Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, just to straighten this out, might I ask the Chair: I understood there had been time set aside for debate on the Hutchinson vote. So for my colleagues' edification, what is the time agreed to for debate on Hutchinson prior to the vote?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to stand wholeheartedly in enthusiastic support of S. 1216, the VA-HUD fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill as reported from the Committee on Appropriations. My compliments to Senator Mikulski as the new chair of the VA-HUD- Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for her hard work and her commitment to making this bill a balanced piece of legislation for all Members, for the administration and, most of all, for the people who are served by it--and they are many--as the Senator has so eloquently outlined. I could not ask for a better chair and, previous to the transmogrification, a better ranking member. I know that some identify us as one of the more collegial teams in this Chamber. I am proud of that. I think we make a good team. After extensive, hard work on the very important and difficult and complex issues in this bill, we agree on the policy outlines and on the specific allocation included in this bill for the VA-HUD fiscal year 2002 bill. I think the bill is grounded both in good policy and fiscal responsibility. As the Senator from Maryland has discussed, the legislation is within our 302(b) discretionary funding allocation of $84 billion-plus in budget authority and some $88 billion in outlays. In addition, while no bill is perfect or addresses every Member's concerns--and certainly we had many hundreds and thousands of concerns--I think the bill strikes the right balance in funding both the Members' priorities and the administration's priorities. In particular, despite our tight allocation, we have done our best to satisfy the priorities of Senators who made special requests for economic development grants, water infrastructure improvements, as well as requests for other State and local priorities. Such requests numbered over 1,600 individual requests, totaling over $22 billion, which illustrates the level of interest and demand for assistance in the bill. That means, on the average, each Senator submitted 16 requests, costing a total of $220 million for our humble little bill. We obviously could not address all of these requests, but we have tried hard to address as many of the most pressing needs as we could. We have also met most of the administration's funding priorities. I compliment the administration for not looking to create a series of new programs, but instead focusing on--with some exceptions--maintaining existing program levels and reforming program implementation to ensure that the agency can deliver the needed assistance under existing program requirements. Again, I emphasize that we don't need a lot of new programs in this bill. We do need to ensure that existing programs are managed well and effectively and the people who are to be served receive the benefits that are intended in the bill. I will be relatively brief in my review of the bill because the VA and veterans' needs remain the highest priority, and funding decisions in the bill are designed to ensure the best quality of medical care for our veterans, to keep the best doctors in the VA system. To achieve this, we have funded VA medical care at $21.4 billion, an increase of some $400 million over the President's request, and over $1.1 billion over the 2001 level. I know some Members believe the funds are inadequate, but I emphasize we have increased this account every year and have worked hard to ensure there are adequate funds for the medical needs of our veterans. In fairness, we can spend only so many funds efficiently and effectively. I believe we have done the best we can. Moreover, Senator Mikulski and I are committed to meeting the medical needs of veterans, and we are working with VA to ensure successful implementation of the new CARES process that will result in better VA facilities, the better targeting of services and medical care throughout the country, assuring we do not waste money that is meant for veterans medical care on maintaining unneeded or excessive capacity buildings. The 2002 VA-HUD Senate appropriations bill provides $31 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is $443 million over the budget request and $2.5 billion over last year's level. This includes funding needed to renew all expiring section 8 contracts and also provides funds for 17,000 incremental vouchers. I personally remain deeply concerned that vouchers do not work well in many housing markets. We need to develop new production programs that assist extremely low-income families in particular. We have also included $650 million for the Public Housing Capital Fund over and above the President's budget request, and have added $300 million for the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, a program the administration sought to eliminate in its budget. These are both important programs, and the VA-HUD bill essentially preserves last year's funding levels. In particular, I emphasize my support for the public housing capital funding, which is critically needed to address some $20 billion in outstanding public housing capital needs. We must ensure those people who live in assisted housing have decent housing in which to live and to raise their families. As a civilized and developed nation, we owe the least of our citizens, in terms of economic wealth, at least that much. In addition, we maintain funding for both the CDGB and HOME programs at the 2001 level, while rejecting an administration set-aside of $200 million in home funds for a new downpayment program. The set-aside is unnecessary, in our view, since this activity is already eligible under the HOME program. I stress my support for both HOME and CDBG because they rely on decisionmaking guided by local choice and need. We are asking the people who are there on the ground, in the community, to determine how best to use funds for community development and to meet the housing needs of the population in their communities. I hope and trust these funds are used by States and localities as an investment in housing production to meet the increasing housing needs of low-income and extremely low-income families. In addition, the bill funds section 202 elderly housing at $783 million; section 811 housing for disabled at $217.7 million. These funding levels are the administration's requests and approximately the same as the 2001 level. The bill includes over $1 billion for homeless funding, with a separate account of almost $100 million for the renewal of the expiring shelter plus care contract. Again, these funding levels reflect the administration's request at last year's funding levels. As for the Environmental Protection Agency, the bill includes $7.75 billion, which is some $435 million over the 2002 budget request. It includes $25 million for State information systems as requested by the administration. We did reject the administration's request to transfer some $25 million for State EPA and enforcement efforts, keeping these funds at EPA. I support that premise. As one who was a Governor, I ran environmental protection programs in my State. I have a great regard and a great respect for the work done at the State level, but the proposed transfer of enforcement responsibilities from EPA to the States may be premature. It appears to us a number of States may need to upgrade their enforcement capacity before a transfer of EPA enforcement responsibilities to States is warranted. In addition, the bill maintains funding of the clean water State revolving fund at $1.35 billion instead of reducing this amount by $500 million for the funding of a new sewer overflow grants program. Funding of this new sewer overflow program is premature without additional funding. Both the clean water and drinking water State revolving funds are key to building and rebuilding our Nation's water infrastructure systems and should not be compromised with new programs without significant new funding. I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of continuing to maintain funding for these State revolving funds. For clean water infrastructure financing alone, there is a need for some $200 billion over the next 20 years, excluding replacement costs and operations and maintenance. For FEMA, the bill appropriates an additional $2 billion in disaster relief. The chairman and I intend to offer an amendment to make these funds available upon enactment. We feel strongly these additional funds should be available as soon as possible in the event we face disasters beyond the normal expectations during the remainder of this fiscal year. If we do not have that money, then this body is going to be put in a real bind to try to respond to a disaster which might occur in any of our States. I believe every Member should support this program because almost everyone represents a State which has benefited recently from the availability of these important disaster assistance funds in the face of some unexpected and unfortunate disaster in their States. We need to ensure FEMA has the necessary funds to meet all possible emergency contingencies during this fiscal year and the next fiscal year. The VA-HUD appropriations bill also funds NASA at $14.56 billion. This is an increase of $307.5 million over last year. It is $50 million above the budget request. This includes $6.87 billion for human space flight, while capping the funds available for the international space station at $1.78 billion. Senator Mikulski and I share huge concerns over the current status of the space station, as she has so forcefully and eloquently noted, especially when cost overruns currently exceed $4 billion this year alone. There also appears to be a total loss of management control by NASA with regard to the space station. In the current configuration, the space station must depend upon the Russian Soyuz for any emergency escape capacity from the station, and there continues to be inadequate habitation space that is needed for science research, the primary justification for the construction of this station. Right now, they can only hold three astronauts in the space station. The time of two and a half of them is required to operate the station. That means we go through all the work and trouble of sending up a space shuttle, sending up astronauts, and we get one-half of one FTE working on science. That is a disaster, and it is and should be an embarrassment for NASA. Not to be too bleak, however, NASA is making great strides in other areas of research, including space and Earth science. Remote sensing is becoming a viable and important technology and many of our space science missions are unlocking the mysteries of the universe. In addition, the bill continues our commitment to the space launch initiative, the SLI. This is a critical program that should provide for the development of alternative technologies for access to space. Nevertheless, I have heard some reports that NASA may be losing control of the SLI program. Again, NASA needs to keep a tight focus on technologies being proposed and the funding which is approved. In addition, the bill reaffirms our commitment to aeronautics, and NASA's leadership role is part of the Government-industry partnership to develop breakthrough technologies for the aviation community. Finally, I restate emphatically my support for the National Science Foundation, again in total agreement with my friend and chair of the subcommittee. Because of our budget allocation limitations, we were only able to provide $4.67 billion for the National Science Foundation for the coming year, a $256 million increase to the budget. This is still a $200 million increase over the President's budget, but it is not nearly as much as we want. I believe this funding level is the best we can do under the circumstances without jeopardizing the needs of our Nation's veterans, our commitment to EPA, and our investment in affordable housing for low-income families. Let me be clear. I am committed to working with Senator Mikulski and our House counterparts to find more funds for NSF in conference. I am committed to doubling the Foundation's budget over 5 years and will do everything I can to keep us on that important path. I call on my colleagues who believe the future of the United States depends upon our continuing to make great strides in the field of science and engineering to join with us to make solid the commitment of this body to doubling the funding. We have seen in the past great strides made in the National Institutes of Health. They are developing wonderful new cures, but they tell us that the work of NIH depends upon continuing work and development by the National Science Foundation. If you talk with people in the field of scientific endeavor, they will tell you that we are way out of balance because we have not done enough to keep up with basic science and making sure we continue to be the leader in the world in all forms of technology and science, not limited to space and health, but to biotechnology, nanotechnology, and the many other exciting issues on which the National Science Foundation is working. I am not always sure everyone understands our investment in science and technology greatly influences the future of our Nation's economy and our quality of life. How goes the funding goes the future. I thank Senator Mikulski's staff and my staff for the many long and hard hours they spent advising us and working on legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I second the very thoughtful comments of the Senator from Maryland. This is a very important and significant area. We have allocated as much as we can based on the needs as identified and the ability of the VA to spend money on medical care. This amendment would spend money we do not have. We have to operate within guidelines. We do have a budget and we have an allocation that has been accorded to this committee. I, therefore, raise a point of order that this amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act and provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a detailee to my staff, John Stoody, be granted the privilege of the floor during the time the VA-HUD measure is being considered.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I will yield that back. I only want to correct the Record. The administration has indicated they will promulgate, or intends to promulgate a new regulation based on science. There was no intention of staying at the 50 parts per billion, which had been the standard throughout the previous administration. They have said they needed to review the science and listen to the communities that would be affected, and also take into account, as the Senator from New Mexico has proposed, the extraordinary hardships that meeting this standard would impose upon many small communities, with the possibility that the shutdown of those small community water systems would impose a far greater danger on the inhabitants. Madam President, having corrected the Record and thanking all of our participants for helping shed some light on and remove some of the political misinterpretations that have been placed on this issue, I thank my colleagues and I urge a favorable vote on the amendment before us. I yield such time as may be remaining on this side.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding soldier who has distinguished himself in his service to our Nation. Colonel Jeffrey A. Waite will take off his uniform for the last time this month as he retires from the National Guard on July 31st, 2001, following 32 years of service. Colonel Waite is a fifth generation Missourian who makes our State proud. He began his career by enlisting in the Missouri Army National Guard in 1969 and continued to excel as he climbed through the ranks to Colonel. He imparted his love of the State and to the military to his son, who is now the sixth generation of Waite's to serve our Nation's military. He is a proud Missourian and American. Colonel Waite completed his initial training at Ft. Bragg, NC and Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD in the spring of 1970 and was commissioned through the Missouri Military Academy Officer Candidate School as a Second Lieutenant of Field Artillery in 1972. He holds a bachelor of science degree in business administration from Southwest Missouri State College and a master of science in business administration from Boston University. In addition, his military education includes the Ordinance Officer Basic and Advanced courses, U.S. Marine Corps Staff Course, U.S. Army Command and General Staff Course, the Air War College, and the Army War College. Throughout his career, Colonel Waite has held a variety of positions at nearly every level of the Army National Guard. He entered active duty with the National Guard ``Captains to Europe'' program where he served abroad in Giessen, Germany with the 19th Maintenance Battalion as an Armament Maintenance Officer and Battalion Logistics Officer. Colonel Waite is also to be recognized for his service as Assistant Professor of Military Science, Hofstra University, an important program for developing the soldiers of our future. Throughout his career, Colonel Waite's level of commitment and service has been recognized and rewarded through numerous decorations and awards. Colonel Waite has demonstrated the utmost patriotism and dedication and has consistently gone above and beyond the call of duty. Colonel Waite's retirement represents a loss to the both the National Guard Bureau and the Department of Defense. Throughout his career, Colonel Waite made innumerable long-term positive contributions to both the military and our Nation. On behalf of the citizens of Missouri and a grateful Nation, we wish Colonel Jeffrey A. Waite, his wife Lori, and four children all the best for a happy retirement.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, it is a pleasure to rise today to join with my colleagues and urge them to support the President's nomination of Hector V. Barreto, Jr., as Administrator of the Small Business Administration. We have just received word that there will be a voice vote rather than a recorded vote. For the friends and supporters of Mr. Barreto, that simply means that everybody has agreed upon it, and apparently we will not have to go through a rollcall vote. It does not mean in any way that we view this nomination as less important. It is just that as a result of the work done on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, his nomination should go through. He was approved unanimously by the committee under the leadership of my colleague, Chairman John Kerry. The nomination of Mr. Barreto comes at a critical time when the Small Business Administration's assistance and development programs will be tested very thoroughly as a result of the slowing economy. The SBA has a promising future and a very important mission that can best be realized with effective leadership to refocus the agency on the programs and missions established by Congress. I believe President Bush has shown his commitment to supporting that mission and the Nation's Main Street small business community by his nomination of Mr. Barreto. The need for a proven leader with a track record of business experience has never been greater at the SBA. It is time the SBA concentrate on sound management of its operations and existing programs rather than expanding its reach with new programs. I expect Hector Barreto's experience in the financial services industry, his standing in the small business and Latino communities will serve the President, the Nation, and small business very well. When we review Mr. Barreto's credentials, it is easy to see he has exceptionally fine roots. He was born and reared in Kansas City, MO. He went to high school in Kansas City. He received his degree from Rockhurst University, also in Kansas City. I have known his father, a prominent business leader in the Hispanic community, for many years. Even though he comes to us from California, I assure you, he really is a Missourian at heart. Hector Barreto, Sr., founded the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and in recent years Hector Barreto, Jr., has been serving on its board of directors. With his Missouri heritage and his strong business foundation, there really isn't much more that needs to be said about the President's nominee. Seriously, however, we should look closely at Mr. Barreto's small business background and his business experience. His early work immediately out of college was as area manager for the Miller Brewing Company. But his small business experience began in earnest when he moved to California and established the Barreto Insurance and Financial Services Company. His goal simply was to provide insurance and financial services to southern California's expanding Latino population. It takes a lot of nerve and confidence in one's abilities just 3 years after finishing college to move halfway across the United States to set up a small business. His business should be distinguished from the go-go dot-com undertakings of the 1990s, where investors could not wait to be separated from their money. Mr. Barreto's small business was and is more of a Main Street USA variety, and his goal simply was to provide insurance and financial services that were very much needed in the minority community in southern California. With each new Presidential administration, we hear how difficult it is to attract top-notch talent to serve in the often thankless and usually criticized jobs of serving in Government. We are fortunate to have someone of the caliber of Mr. Barreto who knows what it is to start a small business from scratch and work hard to make it grow. This is the American dream of millions of entrepreneurs. His exposure to the challenges he faced will serve him well as SBA Administrator. We should not lose sight of the fact that Mr. Barreto is making a sacrifice by leaving his small business to spend the next 3, maybe 4, maybe more, years at the SBA. In response to this call to Government service, Mr. Barreto won't be there to run his business. We need to remember that Hector Barreto is not a senior company official leaving a large business where there is always someone ready to step up from the ranks to take over. Most often in a small business, there is not someone waiting in the ranks, and the small business suffers or closes its doors when the owner leaves. Although he may not be closing his business for good, Mr. Barreto is taking a long leave of absence and the business is going into an extended status of hibernation. His is a significant sacrifice. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have had the opportunity to discuss with him his views on targeting the most critical problems at the SBA and prioritizing solutions that might be implemented. I sincerely appreciate the energy and dedication with which Mr. Barreto approaches these tasks. We have a ripe opportunity to retool the SBA and its programs to better capitalize on the remarkable potential small business offers to fuel the economy and generate economic growth. I am confident that Hector Barreto will do a solid job at the helm of the SBA. I look forward to working with him to address key concerns about agency programs and operations. I urge and thank my colleagues for their support of the President's nomination of Hector V. Barreto, Jr., to be Administrator of the Small Business Administration. Madam President, I now yield 5 minutes or as much time as he should require to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, a member of our committee, and ask that any remaining time be reserved.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield myself up to 5 minutes of the time on this side on the nomination of Mr. Hector Barreto.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, my sincere thanks to my colleague from Texas for giving us that fine overview of what is happening this week. I am very happy to report I had the pleasure last Friday of joining my colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, and several Members of the House, in a trip to Kansas City, MO, with the Vice President and the Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill. We went out to see a fascinating operation, not well-known, the Federal Financial Management Service branch of the Treasury in Clay County, North Kansas City. There the men and women who work for the Treasury Department's FMS are turning out 1.2 million checks a day. They print the checks, they put them in envelopes, they sort them by ZIP Code, and they are ready to go out the door. They do the whole process there. There are 1.2 million checks a day going out. I do not happen to have the lowest last two digits in my Social Security number, so mine will not be coming for several weeks, but it was thrilling to see a promise made and a promise kept. That is one of the things the Vice President talked about, and the President joined us by videotape to emphasize the fact that last year he said we needed a tax reduction, and he delivered. He delivered with help from a Republican Congress, and we also thank those on the other side of the aisle who joined with us to make it a bipartisan push to get the bill passed ultimately, and three Members from the other side of the aisle who stayed with us on the very difficult votes to make sure we did not lose any more from the amount promised by the President. The President signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 on June 7, and we are seeing literally the checks in the mail. It is a change from the old laugh lines from the Federal Government: I am here to help you, and the check is in the mail. This time we are from the Federal Government, the checks are in the mail, but we are returning your money. This is not somebody else's money you are getting. This act provides the largest tax cut to the American people since 1981, and not a moment too soon given the economic slump we are currently enduring. There has been a lot of talk about how maybe, with the economy slowing down, we cannot afford a tax cut. Let me tell my colleagues and anyone else who is interested that whether you are a supply-sider or a Keynesian, there is no better time for tax relief to get the economy moving by leaving money in the hands of those who earned it and allowing them to spend it and invest it. My colleague from Texas told us about the many different uses these tax rebates can be put to, but putting that money back in the hands of the hard-working Americans who earned it is the very best thing we can do to get the economy growing again. We saw what happened when the Republican Congress pushed through a capital gains reduction about 4 or 5 years ago. No. 1, despite the gloomy predictions of many old-line liberal economists, receipts to the Federal Government did not go down. In fact, they went up because more people unlocked the investments they had locked away with large capital gains built up and they sold those assets, generating revenue for the Federal Government. More important, they invested in the economy, in the information technology that kept the economy growing through much of the remainder of the 1990s. Alan Greenspan, who is no wild-side, born-again, anti-government conservative, had been preaching to us on the Budget Committee, the Banking Committee, and anybody who would listen to him that we needed to start reducing the debt. With the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, we did force through a balanced budget. We did bring spending under control. We are starting to bring the debt down. We have provided the incentive for the economy to grow with a capital gains tax reduction, and we generated more revenue with that tax reduction. Late last fall, when Alan Greenspan came before us, he said: The time has come to start giving money back to those who earned it. Tax rates are too high. We need to continue to move to reduce the debt, but we have threatened to build up such a surplus, because of the excessive taxation imposed on this economy in 1993, that we are going to be in a position where we will put a stranglehold on the economy and potentially have the Federal Government buying up private assets, i.e., nationalism or socialism, if we do not start leaving more money in the pockets of hard-working Americans. So we began the process promised by President Bush of reducing taxes. It turns out that not the recession officially but the downturn that was forecast by the stock market in March of last year, and which really began to take effect this quarter a year ago, which really accelerated during the winter, was getting worse, and the tax relief that President Bush promised was not only a matter of fairness for American taxpayers but it was a vitally needed boost for the economy. When there is an economic downturn, the worst thing that can be done is to raise taxes. Herbert Hoover had a depression named after him because when he saw the economy turn down, he said: We have to maintain the surplus. So he jacked up taxes and tariffs, and he led the United States to take the world down into a worldwide depression. I hope we have learned. I hope we have learned we can tell those naysayers who say, oh, my gosh, we have an economic downturn so we have to raise taxes, that is the dumbest thing we can do. There is very rarely a time when we will see fiscal policy being an accurate, effective countercyclical measure. This is the time to put money back in the pockets of hard-working Americans who have earned it. I am very proud to have been one to support that tax cut all the way. The rebate checks are going out, the child tax credit will increase, the marriage penalty will be reduced, educational savings improvements will be made. For Missouri small businesses, the devastating impact of the death tax will be reduced, and there will be incentives for helping people fund their retirement. There is more to be done. I look forward to working with my colleagues to assure that permanent tax relief, that this measure is made permanent, and that we have a more fair, simpler, and flatter Tax Code. We are working to fulfill the promise that President Bush made. I am proud to have been part of it. I look forward to continuing to work on that team. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I thank the managers of this bill, the Chair, Senator Murray, and Senator Shelby for an outstanding bill. It is my pleasure to serve on the committee with them and to support this bill. Senator Murray has been willing to accommodate many of the very important priorities submitted by the Bush administration, including $325 million for the U.S. Coast Guard Deep Water Systems Program, full funding of the President's request for Coast Guard retired pay and Reserve training, and certainly, as far as my State of Missouri, which is a very transportation- dependent State, we are very grateful for the recognition in our State of the needs in transportation, whether it be transit, buses in the metropolitan areas, transportation for the elderly and the disabled in rural areas, light rail, or a critical road project in southwest Missouri on U.S. Highway 71. These are all things that are extremely important, and we are, indeed, grateful for the careful attention the Chair and the ranking member have provided to the needs of all of us in this body. I have, however, raised a question at the subcommittee and full committee level at the request of the Secretary of Transportation. I raise this issue of the Mexican truck treatment. As we all know, in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect following congressional approval the previous year. I was here in 1993 and voted for this critically important trade agreement. Though I recognize not all of my colleagues were here, and some who were here did not support the agreement, the simple fact remains that NAFTA did pass. It is now the law of the land. The result is we, as Members of this body, have the responsibility to uphold the law and assure we take no deliberate action to violate it. Unfortunately, we have received a Statement of Administration Policy, dated July 19, which, No. 1, commends the work that Senator Murray and Senator Shelby, the Chair and ranking member, have done to address these many critical issues. They say the administration is pleased the Senate committee has provided necessary funding and staff to address critical motor safety issues. It repeats that the administration is committed to strengthening the safety enforcement regime to ensure all commercial vehicles operating on U.S. roads and highways meet the same rigorous safety standards. However, the Statement of Administration Policy goes on to say, the advice from the administration is that the Senate committee has adopted provisions that could cause the United States to violate commitments under NAFTA. Unless changes are made to the Senate bill, the President's senior advisers will recommend the President veto the bill. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. This is too good a bill to be lost. We want to work together to make sure we do not lose the benefits of this bill or violate our agreements under NAFTA. We know for a fact that the NAFTA international tribunal has already issued a decree we violated obligations and are subject to sanctions ranging from $1 billion to $2 billion per year for continued violations. These sanctions could certainly lead to multiple problems, particularly in manufacturing, which has already seen three- quarters of a million jobs lost since 2000. The real fear in terms of trade is that if the sanctions continue with alternative suppliers being found from the European Union or elsewhere, the job losses could become permanent. To set the context for the Senate bill, our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol took a very stringent view that would prohibit the use of any funds in the appropriations bill pending to process applications by Mexico domiciled motor carriers for conditional or permanent authority to operate beyond the commercial zone adjacent to the border. In other words, the House-passed language, as amended on the floor, effectively closes our borders to trade with Mexico while providing no money to address any of the concerns noted by those supporting the amendment. That is to assure safety for all trucks on the highway. This action not only constitutes a direct violation of NAFTA, but it does not do anything to address the safety issues associated with the status quo on the United States-Mexico border. A few moments ago we heard questions raised about the weight of trucks in Mexico, their brake systems, and other things. Let me go back to point out that under NAFTA and under the administration's policy, the inspection regulations would require that the trucks coming in from Mexico meet our standards. Whether it is weight, whether it is brakes, all of the safety standards that we impose on our trucks, that we impose on Canadian trucks, would be imposed on Mexican trucks. As I mentioned earlier, the provision in this bill, headed by the Chair, Senator Murray, and Senator Shelby, made very significant improvements in the legislation and added the money necessary to protect others who travel on the highways. That has to be our first responsibility. Everybody wants to make sure our highways and roads are as safe as possible. We are going to do that. What we need to do is figure out how to do that. I raise a concern that some of the provisions in this bill could effectively close our border to Mexican trucks. I am very pleased to say we are expecting very shortly to be able to meet with the administration to find out precisely the kind of language changes that are needed. I trust and I believe the leaders of this committee, the Chair and the ranking member, will be able to work to find solutions to the language problems and the practical problems that cause the administration to believe this is a NAFTA violation. We do need to maintain our standing in the international community and make a good- faith effort to live up to our trading obligations. Certainly the obligation to open our borders to other countries that want to bring goods into our country in exchange for opening their borders to allow us to take goods into their countries is very important. Whether or not my colleagues supported NAFTA at its inception, there should be no question that we should not do something in this body or in conjunction with the other body that would cause us to be in the position of breaking our agreements. That, I am afraid, is the major problem. We cannot and must not violate our agreements. The practical impact of the provisions, unless we can work out a change before it is sent to the President, would be a veto of the whole bill. Senator Murray and Senator Shelby have worked too long and hard to get this bill together to lose it. Our agricultural exports, our manufacturing exports, the jobs for our farmers, the jobs for our workers, require we do this job properly. If you have, as I have, listened to the congressional debate on letting Mexican trucks travel U.S. roads, you might think the United States is an unequipped, underdeveloped country. I pointed out that NAFTA permits us to require the same safety standards for trucks on highways. We have had more than 7 years to prepare for the inspection of trucks to ensure they meet U.S. safety standards as required by the North American Free Trade Agreement and as repeatedly requested by Mexico. Yet it appears the Teamsters Union and others with straight faces tell us that the world's wealthiest and most advanced nation does not have the resources to perform this relatively modest chore. That is the heart of their argument--U.S. inadequacy--and we should be ashamed of it, just as we should be ashamed of other arguments being made: we cannot inspect trucks coming across the border, not 7 million trucks; at maximum 180,000, or 300,000 trucks might be the most. We have the right and the obligation to inspect these trucks. We should be ashamed of saying that we cannot inspect them. We have a lot of evidence already of trucks traveling on our highways. A Mexican trucking fleet has long been allowed to traverse this country en route to Canada with no notable safety hazard resulting. Only if the Mexican trucks want to stop to deliver goods throughout the United States do we want to bar them. Maybe it is a question of whose jobs are being impeded. Mexican trucking firms can already travel throughout the United States so long as the firms are U.S. owned and no serious issues have been raised about that. Only if the Mexicans own the companies do we prohibit their trucks. Something to do with competition maybe. That raises questions. Older Mexican drayage trucks, those long allowed to make short hauls in the 20-mile ``commercial zones'' on either side of the border, are as safe as similar U.S. trucks. As the American Trucking Association has noted, the Mexican vehicles are taken out of service for safety reasons at rates that are virtually identical to those at drayage operations at ports and intermodal facilities all across the United States. If we need more proof, we only need to look to California, the only State that inspects every Mexican vehicle crossing its border. The out- of-service rate for Mexican trucks there is virtually the same as that for U.S. trucks. The president of the Teamsters, Mr. James Hoffa, calls California's program, which we propose for the rest of the border, ``a model of what a proper inspection program can achieve.'' What it has achieved is to show that we can, indeed, inspect Mexican trucks. California does it in two modern facilities, built mostly with Federal funds, with inspectors chiefly paid with Federal dollars, and those vehicles are as safe as U.S. trucks. How, then, can critics make the claims about dangerous Mexican trucks? First, they mix apples and oranges, comparing older drayage trucks, which have a higher out-of-service rate in both our nations, with all U.S. trucks. Thus, when critics say the out-of-service rate for trucks at the border is 36 percent, or half-again higher than the 24 percent for all U.S. trucks, they are engaging in a little statistical sleight of hand. This, I find, is misleading. In addition, there is a contention that under the administration's plan it would take 18 months to take any unsafe Mexican trucks off the road. But that is how long it would take to go into Mexico and audit Mexican firms' paperwork, maintenance records, drivers' logs and the like, not to inspect their trucks. What we are seeking funds for in this bill, and what the administration has sought, is money for roadside truck inspections. Similarly, as I said, many House Members signed a Teamster-generated letter that under NAFTA, 7 million Mexican trucks would be riding American highways, while only 180 Mexican firms have applied, and there are only about a total of 300,000 commercial trucks in all of Mexico. The chief danger in this debate is not Mexican trucks but U.S. protectionism, which is already costing businesses and consumers dearly. About 75 percent of United States-Mexico trade, or about $195 billion of goods moves by truck with cargoes transferred from long-haul trucks to drayage trucks at the border and back to long-haul trucks for nationwide delivery. It is a senseless and expensive system that must be ended--not for the least reason that it keeps the older, more dangerous drayage trucks targeted by critics on the road. As one who comes from an agricultural State, and 75 percent of our exports go into Mexico by truck, we depend upon trucking because 12.5 percent of the American agricultural exports go to Mexico. That gives us a trade surplus in agriculture of over $1 billion. If we put these barriers up to Mexican trucks as Secretary Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation has noted, Mexico could impose compensatory tariffs of $1 billion on U.S. goods. Many U.S. workers and companies would feel the pain if Mexico were to exercise this right. Perhaps more costly, however, would be the damage to our U.S. drive to get other nations to keep their borders open and to keep their trade commitments. As the world's largest exporter, we have the most at stake in this issue. Our case will be impossible if we violate our own word. I think it is past time. I hope we can very shortly work out something that the President has suggested, the Teamsters endorse, many on this floor have endorsed, and that is adopting the California model for all border States to provide the funds for facilities and inspectors, to make sure our highways are safe. That is No. 1. Every American has a right to demand that we ensure the safety standards for all the trucks on our highways. I encourage all my colleagues to work with the Chair and the ranking member to ensure safety on America's highways while opening our borders to foreign trade, to assure compliance with our treaties, and to avoid a veto. People in my State want to trade with Mexico just as the people in the rest of the country want to trade with Mexico. We can achieve safe highways while maintaining open borders and avoiding trade sanctions by applying universal inspections and standards across the board. We can get the job done. I look forward to working with the Chair of the Committee, Senator Murray, and Ranking Member Shelby in the coming hours and days in an effort to see that we can attain these very reasonable goals for all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

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

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my cosponsors and others for supporting this amendment, which will get us to a final resolution of this very important question. In response to some of the comments that have been made, the record shows in 1952, in the authorization, the projection of tonnage was we could have up to 4 million tons on the river by 2010. The latest figures I have are we currently move agricultural products on the Missouri River equivalent to 45,000 transport trucks, fully loaded, at 80,000 pounds each. That is about 9 million tons of agricultural products moved in a more environmentally friendly and more efficient and more economical way. With respect to the work we do to enhance conservation, wildlife habitat, I note Missouri spends about $141 million on fish and wildlife. I outlined in my remarks all the steps we have taken. I hope the managers of the bill will find it in their hearts to be able to fund the Mississippi and Missouri River Habitat Program that we authorized several years ago that enables us to continue to make improvements in the river that do not affect the multiple uses of the river but make it much more friendly and supportive of the pallid sturgeon, the least tern, the piping plover, and other endangered species. My position is simply that the Government should be preventing floods, not forcing floods on people. We have an opportunity to ensure good transportation for farmers. We expect, under this new rule, we can have the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps of Engineers listening to the people who are affected and develop a plan that does not force a spring rise down our throats, that does not force flooding on the Missouri River, that does not take away our potential for hydropower, that does not cut off river transportation that is vitally important for our farmers. I thank all who have worked with us on this amendment. I urge a strong vote because I believe this finally puts us on a path, not where we are saying you cannot resolve the issue this year, but this outlines a procedure that I believe can allow sound science to give us the right answer that achieves all of the purposes legislated for the Missouri River, including the preservation and recovery of endangered species. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is part of a continuing effort to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from advancing what we believe is a very ill-conceived directive to increase springtime releases of water from Missouri River upstream dams in an experiment to see if a controlled flood may improve the breeding habit of the pallid sturgeon. House language was added to prevent implementation of the ``controlled flood'' during consideration in the House Committee on Appropriations. The majority leader has entered an amendment, which we appreciate, in this bill which says no decision on final disposition of the Missouri River manual should be made this year. I thank him for that. That is one step in the right direction. This, however, goes beyond and makes clear there is a broader policy involved. Rather than let the Fish and Wildlife Service dictate national priorities to the Congress, the administration, the States, and the people, I believe the elected officials in Congress need to weigh in to protect human safety, property, and jobs. In sum, we ought to be able to do several things at once. The authorizing legislation for the dams and other structures on the Missouri River says that they should be to prevent floods, to enhance transportation, provide hydropower, and to facilitate recreation. Subsequent to those enacting statutes, the Endangered Species Act was adopted with the hope that we would stop the disappearance of endangered species and help recover them. My purpose here today, along with my bipartisan colleagues, is to assure that the multiple uses of the Missouri River may be pursued. As so many of my colleagues, I was a great fan of the work by Stephen Ambrose, ``Undaunted Courage.'' I had a great-great-grandfather who was one of the laborers who pulled the boats up the Missouri River. I find it fascinating. It was truly a remarkable chapter in our Nation's history. That chapter has come and gone and people have moved in and live and farm by the river. They are dependent upon the river for water supply, water disposal, hydropower, transportation, and, yes, in the upstream States, for recreation. While we have had continuing discussions throughout my career serving the State of Missouri over the proper uses of the river water between upstream and downstream States, I continue to assure my colleagues in the upstream States that if there are things we can do to help improve the recreational aspects of the impoundments on the river above the dams, I would be more than happy to do so. This amendment--very short, very simple--says, simply put, that the Secretary, meaning the Secretary of the Army, who is the ultimate responsible official, may consider and propose alternatives for achieving species recovery other than the alternatives specifically prescribed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the biological opinion of the Service. In other words, they have already proposed one thing, controlled spring floods. The Secretary may also propose other alternatives. This doesn't say that he has to; it says that he can do it. He may do it. It mandates that the Secretary shall consider the views of other Federal agencies, non-Federal agencies, and individuals to ensure that other congressionally authorized purposes are maintained. This amendment simply says, we enacted a number of different objectives for the Missouri River. Mr. Secretary, when you select an option, you have to take into consideration all of these specific congressionally authorized objectives. I believe--and it makes a great deal of sense--that the Federal Government should prevent floods, not cause them. It should be providing more safe and efficient transportation options, not monopolies for railroads. It should not be curtailing energy production from an environmentally clean source of energy, water power, during peak summer periods of demand during an energy crisis. People in our State of Missouri cannot believe that we need to have this debate. They cannot believe that the Endangered Species Act does not have enough flexibility in it to permit human safety and economic security to be considered. They cannot believe that their needs are necessarily subordinate to what the Fish and Wildlife Service said is the only way the pallid sturgeon can be saved. Unfortunately, what the Fish and Wildlife Service says goes. And then to add insult to injury, after imposing their plan on the Corps of Engineers, the Corps of Engineers has to put the States and the citizens through the hoax--I say hoax advisedly--of a public comment period that is irrelevant to the Fish and Wildlife Service that has, in the past, demonstrated it will use its dictatorial power under the Endangered Species Act not just to put people out of business and increase damage to private property but to threaten human safety of urban and rural communities where there will be greater risk of flood and flood damage. This amendment on behalf of my colleagues gives the Corps of Engineers the opportunity to propose alternative species recovery measures that help fish and don't hurt people. It requires the continuation of public input and directs that the Corps preserve the other authorized purposes for the Missouri River. The current Fish and Wildlife Service proposal, which they offered as a dictate to the Corps of Engineers last July, saying you have 7 days to implement this plan that will flood Missouri and downstream States in the spring, is not some new proposal that just needs a little public sunlight to be fashioned into something that is sensible. It represents the ``my way or the highway'' approach to regulatory enforcement and the reincarnation of what has previously been rejected by the people and the States involved. A spring rise and low flow period was proposed by Fish and Wildlife through the Corps of Engineers in 1994. It was subjected to 6 months of public comment, and it was ridiculed at public forums from Omaha to Kansas City to St. Louis to Memphis to Quincy to New Orleans to Onawa, IA, and elsewhere. This is what the people of the heartland of America said about the spring rise. I have a bad hand, and I can only lift a third of the transcripts at a time, but these are the comments that the Corps of Engineers received in 1994. Guess what. They didn't think much of the plan then for spring rise. President Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture and his Secretary of Transportation criticized the plan in writing. The plan was then shelved by the Clinton administration because of public opinion. They had their public comment. People did weigh in, and they said this is a disaster. The Clinton administration withdrew it. However, that plan was subsequently resurrected by the Fish and Wildlife Service, using the force of the so-called consultation process sufficient to impose its will on the people in the States. In other words, the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to convince the public and the States of the wisdom of their plan, as represented by these comments, so they decided to force their plan by putting a gun to the head of the Corps. If the Fish and Wildlife Service cared about the views of the States and the public opinion of those who live in and around the basin and depend upon the Missouri River, we would not be here today. There is very little hope that they would care about next year's comments than they care about the comments people took pains to make in 1994 because they simply don't have to. The Fish and Wildlife Service gets to do what it wants because while they are required to allow public comment, they are not required to listen. And I guarantee you, when it comes to this plan, they have not listened. This process, as previously orchestrated, is more rigged than a WWF championship match. But for my citizens, the price of admission is the cost of losing a planning season, a levee, an export opportunity, a flood, and maybe even the loss of a life. Some may tell you that the Government can control this proposed flood. I know they wish that were the case. But wishes are not going to provide accurate weather forecasts in the temperamental heartland spring. Unless someone in the Corps can forecast weather accurately 5 to 10 days to 2 weeks in advance, there will be accidents, people will be hurt, and it will be because the U.S. Government decided to risk their safety for an experiment. When the Government releases pulses of water from the dams, that water can't be brought back; it is not retrievable. It takes 5 days to get to Kansas City, 10 days to get to St. Louis, and further down the river, even longer. On average, the river never floods. In the real world, though, it isn't the averages that hurt us but the extremes. I understand that a lot of people have drowned in lakes that average only 3 feet deep. With downstream tributary flow, we already have a natural ``spring rise'' every time it rains, and when that happens, a ``pulse'' released days before is a tragic gift courtesy of the Federal Government. Just 6 weeks ago, following a series of low pressure systems in the basin, in less than 5 days gauging stations in Missouri went from below normal stage to flood stage. Right in the heart of our State, in Herman, MO, the streamflow increased from 85,000 cubic feet per second to 250,000 cubic feet per second in 5 days. That is almost a threefold increase in the amount of water coming down that river. Now, neither the people of Herman nor the Corps of Engineers expected this dramatic tripling of the flows, but it shows the danger of intentionally increasing those flows during the spring season, and it shows what people in our State already know: We already have a spring rise. It is natural and it is dangerous. If the pallid sturgeon really liked spring rises, they would be coming out our ears. After the floods, we should have had little pallid sturgeons all over the place. The second part of the Fish and Wildlife plan is an artificially low summer flow, which inverts the historical natural hydrograph. For those who may be a little concerned about the terms, that means the river ``ain't'' flowing like it used to flow before dams. The natural hydrograph is to have more water in the summer during the snowmelts in the upper basin. This natural pattern would be turned on its head if you had the releases in the spring and then low flows during the summer. It starves the hydropower generators of capacity during peak periods of energy demand, driving up the rates for customers, driving up the rates for Native American tribes and other citizens in rural areas. According to data from the Western Area Power Administration, ``Risk analysis including river thermal powerplants: Both capacity and energy losses increase exponentially as the summer flow decreases in July.'' That means that when you cut the waterflow during the summer in peak cooling seasons, you get much greater than a straight line loss in capacity and energy production. The line doesn't go down like this; it goes up like that. That is what happens to power production when you reduce summer flows. The plan does call for continued production of energy, just not when people need it. The middle part of the summer is when air-conditioning rates are the highest and when there is the greatest drain on electricity. Unless we no longer care about clean energy options, then we should not be taking deliberate steps to increase the cost of power. Additionally, let me point out for our southern neighbors that low summer flows provide inadequate water to continue water commerce on the Missouri River and during very low water periods on the Mississippi River. During the drought years, up to 65 percent of the flow in the Mississippi River below St. Louis comes from the Missouri River. Water commerce is important for another reason. One medium-sized 15- barge tow can carry the same amount of grain--usually going to the export markets--as 870 trucks. This one medium-sized tow is much better for safety, clean air, fuel efficiency, highway congestion, and the competitiveness of our shippers in the international marketplace than putting 870 trucks on the highway through congested metropolitan areas. Water commerce for our farmers, shippers, and exporters is a necessary insurance policy against high rates that occur when the absence of competition leaves shippers to the mercy of transportation monopolies. A key assumption of some is that freight carriers don't raise rates when they face no competition. That is a nice wish, but it is not a realistic assumption. Other forms of transportation do raise rates when competition is not present. According to the Tennessee Valley Authority, which did a study, higher shipping costs would add up to as much as $200 million annually to farmers and other shippers in Missouri, South Dakota, and all the States in between, not including the Lower Mississippi River States. A shipper from the Omaha, NE, region told my office that he secures railroad rates of less than $25 per ton when they go up to Sioux City, where the river provides competition, but when he ships up to Sioux Falls, where the river doesn't go, where river transportation is not available, then rates double. I am pleased and proud to say there are many ongoing programs and practices to improve Missouri River habitat. I have listened to the discussions that relate to this matter over the years, and there is some presumption that only the Federal Government should do something about it. That is false. There is that overtone, since Missouri strongly opposes the Federal Fish and Wildlife plan--on a bipartisan basis, I might add--we aren't as dedicated to fish and wildlife as some of our friends in the Dakotas, or Montana maybe. Well, Mr. President, no State in the basin dedicates as much money as Missouri does to fish and wildlife conservation measures. Most States just take payments from the Pittman-Robertson and the Wallop-Breaux and licensing revenue. Some States have appropriations from their general fund. The citizens of Missouri have imposed upon themselves by referendum a State sales tax for conservation. That has enabled Missouri to spend as much as California on fish and wildlife. This year that total will be $140 million. Our State conservation tax has enabled Missouri to spend twice as much as Florida, 11 times more than Massachusetts, 11 times more than Vermont, 9 times more than Nevada, and 3 times more than Illinois. According to the latest data from the Wildlife Conservation Fund of America, Missouri spends roughly 50 percent more on fish and wildlife than the Dakotas and Montana combined. Missouri spends 5 times more than South Dakota on fish and wildlife, and 10 times more than North Dakota. Almost all States raise money from hunting and fishing licenses and all States get Federal money. If you go beyond those sources, the difference between what Missouri citizens have set aside for fish and wildlife compared to our upstream neighbors, the numbers are staggering. In the latest years, the figures available to me, Missouri dedicated 60 times more from State taxes in the general fund than South Dakota, for example. I will not say anything beyond this except that Missouri citizens are doing their part, and certainly we encourage other States to follow the constructive example that Missouri has set. What have we done? What have we done for wildlife habitat? What have we done to conserve species, to preserve and help restore endangered species? Our Department of Conservation has acquired 72 properties in the Missouri River flood plain totaling almost 45,000 acres. Senator Harkin of Iowa and I and others have requested funding for a number of ongoing habitat projects, and while two are funded in this bill, one was not funded. We have authorized and we have begun funding for a 60,000-acre flood plain refuge between St. Louis and Kansas City. We authorize an addition of 100,000 acres of land acquisition in the lower basin to restore habitat, with almost 13,700 acres already acquired. I have been pleased to work with American Rivers and Missouri farm groups to authorize habitat restoration on the river, to create sandbars, islands, and side channels. These are the natural structures that support and facilitate species such as the pallid sturgeon. I regret to say this administration, as the last administration, requested no funds to start the project, and the subcommittee this year did no new starts, so a consensus approach is lying in state. We have financed over 21,740 acres of wetland easements from the Wetlands Reserve Program in Missouri. Missouri is very active with the Conservation Reserve Program, and farmers are signing up for filter strips along waterways to reduce runoff. We are working in Missouri on an agroforestry flood plain initiative and have demonstrated tree systems that take out nearly three-quarters of the phosphorous and nitrogen so it does not reach the waterways while providing excellent bird habitat. According to our Department of Natural Resources, river engineering efforts on the Mississippi River have paid big dividends for endangered species. For example, at river mile 84 on the Upper Mississippi River, the Corps has created hard points in the river to separate a sandbar from the bank to create a nesting island for the federally endangered least tern. In addition, larval sturgeon have been collected in the resultant side channel. Four islands around mile 100 on the Upper Mississippi were created by modifying existing navigational structures without interfering with water transport. Islands have flourished even through the flood of 1993. At river mile 40 on the Upper Mississippi, the Corps has established critical off-channel connectivity essential as overwintering and rearing habitat for many Mississippi River fishes. We know there are better approaches that do not hurt people, and that is where the focus has been in Missouri, and that is where the focus should be in Washington. The sooner we table the plan that is risky, untested, and dangerous, the sooner we can get to the plans that are tested and broadly supported. Our bipartisan amendment is supported by members across the country: the National Waterways Alliance, National Corn Growers Association, American Soybean Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Agricultural Retailers Association, National Grain and Feed Association, and others. The Fish and Wildlife Service plan has been opposed strongly by the Southern Governors Association which issued another resolution opposing it early this year. The Fish and Wildlife plan is opposed strongly by our current Governor, Governor Holden, and his Department of Natural Resources which is just as knowledgeable and just as committed to the protection of the river they live on as the Federal field representatives who live in other regions and States. I say to all the Senators on the Mississippi River that objections were raised to the Fish and Wildlife Service plan in a recent letter to the President signed by nine Mississippi River Governors. These Governors include Governor Patton from Kentucky, Governor Sundquist from Tennessee, Governor Foster from Louisiana, Governor Musgrove from Mississippi, Governor Ryan from Illinois, Governor Huckabee from Arkansas, Governor McCallum from Wisconsin, and Governor Holden from Missouri. This plan is opposed on a bipartisan basis by elected officials, by our late Governor Carnahan, by mayors, farmers, and the people all along the Missouri River. Our amendment seeks to add some balance in the decisionmaking process and attempts to permit the administration to do what is right to find ways to address species recovery that do not harm people, that do not harm property, that do not interfere with the other legitimate multiple uses of the Missouri River. I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this bipartisan amendment. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, now that our distinguished majority leader is here, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Carnahan, Grassley, and Harkin, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act of 2001. This bill is important for one simple reason: once enacted it paves the way for more investment capital to be available for more small businesses that are seeking to grow and hire new employees. In 1958, Congress created the SBIC program to assist small business owners in obtaining investment capital. Forty years later, small businesses continue to experience difficulty in obtaining investment capital from banks and traditional investment sources. Although investment capital is readily available to large businesses from traditional Wall Street investment firms, small businesses seeking investments in the range of $500,000--$3 million have to look elsewhere. SBICs are frequently the only sources of investment capital for growing small businesses. Often we are reminded that the SBIC program has helped some of our Nations best known companies. It has provided a financial boost at critical points in the early growth period for many companies that are familiar to all of us. For example, Federal Express received a needed infusion of capital from two SBA-licensed SBICs at a critical juncture in its development stage. The SBIC program also helped other well-known companies, when they were not so well-known, such as Intel, Outback Steakhouse, America Online, and Callaway Golf. What is not well known is the extraordinary help the SBIC program provides to Main Street America small businesses. These are companies we know from home towns all over the United States. Main Street companies provide both stability and growth in our local business communities. A good example of a Main Street company is Steelweld Equipment Company, founded in 1932, which designs and manufactures utility truck bodies in St. Clair, Missouri. The truck bodies are mounted on chassis made by Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. Steelweld provides truck bodies for Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Texas Utilities, Paragon Cable, GTE, and GE Capital Fleet. Steelweld is a privately held, woman-owned corporation. The owner, Elaine Hunter, went to work for Steelweld in 1966 as a billing clerk right out of high school. She rose through the ranks of the company and was selected to serve on the board of directors. In December 1995, following the death of Steelweld's founder and owner, Ms. Hunter received financing from a Missouri-based SBIC, Capital for Business, CFB, Venture Fund II, to help her complete the acquisition of Steelweld. CFB provided $500,000 in subordinated debt. Senior bank debt and seller debt were also used in the acquisition. Since Ms. Hunter acquired Steelweld, its manufacturing process was redesigned to make the company run more efficiently. By 1997, Steelweld's profitability had doubled, with annual sales of $10 million and 115 employees. SBIC program success stories like Ms. Hunter's experience at Steelweld occur regularly throughout the United States. In 1991, the SBIC program was experiencing major losses, and the future of the program was in doubt. Consequently, in 1992 and 1996, the Committee on Small Business worked closely with the Small Business Administration to correct deficiencies in the law in order to ensure the future of the program. Today, the SBIC Program is expanding rapidly in an effort to meet the growing demands of small business owners for debt and equity investment capital. And it is important to focus on the significant role that is played by the SBIC program in support of growing small businesses. When Fortune Small Business compiled its list 100 fastest growing small companies in 2000, 6 of the top 12 businesses on the list received SBIC financing during their critical growth years. The ``Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act of 2001'' would permit the annual interest fee paid by Participating Securities SBICs to increase from 1.0 percent to no more than 1.28 percent. In addition, the bill would make three technical changes to the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, '58 Act, that are intended to make improvements in the day-to-day operation of the SBIC program. Projected demand for the Participating Securities SBIC program for FY 2002 is $3.5 billion, a significant increase over the FY 2001 program level of $2.5 billion. It is imperative that Congress approve this relatively small increase in the annual interest charge paid by the Participating Securities SBICs before the end of the fiscal year. This fee increase, when combined with an appropriation of $26.2 million for FY 2002, the same amount Congress approved for FY 2001, will support a program level of $3.5 million. The ``Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act of 2001'' would also make some relatively technical changes the '58 Act that are drafted to improve the operations of the SBIC program. Section 3 would remove the requirement that the SBA take out local advertisements when it seeks to determine if a conflict of interest exists involving an SBIC. This section has been recommended by the SBA, that has informed me that is has never received a response to a local advertisement and believes the requirement is unnecessary. The bill would amend Title 12 and Title 18 of the United States Code to insure that false statements made to the SBA under the SBIC program would have the same penalty as making false statements to an SBIC. This section would make it clear that a false statement to SBA or to an SBIC for the purpose of influencing their respective actions taken under the '58 Act would be a criminal violation. The courts could then assess civil and criminal penalties for such violations. Section 5 of the bill would amend Section 313 of the '58 Act to permit the SBA to remove or suspend key management officials of an SBIC when they have willfully and knowingly committed a substantial violation of the '58 Act, any regulation issued by the SBA under the Act, a cease-and desist order that has become final, or committed or engaged in any act, omission or practice that constitutes a substantial breach of a fiduciary duty of that person as a management official. The amendment expands the definition of persons covered by Section 313 to be ``management officials,'' which includes officers, directors, general partners, managers, employees, agents of other participants in the management or conduct of the SBIC. At the time Section 313 of the '58 Act was enacted in November 1966, an SBIC was organized as a corporation. Since that time, SBIC has been organized as partnerships and Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), and this amendment would take into account those organizations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that section-by-section summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act of 2001. This bill is important for one simple reason: once enacted it paves the way for more investment capital to be available for more small businesses that are seeking to grow and hire new employees. In 1958, Congress created the SBIC program to assist small business owners in obtaining investment capital. Forty years later, small businesses continue to experience difficulty in obtaining investment capital from banks and traditional investment sources. Although investment capital is readily available to large businesses from traditional Wall Street investment firms, small businesses seeking investments in the range of $500,000--$3 million have to look elsewhere. SBICs are frequently the only sources of investment capital for growing small businesses. Often we are reminded that the SBIC program has helped some of our Nations best known companies. It has provided a financial boost at critical points in the early growth period for many companies that are familiar to all of us. For example, Federal Express received a needed infusion of capital from two SBA-licensed SBICs at a critical juncture in its development stage. The SBIC program also helped other well-known companies, when they were not so well-known, such as Intel, Outback Steakhouse, America Online, and Callaway Golf. What is not well known is the extraordinary help the SBIC program provides to Main Street America small businesses. These are companies we know from home towns all over the United States. Main Street companies provide both stability and growth in our local business communities. A good example of a Main Street company is Steelweld Equipment Company, founded in 1932, which designs and manufactures utility truck bodies in St. Clair, Missouri. The truck bodies are mounted on chassis made by Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. Steelweld provides truck bodies for Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Texas Utilities, Paragon Cable, GTE, and GE Capital Fleet. Steelweld is a privately held, woman-owned corporation. The owner, Elaine Hunter, went to work for Steelweld in 1966 as a billing clerk right out of high school. She rose through the ranks of the company and was selected to serve on the board of directors. In December 1995, following the death of Steelweld's founder and owner, Ms. Hunter received financing from a Missouri-based SBIC, Capital for Business, CFB, Venture Fund II, to help her complete the acquisition of Steelweld. CFB provided $500,000 in subordinated debt. Senior bank debt and seller debt were also used in the acquisition. Since Ms. Hunter acquired Steelweld, its manufacturing process was redesigned to make the company run more efficiently. By 1997, Steelweld's profitability had doubled, with annual sales of $10 million and 115 employees. SBIC program success stories like Ms. Hunter's experience at Steelweld occur regularly throughout the United States. In 1991, the SBIC program was experiencing major losses, and the future of the program was in doubt. Consequently, in 1992 and 1996, the Committee on Small Business worked closely with the Small Business Administration to correct deficiencies in the law in order to ensure the future of the program. Today, the SBIC Program is expanding rapidly in an effort to meet the growing demands of small business owners for debt and equity investment capital. And it is important to focus on the significant role that is played by the SBIC program in support of growing small businesses. When Fortune Small Business compiled its list 100 fastest growing small companies in 2000, 6 of the top 12 businesses on the list received SBIC financing during their critical growth years. The ``Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act of 2001'' would permit the annual interest fee paid by Participating Securities SBICs to increase from 1.0 percent to no more than 1.28 percent. In addition, the bill would make three technical changes to the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, '58 Act, that are intended to make improvements in the day-to-day operation of the SBIC program. Projected demand for the Participating Securities SBIC program for FY 2002 is $3.5 billion, a significant increase over the FY 2001 program level of $2.5 billion. It is imperative that Congress approve this relatively small increase in the annual interest charge paid by the Participating Securities SBICs before the end of the fiscal year. This fee increase, when combined with an appropriation of $26.2 million for FY 2002, the same amount Congress approved for FY 2001, will support a program level of $3.5 million. The ``Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act of 2001'' would also make some relatively technical changes the '58 Act that are drafted to improve the operations of the SBIC program. Section 3 would remove the requirement that the SBA take out local advertisements when it seeks to determine if a conflict of interest exists involving an SBIC. This section has been recommended by the SBA, that has informed me that is has never received a response to a local advertisement and believes the requirement is unnecessary. The bill would amend Title 12 and Title 18 of the United States Code to insure that false statements made to the SBA under the SBIC program would have the same penalty as making false statements to an SBIC. This section would make it clear that a false statement to SBA or to an SBIC for the purpose of influencing their respective actions taken under the '58 Act would be a criminal violation. The courts could then assess civil and criminal penalties for such violations. Section 5 of the bill would amend Section 313 of the '58 Act to permit the SBA to remove or suspend key management officials of an SBIC when they have willfully and knowingly committed a substantial violation of the '58 Act, any regulation issued by the SBA under the Act, a cease-and desist order that has become final, or committed or engaged in any act, omission or practice that constitutes a substantial breach of a fiduciary duty of that person as a management official. The amendment expands the definition of persons covered by Section 313 to be ``management officials,'' which includes officers, directors, general partners, managers, employees, agents of other participants in the management or conduct of the SBIC. At the time Section 313 of the '58 Act was enacted in November 1966, an SBIC was organized as a corporation. Since that time, SBIC has been organized as partnerships and Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), and this amendment would take into account those organizations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that section-by-section summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I call up amendment numbered 872.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, in recent years we have witnessed some very serious and troubling discussions in the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. We have noticed how American fighting men and women are being committed to engagements of all kinds all around the world. We know that the budget for the Defense Department has come down dramatically. I was one saying when the Berlin Wall fell we could probably save 30 percent or more of our military budget because we could cut back and still maintain the force we needed. We were in a position where we were supposedly able to pursue two major regional contingencies at once. That was the theory. Unfortunately, as we went farther and farther into more assigned missions, it became very questionable whether we could even do that. We asked questions from both sides of the aisle in our Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearings about the resources we were providing for the Department of Defense. I believe it was about 2 years ago about this time of year we had then-Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen before our committee, a former member of this body. We all respect him greatly. I asked point blank: Mr. Secretary, do we have the money that is necessary to support our fighting men and women? I believe his answer was something like: We do not have the resources available for the missions we have been assigned. That was the beginning of the realization we had grossly underfunded the Department of Defense. I am very pleased we have a defense supplemental before the Senate. I know these are tight times. There has been an effort to work with the administration, with the bipartisan leadership of both bodies, to find how we can provide vitally needed resources for the Department of Defense. My personal view is we may not have provided enough. That is why I have offered this amendment. On May 24 of this year, the Associated Press ran a story on cannibalization, the lack of military spare parts. According to a GAO report, the Pentagon system for dispensing spare parts for airplanes, tanks, and other equipment is broken and officials are not sure how to fix it. At least 154,000 times a year a military mechanic takes a part from one airplane and puts it on another because a new spare part is not on hand, according to the GAO. This cannibalization is a very questionable process. It is a waste of time and money. It costs 1 million extra work hours a year and risks damaging the aircraft, as well as the morale of the mechanics doing the work, several testified. Once cannibalized, a multimillion-dollar aircraft can sit idle for months or years, said Neal Curtin, GAO Director of Defense Issues. In one case, about 400 parts were removed from a plane that eventually had to be shipped by truck to the maintenance depot to be rebuilt. Witnesses said the cannibalization is widespread because the services are trying to maintain readiness on an aging fleet in a time of increased deployments. LTG Michael Zettler, Deputy Chief of Staff for Air Force Installation, said cannibalization is only used when it is absolutely mission critical, and acknowledged in a prepared statement that it is done more than is desirable but blames some of it on design problems showing up years after abuse, resulting in a widespread need for more parts than specified, and fewer companies are making fewer parts-- having left the market during the Pentagon 1990 downsizing. Pentagon spokesman RADM Craig Quigley said: You do what you need to do given the availability of parts. It is largely an issue of funding. I use the family car as a good example. The older it gets, the more repairs you will do, but it is expensive to buy a new car. This GAO report follows an earlier report that said the Department inventory management is ineffective and results in excessive stocks of some parts more than others. Though the problem has been under scrutiny since 1990 and the services have formed committees, study groups, and programs to fix it, no one has the statistics on how big the problem is, according to the GAO Director. Because they view cannibalization as a symptom of spare part shortages, they have not closely analyzed other possible causes or made concerted efforts to measure the full extent of the practice. The Pentagon has been unable to document how many times it is done, the reasons, or how much time and money it has cost. It also cannot determine which cannibalizations are necessary, what alternatives are available, what improvements or changes need to be implemented, to what extent morale would be increased by reducing the workload. My point in going through that article is simply to note that we are in a sorry situation where we are preparing to send our air men and women into combat without the spare parts we need. We grab a part from a Hangar Queen, another aircraft that is increasingly disabled, and take that one part to keep the planes flying. That means the planes we are cannibalizing are less and less able to carry out their assigned mission. My amendment is, I believe and I hope, a responsible amendment which adds $1.430 billion for the fiscal year to the Defense Department. I believe the money is desperately needed by forces and can be spent in what remains of the fourth quarter of the current fiscal year. The amendment is operative only if and to the extent that the President declares it an emergency. The President would have control over whether to spend these funds. They could only be spent in the current fiscal year on problems which are very serious and which we understand from our sources are in dire need. This amendment includes funds that will be directed exclusively to operations and maintenance and personnel accounts of each of the four services. This is money the Pentagon, in our view, needs right now to ensure that critical repairs and training are not delayed further. Our troops need to believe there is truth behind our words and that help is, indeed, on the way. Consider this pressing challenge, the parts shortages and cannibalization from other pieces of equipment to which I just referred, specifically to aircraft. It is required throughout the military to keep our aging equipment going. To give an idea of the impact of the shortages, the GAO report found that shortcomings in spare parts increase maintenance costs by forcing maintainers to do things such as cannibalize needed parts from other aircraft, taking parts from one airplane to another to get one operational, meaning it takes two airplanes to get one ready to go. That essentially doubles the maintainer workloads, turning one repair into two. Parts swapping also pushes costs up by increasing part failure rates. Components are more susceptible to breakdown when they are removed from one unit to another. Previously-installed parts have shorter in-service life than new parts. When maintainers cannot do what they have been trained to do--that is, to fix airplanes--that leads to lower retention rates. The people who are in the job of doing the very critical work--making sure we provide the very best machines for our pilots--leave and go into the private sector. It is demoralizing to watch the mission-capable rates of airplanes drop due to a lack of spare parts. The maintainers want nothing more than to be provided the equipment and parts they need to do their jobs. I applaud and thank the President for his initiative in submitting this supplemental, but I do differ with the administration's view that the funding currently provided is sufficient. Saying we will solve the problem in fiscal year 2002 is not going to help the problems we currently face as a result of the circumstances we have created. Our troops are tired of hearing us say help is on the way, only to be disappointed when it never comes. It is time for us to show them that we, indeed, want to provide them the resources they need efficiently and safely to do the missions we give them. There are far too many examples of services being forced into situations where they must borrow from operations and maintenance accounts just to keep operations going and to purchase much-needed spare parts and equipment. Meanwhile, infrastructure continues to deteriorate at an alarming rate. I will have printed in the Record excerpts from testimony of our most senior military personnel before the House Armed Services Committee in September of last year. For the benefit of my colleagues, allow me to read just a few. From Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, Department of the Navy: I currently have a backlog of . . . $5.5 billion in infrastructure. . . . We are currently not funding this account sufficiently so that we arrest the growth in critical backlog and we have to do better. General Shelton had this to say: We can ill afford to take away from the current readiness accounts today. In fact, in some cases I think you've heard the Chiefs say they've still got shortfalls. . . . We have got to find a way--and that means more money to be able to modernize the force. Madam President, there are quotes from other members of the Joint Chiefs, and others, pointing out just how far we have come and how much further we need to go. This amendment before us provides $27 million for the Marine Corps. During last month's testimony, General Jones, the Marine Corps Commandant, told me he would have to find this money elsewhere by reprogramming funds if he did not receive it prior to the end of the fiscal year. Real property maintenance shortfalls remain incredibly high. Just consider a recent report that two-thirds of the Army National Guard installations will maintain a status of C-4, which means ``significantly impairs mission performance.'' Installations continue to deteriorate because the funding we are providing is not sufficient to halt the decline. Madam President, the current supplemental does not begin to reverse the slide in real property maintenance, and we cannot be sure future budgets will either. My colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, refrained from offering an amendment to this supplemental that would have added $204 million for additional Blackhawk helicopters, but he made the point our Army aviation program is in deep trouble and is in dire need of additional funds if we are to get it back on track. I came to the floor a month or so ago to point out that in the National Guard in Missouri, 75 percent of the helicopters are not operational. If we were running a museum, that would not be bad. But we expect our National Guard to be ready to be called on in a national emergency, and I can guarantee in our State of Missouri, and every other State, when there is a natural disaster, whether it is a flood, tornado, fire, or some other disaster, we want to be able to call on the National Guard. Three out of four planes in the Missouri National Guard are not airworthy. That means not only are they not ready, but the men and women who are supposed to fly them cannot train in them. This is a serious situation that affects all branches of the Active and Reserve and the Guard. No matter where we turn, we find pressing needs both in our readiness accounts and in our modernization accounts. That is why I think it is essential we plus-up the current supplemental. Every dollar counts. I hope we can find support for it. I know the Members of this body understand the situation. I have been assured by people at the Pentagon that funding I seek to add could and would be used to fund current needs, and therefore I ask my colleagues to support this amendment that adds slightly more than $1.4 billion to the supplemental. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BOND. How much?

Mr. BOND. How much in support?

Mr. BOND. Thirty-six seconds. I would like to reserve the 36 seconds.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I claim the remaining time I have. I appreciate very much the very strong statements made by the chairman and the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. These are men of great experience, dedication, and understanding. I look forward to working with them to achieve what we think is vitally important in filling the readiness gap. Madam President, I would like to have been able to pass the amendment that I have introduced, but having learned to count in third grade and having some experience counting in this body, I defer to the greater wisdom of the senior Members and request that my amendment be withdrawn.