult times facing the nation's restaurant industry, which the National Restaurant Association estimates lost 60,000 jobs in September due to slower sales caused by the current economic conditions and the recent terrorist attacks. While by no means a complete solution, we can lend a hand to the restaurant industry, which is dominated by small businesses, by increasing the business-meals deduction to 100 percent. This will provide an incentive for businesses to return to their local restaurants, and at the same time assist non-restaurant businesses and the self-employed for whom business meals are an unavoidable fact of life. At the National Women's Small Business Summit, which I hosted last June, a number of participants noted that unlike their large competitors, small enterprises often sell their products and services by word of mouth and close many business transactions on the road or in a local diner. In many ways the business breakfast with a potential customer is akin to formal advertising that larger businesses purchase in newspapers or on radio or television. While the newspaper ad is fully deductible, however, the business meal is only 50 percent deductible for the small business owner. In addition, many self-employed individuals like sales representatives spend enormous amounts of time on the road with no choice but to eat in restaurants while away from home. For these individuals the current 50 percent limitation on the deductibility of business meals is a severe strain on cash flow, especially with the soft market conditions they face for selling their products and services. A 100 percent deduction will ease those strains and help small firms in these situations to weather the current economic storm. The final tax provisions of my bill relate to a growing problem for small businesses--the alternative minimum tax, AMT. For the sole proprietors, partners, and S corporation shareholders, the individual AMT increases their tax liability by, among other things, reducing depreciation and depletion deductions, limiting net operating loss treatment, eliminating the deductibility of state and local taxes, and curtailing the expensing of research and experimentation costs. In addition, because of its complexity, this tax forces small business owners to waste precious funds on tax professionals to determine whether the AMT even applies. For these reasons, the bill includes the recommendation of the Taxpayer Advocate to repeal the individual AMT. In light of the current economic situation facing our nation's small enterprises, my bill will repeal the individual AMT beginning this year. For small corporations, the AMT story is much the same, high compliance costs and additional taxes draining away scarce capital from the business. Accordingly, for small corporate taxpayers, the bill increases the current exemption from the corporate AMT. As a result, a small corporation will initially qualify for the exemption if its average gross receipts are $7.5 million or less, up from the current $5 million, during its first three taxable years. Thereafter, a small corporation will continue to qualify for the AMT exemption for as long as its average gross receipts for the prior three-year period do not exceed $10 million, up from the current $7.5 million. The tax component of the Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act will provide significant cash-flow relief for small enterprises and many incentives for them to continue investing in our economy for their long-term well being. Together with the access-to-capital component, the tax relief will give a significant boost to small businesses and our economy. But we can do more, we can call on the Nation's largest consumer, the Federal Government, to shop with small business in America. Toward that end, my bill would make some subtle changes in the laws governing Federal procurement that will have a dramatic impact on expanding contracting opportunities for small businesses. For example, when the Brooks Act was enacted in 1982, it prohibited small business set asides for contracts to provide architectural and engineering services valued at $85,000 or more. It has been almost twenty years, and the ceiling has not been adjusted, not even once, to reflect inflation or other changes in the economy. My bill would increase this ceiling to $300,000 and would create immediate opportunities for contracting officers in Federal agencies to increase the number of contracts set aside for small businesses. It is also the Federal Government's policy that contracts valued at less than $100,000 be reserved for small businesses. This policy, however, is not followed by the General Services Administration, GSA, with respect to the Federal Supply Schedule, FSS. Too often contracts for less than $100,000 are filed by large businesses. Therefore, my bill would require that all Federal agency contracts, requirements or procurements valued at less than $100,000 be reserved for small businesses. Again, this change in our law would have an immediate positive effect by making more contracting opportunities available to small businesses. For contracts for property or services not on the GSA's FSS, my bill would require that contracts valued at less than $100,000 be reserved for competition among small businesses registered on the SBA's PRO-Net and the Central Contractor Register, CCR, at the Department of Defense, DoD. By using the two registries, small businesses would know where to go to begin the process of competing for government contracts, and contracting officers would have at their fingertips a list of hundreds of thousands of small businesses listed by industry category. My bill would provide for a six-month announcement period, which would be followed by a one year phase-in period during which 25 percent of the dollar value of all contracts valued less than $100,000 would be set aside for small businesses. After the first year, the set aside would increase to 50 percent in the second and subsequent years. Minority-owned small businesses and small businesses located in economically distressed urban and rural areas are at a particular disadvantage when competing for Federal government contracts. My bill would offer improved opportunities for these small businesses as part of the disaster-recovery effort. It would provide that when a contracting officer directs a contract to a HUBZone or 8(a) small businesses, the current ceiling on sole-source contracting would be removed. This change would apply only to the money that is appropriated by the Congress specifically targeted to the September 11 disaster- recovery effort. The Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act is a comprehensive bill to help the Nation as well as the owners and employees of small businesses. Its relief is targeted and is designed to work tomorrow and in the immediate future. Now is not the time to focus on ten year plans and lengthy phase-in periods. Small businesses need help, today, and my bill will put cash in the business' bank account and in employees' pockets. Small businesses have been the champions of past economic recoveries. My bill gives small businesses the tools to accelerate a recovery, so that our Nation's economic fortunes are reversed sooner rather than later. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank you very much. I appreciate the kindness of my colleague from Delaware for yielding the floor. This subject is at the top of everyone's mind--the impact of terrorism and the threat of future terrorism. We are going to be talking about security and security in all forms of transportation. I want to mention the economic recovery that is absolutely essential because we know that terrorists cannot win. Even though they committed a dastardly act and killed over 6,000 people and destroyed major economic and military landmarks, they cannot win if they do not destroy our economy and cripple us psychologically. Today I introduced a measure to help in the economic recovery for the small businesses in the United States, a bill called the Small Business Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001. It is a comprehensive economic stimulus package for the Nation's small businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs. The Small Business Administration tells us that some 14,000 small businesses are in the disaster area in New York alone. They have been directly affected by this tragedy. But the economic impact doesn't stop with those businesses. For months, small enterprises and self-employed individuals have been struggling with the slowing economy. The dastardly terrorist attacks make their situation even more dire. As ranking member on the Small Business Committee, on a daily basis I hear pleas for help from small businesses in my State of Missouri and across the Nation. Small restaurants have lost much of their business because of a fall-off in business travel. Local flight schools have been grounded as a result of the response to the terrorist attacks. Main street retailers are struggling to survive. I think we should act and act soon. That is why I introduced this bill to increase access to capital, to provide tax relief and investment incentives, and to assure that when the Federal Government goes shopping for badly needed services, they will shop with small business in America. The SBA existing Disaster Loan Program was not designed to meet the extraordinary obstacles facing small businesses following the September 11 attacks. It could be a year or more before they can reopen. Small businesses throughout the United States have shut down as a result of security concerns. General aviation aircraft remain grounded, closing flight schools and other small businesses depending on aircraft. My bill would allow these small businesses to defer for 2 years the repayment of principal and interest on these SBA disaster relief loans, and accrued interest will be forgiven. Many small businesses are experiencing serious economic problems because their businesses have been in a sharp decline since September 11. We need to help these businesses with cashflow or working capital so their businesses can return to normal. We would establish a special loan program for allowing small businesses to cope by lowering the interest to prime plus 1, with no upfront guarantee fee. The SBA will guarantee 95 percent of the loan. Banks would be able to defer principal payments up to 1 year. For general economic recovery, small businesses would benefit from an enhancement of the existing 7(a) Guaranteed Business Loan Program to make those loans more affordable. No guaranteed fees would be paid by small business. The SBA guarantees would be increased from 80 percent to 90 percent for loans up to $150,000 and from 75 percent to 85 percent for loans greater than $150,000. I will be cosponsoring with Senator Kerry, the chairman of the committee, a measure that will help deal with these key ingredients for assuring access to capital for small business. In addition, under the Debenture Small Business Investment Company Program, pension funds cannot invest in small business investment companies without incurring unrelated business taxable income. Most pension funds can't invest--eliminating 60 percent of private capital potential. My bill corrects this problem by excluding Government-guaranteed capital borrowed by debenture SBICs from debt for the Unrelated Business Tax Income rules. On small business tax relief, we would increase the amount of new equipment that small business could expense to $100,000 per year, allowing small businesses that do not qualify for expensing to depreciate computer equipment and software over 2 years. These will be significant enhancements to cashflow. We increase the depreciation limitation on business vehicles to ease cashflow problems for small businesses and help stimulate automotive industry recovery. We raise the deduction for business meals back up to 100 percent to get people to take lunches at restaurants which are struggling. The restaurant industry lost 60,000 jobs in September. We need to get restaurants back on their feet. We would repeal the alternative minimum tax on individuals and expand the AMT exemption for small corporations to leave more earnings in the pockets of small businesses to reinvest for long-term growth and job creation. These items will give a significant boost to small business, which has been and is the driving force in our economy. Finally, when the Federal Government goes out shopping, we want to make sure it shops with the small businesses in America. Currently the Brooks Act prohibits small business set-asides for architectural and engineering contracts above $85,000, a figure set in 1982. My bill would raise that ceiling to $300,000. The policy of the Federal Government that contracts valued at less than $100,000 be reserved for small businesses would be adopted for the General Services Administration. For contracts not on the Federal Supply Schedule, they would be reserved for and limited to small businesses registered with the SBA. My bill would remove the ceiling on sole-sourcing contracting under the HUBZone and 8(a) Programs to permit larger contracts to be awarded quickly to small businesses capable of providing postdisaster goods and services. These changes I think would help get small businesses' engines--the engine that drives our economy that will help lead us out of the economic stagnation we face as a result of these dastardly terrorist attacks. I invite my colleagues to join with me to contact my small business staff and let me know if they have questions. I urge them to join with me in sponsoring this badly needed stimulus package for small business. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is very important for many employees of the airline industry in my State of Missouri and elsewhere across the country. The legislation is entitled ``The Airline Workers Fairness Act.'' I have previously written to the distinguished Presiding Officer and the ranking member to explain to them the reason for this concern; that is, the fact that for the good of the country, the airline industry, and the traveling public, American Airlines acquired the assets of TWA. This was a good measure for continuation of airline service, for the employees, and for the communities served. Now, however, as a result of the outrageous terrorist attacks on September 11, airlines across the country have found a significant decrease in volume. I believe there is no safer time to fly the airlines than now. We go through a little more security. I am delighted to do it. I believe that we are safe on airline travel, certainly safer than we were before September 11. I believe it is an outstanding time to fly. But many people, because of legitimate concerns for themselves and their families, are not flying. So there are layoffs going on throughout the airline industry. What this bill seeks to do is to ensure that after the two companies, American Airlines and TWA, and TWA Express, are merged, after the first of the year, that the employees of both merged airlines will be treated fairly. Obviously, everybody understands with a decrease in airline traffic, there is going to be a need for layoffs. We have seen those layoffs. We hope, we fervently pray, that we can get back to business in the United States and get people flying again so they will use this valuable resource and get these people back to work. I have talked to an awful lot of people at TWA who realize they will be a much smaller percentage of the total workforce than the larger numbers of American Airlines employees. They have sought to find a way to make sure that these two airlines are combined in a fair and reasonable manner. They looked at the Allegheny-Mohawk approach that was applied by the Civil Aeronautics Board when those two airlines were combined, and the transactions in that were performed in a way to encourage negotiation, mediation, and ultimately resolution of seniority integration issues by a neutral third party arbitrator selected by the parties. The purpose of this is to ensure that there is a fair and reasonable basis for resolving the seniority issues facing these employees. Several people have accused me of having some formula that I want to see adopted, having decided in advance how this should proceed. I don't know enough about seniority practices of either of the airlines to try to propose a solution. But when you have both parties coming together, seeking an arbitration panel or arbitrator who is knowledgeable and who will hear presentations from both sides, we can make sure that American Airlines employees and TWA employees are all treated in a fair and reasonable manner. I am very pleased to say we have had strong support from the Airline Pilots Association, the International Association of Machinists, the Teamsters, and the AFL-CIO. Nobody knows how these issues will be resolved, but an awful lot of people are counting on us to make sure they are resolved in a fair and reasonable manner, giving both sides an opportunity to be heard and to have an arbitrator propose a final decision. I look forward to working with the occupant of the chair and others as we move forward on this very important matter. I thank my colleagues for their kind attention. I ask that if they wish to join me in this bill, please do so. It is important that we act on this measure this year. I will be happy to respond to inquiries and work with colleagues who have thoughts on how we can improve.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is very important for many employees of the airline industry in my State of Missouri and elsewhere across the country. The legislation is entitled ``The Airline Workers Fairness Act.'' I have previously written to the distinguished Presiding Officer and the ranking member to explain to them the reason for this concern; that is, the fact that for the good of the country, the airline industry, and the traveling public, American Airlines acquired the assets of TWA. This was a good measure for continuation of airline service, for the employees, and for the communities served. Now, however, as a result of the outrageous terrorist attacks on September 11, airlines across the country have found a significant decrease in volume. I believe there is no safer time to fly the airlines than now. We go through a little more security. I am delighted to do it. I believe that we are safe on airline travel, certainly safer than we were before September 11. I believe it is an outstanding time to fly. But many people, because of legitimate concerns for themselves and their families, are not flying. So there are layoffs going on throughout the airline industry. What this bill seeks to do is to ensure that after the two companies, American Airlines and TWA, and TWA Express, are merged, after the first of the year, that the employees of both merged airlines will be treated fairly. Obviously, everybody understands with a decrease in airline traffic, there is going to be a need for layoffs. We have seen those layoffs. We hope, we fervently pray, that we can get back to business in the United States and get people flying again so they will use this valuable resource and get these people back to work. I have talked to an awful lot of people at TWA who realize they will be a much smaller percentage of the total workforce than the larger numbers of American Airlines employees. They have sought to find a way to make sure that these two airlines are combined in a fair and reasonable manner. They looked at the Allegheny-Mohawk approach that was applied by the Civil Aeronautics Board when those two airlines were combined, and the transactions in that were performed in a way to encourage negotiation, mediation, and ultimately resolution of seniority integration issues by a neutral third party arbitrator selected by the parties. The purpose of this is to ensure that there is a fair and reasonable basis for resolving the seniority issues facing these employees. Several people have accused me of having some formula that I want to see adopted, having decided in advance how this should proceed. I don't know enough about seniority practices of either of the airlines to try to propose a solution. But when you have both parties coming together, seeking an arbitration panel or arbitrator who is knowledgeable and who will hear presentations from both sides, we can make sure that American Airlines employees and TWA employees are all treated in a fair and reasonable manner. I am very pleased to say we have had strong support from the Airline Pilots Association, the International Association of Machinists, the Teamsters, and the AFL-CIO. Nobody knows how these issues will be resolved, but an awful lot of people are counting on us to make sure they are resolved in a fair and reasonable manner, giving both sides an opportunity to be heard and to have an arbitrator propose a final decision. I look forward to working with the occupant of the chair and others as we move forward on this very important matter. I thank my colleagues for their kind attention. I ask that if they wish to join me in this bill, please do so. It is important that we act on this measure this year. I will be happy to respond to inquiries and work with colleagues who have thoughts on how we can improve.