Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment is an attempt to close a gap that was opened as a result of the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. During the consideration of that bill, the conference committee deleted funding for a small but important program known as the Hubzone program. We enacted it in this body in 1997 with unanimous, bipartisan support to direct Federal contracting dollars to the Nation's most depressed areas of high poverty and high unemployment; that is, in the inner cities, in the rural areas, in the Native American communities, and in the Alaskan Native villages. We find small firms do not normally want to locate in these areas because they do not have enough customer traffic to buy their products, but as a result they cannot find a customer base. In the Hubzone program, the Government acts as a customer and it buys about $190 billion of goods and services each year. This amendment does not appropriate new money. It simply restores the program to be implemented using the recommendations made in a General Accounting Office report. I ask the support of my colleagues in adopting this amendment.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I again express my sincere thanks to Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens for the very effective way they brought together a very important bill in these difficult times. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the future of our national security as it pertains to U.S. air superiority--the key to ensuring victory in modern war, and to propose an amendment requesting a study of our current and future tactical and military aircraft industrial base. The recent Joint Strike Fighter competition was a tough fight between two well matched and seasoned competitors, Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The next generation of Air Force, Navy and Marine fighter pilots will benefit from this fierce competition. But the Defense Department's long term acquisition strategy has revealed a potential and troubling weakness in the future health of our tactical and military aircraft industrial base. I have long maintained that no matter which company won this contract, the only way to guarantee our national security over the long haul is to maintain the robust aircraft industrial base that preserves innovation and competition which are critical to the development and success of future tactical and military aircraft programs. When the Joint Strike Fighter competition was announced, I stated my strongly held view and supposition that the award would be split so that the loser of the competition would remain in business. Maintaining a robust industrial base is not about Boeing or Lockheed Martin or any one commercial enterprise but what is best for our Nation. I have said for years that, since the cold war's end, we have funded and structured our military on a minimum to get by. And that is wrong. Investing the future of American air superiority, or any other critical defense program, in one company is a risky proposition. The weakened industrial base that results adversely impacts the kind of surge production capability this Nation may need someday to offset unforeseen attrition in our aircraft force structure. The Department of Defense has stated that with regards to the Joint Strike Fighter it will maintain a ``winner-take-all'' strategy. By their our account the winner will be the only U.S. producer of tactical fighter aircraft after F-22 and F/A-18 E/F production ceases. As recently as April of last year, the Honorable Jacques S. Gansler in a statement provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee on defense industrial base considerations said: Today, there exist two or three major (robust and technologically superior) firms in each critical area of defense needs. However, with the potential to go even below that number in the future, we are in danger of losing our greatest weapon in containing costs and insuring rapid innovation; namely, competition. DoD's determination to maintain the ``winner-take-all'' strategy, even in light of their assessment that we will be left with one tactical fighter aircraft producer, deserves a thorough and exhaustive review. A number of broad questions present themselves that must be answered. Will the U.S. Government be able to ensure sufficient expertise exists in the long term so we can preserve a competitive and innovative industrial base in the design, production, and support of tactical and military aircraft? Will the Joint Strike Fighter be the last manned tactical fixed-wing fighter as asserted by Undersecretary of Defense E.C. Aldridge in a letter to Senator Levin? And does the ability to bid on unmanned combat or surveillance aircraft, as asserted by Under Secretary Aldridge, provide ample opportunity for a tactical aircraft manufacturer to retain a robust design, production and support team? Can an aerospace manufacturer reconstitute a tactical and/or military capability once it is lost, and when the barrier to re-entry become too high? Does this Nation's national security interests outweigh the economic benefits to any one company? And will our national security be affected if we cannot continue to ensure a high level of innovation and competitiveness in the development and production of tactical and military aircraft? This includes the presence, or lack of, a robust surge capacity in the event our nation faces high attrition rates with its tactical aircraft force structure. The Department of Defense commissioned a RAND study to examine both near-term and long-term competition options within the Joint Strike Fighter program. The study concluded that the additional costs of split production, estimated to range from $.5 to $1 billion, would not be recouped over the life of the program, currently expected to extend through the year 2040. But does the nation's national security take priority when added costs are less than $1 billion over the life of a 40 plus year program (a cost of less than $25 million per year to preserve more than one source for our fighter aircraft)? A Wall St. Journal article published on Oct. 18, 2001, discusses the stinging defeat handed to General Dynamics in their takeover bid of Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc., when the Justice Department filed an anti-trust suit in federal district court seeking to block the proposed acquisition on the grounds it would eliminate competition in the market for nuclear submarines. The article states: The critical issue in the review process was whether a combination of General Dynamics with Newport News would eliminate competition in the market for naval submarines and whether the loss of that competition would hurt innovation. Comments made by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Honorable ``Pete'' Aldridge, in a letter to my distinguished colleague Senator Carl Levin, and at a Press Conference announcing the JSF winner, make it clear that not only is DoD going to pursue the winner-take-all strategy but that they are taking a ``hands off'' approach to any potential teaming effort between Lockheed Martin--with its coalition of manufacturers--and Boeing. This puts the responsibility and weight of the health of our future industrial base in the hands of a commercial enterprise, and not the administration or the Congress. This is not a wise policy and it justifiably applies to all aspects of our critical needs military industrial base. Finally, on Oct. 23, 2001, the Department of Justice announced they were filing suit to block General Dynamics' purchase of Newport News Shipbuilding. In the body of their press release the Department of Justice states: Our armed forces need the most innovative and highest quality products to protect our country. This merger-to-monopoly would reduce innovation and, ultimately, the quality of the products supplied to the military, while raising prices to the U.S. military and to U.S. taxpayers. The Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill in discussing the Joint Strike Fighter program on page 117 of the report contains the following language: The Committee believes that industrial base concerns can best be addressed AFTER the source selection decision. While the future industrial base may be a concern, DoD can be partner in discussion to address these concerns as companies work on viable teaming or work sharing agreements. As I have noted, it is clear that DoD will not be a partner in any teaming arrangements so it is up to the Congress to act. In order to do so we must acquire a body of data on our tactical aircraft industrial base. And determine if this base will provide sufficient ``innovation AND competition'' in the years after only one company remains to build follow-on aircraft to those currently in production or in development. My amendment specifically asks that the Secretary of Defense conduct the study. I will furthermore recommend that Secretary Rumsfeld select RAND Corporation to perform the study. Why RAND? They are already familiar with the Joint Strike Fighter program, having conducted the DoD study that examined the near and long term competition options. The Department of Defense should have no difficulty working with RAND, and in providing them the data they need to do a thorough study of the impact to the industrial base of DoD's acquisition strategy. In summary, my amendment calls for a study of the costs, risks, and implications to national security of vesting all our tactical aircraft expertise in one prime contractor. The simple fact is that we, as a nation, do not know the risks, costs and implications of this move. We do know intuitively that the loss of competition and innovation can have a disastrous impact on the nation's ability to field future state of the art weapons programs. The Defense Department has never studied this issue even though they acknowledge that the continuing shrinkage of our industrial base is cause for concern. It has never examined the risks or the national security implications. The DoD study regarding the JSF program looked exclusively at the financial costs of keeping two production lines to build Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. That study concluded that there is an additional financial cost associated with two JSF production lines. But what the study failed to examine was the national security risks associated with vesting the future of American air superiority into the hands of a single company. We must not allow our industrial base to shrink down to one company in any critical needs area without close examination and an understanding of the risks and implications. The stakes are too large. We do not--we cannot--know what the future holds for this country 20, 30 or 40 years hence. We learned on September 11 that there are heavy penalties for misjudging unforeseen risks. We cannot afford a similar mistake when it comes to the health of our industrial base and the men and women responsible for flying into harms way. We cannot go down the road to one company blindly. As my amendment clearly states: We must retain adequate competition in the design, engineering, production, sale and support of military aircraft; We must retain continued innovation in the development and manufacture of military aircraft; and We must retain the actual and future capability of more than ``one'' aircraft company to design, engineer, produce and support military aircraft. This study will help to arm us with the knowledge Congress and the President need to make a wise decision. We need the results of this study. And I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment reflects a bill previously entered with my colleague, Senator Carnahan, and other Senators. I ask they be given an opportunity to add themselves as cosponsors to this amendment. This arises out of the attacks of September 11. It helps solve a serious problem in the airline industry. And it provides for fair treatment of the parties involved. I think this is a reasonable response. Mr. President, the attacks of September 11 created severe strains on our Nation and its economy. The economic harm from those attacks has been most pronounced in our airline industry, the backbone of our transportation system. Congress moved quickly and properly to respond to the crisis facing the commercial airlines with relief legislation in September. The fallout of the attacks, however, continues to be felt by the airlines and airline employees even after the Federal help. Many will argue that a crisis continues in the airline industry. All of our major airlines received aid through the industry relief bill. The Federal help was distributed fairly in proportion to the carrier's share of the market. American Airlines received the largest share of that aid based on its combined size as a result of its acquisitions from TWA. Unlike the other major carriers and their employees, the American and TWA employees faced the repercussions of September 11 with the uncertainty of the fact that their carriers had not completed the combination of operations envisioned by the AA/TWA transaction. With the severe disruption of the airline industry caused by the attacks, the TWA employees in particular faced an uncertain future of layoffs knowing that there was no process in place to fairly and reasonably integrate their groups into the much larger American groups. Indeed, the potential exists for them to suffer disproportionate job losses because there is no fair process in place. In support of that principle of fair treatment, I have proposed the Airline Workers Fairness Act. This legislation is designed to achieve a simple yet essential purpose--to provide a neutral and fair process to integrate employee groups of airlines involved in uncompleted mergers and transactions. It achieves this goal through: A third party neutral arbitrator selected by the parties to make a final and binding decision based on the principles of fairness and equity. This is not a new idea, but is the long-established process set forth by the former Civil Aeronautics Board some thirty years ago. The notion of a fair and equitable seniority integration before a neutral arbitrator has been the industry standard for over fifty years in dozens of different airline mergers and acquisitions. This bill recognizes that especially in the midst of severe disruption in the airline industry, none of the interested parties have the ability to determine a fair and equitable resolution. It puts the decision making out of the realm of passion and self- interest and into the hands of an experienced and fair-minded professional arbitrator. Finally, this bill gives both sides the chance for a fair hearing. We are not talking about micro-managing airlines or interfering in private contracts. The procedures this bill establishes are recognized widely as industry standard for seniority integrations. They are also needed by employees and their families facing the loss of a lifetime's work. Layoffs seem inevitable, but we can ensure that in the midst of the severe dislocations and upheaval in the lives of these airlines employees that our fundamental values were preserved, fair treatment and a fair hearing. I have heard from all sides on this issue. Both pilots unions have been on the phone and in my office on countless occasions. I have also been contacted by the International Association of Machinists representing both flight attendants and machinists. All parties have clearly expressed to me and my staff that they want this seniority integration to come to a conclusion. It is ultimately clear, however, that an agreement cannot be reached under the status quo. A fair process is desperately needed by thousands of hard working and dedicated employees and their families who face enormous dislocation and insecurity. I ask that we echo the words of our Commander in Chief and our colleagues in the Congress; in a time of crisis we must not give up our fundamental values. The Airlines Workers Fairness Act preserves our fundamental value of fair treatment during the crisis facing the airline industry. It says that we will not abandon that value, rather we will recognize the enormous sacrifices made by the workers in this industry, both now and in the past. We will give them that simple assurance of fair treatment in the face of the crisis and sacrifice. We are not meddling with collective bargaining or union politics * * * rather, we are simply helping two parties find the parameters to reach a fair and equitable resolution. I urge my colleagues to support this important principle to assure fair and adequate treatment for all airline employees. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk and ask that it be immediately considered.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to express my very strong support for the embattled nomination of Eugene Scalia to be Solicitor of Labor. I am extremely frustrated, as many of us are on this side, by the other side's unwillingness to bring this nomination to the floor for a vote. Mr. Scalia has been cleared by the HELP Committee and is now languishing in limbo with the session fast drawing to a conclusion and the window for acting starting to close. There are no good reasons for holding up this nomination, for refusing to bring it to the floor. May I be permitted to state the obvious? The debate is not about Eugene Scalia's qualifications, experience, intelligence, dedication, compassion, or any other attribute we would normally consider to determine if a candidate should be confirmed. He meets everyone's definition of what this position requires. Even those who have opposed his nomination are quick to admit he possesses the skills and the experience that Solicitors of Labor typically have. It seems to me the only basis on which Mr. Scalia is being blocked is that those on the other side did not agree with the results of last year's election on two levels and with some of the actions this Senate has already taken. First they do not like the fact that George Bush emerged as the new President, and some are trying to do anything in their power to frustrate and impede his administration from pursuing its agenda. Secondly, because Mr. Scalia's father is one of the Justices of the Supreme Court who was in the majority decision which found for George Bush in Florida, they are using their disagreement with Justice Scalia as a reason to block the confirmation of his son. Both of these reasons are shameful, and they should have no place in this consideration. The opponents of Mr. Scalia have raised other arguments which are equally without merit and specious. One of these is that Mr. Scalia is not qualified for this role because the Solicitor of Labor must serve as the people's lawyer and take up the cause of those whom the labor laws and regulations are intended to protect and, because Mr. Scalia has represented employers, he is on the wrong side of the equation. That argument fails on a number of grounds. First, the Solicitor of Labor answers to the Secretary of Labor. The Solicitor's role is to advise the Secretary about the arguments surrounding the Department's actions and her decisions. This is the role this position has played regardless of the administration or party in power. While it is an important position, it is not at all the policy-oriented position that Mr. Scalia's opponents make it out to be. The notion that the Solicitor of Labor is the people's lawyer is a straw man argument invented for the sole reason of creating a fictional standard that Mr. Scalia's opponents think he fails to meet because he has spent his career representing employers in labor issues. The second reason this argument fails is that it does not recognize the substance of Mr. Scalia's work. Even under this fictional standard, Mr. Scalia would qualify. A large part of Mr. Scalia's career in labor law has been spent advising his clients, the employers, on how to comply with the law and steering them away from mistreating their employees under the law. In other words, his career has been focused on helping employers treat their employees better in accordance with the laws passed by this body. Thus, he has indeed taken up the cause of those whom the labor laws are intended to protect. Another unsupportable argument against Mr. Scalia has to do with his involvement in the OSHA ergonomics regulation debacle. I know something about that matter. We in the Small Business Committee spent a good deal of time working on that issue. Mr. Scalia represented employers on this issue and thus was on the side that ultimately prevailed when both Houses of Congress, by bipartisan margins, invalidated that regulation last March. May I remind fellow Senators that the vote was 56 to 44, with every single Republican and 6 Democrats supporting the resolution of disapproval. Why should this be held against him, when he agreed with the position we took by a 56-to-44 vote margin? This was a resounding victory, perhaps one of the biggest for those of us on this side of the aisle on the labor issue. The fact that Mr. Scalia was right in his arguments should be to his credit. It should be an indication that he understands what the limits of government are, what the limits on government should be, and if the Department goes too far, it should be reined in. I don't need to go through the long list of reasons we won that vote. It should be clear that we would not have won with such an impressive margin if that rule had not been so horribly flawed. Are we willing to say that because the Clinton administration OSHA put an egregiously flawed regulation forward, we are not going to confirm Eugene Scalia to be Solicitor of Labor because he agreed with the majority in both Houses and the President that it should be repealed? While all these arguments and discussions about Mr. Scalia's merits unequivocably support confirming him, they obscure one of the hidden truths about him. He genuinely cares for the people whom he represents and will approach the position of Solicitor of Labor ever mindful of those who rely on the Department of Labor for protection. Since his confirmation hearing and the subsequent vote approving him in committee, we have received a letter from a woman whose case he took pro bono--at no charge--which illustrates this point and conclusively demonstrates the caliber of person Eugene Scalia is. It is a short letter. I will read excerpts from it, and then ask unanimous consent that the full text be printed in the Record. The letter is from Ms. Cecilia Madan. It begins: I am a deaf, Hispanic immigrant and a single mother, working full-time to support my daughter. And I have information about Eugene Scalia's handling of a labor employment matter involving me. She describes how, in 1998, her work environment became increasingly hostile, abusive, and difficult for her to bear. In seeking legal assistance, she learned she could file an action under civil rights laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the DC Human Rights Act. But every lawyer she consulted told her that even if they were willing to take the case on a contingent fee basis, she would have to pay a substantial retainer upfront. She simply did not have it. She could only afford their consultation fees. Then she writes: Then a friend of mine recommended that I try the ``pro- bono'' program at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Mr. Scalia in particular. My brother called for me, to see if I could have an appointment. I was so worried that Mr. Scalia might be too busy and turn me away (after all, I had never heard of him before)! But he agreed to an appointment immediately. At our meeting, Mr. Scalia was so kind, and thoughtful, and patient; he even asked to see a picture of my daughter! I fear I must have rambled a great deal when I told my story, but he didn't seem to mind at all. Our meeting lasted a long time, but he didn't ask for a consultation fee or a retainer, and he told me that he and his law firm would take my case ``pro bono.'' He said that he didn't think a lawsuit (which could take a long time) would be necessary, because often these matters could be resolved through ``firm negotiations,'' which he was fully willing to undertake for me. He made every effort to reassure me, saying that he and his associate would do everything they could to ``resolve this.'' He seemed to sense my extreme anxiety and tried his best to calm my fears. I was able to walk away with confidence and hope. The negotiations went on for several weeks, but they were tremendously successful--much more than I had even hoped for. ``Firm negotiations'' is right: The employer agreed to just about everything I had asked for, and ``my lawyers(!)'' got the employer to agree to things I hadn't even thought to ask for! Not only did he and his associate negotiate around the employment problems I was facing right then, they took great care to look ahead and watch out for my future interests. A few months later, when I was able to get a new job, with a different employer (as a result of the settlement Mr. Scalia got for me), I was impressed to receive brief word from him saying that he had heard of my new job and hoped that my daughter and I were well. . . .'' She concludes her letter this way: Throughout my ordeal, Mr. Scalia went out of his way to help. He seemed especially . . . concerned about not making things worse for me on the job, while he was vigorously defending my rights with my employer. Even though he had never seen me before and even though I could never pay him, simple justice is what he wanted for this employee and worked hard to get, and that is what he got for me. I am so grateful to him for his efforts as my lawyer. . . . I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. I think this simple letter speaks volumes about Mr. Scalia and the type of person and the type of lawyer he is. It is a clear statement of the values he upholds and the positive impact he believes he can have as a lawyer. This is the person President Bush has chosen to be his Solicitor of Labor. I truly and honestly believe the President could not have found a better candidate, or one who is better qualified, better trained, and better motivated. I am thrilled that Mr. Scalia is willing to accept the responsibilities of public service, and I implore the majority leader to bring this nomination to the floor for a vote before we adjourn. Every shameful day he remains unconfirmed is another day the Secretary of Labor and America's employees do not benefit from his abilities and compassion. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments on the outstanding accomplishment of Cuba, Missouri on becoming the official Route 66 Mural City as declared by the Missouri State House of Representatives. Cuba, Missouri is located along Interstate 44 and highway 19 near the Meramec River State Park and the Huzzah river in Crawford County. Also, located near by is the beautiful Mark Twain National Forrest offering a great deal of hunting, fishing and water recreation. Cuba is a beautiful city and has much to offer its citizens and those who visit. Located along the historic Route 66 and established in 1857, Cuba has witnessed and been a part of many historical events. Through local artisans, Cuba, MO has taken the incitive to remind its citizens and those who visit of its storied past through three murals on local buildings. The three murals currently displayed on the buildings depict the early history of the town, and present us with a reminder of its beautiful apple orchards, the six residents who lost their lives defending this great nation during World War Two, and the original Peoples Bank building. These murals also are a reminder of the history that not only shaped Cuba, but our great state as well. Although the population of Cuba is only about 3,200 people, the city continues to grow and prosper. I commend them on taking the incitive to remember our history and educate those who visit this great city by this beautiful display of art work. There are plans to finish ten murals along historic Route 66 by the year 2007. Cuba was the first community to take the initiative to paint these murals and now serves as the center for development for these murals, including obtaining a trademark on Route 66 Murals. Again, I congratulate them on such a wonderful project.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, there are a couple of issues on which I agree very strongly with my good friend, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, and one on which I disagree. First, I agree on the need to bring up an energy package, have a sound and full debate, and pass a sensible energy package. We need it. I disagree with him on the need to continue the environmentally sound development of natural resources and petroleum products out of ANWR. I have been on the North Slope, a frozen desert which is not harmed by drilling there now. The 2,000 acres that would be involved out of ANWR's 1.9 million acres will do nothing but provide a sounder base for the caribou that live there--I disagree on that, but I strongly agree with him on the need to bring up S. 1499. If a Senator has a problem with it, air it on the floor. We have 55 cosponsors; 18 out of the 19 members of the Senate Small Business Committee said it is time to do something for small business. It had become apparent to all Members that in 2000 we had an economic slowdown. Officially, we are in a recession. As we know, as banks tighten credit standards, and as access to credit drops, small business slows down. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, there were significant weaknesses in the small business sector. We proposed a reasonable, bipartisan measure that can go a long way toward helping small business get the restart it needs to provide jobs and spur economic activity in this country. Very briefly, the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act would make economic injury disaster loans available to all small businesses directly impacted by terrorist attacks. Businesses that shut down, such as airport shutdowns and general aviation shutdowns, and airport suppliers, would be allowed a repayment of principal and interest deferral for 2 years and interest could be forgiven. The SBA current disaster loan program was not designed to meet the extraordinary circumstances that came about as a result of the terrorist activities. It could be a year or more before many of the small businesses in New York City can open their doors. They could not repay the loans right away, so we allow them to defer. Small businesses throughout the United States have shut down. When general aviation was grounded, flight schools were closed, and other small businesses, depending on aircraft, were hurt. Our bill allows these small businesses to defer for 2 years repayment of principal and interest on their SBA disaster loans. Other small businesses experiencing economic problems that need help with their cashflow, working capital, or investments to continue their operation or hire more people would be available for special loan programs with a lower interest prime, with a 90 percent guarantee of the loan, and with a deferral of principal and payments for up to a year. Small businesses are already hurt. We need to give them a stimulus to get them moving again. There would be other breaks: No guarantee fees to be paid by small businesses. The amount that the SBA could guarantee would increase from 80 to 90 percent for loans up to $150,000 and from 75 to 85 percent for loans greater than $150,000. The participating bank fees would be removed on 504 certified development company loans. That is what we propose. That is what the Small Business Committee says makes sense. Right now we are talking about coming forward with a $70 to $80 to $90 to $100 billion stimulus package because we know the economy needs a jump-start. That is $70 to $80 to $90 billion that would mostly be paid out in the hopes that people would use that money to buy and get business started again. We are in a business recession. The beauty of this program is no money is spent unless small business borrows money to put to work. We want small businesses to get back to work. This program doesn't cost a thing unless some small business goes out and borrows the money and puts it to work, buys equipment, uses it for working capital, uses it to pay employees. When we talk about credit scoring in the credit subsidy rates, people's eyes always glaze over. They say the total cost of the bill for 1 year is $815 million. That means they make $17 billion worth of loans, and somewhere around half a percent of those or $800 million may go bad. We are talking million. The rest is paid back. There are other minor losses on fees. Total cost to the Government is $816 million. I am almost embarrassed to come out here and talk about a stimulus package in terms of millions of dollars because anybody on this floor worth their salt can get up and talk about billions and billions and billions of dollars they would like to see in stimulus. We can get small business investing, growing, hiring more people, paying wages, buying equipment, being good customers for other businesses, for $816 million. I think this bill makes sense. We have a majority of the Senate cosponsoring it. Let's get on with this bill. If we are not able to bring it up as a separate bill, I have this warm feeling that it will be offered as an amendment at some point and we will have an opportunity for that full debate at that time. I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts; I expect as usual when we are talking about helping small business, some 80 to 90 Members of this body will go along with us. I strongly urge my colleagues to let us know what their problems are with the bill, talk it out, get it done, and pass it. We are going to have an opportunity to vote on it at some point. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, Senator Domenici has a proposal he has crafted to provide immediate economic stimulus and assistance to low- and middle-income workers who have been suffering, as we all have, from the economic downturn. I have signed on with him in support of his measure because his idea, which is a payroll tax holiday for December, would be the easiest, simplest, fairest, and most effective way to get a stimulus of between $38 and $41 billion directly into the pockets of middle and lower income workers in the United States. This is not a tax cut for the rich because anybody who is making over $80,000 a year has already finished making their Social Security or payroll tax, FICA tax, contributions. This would provide, if we can put this in the stimulus package and pass it quickly this month, that you would not send in your FICA tax withholdings or contributions for December. It is simple. Nothing goes in the mail. You don't have to worry about mail deliveries or all the problems we have had. Obviously, most people know we haven't had mail for almost a month in Congress. There are other places where security precautions have delayed the mail. You don't have to go through a complicated system of developing regulations and rules or even cutting checks for a rebate. When the President proposed a rebate many weeks ago, there was time to get the rebate check prepared and get it out in December so we would have a productive, economically thriving holiday season. Unfortunately, because of the lateness of the hour, it is likely that a rebate check or other assistance that has to be paid out by check from the Federal Government will be 6 to 8 weeks away and will not hit in the pockets where the working men and women can spend it until sometime in January or February. This obviously is one part of a stimulus package. I happen to believe that in addition to more generous unemployment benefits and providing assistance through grants to the States for health care, we also need to have assistance for small businesses, many of which have been absolutely savaged by the economic downturn as well as the crash at the World Trade Center. Those parts are important, too. I have some small business provisions I hope will be included in the stimulus package. The great thing about the Domenici proposal for the FICA December tax holiday, not paying the Social Security withholding amounts in December, is that it can happen immediately. It will put the money in the pockets of those who can best spend it. It helps the single mom who is just struggling to get by. It helps the individual worker who makes about $40,000. They would have $210 more in their pockets. For a self- employed person who has to pay both the employee and employer side of the FICA tax, 12.4 percent, that would be about $420 they would not have to send to the Federal Government in December. Of course, there would be a transfer from the general revenue to Social Security so we would not impact Social Security. I urge all my colleagues to pay attention to the thoughtful and effective proposal Senator Domenici has outlined for us. This should be the centerpiece. Democrats and Republicans can come together behind this proposal, move it quickly; let's get moving. We are in an economic downturn. It has been going on for 15 months. It got a whole lot worse after September 11. This economy needs a boost. Leaving the FICA tax in the pockets of the people who are working, the medium- and low-income workers, and the people who employ them is the best way to get this economy moving again.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, Senator Domenici has a proposal he has crafted to provide immediate economic stimulus and assistance to low- and middle-income workers who have been suffering, as we all have, from the economic downturn. I have signed on with him in support of his measure because his idea, which is a payroll tax holiday for December, would be the easiest, simplest, fairest, and most effective way to get a stimulus of between $38 and $41 billion directly into the pockets of middle and lower income workers in the United States. This is not a tax cut for the rich because anybody who is making over $80,000 a year has already finished making their Social Security or payroll tax, FICA tax, contributions. This would provide, if we can put this in the stimulus package and pass it quickly this month, that you would not send in your FICA tax withholdings or contributions for December. It is simple. Nothing goes in the mail. You don't have to worry about mail deliveries or all the problems we have had. Obviously, most people know we haven't had mail for almost a month in Congress. There are other places where security precautions have delayed the mail. You don't have to go through a complicated system of developing regulations and rules or even cutting checks for a rebate. When the President proposed a rebate many weeks ago, there was time to get the rebate check prepared and get it out in December so we would have a productive, economically thriving holiday season. Unfortunately, because of the lateness of the hour, it is likely that a rebate check or other assistance that has to be paid out by check from the Federal Government will be 6 to 8 weeks away and will not hit in the pockets where the working men and women can spend it until sometime in January or February. This obviously is one part of a stimulus package. I happen to believe that in addition to more generous unemployment benefits and providing assistance through grants to the States for health care, we also need to have assistance for small businesses, many of which have been absolutely savaged by the economic downturn as well as the crash at the World Trade Center. Those parts are important, too. I have some small business provisions I hope will be included in the stimulus package. The great thing about the Domenici proposal for the FICA December tax holiday, not paying the Social Security withholding amounts in December, is that it can happen immediately. It will put the money in the pockets of those who can best spend it. It helps the single mom who is just struggling to get by. It helps the individual worker who makes about $40,000. They would have $210 more in their pockets. For a self- employed person who has to pay both the employee and employer side of the FICA tax, 12.4 percent, that would be about $420 they would not have to send to the Federal Government in December. Of course, there would be a transfer from the general revenue to Social Security so we would not impact Social Security. I urge all my colleagues to pay attention to the thoughtful and effective proposal Senator Domenici has outlined for us. This should be the centerpiece. Democrats and Republicans can come together behind this proposal, move it quickly; let's get moving. We are in an economic downturn. It has been going on for 15 months. It got a whole lot worse after September 11. This economy needs a boost. Leaving the FICA tax in the pockets of the people who are working, the medium- and low-income workers, and the people who employ them is the best way to get this economy moving again.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass the ``Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act of 2001,'' S. 1196. 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. There has been a significant growth in the small business sector of the U.S. economy over the past two decades. Today, small businesses make up over \1/2\ of the entire U.S. economy. Over 99 percent of all employers in the United States are small businesses. They employ over 50 percent of workers and provide 75 percent of the net new jobs each year. Small businesses generate 51 percent of the Nation's private sector output. In light of the ongoing dip in the U.S. economy with the accompanying retrenchment by many businesses, both large and small, S. 1196 will serve as part of the solution to move us toward a recovery. Before voting on S. 1196, I will offer an amendment that will permit the Small Business Administration to increase fees paid by Small Business Investment Companies up to 1.38 percent. When the Committee on Small Business unanimously approved the bill on July 19, 2001, the Committee adopted a fee increase from 1.0 percent to 1.28 percent. At that time, some members of the committee believed they could obtain an appropriation for the SBIC Participating Securities Program that would offset part of the fee increase. At this time, it appears unlikely that the Conferees on the Commerce Justice State Appropriations bill will approve any funds for the SBIC program. Consequently, it is critical that the Senate approve a fee increase to 1.38 percent, as required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990; otherwise, the SBIC Participating Securities Program will be shut down. 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 manufacturers 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 of 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,'' as amended, would permit the annual interest fee paid by Participating Securities SBICs to increase from 1.0 percent to no more than 1.38 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. The fee increase included in the bill, 1.38 percent, will allow the program to operate at its authorized level--$3.5 billion--an amount needed to help support small businesses as they help lead out country to an economic recovery. 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 it 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 or other participants in the management or conduct of the SBIC. At the time Section 313 if 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. Time is of the essence. We need to act promptly and pass the Small Business Investment Company Act of 2001 today, so that the House of Representatives has time to act before the Congress adjourns in the coming weeks. The bill was read the third time and passed, as follows:

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill I call the ``The Homefront Medical Preparedness Act.'' In the past century we have witnessed unprecedented advances in science, technology and medicine and have seen limitless potential to improve the human condition, cure disease, and advance human health in ways that were once unimaginable. Yet, at the same time we have seen some of these very advances have spawned new threats, threats that were simply inconceivable 100 years ago. The recent outbreaks of anthrax in Florida, New York City, and Washington, DC, coupled with the terrorist attack of September 11 have brought to light the compelling need to properly prepare our communities for the threat of bioterrorists attacks. A strong public-health infrastructure is the best defense against any bioterrorism attack. As a Nation we remain highly vulnerable, not because we are unprepared, but because we are under-prepared. The Department of Health and Human Services has made tremendous advances over the past few years. However, while significant progress has been made, there are still large gaps in our current approach. Our goal must be to eliminate these gaps and reduce the risk to our Nation and our communities. As a nation, we must prepare our communities, and improve our capacity to respond. Central to an effective response to a bioterrorist attack are detection, treatment and containment of a disease epidemic and our Nation's public-health system is on the front line in this effort. The Nation's public health system is a complex network of people, systems, and organizations working at the local, State and national levels. The Nation is served by more then 3,000 county and city health departments, more than 3,000 local boards of health, 59 State and territorial-health departments, tribal-health departments more than 160,000 public and private laboratories. Current estimates suggest that the public-health workforce includes 500,000 professionals employed at the local, State and national levels. According to the Health Resource and Services Administration in 1989 only 44 percent of these 500,000 workers had formal, academic training in public health and those with graduate public health degrees were an even smaller fraction. As of 1997, 78 percent of local health departments executives did not have graduate degrees in public health. Changes on the public health system have brought new demands on the workforce and identified a need for additional training and education. Many public-health workers do not have the necessary skills and knowledge base to meet the needs of the emerging public-health system and public-health threats. These statistics highlight the critical need to provide these professionals with the most up-to-date training, technology, and tools necessary to meet the increasing demands and emerging needs. An important first step has already been taken. The Centers for Disease Control has created Centers for Public Health Preparedness across the country. There are currently 14 centers total: 7 Academic Centers, 4 Speciality Centers, and 3 Local Exemplar Centers. The Academic Centers link schools of public health, State and local-health agencies and other academic and community health partners to foster individual preparedness on the front line. The Speciality Centers focus on a topic, professional discipline, core public-health competency, practice setting or application of learning technology. And finally, the Local Exemplar Centers develop advanced applications at the community level in three areas of key importance to preparedness for bioterrorism and other urgent health threats: integrated communications and information systems across multiple sectors; advanced operational readiness assessment; and comprehensive training and evaluation. In Missouri we are fortunate to have not one, but two centers in St. Louis at St. Louis University School of Public Health: an Academic Center the Heartland Center for Public Health Preparedness as well as a Speciality Center The Center for the Study of Bioterrorism and Emerging Threats. The School of Public Health at St. Louis University has clearly been on the forefront of this issue. I was honored to have secured Federal appropriations dollars necessary for startup costs for the Center for the Study of Bioterrorism, the only specialty center with a primary focus on bioterrorism in the country. The center provides public-healthcare providers and healthcare facilities with the tools needed for preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation of intentional or naturally occurring outbreaks. Under the leadership of Dr. Evans, the center has developed training curriculum that is being used nationwide to train healthcare providers and public-health departments. In fact, the center's training materials were used by the CDC to train emergency health personal, healthcare providers and other public-health workers in New York to respond to the September 11 attack. But more can and must be done. Today I introduced legislation which will expand the national network of Centers of Public Health Preparedness by adding new centers across the country as well as funneling more valuable resources to existing centers to meet urgent, public-health training needs. This bill will authorize $50 million and would instruct the Director of the Centers for Disease Control to establish a national network of Centers for Public Health Preparedness utilizing the existing Centers for Public Health Preparedness Program to train and to prepare the national public-health workforce, healthcare providers and the general public to respond to bioterrorist threats. Each center, housed at an accredited school of public health will 1. provide training and education to local and state health department staff, emergency first responders, and primary and acute care providers on the best practices necessary to protect against, and respond to the array of potential threats facing the American public, including bioterrorism, infectious disease and weapons of mass destruction; 2. provide information to healthcare [providers and other components of the healthcare industry to protect against and respond to the threat of bioterrorism, infectious disease and weapons of mass destruction; and 3. provide information and education on relevant bioterrorist threats to the public. Under my legislation each center, both new and existing, will receive at least $1 million per year, but may receive additional sums per year if the CDC deems additional resources are necessary to carry out regional or national training activities at a particular center. I believe that our schools of pubic health across the country, working in conjunction with the CDC can provide training and education to local and State health department staff, emergency first responders, and primary and acute-care providers on the best practices necessary to protect against, identify and respond to the wide array of potential threats facing the American public, including bioterrorism, infectious disease and weapons of mass destruction. The capacity and competency of our healthcare workforce is a critical component of the basic public- health infrastructure necessary to protect our communities. As with our military, our public-health system must be prepared at all times to ward off threats and respond to crises. Our national public-health infrastructure is the first and in some cases the only line of defense. Like our military, our public-health system must be at a constant state of readiness nationwide and this legislation will enable our public health system to better achieve this goal. If the public-health system is fully prepared then communities across the country will be better protected.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill I call the ``The Homefront Medical Preparedness Act.'' In the past century we have witnessed unprecedented advances in science, technology and medicine and have seen limitless potential to improve the human condition, cure disease, and advance human health in ways that were once unimaginable. Yet, at the same time we have seen some of these very advances have spawned new threats, threats that were simply inconceivable 100 years ago. The recent outbreaks of anthrax in Florida, New York City, and Washington, DC, coupled with the terrorist attack of September 11 have brought to light the compelling need to properly prepare our communities for the threat of bioterrorists attacks. A strong public-health infrastructure is the best defense against any bioterrorism attack. As a Nation we remain highly vulnerable, not because we are unprepared, but because we are under-prepared. The Department of Health and Human Services has made tremendous advances over the past few years. However, while significant progress has been made, there are still large gaps in our current approach. Our goal must be to eliminate these gaps and reduce the risk to our Nation and our communities. As a nation, we must prepare our communities, and improve our capacity to respond. Central to an effective response to a bioterrorist attack are detection, treatment and containment of a disease epidemic and our Nation's public-health system is on the front line in this effort. The Nation's public health system is a complex network of people, systems, and organizations working at the local, State and national levels. The Nation is served by more then 3,000 county and city health departments, more than 3,000 local boards of health, 59 State and territorial-health departments, tribal-health departments more than 160,000 public and private laboratories. Current estimates suggest that the public-health workforce includes 500,000 professionals employed at the local, State and national levels. According to the Health Resource and Services Administration in 1989 only 44 percent of these 500,000 workers had formal, academic training in public health and those with graduate public health degrees were an even smaller fraction. As of 1997, 78 percent of local health departments executives did not have graduate degrees in public health. Changes on the public health system have brought new demands on the workforce and identified a need for additional training and education. Many public-health workers do not have the necessary skills and knowledge base to meet the needs of the emerging public-health system and public-health threats. These statistics highlight the critical need to provide these professionals with the most up-to-date training, technology, and tools necessary to meet the increasing demands and emerging needs. An important first step has already been taken. The Centers for Disease Control has created Centers for Public Health Preparedness across the country. There are currently 14 centers total: 7 Academic Centers, 4 Speciality Centers, and 3 Local Exemplar Centers. The Academic Centers link schools of public health, State and local-health agencies and other academic and community health partners to foster individual preparedness on the front line. The Speciality Centers focus on a topic, professional discipline, core public-health competency, practice setting or application of learning technology. And finally, the Local Exemplar Centers develop advanced applications at the community level in three areas of key importance to preparedness for bioterrorism and other urgent health threats: integrated communications and information systems across multiple sectors; advanced operational readiness assessment; and comprehensive training and evaluation. In Missouri we are fortunate to have not one, but two centers in St. Louis at St. Louis University School of Public Health: an Academic Center the Heartland Center for Public Health Preparedness as well as a Speciality Center The Center for the Study of Bioterrorism and Emerging Threats. The School of Public Health at St. Louis University has clearly been on the forefront of this issue. I was honored to have secured Federal appropriations dollars necessary for startup costs for the Center for the Study of Bioterrorism, the only specialty center with a primary focus on bioterrorism in the country. The center provides public-healthcare providers and healthcare facilities with the tools needed for preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation of intentional or naturally occurring outbreaks. Under the leadership of Dr. Evans, the center has developed training curriculum that is being used nationwide to train healthcare providers and public-health departments. In fact, the center's training materials were used by the CDC to train emergency health personal, healthcare providers and other public-health workers in New York to respond to the September 11 attack. But more can and must be done. Today I introduced legislation which will expand the national network of Centers of Public Health Preparedness by adding new centers across the country as well as funneling more valuable resources to existing centers to meet urgent, public-health training needs. This bill will authorize $50 million and would instruct the Director of the Centers for Disease Control to establish a national network of Centers for Public Health Preparedness utilizing the existing Centers for Public Health Preparedness Program to train and to prepare the national public-health workforce, healthcare providers and the general public to respond to bioterrorist threats. Each center, housed at an accredited school of public health will 1. provide training and education to local and state health department staff, emergency first responders, and primary and acute care providers on the best practices necessary to protect against, and respond to the array of potential threats facing the American public, including bioterrorism, infectious disease and weapons of mass destruction; 2. provide information to healthcare [providers and other components of the healthcare industry to protect against and respond to the threat of bioterrorism, infectious disease and weapons of mass destruction; and 3. provide information and education on relevant bioterrorist threats to the public. Under my legislation each center, both new and existing, will receive at least $1 million per year, but may receive additional sums per year if the CDC deems additional resources are necessary to carry out regional or national training activities at a particular center. I believe that our schools of pubic health across the country, working in conjunction with the CDC can provide training and education to local and State health department staff, emergency first responders, and primary and acute-care providers on the best practices necessary to protect against, identify and respond to the wide array of potential threats facing the American public, including bioterrorism, infectious disease and weapons of mass destruction. The capacity and competency of our healthcare workforce is a critical component of the basic public- health infrastructure necessary to protect our communities. As with our military, our public-health system must be prepared at all times to ward off threats and respond to crises. Our national public-health infrastructure is the first and in some cases the only line of defense. Like our military, our public-health system must be at a constant state of readiness nationwide and this legislation will enable our public health system to better achieve this goal. If the public-health system is fully prepared then communities across the country will be better protected.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is very important that we debate and understand where we are going on the stimulus package. I agree with what many people have said: We do need an economic stimulus. We have been in a recession for 15, 16 months. September 11 has pushed us down even further. The economists may say we have to wait until we have two successive quarters of negative growth, but everybody knows the economy has been going downhill. I also agree that what we need to do needs to be immediate, needs to be stimulative, and should not be permanent; it should be temporary. I have a great deal of problems with what has been produced by the House and what has been produced by the Finance Committee. A newspaper that is common to the area the occupant of the chair and I serve--I often don't agree with it--had an editorial today referring to one part of the Senate Finance Committee bill and talked about chicken manure and applied that appellation to both bills, the one that came out of the House and one that came out of the Finance Committee. I wouldn't go so far myself as to say that. I would say, as we say back home, I have a minimum amount of high enthusiasm for either one of those bills. Now, on either one of them, one can say these are needed things. Any bill that provides for research in science and building infrastructure, things normally in the course of appropriations, I would support. We need to build highways. We need to do research. There are a lot of problems with which we need to pick up. Similarly, when you are talking about tax relief and tax cuts, the long-term good of the economy requires that we lower marginal tax rates and get rid of the craziness that the alternative minimum tax imposes, particularly on individuals and small businesses. But I don't think this is the time to do it. I think we need to take care of those people who are hurting. That is why I think we ought to provide something that has unemployment compensation and grants to the States to help with health care. I also believe we need to help small business. I have filed a couple of amendments that do several things for small business. Frankly, small business was largely left out of the Senate Finance Committee and the House bills. Small business is the driving engine of our economy, and nobody seemed to care about small business. They are the ones taking it in the teeth in many areas. So I filed amendments that do several things. First, my amendment provides for much more generous loan terms for small businesses that have been directly or indirectly affected by the September 11 terrorist attacks, by deferring and/or forgiving interest on these loans and lowering fees. In other words, it says to small business that if you are willing to take the chance now to invest and grow your business as this economy starts to turn around, we are going to give you a break on the amount you have to pay up front. You can defer paying interest until we come out of this. That makes a lot of sense. I think, also, we need to encourage and ensure that small business gets a share of Government procurement as part of these stimulus packages. We pass small business bills that give all kinds of benefits to small business and then the bureaucrats find ways around them. We need to tighten up and eliminate those loopholes so when the Federal Government spends money, a part of that money goes to small businesses for the purchase of goods or services. On the tax front, if there is one thing we can do to help small business it is to raise the amount of new equipment that they can expense. Today, if a small business owner buys a piece of equipment, he can expense up to $24,000 of the purchase price. My proposal is to increase that limit to $50,000 that can be written off immediately so they can get an immediate tax break and don't have to depreciate it. We would also raise the limit on vehicles. Right now, you can only depreciate about $14,000 on vehicles. A lot of vehicles--particularly vans and trucks used by small business--cost well above that amount and they can't depreciate the full cost of the vehicle. So it is a real burden on small business to buy them. For restaurants, which are dominated by small businesses, we ought to restore the full 100-percent business meal deduction. These are things we can do on an immediate basis that will have an immediate impact on small businesses, their suppliers, equipment manufacturers, and our economy as a whole. I also happen to favor one of the simplest, most direct approaches to get money into the pockets of working men and women who can spend it right away. Senator Domenici has developed a concept of having a December tax holiday on FICA, the Social Security payments all working Americans make each year. Under this proposal, any payments that are owed during December by employees or employers would not be sent in, leaving more in each worker's pay check and more for the business to protect jobs. The General Treasury would reimburse the Social Security fund so there would be no loss to Social Security Trust Fund while protecting retirees' benefits. This is one way we could get money into the pockets of people who will spend it in December. One of the things people are talking about is the expansion of the tax rebates that started in July. The rebate the President suggested is fine, but most people say it is unworkable because you can't get the rebate out until January and there's a good chance it will slow down the processing of returns and mailing of refunds in the upcoming tax filing season. I think everybody realizes that to get a strong economy we need the money in the pockets of the working men and women in America now, not tomorrow. So I would like to see a serious consideration to the December FICA tax holiday that Senator Domenici has constructed. I have several more amendments at the desk. If we are going to be here and have a vote-a-rama on a long list of amendments, you can count me in because I think these things ought to be considered. I believe there is also discussion, on the other hand, by the leadership that if the point of order is sustained, there will be serious negotiations so that a final package will come to the floor. Obviously, that is not in my hands. But I raise these points about small business and the need to stimulate the small business sector of our economy, which would be helped by easier loans, greater expensing, more Government contracts, and which would be helped by the plan that Senator Domenici has conceived. I hope when he introduces it, he will add me as a cosponsor. These things will help. I think they will give the kind of economic stimulus we need right away, and if there is to be a negotiated agreement--House-Senate, Republican-Democrat, and the White House--I hope they will take into account these vitally important provisions for small business, and perhaps avoid the paths that will be best addressed in other legislative action at other times. I urge the managers of the bill to consider the impact this stimulus package can and must have on small business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, November 11-17 is National Osteopathic Medicine Week, a week when we recognize the more than 47,000 osteopathic physicians, D.O.s, across the country for their contributions to the American healthcare system. This year, we celebrate D.O.s commitment to preventative medicine and end-of-life care. I am especially pleased these festivities are taking place in my home State of Missouri. During National Osteopathic Medicine, NOM, Week, D.O.s and patients celebrate the benefits of preventative health care by looking at the simple things that can be done to live healthier lives. As physicians who treat people, not just symptoms, the nation's D.O.s are dedicated to helping maintain health through a whole-person patient-centered approach to healthcare. And, within that principle, they recognize death as the legitimate endpoint to the human lifecycle and respect the dignity and special needs of both patients and caregivers. During NOM Week, D.O.s across the country will explore multidisciplinary perspectives on end-of-life care, the ethical debate of pain management and physician-assisted suicide and ways to remove communications barriers in the physician-patient relationship at end of life. Activities also educate Americans about end-of-life care and related topics, such as advances in pain management, cultural sensitivities toward final stages of life, organ donation, advance directives, and end-of-life care options and financing. For more than a century, D.O.s have made a difference in the lives and health of my fellow citizens in Missouri as well as all Americans. Overall, more than 100 million patient visits are made each year to D.O.s. Osteopathic physicians are committed to serving the needs of rural and underserved communities and make up 15 percent of the total physician population in towns of 10,000 or less. D.O.s are certified in nearly 60 specialties and 33 subspecialties. Similar to requirements set for M.D.s, D.O.s must complete and pass: 4 years of medical education at one of 19 osteopathic medical schools; a 1-year internship; a multi-year residency; and a State medical board exam. Throughout this education, D.O.s are trained to understand how the musculoskeletal system influences the condition of all other body systems. Many patients want this extra education as a part of their health care. Individuals may call 866-346-3236 to find a D.O. in their community. In recognition of NOM Week, I would like to congratulate the over 1,700 D.O.s in Missouri, the 616 students at the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine, 871 students at the University of Health Sciences College of Osteopathic Medicine and the 47,000 D.O.s represented by the American Osteopathic Association for their contributions to the good health of the American people.