Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate MAACO on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. In 1972, Anthony A. Martino, the man who had founded AAMCO Transmissions in the mid-1950's, decided to create another franchise system for quality production auto painting and body repair. He opened a pilot center in Wilmington, DE, and despite critics who proclaimed ``you could never franchise paint and collision repair,'' today, on the 25th anniversary of MAACO Auto Painting and Bodyworks, there are 500 MAACO franchise centers in 48 of the United States, and in Canada, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. Next week, MAACO will celebrate the culmination of its 25 years in business at the Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego, CA, and at the same time, observe that in this its 25th year, MAACO has also achieved the painting and repair of its 10 millionth vehicle, while opening its 500th center in North America. Tony Martino, founder and still CEO of the chain today, has always believed that with a strong operating manual and a strong system, and, in the case of MAACO, by offering the public a quality paint and body repair service at reasonable prices, you can be successful. Since 1972, MAACO has built a $335 million franchise system and has made hundreds of men and women successful owners of a small business that has become part of the economic engine of America. As MAACO observes its 25th anniversary, it has proven that MAACO is more than a business to its hundreds of independent MAACO operators.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and for my colleagues' indulgence, especially since I have spoken a couple of times in the last 2 days, which is more commonly than I normally speak on the House floor. This is an issue I feel strongly about, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a shame. I think it is sad that so many people inside this House and outside this House have been fighting to the last ditch on behalf of the system that has trapped thousands and thousands of poor parents and their children in schools where they are not safe, where they do not learn, and where none of us would send our own children: The D.C. public schools. Now, we have had discussions, on this side of the aisle anyway, about the problems these schools are having. One of my colleagues said it needs some improvement. Well, that is correct. Seventy-eight percent of the 4th graders in the D.C. Public School System cannot read up to the national average. What will happen to those kids, Mr. Chairman? Do my colleagues know what happens to children if by the 4th grade they cannot read? This is a system that closed down the schools for 3 weeks at the beginning of the year without any notice to the parents, closed down all the schools because the roofs were falling in. We have heard a lot of arguments against this little scholarship program in this bill. It only affects 3 percent of the kids. That is because we are having difficulty getting the money even to do that. Another one: We cannot let any of these kids escape. We have to hold them all hostage to this system until we can make the whole system better. How many of us would put our own kids in this system on the gamble that the system will change fast enough so that our kids will not be mired in a career and a life that will not be successful? Very few people do. Last year this provision was filibustered to death in the Senate by 41 Senators, none of whom sent their kids to the D.C. public schools. And the argument I like the best is, we cannot use scarce public resources for this. What is scarce in the District of Columbia is not resources, but education. The District has $7300 per pupil to spend on education. The Washington Post had it right in its headline on this subject. It is a well-financed failure. The system protects jobs while shortchanging classrooms. That is why the roofs are not fixed. Mr. Chairman, I feel kind of personal about this. I have stood with a lot of these parents as they have asked desperately for the right to give their kids a future. I have stood with them in the District of Columbia and I have stood with them in Indianapolis. I asked them there how important school choice was to them, because I knew how controversial it was here. They answered the way myself and colleagues would answer. Look, I know where the money and the strings and the power is on this. Stand with the parents and these kids. It is their future that is at stake. We should do for them what we would do for ourselves if we were in the same situation. Vote against the Moran substitute and sustain this bill.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1139) to reauthorize the programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes, with House amendments thereto, insist on the House amendments, and request a conference with the Senate thereon. I perhaps can anticipate the gentleman by saying that the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business not only does not object, but asked me to bring the motion at this time, and it has been cleared for a number of days with the minority.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1139) to reauthorize the programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes, with House amendments thereto, insist on the House amendments, and request a conference with the Senate thereon. Mr. Speaker, I have the same connection with the request, that I have been meeting with my friends on the minority side, and I believe we have cleared up the communication problems. The Speaker pro tempore. The Chair has not been advised that any matter is resolved. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I may not use the 3 minutes, but that is not a promise, I say to my colleagues. I think the issue is clear, the same issue as the one we debated yesterday, although I think a much more appropriate vehicle here, and I am very glad the gentleman is offering this motion to instruct. The issue is this. We do not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions here in the United States. We should be clear and certain that we do not do so abroad as well, and that is what we are talking about here, making crystal-clear what I think is, people claim is implicit in the setup: making it crystal-clear that American taxpayer dollars are not going to be used directly or indirectly to subsidize abortion or subsidize organizations that provide abortions, and if everybody agrees that we ought to do that, I cannot see the objection to making it clear with this particular language. I am glad the gentleman offered the motion to instruct. I think it shows respect for the millions of people in this country who believe deeply as a matter of conscience, as I do, that this practice is wrong, and hope some day that we can eliminate it not just here, but around the world as well. I want to say a word, also, about the particular vehicle for resolving this kind of issue. I know that there are many people in the House and many in the Senate who believe just as deeply and just as passionately on the other side, and they do not want to see this language go on. I am deeply concerned that if we fight this issue out on the appropriations bill, it may end up jeopardizing some other very important appropriations that do not have anything to do with this issue, and I do not see why we should do it. The issue should be fought out on the authorization bill. We should take the whole issue, the whole issue of the population control money, the whole issue of this proposed language, take it out of the appropriations bill, resolve it in the authorization process where it belongs. I know that my long-suffering friend, the gentleman from Alabama, who offers this motion to instruct, would much prefer not to have to deal with this in his appropriations bill, and he is right. Let us support this motion to instruct and let us all support taking this issue, the money, the policy, all of it off, effectively getting it off the appropriations process, onto the authorization bill, and then I hope come to a compromise. If not, fight it out in good faith and as between honorable people there. I thank the gentleman for offering his motion. I intend to support it.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Safety Advancement for Employees Act [SAFE Act], a bipartisan bill introduced today that is designed to foster a partnership between OSHA and employees and encourage greater worker safety. In addition to the bill, the House Committee on Small Business prepared a paper entitled, ``Why Workers Need Change: The SAFE Act,'' outlining why the need for change and how the SAFE Act can succeed where the big stick methods of OSHA have failed. On any given day in the United States, 17 workers will die and 18,600 workers will be injured on the job. The fact is that many of these accidents occur not because employers don't care about worker safety; on the contrary, even the Federal Government estimates that 95 percent of employers are striving to create safe environments for workers. The problem lies with the adversarial posture of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], the Federal agency responsible for worker safety. Established by Congress in 1970, OHSA's mandate was to assure for all workers safe and healthful working conditions ``by encouraging employers and employees in their efforts to reduce the number of occupational safety and health hazards at their places of employment.'' The agency, however, has never seriously attempted to ``encourag[e] employers and employees in their efforts'' to create safe workplaces. Instead, OSHA operates according to a command and control mentality, issuing burdensome and often incomprehensible regulations which may not relate to worker safety, and are, in any event, only sporadically enforceable. Small wonder that, though OSHA has been in existence for 27 years and has generated tens of billions of dollars in compliance costs, there is a serious question whether it has improved worker safety at all. For worksites to become safer, OSHA's ineffective, top-down approach must be overhauled. The agency in its present posture is simply incapable of handling the safety problems of millions of individual workplaces as America heads into the 21st century. As recognized by Vice President Gore, OSHA's system ``doesn't work well enough.'' In short, OSHA can lead the country to better workplace safety; it cannot command the country into better workplace safety. Employers are Drowning in Regulations The sheer volume of OSHA regulations that employers are expected to read, understand, and implement is staggering. Many of the regulations bear no relationship to safety at the workplace. Others are so vague that discerning one correct interpretation is impossible. The result is that employers are left to fend for themselves, wasting valuable time and money misinterpreting regulations and making worksite improvements that are either not required by OSHA or not related to workplace safety, or both. Paperwork Requirements are Huge and Have No Tangible Safety Benefits Far and away the greatest number of citations are leveled against employers for OSHA paperwork violations. In 1994, the top 6--and 11 of 20--of the most-cited violations involved paperwork deficiencies. Employers are thereby forced to create more and more paper without tangible safety benefits. Meanwhile, as OSHA focuses its sights on paperwork, serious safety concerns go in uninspected. For example, in 1994 and early 1995, three-quarters of worksites in the United States that suffered serious accidents had never been inspected by OSHA during this decade. In fact, even OSHA officials acknowledge that their inspectors ``do not get to a lion's share of lethal sites until after accidents occur.'' The result is that incompetent or reckless employers go undeterred while good faith employers spend time and money on paperwork instead of safety. So Many Worksites, So Few Inspectors OSHA has only 2,451 State and Federal inspectors to regulate 96.7 million American workers. With a ratio of about one inspector to 3,000 worksites, Federal OSHA can currently inspect workplaces under its jurisdiction only once every 167 years. OSHA inspectors cannot possibly understand the safety and health concerns of worksites that they rarely visit. Nor can they have knowledge of workers' needs in industries as diverse as manufacturing plants, funeral homes, and restaurants. A New OSHA Requires a New Approach The adversarial model that exists to regulate worker safety between OSHA and employers does not get the job done. Pitting the employer against the inspector, the current model fosters distrust and suspicion, flying in the face of true partnership efforts that are the key to worker safety. Both the Government and the private sector waste enormous resources on the struggle to catch employers in violation of regulations that no one believes will advance worker safety. No wonder that the current system has so little credibility in the private sector. If we are to create a new OSHA, we must significantly change the culture that exists between employers and the agency--making them partners not enemies. It is not enough to threaten large fines for noncompliance when millions of safety-conscious employers don't know how to comply. Nor is it enough to weigh employers down with more compliance materials than they can possibly digest or understand. The answer to achieving safer work environments is to encourage the 95 percent of employers who are concerned about worker safety and health to voluntarily seek expert advice on how to comply with OSHA's regulations and to implement and maintain the expert's recommendations. Creating true partnerships between employers and OSHA will empower the honest employers to improve worker safety, while allowing OSHA to concentrate its enforcement on the 5 percent of employers who constitute the bad actors. Vice President Gore strongly advocates using private sector OSHA compliance experts to help employers achieve greater worker safety. Acknowledging that OSHA ``doesn't work well enough,'' because there are ``only enough inspectors to visit even the most hazardous workplace once every several years,'' the Vice President has called on OSHA to rely on private inspection companies in its efforts to ensure the safety and health of America's workers. In this way: [OSHA] would use the same basic technique the federal government uses to force companies to keep honest financial books: setting standards and requiring periodic certification of the books by expert financial auditors. No army of federal auditors descends upon American businesses to audit their books; the government forces them to have the job done themselves. In the same way, no army of OSHA inspectors need descend upon corporate America. By creating partnerships with employers through the use of private sector compliance auditors, the ``health and safety of American workers could be vastly improved.'' The SAFE Act: The Solution for Safer Workplaces The Safety Advancement for Employees [SAFE] Act reflects a new partnership approach to worker safety. By encouraging employers to seek individualized compliance assistance from qualified third party auditors, the SAFE Act will ensure that more worksites are in compliance with OSHA, and more workers are protected. The SAFE Act does not waive any of OSHA's power to inspect workplaces, but it recognizes that employers who actively seek expert assistance to improve safety should not be treated as adversaries. Under the SAFE Act, employers can choose to enlist the aid of an entire field of compliance experts, thereby allowing OSHA to concentrate its resources on policing those worksites that truly need OSHA enforcement. The SAFE Act spells greater safety for workers and increased compliance by all employers.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I ask the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water if he would engage me in a colloquy regarding the transfer for a FUSRAP to the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] for his patience in this issue. Mr. Chairman, my district in Missouri has a major FUSRAP site which contains nuclear contamination from the Manhattan Project and other hazardous waste. For 15 years, we have worked with the Department of Energy to clean up this site. Finally, in just the past 2 weeks, after much frustration and delay, we have come to the point where DOE has begun preliminary cleanup efforts. Given this recent progress, the news of the FUSRAP program's transfer out of DOE has, quite understandably, caused a great deal of distress in the community. While we are by no means questioning the corps' ability to handle the FUSRAP project, we are concerned that potential delays caused by the transfer will undo much of the recent progress. With site recommendations already made, feasibility studies concluded, and contracts let, it is important that the corps honor the preliminary groundwork laid by DOE in order to avoid any further delays. Will the corps be willing to respect these studies, site plans, and contracts?

Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] for his concern. One further issue: The local community has been very involved in designing a plan to clean up the site. They are concerned that the administration of the cleanup will be moved away from the St. Louis area to Omaha or Kansas City, reducing their input and influence on the cleanup process. When the Army Corps of Engineers takes over the FUSRAP program, will the St. Louis program be managed out of the St. Louis Corps' office?

Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his assurances and his assistance.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Let me just say that if we take the reauthorization levels over the next 3 years, the authorization is not going up, it is going down. The bill does not mention or refer to any of the set-aside programs in the Small Business Administration, and that was done deliberately as a result of agreement between the gentleman and myself. In fact, this is one of the few major bills dealing with any of the agencies which does not mention any of the set-aside programs. For example, we have voted on appropriations bills that have come out of the Committee on Appropriations, in which the gentleman serves, most of which have some kind of set-aside programs. We are debating right now the Commerce, State, and Justice appropriations bill which funds the Small Business Administration, including the 8(a) program which is a set-aside program, and that might be a good opportunity, if the gentleman wants to raise the point, to raise that whole issue. We have not done it here. This is a bill which reauthorizes a number of important programs, including the disaster relief program. Members need to understand that if we do not pass this bill, that program will run out at the end of the fiscal year unless it is extended by a CR. We are moving toward privatization of a number of these lending programs and greater efficiency in these programs. The gentleman knows that the appropriations for the SBA is going down, and I would expect that it would continue to go down under this authorization, and that is certainly my intention. As for bringing up on suspension, we are getting near the end of the year. The bill came out unanimously from committee. It does an awful lot of good things, and up until the last few days nobody had raised any issues. I would maintain that the issue regarding set-asides is extraneous to this bill, although, of course, Members are entitled to conclude what they want. So I hope the Members will support this, and I understand the issue regarding set-asides is a very important one. I feel strongly about it myself, but it is truly extraneous to this bill, and I would suggest that Members look for other vehicles if they do want to raise the issue.

Mr. TALENT. I have no further speakers on this side, Mr. Speaker, and so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say because I want to make sure I did not misspeak before, when we authorize these lending programs in this committee, the authorization level goes to the total amount of loans that are authorized; in other words, the total loan volume. We do expect that as a result of the kinds of changes that are being instituted in the last few years and over at the agency the amount of loan volume that we will be able to support with current or less appropriations levels is going to go up. In other words, I anticipate that we will continue to reduce appropriations for the lending programs for this agency. At the same time, I do expect that the loan volume is going to go up, so I think we are going to see appropriations going down; it is going down this year. This agency is more than going to do its part in terms of meeting a balanced budget, but I would expect the overall loan volumes, I hope that we can support with those appropriations, to go up.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's good work on this. The agency has had this issue, as the gentleman knows, since the bill we passed last year. I am hopeful that the agency can come up with a set of regulations that do advance the ability of both bank and nonbank lenders to securitize these on the secondary market as much as is consistent, of course, with sound lending practices, and I recognize the gentleman's background on that, and I am very pleased that he is working to midwife some acceptable compromise in that area.

Mr. TALENT. I would be happy to discuss this with the gentleman. This is the securitization the gentleman has been talking about?

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind comments, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The primary purpose of H.R. 2261 is to reauthorize the Small Business Administration and the programs which that agency manages by authority granted under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act through fiscal year 2000. The committee regularly authorizes these programs for a 3-year period, with the last reauthorization occurring in 1994 during the 103d Congress. Programs include the financial programs of the SBA: the 7(a) general business loan guarantee, Section 504 Certified Development Company program, and other programs. The programs of the SBA, Mr. Speaker, annually provide assistance to over 100,000 small businesses all across the United States. These financial programs remedy shortfalls in access to credit and capital for small businesses that are in need because of unfortunate imperfections in the national economy. By assuring financial assistance for amounts as small as $500 to as much as $1,250,000, the SBA and its private sector partners, bank and non-bank lenders, surety bond insurers, et cetera, provide a vital impetus to the small business sector. The SBA also provides hundreds of millions of dollars in vital disaster assistance to small businesses and homeowners every year. H.R. 2261 reflects the committee's dedication to and support for these programs and the belief that they are not only necessary but also constantly in need of refinement and improvement as the economy shifts and changes. The bill includes not only the basic reauthorization language necessary to continue regular operations but also changes to the underlying program structures. The bill includes significant improvements in the Preferred Certified Lender Program of the Section 504 Certified Development Company Program. These changes serve to help implement the committee's goals of increased reliance on private sector lending partners. The committee seeks to both enable the CDC's to take additional responsibility for servicing, liquidation and litigation of defaulted loans, and to improve the recoveries for this program. H.R. 2261 also continues the committee's work on improving the Small Business Investment Company Program. Last year this program underwent significant changes, and this year the committee seeks to build on those improvements by providing SBIC's with increased flexibility and some responsiveness in order to better allow the SBIC's to interact in the marketplace and thereby reduce risks of loss. The measure before us has two additional components that were added to this legislation since our committee reported it. These additional elements have been added as a result of bipartisan efforts and, in fact, have involved the collective work of multiple committees. Title VI of H.R. 2261, as amended, contains a number of provisions which are designed to assist the Federal Government in better serving service disabled veterans and small businesses owned by service disabled veterans. These measures are the product of bipartisan efforts by myself and the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the committee's ranking member, working together with the chairman of the Committee on Rules and the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Title VII of this legislation is also the product of a bipartisan and multicommittee effort between the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Science. Title VII contains H.R. 2429, as reported by the Committee on Science, which is a 3-year reauthorization of the Pilot Small Business Technology Transfer Program. Building upon the established model of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, the STTR program provides the statutory basis for structured collaborations between small technology entrepreneurs and nonprofit research institutions, such as universities or federally funded Research and Development Centers, to foster commercialization of the results of federally sponsored research. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support small business, the engine of our economy, by voting for this needed legislation. Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of H.R. 2261 is to reauthorize the Small Business Administration [SBA] and the programs which that agency manages by authority granted under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act through fiscal year 2000. The committee regularly authorizes these programs for a 3-year period, with the last reauthorization occurring in 1994 during the 103d Congress. The programs include the financial programs of the SBA: the 7(a) general business loan guarantee program, the Section 504 Certified Development Company program, the Microloan program and the Small Business Investment Company [SBIC] program. In addition, the bill will reauthorize the technical assistance and procurement programs of the SBA--the Service Core of Retired Executives [SCORES], the Women's Business Center program, the Small Business Development Center [SBDC] program, the Competitiveness Demonstration program, and other. This legislation also changes and improves various programs, specifically modifying the Section 504 Preferred Certified Lender Program [PCLP], the SBIC program, the Women's Business Center program, and the SBDC program. The programs of the Small Business Administration annually provide over $14 billion of financial assistance to over 100,000 small businesses all across the United States. These financial programs remedy shortfalls in access to credit and capital for small businesses that are in need because of unfortunate imperfections in our national economy. By assuring financial assistance for amounts as small as $500 to as much as $1,250,000, the SBA and its private sector partners--bank and non-bank lenders, surety bond insurers, certified development companies, microlenders, and small business investment companies-- provide a vital impetus to the small business sector of the economy. The SBA also provides hundreds of millions of dollars in vital disaster assistance to small businesses and homeowners every year. H.R. 2261 reflects the committee's dedication to and support for these programs and the belief that they are not only necessary but also constantly in need of refinement and improvement as the economy shifts and changes. The bill includes not only the basic reauthorization language necessary to continue regular operations but also changes to the underlying program structures. The bill includes significant improvements in the Preferred Certified Lender Program of the Section 504 Certified Development Company Program. These changes serve to help implement the committee's goals of increased reliance on private sector lending partners. The committee seeks to both enable the certified development companies to take additional responsibility for servicing, liquidation, and litigation of defaulted loans, and to improve the recoveries for this program. Committee hearings revealed that recoveries are, in fact, the largest single factor in the increased subsidy cost of the 504 program. The committee continues to be concerned over the subsidy estimates for the 7(a) and 504 programs and makes these changes in the 504 program in order to encourage private sector participation in the liquidation process. H.R. 2261 also continues the committee's work on improving the Small Business Investment Company program. Last year this program underwent significant changes, and this year the committee seeks to build on those improvements by providing SBIC's with increased flexibility and some responsiveness in order to better allow the SBIC's to interact in the marketplace and thereby reduce risks of loss. The bill also reauthorizes and improves the Microloan program. Begun in 1991, this program has served the smallest and often least noticed segment of the small business community. The committee has recognized the efficacy of this program and changed it from demonstration to permanent program status. In addition to financial assistance, the SBA also provides technical and managerial advice and assistance to hundreds of thousands of small businesses every year through the small business development centers, the women's business centers, and the Service Corps of Retired Executives. The committee reauthorizes these programs in H.R. 2261 and makes some valuable improvements to both the Women's Business Center and Small Business Development Center programs. The measure before us has two additional components that were added to this legislation since our committee reported it. These additional elements have been added as a result of bipartisan efforts; and, in fact, have involved the collective work of multiple committees. Title VI of H.R. 2261, as amended, contains a number of provisions which are designed to assist the Federal Government in better serving service disabled veterans and small businesses owned by service disabled veterans. These measures are the product of bipartisan efforts by myself and our committee's ranking member, working together with the chairman of the Rules Committee and the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Title VII of this legislation is also the product of a bipartisan and multicommittee effort between the Small Business Committee and the Science Committee. Title VII contains H.R. 2429, as reported by the Committee on Science, which is a 3-year reauthorization of the Pilot Small Business Technology Transfer [STTR] program. Building upon the established model of the Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] program, the STTR Program provides the statutory basis for structured collaborations between small technology entrepreneurs and nonprofit research institutions, such as universities or Federal-funded research and development centers [FFRDC's], to foster commercialization of the results of federally sponsored research. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2261 is the product of bipartisan efforts in our committee to reauthorize the Small Business Administration through fiscal year 2000. It also reflects the efforts of other individuals and committees and their staffs. I would like to thank Mr. Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the Committee on Science, and Mr. Brown, his ranking member, for their work on H.R. 2429, which has become title VII of this legislation. I would also like to express my appreciation to their staff who worked on this. I would also like to thank Mr. Stump, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and Mr. Solomon, the chairman of the Rules Committee, along with their staffs, for their help in working on title VI of this legislation. I would also like to thank our committee's ranking member, Mr. LaFalce, for all of his help in helping to craft this legislation and assisting in bringing it to this floor. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the Small Business Committee staff who worked on this legislation: Emily Murphy, Mary McKenzie, Charles ``Tee'' Rowe, and Harry Katrichis for the majority, and Jeanne Roslanowick, Steve McSpadden, and Tom Powers for the minority. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2261) to reauthorize and amend the programs of the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1139) to reauthorize the programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 on H.R. 2261, the bill just considered

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of St. Peters for the successful implementation of WorkLink, the first telecommunication center in the State of Missouri and the entire Midwest. Opening in July 1996, WorkLink was designed as a community- based telecommunications center equipped to provide individuals, businesses, and organizations with a wide array of advanced telecommunications and related services. WorkLink promotes telecommuting as an efficient way of doing business and helping employees better balance their time between work and family. WorkLink offers an alternative to many companies and employees to maintain and encourage performance and productivity; assists companies in cutting expenses by consolidating office and parking space; improves employee moral by accommodating work and family needs; and helps the community by reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality. Currently, two-thirds of the available space at WorkLink is equipped with offices and workstations with the advanced technology and interconnectivity to handle most advanced office telecommunications functions. The facility houses many businesse types, including engineering, financial, computer consulting, computer programming, sales/marketing, healthcare, publishing, distance learning, and charitable professionals. By stepping out onto the cutting edge of telecommuting, the city of St. Peters is offering those in their community a tremendous opportunity. I am sure WorkLink will serve as a model for other communities, and I commend Mayor Tom Brown and Helen Robert, WorkLink manager, for their vision and hard work.