Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, for their initiative to allocate $2.5 million in the Fiscal Year 2000 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill to fund the research function of the Office of Advocacy at the Small Business Administration. This is an increase of $1.1 million over the amount in the President's FY 2000 budget request for SBA. The Office of Advocacy, which is headed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, performs an essential role acting as the eyes, ears, and voice from within the Federal bureaucracy on behalf of the small business community. One key responsibility carried out by the Office of Advocacy is the research it conducts on issues critical to small businesses. It is our understanding that $500,000 of the additional funds for the Advocacy research function are targeted toward the review of interpretative regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service of the Department of the Treasury and rules issued by the Mine Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor.

Mr. BOND. I too thank the Chairman for his assistance in this matter. DEA's participation in fighting the methampetamine epidemic is essential to state and local law enforcement. As my colleague stated, the DEA provides training for local officers that well prepares them to handle and dispose of the toxic material that they encounter while busting clandestine methamphetamine labs. The DEA also has an important role in the clean up process. There were over 800 clandestine methamphetetamine labs seized in the State of Missouri last year. Most of the labs were busted in rural areas and smaller towns. These towns have police forces and sheriffs offices of a very limited sizes. DEA's presence and help in rural areas is essential to ensure that these communities are not overwhelmed by the drug and the havoc in this wake. If this menace is to be brought under control, local law enforcement must have the assistance of the DEA. The Senator from New Hampshire has been a good friend to Missouri law enforcement as he has worked closely with us in recent years to ensure that the DEA has the resources to focus on this problem and I appreciate him clarifying the use of those designated funds.

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for recognizing the needs of Missouri law enforcement in this bill. As he knows well, the State of Missouri is experiencing a law enforcement crisis of epidemic proportions as the methamphetamine trade has exploded in recent years. My colleague, Senator Gregg, as seen to it that the DEA has increased resources to assist state and local law enforcement as they take on these drug dealers.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have been very encouraged in recent days by the peace offensive initiated by the new government of Ehud Barak in Israel. The people of Israel long for peace. The new Prime Minister, in his first few days in office, has been energetically trying to lay the groundwork for a secure, lasting peace in the Middle East. I applaud his efforts and trust that Prime Minister Barak's actions will be fully discussed and carried forward in his upcoming talks in Washington during the next week. While I applaud these steps toward peace, I also believe it is imperative that, at the same time, Israel remain militarily strong. The only way a durable peace will be successfully negotiated and maintained in this dangerous but vital region of the world is if Israel deals from a strong hand. Even if Israel is successful in reaching an accommodation with its closest neighbors, it will continue to face very serious strategic threats from Iran, Iraq, and Libya for the foreseeable future. To counter these terrorist states which possess weapons of mass destruction and lie within easy striking distance of Israel's homeland, it is critical that Israel have an effective strategic strike capability that will provide effective deterrence. To do this and to move simultaneously forward in implementing the Wye River Agreement and pursuing peace initiatives with its neighbors, Israel will need more military assistance funding for aircraft purchases from the United States. In this regard, I recently came across a thoughtful Lexington Institute Issue Brief, authored by well-known defense strategist Loren Thompson, ``Bolstering Israel's Strategic Air Power Serves America's Interests.'' In this essay, Dr. Thompson argues that helping Israel to increase it military strength at this time not only will help Israel and further Middle East peace but also help protect America's interests in the region, especially since the US may have less access to bases in the region and more threats to American security interests in the future. Dr. Thompson states, among other things, that: It (Israel) needs enough money to buy and equip 15 more F- 15's for a total force of 40. . . . Making such a purchase would nearly double the Israeli Air Force's capacity for long-range strikes. . . . The US economic and political interest in the Middle East-Persian Gulf region will continue to grow in the years ahead (and) Israel is the only stable, reliable US ally willing to take the necessary risks. Congress and the Clinton Administration need to equip it (Israel) so that it is ready when the time comes. Mr. President, to share Dr. Thompson's thoughts with my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that this essay be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for another 3 minutes.

Mr. BOND. The bottom line is we would have had 1,200 pages of mandates, rules, requirements, and penalties. It died. But let me remind my colleagues what the President said just a couple of years ago, in September 1997. Talking about his failed effort to impose this failed health care bureaucracy on the American people, he said: If what I tried before won't work, maybe we can do it another way. That is what we tried to do, a step at a time until we have finished. That is what I am afraid of. That is what we were trying to do, to get to the point where we had socialized health coverage in the United States. Costs are clearly a problem. Costs are going to be a lot more than $2 million, or one Big Mac, $2 a month or one Big Mac a month, as some of my colleagues on the other side have said. If you have a $2,600-a-year family health insurance program and you have a 5-percent raise, it is a whole lot more than $2 a month. It is about $180 a year, something similar to that. It is a lot more. And when costs go up, people lose their health insurance. We need to fix some of the problems. We need to do it without driving people out of the system. We already have 40 million uninsured people in America. I can tell you one thing that is clear: small businesses are very much concerned about ensuring they do not get priced out of the ability to compete by their health insurance costs. There is an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, April 15. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. It talks about small businesses in Kansas City, MO, getting health insurance coverage. But the costs are still the problem, and there are examples of people who are trying to provide health care coverage, but when the costs continue to go up, then they have to drop it. They are fighting over $5 a month. Some of the people who wanted to provide health care for their employees figured they could not afford $1.35 an hour in addition which, on a 2000-hour-a-year job, would come out to around $2,700. They aren't able to afford the increased cost of insurance. If we drive the costs of health insurance up, we are going to find people who cannot afford it. We are going to find employers who drop it. Particularly, if we give the employee the right to sue their health care plan or their employer, as my friends on the other side wish to do, they are not going to provide it. We need to make health care better, more affordable, more accessible. We do not need to drive people out of the health care system. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. As we near the end of this debate, I want to share a few thoughts generally on the proposals we are discussing. Quite frankly, we just had an opportunity to see the amendment which has been offered. Our crack Senators are reading it over to study the measure. They will shortly have comments to offer on that. I want to talk about some areas that I think have become very obvious as we have moved forward in this debate. The first thing we ought to emphasize is that both sides are going to deal with the managed care problems and concerns. We have heard from patients in our States. I have heard a lot of rhetoric and a lot of name-calling about what the various bills do. The simple fact of the matter is, the people of Missouri, the folks who talk to me, the people who are concerned about health care--the small businesses are particularly sensitive--have some things they don't want to do. The first rule of medicine is to do no harm. They want to make sure we don't make it worse. I believe the amendments we have adopted and the direction in which we are going will make the situation better. We are going to assure patients in a managed care plan, if they are turned down for coverage, they can go to a physician for an external appeal, and thanks to the very wisely crafted provision of the amendment offered by my colleagues--Senator Ashcroft, Senator Kyl, and Senator Abraham--if the managed care organization doesn't provide them with that coverage of services that the external appeal said they are entitled to, they will be able to go out and get it someplace else and bill the HMO. What we are saying is, we don't want to give people a lawsuit, a cause of action or, even worse, give their widow or their orphans a cause of action. We want to give them health care. We want to give them a treatment. We want to give them a treatment, not a trial. We want them to make sure they can get health care. That is the important point. That is what the provisions we have adopted do. One of the things we don't want and one of the things our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to want is another bureaucratic nightmare. Do we really want to turn the regulation of our health care system over to the Federal Government, to the bureaucrats at the Health Care Financing Administration? I say not. We have had a lot of experience with HCFA, and it has not been good. The Republican bill is based on the premise that States can do a good job monitoring what is going on in the world of managed care, they can do a good job of deciding what is the appropriate legislative response. Some may do better, some may not do as well. But the nice thing about the laboratory of States is that we can see which States are doing the best job and we can change the law. During my time and service in State government, we worked on assuring better regulation. The States will move forward. My State has passed a Patients' Bill of Rights. Most States have. They are looking to see how it works. The States that make it work the best are going to be followed by others. The Democratic bill, the Democratic approach, is based on the premise that States can't handle managed care regulation and that Federal bureaucrats are better equipped to do it. The Democratic bill will overturn a host of State laws and replace them with the interpretations of the Federal Government employee. These are the same bureaucrats who produced one nightmare after another in trying to impose their regulatory monstrosities from Washington. Now they want the entire health care system turned over to them. We have already had examples of HCFA's failures related to the issue of consumer protection, the very topic that the Democrats want to turn over to HCFA lock, stock, and barrel. Back in 1996, we entrusted HCFA with more responsibility when Congress passed the Kassebaum-Kennedy health care bill designed to make sure health care was portable. How well did HCFA handle this responsibility? According to the General Accounting Office, HCFA admits they pursued a Band-Aid, minimalist approach for protecting consumers. The GAO has another finding that HCFA ``lacks the appropriate experience or expertise to regulate private health insurance.'' These are the people to whom we want to turn over regulatory responsibility for the entire health care system? When they are entrusted with the entire responsibility, when they are incompetent or mess up, the whole country suffers. One of the things I have done as chairman of the Small Business Committee is to try to ensure that Federal agencies live up to the requirements of the law passed in this body and the other body unanimously to reduce redtape, to make sure that Federal agencies take into account how their activities and their regulatory actions would impact small business. We found there were several agencies that weren't doing a very good job. The regulatory process was clogged up. I initiated the ``Plumber's Friend Award'' to unclog the regulatory pipes in these agencies. Needless to say, HCFA and the Department of Health and Human Services were one of the first. We give these awards to Federal Departments which blocked the flow of public participation because they failed to reduce unreasonable and burdensome regulations affecting small business. HCFA and HHS qualified for the award by repeatedly disregarding Federal laws designed to make it easier for small businesses to deal with the massive amounts of regulation and paperwork required by Federal bureaucrats. That is an example of the nightmare HCFA is creating. We saw the nightmares. They were going to impose surety bond requirements on home health care agencies, many of them small businesses in my State. HCFA decided they were going to require the small business home health care agencies to purchase surety bonds that would cover up the Federal Government's mistakes. In other words, they had to provide insurance so if the Federal Government made a mistake, the surety bond would be responsible. A home health care operator told me with tears in her eyes she couldn't raise the money to buy a surety bond. Then they imposed cuts on the home health care agencies that have been putting them out of business left and right. Under the Balanced Budget Act, they were supposed to save $16 billion a year over 5 years. They cut back on the amount of reimbursement so much that they would wind up saving $48 billion a year. They were imposing a system of reimbursement that penalized the good providers, that penalized the providers who were providing the most intensive care in the home. They were penalizing the providers in the most difficult areas--precisely the kind of service we want to keep. HCFA has had a bad track record. Ask anybody who has had to deal with HCFA, and they will say, whatever the problem is, HCFA is not the answer. There are some who think that maybe our colleagues really want to get back to the era of another health care proposal that came from the White House. Known as Clinton Care, the 1993 health care plan was going to be a Federal takeover of health insurance. The wisdom of the Federal Government was going to run health care. Senator Gramm has done a good job this week talking about some of the possible horror stories that could and would have happened if we passed the Clinton health care bill. Fortunately, we didn't. Some of my colleagues are running around saying they personally helped kill the Clinton health care bill. That sucker wasn't killed by any Republican. It died of its own weight. The Democratic majority leader didn't even bring it up because once they looked at it, they said, this thing isn't going to work. It was dead on arrival. Let me state some of the likely results had we adopted the President's proposal to socialize medicine. Expensive mandates on the Nation's employers would have cost jobs, insurance premiums that would likely skyrocket. It would create 50 new Federal bureaucracies, a new trillion-dollar Federal entitlement. These were the items we would have received.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1239, As Amended

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the opponents of this amendment overlook the fact that the States are involved. The States do regulate health insurance. The States are taking care of those they can cover. This amendment says we should not wipe out State regulation. It also completes the job of ending the tremendous inequity in our health care system which said formerly that self-employed people could only deduct 25 percent of their health insurance premiums. Thanks to the bipartisan support we have had, we say now, by 2003, that there will be 100- percent deductibility. Right now, however, there are 5.1 million uninsured, 1.3 million children. For the woman who is starting a new business, the fastest growing sector of our economy, she starts up an information technology business and she is not able to deduct 100 percent of health care insurance for herself and her family until 2003. She cannot afford to wait to get sick until 2003. I urge my colleagues to support immediate deductibility.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1238 to Amendment No. 1236 (Purpose: To make health care plans accountable for their decisions, enhancing the quality of patients' care in America)

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Independent Office of Advocacy Act. This bill has been drafted to build on the success of the Office of Advocacy over the past 23 years. It is intended to strengthen the foundation to make the Office of Advocacy a stronger and more effective advocate for all small businesses throughout the United States. The Office of Advocacy is a unique office within the Federal government. It is part of the Small Business Administration (SBA/ Agency), and its director, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. At the same time, the Office is also intended to be the independent voice for small business within the Federal government. It is supposed to develop proposals for changing government policies to help small businesses, and it is supposed to represent the views and interests of small businesses before other Federal agencies. As the director of the Office of Advocacy, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy has a dual responsibility. On the one hand, he is the independent watchdog for small business. On the other hand, he is also a part of the President's Administration. As you can imagine, those are sometimes very difficult roles to play simultaneously. The Independent Office of Advocacy Act is designed to make the Office of Advocacy and Chief Counsel for Advocacy a fully independent advocate within the Executive Branch acting on behalf of the small business community. The bill would establish a clear mandate that the Office of Advocacy will fight on behalf of small businesses regardless of the position taken on critical issues by the President and his Administration. The Office of Advocacy as envisioned by the Independent Office of Advocacy Act will be unique within the executive branch. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy will be a wide-ranging advocate, who will be free to take positions contrary to the Administration's policies and to advocate change in government programs and attitudes as they impact small businesses. In 1976, Congress established the Office of Advocacy in the SBA to be the eyes, ears and voice for small business within the Federal government. Over time, it has been assumed that the Office of Advocacy is the ``independent'' voice for small business. While I strongly believe that the Office of Advocacy and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy should be independent and free to advocate or support positions that might be contrary to the administration's policies, I have come to find that the Office is not as independent as necessary to do the job adequately for small business. For example, funding for the Office of Advocacy comes from the Salaries and Expense Account of the SBA's budget. Staffing is allocated by the SBA Administrator to the Office of Advocacy from the overall staff allocation for the Agency. In 1990, there were 70 full-time employees working on behalf of small businesses in the Office of Advocacy. Today's allocation of staff is 49, and fewer are actually on- board as the result of the hiring freeze imposed by the SBA Administrator. The Independence of the Office is diminished when the Office of Advocacy staff is reduced to allow for increased staffing for new programs and additional initiatives in other areas of SBA, at the discretion of the Administrator. In addition, the General Accounting Office (GAO) recently completed a report for me on personnel practices at the SBA (GAO/GGD-99-68). I was alarmed by the GAO's finding that Assistant and Regional Advocates hired by the Office of Advocacy share many of the attributes of Schedule C political appointees. In fact, Regional Advocates are frequently cleared by the White House personnel office--the same procedure followed for approving Schedule C political appointees. The facts discussed in the GAO Report cast the Office of Advocacy in a whole new light--one that had not been apparent until now. The report raises questions, concerns and suspicious regarding the independence of the Office of Advocacy. Has there been a time when the Office did not pursue a matter as vigorously as it might have were it not for direct or indirect political influence? Prior to receipt of the GAO Report, my response was a resounding ``No.'' But now, a question mark arises. Let me take a moment and note that I will be unrelenting in my efforts to insure the complete independence of the Office of Advocacy in all matters, at all times, for the continued benefit of all small businesses. However, so long as the Administration controls the budget allocated to the Office of Advocacy and controls who is hired, the independence of the Office may be in jeopardy. We must correct this situation, and the sooner we do it, the better it will be for the small business community. The Independent Office of Advocacy Act builds a firewall to prevent the political intrustion into the management of day-to-day operations of the Office of Advocacy. The bill requires that the SBA's budget include a separate account for the Office of Advocacy. No longer would its funds come from the general operating account of the Agency. The separate account would also provide for the number of full-time employees who would work within the Office of Advocacy. No longer would the Chief Counsel for Advocacy have to seek approval from the SBA Administrator to hire staff for the Office of advocacy. The bill also continues the practice of allowing the Chief Counsel to hire individuals critical to the mission of the Office of Advocacy without going through the normal competitive procedures directed by federal law and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). I beleive this special hiring authority, which is limited only to employees within the Office of Advocacy, is beneficial because it allows the Chief Counsel to hire quickly those persons who can best assist the Office in responding to changing issues and problems confronting small businesses. Mr. Presdient, the Independent Office of Advocacy Act is a sound bill. The bill is the product of a great deal of thoughtful, objective review and consideration by me, the staff of the Committee on Small Business, representatives of the small business community, former Chief Councels for Advocacy and others. These individuals have also devoted much time and effort in actively participating in a Committee Roundtable discussion on the Office of Advocacy, which my Committee held on April 21, 1999. It is my hope the Committee on Small Business will be able to consider the Independent Office of Advocacy Act in the near future.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma. In a gesture of goodwill, I ask that the Chair notify me when 13 minutes is up because I would like to hear a full minute from the Senator from Oklahoma. I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss the amendment that the Senator from Oklahoma has addressed and sent to the floor. First, let me put into context some of my views about the competing Patients' Bill of Rights. I happen to be very proud to be a supporter of the majority or Republican Patients' Bill of Rights Plus. I am proud to be one of 50 Senators who cosponsored the majority bill, and I will be proud to vote for the legislation. As with anything we do up here, there are probably some ways you could say it is not perfect. But I believe it is the best approach we have before us that places reasonable controls on managed care companies, while also helping rather than hurting access and coverage problems. That is something that is extremely important to many Americans-- having access and getting the coverage they need. When we look at the competing proposals, I think it is good to drop back to the first rule of medicine, which is do no harm. I am stunned that with the bill offered on the other side, described as helping patients, we are faced with the fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office and others, that over a million people who have health insurance today probably can't afford it tomorrow, and that thousands more who were thinking they would be able to get insurance would see that opportunity snatched away if their bill, which would drive up costs, were to pass. I wonder how anyone can support such a backwards proposition that we are willing to price people out of health care in the name of helping them. That is a fatal flaw, as I see it, in the Kennedy plan: too much cost; too little gain. In contrast, our Patients' Bill of Rights Plus contains basic, reasonable, commonsense patient protections; access to emergency room care for which their health plan will pay. Americans shouldn't have to worry that their insurance won't pay for necessary emergency room care. Our bill guarantees that patients have information on treatment options. Doctors and patients need to be able to discuss openly all possible treatment options without gag rules. Our bill provides access to a quick, independent, expert appeals process. Patients should get the care they need when they need it. There has been a lot of talk on the other side about how we need to open up the courts for more costly litigation. Well, frankly, we don't want to see widows or orphans having to sue because their breadwinner did not get the health care he or she needed. We want to make sure they get that care promptly, efficiently, and effectively. I am very pleased that the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus contains important pediatric and maternal health care protections, which I introduced earlier this year in what we call the Healthy Kids 2000 legislation, which had broad support from major health care supporters, including children's hospitals and pediatricians, who are concerned about care for children. The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus gives the right for a child to go see a pediatrician without going through a gatekeeper. It gives the right for a child to see a specialist with pediatric expertise, including going to children's hospitals when necessary. It gives the right to a woman to have direct access to an obstetrician or gynecologist without having to go through some gatekeeper. It gives the right to have a pediatric expert review a child's case when appealing an HMO decision. In other words, somebody who treats kids will be the one who will oversee the decision and be able to participate in the external review as to whether the kind of care the HMO proposes for a child is appropriate for that child. But just as important as what is in our Republican bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus, is what isn't in it. It doesn't contain the same costly bureaucratic provisions the Democratic bill has. One would have thought they would have learned something when we had the health care debates of 1993 and 1994, the Clinton plan, which had the Federal Government and its bureaucracy controlling health care. When people took a look at that dog and found out how mangy it was, it failed, not because the Republicans beat it, but because nobody was willing to get out and support it--and with good reason. The more people looked at it, the worse it looked. Well, the Congressional Budget Office has given estimates that the Democratic bill could raise health care premiums anywhere from 5 to 6 percent, depending on which version of the bill we are discussing. I have heard people on talk shows saying that is one Big Mac a month. Five percent of basic family health insurance at $3,600 a year--my math suggests that is a whole lot more than a Big Mac a month. We are talking in the neighborhood of $180 a year. CBO and others have told us that for every 1 percent increase in costs, a couple hundred thousand people will lose health care insurance. Under this bill, that means, under the Democratic version, over a million Americans or more could lose their health care coverage. I speak as chairman of the Committee on Small Business because cost increases for small businesses and small business employees is a No. 1 concern. We have listened to small businesses, and we have heard from small businesses. They say: Please don't do us any more favors. Don't burden us with more costly health care plans. Small businesses are fighting to try to get economical, caring, compassionate, effective health care for their employees and for the business owners themselves. Small business owners are particularly sensitive to the issue of cost. Small businesses--the owners and their families, the employees and their families--would be the ones who would pay for an extravagant bill. Nearly 40 years ago, President Kennedy told the Nation that a rising tide would lift all boats. Unfortunately, the bill before us turns that concept on its head, and perhaps a new doctrine is that rising costs will sink health care hopes. To me, that is a major concern. As an alternative to this heavyhanded bureaucratic approach, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus, offered by the Republicans, tries to increase access and coverage. Now, it is extraordinary and unconscionable that the bill we are debating, the Democratic bill, doesn't do anything to improve access to health care. It seems that the only thing our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can think of to improve access is to have Government-run care, like the Clinton health care plan of 1993 and 1994. Since that fell on its face a few years ago, they seem not to have had any good ideas about how to get more people health insurance. We need to increase access. Perhaps the most important part of our bill is the acceleration of the full deduction of insurance costs for the self-employed. I am very pleased that our distinguished majority whip, the Senator from Oklahoma, has introduced an amendment that achieves, for this year, full deductibility of health care costs. That means there is hope that the health care premiums paid this year will be fully deductible. Now, my colleagues, the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Alabama, have already discussed the importance of keeping insurance regulation at the State level. As a former Governor, I can tell you that government insurance regulation, run at the State level, is readily accessible, it is more professional, and it is more responsive to the needs of the citizens. That is why I agree with the portion of the amendment introduced by Senator Nickles which talks about moving away from Federal Government takeover of health care regulation. But I am particularly pleased that Senator Nickles has introduced full deductibility based on the Self-Employed Health Insurance Fairness Act of 1999, which I introduced on February 3 of this year. I am very proud to have 30 bipartisan cosponsors. We are making progress when we work on a bipartisan basis to assure full deductibility of health care costs for the self-employed. I am proud to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. According to the Employment Benefit Research Institute's estimates of the March 1998 current population survey, there are 21.3 million Americans in families headed by a self-employed entrepreneur. Nearly a quarter--23.9 percent--of them have no health insurance. That is 5.1 million uninsured Americans. Even more troubling, that means that the 21.1 percent of the children in self-employed American families are uninsured; 1.3 million children have no coverage for annual checkups, let alone any major health care needs. This amendment would address these alarming statistics by providing an immediate--I mean right now, in real time--100 percent deductibility in order to make health insurance more affordable and accessible to hard-working entrepreneurs and their families. Let me add an additional perspective on the importance of this amendment. Today, one of the fastest growing segments of the small business community is the woman-owned business. Women are opening businesses at a very rapid rate. They are the ones with the entrepreneurial spirit. They may be operating out of their homes, they may be moving from another full-time job, or they may just have a good idea. But women are now seeing an opportunity to start up their own businesses, and we are very proud of the significant contributions they are making to our economy. According to statistics from the National Foundation for Women Businessowners, there are now 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the United States, which compromise almost 38 percent of all U.S. businesses. In addition, between 1987 and 1999, the number of women-owned firms increased by 103 percent nationwide--more than double. The reasons for this explosive growth are manifold. Topping the list is greater flexibility in meeting the demands of family life, and the ability to spend more time with children. Even more impressive, the National Foundation for Women Business Owners reports that women-owned businesses employ more than 27\1/2\ million people, and that employment rate has increased by 320 percent over the past 12 years. Today, while self-employed woman business owners can deduct 60 percent of their health care costs thanks to the strides that we made in previous years, that is still not on a level playing field with a large business which can deduct 100 percent. While the self-employed are slated to have full deductibility in 2003, what woman business owner or her family members can wait 4 more years to get sick? By making health-care insurance fully deductible now, the added tax savings will enable many women business owners to cover their health- care needs and those of their children. In addition, it will encourage these women entrepreneurs to provide health insurance for their employees and their families. And we're not talking about a tax break for ``the rich'' when it comes to the health-insurance deduction for the self-employed. Recent estimates based on the March 1998 Current Population Survey indicate that 68.7 percent of families headed by a self-employed individual with no health insurance earn less than $50,000 per year. These are the people who we are trying to get health coverage. These are the people who need the benefit of full deductibility. Coverage of these entrepreneurs and their children through the self- employed health-insurance deduction will enable the private sector to address the health-care needs of these individuals rather an expensive and intrusive government program. Currently, S. 343, from which my amendment is derived, has the bipartisan support of 30 cosponsors. It also enjoys overwhelming support of small business organizations including the National Association for the Self-Employed, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Small Business Legislative Council, the National Small Business United, and the Health Tax Deduction Alliance, to name just a few. I have also added a provision to the amendment to correct a disparity under current law that bars a self-employed individual from deducting any of her health-insurance costs if she is eligible to participate in another health-insurance plan. This provision unfairly affects entrepreneurs who are eligible for, but do not participate in, a health-insurance plan offered through a second job or through a spouse's employer. The bill ends this disparity by clarifying that a self-employed person loses the deduction only if she actually participates in another health-insurance plan. It has long been my goal that the self-employed have immediate 100 percent deductibility of health-insurance costs. I have sought every opportunity to achieve that goal, and I will keep coming back until we get this job done. I commend the Senator from Oklahoma for pushing for this amendment on the bill so that we can have bipartisan, unanimous support for the effort to ensure that all Americans who are self- employed will have the same kind of benefits in terms of taxes that a large corporation or its employees do; and that is 100 percent deductibility. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I ask all of my colleagues to join in supporting a very forward-looking amendment which deals with some of the significant problems in the underlying bill offered by our colleagues on the other side and makes significant changes to assure access to fair and equitable health care insurance for all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Independent Office of Advocacy Act. This bill has been drafted to build on the success of the Office of Advocacy over the past 23 years. It is intended to strengthen the foundation to make the Office of Advocacy a stronger and more effective advocate for all small businesses throughout the United States. The Office of Advocacy is a unique office within the Federal government. It is part of the Small Business Administration (SBA/ Agency), and its director, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. At the same time, the Office is also intended to be the independent voice for small business within the Federal government. It is supposed to develop proposals for changing government policies to help small businesses, and it is supposed to represent the views and interests of small businesses before other Federal agencies. As the director of the Office of Advocacy, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy has a dual responsibility. On the one hand, he is the independent watchdog for small business. On the other hand, he is also a part of the President's Administration. As you can imagine, those are sometimes very difficult roles to play simultaneously. The Independent Office of Advocacy Act is designed to make the Office of Advocacy and Chief Counsel for Advocacy a fully independent advocate within the Executive Branch acting on behalf of the small business community. The bill would establish a clear mandate that the Office of Advocacy will fight on behalf of small businesses regardless of the position taken on critical issues by the President and his Administration. The Office of Advocacy as envisioned by the Independent Office of Advocacy Act will be unique within the executive branch. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy will be a wide-ranging advocate, who will be free to take positions contrary to the Administration's policies and to advocate change in government programs and attitudes as they impact small businesses. In 1976, Congress established the Office of Advocacy in the SBA to be the eyes, ears and voice for small business within the Federal government. Over time, it has been assumed that the Office of Advocacy is the ``independent'' voice for small business. While I strongly believe that the Office of Advocacy and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy should be independent and free to advocate or support positions that might be contrary to the administration's policies, I have come to find that the Office is not as independent as necessary to do the job adequately for small business. For example, funding for the Office of Advocacy comes from the Salaries and Expense Account of the SBA's budget. Staffing is allocated by the SBA Administrator to the Office of Advocacy from the overall staff allocation for the Agency. In 1990, there were 70 full-time employees working on behalf of small businesses in the Office of Advocacy. Today's allocation of staff is 49, and fewer are actually on- board as the result of the hiring freeze imposed by the SBA Administrator. The Independence of the Office is diminished when the Office of Advocacy staff is reduced to allow for increased staffing for new programs and additional initiatives in other areas of SBA, at the discretion of the Administrator. In addition, the General Accounting Office (GAO) recently completed a report for me on personnel practices at the SBA (GAO/GGD-99-68). I was alarmed by the GAO's finding that Assistant and Regional Advocates hired by the Office of Advocacy share many of the attributes of Schedule C political appointees. In fact, Regional Advocates are frequently cleared by the White House personnel office--the same procedure followed for approving Schedule C political appointees. The facts discussed in the GAO Report cast the Office of Advocacy in a whole new light--one that had not been apparent until now. The report raises questions, concerns and suspicious regarding the independence of the Office of Advocacy. Has there been a time when the Office did not pursue a matter as vigorously as it might have were it not for direct or indirect political influence? Prior to receipt of the GAO Report, my response was a resounding ``No.'' But now, a question mark arises. Let me take a moment and note that I will be unrelenting in my efforts to insure the complete independence of the Office of Advocacy in all matters, at all times, for the continued benefit of all small businesses. However, so long as the Administration controls the budget allocated to the Office of Advocacy and controls who is hired, the independence of the Office may be in jeopardy. We must correct this situation, and the sooner we do it, the better it will be for the small business community. The Independent Office of Advocacy Act builds a firewall to prevent the political intrustion into the management of day-to-day operations of the Office of Advocacy. The bill requires that the SBA's budget include a separate account for the Office of Advocacy. No longer would its funds come from the general operating account of the Agency. The separate account would also provide for the number of full-time employees who would work within the Office of Advocacy. No longer would the Chief Counsel for Advocacy have to seek approval from the SBA Administrator to hire staff for the Office of advocacy. The bill also continues the practice of allowing the Chief Counsel to hire individuals critical to the mission of the Office of Advocacy without going through the normal competitive procedures directed by federal law and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). I beleive this special hiring authority, which is limited only to employees within the Office of Advocacy, is beneficial because it allows the Chief Counsel to hire quickly those persons who can best assist the Office in responding to changing issues and problems confronting small businesses. Mr. Presdient, the Independent Office of Advocacy Act is a sound bill. The bill is the product of a great deal of thoughtful, objective review and consideration by me, the staff of the Committee on Small Business, representatives of the small business community, former Chief Councels for Advocacy and others. These individuals have also devoted much time and effort in actively participating in a Committee Roundtable discussion on the Office of Advocacy, which my Committee held on April 21, 1999. It is my hope the Committee on Small Business will be able to consider the Independent Office of Advocacy Act in the near future.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I stand before you today to introduce the Save My Home Act of 1999. This legislation is intended to provide a blueprint for HUD to address the problem of owners opting out of the section 8 program by not renewing their section 8 project-based contracts. This is a housing crisis. In my state of Missouri alone, section 8 contracts on over 23,000 units will expire over the next 5 years. Nationwide, section 8 contracts on over 14,000 multifamily housing projects with over 1 million units will expire over the same period of time. The ``Save My Home Act of 1999'' will restate and reemphasize the need for HUD to use its best efforts to renew all expiring section 8 project-based contracts. The bill also provides new authority for section 8 enhanced or ``sticky'' vouchers to ensure that families in housing for which owners do not renew their section 8 contracts will be able to continue to live in their housing with the Federal government picking up the additional rental costs of the unit. The use of sticky vouchers is intended as a last resort. HUD must push for the renewal of the section 8 project-based contracts first. The bill also focuses on appraisals so that the cost of this housing reflects the true market value of the rental units. This has been a huge problem and will continue to be a problem until HUD develops the capacity and expertise to appraise adequately these multifamily housing projects. This legislation is needed because HUD has, until recently, refused to renew section 8 project-based contracts at market levels. In response to this policy, many owners of this housing have refused to renew their section 8 contracts and the housing has been converted to market rate housing and lost as affordable, low-income housing inventory. This means that the assisted low-income families in this housing often have to move because the new rents will be too high for the section 8 rental subsidies. This is a huge problem, especially for the elderly and for persons with disabilities who have come to see this housing as their homes. And this has become a crisis. For example, according to the National Housing Trust, during 1998 alone, owners of 219 properties with some 25,488 units section 8 units voluntarily opted out of receiving federal rental subsidies under the section 8 project-based program. Moreover, it has been estimated that we are losing another 3,000 section 8 units a month because of HUD's inaction. I wish we had better numbers but HUD is not providing us or the housing advocates with this information, and it is not clear that HUD even has this information. However, I do want to be clear about the parameters of section 8 opt- out crisis. HUD currently has the legal authority to renew expiring section 8 contracts at the market rent, but has failed to implement this authority. Congress in the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, as enacted on October 27, 1997 in the VA/HUD FY 1998 Appropriations bill, provided HUD with the authority to renew section 8 contracts up to the rental market level. This was almost 2 years ago, and HUD has only announced recently a renewal policy that it has not yet been able to implement. And despite press releases to the contrary, I am not convinced that HUD intends to renew these contracts except with an additional push from the Congress. I also want to be clear about funding. HUD has enough funds to pay for section 8 contract renewals, even though HUD would have you believe otherwise. In particular, HUD has at least $2 billion in the Housing Certificate fund in excess of what is needed for renewing all expiring section 8 contracts this year. Instead of committing any of these funds for the renewal of section 8 project-based contracts, HUD has dedicated these funds as part of its FY 2000 budget for general section 8 contract renewals. Nevertheless, this money is available now and can be used to renew these expiring section 8 contracts. The real problem is that HUD does not have the ``will'' or ``commitment'' to fund these contracts. In fact, the biggest problem is commitment because you cannot legislate commitment. We need to find a way to make HUD renew these section 8 project-based contracts. HUD's lack of commitment to section 8 project-based housing has been a problem through this Administration. From the start, both HUD and the Administration have had a stated policy of opposing section 8 project- based assistance in favor of vouchers. And this is true whether we are talking about elderly housing, housing for persons with disabilities, or housing that is located in very low vacancy areas, such as rural areas where there is no available housing or high-cost urban areas like Boston and San Francisco. This has been a problem in the past with the Section 202 program and with the Mark-to-Market inventory. One final point is that I know there is interest in both the House and Senate in funding a grant program to assist in the sale of section 8 projects to nonprofits and tenant groups. While I support the concept of selling section 8 projects to nonprofits and tenant groups, I am troubled by the thought of buying projects that the Federal Government has already paid for several times over. This program sounds like another reiteration of the preservation program which we misguidedly funded over several years through the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, resulting in fraud and abuse as we vastly overpaid the value of these projects when we could have been using those funds for more fiscally responsible, affordable housing purposes. I look forward to working with interested Members of Congress on these very important issues.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Chafee, Rockefeller, Reed, Moynihan, Breaux, Conrad, Jeffords, Mikulski, and Landrieu to introduce the Foster Care Independence Living Act of 1999. This important piece of legislation will provide transitional assistance for the estimated 20,000 youths in the United States who ``age out'' of the foster care system at the age of 18 without a permanent family. This legislation builds on the Promotion of Adoption, Safety, and Support for Abused and Neglected Children (PASS) Act that I co- sponsored in 1997. The Foster Care Independence Living Act of 1999 increases the funding for the independent living program in order to provide basic living needs, such as housing and food. Additionally, the increased funding provides states the option to grant Medicaid for health care, including mental health needs, to former foster children up to their 21st birthdays as a condition of receiving the increased funding. This legislation also guarantees that state programs are well supervised and provides a wide range of support which focuses on health, safety, and permanency goals. In addition, the bill allows children who receive aid under the independent living program to have assets or resources totaling $10,000, in contrast to the old requirement of $1,000, which deterred foster children from saving money for a sound future. Mr. President, at age 18 foster care children are suddenly expected to be adults, able to take care of themselves. That is not a reasonable expectation, especially for kids deprived of a nurturing parent or other caring adult. As these youths age out of foster care without a permanent family or a structure of continued support, many lack a high school education, have difficulty maintaining employment, and often experience high levels of depression and discouragement. Research has proven that a significant number of homeless shelters users had recently been discharged from foster care. Other studies found that former foster care youth 2\1/2\ to 4 years after they ``aged out'' of foster care found that 46% of the youths had not completed high school, approximately 40% were dependent on public assistance or Medicaid and 42% had given birth or fathered a child. Mr. President, I know first hand how this legislation can impact our nation's foster care children. In my home state of Missouri, Epworth Children and Family Services, in St. Louis, provides resources needed to help people who fall through the cracks of a system that is not strong enough to help build a future for foster care children ``aging out'' of foster care. Robin, an 18-year-old foster care youth, was all alone in the world when she entered Epworth's Independent Living Program. Her father was never a part of her life and her mother was serving time in jail. Motivated by the desire to regain custody of her two-year-old baby boy, Robin started the program with high hopes. However Robin struggled as she worked with the caring staff at Epworth. Despite attempts by the professional at Epworth to stretch limited resources to address Robin's ongoing needs, their system failed Robin. She was removed from Epworth by the Missouri Division of Family Services. Robin needed more support, more staff interaction and more resources than the Epworth program could provide. Mr. President, the Foster Care Independence Living Act of 1999 provides significant assistance to assure that these foster care youth who ``age out'' of the system are provided with the assistance needed to transition out of foster care into independence. The provisions in this bill will assist these youth to begin a supervised and nurtured life outside of the foster care system. They will be given the time and resources they need to enter adulthood prepared. This independent living initiative would give many ``Robins'' the change to be self- sufficient and to contribute to her community. This means a better life for all of our children.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to applaud my colleagues in the Senate and our friends in the House of Representatives for acting promptly to negotiate a conference report on the Y2K Act. As chairman of the Committee on Small businesses, I have paid particular interest to the small business community's concerns about the Y2K problems. While the ultimate consequences that will result from the Y2K problem are as yet unknown, small family-owned businesses are understandably concerned about their futures after the new year. They are concerned that their companies may be in danger either from the problem itself or from suits brought by trial lawyers concerned only with the fees they can obtain from settlements. These businesses have reason to worry that they will be bankrupted by never-ending litigation. Small, woman-owned and family-owned businesses are the most vulnerable from costly litigation, either as plaintiffs or defendants, because they do not have the time to devote to it and do not have excess revenue to afford it. In addition, small businesses do not want to sue companies with which they have long-standing relationships and whose survival is tied to their own. Yet, these vulnerable businesses see the looming specter of endless litigation on the horizon. Experts have estimated that total litigation costs related to the Y2K problem will be astronomical. For example, the Gartner Group, an international consulting firm has estimated that more than $1 trillion will be spent on Y2K litigation. Therefore, this legislation, by encouraging resolution of Y2K disputes outside the courtroom and decreasing the number of frivolous lawsuits that small businesses may have to face, will help to ensure that litigation arising from this problem will not devastate the millions of small businesses that are the engine of our nation's economy. The small businesses that are troubled about the prospects of Y2K litigation are located on Main Streets all across America, not just Silicon Valley. They are this country's mom and pop groceries, its dry cleaners and its hardware stores. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, the nation's largest small business association, strongly supports this legislation. The NFIB surveyed its members and found that an overwhelming 93 percent support capping damage awards for Y2K suits. The small business community is speaking with a unified voice in support of legislation to limit the impact of Y2K suits for the good of this nation and by voting for the conference report today we are not ignoring this voice. The conference report also contains an important amendment that was adopted in the Senate sponsored by Senator Gregg and co-sponsored by me. While the underlying bill will ensure that small businesses do not face financial ruin from costly litigation, the amendment will make certain that our own government does not bankrupt small businesses over the Y2K problem. This amendment will waive Federal civil money penalties for blameless small businesses that have in good faith attempted to correct their Y2K problems, but find themselves inadvertently in violation of a Federal regulation or rule, despite such efforts. Most experts that have studied the Y2K problem agree that regardless of how diligent a business is at fixing its Y2K problems, unknown difficulties are still likely to arise that may place the operations of such businesses at risk. The last thing this government should do is levy civil money penalties on small businesses that find themselves inadvertently confronted with Y2K problems. Many of these businesses will already have had their operations disrupted and may be in danger of going out of business entirely. The Gregg-Bond amendment in the conference report ensures that the Federal government does not push them over the edge. I urge all my colleagues to support the conference report for the sake of our country's small woman- and family-owned businesses and to ensure that the economic health of our nation is not imperiled by the Y2K problem in the coming year and beyond.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I stand before you today to introduce the Save My Home Act of 1999. This legislation is intended to provide a blueprint for HUD to address the problem of owners opting out of the section 8 program by not renewing their section 8 project-based contracts. This is a housing crisis. In my state of Missouri alone, section 8 contracts on over 23,000 units will expire over the next 5 years. Nationwide, section 8 contracts on over 14,000 multifamily housing projects with over 1 million units will expire over the same period of time. The ``Save My Home Act of 1999'' will restate and reemphasize the need for HUD to use its best efforts to renew all expiring section 8 project-based contracts. The bill also provides new authority for section 8 enhanced or ``sticky'' vouchers to ensure that families in housing for which owners do not renew their section 8 contracts will be able to continue to live in their housing with the Federal government picking up the additional rental costs of the unit. The use of sticky vouchers is intended as a last resort. HUD must push for the renewal of the section 8 project-based contracts first. The bill also focuses on appraisals so that the cost of this housing reflects the true market value of the rental units. This has been a huge problem and will continue to be a problem until HUD develops the capacity and expertise to appraise adequately these multifamily housing projects. This legislation is needed because HUD has, until recently, refused to renew section 8 project-based contracts at market levels. In response to this policy, many owners of this housing have refused to renew their section 8 contracts and the housing has been converted to market rate housing and lost as affordable, low-income housing inventory. This means that the assisted low-income families in this housing often have to move because the new rents will be too high for the section 8 rental subsidies. This is a huge problem, especially for the elderly and for persons with disabilities who have come to see this housing as their homes. And this has become a crisis. For example, according to the National Housing Trust, during 1998 alone, owners of 219 properties with some 25,488 units section 8 units voluntarily opted out of receiving federal rental subsidies under the section 8 project-based program. Moreover, it has been estimated that we are losing another 3,000 section 8 units a month because of HUD's inaction. I wish we had better numbers but HUD is not providing us or the housing advocates with this information, and it is not clear that HUD even has this information. However, I do want to be clear about the parameters of section 8 opt- out crisis. HUD currently has the legal authority to renew expiring section 8 contracts at the market rent, but has failed to implement this authority. Congress in the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, as enacted on October 27, 1997 in the VA/HUD FY 1998 Appropriations bill, provided HUD with the authority to renew section 8 contracts up to the rental market level. This was almost 2 years ago, and HUD has only announced recently a renewal policy that it has not yet been able to implement. And despite press releases to the contrary, I am not convinced that HUD intends to renew these contracts except with an additional push from the Congress. I also want to be clear about funding. HUD has enough funds to pay for section 8 contract renewals, even though HUD would have you believe otherwise. In particular, HUD has at least $2 billion in the Housing Certificate fund in excess of what is needed for renewing all expiring section 8 contracts this year. Instead of committing any of these funds for the renewal of section 8 project-based contracts, HUD has dedicated these funds as part of its FY 2000 budget for general section 8 contract renewals. Nevertheless, this money is available now and can be used to renew these expiring section 8 contracts. The real problem is that HUD does not have the ``will'' or ``commitment'' to fund these contracts. In fact, the biggest problem is commitment because you cannot legislate commitment. We need to find a way to make HUD renew these section 8 project-based contracts. HUD's lack of commitment to section 8 project-based housing has been a problem through this Administration. From the start, both HUD and the Administration have had a stated policy of opposing section 8 project- based assistance in favor of vouchers. And this is true whether we are talking about elderly housing, housing for persons with disabilities, or housing that is located in very low vacancy areas, such as rural areas where there is no available housing or high-cost urban areas like Boston and San Francisco. This has been a problem in the past with the Section 202 program and with the Mark-to-Market inventory. One final point is that I know there is interest in both the House and Senate in funding a grant program to assist in the sale of section 8 projects to nonprofits and tenant groups. While I support the concept of selling section 8 projects to nonprofits and tenant groups, I am troubled by the thought of buying projects that the Federal Government has already paid for several times over. This program sounds like another reiteration of the preservation program which we misguidedly funded over several years through the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, resulting in fraud and abuse as we vastly overpaid the value of these projects when we could have been using those funds for more fiscally responsible, affordable housing purposes. I look forward to working with interested Members of Congress on these very important issues.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Chafee, Rockefeller, Reed, Moynihan, Breaux, Conrad, Jeffords, Mikulski, and Landrieu to introduce the Foster Care Independence Living Act of 1999. This important piece of legislation will provide transitional assistance for the estimated 20,000 youths in the United States who ``age out'' of the foster care system at the age of 18 without a permanent family. This legislation builds on the Promotion of Adoption, Safety, and Support for Abused and Neglected Children (PASS) Act that I co- sponsored in 1997. The Foster Care Independence Living Act of 1999 increases the funding for the independent living program in order to provide basic living needs, such as housing and food. Additionally, the increased funding provides states the option to grant Medicaid for health care, including mental health needs, to former foster children up to their 21st birthdays as a condition of receiving the increased funding. This legislation also guarantees that state programs are well supervised and provides a wide range of support which focuses on health, safety, and permanency goals. In addition, the bill allows children who receive aid under the independent living program to have assets or resources totaling $10,000, in contrast to the old requirement of $1,000, which deterred foster children from saving money for a sound future. Mr. President, at age 18 foster care children are suddenly expected to be adults, able to take care of themselves. That is not a reasonable expectation, especially for kids deprived of a nurturing parent or other caring adult. As these youths age out of foster care without a permanent family or a structure of continued support, many lack a high school education, have difficulty maintaining employment, and often experience high levels of depression and discouragement. Research has proven that a significant number of homeless shelters users had recently been discharged from foster care. Other studies found that former foster care youth 2\1/2\ to 4 years after they ``aged out'' of foster care found that 46% of the youths had not completed high school, approximately 40% were dependent on public assistance or Medicaid and 42% had given birth or fathered a child. Mr. President, I know first hand how this legislation can impact our nation's foster care children. In my home state of Missouri, Epworth Children and Family Services, in St. Louis, provides resources needed to help people who fall through the cracks of a system that is not strong enough to help build a future for foster care children ``aging out'' of foster care. Robin, an 18-year-old foster care youth, was all alone in the world when she entered Epworth's Independent Living Program. Her father was never a part of her life and her mother was serving time in jail. Motivated by the desire to regain custody of her two-year-old baby boy, Robin started the program with high hopes. However Robin struggled as she worked with the caring staff at Epworth. Despite attempts by the professional at Epworth to stretch limited resources to address Robin's ongoing needs, their system failed Robin. She was removed from Epworth by the Missouri Division of Family Services. Robin needed more support, more staff interaction and more resources than the Epworth program could provide. Mr. President, the Foster Care Independence Living Act of 1999 provides significant assistance to assure that these foster care youth who ``age out'' of the system are provided with the assistance needed to transition out of foster care into independence. The provisions in this bill will assist these youth to begin a supervised and nurtured life outside of the foster care system. They will be given the time and resources they need to enter adulthood prepared. This independent living initiative would give many ``Robins'' the change to be self- sufficient and to contribute to her community. This means a better life for all of our children.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the winner of the 1999 Miss Missouri Pageant, Miss Patryce CoRae King. On June 12th, in my home town of Mexico, MO, Miss King won the State pageant and will go on to represent Missouri in the Miss America Pageant. Miss King is an accomplished pianist and won the talent competition of the pageant with a rendition of Gershwin's ``Rhapsody in Blue.'' I wish Miss King the best of luck and know that she will represent Missouri well at the Miss America Pageant in September.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. In the last couple days, a lot of people have been talking about the Medicare program and what we want it to look like as we think far ahead into the future. I'm glad this is happening, because this is an important debate. We do need to discuss things like a prescription drug benefit, comprehensive Medicare reform, the long-term solvency of the program, and other related issues. But as we focus on the future of Medicare, we also need to do our best to make sure that the existing program is working as well as it can. That's why we're here today. Part of the existing program-- the home health care benefit--is completely broken, and we've come together to try to fix it. Why do we care? Well, home health care is the key to fulfilling what is virtually a universal desire among seniors and those with disabilities--to remain independent and within the comfort of their own homes despite their health problems. For people who have difficulty leaving their home and who have health conditions that require low- to mid-level medical attention, home health care is a tremendous help. Home health care keeps these people out of more expensive and less comfortable settings such as nursing homes and hospitals. And home care is often the only source of care for many disabled individuals and frail elderly, especially those living in underserved rural and urban areas of our country. Simply put, home health is crucial to millions of Americans' comfort and health, and we must make sure they continue to have access to it. The problem is that more and more Americans do not have access to needed home health services--they simply cannot find a home health agency that will care for them. This means they will either not receive the care they need, or that they will get this care, they'll just get it at more expensive and intimidating facilities like hospitals or nursing homes. This is the crisis we are facing. I would like to take a moment to describe several different ways this home health crisis is rearing its ugly head across the country. First, we have seen literally thousands of home health agencies close their doors in the last two years. Perhaps as many as 2,000 of the 10,000 agencies that existed in 1997 have either been driven out of business or out of Medicare. In Missouri alone, about 75 out of 300 home health agencies have closed since 1997, including the well- respected and well-established Visiting Nurse Association of Greater St. Louis. A few of the agencies that have closed have no doubt been shady characters we should be glad to see go. But many--and perhaps most--of the agencies that have closed are legitimate providers with real patients. Second, those agencies that have survived have had to change drastically the way they operate. Many have been forced into layoffs and cutbacks in other areas that directly or indirectly impact patient care. Many face chronic cash flow problems and may be forced to refund large amounts of cash to the Health Care Financing Administration-- perhaps in the hundreds of thousands of dollars--that they accidentally received because they had not yet been informed of the new ground rules for home health payments. Because of the bizarre incentives against caring for patients with the most complex cases, many home health agencies have also been actively managing the types of patients they care for, trying to avoid or discharge costlier patients. All of this is bad for patients, and it will likely get worse. Without Congressional action, it may never get better. I truly believe that without significant changes, home health services within Medicare could practically disappear. Home health services would theoretically still be part of the Medicare program, but few if any people with Medicare would be able to receive care in their home simply because there will be nobody there to provide it for them. The Medicare Home Health Equity Act--which I am introducing today with Senator Collins and 12 other colleagues--responds to this crisis and attempts to save home health care within the Medicare program. This bill addresses a variety of payment and regulatory issues, all of which have impeded or prevented home health agencies from providing high-quality, efficient care. Two provisions are particularly critical. First, as I have mentioned, home health agencies currently have little incentive to provide care for sicker and costlier patients. In fact, because more complex patients put an agency at risk of exceeding the annual per patient budget that is now in place for each home health agency, there is actually an incentive not to care for sicker patients. The result--which shouldn't be a surprise--is that home health agencies are actively trying to avoid these sicker patients, either leaving them without care or leaving them to check in to a more expensive health facility such as a nursing home or a hospital. The Medicare Home Health Equity Act solves this problem by creating a system of ``extra'' payments for sicker patients--sometimes these are called ``outlier'' payments. Under this plan, home health agencies would be assured from the start that they could receive extra payments for patients who meet the criteria for ``sicker'' patients. This way, we can remove the incentive for home health agencies to try to deny care to seniors with complex cases. The second crucial provision in the bill is something similar to a last-minute pardon from the governor. In addition to all of the problems they have faced in the last couple of years, home health agencies are scheduled to take another huge payment cut--about 15% of the total amount they receive from Medicare--in October of 2000. I fear that this cut would truly be the death-knell for the industry. We cannot allow this radical payment reduction to take place. In addition to these core provisions, the Collins-Bond bill deals with a variety of payment and regulatory issues, all designed to make sure that Medicare recipients continue to have access to quality home health care and that the home health agencies are permitted to provide that care in an efficient manner. I would like to commend Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue. I am pleased that we were able to develop a joint bill so that we could unite our forces behind one bipartisan legislative vehicle and one bipartisan solution. It is also encouraging to see that all of the national trade associations that represent home health agencies are supporting this bill. Finally, I would like to again thank this bill's cosponsors for supporting this effort and for helping to raise awareness that there is a home health crisis that desperately needs our attention in Congress. I for one pledge to do my best to maintain seniors access to home health care. We cannot allow home health services within the Medicare program to disappear. It doesn't make sense for the patients, and it doesn't make sense for Medicare.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. In the last couple days, a lot of people have been talking about the Medicare program and what we want it to look like as we think far ahead into the future. I'm glad this is happening, because this is an important debate. We do need to discuss things like a prescription drug benefit, comprehensive Medicare reform, the long-term solvency of the program, and other related issues. But as we focus on the future of Medicare, we also need to do our best to make sure that the existing program is working as well as it can. That's why we're here today. Part of the existing program-- the home health care benefit--is completely broken, and we've come together to try to fix it. Why do we care? Well, home health care is the key to fulfilling what is virtually a universal desire among seniors and those with disabilities--to remain independent and within the comfort of their own homes despite their health problems. For people who have difficulty leaving their home and who have health conditions that require low- to mid-level medical attention, home health care is a tremendous help. Home health care keeps these people out of more expensive and less comfortable settings such as nursing homes and hospitals. And home care is often the only source of care for many disabled individuals and frail elderly, especially those living in underserved rural and urban areas of our country. Simply put, home health is crucial to millions of Americans' comfort and health, and we must make sure they continue to have access to it. The problem is that more and more Americans do not have access to needed home health services--they simply cannot find a home health agency that will care for them. This means they will either not receive the care they need, or that they will get this care, they'll just get it at more expensive and intimidating facilities like hospitals or nursing homes. This is the crisis we are facing. I would like to take a moment to describe several different ways this home health crisis is rearing its ugly head across the country. First, we have seen literally thousands of home health agencies close their doors in the last two years. Perhaps as many as 2,000 of the 10,000 agencies that existed in 1997 have either been driven out of business or out of Medicare. In Missouri alone, about 75 out of 300 home health agencies have closed since 1997, including the well- respected and well-established Visiting Nurse Association of Greater St. Louis. A few of the agencies that have closed have no doubt been shady characters we should be glad to see go. But many--and perhaps most--of the agencies that have closed are legitimate providers with real patients. Second, those agencies that have survived have had to change drastically the way they operate. Many have been forced into layoffs and cutbacks in other areas that directly or indirectly impact patient care. Many face chronic cash flow problems and may be forced to refund large amounts of cash to the Health Care Financing Administration-- perhaps in the hundreds of thousands of dollars--that they accidentally received because they had not yet been informed of the new ground rules for home health payments. Because of the bizarre incentives against caring for patients with the most complex cases, many home health agencies have also been actively managing the types of patients they care for, trying to avoid or discharge costlier patients. All of this is bad for patients, and it will likely get worse. Without Congressional action, it may never get better. I truly believe that without significant changes, home health services within Medicare could practically disappear. Home health services would theoretically still be part of the Medicare program, but few if any people with Medicare would be able to receive care in their home simply because there will be nobody there to provide it for them. The Medicare Home Health Equity Act--which I am introducing today with Senator Collins and 12 other colleagues--responds to this crisis and attempts to save home health care within the Medicare program. This bill addresses a variety of payment and regulatory issues, all of which have impeded or prevented home health agencies from providing high-quality, efficient care. Two provisions are particularly critical. First, as I have mentioned, home health agencies currently have little incentive to provide care for sicker and costlier patients. In fact, because more complex patients put an agency at risk of exceeding the annual per patient budget that is now in place for each home health agency, there is actually an incentive not to care for sicker patients. The result--which shouldn't be a surprise--is that home health agencies are actively trying to avoid these sicker patients, either leaving them without care or leaving them to check in to a more expensive health facility such as a nursing home or a hospital. The Medicare Home Health Equity Act solves this problem by creating a system of ``extra'' payments for sicker patients--sometimes these are called ``outlier'' payments. Under this plan, home health agencies would be assured from the start that they could receive extra payments for patients who meet the criteria for ``sicker'' patients. This way, we can remove the incentive for home health agencies to try to deny care to seniors with complex cases. The second crucial provision in the bill is something similar to a last-minute pardon from the governor. In addition to all of the problems they have faced in the last couple of years, home health agencies are scheduled to take another huge payment cut--about 15% of the total amount they receive from Medicare--in October of 2000. I fear that this cut would truly be the death-knell for the industry. We cannot allow this radical payment reduction to take place. In addition to these core provisions, the Collins-Bond bill deals with a variety of payment and regulatory issues, all designed to make sure that Medicare recipients continue to have access to quality home health care and that the home health agencies are permitted to provide that care in an efficient manner. I would like to commend Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue. I am pleased that we were able to develop a joint bill so that we could unite our forces behind one bipartisan legislative vehicle and one bipartisan solution. It is also encouraging to see that all of the national trade associations that represent home health agencies are supporting this bill. Finally, I would like to again thank this bill's cosponsors for supporting this effort and for helping to raise awareness that there is a home health crisis that desperately needs our attention in Congress. I for one pledge to do my best to maintain seniors access to home health care. We cannot allow home health services within the Medicare program to disappear. It doesn't make sense for the patients, and it doesn't make sense for Medicare.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this weekend will be doubly special for the residents of McDonald County in my home state of Missouri. On March 3, 1849, McDonald county was established by the State Legislature and named after Revolutionary War hero Alexander McDonald. Not only will this weekend mark the 223rd anniversary of the founding of our country, but it is also the formal celebration of the 150th anniversary of the founding of McDonald County. McDonald County has a distinguished history, including a gold rush in the last century. McDonald County was also the site for the filming of a 1938 movie about Jesse James starring Tyrone Power, Randolph Scott, and Henry Fonda. More recently, every Christmas the Post Office in the city of Noel receives thousands of cards to receive the stamp of ``The Christmas City.'' McDonald County is also a major economic force in the state of Missouri, ranking first in agricultural sales, due to their $50 million poultry industry. I join the citizens of McDonald County in celebrating this milestone in their history. I take great pride in recognizing this historic event and wish McDonald County prosperity in the next 150 years that is even greater than the last. Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues in the Senate join me in recognizing the sesquicentennial of McDonald County.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I point out that over the last 6 years prior to 1998, the steel industry experienced 6 straight years of growth in domestic steel shipments. In 1998, there is a downturn. There is a downturn because of the collapse in the Asian economy, because of the General Motors strike. That is unfortunate. We don't want to see those jobs lost. When you talk about illegal dumping, there are laws against illegal dumping. They are being enforced and they are being enforced effectively. What we are being asked to do in this bill is to put at risk the 20 production jobs for every one steel job; 20 production jobs depending on using steel for the one job in the steel industry. That could be a disaster for our economy. The chairman has already pointed out the cost to the taxpayers, to the consumers. In my State of Missouri, workers in agriculture, in the airplane industry, and small businesses would suffer a loss of jobs and a loss of opportunity if we adopted this measure. I join with the chairman and the ranking member in urging we oppose this measure. Mr. President, I offer a few other points on top of the excellent arguments laid out by my colleagues as to why this bill is a bad idea. The reasons for the surge in steel imports and the decrease in employment in the steel industry are the result of numerous factors and complex conditions. There are a number of forces at work, but the difficult times faced by the steel industry are largely due to economic cycles and conditions. I believe that the industry is asking Congress to take action on its behalf to rectify a status caused by unfavorable conditions. We have a large and diverse economy, with many factors dependent on one another. Taking legislative action on behalf of one industry could have wide and profound ripple affects on may industries that are not for the better and would be a very unwise precedent. The reaction to this legislation could destroy jobs in Missouri industries from agriculture to airplanes and many others. These conditions have not been receiving the level of attention that they deserve in the discussion as to whether erecting trade barriers is the proper approach, if there is an approach, to reducing the increase in steel imports. The largest consumers of steel are automobile manufacturers and construction--two industries whose health is directly related to the health of the economy. We all are aware of the economic conditions facing the Asian nations, particularly facing Japan and the Southeast Asian Nations. This was a very sudden and dramtatic turn of economic fortunes. Previously, those economies had a voracious appetite for steel in the years proceeding their economic problems. The skylines of the Asian business capitals have been transformed from those of small towns into cosmopolitan metropolises rivaling many American cities. But today, the streets of Bangkok are littered with dozens of highrise construction projects that have ground to a halt. Demand for steel overseas has collapsed. Prior to that collapse, U.S. steel manufactures were enjoying good times. Indeed, a decline in domestic steel shipments was witnesses in 1998, but the decline, which was slight, came on the heels of six straight years of growth. The industry enjoyed good times, they benefited from the growth in demand, from the construction boom here and abroad. But economic upheaval abroad has had a major affect on demand, prices, productivity and profit. Capacity was moving along only to face an almost instanteous drop in demand. Those factors as having contributed to the drop in demand have been minimized. Another factor, the labor stoppage at General Motors last summer, has barely been mentioned. Businesses endure business cycles. I have all the confidence that the industry will take the steps necessary to remain competitive, but taking this legislative action to address the conditions of one industry is unwise. Those factors have been minimized as contributing to the decline in demand around the world. Another factor, the labor stoppage at General Motors last summer, cannot be underestimated for its impact on demand and prices. We are being asked to take legislative action to protect a single industry from conditions that are largely the result of the economy and their business decisions and planning. An act such as this cannot be taken without having severe and far reaching consequences for many other industries. As we have heard on the floor of the Senate, and their own business decisions taking legislative action that will benefit a single industry is a purely protectionist act. Mr. President, we have made a commitment in this country to advancing freer trade and open borders. I believe it is in the best interest of our country and in the best interests of future generations. Trade has many benefits. The competition has led to dramatic improvement in the efficiency and the profitability of the domestic auto industry. It has led to improvements in the efficient and profitability of the domestic steel industry. Prior to the year 1998, shipments of steel increased for six straight years. I believe that growth will return. The benefits are seen all around us in the form of more efficient industries, cheaper products and better made products. Trade also advances our standard of living. As we enjoy the benefits of this communications revolution, open markets will permit it to be prolonged. If other countries close down their markets, the avenues to continue to sell these products will begin to evaporate. There is no dispute the types of jobs that have been created because of this revolutions--they are high paying and highly skilled jobs, the type of jobs that have contributed to the continuing escalating standard of living in the United States. Several Senators addressed the Chair.