Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today with my colleagues Senator Jeffords and Senator Harkin I introduce the Assistive Technology Act of 1998. This important piece of legislation will provide technical assistance to the more than 50 million citizens in the United States with disabilities. The Tech Act, passed in 1988, has proven time and again its invaluable assistance in helping persons with disabilities acquire assistive technology that improves their functional capability and quality of life. This technical assistance allows students to learn better in school, adults to acquire jobs, and seniors to live more independently. I have seen the success of the State Tech Act projects first hand in my home State of Missouri. It is estimated that 750,000 Missourians of all ages live with a disabling condition. Ms. Diane Golden, of the Missouri Assistive Technology Project, informed me that Missouri's state office handled 4,000 direct cases this past year, not including thousands of calls regarding information and referrals. Mr. President, Missourians know the impact of the State Tech Act Projects. Wanda, an elder Kansas City woman lost most of her hearing late in life. For three years, she lived without the ability to talk with friends or to call her doctor in an emergency. Wanda's inability to use the telephone, in addition to other age related issues, was threatening her ability to continue living in her own home. Missouri Tech Act Project staff worked with Wanda to identify an adaptive telephone that would allow her to continue to live independently. The cost of the device was prohibitive for this woman and no public funding source was available. Nevertheless, Project staff located a private funding source for the adaptive telephone and as a result Wanda has been able to continue to live independently. Realizing that thousands of individuals throughout the state were facing the same need for adaptive telephone equipment, the Project developed a statewide telecommunication equipment distribution program that provides Missourians, with all types of disabilities, adaptive telephone equipment. The program has been operational for a year and has provided more than one million dollars of adaptive telephone equipment to thousands of Missourians. Another Missourian, Mary, an 8-year-old young girl, who is non-vocal, needed an augmentative communication device that would allow her to communicate at home and school. Medicaid had approved purchasing the device just before its conversion from a fee-based system to a managed care system. The new managed care plan was unfamiliar with augmentative communication devices and the family was having no success in securing the device. Project staff worked with the managed care provider to explain the importance and cost-effectiveness of augmentative communication devices and as a result, secured funding for Mary's device. Understanding that most, if not all, of the managed care plans under contract with Medicaid would be unfamiliar with augmentative communication devices and other types of assistive technology, Project staff worked with the Missouri Medicaid plans to educate them about the importance, cost-effectiveness, and coverage of assistive technology. As a result, numerous plans routinely approve assistive technology. As a result, numerous plans routinely approve assistive technology devices and many call the Project for assistance when they receive requests for assistive devices of which they are unfamiliar. These examples are just a small sampling of the successes of the Missouri Technology Assistance Project. Some other accomplishments of the Project include development of an educational technology access informational packet that the Department of Education distributed to more than 17,000 schools nationally; passage of a sales tax exemption for the purchase of assistive technology in Missouri; establishment of a short-term equipment loan program; development and distribution of a Consumer Guide to Missouri Assistive Device Lemon Laws; and establishment of a web page with postings of equipment for their recycling program. Missouri's success is one example of the many accomplishments of other State Tech Act Projects since the inception of the Tech Act in 1988. The Assistive Technology Act of 1988 will guarantee that states continue to serve the disabled community, their families, friends, teachers, and employers. The bill we are introducing also provides improvements to the current State Tech Act Projects. Some notable improvements include better coordination and information sharing; Microloan programs to help assistive technology end users in obtaining assistive devices; incentive grants to assure better accountability of all programs; and increased small business investment in assistive and universally designed technology research and development. These improvements and new initiatives strengthen the work currently done by the State Tech Act Projects, encourage improvements to current programs and are forward looking in the acquisition, development, and service delivery of assistive technology. State Tech Act Projects provide vital technology related services to individuals with disabilities. The initiatives of these important programs ensure the availability of technology to people with disabilities that make living independently a reality. The Assistive Technology Act of 1998 strengthens and maintains a program that works for a constituency that would otherwise be denied the exciting opportunities that technology affords. Mr. President I urge my colleagues in the Senate and the House to pass this legislation expediently so that technological assistance can continue to be available for our nation's disabled. Let me conclude by thanking my distinguished colleagues Senator Jeffords and Senator Harkin and their staff for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Jeffords and Harkin and myself, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record, a letter of support for the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 from the United Cerebral Palsy Association.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today with my colleagues Senator Jeffords and Senator Harkin I introduce the Assistive Technology Act of 1998. This important piece of legislation will provide technical assistance to the more than 50 million citizens in the United States with disabilities. The Tech Act, passed in 1988, has proven time and again its invaluable assistance in helping persons with disabilities acquire assistive technology that improves their functional capability and quality of life. This technical assistance allows students to learn better in school, adults to acquire jobs, and seniors to live more independently. I have seen the success of the State Tech Act projects first hand in my home State of Missouri. It is estimated that 750,000 Missourians of all ages live with a disabling condition. Ms. Diane Golden, of the Missouri Assistive Technology Project, informed me that Missouri's state office handled 4,000 direct cases this past year, not including thousands of calls regarding information and referrals. Mr. President, Missourians know the impact of the State Tech Act Projects. Wanda, an elder Kansas City woman lost most of her hearing late in life. For three years, she lived without the ability to talk with friends or to call her doctor in an emergency. Wanda's inability to use the telephone, in addition to other age related issues, was threatening her ability to continue living in her own home. Missouri Tech Act Project staff worked with Wanda to identify an adaptive telephone that would allow her to continue to live independently. The cost of the device was prohibitive for this woman and no public funding source was available. Nevertheless, Project staff located a private funding source for the adaptive telephone and as a result Wanda has been able to continue to live independently. Realizing that thousands of individuals throughout the state were facing the same need for adaptive telephone equipment, the Project developed a statewide telecommunication equipment distribution program that provides Missourians, with all types of disabilities, adaptive telephone equipment. The program has been operational for a year and has provided more than one million dollars of adaptive telephone equipment to thousands of Missourians. Another Missourian, Mary, an 8-year-old young girl, who is non-vocal, needed an augmentative communication device that would allow her to communicate at home and school. Medicaid had approved purchasing the device just before its conversion from a fee-based system to a managed care system. The new managed care plan was unfamiliar with augmentative communication devices and the family was having no success in securing the device. Project staff worked with the managed care provider to explain the importance and cost-effectiveness of augmentative communication devices and as a result, secured funding for Mary's device. Understanding that most, if not all, of the managed care plans under contract with Medicaid would be unfamiliar with augmentative communication devices and other types of assistive technology, Project staff worked with the Missouri Medicaid plans to educate them about the importance, cost-effectiveness, and coverage of assistive technology. As a result, numerous plans routinely approve assistive technology. As a result, numerous plans routinely approve assistive technology devices and many call the Project for assistance when they receive requests for assistive devices of which they are unfamiliar. These examples are just a small sampling of the successes of the Missouri Technology Assistance Project. Some other accomplishments of the Project include development of an educational technology access informational packet that the Department of Education distributed to more than 17,000 schools nationally; passage of a sales tax exemption for the purchase of assistive technology in Missouri; establishment of a short-term equipment loan program; development and distribution of a Consumer Guide to Missouri Assistive Device Lemon Laws; and establishment of a web page with postings of equipment for their recycling program. Missouri's success is one example of the many accomplishments of other State Tech Act Projects since the inception of the Tech Act in 1988. The Assistive Technology Act of 1988 will guarantee that states continue to serve the disabled community, their families, friends, teachers, and employers. The bill we are introducing also provides improvements to the current State Tech Act Projects. Some notable improvements include better coordination and information sharing; Microloan programs to help assistive technology end users in obtaining assistive devices; incentive grants to assure better accountability of all programs; and increased small business investment in assistive and universally designed technology research and development. These improvements and new initiatives strengthen the work currently done by the State Tech Act Projects, encourage improvements to current programs and are forward looking in the acquisition, development, and service delivery of assistive technology. State Tech Act Projects provide vital technology related services to individuals with disabilities. The initiatives of these important programs ensure the availability of technology to people with disabilities that make living independently a reality. The Assistive Technology Act of 1998 strengthens and maintains a program that works for a constituency that would otherwise be denied the exciting opportunities that technology affords. Mr. President I urge my colleagues in the Senate and the House to pass this legislation expediently so that technological assistance can continue to be available for our nation's disabled. Let me conclude by thanking my distinguished colleagues Senator Jeffords and Senator Harkin and their staff for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Jeffords and Harkin and myself, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record, a letter of support for the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 from the United Cerebral Palsy Association.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the manager of the bill. I wanted to take just a moment to describe a provision that we have offered which the managers have indicated that they will accept.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as I indicated, we have talked with the manager and the ranking member of the measure about a provision that I have offered with respect to the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I thank them for their willingness to accept it. I wanted to tell my colleagues very briefly what it is, because this is an issue of such great importance today.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. I remember well the days when I came back from summer vacation, and for the first days of school it was a little difficult to focus attention. It is good to see colleagues again. I appreciate very much the effort so that we can discuss what unfortunately has become a very serious problem. Mr. President, in light of the continued proliferation issues which surround the world and the Middle East in particular, I believe that now, more than ever, it is important for the United States to maintain its vigilance with respect to Iraq's insatiable appetite to procure the most terrible weapons on earth. Saddam Hussein has attempted to avoid any and every attempt by the civilized world to control and monitor his government's obsession with attaining weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has a proven track record of his proclivity to utilize these weapons if he does not believe that the consequences of his actions would lead to his own destruction or at least to severe injury. The continued aggressive monitoring of Iraq's weapons stockpiles is critical to preventing him from building and using these weapons to make another attempt to dominate the region through physical threats to neighboring populations. The recent resignation of Scott Ritter from the inspection team and his reasons for doing so should not go unheeded by this body. The coalition of nations which developed originally to thwart Iraq's aggression against its neighbors has deteriorated to the point where each new confrontation with Iraq becomes a test of wills within the United Nations and the Security Council. Time and time again, Saddam has scoffed at United States stated policy of ``no compromise'' and time and time he is proven correct. No longer do we punish Iraqi transgressions; we become party to negotiating additional concessions. We no longer lead with resolve; we follow timidly and make excuses for delay and inaction. We must not shirk from our responsibility to have the administration and the world understand our commitment to insuring that Iraq abandon its weapons of mass destruction program through strict inspections programs and a well defined and consistently implemented set of consequences for non-compliance. To achieve that I have proposed a resolution which outlines concerns I have regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, calls upon the administration to oppose any effort to relax inspection regimes and has the President submit a report to Congress on the United States Government's assessment of Iraq's weapons program. I understand that the resolution I have proposed has been accepted by both sides and has been included in the bill and I thank the chairman and the ranking member and other members of the committee for their help to include this resolution in this bill which outlines our most grave concerns and calls upon the President to issue a report which certifies the level of compliance by the Iraqi regime to the numerous non-proliferation protocols currently in effect, the effectiveness of these protocols, and the implementation of United States' policy to curb Iraq's weapons program. I thank the Chair. I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for permitting me to proceed. I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today, I have been joined by Senators Coverdell, Domenici, Kempthorne, and Snowe to introduce ``The Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' to restructure and refine Small Business Administration programs that are designed to help small businesses succeed. In drafting this legislation, I followed one key principle--will the change help small businesses? Many of SBA's programs are dependent upon the private sector to make loans and investments or to provide services to small businesses. ``The Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' is intended to make Federal small business programs work more effectively while stimulating greater interest in the private sector to support small business owners and their employees. The small business sector is the fastest growing segment of our economy. Its sustained growth throughout this decade has enabled our Nation to experience one of its greatest periods of prosperity. During this time span, small businesses have been responsible for the net increase of new jobs in the United States. Today, small businesses employ over \1/2\ of all American workers. Small businesses produce 55 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product. Our Nation's sustained economic growth would not be possible were it not for the strength of the small business sector. One would hate to imagine where we would be without a robust small business community. The Committee on Small Business opened the 105th Congress with a hearing on Homebased and Women-owned businesses. We received testimony on the significant economic contribution being made by the 8 million women-owned businesses and on the importance of business education, training, and financial assistance to this growing segment of our economy. To assist the rapid growth of small businesses owned by women, Section 2 of ``The Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' would increase the authorization level to $12 million from $8 million per year for the Women's Business Center program. This increase would ensure that new Center sites will be opened without jeopardizing the currently funded Centers from receiving funds for five years. To verify the SBA provides the Women's Business Center program with the staff and administrative support required to support a $12 million program, the bill directs the General Accounting Office to undertake a baseline and follow-up study of the SBA's administration of the program. These independent audits will assist Congress in its oversight of SBA's supervision and administration of the program. Knowing that the Administration has previously recommended a budget that would have shut down the program, we want to make sure it is receiving the appropriate level of staffing and agency resources. Last year, Congress passed the ``Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997,'' which increased the authorization for the Women Business Center Program to $8 million from $4 million and extended the number of years grantees can receive grants to five years from three years. The goal was to have a Women's Business Center operating in every state and additional sites in states where there is sufficient demand. Consistent with our view, the Administration's budget request for Fiscal Year 1999 recommended an increase in the authorization level to $9 million. Senators Kerry and Cleland introduced S. 2157 which would authorize the Administration's request and would go one step further by increasing the authorization level to $10.5 million in FY 2000, and $12 million in FY 2001. I am encouraged to see such a strong show of support for the program--only two years after Congress killed the Administration's recommendation to strike all funding for the program. Section 2 of the bill includes a new provision to provide parity between Centers operating under three-year agreements with SBA when the Reauthorization Act was enacted and those Centers awarded five-year grants since that time. Section 2 amends the law to provide the same matching requirement in year four for all Centers receiving SBA grants. Under the 1997 Act, Centers that receive a two-year extension at the conclusion of a three-year grant have to raise two non-federal dollars for every federal dollar awarded; under Section 2, they will have to raise one non-federal dollar for each federal dollar--which is the fourth year matching requirement for Centers receiving newly awarded five year grants. The 2 non-federal dollars to one federal dollar matching requirement will remain in force for the fifth year of all awardees. Section 3 of ``The Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' would make the SBIR Program permanent. Testimony before the Committee on Small Business and the findings of the General Accounting Office clearly support this Congressional action. The bill would also increase the set aside from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent. Beginning in FY 2001, the program would be increased by \1/4\ of 1 percent in each of the next four fiscal years. Congress established the SBIR Program in 1982 because small businesses are a principal source of innovation in the United States. Under this program, Federal agencies with extramural research and development budgets of $100 million or more are required to set aside no less than 2.5 percent of that amount for small businesses. The SBIR Program was last re-authorized in 1992 and will terminate in FY 2000 unless Congress acts first. In April 1998, the General Accounting Office issued its comprehensive report on the state of the SBIR Program, and in June 1998, GAO addressed that report in testimony before the Committee on Small Business. The unmistakable message was very clear--this is a good program that is running well. There are ten Federal agencies that participate in the program, and GAO concluded they are all adhering to the program's funding requirements. Competition has been intense among small business R&D firms in response to solicitations from the ten agencies. GAO found, however, it was very rare for an agency to make an award when the agency received only one proposal in response to a solicitation was received. The bill would make a significant change in the program to encourage better outreach to states that receive few awards each year. GAO reported in FY 1996 that California received a total of 904 awards for a total of $207 million and Massachusetts received 628 awards for a total of $148 million. On the other hand, there were a great number of states receiving 11 or fewer awards. The bill would permit each of the ten participating agencies to spend up to 2% of the SBIR set aside pool of funds to support an outreach program, to promote better commercialization of the R&D awards, and to offset some administrative expenses. At least one-third of these non-award funds must be spent on outreach in those states that receive 25 or fewer awards each year. Earlier this year, I introduced S. 2173, the ``Assistive and Universally Designed Technology Improvement Act,'' to encourage the development and production of actual products for the marketplace for assistive technology end-users. As part of my effort to reach that goal, the ``Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' includes a provision encouraging all ten Federal agencies participating in the SBIR Program to solicit proposals to advance research and development in this critical area. In 1958, Congress created the SBIC Program to assist small business owners obtain investment capital. Forty years later, small businesses continue to experience difficulty in obtaining investment capital from banks and traditional investment sources. SBICs are frequently their only sources of investment capital. In 1992 and 1996, the Committee on Small Business worked closely with SBA to correct earlier deficiencies in the law in order to ensure the future of the program. Today, the SBIC Program is booming. Its performance since 1994 has been astounding. Section 4 of ``The Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' would make a relatively small change in the operation of the program. This change, however, would help smaller, small businesses to be more attractive to investors. The bill would permit SBICs to accept royalty payments contingent on future performance from companies in which they invest as a form of equity return for their investment. SBA already permits SBICs to receive warrants from small businesses, which give the investing SBIC the right to acquire a portion of the equity of the small business. By pledging royalties or warrants, the small business is able to reduce the interest that would otherwise be payable by the small business to the SBIC. Importantly, the royalty feature provides the smaller, small business with an incentive to attract SBIC investments when the return may otherwise be insufficient to attract venture capital. Section 5 of ``The Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' would require the SBA to make permanent a pilot program initiated two years ago to permit certain Certified Development Companies (CDCs) to foreclose and liquidate defaulted loans that they have originated under the 504 Loan Program. This is a necessary step to ensure the 504 program remains viable. Currently, SBA liquidates and forecloses almost every loan made under the 504 Loan Program. SBA has been performing this task poorly. The Administration's FY 1999 budget submission estimates that recoveries on defaulted loans under the 504 Loan Program will decline from 34.27% in FY 1998 to 30.67% in FY 1999. It is important to note that all loans made under the 504 loan program are fully secured by real estate. It is inconceivable that SBA recovers only thirty cents on the dollar on fully-secured real estate loans. Because the 504 Program is self-funded through user fees, with no appropriation required by Congress, borrowers must pay higher fees to compensate for the SBA's inability to recover a reasonable portion of defaulted loans. As borrower fees have increased, the 504 Loan Program has been priced out of the reach of certain small businesses. The 504 Loan Program was enacted to provide larger loans to small businesses for plant acquisition, construction or expansion. Such loans create jobs and improve the economic health of communities. Congress should not allow such opportunities to be limited because the SBA has been unable to recover funds on defaulted loans effectively. In 1996, Congress passed, at my urging, the Small Business Programs Improvement Act, which established a pilot program that allowed approximately 20 CDCs to liquidate loans that they had originated. Reports on this pilot program indicate it has been a success--CDCs are obtaining higher recoveries than the SBA. This bill makes the pilot program permanent and permits CDCs that have the ability to manage loan liquidations to do so. This change in the law is designed to increase the recoveries on defaulted loans thereby decreasing borrower fees. Consequently, more small businesses will have access to 504 loans, which will create more jobs and will help sustain the economic growth this country has been experiencing. The ``Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997'' included the creation of the HUBZone Program, which raised the goal to 23% from 20% for prime contracts being awarded by the Federal government to small business. This increase was advocated by the SBA Administrator and was embraced by the Clinton Administration. It has been brought to the attention of the Committee on Small Business that some Federal agencies may be using bookkeeping ploys to reduce the amount of contract dollars going into the pool of contracts used for calculating the older 20% small business set aside goal. By reducing the overall dollar volume of contracts, the value of contracts counted under the older 20% set aside goal is also reduced. Now that Congress has increased the goal to 23%, I am concerned there may be greater pressure on the agencies to ``juggle the books.'' In order for the Committee on Small Business to conduct its oversight of the small business contract set aside goal, Section 6 of the bill directs the SBA to send a report to the Committee on Small Business each year highlighting any Federal agency that alters its statistical methodology in tracking its efforts to meet the 23% goal. The bill also directs the Administrator of SBA to notify the Committee and the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy prior to approving any request from an agency to change how it reports its small business contracting efforts. Last year, when Congress approved the ``Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997,'' it included a separate title to improve business opportunities for service-disabled veterans. The Senate and House Committees on Small Business believed strongly that these individuals deserve better support from the Federal agencies than they have received historically. Last year's bill included a provision requiring the SBA to complete a comprehensive report containing the findings and recommendations of the SBA Administrator on the needs of small businesses owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans. Although this report should be received by the Congress no later than the first week of September, SBA's efforts to date to complete this report within the statutory deadline are disappointing. Section 7 of ``The Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' would go one step further to strengthen the mandate that SBA's programs be more responsive to all veteran small business owners. The bill would direct that veterans receive comprehensive help at SBA. The bill elevates the Office of Veterans Affairs at SBA to the Office of Veterans Business Development, which would be headed by an Associate Administrator, who would report directly to the SBA Administrator. In addition, the bill would establish an Advisory Committee on Veterans' Business Affairs composed of 15 members. Eight members would be veterans who own small businesses, and seven members will be representatives of national veterans service organizations. Further, the bill would create the position of National Veterans' Business Coordinator within the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) Program. This new position would work in the SBA headquarters to ensure that SCORE's programs nationwide include entrepreneurial counseling and training for veterans. Section 7 of the bill would make veteran small business owners eligible to apply for small, start-up loans under SBA's Microloan Program. And the SBA Office of Advocacy would be directed to evaluate annually efforts by Federal agencies, business and industry to help business that are owned and controlled by veterans. The ``Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998'' is a sound bill that will help small business owners, particularly those who are struggling or in the business start-up phase to compete more effectively. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act along with my colleagues Senators Bennett and Snowe. This bill provides small businesses with the resources necessary to repair Year 2000 computer problems. This legislation is an important step toward avoiding the widespread failure of small businesses. The problem, as many Senators are aware, is that certain computers and processors in automated systems will fail because such systems will not recognize the Year 2000. My colleague Senator Bennett, who is the Chairman of the Senate Special Year 2000 Technology Problem Committee and is co-sponsoring this bill, is very well versed in this problem and has been active in getting the word out to industries and to agencies of the federal government of the drastic consequences that may result from the Y2K problem. Recently, the Committee on Small Business, which I chair, held hearings on the effect the Y2K problem will have on small businesses. The outlook is not good. The Committee received testimony that the companies most at risk from Y2K failures are small and medium-sized industries, not larger companies. The major reasons for this anomaly is that many small companies have not begun to realize how much of a problem Y2K failures will be and may not have the access to capital to cure such problems before they cause disastrous effects. A study on Small Business and the Y2K Problem sponsored by Wells Fargo Bank and the NFIB found that an estimated four and three-quarter million small employers are exposed to the Y2K problem. This equals approximately 82 percent of all small businesses that have at least two employees. Such exposure to the Y2K problem will have devastating affects on our economy generally. As the result of communications with small businesses, computer manufacturers, consultants and groups, the Small Business Committee has found there is significant likelihood that the Y2K issue will cause many small businesses to close, playing a large role in Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's prediction of a 40 percent chance for recession at the beginning of the new millennium. The Committee received information indicating that approximately 330,000 small businesses will shut down due to the Y2K problem and an even larger number will be severely crippled. Such failures will affect not only the employees and owners of such small businesses, but also the creditors, suppliers and customers of such failed small businesses. Lenders, including banks and non-bank lenders, that have extended credit to small businesses will face significant losses if small businesses either go out of business or have a sustained period in which they cannot operate. It must be remembered that the Y2K problem is not a problem for only those businesses that have large computer networks or mainframes. A small business is at risk if it uses any computers in its business, if it has customized software, if it is conducting e-commerce, if it accepts credit card payments, if it uses a service bureau for its payroll, if it depends on a data bank for information, if it has automated equipment for communicating with its sales or service force of if it has automated manufacturing equipment. A good example of how small businesses are dramatically affected by the Y2K problem is the experience of John Healy, the owner of Coventry Spares Ltd. in Holliston, Massachusetts, as reported in INC Magazine. Coventry Spares is a distributor of vintage motorcycle parts. Like many small business owners, Mr. Healy's business depends on trailing technology purchased over the years, including a 286 computer, with software that is 14 years old and an operating system that is six or seven versions out of date. Mr. Healy uses this computer equipment, among other matters, for handling the company's payroll, ordering, inventory control, product lookup and maintaining a database of customers and subscribers to a vintage motorcycle magazine he publishes. The system handles 85 percent of his business and, without it working properly, Mr. Healy stated that ``I'd be a dead duck in the water.'' Unlike many small business owners, however, Mr. Healy is aware of the Y2K problem and tested his equipment to see if his equipment could handle the Year 2000. His tests confirmed his fear--the equipment and software could not process the year 2000 date and would not work properly after December 21, 1999. Therefore, Mr. Healy will have to expand over $20,000 to keep his business afloat. The experience of Mr. Healy has been and will continue to be repeated across the country as small businesses realize the impact the Y2K problem will have on their business. The Gartner Group, an international computer consulting firm, has conducted studies showing small businesses are way behind--the worst of all sectors studied--where they need to be in order to avoid significant failures due to non-Y2K compliance. It estimates that only 15 percent of all businesses with under 200 employees have even begun to inventory the automated systems that may be affected by this computer glitch. That means that 85 percent of small businesses have not be even begun the initial task of determining how much of a problem they may have or taken steps to ensure that their businesses are not impaired by this problem. Given the effects a substantial number of small business failures will have on our nation's economy, it is imperative that Congress take steps to ensure that small businesses are aware of the Y2K problem and have access to capital to fix such problems. Moreover, it is imperative that Congress take such steps before the problem occurs, not after it has already happened. Therefore, today I am introducing the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act. This Act will serve the dual purpose of providing small businesses with the means to continue operating successfully after January 1, 2000, and making lenders and small firms more aware of the dangers that lie ahead. The Act requires the Small Business Administration to establish a limited-term loan program whereby SBA would guarantee 50 percent of the principal amount of a loan made by a private lender to assist small businesses in correcting Year 2000 computer problems. The loan amount would be capped at $50,000. The guarantee limit and loan amount will limit the exposure of the government and ensure that eligible lenders retain sufficient risk so that they make sound underwriting decisions. The Y2K loan program guidelines will be based on the guidelines SBA has already established governing its FA$TRACK pilot program. Lenders originating loans under the Y2K loan program would be permitted to process and document loans using the same internal procedures they would on loans of a similar type and size not governed by a government guarantee. Otherwise, the loans are subject to the same requirements as all other loans made under the (7)(a) loan program. Under the loan program, each lender designated as a Preferred Lender or Certified Lender by SBA would be eligible to participate in the Y2K loan program. This would include approximately 1,000 lenders that have received special authority from the SBA to originate loans under SBA's existing 7(a) loan program. The Year 2000 loan program would sunset after October 31, 2001. To assure that the loan program is made available to those small businesses that need it, the legislation requires SBA to inform all lenders eligible to participate in the program of the loan program's availability. It is intended that these lenders, in their own self- interest, will contact their small business customers to ensure that they are Y2K complaint and inform them of the loan program if they are not. The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act is a necessary step to ensure that the economic health of this country is not marred by a substantial number of small business failures following January 1, 2000, and that small businesses continue to be the fastest growing segment of our economy in the Year 2000 and beyond. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act along with my colleagues Senators Bennett and Snowe. This bill provides small businesses with the resources necessary to repair Year 2000 computer problems. This legislation is an important step toward avoiding the widespread failure of small businesses. The problem, as many Senators are aware, is that certain computers and processors in automated systems will fail because such systems will not recognize the Year 2000. My colleague Senator Bennett, who is the Chairman of the Senate Special Year 2000 Technology Problem Committee and is co-sponsoring this bill, is very well versed in this problem and has been active in getting the word out to industries and to agencies of the federal government of the drastic consequences that may result from the Y2K problem. Recently, the Committee on Small Business, which I chair, held hearings on the effect the Y2K problem will have on small businesses. The outlook is not good. The Committee received testimony that the companies most at risk from Y2K failures are small and medium-sized industries, not larger companies. The major reasons for this anomaly is that many small companies have not begun to realize how much of a problem Y2K failures will be and may not have the access to capital to cure such problems before they cause disastrous effects. A study on Small Business and the Y2K Problem sponsored by Wells Fargo Bank and the NFIB found that an estimated four and three-quarter million small employers are exposed to the Y2K problem. This equals approximately 82 percent of all small businesses that have at least two employees. Such exposure to the Y2K problem will have devastating affects on our economy generally. As the result of communications with small businesses, computer manufacturers, consultants and groups, the Small Business Committee has found there is significant likelihood that the Y2K issue will cause many small businesses to close, playing a large role in Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's prediction of a 40 percent chance for recession at the beginning of the new millennium. The Committee received information indicating that approximately 330,000 small businesses will shut down due to the Y2K problem and an even larger number will be severely crippled. Such failures will affect not only the employees and owners of such small businesses, but also the creditors, suppliers and customers of such failed small businesses. Lenders, including banks and non-bank lenders, that have extended credit to small businesses will face significant losses if small businesses either go out of business or have a sustained period in which they cannot operate. It must be remembered that the Y2K problem is not a problem for only those businesses that have large computer networks or mainframes. A small business is at risk if it uses any computers in its business, if it has customized software, if it is conducting e-commerce, if it accepts credit card payments, if it uses a service bureau for its payroll, if it depends on a data bank for information, if it has automated equipment for communicating with its sales or service force of if it has automated manufacturing equipment. A good example of how small businesses are dramatically affected by the Y2K problem is the experience of John Healy, the owner of Coventry Spares Ltd. in Holliston, Massachusetts, as reported in INC Magazine. Coventry Spares is a distributor of vintage motorcycle parts. Like many small business owners, Mr. Healy's business depends on trailing technology purchased over the years, including a 286 computer, with software that is 14 years old and an operating system that is six or seven versions out of date. Mr. Healy uses this computer equipment, among other matters, for handling the company's payroll, ordering, inventory control, product lookup and maintaining a database of customers and subscribers to a vintage motorcycle magazine he publishes. The system handles 85 percent of his business and, without it working properly, Mr. Healy stated that ``I'd be a dead duck in the water.'' Unlike many small business owners, however, Mr. Healy is aware of the Y2K problem and tested his equipment to see if his equipment could handle the Year 2000. His tests confirmed his fear--the equipment and software could not process the year 2000 date and would not work properly after December 21, 1999. Therefore, Mr. Healy will have to expand over $20,000 to keep his business afloat. The experience of Mr. Healy has been and will continue to be repeated across the country as small businesses realize the impact the Y2K problem will have on their business. The Gartner Group, an international computer consulting firm, has conducted studies showing small businesses are way behind--the worst of all sectors studied--where they need to be in order to avoid significant failures due to non-Y2K compliance. It estimates that only 15 percent of all businesses with under 200 employees have even begun to inventory the automated systems that may be affected by this computer glitch. That means that 85 percent of small businesses have not be even begun the initial task of determining how much of a problem they may have or taken steps to ensure that their businesses are not impaired by this problem. Given the effects a substantial number of small business failures will have on our nation's economy, it is imperative that Congress take steps to ensure that small businesses are aware of the Y2K problem and have access to capital to fix such problems. Moreover, it is imperative that Congress take such steps before the problem occurs, not after it has already happened. Therefore, today I am introducing the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act. This Act will serve the dual purpose of providing small businesses with the means to continue operating successfully after January 1, 2000, and making lenders and small firms more aware of the dangers that lie ahead. The Act requires the Small Business Administration to establish a limited-term loan program whereby SBA would guarantee 50 percent of the principal amount of a loan made by a private lender to assist small businesses in correcting Year 2000 computer problems. The loan amount would be capped at $50,000. The guarantee limit and loan amount will limit the exposure of the government and ensure that eligible lenders retain sufficient risk so that they make sound underwriting decisions. The Y2K loan program guidelines will be based on the guidelines SBA has already established governing its FA$TRACK pilot program. Lenders originating loans under the Y2K loan program would be permitted to process and document loans using the same internal procedures they would on loans of a similar type and size not governed by a government guarantee. Otherwise, the loans are subject to the same requirements as all other loans made under the (7)(a) loan program. Under the loan program, each lender designated as a Preferred Lender or Certified Lender by SBA would be eligible to participate in the Y2K loan program. This would include approximately 1,000 lenders that have received special authority from the SBA to originate loans under SBA's existing 7(a) loan program. The Year 2000 loan program would sunset after October 31, 2001. To assure that the loan program is made available to those small businesses that need it, the legislation requires SBA to inform all lenders eligible to participate in the program of the loan program's availability. It is intended that these lenders, in their own self- interest, will contact their small business customers to ensure that they are Y2K complaint and inform them of the loan program if they are not. The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act is a necessary step to ensure that the economic health of this country is not marred by a substantial number of small business failures following January 1, 2000, and that small businesses continue to be the fastest growing segment of our economy in the Year 2000 and beyond. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have had a brief debate. The manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, has moved to table the Feingold amendment. I want to add my comments to the debate on that issue. This is an amendment which I strongly oppose and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose it. This is part of a continuing campaign of harassment against the Navy's No. 1 program, the No. 1 program of the U.S. Navy. This campaign has had a long, and to date totally unsuccessful, history. We all know the problems in the court systems when individuals flood the courts with frivolous lawsuits. We, in providing procurement funds for the Navy, have had a string of what I consider to be less than good-faith, responsible amendments directed at this program. The amendment before us purports to cut funds from a Navy procurement program and earmark them for the National Guard operations and maintenance fund. As a long-time and strong supporter of the National Guard, I recognize the limited funding the Guard has, and I have worked with my colleagues, the chairman and the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Committee, and the Senator from Kentucky, my cochairman of the National Guard caucus, to fund adequately the Guard component of the total force. But I do not believe that pitting one service against the other, raiding the Navy's No. 1 procurement program, is the way to fill that funding requirement. No, this amendment is not a step forward for good government. It has been proposed for no other reason than as a reckless assault on a program which has successfully cleared every production hurdle with room to spare. I have been advised by Major General Edward Philbin, Executive Director of the National Guard Association of the U.S., that NGAUS is not supporting this program because, among other things, it would simply create problems between the National Guard and the Navy. This, to me, is a very unfortunate step when, as pointed out by the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, all services are facing shortfalls. We have to address the inadequacy in funding for the National Guard and all of the other services. But I can tell you that this amendment is totally uncalled for. The F/A-18E/F is the Navy's No. 1 priority procurement program. If you ask the Secretary of the Navy or any of the fleet carrier strike- fighter aviators what will enable the Navy to be viable in the 21st century and beyond, they will tell you it is the Super Hornet. Yesterday the CNO was in my office with one of the fine young men who fly the F/A-18. They reemphasize this is their No. 1 program. They cannot afford to take cuts in the program such as proposed on the House side, or particularly as proposed in this amendment. I think it is a sad day when some Members, for reasons known to themselves, would wish to pit the National Guard against the Navy. I think it is irresponsible and could lead to services raiding each other's accounts to achieve an individual Senator's political goals. In January of 1997, the Senator from Wisconsin led an effort to terminate the F/A-18E/F. He failed. Since then, he has continued what appears to be a vendetta against the program, and now his intent is slowly to drain the money from the aircraft by continuing a plan to reduce the number of aircraft and the funding available, to make a full-rate production decision nearly impossible. When you talk with the people in the Navy who know what their needs are, who know what the future of naval aviation is, they will insist, and they will tell you that this is the airplane that they must have. If we want our men and women in naval aviation to carry out the missions we demand of them, then we have to provide them the modern, up-to-date, efficient aircraft, technologically superior, that the E/F F-18 gives us. I remember full well several years ago when the distinguished ranking member of this committee, the Senator from Hawaii, said, ``We don't ever want to send American fighting men and women into a battle evenly matched. We want to send them in with the technological superiority, the training, and the capability and resources to make sure they win.'' Mr. President, that is what the 18E/F gives us. It gives us that technological superiority. It gives us the ability to make sure we have the best chance possible of bringing our naval aviators home safely, having accomplished their mission. The F/A-18E/F has already been scrutinized in the Quadrennial Defense Review. It has been scrutinized by the National Defense Panel. It has undergone GAO study after GAO study. It has been tested by pilots at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station and the Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake. It has accumulated 2,749 test flight hours, over 1,800 flights, and numerous aircraft carrier landings. It has never had a catastrophic failure. I wish other tactical air programs could meet these standards. It has test fired just about every weapon the Navy might need it to carry. It is on time, it is on budget, and it needs to get underway. I ask my colleagues, if they have any question about the value of this plane, ask somebody who flies one. Ask somebody who has had the opportunity to fly it. Ask somebody who we are sending in harm's way, asking them to fly a fighter and attack aircraft off a carrier, ask them how important they think the F/A-18E/F is to their ability to carry out their mission and to come home safely. If you will ask the naval aviators, whose lives are on the line, I have no question what their response is going to be. I have heard it myself. Any of my colleagues who wish to contact somebody they know in naval aviation or in the Navy itself, I believe they will tell you it is the No. 1 priority. Mr. President, this is simply a bad amendment, and I sincerely hope that my colleagues will vote overwhelmingly with the chairman of the committee and the ranking member to table this unwise amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Louis Taylor who has provided great service to the Committee on Small Business, the U.S. Senate and to me personally. Louis Taylor is stepping down this week as Chief Counsel and Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Small Business. When I became chairman of the Committee on Small Business in January 1995, one of my first actions was to hire Louis. For the past 3\1/2\ years, Louis has provided outstanding leadership to the staff on the Committee on Small Business and he has been instrumental in support of my efforts to transform the committee so that it is the eyes, ears, and voice in the U.S. Senate for small businesses. In his tenure on the Committee on Small Business, Louis Taylor played a significant role in crafting important pieces of legislation to help small businesses. Two such legislative accomplishments stand out among the numerous bills that originated from the Committee on Small Business and were enacted into law--the HUBZone Act of 1997 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Red-Tape Reduction Act. The HUBZone program expands the opportunity for small businesses in economically distressed areas to compete for Federal contracts, bringing jobs and new investments to inner cities and poor rural areas. The Red-Tape Reduction Act established safeguards to improve the Government's regulatory fairness to small businesses and established an independent ombudsman and regional citizen review boards to give small businesses a voice in evaluating Federal agency actions. Without Louis Taylor's contributions, the ultimate enactment of these important statutes would surely have been much more difficult. In addition to these impressive legislative achievements, Louis Taylor played an integral role in ensuring that the Committee on Small Business capitalized on its expansive oversight jurisdiction to be a strong advocate for small business in the U.S. Senate. On those issues where the committee did not have legislative jurisdiction, Louis Taylor helped me guide the committee in its efforts to call attention to the impact such issues have on small business. For example, using its oversight jurisdiction, the committee was successful in including a number of small business provisions in the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which was signed into law last week. These changes to the structure of the IRS and improved taxpayer rights will help small business owners to resolve tax problems more efficiently while providing them with the service and respect that they deserve from the agency. The committee has also been extremely active in ensuring regulatory fairness for small businesses and women-owned businesses, in particular. Perhaps the provision that will have the broadest impact, however, is the provision of 100 percent deductibility for health insurance for the self-employed and their families. This measure ultimately will make health insurance more affordable for 5 million Americans who do not carry it now. In conclusion, the entire committee and I certainly will miss Louis Taylor as he moves on to other endeavors, but the contributions that he has made and the leadership he has given to the Committee on Small Business are greatly appreciated and will not be soon forgotten.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Medicare Home Health Beneficiary Protection Act of 1998'' on behalf of myself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Faircloth, and Mr. Cochran. I have long believed that home care is the key to fulfilling the desire of virtually all seniors and those with disabilities to remain independent and within the comfort of their own homes. Home care is also 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. Today, however, home health care is facing a crisis. In an effort to reduce Medicare home health expenditures and fraud and abuse, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 replaces cost-based reimbursement for home health services with a Prospective Payment System (PPS), effective October 1, 1999. In the meantime, Congress, at the recommendation of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), imposed an Interim Payment System (IPS), or new per beneficiary caps on home health agencies. There is no question that transitioning home health into a PPS is needed to ensure that all home health providers are cost-effective in the deliverance of services. But is also quite clear that the current IPS, coupled with HCFA's interpretation of the surety bond statute, is threatening access to these invaluable services throughout our nation. Quite simply, the IPS is fatally flawed and works tremendous injustice and hardship. In my home State of Missouri, reputable home health agencies provide high quality care to over 124,000 seniors and disabled are facing a crisis. I support making the deliverance of services more efficient and rooting out bad actors in the Medicare home health program, but I am deeply concerned about a punitive IPS which is driving scrupulous, quality providers out of business. In Missouri alone, over 35 home health agencies have shut their doors since enactment of the BBA of 1997. Nationwide, over 1000 home health providers have closed or stopped accepting Medicare patients. In St. Louis, the two largest, freestanding home health providers closed their doors this year--leaving hundreds of elderly and disabled patients searching for a new provider. The Visiting Nurse Association of St. Louis which served the St. Louis area for 87 years eliminated all of their Medicare home health services as of May, forcing over 600 patients to find a new source of care. It is imperative that Congress act now to impose a moratorium on the IPS. My bill not only accomplishes this equitable goal, but it also puts pressure on HCFA to move expeditiously towards the establishment of PPS for home care. I have written a letter to Secretary Shalala outlining the concerns and outlining the serious situation and I have asked she move expeditiously on this. A study conducted by The George Washington University Medical Center, Center for Health Policy Research, entitled ``Medicare Home Health Services: An Analysis of the Implications of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 for Access and Quality'', confirms why Congress must take expedited action in removing the IPS. Summarizing, the study concluded that: The home care population represents an increasingly sicker population requiring more acute management of chronic illness and higher intensity acute care; The BBA's reductions in Medicare home health coverage and financing can be expected to affect the sickest and highest cost patients and punish the very agencies that specialize in the provision of care to this population; The most severe effects of the interim payment system fall on the sickest patients living in states with the lowest utilization patterns; The BBA's interim payment system will shift costs to other payers (notably Medicaid) while rewarding inefficient agencies who care for relatively healthier patients; and The interim payment system will make it more difficult to design and implement the permanent prospective payment system scheduled to become effective in FY 2000. To those, I might add, Mr. President, when you take a look at cost when you force people out of home health care if they are Medicare- eligible beneficiaries, you are going to wind up putting them in institutions where the cost will be significantly greater and the benefits to the individuals served and to the communities will be far less. This is false economy and it is causing a real crisis in communities throughout our country. So not only are beneficiaries and providers of home health alerting us to the devastation of this system, but outside experts are also telling us why we must revisit this issue. Reducing Medicare's growth rate is a worthy and much needed goal; however, doing it in such a way that threatens access to critical home health services is downright unconscionable. Truly reforming Medicare means more than simply ratcheting down payments to providers and services to beneficiaries. While this approach is the short-term solution, it has serious consequences for many vulnerable patients and honest providers. Mr. President, I want to conclude my remarks by recognizing the efforts of my distinguished colleague from Iowa and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Aging, Senator Chuck Grassley, who first highlighted the devastating impact of the IPS and HCFA's surety bond rule on Medicare beneficiaries and home health providers. I thank him for his dedication and leadership and look forward to working with him to rectify this problem. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the National Easter Seal Society and the National Council of Senior Citizens as well as my letter to Secretary Shalala dated July 24, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Medicare Home Health Beneficiary Protection Act of 1998'' on behalf of myself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Faircloth, and Mr. Cochran. I have long believed that home care is the key to fulfilling the desire of virtually all seniors and those with disabilities to remain independent and within the comfort of their own homes. Home care is also 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. Today, however, home health care is facing a crisis. In an effort to reduce Medicare home health expenditures and fraud and abuse, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 replaces cost-based reimbursement for home health services with a Prospective Payment System (PPS), effective October 1, 1999. In the meantime, Congress, at the recommendation of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), imposed an Interim Payment System (IPS), or new per beneficiary caps on home health agencies. There is no question that transitioning home health into a PPS is needed to ensure that all home health providers are cost-effective in the deliverance of services. But is also quite clear that the current IPS, coupled with HCFA's interpretation of the surety bond statute, is threatening access to these invaluable services throughout our nation. Quite simply, the IPS is fatally flawed and works tremendous injustice and hardship. In my home State of Missouri, reputable home health agencies provide high quality care to over 124,000 seniors and disabled are facing a crisis. I support making the deliverance of services more efficient and rooting out bad actors in the Medicare home health program, but I am deeply concerned about a punitive IPS which is driving scrupulous, quality providers out of business. In Missouri alone, over 35 home health agencies have shut their doors since enactment of the BBA of 1997. Nationwide, over 1000 home health providers have closed or stopped accepting Medicare patients. In St. Louis, the two largest, freestanding home health providers closed their doors this year--leaving hundreds of elderly and disabled patients searching for a new provider. The Visiting Nurse Association of St. Louis which served the St. Louis area for 87 years eliminated all of their Medicare home health services as of May, forcing over 600 patients to find a new source of care. It is imperative that Congress act now to impose a moratorium on the IPS. My bill not only accomplishes this equitable goal, but it also puts pressure on HCFA to move expeditiously towards the establishment of PPS for home care. I have written a letter to Secretary Shalala outlining the concerns and outlining the serious situation and I have asked she move expeditiously on this. A study conducted by The George Washington University Medical Center, Center for Health Policy Research, entitled ``Medicare Home Health Services: An Analysis of the Implications of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 for Access and Quality'', confirms why Congress must take expedited action in removing the IPS. Summarizing, the study concluded that: The home care population represents an increasingly sicker population requiring more acute management of chronic illness and higher intensity acute care; The BBA's reductions in Medicare home health coverage and financing can be expected to affect the sickest and highest cost patients and punish the very agencies that specialize in the provision of care to this population; The most severe effects of the interim payment system fall on the sickest patients living in states with the lowest utilization patterns; The BBA's interim payment system will shift costs to other payers (notably Medicaid) while rewarding inefficient agencies who care for relatively healthier patients; and The interim payment system will make it more difficult to design and implement the permanent prospective payment system scheduled to become effective in FY 2000. To those, I might add, Mr. President, when you take a look at cost when you force people out of home health care if they are Medicare- eligible beneficiaries, you are going to wind up putting them in institutions where the cost will be significantly greater and the benefits to the individuals served and to the communities will be far less. This is false economy and it is causing a real crisis in communities throughout our country. So not only are beneficiaries and providers of home health alerting us to the devastation of this system, but outside experts are also telling us why we must revisit this issue. Reducing Medicare's growth rate is a worthy and much needed goal; however, doing it in such a way that threatens access to critical home health services is downright unconscionable. Truly reforming Medicare means more than simply ratcheting down payments to providers and services to beneficiaries. While this approach is the short-term solution, it has serious consequences for many vulnerable patients and honest providers. Mr. President, I want to conclude my remarks by recognizing the efforts of my distinguished colleague from Iowa and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Aging, Senator Chuck Grassley, who first highlighted the devastating impact of the IPS and HCFA's surety bond rule on Medicare beneficiaries and home health providers. I thank him for his dedication and leadership and look forward to working with him to rectify this problem. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the National Easter Seal Society and the National Council of Senior Citizens as well as my letter to Secretary Shalala dated July 24, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed 5 minutes as if in morning business to introduce a piece of legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet.

Mr. BOND. Seeing no other Members wishing to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this morning, there will be a period for the transaction of morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the legislative branch appropriations bill. After disposition of the legislative branch bill, the Senate will resume consideration of the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. The majority leader has indicated that he is hopeful that Members will come to the floor during today's session to offer and debate amendments as the Senate attempts to make good progress on the Commerce-Justice-State bill. The Senate may also consider any other legislative or executive items that may be cleared for action.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Good morning, Mr. President.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Ozanam in Kansas City, Missouri for its service to the community. For fifty years, Ozanam has been helping children and families in turmoil. Ozanam facility and staff help children reach their full potential and become productive members of society. Ozanam began in the home of Mr. Al Allen, a Catholic Welfare Staff member, who after noticing the lack of help for emotionally disturbed adolescents, took it upon himself to bring six boys into his own home to give them long-term care, education and guidance. However, in just a year's short time, the need for a larger facility became apparent. Presently, the agency occupies 95 acres including two dormitories, a campus group home, a special education center that contains vocational training classrooms, indoor and outdoor recreation facilities and a spiritual life center. During its existence, Ozanam has had some outstanding staff and administration to help the more than 4,000 children who have stayed there. Paul Gemeinhardt, President, Judith Hart, Senior Vice President of Development and Doug Zimmerman, Senior Vice President of Agency Operations, deserve special recognition for their undying commitment and service to Ozanam. I commend the staff of Ozanam for their untiring dedication to helping children and their families in their time of need. I join the many in Missouri who thank Ozanam for its good work and continuing efforts to better the community. Congratulations for fifty years of service.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, frankly, I am not aware of this problem, but I sincerely appreciate the Senator from Connecticut raising it because it sounds like a very serious problem. I can assure the Senator, our staffs and we will work with the Senator to try to get to the bottom of this because we want to maintain the highest caliber professional service to our veterans in the VA system. I am not prepared to say anything about how it is occurring or why, but I assure the Senator we appreciate his bringing it up and we will look into it and work on it. Perhaps in conference we can take some action.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of discussion over the past year on the Kyoto Protocol and concerns about efforts to implement its requirements prior to Senate ratification. We may disagree about whether or not the global climate is warming-- and there certainly is no scientific consensus on the matter. But regardless of the scientific uncertainties and the differing views on the issue, one thing is certain: the level of greenhouse gas reductions called for in the Kyoto Protocol have the very real potential of inflicting serious economic harm on the U.S. economy. The agreement reached last December in Kyoto would, according to numerous studies, lead to significant job less and substantial lifestyle changes for Americans. Energy prices could rise dramatically. One study by Charles River Associates and DRI/McGraw-Hill, for example, projected that in my state, industrial electricity prices could increase 54.4 percent. Mr. President, this kind of increase in electricity prices would be devastating to small businesses, farmers, large manufacturers who employ thousands, and individual consumers, including those with limited incomes who would be hardest hit. From the numerous studies that have been done to determine the effects of implementing the Kyoto Protocol, we know that we could expect a serious economic disruption. What is not so clear is whether there is a global climate change problem, and if so, how significant it is and what is its cause. Therefore, I believe we must continue the debate and try to gain a better understanding of climate change and what action might be needed. To do so, we must continue funding of research and technology development. We must continue to support the voluntary efforts that many companies have undertaken to reduce greenhouse gases. And we must continue to support energy efficiency programs. What we should not do at this time is to begin to implement the reduction requirements called for in the Kyoto Protocol. That should not happen until there has been a full debate and until this body has given its advice and consent to ratify the Protocol. The Administration has assured Congress that it is not their intent to implement the Kyoto requirements in the absence of Senate ratification. Those assurances are appreciated. There is evidence, however, that efforts are underway to begin to implement the Kyoto requirements prematurely. This is a concern because, as I said earlier, there is a potential for serious economic harm if the Protocol is implemented. Until we have eliminated the uncertainties surrounding climate change, and until we have had a full, open debate on the issue and appropriate responses, we should not embark on a path that could lead us into economic disarray. Implementation before ratification is not the responsible--nor constitutional--way to go. That is why the Senate Appropriations Committee included in the VA/ HUD report language clarifying that no funds should be used to implement the Kyoto Protocol. We must continue to provide for research efforts and other important programs that make sense, such as energy efficiency and voluntary initiatives, but we should not begin to spend funds for a Protocol that has not yet been determined to be in the best interests of our country.

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Maryland for her comments. I also appreciate the efforts of the Senators from Arkansas and Alaska to work out this situation. It sounds like a very compelling need. Obviously, our only question is the means by which it is accomplished. I am delighted we can gain agreement at this stage. We do have further work to pursue. I have advised my colleague on the other side of the aisle, if there are substantial problems with it then we can deal with those in conference. I hope we can remedy this wrong which has occurred to Native Americans who fought for their country in Vietnam.

Mr. BOND. Yes. I believe that is a more appropriate time for the EPA to fulfill the reporting requirement as outlined in the Committee Report language.

Mr. BOND. Indeed they would, Senator Chafee. Our only goal here is to prevent the issuance of federal regulations designed solely for the purpose of Kyoto Protocol implementation. We have funded these EPA programs for the upcoming fiscal year and expect the agency to spend the money in an effective and appropriate manner.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, I do not think we are going to require any more votes. There are votes on two amendments that have been ordered. I am going to ask that we vitiate the yeas and nays on them. I do not know of any call for a vote, a recorded vote on final passage. The Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Arkansas want to engage in a colloquy before we accept that amendment. Amendment No. 3205 Before we do that, however, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays on the Burns amendment be vitiated and that we adopt the amendment by voice vote.