Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize six outstanding students from my district. These students set their sights high, and as a result, competed in the National High School Speech and Debate tournament. Two thousands students from all over the country competed in the tournament this year. To qualify these students first competed in rigorous district competitions. Marquette High School's speech and debate team, coached by Mrs. Kim Cranston, sent six talented students to national competition. First, Edward Tulin was named National Champion of Domestic Extemporaneous Speaking for 1999. Mr. Tulin has been competing in speech and debate for four years and spoke in 13 rounds of competition to win the title. Second, there were five other students who competed and excelled at the national level. These students were: Justin Kempf who placed 8th in Student Congress' Senate division. Emily Vreeland who was a Semifinalist in Student Congress' House division. Jane Diecker and Edward Tulin who advanced to the 2nd level of competition in Policy Debate. Kane Huang and Elise Manning who competed in the Duo Interpretation competition. And finally, I would like to recognize Mrs. Kim Cranston whose dedication and tireless efforts have aided in the success of these students and many more. Her commitment to education and belief in the potential of each student is an example of excellence in teaching. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to recognize these extraordinary young people for their achievements. Their success is a true reflection on not only their drive and determination, but also on the parents, family members, and teachers who have supported their hard work and determination. These students are an excellent example of what young people will achieve when given the opportunity.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1568) to provide technical, financial, and procurement assistance to veteran owned small businesses, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to thank the distinguished ranking member for her comments and join her in her comments about Mike. We wish him all the best. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in November 1998, the Small Business Administration's Veterans Affairs Task Force for Entrepreneurship filed its report. The task force examined all SBA programs, including business development, education and training, financial assistance, government contracting and advocacy to determine ways to improve SBA's ability to assist veterans. The task force identified certain high priority recommendations. It is the purpose of this bill, H.R. 1568, to implement those high priority recommendations. First, the task force recommended guaranteed loan opportunities. H.R. 1568 makes veterans eligible for funds under the microloan, Delta Loan and State Development Company programs. This enables veterans to access capital markets currently available to women, low-income, minority entrepreneurs and other business owners possessing the capability to operate successful business concerns. Second, the task force identified an outreach program to assist disabled veterans in business training and management assistance. H.R. 1568 amends the Small Business Development Act to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration and the small business development center associations to train all veterans, including disabled veterans, in business training and management assistance, procurement opportunities and other business areas. Third, the task force urged a veterans company or corporation to address veterans small business issues. The Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act creates the National Veterans Business Development Corporation. This corporation will coordinate private and public resources from Federal organizations, for example, the SBA and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to establish and maintain a network of information and assistance centers for use by veterans and the public. H.R. 1568 requires the National Veterans Business Development Corporation to become self-sustaining by eliminating the corporation's minimal Federal funding in 4 years. Fourth, the task force sought a regulation classifying veteran-owned businesses as a socially and economically disadvantaged business group. Rather than a regulation, H.R. 1568 affords veteran-owned small businesses an opportunity to compete on the same level with small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps) for offering his amendment which guarantees that reservists in different businesses, say, plumbing, electrician or contractor small business owners who are called to active duty, guarantees them the ability to access loans to keep the business afloat while the reservist/small business owner serves our country. Mr. Speaker, the law already protects employees called to active duty as it should. Thanks to this amendment, it will soon provide some protection to the small business owner. Mr. Speaker, we all recognize our Armed Forces safeguard our freedoms and liberty at great sacrifice to our servicemen. Our veterans liberated Europe and the Pacific in the 1940s, they stopped the spread of communism in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and they freed oppressed peoples in the 1980s and 1990s. These men and women willingly sacrificed for their country. H.R. 1568, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, provides them the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the blessings of liberty which they secured. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1568. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what more could be said about this bill. It has the broadest coalition that I have ever seen supporting a veterans bill in terms of the veterans service organizations. As I said before, it helps these veterans in helping themselves and I think remedies some injustices from long past in terms of how we treat them in terms of procurement and loans and entrepreneurial opportunities.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to comment to the gentleman's speech. As always, he inspires me and particularly in this field. There is no stronger advocate for veterans than the gentleman from New Jersey. He is absolutely correct, and maybe I should quote one of the witnesses from one of the veterans organizations who testified in support of this bill, when one of the members of the committee asked him what was available in terms of outreach programs for veterans, and he responded by saying: ``Look, the good thing about this bill is it lets us help ourselves. We set up these assistance centers, and then we will have veterans in these communities networking and connecting veterans with entrepreneurship opportunities and, by the way, going beyond that, to do other things that can help veterans and their families. I think it's a tremendous way of increasing the infrastructure available for veterans' assistance.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I want to thank him for his work on this bill and his advocacy on behalf of veterans.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material, on H.R. 1568, the bill just passed.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support, as one of the cosponsors of the Norwood, Barr, Talent IDEA amendment which will allow schools to enforce a uniform discipline policy for all students who bring weapons into the schools. Mr. Chairman, after the tragic incidence at Columbine High School I met privately with superintendents from around my district. I was interested in finding out what they were doing to combat violence in their schools, and what the federal government could do to help. They are already quite active in trying to stop this violence before it starts, chiefly by keeping in close touch with students. They had one, concrete, urgent request. They wanted the authority to discipline violent students, even students classified as disabled, under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). In fact, their request was consistent with what I have been hearing from parents, teachers, principals, school boards and superintendents from across the state of Missouri for years. Currently, schools are forced to administer two separate and conflicting discipline codes for dealing with dangerous or violent behavior in schools--one for non-disabled students and one for disabled students. Nationwide, of the 45.6 million students--5.8 million students were covered by IDEA in 1996-1997. In other words 12%--or 1 in 8 students nationwide and 1 in 7 in Missouri are subject to more permissive discipline rules under IDEA. The parents, teachers, principals, school boards and superintendents in my district are telling me that the federal government is sending a mixed message to students on the issue of weapons in the schools. An IDEA student who possesses a weapon in school is subject to an entirely different discipline standard than other students simply because of his disability. For example in a school in Missouri a non-disability student gave a weapon to an IDEA student. The IDEA student was caught in possession of the weapon. The IDEA student was removed from the classroom and placed for 45 days in an alternative education setting. On the other hand, the non-disability student, who gave the IDEA student the weapon, but was not actually caught in possession of the weapon--received a one year suspension and no alternative education services. One school district in Missouri had 9 incidents of weapons in the middle and high school this school year--2 cases involving explosives and 7 cases involving knives. Of these 9 cases 6 were IDEA students and as such the schools could only remove these students from the classroom for up to 45 days. In addition, the school district was required to provide alternative service to these students at either their suspension school off campus or through personal instruction at home. On the other hand, the 3 general education students were either expelled or suspended for the year and the school district was not required to provide alternative services to these students. What sort of message does this send to the students of this district? In Southwest Missouri an IDEA student brought a knife on the school bus and threatened to kill specific students. The school district's hands were tied--all that could be done was remove the student from the classroom and place in an alternative education setting for 45 days. Pending the outcome of a manifestation determination review, and due to IDEA's stay put provision, this violent student returned to the classroom after only 45 days. The parents of the other students were very upset about the school's inability to keep this dangerous student out of the classroom and threatened to pull their children out of school. This amendment is very simple, Mr. Speaker--it gives school authorities at the local level the ability to remove from the classroom any student who brings a weapon--regardless of whether or not they are a disability student. This amendment will allow school personnel to discipline, including expel or suspend a student with a disability who intentionally carries or possesses a weapon at school--just as they would for a regular student. School districts would then have the discretion to decide whether or not to provide alternative services to the IDEA student removed from the classroom, provided that they treated that student the same as other students in similar circumstances.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), I know we have worked a long time on this issue. I am on the committee, too. It is a hard issue. I worked on that compromise we passed 2 years ago. We have had some events since that compromise passed 2 years ago. We have had some tragedies. When I talk to my teachers back home, my superintendents, my principals, my experts, the ones on the ground who are doing the teaching, and I talked to a group of them a couple of weeks ago, I said, ``What are you doing in response to these problems?'' They said, ``The same thing we have been doing. We network with the kids, we have security, we try and stop this violence before it occurs.'' I said, ``What do you need from the Federal Government?'' They did not mention a lot of the things that we have been working on the last 2 days and some of which I voted for. What they said is what they have been telling me year after year after year, ``Look, give us the authority to get violent kids out of the classroom.'' They do not have that authority now where the child is considered to be disabled under the IDEA program. That is what this amendment is designed to do. It is not an extreme amendment. Seventy-four members of the Senate voted for a very similar amendment. That covered guns, this covers all weapons. That is the only difference between them. Now, the reason we need to do this is first and foremost for the direct safety of the children involved and not just the other kids in the classroom but the child who is threatening them with a weapon or has a weapon and could threaten them. They are in danger, too. We need to get them out of that environment. This amendment allows the schools to do that as long as they treat that child the same way they would treat a child who is not disabled under the IDEA program. The other reason why it is so important and it may be even more important, because we have to promote a respect in the schools for the basic rules that allow all of us to live together. We have to send a consistent message to the students that this is the priority of the adult world, protecting the kids against violence, adhering to a basic, rudimentary standard that is the guarantor of all safety and order, particularly in the schools. We cannot have one group of kids, and one of 12 kids in the country are in this group. We cannot say to them, look, for whatever reason, maybe it is a good reason, but for whatever reasons, you can do these things, you can bring a knife to school, you can bring a gun to school and we really cannot do anything about it and you will be back in the classroom in a maximum of 45 days. We cannot say that anymore. I have examples coming from the State of Missouri. Everybody else here does. A child who brought a knife on a school bus and threatened the other kids, 45 days later she was back in the classroom and back on that school bus. What would you do if you were a parent of one of the other children after what has happened in Columbine? You know what you would do. Mr. Chairman, to close, what we have done with this amendment is what the Senate did except instead of applying it just to firearms, it applies to weapons. The gentleman from Georgia talked about what that is. It is knives, it is bombs, it is things that we would ordinarily and commonly understand as a weapon. The safeguard for the IDEA child is they have to be treated the same as everybody else. You cannot single them out. Other than that, we adopted the Senate amendment which got 74 votes. I urge the House to approve this. We are going to have the K through 12 reauthorization bill coming up later in the year. We will be able to address other aspects of it then, but in the meantime, let us give our superintendents and our principals and our teachers what they have been telling us all for years that they really need and they really have to have, and which the parents in our districts as a matter of common sense expect to have. Give the schools the opportunity to deal with weapons and violence in the classrooms.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chief Daniel B. Linza, who will be retiring on July 2, 1999, from the City of Kirkwood Police Department after 44 years of service. I hope you will join me in honoring his fine career and in wishing him a happy and healthy retirement. Chief Linza began his career as a patrol officer for the City of Kirkwood Police Department April 23, 1955, upon his graduation from the Criminal Justice Program of Saint Louis Community College. After several promotions, he was selected Chief of Police December 1, 1969. During the 29\1/2\ years he served as Chief, he established within his department new hiring procedures, promotional processes, and upgraded the physical fitness of officers, as well as providing them with necessary training in officer safety. He has been actively involved with numerous professional and community organizations dedicated to serving the residents of the City of Kirkwood. He has initiated many police community partnership programs, including Neighborhood Watch, Community Oriented Neighborhood Policing, the DARE program, and Graffiti Paint Out Day, Chief Linza has held leadership positions in several law enforcement organizations. He has distinguished himself while serving as president of the Missouri Peace Officers Association, the Law Enforcement Officials of St. Louis County, the FBI National Academy Associates (Graduates) Eastern District of Missouri as well as the National association. He has also served as Chairman of the Board of Governors for Law enforcement of St. Louis, and is a past member of the Executive Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Chief Linza currently serves as a member of the Board of Managers St. Louis County and Municipal Police Academy, and serves on the Board of the Missouri Police Chiefs. Not only has he distinguished himself with an impressive career in law enforcement, Chief Linza has been a leader in his community as well. As part of his outreach to his community he has worked as a member and president of a variety of community groups including Kirkwood Rotary Club, Kirkwood Area Chamber of Commerce, the Pioneer Boosters, and is a graduate and member of the Leadership St. Louis Program. Chief Linza has been a life long resident of St. Louis and a devout member of the Church of the Nazarene. He and his wife, Sharon, have five children and they are also blessed with five grandsons. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in congratulating and thanking Chief Linza for his service to his fellow officers, his community, and his family. He is truly a great leader, mentor, and citizen.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me focus the House's attention on a figure, $148 billion. The Joint Chiefs of Staff came before the Senate at the end of last September and said, we are $148 billion short of what we need over the next 6 years to maintain minimal standards of readiness in the armed services. Nobody disputes that figure. The Secretary of Defense agrees with it. He has testified that we either need more troops or fewer missions. Mr. Speaker, we have soldiers on food stamps. This bill is a modest down payment on doing our duty under the Constitution and the laws to the men and women who protect our families and our security. I have heard many arguments against the bill. They change. It funds Kosovo. It does not fund Kosovo. It has offsets. It does not have offsets. It is an emergency. It is not an emergency. And now it changes the rules regarding a gold mine in Washington. Mr. Speaker, let me put this in perspective. I was talking the other day with the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), who serves on the Committee on Armed Services with me. Her neighbor is the wife of a Navy flier. Her neighbor stopped the gentlewoman from Florida in the grocery store and said, ``My husband has to land his F-18 on an aircraft carrier at night on a pitching deck and he is not getting the training hours he needs because the budget has been cut. He might crash. What are you going to do to help my husband?'' Mr. Speaker, the men and women in America's armed services count on us to protect them as they protect our families and our children and our Nation's security. This bill is the first time in 6 years that we are stepping up to our duty. Let us get rid of the politics, let us get rid of the excuses. The Committee on Appropriations held tough and stood fast in the conference committee. Let us vote for this bill and begin the road back to protecting America's security.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the underlying bill and against the substitute. I certainly hope we can work something out. I am glad that there is some consensus that we need to do something. Here is my concern. A small business has done everything it can to become Y2K compliant. It has gotten ready. It is Y2K compliant, but one of its suppliers is not. That may not even be a domestic supplier, it could be a foreign supplier. So as a result, that small business is not able to deliver on time to maybe a big business, so the big business sues. It just seems to me the underlying bill, which has some commonsense things in it, says, look, you cannot recover punitive damages that are greater than three times your actual damages. There should be some relationship between the damage award you get and the actual damages you suffer. That seems to me to make sense. I also very much like the provisions in the underlying bill that are designed to discourage fraudulent or nuisance actions, strike actions. When you file a lawsuit and you really know you cannot win if you go to trial, but you know that small business does not want to spend $40,000 or $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 defending itself, so you file the thing. You have this big punitive damages award hanging over the small business. You go and say, well, for $20,000 or $25,000, we will dismiss the lawsuit. That is what we call a strike action, a nuisance action. The underlying bill has a safeguard. It says, if you think there is fraud, state the basis for believing there is fraud in your lawsuit. What is wrong with that? One of my concerns about the substitute is that it does not have that in there. You should not be able to file a lawsuit alleging fraud without having a basis for it, and then go on a fishing expedition trying to find it that is costly for the small business defending the action. I like the underlying bill. I think it is better than the substitute. I urge the House to oppose the substitute. I hope we can work something out and get a consensus measure. Certainly the bill has bipartisan support. I would like something the President could sign. Y2K is a difficult enough problem for the small business community without having to be concerned about nuisance actions, so I would urge the House to oppose the substitute and support the underlying bill.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from New York's very timely and important amendment and congratulate her on this important amendment for small business; and, Mr. Chairman, all of us who have dealt with small businesses in this kind of a context understand the problem the gentlewoman's amendment is intended to adopt. I mean, let us suppose that a firm goes bankrupt and that it owes Microsoft $100,000 for software and it owes a small consulting firm, computer consulting firm, 30 or $35,000 for the work that has been done and that both of them are unsecured creditors. Well, Microsoft is going to get on the creditors committee because it has the larger debt, but $100,000 to Microsoft may be nothing, in terms of that firm is nothing in terms of that firm's total revenue. But that 30 or $35,000 could be a crucial account for that small business consulting firm, and they need to be represented on the creditors committee. That is really the only way that their interests can be protected. The gentlewoman's amendment allows the court to appoint that small business to the creditors committee. It does not require it, but it at least allows that small business to make its case to the court. I think it is a timely and important amendment, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing worse really than a small business caught up in this, an unforeseen bankruptcy on the part of one of its important clients. It cannot protect its interests, it does not know what is going on, does not have the money to hire legions of lawyers the way the bigger, unsecured creditors do. Again, I congratulate the gentlewoman for fixing what I think is, if not a problem in the bill, at least an absence in the bill of an important protection for small business. I am pleased to support the amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York for having yielded.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Madam Speaker, tomorrow we have a chance to be true or false to the interests of our country and the men and women in America's military service when we consider the supplemental defense bill to add $7 billion to defense spending this year. It is about time that we considered such a measure. For the last 10 years we have reduced military spending by 31 percent; by almost a third. At the same time, the number of engagements we have asked our men and women in America's military to be involved in has increased by a factor of three. We deployed them 10 times during the Cold War around the world. We have deployed them 26 times in the last 8 years. Essentially, we have never reduced operational tempo, the business of the force, since Desert Storm. We have continued to ask them to do more and more with less and less, and they are at the breaking point. First, they robbed the future to pay for the present in order to deal with that. They deferred maintenance. They reduced pay raises and retirement. They allowed health care to decline in the service. They postponed military construction and they slashed modernization. When that was not enough, they robbed parts of the present to pay for other parts of the present. They sacrificed the important to the urgent. So now we have a shortage of spare parts. We have reduced training for our men and women in the military. We have a huge shortfall in ammunition, and we cannibalize the troops that are deployed here at home in order to support deployments abroad. We take people and spare parts and machines away from units that are here in the United States in order to support units abroad. It has gotten so bad, Madam Speaker, that at the end of last year the Joint Chiefs of Staff came and testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services that we are $148 billion short over the next 6 years in what we need to maintain minimal standards of readiness. And tomorrow we have a chance to make a modest downpayment on what we need to do to protect America's greatness and to provide for our men and women in the military. Nobody disputes these figures, Madam Speaker. The administration does not. Nobody here will stand up tomorrow and argue that we do not need to spend this money to maintain readiness. They will have a lot of excuses why we should not vote for the bill tomorrow, just as we have had excuses year after year after year. We heard one of them a little while ago. We cannot pay for this extra military spending because that would pay for the war in Kosovo. No, it will not. That is going to pay for the money that otherwise will be sucked away from the military by the war in Kosovo. If my colleagues want to stop the war in Kosovo, wait for the military appropriations bill and put a rider on it that says the money cannot be used in Kosovo. Do not starve the rest of the military in order to fund one of the deployments that has caused the military to go hollow in the first place. Another excuse we will hear is that we cannot take the money out of Social Security. Madam Speaker, by the most conservative estimates we will have over $800 billion in surpluses over the 10 years, even apart from the money that comes from Social Security. My father is 87 years old. He gets Social Security. He fought in the Navy in the second world war. The generation that saved private Ryan, my father's generation, is not going to begrudge the men and women of America's military what they need now to provide for our security, especially when it does not even affect Social Security. The excuse I like the most is that we do not have an emergency. That is why we do not need this supplemental now. Well, whether we have an emergency kind of depends on one's point of view. Standing here in this chamber, it is nice and warm and safe, no, we do not have an emergency. But if they are in an AWACS unit and they are working 80 hours a week and they have for years because they need two people in that unit to do their job and there is only them to do it, maybe they would think there is an emergency. If they are on their second tour of duty on an aircraft carrier and they have been at sea for 9 months and they have not seen their kids and their wife wants to divorce them, maybe they would think there is an emergency. If they are an infantryman in the Korean Peninsula and they know that if the attack comes they are not going to have the modern anti-tank weapons they need so they are going to have to stand out there in the middle of the open, look that tank in the eye and fire, rather than fire and get back to cover, maybe they would think there is an emergency. Mr. Speaker, my first year in the Committee on Armed Services we had a hearing. A retired military person testified; and he said, ``The military life is a difficult one. We sacrifice a lot. We are willing to put our lives on the line. It is not easy, but we are proud to do it.'' Then he looked up at us in the Committee on Armed Services and he said something that applies to the whole Congress. He said, ``But we count on you. We count on you to protect us.'' Mr. Speaker, we have let them down year after year after year after year. Tomorrow we have a chance to stop letting them down. Let us end the excuses. Let us do what we all admit now we need to do. Let us make a modest down payment on what we need to do to allow these men and women to protect us and to protect our families and protect our future. Vote for the supplemental bill tomorrow. History is watching. The dictators of the world are watching. And these men and women who count on us are watching.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of funding for the Ricky Ray Relief Act. The time has come for the federal government to accept its share of the responsibility for failing to protect the nation's blood supply and failing to properly regulate the sale of blood-clotting products used by sufferers of hemophilia. As a result of the government's failure more than 8,000 people with hemophilia have been devastated by HIV/AIDS. Mr. Speaker, the financial burden of hemophilia and HIV is overwhelming. The average cost of hemophilia therapy is nearly $100,000 per year. If a person has an inhibitor, a condition that requires extensive treatment, therapy can exceed $1,000,000 in a year. These costs are further compounded by the costs of HIV/AIDS care which was estimated to be $10,000-$50,000 annually in 1995. These staggering cost are far beyond the financial capacities of most hard working American families. The Ricky Ray Relief Act was named for a young Florida boy who came to symbolize the tragedy that is hemophilia-associated AIDS. This legislation establishes a $750 million trust fund from which victims of this tragedy can claim $100,000 each as partial compensation for their physical, emotional, and financial suffering. This legislation is not about charity, but about acknowledging the government's responsibility for this tragedy. It has taken almost 5 years for members of the hemophilia community who are living with HIV/AIDS to reach this point. The Ricky Ray Relief Act was first introduced in 1995 and was reintroduced in 1997. When it passed both the House and the Senate by unanimous consent, this bill had the support of 270 bipartisan cosponsors in the House and 61 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate. On November 12, 1998, the President signed the Ricky Ray Relief Act into law. I was proud to be both a cosponsor and advocate of this legislature. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the government to admit responsibility for failure to protect our nation's blood supply. We must fund the Ricky Ray Relief Act. The funding of this legislation will make a tremendous difference in the lives of many members of the hemophilia community who have faced and continue to face living with hemophilia and HIV/AIDS.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the honor and pleasure of recognizing Pastor Rodney H. Travis of the First Baptist Church in Ellisville, Missouri. Pastor Travis will open today's session of the United States House of Representatives with the invocation. Pastor Travis is a generous and eloquent man, and he offers a moving invocation. Pastor Travis is an outstanding member of the St. Louis community. Pastor Travis and his wife Karen Sue and their children Shawn Renae and Tiffany Hope have been in Missouri since 1982, serving at the First Baptist Church in Jackson, Missouri before coming to Ellisville in 1995. Over the last four years, he has diligently served his congregation and the community. Pastor Travis has served God in many ways since receiving his Master of Divinity from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1979 and later his Doctor of Ministry from Vanderbilt University in 1979. He has served as Trustee of Missouri Baptist College and has held numerous positions with the Missouri Baptist Convention, including serving as President from 1991-1992. He has volunteered as chaplain in Tennessee prison system and as a Police Department Chaplain. His words have served as inspiration to thousands through the Sunday School lessons he wrote for the Baptist publication World and Way and for the Baptist Sunday School Board ``Listening in Prayer.'' He also has been named to the International Mission Board Trustee and will serve in this capacity until 2003. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be able to introduce Pastor Travis to the United States House of Representatives, and I am moved that he has accepted this honor and will share with us his blessing.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 314) to provide for a loan guarantee program to address the Year 2000 computer problems of small business concerns, and for other purposes.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for her assistance in moving this bill, and her help in fashioning it. The bill before us is almost identical to the measure which was passed by this House at the beginning of last month as the first bill passed through the 106th Congress. The other body acted on this legislation yesterday, and I am pleased to bring it before the House today for purposes of further action, and I hope and trust final passage. The purpose of H.R. 68 is to make technical corrections to Title III of the Small Business Investment Act. That title authorizes the Small Business Investment Company program. Small Business Investment Companies, or SBICs, are venture capital firms licensed by the Small Business Administration. They use SBA guarantees to leverage private capital for small businesses. The technical corrections proposed by H.R. 68 will improve the flexibility of the SBIC program and allow increased access to this program by small businesses. I just want to hit today, Mr. Speaker, the major changes of the underlying SBIC Act by H.R. 68. First, H.R. 68 would change policies which currently reserve leverage for smaller SBICs. We thought at the time the bill was passed this would be necessary to give them a fair shake, but as a matter of fact, we are finding that the SBA's own policies are more than adequate in that regard, and that in fact this has the effect of hurting certain small businesses because it reserves too much of the leverage until the end of the year, so we need to repeal that. H.R. 68 has a small authorization level for the participating securities segment of the SBIC program. The level would rise from $800 million to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1999, and from $900 million to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2000. That is necessary to meet rising demand. H.R. 68 modifies a test for determining the eligibility of small businesses for SBIC financing, and basically puts S corporations on the same footing as other corporations, and allows them to participate equally in the program. Finally, H.R. 68 will allow the SBA greater flexibility in issuing trust certificates to finance the SBIC program's investment in small businesses. Current law allows fundings to be issued every 6 months or more frequently. This inhibits the ability of the SBICs and the SBA to form pools of certificates that are large enough to generate serious investor interest, so H.R. 68 allows more time between fundings. That will permit the SBA and the industry to form larger pools for sale in the market. The Senate's changes to H.R. 68 involve the further fine tuning of the legislation which originated here at the beginning of this Congress. The other body added a technical correction, eliminating the table of contents in the Small Business Investment Act. They reworded the language regarding the small business standard for SBIC investments, and they clarified the formula for addressing taxes so that it is clear that State taxes could not be deducted twice. Those changes are all acceptable to the committee, to the ranking member and myself. I think they were good changes, if not really significant ones. I would urge the House to accept them. Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and her staff for their assistance in moving the measure before us. I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Small Business in the other body, Senators Kit Bond and John Kerry and their staffs, for their expeditious action on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to adopt the Senate amendments and support H.R. 68. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I simply would again encourage the House to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 68. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 314.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on H.R. 68.