Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Transportation Appropriations conference report, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act conference report, and the Violence Against Women Act, which was included in that bill. As many people in my home state of Missouri know all too well, our infrastructure is crumbling. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have the 6th worst roads and bridges in the country. That is why I am so pleased that this conference report passed the House today, and even more pleased that it contained more than $70 million in discretionary funds to directly address the tremendous needs in our state. I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Sabo for taking such great steps to address our infrastructure needs. And I also want to give special thanks to Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson for working so tirelessly to bring to the attention of the Members of the Committee Missouri's dire road situation. She has been a wonderful advocate on the Committee and I greatly appreciate her efforts. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my support for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act conference report and the Violence Against Women Act, which was included in that bill. More than a million women and children are trafficked around the world for sex and other exploitative purposes every year--50,000 of which end up right here in the United States. This bill includes several measures which will strengthen current law to cut down on the unlawful buying and selling of human beings for profit. I'm very pleased that the house was able to come together to address this fundamental issue of human rights. Finally, I want to give my warmest thanks to all of those who have so strongly supported re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which I cosponsor. In my home state of Missouri, one out of every two women who seek a domestic violence shelter are turned away at the door because there simply is not enough room. These women are turned away from shelter with no option but to go back to their abuser. Mr. Speaker, this is a tragedy. In terms of legislation that affects real people's lives, I can think of none which is more important. Passage of this bill ensures that women will continue to have access to the important basic services, which have helped so many escape their situations. Continued authorization of this program says to women in America that there is a better tomorrow and that we are dedicated to helping you find it. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that these two important pieces of legislation passed overwhelmingly here today.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and Ms. Velazquez, I submit the following Joint Statement of Managers relating to The Small Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act of 2000 (H.R. 2392). Joint Statement of Managers from the Committee on Small Business regarding H.R. 2392, as considered pursuant to H. Res. 590

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we do not have any more speakers over here. I notice the gentlewoman has some; and if she needs some extra time, I am more than happy to yield. I appreciated very much the comments of the last two speakers, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). I appreciate their contribution to the committee on this and other issues. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) made the point very strongly about the impact of this bundling on minority participation in particular, and she is absolutely correct. The small business growth in the minority community and among women is tremendous and we have not seen that reflected among the agencies, and bundling is one of the reasons. It has a disproportionate impact on these kinds of entrepreneurs; and this is ironic, given the fact that periodically we see somebody in one of the agencies with some huge photo op about how they are trying to help minority small businesspeople and then they will bundle contracts which automatically yanks away a lot of business from them. One of the ways they do this, Mr. Chairman, is through something they called IDIQ contracts, which is indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts. So they will take a particular line of business which they have been contracting out, maybe ordering paper for the copier, and they have been contracting that out as just straight contracts. Small businesses have been participating in bidding; and usually when they bid, they win because they are more efficient and they provide better quality. So then what they will do is they will say, oh, no, what we need is you have to be able to provide as much paper as we want on a moment's notice. It is an indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity. Well, this, of course, makes it more difficult for small business people. They do not maintain the kinds of staff and the kind of reserves that bigger businesses do, and then they will expand that and they will say, now it has to be all office supplies you have to be able to provide. Then, when the small businesses complain and they come to us, as they came to the gentlewoman from Ohio and she complains, and the committee complains, the Committee on Small Business complains and the Small Business Administration complains, if we do it long enough and strong enough, eventually they will say okay, well, here, we will set aside a contract, an IDIQ contract for a minority businessperson, so yes, we have them on the schedule now and then they never order anything from them, or they do not get any business that way, either. As we can see, Mr. Chairman, and as the House can see, we are tired of it. We have been living with this on the committee for several years and it is time for the agencies and the government to pay attention to it. I will give another example, Mr. Chairman. The GSA, for years, contracted out elevator repair in Federal buildings on a building-by- building basis and then they bundled it into eight regional contracts. So while before it used to be on a building basis or a city-wide basis so that small elevator repair firms could do it and now they cannot, and it makes it virtually impossible for small businesses to compete logistically or financially. And then, again and again, the justification is it helps the taxpayer or we get better quality, and then when we investigate to try and find out how it helps the taxpayer or to get better quality, they cannot even justify it on their own terms. This bill is designed to make sure that they do at least that. So I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for her leadership on this issue, as well as her assistance on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before the gentleman from Maryland leaves, if he would just engage in a little colloquy with me on my time, because he raised a point in closing, and I know he did not have enough time to elaborate, but it is an excellent point, so on my time if the gentleman would elaborate with me a little bit. He made the point about how important it is that small business people be prime contractors as well as subcontractors, and the gentleman is right. I wonder if he has had this experience that I have had. Small businesses come to me and say, well, okay, they will say, it is okay because you are a subcontractor, and I have had a lot of minority small businesses in particular tell me this, so that we get listed as a subcontractor by the prime contractor, and then when it comes time for the prime contractor to do the contract, they never give us any business, so they are not a prime contractor or a subcontractor. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if he has had that experience.

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

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

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and her leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, one of the responsibilities of the Committee on Small Business is to inform the Members of the House when its will regarding opportunity for small business is not being carried out within the Federal agencies; specifically, as we have heard today, most predominantly within the Department of Defense. I appreciated very much the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), who sits on the Committee on Armed Services with me and sees this constant flouting of our will regarding small business over and over again from that perspective as well. This is not just partisanship for small business. I think that would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman. Not only is small business the backbone of the economy, as Members have said so eloquently today, but it is increasingly the backbone of opportunity. It may be the only source of opportunity for so many people in our country: for single moms, who will not have an opportunity to get a postgraduate education; or for people reentering the workforce after raising kids; or people coming from distressed neighborhoods or disadvantaged backgrounds. They do not have the same kind of opportunities that other people may have, but they can start a small business. And we have had evidences of that and testimonies of that over and over again before the Committee on Small Business. We think the government ought to favor small business. Certainly it ought not to disadvantage them. And that is what is at stake here. This is a question of fairness for our entrepreneurs around the country. We have given numerous examples. We could give more of them, but I do not think it is necessary. This bill simply allows us to find out what is going on. It has a unitary definition of bundling. It establishes a database, instructs the Committee on Small Business to operate that database and tell us what is going on, and then analyze whether any of these contracts actually save money, as they say it will, or produce higher quality, as they say it will. We have not found any evidence of that, and we have looked pretty hard for the last year and a half. So it is up to the Members to decide what they want to do. I am going to get a rollcall vote on this issue, Mr. Chairman. I hope Members do not mind. As the gentlewoman from New York said, one of the reasons for this bill is to send a message, if the House wants to send it, regarding contracting and procurement for small businesses. We just have to decide. Do we want to vote for opportunity for small business people, or convenience or the latest trend in procurement within the Federal bureaucracy? Do we want to vote for continued excuses and evasions when we ask the agencies to justify what they are doing, or do we want to vote to enforce and send a message about the will of this body regarding opportunities for small entrepreneurs around this country? I know how I am going to vote, Mr. Chairman. I suspect that I know how the Members of the House are going to vote.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I will reclaim my time and just say, if that bill gets assigned to my committee, it is going to go some place, I will tell my colleague that. The problem here, and the House needs to know this, is that these bills sometimes get sequential referrals and get caught up in the process. In this case we have jurisdiction, so we were able to get this one out. I really want to thank the gentleman for his work and efforts in this area, and his expertise as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I appreciate the words of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). The gentleman is a good American and a good congressman. He is not overstating the case. We want Members of Congress to know what the trends that are going on here. This is as much a question of whether the will of this body is to prevail in light of the mandates we have put in the statutes or whether these agencies are going to continue going to do what they want to do regardless of the will of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), my friend, to speak on this subject.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the Committee on Rules for giving us an hour on a bipartisan basis under an open rule to discuss a very important subject, H.R. 4945. The purpose of the bill, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. It is to ensure that the Small Business Administration has sufficient information concerning the impact of contract consolidation, or bundling, on small businesses. H.R. 4945 mandates that the administrator of the Small Business Administration develop a database of these consolidated, or bundled, contracts. Mr. Chairman, contract bundling is one of the most important issues facing small business today. The Federal Government spends almost $200 billion a year procuring goods and services. Congress has mandated a goal for Federal agencies to spend at least 20 percent of those dollars with small businesses. We do that, both because we believe in small business as an avenue for opportunity and economic growth for our citizens and because we believe that competition among small businesses is presumptively to the benefit of the taxpayer both in terms of cost and quality. Yet the Federal Government fails routinely to meet that goal of 20 percent. At present, Federal procurement policies evidently place a greater premium on presumed efficiencies and easing the workload of contracting officials than on the goals of including small business and ensuring a diverse and competitive industrial base. In this scenario, the ultimate loser is the taxpayer who faces the long-term prospect of their government buying lower-quality goods and services at higher prices. Other losers are the small business community and particularly minority small businesspeople who are always disproportionately affected when the government withdraws business from small businesses. How does a contract bundle work, Mr. Chairman? Here is how it works. The government takes contracts which have typically in the past been bid out on a smaller basis. So, for example, a base, a military base may need food services for its mess hall so it bids those out routinely and typically to local food service providers which are typically small businesses and they win the contract and then go in and provide the food service. A bundled contract is a contract that puts a bunch of those bids together, if you will, in a bundle; and it could do it on a geographic basis so it may require that you be able to provide the service to a whole region of the United States, or it may do it on a functional basis, so that, for example, for a construction contract that bids out not only electrical services but it bids out electrical and carpentry services and plumbing services, and in either case, Mr. Chairman, the colleagues can see how this would eliminate radically small businesses from participating, because they cannot deliver the services on a regional basis and they are often organized along specialized lines, so they cannot deliver all the different construction trade requirements. And so only big businesses can bid. Typically the government will say, this will lower cost, it will improve quality. We have found in our hearings over and over again that quality suffers as one would expect when you eliminate competition from small businesses. Even costs are not saved because when you force out small businesses from a market and then you have to rebid these bundled contracts after a year or two, there is much less competition and the costs go way up. Here is what we want to do. We want to at least get a handle on how big the problem is. Under this bill the SBA will be required to assess whether these contracts have achieved the savings or improvements in quality that the procuring agency anticipated when it initially consolidated the contract. We want to know whether these bundled contracts have the savings that the agencies always claim for them, because they say they get great savings and improved quality. Then when we go back and try to investigate it, they cannot provide the information. H.R. 4945 will also provide information so the SBA can effectively negotiate with Federal agencies and determine whether they should adjust their procurement strategies in order to meet the small business participation goals established in the Small Business Act, and then all this information will be reported to the House and Senate small business committees so we can do our job effectively of overseeing these requirements that we have placed into the law. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take time away from other Members. Let me just give a couple of examples so Members can understand what I am talking about. These are real-life bundles. I expect that Members have been approached by small business constituents back home over the last several years complaining about this. Let me give Members an example. Right now military bases when they bid out their travel agency services typically bid out the business end of the travel services, so somebody traveling on business, that is bid out and bid on by particular travel agencies and then they separately bid out the holiday or the leisure travel, the holiday or the leisure business, and those two things are bid separately. The proposal is now to bundle those, so they will bundle together holiday business and business travel. Typically small businesses, therefore, will not be able to bid on the contract because they are usually organized either to handle holiday, personal, leisure travel or business travel, and the two ends of the business are very different. So the department is proposing to bundle all these contracts together. One excuse they often give for bundling is that that way they will ape the market, they will do what private companies do. Mr. Chairman, private companies do not bundle together business travel and holiday travel. They do it separately. That is why travel agencies are typically organized along those lines because the two lines of business are very different. The effect of it would be to withdraw the $20 to $25 billion worth of government travel business from competition from small business, which would increase the costs and decrease the quality available to our servicemen and women. One other example I will give. Right now in the Marine Corps when they have a need for food service on a base or in a commissary, they bid it out to local food service businesses. The proposal is to regionalize that so that you have to be able to bid on all the business in a region which will mean only the big businesses will be able to bid. Here is how the food will then be provided in the future. They will cook it up in central kitchens, they will chill it, and then they will bring it on base and heat it up. So now in the name of efficiency, and we have no idea whether it will actually save any money in the long run, we are going to be serving our servicemen and women, in effect, airline food rather than bidding this thing out the way it has traditionally been done so that small food service preparation businesses can bid on it. I could go on and on. I mean that, Mr. Chairman. As the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I have encountered this over and over and over again. We have worked with the agencies to try and do something about it. The ranking member and I have worked together on this. We are united as a committee on this. Members will see this today in the debate. We are absolutely committed to stopping this practice or at least requiring that it be justified. That is the purpose for this bill. Let me just say the bill is supported by all the small business groups, NFIB, the Chamber, and it is supported by minority small business groups like the Black Chamber and the National Small and Disadvantaged Business Association. Right now we have no certain definition of what bundling is, we have no information about the number of bundles, we have no information about whether they are a success even on their own terms within the agencies. Mr. Chairman, that needs to stop for the sake of small business opportunity, for the sake of our entrepreneurs for the sake of advancing participation by minorities and the economy and for the sake of the taxpayers, and that is why this bill is offered. That is why I have unburdened myself so much on the subject of it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, an independent political group is running a television ad in Kansas City, Missouri, that is causing controversy that I want to comment on for my 1-minute. According to the Washington Post, an actress in the ad portrays a mother who removed her child from the public school because ``we didn't want him in a place where drugs and violence was fashionable. That was a bit more diversity than he could handle.'' Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the ad. I am not familiar with the group that sponsored it. But the statement I read, if it is in the advertisement, comes perilously close to bigotry, which is a sentiment that has no place in American politics. Since the ad goes on to urge people to vote Republican, I think Republicans have a special responsibility to denounce it. Mr. Speaker, one of my favorite passages from the Bible is from First Samuel. It says, ``God does not see the same way people see. People look at the outside of a person, but the Lord looks at the heart.'' In that spirit, I urge the group responsible for this commercial to withdraw it. I hope our State and country can go the rest of this election campaign with no further appeals to racial fear or prejudice.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I appreciate his advocacy on the Committee on Ways and Means and generally for these kinds of communities. I know he represents a number of distressed communities. I just want to thank him for his role in getting this bill out here. Before I make my statement, I want to take a few minutes or a brief moment to respond to the comments made by my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). It is a sign of his typical principle stand and his eloquence that he made such a powerful statement. But let me just say that the part of the bill that he is referring to is a provision that simply allows faith-based drug and alcohol counseling groups to participate in Federal programs in this sense, that a voucher would be given to people who have substance abuse or alcohol problems, and they could, if they wished, use that voucher at a faith-based program if they think that would be more effective and if that fits with their life. This is similar to what we already do with regard to day-care programs, with regard to community service block grants. It is similar to what we did in the welfare reform bill. It simply gives individuals a choice. And the reason is, quite frankly, that these groups are highly effective in stopping drug abuse. They have a 60 to 80 percent cure rate. It is kind of foolish to operate a Federal drug and alcohol substance abuse program and exclude from participation those groups which have the greatest success in stopping drug or alcohol abuse. We simply want them to be in in the same basis in which we have allowed similar groups to participate in similar programs. There is no constitutional problem because the choice vests in the individual. There is no more problem here than there is when a student uses a Pell Grant to go to Notre Dame or Yeshiva. It is the same principle. I understand the concern of the gentleman, and I too regret that we brought this up under a summary procedure. And yet I would say it has been so long since we have passed a comprehensive program designed to help poor people in this country that I will take it any way I can get it. If this is the only way I can get it here, I will say to the gentleman I will take it this way. I am sorry that he did not have more chance to study it and to comment upon it, and I appreciate his position. Let me just say that this is the most significant anti-poverty program to come out of Washington in decades. It is significant not only in its size and its scope but also in the fact that it represents a true bipartisan consensus. This bill is strongly supported by the President of the United States, without whose advocacy it would not be here. It is strongly supported by my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez); by my friend, the gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Davis); by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), who will speak later; by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English); by me; by, of course, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, who graciously allowed his friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), to have the time to speak in opposition; and because it represents principles we all agree on now. We know the Federal Government cannot get people out of poverty by itself. We also know that individuals cannot just pull themselves up by the bootstraps when they are raised in communities where families are in distress, where the institutions of private society that the rest of us relied upon to help us grow and to be nurtured no longer exist. But they can do it with help. They can do it with help from their neighbors. And that is the key. This bill is designed to increase the tools, the prestige, the visibility of redevelopment groups, of neighborhood intermediaries who are rebuilding the infrastructure of life in poor urban and rural communities around America. I have traveled, as have many of the other advocates for this bill, around this country. I talked to people in San Antonio and Washington and Missouri and Indianapolis about what they are doing to help their neighbors. This are rebuilding these communities. They are going to do it I think, Mr. Speaker, whether we do anything about it or not. But we have the privilege and the opportunity to help them with this bill. I am pleased and proud to be part of a body that has come together without regard to party; that has set aside ideological baggage; that has worked with the President of the United States, who has taken the lead with the Speaker of the House. Let us get this bill passed, move it over to the Senate, and show the people we can get this done for the most vulnerable among our fellow citizens.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I will say to the Members of this House this is deja vu all over again. It is the second time I have stood up in support of this bill. I think it is worth it. I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) on her remarks. Let me pick up on what she said because she mentioned she is a freshman. She is a very aggressive lady who advocates for her community. She is on the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services because she recognizes that in the new world of economic empowerment and community renewal the key is drawing in private sector investment into these distressed neighborhoods and private sector investments that make sense in terms of private sector standards. That is the key to the future. She sees it, and this is a lady with ties and bonds to her community. She is hearing it from the organizations that are making a difference in these communities, as I have heard it, and as the other sponsors of this bill have heard it as well. Let me go through some of the provisions in this bill so the House can see how comprehensive it is in proving out this principle I just mentioned and not just private sector investment, drug and alcohol counseling, which we have talked about, homeownership, all of these provisions that are necessary to rebuilding of neighborhoods, because these are not neighborhoods with housing problems or drug problems or police problems or educational problems. These are people who have all of the needs and the range of needs that people have, and we need to address them all at once; and we can do it through these community organizations. The bill provides, as others have talked about, for the establishment of renewal communities within which there will be very significant tax and regulatory relief designed to draw in private venture capital, a zero capital gains rate, zero percent capital gains for investments made and held for 5 years in these communities; commercial revitalization deduction which the gentleman from Pennsylvania has fought so hard for, who encouraged investors and companies to rehab buildings in these neighborhoods; increased expenses for small business, up to $35,000 in deductions for equipment more than they can currently take, and employment wage credit for businesses to hire people from these neighborhoods; brownfields credit. This, coupled with regulatory relief and municipalities that wish to be a renewal community, must include agreements with these neighborhood organizations about things like infrastructure investment, or taxes in those communities, or community policing; again, raising the visibility and the prestige of these neighborhood organizations. Homeownership provisions, requires HUD to sell to neighborhood development organizations substandard housing so that HUD can no longer not do anything itself with housing, nor refuse to give the housing to people who will do something with it. This is a constant complaint I have and others have had from community redevelopment organizations. The new market tax credit, new market venture capital companies which my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), worked so hard on and which has been part of the President's vision for over a year, these are similar to small business investment corporations which we already have. What they do is they will be private equity investment corporations. They will raise private capital. The Federal Government will, through the sale of the ventures, allow them to draw down additional capital, and they must invest it in these distressed neighborhoods. This idea is pulsating with the vision that this is correct, that these neighborhoods are places where the economy can prosper. There are thousands of budding entrepreneurs in these neighborhoods, and all they need is some investment capital and some advice. We should not look on these neighborhoods as liabilities. They are assets, and the new market venture capital companies are premised on that assumption. There are parts of this bill I like more than other parts, obviously, because I have been sponsoring them for a long time. There is not a part of this bill I disagree with. This is not a case where anybody in this coalition has had to accept something they really do not like in order to get something that they do. That is one of the things that is exciting about it. I do not think I need my whole 5 minutes. I will say I appreciated so much the comments on the part of the sponsors in support of this bill and also the principled and eloquent statement of concern by my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Let us go ahead and pass this bill. We still have Senate passage. We still have conference, but let us not stop this now. We do not have a lot of time left in this session. It is almost a miracle we are able to do this on a bipartisan basis in an election year. Let us continue the miracle and do something for these neighborhoods which are doing so much for themselves.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the city of Chesterfield, Missouri which celebrated its birthday on the 1st of June. Throughout its 400-year history, the area of Chesterfield, Missouri has cultivated a deep tradition and distinguished itself as one of St. Louis County's fastest growing communities. Chesterfield's most famous citizen, Frederick Bates, settled there in 1819 and served as Secretary of the new territory. This area remained a collection of rural communities influenced by German settlers throughout the 19th century and for most of the 20th century. In the 1960's, Chesterfield began aggressive development that paved the way to the prosperous city it is today. The city officially incorporated in 1988 and its economy and community continues to thrive. Mr. Speaker, as a resident of Chesterfield, it gives me great pleasure to recognize this outstanding city and its citizens for their contributions in making our community a great place to live, work, and raise a family. I would like to wish the city of Chesterfield a happy birthday and hope for the area's continued success in the new century.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. I rise today in strong support of the IDEA Full Funding Act of 2000. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago Congress made a promise to children and families with special education needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. Under IDEA the Federal Government promised to provide children with disabilities access to quality public education, as well as to contribute 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure to assist state and local schools with the additional cost of educating these students. Mr. Speaker, to date the Federal Government has failed to meet this commitment to assist the states and local school districts. During the past four fiscal years the Republican majority in Congress has increased Federal funding for IDEA by 115 percent or $2.6 billion. Sadly, even with the increase, the Federal Government has never contributed more than 12.6 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure the assist children with disabilities. That is less than \1/3\ of the funding Congress promised under IDEA. The Congressional Research Service estimates that more than $15 billion would be needed to fully fund the Federal portion of IDEA. In fiscal year 2000 IDEA received $4.9 billion, leaving states and school districts with an unfunded mandate of more than $10 billion. This is $10 billion dollars that states and local school districts could have spent on smaller class size, school construction, new computer equipment, and hiring new teachers; instead this money is being spent to cover the Federal share of IDEA. What does that mean for the State of Missouri, Mr. Speaker? The additional funds needed to meet the commitment to the State of Missouri is over $161 million this year. What does that mean for St. Louis? The additional funds needed to meet the commitment to St. Louis is over $8 million this year. Mr. Speaker, it is essential that Congress fully fund IDEA and this legislation is a step in the right direction. This legislation authorizes an increase of $2 billion per year to meet the Federal commitment of 40 percent by the year 2010. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago the Federal Government placed a mandate on our state and local school districts to provide education for all special needs and disabled students. The Federal Government also promised to pay 40 percent of the average cost of the average per pupil expenditure. Today, there is a lot of talk about new education programs and new education initiatives but we still have yet to meet the Federal commitment to IDEA. IDEA is the mother of all unfunded mandates. Local schools are required by Federal law to meet the special education needs of our Nation's IDEA students. It is time that Congress gives our schools the resources that were promised to provide all children with disabilities a quality education.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1283.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, today I honor National D.O. Day. I rise to recognize members of the osteopathic medical profession for their substantial contributions to American healthcare. I congratulate the American Osteopathic Association on its 103 years of service to osteopathic physicians and their patients. It is my pleasure to acknowledge members of the osteopathic medical profession, their spouses, and osteopathic medical students who have chosen today to make visits to their representatives and senators. It's good to see these individuals taking time to educate our colleagues on the values and principles of osteopathic medicine. Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to represent the State of Missouri, which is the home of osteopathic medicine. In 1892, a charter was obtained for the American School of Osteopathy. The original school was located in a small one room building in Kirksville, Missouri and today is known as the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine. A revised and expanded charter was issued on October 3, 1894, in accordance with the laws regulating educational institutions in the State of Missouri. Dr. Andrew Taylor Still, an allopathic physician (or M.D.), was the founder of the Kirksville school and, indeed, the father of osteopathic medicine. Osteopathic medicine is a unique form of American medical care developed in 1874 by Dr. Still who was dissatisfied with the effectiveness of 19th century medicine. Dr. Still was one of the first in his time to study the attributes of good health so that he could understand the process of disease. Dr. Still's philosophy focused on the unity of all body parts. He identified the musculoskeletal system as a key element of health and recognized the body's ability to heal itself. Dr. Still pioneered the concept of ``wellness'' over 100 years ago. He stressed preventative medicine, eating properly and keeping fit. Dr. Still's philosophy--that in coordination with appropriate medical treatment--the osteopathic physician acts as a teacher to help patients take more responsibility for their own well-being and change unhealthy patterns--is every bit as viable today as it was when he developed it. D.O.s complete four years of basic medical education, followed by an intern year and specialty training. In fact, D.O.s are certified in 23 specialties and subspecialties. They pass state licensing examinations and practice in duly accredited and licensed osteopathic and allopathic healthcare facilities. D.O.s comprise a separate, yet equal, branch of American medical care. It is the ways that D.O.s and M.D.s are different that brings an extra dimension to healthcare. Just as Dr. Still pioneered osteopathic medicine on the Missouri frontier in 1874, today's osteopathic physicians serve as modern day medical pioneers. They continue the tradition to bringing healthcare to areas of greatest need. Approximately 64 percent of all osteopathic physicians practice in primary care areas such as pediatrics, family practice, obstetrics/ gynecology and internal medicine. Many D.O.s fill a critical need by practicing in rural and medically underserved areas. To the over 1,600 D.O.s in my state, the approximately 2,000 students at Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine in Kirksville and Kansas City, and to all 45,000 D.O.s represented by the American Osteopathic Association--congratulations on your contributions to the good health of the American people. I look forward to working with you to further our mutual goal of continually improving our nation's healthcare.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to an outstanding law enforcement officer. Detective Sergeant Warren Williams will be retiring on March 31, 2000 after serving 37 years as a St. Louis Police Officer. It is an honor for me to recognize this extraordinary individual, not only for his numerous professional accomplishments, but for the great service he provided the citizens and the community of St. Louis and the State of Missouri. Detective Sergeant Williams first joined the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department on April 1, 1963. After graduating from the St. Louis Police Academy on September 30, 1963, he began his career as a patrolman in the city's Fourth District. Mr. Williams was promoted to Sergeant on July 2, 1978. As a Police Sergeant, he served in the following assignments: Robbery/Burglary Section, Third District Patrol Supervisor, Bureau of Investigation, Seventh District Patrol Supervisor, Area Three Detective Bureau, North Patrol Detective Bureau, and the Internal Affairs Division. Prior to beginning his Police career, Mr. Williams served his country as a Sergeant in the United States Army. He is a graduate of Vashon High School and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Academy's 135th Session. He is also the recipient of two Chiefs of Police Communications. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join his family, his colleagues, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, the residents of Missouri's Second District and me, in paying tribute to the distinguished career of Sergeant Warren Williams. His record of service and leadership stands not only as an example for other law enforcement officers, but for every one of us.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to close by thanking my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). It has been a pleasure working with her on this and other bills. I appreciate her assistance. I also want to thank her staffers, Michael Day and Eric Edwards, and my own staff, Harry Katrichis, Tee Rowe, Paul Denham, and Meredith Matty, for their good work. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3843. It has become a truism up here that small business is the backbone of the economy, and it is. It is also the backbone of our communities. If you look and see who is running the school bond issue campaign or the Christmas charity, it is usually the small businesses in the community. Increasingly, Mr. Chairman, small business has become the backbone of opportunity for people in our society as well. Not everybody has the inclination or resources to get an advanced degree at a college or university, but everybody has the opportunity to dream of running a small business. There are a whole lot of people that other Members have mentioned who come off of welfare or back into the labor force after a while or work their way up in a company and learn to do something well. They want to open their own small businesses and make it succeed for themselves and their families. It happens all the time. It happens more often because of these programs. I have become convinced in my time as chairman and on the committee that these programs reach out and help people who are good risks for America, and maybe that the market would not help absent these programs. So I am pleased and proud to sponsor this bill, along with my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, under the circumstances, and since I think that the amendment as the gentleman has changed it is at least borderline in terms of germaneness, and in view of the gentleman's good faith, I am going to withdraw my reservation. I do agree with the amendment. I think we can take and work with it in conference. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to my reservation, let me just ask the gentleman, he originally packed with the amendment a requirement that the agency produce regulations pursuant to the study. I understand the gentleman withdrew that.

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