Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues in the Senate to support H.R. 1860, the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act of 2001. This bill is identical to S. 856, which passed the Senate unanimously on September 13, 2001. Subsequently, the House of Representatives amended its version of this important legislation with the entire text of the Senate-passed bill, and it passed the House of Representatives yesterday on its Suspension Calendar. Our approval of this bill today will clear the measure for the President to sign it into law. The STTR Program was created in 1992 to stimulate technology transfer from research institutions to small firms while, at the same time, accomplishing the Federal government's research and development goals. The program is designed to convert the billions of dollars invested in research and development at our nation's universities, federal laboratories and nonprofit research institutions into new commercial technologies. The STTR Program does this by coupling the ideas and resources of research institutions with the commercialization experience of small companies. To receive an award under the STTR Program, a research institution and small firm jointly submit a proposal to conduct research on a topic that reflects an agency's mission and research and development needs. The proposals are then peer-reviewed and judged on their scientific, technical and commercial merit. The STTR Program continues to provide high-quality research to the Federal government. The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in the past that Federal agencies give high ratings to the technical quality of STTR research proposals. The Department of Energy, for example, rated the quality of the proposed research in the top ten percent of all research funded by the Department Report after report demonstrates that small businesses innovate at a greater and faster rate then large firms. However, small businesses receive less than four percent of all Federal research and development dollars. This percentage has remained essentially unchanged for the past 22 years. Increasing funds for the STTR Programs sends a strong message that the Federal government acknowledges the contributions that small businesses have and will continue making to government research and development efforts and to our nation's economy. Mr. President, Senator Kerry and I have worked together to produce a sound, bi-partisan bill. This legislation is good for the small business high-technology community and will ensure that our Federal research and development needs are well met in the next decade. I trust that the bill will receive overwhelming support of my colleagues.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to work with Chairman Kerry of the Small Business Committee to improve certain provisions of the Small Business Act relating to Federal procurement policy. These provisions will enable us to do a better job of tracking the small business impact of contract bundling without imposing burdensome new reporting requirements on the Defense Department. The amendment will also help a new class of firm participate in our HUBZone program to expand contracting opportunities to small businesses that locate in and hire from the nation's most chronically distressed communities. The amendment revises current burdensome reporting requirements of the Small Business Act with respect to contract bundling, and eliminates corresponding provisions--which would now be moot--of the Defense Authorization that seek to guard DoD against those burdensome requirements. A new report requirement would be imposed on the SBA Administrator on how to improve the market analyses currently required by law, to make them more systematic and meaningful. DoD would not be required to collect new data under the revised provisions, which threatens to be the case under current law. The amendment also alters the HUBZone Act to allow small businesses to participate if their stock is publicly traded. Currently, the HUBZone law requires all HUBZone owners to be U.S. citizens. A company whose stock is publicly traded can never meet this requirement. The company does not know the citizenship of all its stockholders, and even if it did, it might change at any moment if someone decides to sell or buy shares. The amendment piggybacks on current Securities Exchange Act disclosures to meet the citizenship requirement. The law requires people who own 5 percent or more of a company to file disclosure reports, and to file subsequent amendments if that amount materially changes. Under the HUBZone language proposed here, a firm would be deemed to meet the HUBZone citizenship requirement if no non-citizen (individual or corporate entity organized under the laws of a State or the United States) has filed a disclosure indicating ownership of more than 10 percent of the small business concern's stock. Because ownership can change at any moment, the language would provide that this must be true at the time of application and at such other subsequent times as the SBA Administrator prescribes. One of the principal hurdles faced by small business is lack of access to capital. It makes no sense to exclude small businesses that have overcome this obstacle and gained access to the securities markets. This language would allow a publicly traded firm to rely reasonably on the disclosures they have received, so that they can participate in the HUBZone program. This will help stimulate new investment in our nation's most blighted inner cities, rural counties and Indian reservations, the areas targeted by the HUBZone Act. amendment no. 1698

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Kerry for his proposal to improve access for small business to participate in joint ventures. In the 1997 Small Business Reauthorization Act, we adopted provisions to allow small businesses to join together to compete for bundled contracts that otherwise would be too large for them to perform. However, current law requires the lead contractor to perform 50 percent of the value of the contract. This is still a significant obstacle. The Kerry/Bond amendment would allow the prime contractor to perform 33 percent of the contract if no other participant performs a greater proportion and if all other participants in the joint venture are small businesses.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today not to offer an amendment but, first, to express my thanks and appreciation to the managers of the bill for responding to a concern that I raised. I have spoken with Chairman Levin, and his staff, Senator Warner, and his staff, as well as Chairman Inouye and Senator Stevens, and the Defense Department about the concern I have over our industrial base for the production of tactical fighters. It seems to me that the tragedy of September 11 brings with it the realization that we are in a long contest with terrorists. We are in a long, drawn out contest that may require us to provide all kinds of responses. The tactical aircraft we are planning to build in the future is just one of the tactical aircraft that we might have to provide in years beyond. So it is my concern that when the competition for the joint strike fighter--the JSF--is over, that if one of the two contestants--Boeing and Lockheed Martin are competing--is selected, if there is not production and an active role for the second one, we would be left with only one major producer of tactical aircraft. It is for that reason I have raised the concern that, either before or after the contract is let, the Defense Department and both contractors must be willing to agree that production will go on in both facilities. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are this country's sole remaining tactical aircraft manufacturers. Whoever wins the contract will have a long-term foothold in tactical aircraft manufacturing due to the very large number of aircraft expected to be built for both here at home and the overseas market. If nothing else happens, whoever loses out of the jet fighter business, in about 10 years, when our current production of F-22s, F- 16s, and FA-18s will have reached the end of their production runs, there will be nothing left for them to do. That would leave us with just one military house capable of providing the full line of services necessary to build whatever aircraft will follow. And the JSF, while it is the state of the art now, will not be the state of the art 10, 20, 30 years from now. The competitiveness exhibited by Boeing and Lockheed Martin in the JSF competition has been good for the U.S. and for our military forces. Without it, we would not now be looking at two sets of prototypes that, by all independent accounts, meet and exceed the criteria set by the Department of Defense. My concern is what happens on the next complex tactical aircraft program we build. I am a big fan of Boeing; I am a big fan of Lockheed Martin--the two finest producers in the world. One of them happens to be located in my State; one of them happens to be located in the President's State. Both companies have excellent design and manufacturing teams. And without them we would not now be fielding the best military aircraft in the world. But I am an even bigger fan of having them both in the business of making tactical aircraft with concomitant design, engineering, manufacturing, and support services. With only one domestic military tactical aircraft producer, we would seriously cripple our ability to field state-of-the-art tactical aircraft in the future, as any serious competition would be eliminated. And as is the case in so many other areas, competition is essential to the health of our tactical aircraft industry. We do not have to look far to see examples of how we can ensure a robust split production program. The two primary competitors for JSF-- Lockheed Martin and Boeing--currently share production of the F-22 Raptor. Boeing has a one-third share and Lockheed Martin a two-thirds share of the program. Supporting split production would ensure a minimum of two primary contractors in the tactical fighter industrial base. An issue associated with split production is second sourcing. That has been productive, and it has been a prudent working theory in the years past. It still is practiced effectively in many areas. During the defense buildup period, the Department of Defense and Congress worked diligently to increase the amount of competition in the development of major defense systems. In the defense aerospace industry, during those years, there were five primary companies capable of developing and producing fighter weapons systems. The benefits of competition were well understood in commerce at large but difficult to establish in the military. So emphasis in some programs shifted to second sourcing. The production piece of weapons systems programs was divided in two. A single design was produced. The Government financed creation of both production lines. The firms competed for the largest share of the production run each year, but both remained in production. This worked to keep costs under control for large volume purchases because each firm saw the potential for decent earnings by investing in cost reduction programs to remain competitive. If one producer let its costs get out of control, well, then, the purchaser--the Department of Defense--could go to the more efficient producer. The same logic was successful in setting up second sourcing for propulsion systems for the joint strike fighter. And my question is, If the logic is compelling enough to institutionalize competitive competition in second sourcing for engine competition, why wouldn't the same logic work for the prime aircraft manufacturing companies, especially since there are only two left in the industry? The second sourcing expands the mobilization base as well as producing an increased surge capability. And it encourages higher product quality and reliability at a competitive cost. And that helps the Government in contract negotiations. One other example I would cite is the joint cruise missile project, second sourcing of the Tomahawk missile in 1982. Every review of that effort demonstrated abundant cost savings to the Government, and a steady production of missiles which have been used for years by our Armed Forces. The success of the program resulted from at least two factors: One, the cost for entry for a second source was low, given the large projected production run, and, two, the annual production quantities were large enough to absorb direct and indirect manufacturing costs. The Tomahawk experience is directly applicable to the current JSF Program because we have a large projected number of aircraft deliveries spread over many years, for both the armed services--all branches--and those of our allies, and gives us an opportunity to retain the benefits of second sourcing. It worked for engines, and it worked for prime aircraft developers and manufacturers, while preserving the domestic industrial base. However, second sourcing alone does not ensure the sustainment of full design and development capability. I think it would also be unwise for the country to have only one company capable of designing an appropriate fighter aircraft. I hope, as we move forward, we will continue to utilize the design and development capacity of both of the manufacturers. Despite the fact that there may be some additional costs for having two production lines--some say costs may be a half billion to a billion dollars--when you are really talking about a couple of hundred billion dollars, a multiyear program, it seems to me the protection of the search capacity, production protection of a second major source, and the protection of competition are well worth the price. That is why I have been arguing that we must maintain two tactical aircraft providers. We cannot prevent the pendulum from swinging radically in the opposite direction without maintaining split production. The recent terrorist attack teaches us that if we skimp on defense, we will pay for it. Maintaining a strong defensive posture is not done on the cheap, unless we are willing to expose our national security and homeland security. For this reason, I have discussed at length with my colleagues, with the managers of this bill, with the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, as well as the Department of Defense, the need to continue to keep two tactical aircraft fighters in production. Based on the discussions I have had and the understanding that has been developed, I believe now that we are in a position where we will not see one company alone winning the competition and taking over the entire tactical aircraft production in the United States. I think that would be a significant mistake for the Nation, and it would not serve our military well because we would not ensure that competition to provide not only this airplane and the most economical and highest quality product available but future design and manufacture of aircraft to follow on. So while we had discussed the possibility of offering an amendment, I believe the position is well understood. And from the conversations I have had, I believe there will be efficient steps taken to ensure that we do maintain two tactical aircraft producers. If we don't move down that path, then I will be back on the appropriate measure, whether it is on an authorization or an appropriations bill, to ensure that we do have two strong tactical aircraft manufacturers in this country. Mr. President, I thank the managers and the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask the Senate to pause long enough to recognize an outstanding member of my staff who is moving on to new challenges and new opportunities. Dave Bohley has been a member of my Small Business Committee staff since 1998. Since that time he has set a high standard of excellence and knowledge in handling banking and related matters for the Committee. He was also deeply involved in the Small Business Innovation Research program reauthorization we passed last year, and in the Small Business Technology Transfer program legislation currently working its way through the Congress. Dave's expertise recently attracted him into a new career at Fannie Mae, the financial services company. Although I am happy for him to have this new opportunity, I am sorry to see him leave my staff. Fannie Mae's gain is truly our loss. I wish him every success and thank him so very much for his exemplary service to me and to the Senate.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I ask I be given 5 minutes out of the minority leader's time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield to the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding me time. Let me try to be quicker than 5 minutes. No. 1, while this package may not be what anyone likes, I am sure in this body and the other body there are probably 535 different ideas as to what we need to do. I hope we can come together, the House and Senate, and decide that we must move. I am more than willing to take what has been put together as an emergency measure and urge my colleagues to support it, and to support it without amendment. We are looking at a situation where the airline industry, which is a critical element in our economy, is right on the verge--from the smallest airlines that need an immediate infusion of cash to make up for the losses that were sustained when the Federal Government rightfully shut down air transportation this past week, to the current time where consumer concerns over safety have limited the flying public. We have put our entire airline industry at great risk. This bill is necessary if we are to solve those problems and if we are to get the planes back in the air. I can understand what my colleagues in this body and the other body have raised as concerns about insurance and compensation for those who are out of work. Let me be clear; it is not just the airline industry which has suffered losses. Boeing laid off 30,000 workers. I have just talked to people in the travel and tourism industry and consumer products industries. They have suffered a great downturn, and there may be people out of work. The good news is we have in place statutes and programs designed to assist those people. Let me be clear; if we delay passing this bill, as we attempt to craft a change or adjustment on assistance for laid-off employees, we risk causing a tremendous economic calamity. I understand that in the House objections over the failure to include relief for unemployment led to objections that put the passage of this package in doubt. Right now, we are looking at layoffs in the airline industry in the neighborhood of 20 to 25 percent. If we do not pass this bill, we are looking at 100-percent layoffs. We are looking not only at disaster for those people who work in the airline industry, those of us who depend upon airline traffic to get back to our constituents, those who depend upon airline travel for business, for recreation, and for tourism, but a risk to the entire economy. So this bill needs to be passed. Let me also point out that last week I was in this Chamber and I said that one of the key things we must include in the airline rescue package is a carefully crafted, structured means of providing compensation to the victims. There is a two-part means of providing compensation for the families of those who are deceased as a result of the accident and those who are injured. There are various provisions built in which would seem to make an option of two structures available, and there is a clear-cut indication that airlines will be liable only up to the limits of their existing insurance coverage. I thank the White House and the leadership for including those protections. Without them, at least two of our major airlines would not be able to continue in business next week. This is critically important, as is the provision in the measure for direct loans to those who can demonstrate their need to the Secretary of Transportation as well as loans which are to be structured by a board composed of the Secretary of Transportation, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Comptroller General. We put a great deal of discretion and responsibility in the hands of those very able officials. While none of us may have crafted the bill exactly as it was crafted, this is our only hope to ensure we do not have a disaster resulting from the total shutdown of the airline industry. I urge my colleagues, I beg my colleagues, to pass it. I return to the manager on this side any time remaining on my time. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Texas for their accommodation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Oats, Inc., and congratulate them on the celebration of their 30th anniversary. For 30 years Oats, Inc. has provided specialized transportation for the elderly, disabled and rural citizens in Missouri. Rural transportation is a very important piece of our federal transit system, particularly in Missouri and I thank Oats, Inc. for the exemplary job they have done. Oats, Inc. has continually upheld their strong commitment to their mission of providing reliable transportation for transportation disadvantaged Missourians so they can live independently in their own communities. Oats, Inc., will celebrate their 30th anniversary on September 26, 2001. I would like to extend my appreciation to the volunteers and those attending the celebration for the support they have given to Oats, Inc. I would also like to thank Oats, Inc. for the outstanding services they have provided for the communities in Missouri and it is my sincerest hope that their success extends over the next 30 years.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Order Of Procedure

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have been listed as potentially having an amendment today. I want to address the subject. I discussed this at our bipartisan caucus luncheon today because this is one of the many serious aftermaths of the tragedy of September 11. We have talked a great deal, as we should--properly so--about the tremendous search and rescue efforts that are going forward. We are going to move expeditiously to make sure we find those who may be alive, and today as we watch the news, we see very gratifying stories of people being found alive. As I have said before, a search and rescue unit is there from central Missouri where I live. They are working hard. I also mentioned, in addition to the deaths, the damage, and the destruction that the terrorists have caused directly, they will be successful to the extent they are able to cripple this country psychologically or destroy our economy. We all have a responsibility to work with, to encourage, to respond to the needs of our citizens so they can move forward and not be paralyzed by fear so we can get this country working again. We have a responsibility as well to make sure that our economy is not crippled. The situation was brought to my attention today about the two airlines whose airliners were hijacked by these terrorists who are conducting their own form of war against the United States. They captured airlines and used helpless passengers as human bombs to destroy the two towers of the World Trade Center, to destroy a section of the Pentagon, and, with sorrow but without as great a damage, to down one plane in Pennsylvania. Two of the airlines involved are major airline carriers, American Airlines and United Airlines. They have lost airplanes. More important, they have lost valued employees and their priceless cargo, the passengers. At this point, the entire airline industry in America is facing a crisis. They have been grounded. Their expenses go on, but their revenues are not coming in. For all of these airlines, we must consider a number of ways to assist them, and we should work on that very quickly to make sure we do not lose airline service because if we were, as a result of this action, to see commercial airline traffic cut off in the United States, our economy would be crippled. United Airlines and American Airlines face a very unusual circumstance where because their planes were involved, there is a potential for lawsuits on behalf of the passengers who were killed, the crew that was killed, and potentially even the innocent victims on the ground, which we do not know the final total but we expect it is past the 4,000 mark, and we fear greatly that it may go significantly higher. I spoke today about the need of providing some means of keeping these airlines from being put out of business by the potential liability. It is not just the lawsuits that they might face in the future that could force these airlines out of business. The potential of the lawsuits has the likelihood of making it impossible for them to continue normal financing operations. In other words, if they were to go to a bank and say: We need to keep our cash flow intact so we have the cash to run our airlines, to purchase the jet fuel, to pay our employees, to buy the supplies, a bank might look at them and say: If you are exposed to lawsuits of wrongful death for untold thousands of people, we cannot lend you money, in which case one could easily see the end of these two great airlines, with the tremendous impact this would have on our economy, not just our traveling public but the entire economic structure that depends upon good airline service. I raised the question of limiting liability at lunch today with a number of colleagues. One of the concerns that came back from them was, okay, who will compensate these unfortunate victims? We have talked with legislative counsel. We are working with the Congressional Research Service. We do not have ready the amendment I had hoped to be able to present on this bill, but the amendment we are considering would provide compensation for all of these victims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That means the victims would be compensated in the appropriate manner to the extent they could establish the basis for compensation. It would mean the Federal Government would pay the claims. The important impact would be this would take that one potentially crippling liability off the financial balance sheets of the two airlines. I am concerned if we do not do that, the airlines will not be able to secure normal financing or extraordinary financing that will now be required to get them back into the air to continue the service that is vital not only for those of us in the traveling public but for the entire economy which depends upon good commercial airline service, not only for passengers but for delivery of other commodities by mail. We have heard stories about organ donations. Organs being transported for implantation purposes cannot be handled because there is no airline service. There are many aspects of this economy which depend very much on the effective continuation of airline service. I ask my colleagues to join me in attempting to find a way where we can be fair and equitable to those innocent victims and their surviving families and still not cripple our economy. As I said earlier this morning, the terrorists have struck a mortal blow against our fellow citizens, against Americans, against the buildings in New York, the Pentagon, and elsewhere. We must deny them a victory because what they really want to do is cripple us economically and psychologically. There will be many more steps we must take to make sure our economy is not crippled, and there will be concerns coming out of the financial community as well, which is where many firms have suffered great losses. But this particular concern is one where I ask the leaders and members of all committees involved to consider very carefully how we can expeditiously provide an alternative means for compensating the victims that does not put the future of two of our major airlines at risk. This is not something we can talk about in the next couple of months and act on at the end of this year, the first of next year. This is a question which is imminent, which must be resolved within a matter of days, not even a matter of weeks. I do not have an amendment at the desk, but I will ask that my name be removed from the rolls of those who proposed to offer an amendment so that the managers of the bill can go about passing this very important Commerce-State-Justice bill which has many other important elements. I invite the thoughts, the discussion, and the constructive suggestions of my colleagues.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to lend my strong support to S. 856, the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act of 2001. The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship has closely reviewed the STTR program this year and found the STTR program to be highly successful. This important bill acknowledges that success by expanding the program. This bill, like most bills considered by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, was crafted in a bipartisan manner and approved by a unanimous vote. I would like to thank Senator Kerry, and chairman of the committee, for his leadership and cooperation in this effort. I am pleased to have worked closely with him on this bill, and I trust our colleagues will overwhelmingly support this legislation. The STTR Program was created in 1992 to stimulate technology transfer from research institutions to small firms while, at the same time, accomplishing the Federal government's research and development goals. The program is designed to convert the billions of dollars invested in research and development at our nation's universities, federal laboratories and nonprofit research institutions into new commercial technologies. It does this by joining the ideas and resources of research institutions with the commercialization experience of small companies. To receive an award under the STTR Program, a research institution and a small firm jointly submit a proposal to conduct research on a topic that reflects an agency's mission and research and development needs. The proposals are then peer-reviewed and judged on their scientific, technical and commercial merit. Numerous benefits result from the Federal government fostering collaborations between research institutions and small firms. Small firms have shown themselves to be excellent at commercializing research when they are provided the opportunity to take advantage of the expertise and resources that reside in our nation's universities. A recent report by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy reviewed the rate of return for research and development by large and small firms both with and without university partners. When these firms do not have university partners, their rate of return is 14 percent. When a collaboration is formed between universities and small firms, however, the rate of return jumps to 44 percent. By contrast, the rate of return only increases to 30 percent when large firms and universities collaborate. Moreover, partnerships between small firms and universities have led to world-class high-technology economic development. Numerous studies cite the emergence of Silicon Valley and the Route 128 corridor in Massachusetts as directly resulting from the partnerships and technology transfer that occurred, and are still occurring, among small firms, Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The cooperation between industry and these universities has strengthened considerably our economic competitiveness in the world. The STTR Program seeks to foster this same type of economic development in the hundreds of communities around the country that contain universities and federal laboratories. Further, the STTR Program has proven to be immensely successful at growing small firms from these types of partnerships. In a Committee hearing this year on the STTR Program, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported on the commercial success of small firms participating in the STTR program between 1995 and 1997. The GAO's findings are truly remarkable. Of the 102 projects surveyed in that time-frame, over 53 percent had either resulted in sales or follow-on developmental funding for the technology. Through 2000, these projects had resulted in $132 million from sales and $53 million in additional developmental funding. Moreover, the GAO reported that the companies that received the STTR awards are projecting an additional $186 million in sales in 2001 and an estimated additional $900 million in sales by 2005. These numbers are even more outstanding since it typically takes between 7 to 10 years to commercialize new technologies successfully. In addition to proving to be an amazing commercial success, the STTR Program has also provided high-quality research to the Federal government. The GAO has reported in the past that Federal agencies give high ratings to the technical quality of STTR research proposals. The Department of Energy, for example, rated the quality of the proposed research in the top ten percent of all research funded by the Department. A good example of the benefits that the STTR Program provides to small firms and universities is the experience of Engineering Software Research and Development, Inc. in St. Louis, Missouri. The chairman and founder of that company, Dr. Barna Szabo, testified on the STTR program before the Committee in July of this year. Engineering Software, in partnership with Washington University in St. Louis, received a phase two award from the Air Force to develop an innovative method of analyzing the stresses placed on composite materials. While this technology is currently being used in the aeronautics industry, it has many other practical applications. The STTR Program permitted Dr. Szabo, who had originated an algorithm he developed at Washington University, to transfer the technology to Engineering Software, which had the software infrastructure to transition the technology from an academic to a practical commercial application. According to Dr. Szabo, Engineering Software has received an estimated $1.25 million in sales and follow-on developmental funding resulting from the technology funded by the STTR award and that the STTR Program was of great assistance in transferring the technology from the academic environment to actual use and application. Based on the proven success of the STTR Program to date this legislation increases the funds allocated for the program from .15 percent to .3 percent of an agency's extramural research and development budget. This increase will not require any additional appropriations but merely will reallocate funds in the participating agencies to this successful program. I thank Senator Levin and Senator Warner on the Armed Services Committee for working closely with Senator Kerry and me to make such an increase possible. When a program is working as well as the STTR Program, it would be a mistake if Congress did not build on its success. This is especially true for Federal investment in small business research and development. Despite report after report demonstrating that small businesses innovate at a greater rate that large firms, small businesses receive less than four percent of all Federal research and development dollars. This number has remained essentially unchanged for the past 22 years. Increasing funds for the STTR Program sends a strong message that the Federal government acknowledges the contributions that small businesses have made and will continue to make to government research and development efforts and to our nation's economy. Mr. President, Senator Kerry and I have worked together to produce a sound, bipartisan bill. This legislation is good for the small business high-technology community and will ensure that our Federal research and development needs are well met in the next decade. I trust that the bill will receive the overwhelming support of my colleagues.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, September 11, 2001, will forever be burned into American history as a day of horror without precedent. Our hearts and prayers are with survivors and families of those who were murdered in New York City, the Pentagon, and in the hijacked airplanes. Although still appalled by the damage, the United States is in the process of recovering from these attacks. Fate has written many painful chapters in America's history. Each is sharply engraved into our collective memory. Most are battles and wars: Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, Pork Chop Hill. Others were acts of madmen such as the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building and the slaying of our Presidents Lincoln, McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. The magnitude of Tuesday's attack defies understanding. It is the scale of what happened that day that freezes the mind in horror. The wrenching sights of passenger planes deliberately flown into the largest symbol of America's economic and military strength was an assault on how we think of ourselves, our Nation and our role in the world and in history. Vehicles of peaceful domestic travel were bent horrifically into missiles of death shot into the heart of our economy--into all of our hearts. The blasts we watched in real-time and in slow-motion reruns in our collective mind's eye have buried splinters deep into our souls. As shock gives way to action, recovery and the identification of those responsible, we must remember this is not the first time the American people have been tested. History has probed the limits of our strength and patience many times, over many generations of Americans. As the realization of what has happened continues to sink into our national consciousness, we must never forget that each time our Nation is tested, each time we have survived--as we will again. And while it seems impossible to believe today, barely days after this horrific attack upon our soil, we must draw strength from the knowledge that each test has failed to diminish our Nation. Just the opposite. America's history is written by a people who rise to every challenge, and history has shown we will prevail. We are the greatest and most powerful nation today precisely because we have met and triumphed over adversity. This is our national identity. This is what it means to be an American. This is the strength of character that built this Nation over the last four centuries. Americans do not face challenges. We surmount them. And we grow stronger as a result. I am confident that we are already seeing this in the days after the disaster. We see it in the faces of the New York firemen and police officers, the dedicated men and women who fought to protect and recover and who have often lost their lives in that effort. A grim determination and smoldering pride etched in the ashes on their faces-- etched with sweat. And tears. And blood. We see it in the faces of our military men and women still breathing life into our Nation's military command center at the Pentagon. We see it in the commitment of the urban search and rescue teams and other public safety officers who have gone into New York City and into the Pentagon to help. I am deeply honored and proud that my good friends in the Missouri Task Force One, from the Columbia, MO, area, are there helping, and they want to help. Americans want to help. While the terrorists hit their targets, caused death and damage, their real aim of terrorism is to strike a crippling psychological blow. The terrorists will succeed only if we surrender our confidence in our Nation. Americans cannot and will not allow them this victory. Many people have asked me, what can we do? I hear that from Missourians all the time. First, obviously, is prayer, for those who have been lost, for those who suffer, for the families and loved ones. I ask also for prayers for individuals, for families, for guidance, that they may be strong, that this country may be strong, that we may not be disabled by the threats of terrorism. We must continue to be strong as Americans. There are things we can do. Giving blood is one thing that is readily available. I ask all my constituents to listen to their radios and televisions and contact the local blood donor stations. I ask citizens not to panic. We have seen panic in the buying of gasoline with 30-car-long lines. Do not horde. Prices are going way up; do not buy. Do not raise prices. Do not price gouge. This country will be strong. We will have our economy back on track if we behave rationally and responsibly. Let us not be crippled by potential terrorism. Let us not put up barriers that are impossible to overcome. I have talked with people in the airline industry. Our airline industry is suffering billions of dollars of losses. We must have a better airline security system. But let us be smart about it. Let us not make it impossible to travel by airplane. We are beginning the process of taking down the extraordinary security items around this Capitol. This is the people's place of business. We want people to be able to visit. Normally on Thursday mornings I have an open house for Missourians. They could not get here. I had a tough enough time getting here myself. We are going to go back to business in this Capitol. We need to go back to business as Americans. We need to build the strength in our families. That will strengthen our country. I hope those considering scheduling sporting events will realize this is part of our national culture. These should go forward. I ask we not be so terrorized by the terrorists that we forget what we do in this country and why we are strong. I believe the President has indicated the war against terrorism will be conducted with great vigor, with no terrorist, and no nation harboring them, safe. The President's hands ought not to be tied. So we can ensure our Nation is never dealt a similar blow, we must give the President the authority, support him and give him the resources and provide him the freedom to act, to preempt the acts of terrorism. Tuesday's attacks have shaken us. But the bedrock beliefs and principles of the United States remain strong. We will show the terrorists. Our immediate focus must be to recover from these attacks. And to tend to the victims and their families. We may not know the full toll for many weeks. In the longer run, we must recognize that these attacks demand an appropriate response from the United States. I know the man who is the President of the United States. I know this man. And I am confident that he will throw the full weight of the U.S. Government behind the task of identifying and destroying those responsible for the attacks. The President should also have the power to take appropriate steps to prevent a reoccurrence. And I know that he has the support of both political parties in the U.S. Congress. And more importantly, he has the full support of the American people. Our Nation must not rest until those behind the attacks are destroyed. Our unyielding anger will span the world and reach the terrorists wherever they may try to hide. The world is not big enough to offer them the concealment they seek. We will find them, we will get them, and we will make them pay for what happened Tuesday. Any nation that seeks to provide protection or cover for the terrorists ought to think twice before doing so. The President is correct to make no distinction between the terrorists and those nations that shelter them. The price of doing so will be very high. Let us be clear about what Tuesday's attack was--and what it was not. It was an act of war, not a simple criminal act. I say it was not merely a criminal act because of its scale. It was too large to be only a criminal act. It was an act of war against our people, our way of life, and against all people who cherish democracy and freedom. I believe there has been an unfortunate trend in the American Government in recent years to ``criminalize'' acts that are by definition acts of war against this country. That trend has delayed our potential responses until the evidence collected approached the standards required by a court of law. I believe that to have been a mistake. The war against terrorism--and its war against us--is just that, war. And we ought to be free to respond in kind. Not only after that fact, but I believe the President's hands ought not to be tied. To ensure our Nation is never dealt a similar blow, we must give the President the authority and freedom to act to preempt such acts. That is he must be able to strike terrorists before they strike. For many years the prevailing trend has been to shackle our intelligence agencies--to err on the side of doing too little rather than doing too much. I understand the forceful reasons behind this trend. Nothing is more dear to us than the protection of our civil liberties. Our political culture at root is defined by our steadfast guardianship of our civil liberties. I believe we can do more to attack terrorism without further encroaching upon our civil liberties. I believe we can strengthen the reach of our intelligence agencies significantly at no risk to our civil liberties. We know the incalculable cost of getting this balance wrong. In our understandable zeal to protect our civil liberties, we hampered the very agencies that protect not only our lives but our very way of life. America is a different nation today than it was Tuesday morning. We have been attacked in a way without precedent, in kind and magnitude. Our Nation needs time to grieve, we need time to tend to our dead and to care for the wounded and their families. Tuesday's attacks have shaken us. Yet the bedrock beliefs and principles that anchor the United States remain strong. Just how strong is something the terrorists will soon discover. God bless the United States of America. The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, is recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I rise very briefly to give my colleagues some bad news and some good news. The bad news is the house of my colleague, Senator Jean Carnahan, was struck by lightening Saturday evening. It suffered serious damage from a fire and also from water. I spoke with Senator Carnahan. She is in Rolla, MO. There are about 30 good friends helping her retrieve her belongings and to work with insurance companies. It is a real mess and she is therefore unable to attend this vote. The record should show because of this grave, unfortunate circumstance, she did not vote. The good news is she sounded to be in good spirits, no one was hurt, and she expects to return to this body as soon as she can complete arrangements in Rolla. I thank the Chairman, and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this month the History Museum for Springfield-Greene County will celebrate its 25th anniversary. It is an honor and a privilege to rise today on the floor of the United States Senate to recognize this institution's longevity and its role in preserving the history of Springfield and Greene County. Some twenty-five years ago I was able to play a role in the founding of this museum while I was serving as Governor of Missouri. The Museum was then called the Bicentennial Historical Museum in honor of our Nation's 200th birthday. Over the years, the name has changed but the goal and purpose of the museum has remained the same, preserving the history and heritage of the city of Springfield and Greene County. History is our window to the past and helps us to remember just how far we have come as a nation and as a community. The museum contains permanent exhibits beginning with the earliest settlement in the region, continuing on through the Civil War, and into the twentieth century. The museum also changes exhibits throughout the year which examine other areas of Greene County's history. The museum is a private, not-for-profit organization that is open to public at no charge. The museum is funded through private contributions, memberships, grants, and gift shop sales. The staff, management, and volunteers who operate this facility are to be congratulated for their tireless efforts and innovation which make the museum an important part of the community. The museum is an invaluable tool for students and teachers to learn the historical significance of the area. The History Museum for Springfield-Greene County is a valuable asset to the Springfield area. I ask that the Members of the Senate join me in recognizing and honoring the twenty-fifth anniversary of the History Museum for Springfield-Greene County.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, a few months ago our distinguished Republican leader presented a resolution which was adopted, I think, with the wholehearted support of all of us. I want to take a moment for a personal thank you to Elizabeth Letchworth, who has been an absolutely invaluable guide and counselor and friend during the time I have been in the Senate. When we first get to the Senate, as the occupant of the chair knows well, our normal question is: What is happening? It is a little bit obtuse and confusing. I often recall that great old saw that: In these chaotic times that are so complex, if you are not totally confused, you are not thinking clearly. There are times when I have passed that test of thinking clearly by being totally confused. Usually the person I went to was Elizabeth, and I would say, ``What's happening?'' She could explain not only the procedural aspects and what we needed to do in terms of making sure our rights were protected and we were able to present our views, whether on resolutions or bills--she was absolutely invaluable in that--but she also had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen, too. Trying to schedule the day around the work of the Senate floor is a challenge which I don't think any of us not the leadership--maybe even not some of them--have mastered. Because things do change here, it is always very difficult to figure out what is going on. Elizabeth was the one who, time and time again, told us what was likely to happen, when we could plan on things, what we could do. On a personal note, as my son was growing up and going to school here, the time I was able to spend with him in the evenings depended upon when we could complete our out-of-Senate work. Elizabeth became probably the best friend I had in terms of my being able to spend some time with my son. I would walk up to the desk in the front with a perplexed look on my face, and she would say: Are you having dinner with your son tonight or do you have something planned? She knew in advance what I was coming to ask her, and she was often able to tell me very precisely what was going on. In terms of my relationship with my son, I know I can add his thanks to mine for the great friendship and the thoughtfulness she exhibited in helping us deal with the complex time schedules of the Senate. Most of all, I have to say in this body sometimes things get a little tense. There is tension across the aisle and there is tension with colleagues on our own side of the aisle. But she was always able to maintain a pleasant and a friendly attitude that helped take away some of the tension and helped smooth over some of the difficult times. That is a high standard she has set. It is going to be very difficult for those who follow her to equal that degree of service and friendship. But I join with all my colleagues in saying a heartfelt thanks for being a wonderful friend, a great guide, great counselor. We wish you the very best of luck. We hope, if your sense of humor permits, you will come back and watch us from time to time and help guide us through the difficult times ahead. You have certainly done an excellent job in the past. I join wholeheartedly with a sincere vote of thanks for Elizabeth Letchworth.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe that we need to provide additional clarification regarding section 226 of the VA/HUD Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-276, that provides a prohibition of public housing funding for certain State-developed housing in New York and Massachusetts, covering some 12,000 units. This transfer has been described as the ``federalization'' of this housing, but it should be called a sham, with the analogy of a husband walking out on his wife and children and leaving them with nothing. This housing was developed by State government with no nexus to public housing. To be clear, the Senator Banking Committee in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 had sought to fund the long-term housing needs of low-income housing developed with New York and Massachusetts funding with new Federal public housing funding, despite the fact, as I have noted, that these are not public housing units and have absolutely no nexus to public housing or any Federal housing program. As a result, the Congress passed section 226 of the VA/HUD Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act to ensure for fiscal year 1999 and every following fiscal year, including all appropriation acts in every succeeding fiscal year, that these state-developed low-income housing units remain the responsibility of New York and Massachusetts, and not create the unusual, unfair and unique precedent of requiring the Federal Government to fund this housing as public housing. The costs of this ``federalization'' will exceed $100 million annually for New York alone, totaling well over $1 billion in the next 10-year period. This likely is an underestimate of costs. I warn all Members that this scheme will result in a reduction of funds to all PHAs throughout the Nation, each will see a loss of needed funds whether the public housing is in Baltimore, MD; Kansas City, MO; Anchorage, AK; San Francisco; West Virginia and every other State.

Mr. BOND. I understand that like so many neighborhoods in large urban cities, the neighborhoods in the city of Philadelphia have been devastated by depopulation and that other Philadelphia neighborhoods are experiencing the initial signs of decline with stagnant or declining property values, rising crime, and a breakdown in public infrastructure. Still, other neighborhoods are largely stable, but are hardly flourishing. I respect what the Senator from Pennsylvania seeks to accomplish with these provisions. The CDBG is a flexible block grant program used by States and communities for critical projects such as affordable housing, economic development, and human service projects. Last year the committee provided approximately $5 billion for the program. While this program is already a very flexible program, I am happy to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania to assist the city of Philadelphia to use CDBG funding to develop a long-term blight removal plan. I understand that the city of Philadelphia is in dire need of neighborhood development and blight removal, and I would be glad to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania in conference to try to secure funding under the Neighborhood Initiative effort for this meritorious program.