Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the concerns and needs of small businesses have always been a priority for me. When I talk to small business owners throughout the State of Maine, I hear over and over again that they have two major problems: One is the high cost of health insurance. I will be introducing legislation shortly to try to help small businesses cope with that issue. The second issue is the need for more capital to finance their enterprises. Today, I rise to introduce the Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act, a bill intended to stimulate private investment in the entrepreneurs who drive our economy. I am pleased to be joined today by my good friends and staunch supporters of small business, Senators Cleland, Breaux, Landrieu, Allard, Chafee, Lieberman, Hutchinson, and Hatch. The bill we introduce today will encourage long-term investment in small and emerging businesses by providing incentives to individuals who risk investment in such firms. According to the Small Business Administration, small firms account for three-quarters of our Nation's employment growth and almost all of our net new jobs. At the same time, small businesses face unique financing challenges. Simply put, entrepreneurs need access to more capital to start and to expand their businesses. As the SBA noted last year, ``Adequate financing for rapidly growing firms will be America's greatest economic policy challenge of the new century.'' Just a few months ago, it would have been difficult for us to imagine that a capital gap could exist in an economy that had experienced such an unprecedented run of prosperity. Venture capital investments in emerging firms reached a record $103 billion last year, up 74 percent from the year before. Yet, there are signs that the rush of funds is subsiding. Venture capital investment activity decreased by 31 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, and much of the funds that have been raised remains uninvested. More important, venture capital funds tend to gravitate towards certain types of businesses and geographic regions, and tend to be invested in increasingly larger amounts, leaving many small business entrepreneurs frozen out of the capital markets. Internet-related companies attracted 76 percent of the venture capital invested in the first three quarters of 2000. And more than two-thirds of all the venture capital invested in the United States in 1999 went to just five States. Moreover, the average amount of venture capital invested in small businesses increased from $6.6 million in 1998 to $13.3 million in 1999, prompting the SBA to conclude that the needs of many small businesses for equity financing remain unmet. The data paint a troubling picture. It is, unfortunately, a familiar one. Take the example of Vladimir Koulchin, a Russian by birth but a Mainer in heart and spirit. Vladimir holds a doctorate in biochemistry and has 25 years of research experience in the field. Six years ago, Mr. Koulchin moved to Portland, ME, to work for a biotechnology firm where he became vice president for research and development. This past fall, with no funding other than his own, he founded Chemogen with the goal of developing products to diagnose, treat, and prevent tuberculosis and other dangerous infectious diseases in humans and animals. Mr. Koulchin told me how difficult it has been to find the seed and early stage capital he needs to get his promising business off the ground. He spoke of the relative lack of seed capital in small markets and the welcome assistance that strong Federal tax incentives could provide. Vladimir's experiences are all-too-common. A recent report by the National Commission on Entrepreneurship presented findings of 18 focus groups with more than 250 entrepreneurs across the country. According to the report, the focus groups were ``nearly unanimous in identifying difficulties in obtaining seed capital investments.'' And although the capital gap is pervasive, it disproportionately harms women- and minority-owned businesses. The Milken Institute, an independent economic think tank, concluded in a research report issued last year that, ``While minority businesses are growing faster than majority firms in number and revenue, they remain severely constrained by a lack of access to capital.'' Moreover, women receive only 12 percent of all credit provided to small businesses in the U.S. despite owning nearly 40 percent of the businesses. If we want to remain the world's most entrepreneurial country, where small businesses generate the ideas and create the jobs that fuel our economy, we must continue to create an environment that nurtures and supports entrepreneurs. The legislation we are introducing helps to create a supportive environment, not by establishing an expensive, new Federal program, or adding a complicated new section to our Tax Code, but rather by simplifying and improving a provision that is already there. The provision, known as section 1202, was added to the Internal Revenue Code in 1993 with strong bipartisan support. Section 1202 allows investors to exclude from taxable income 50 percent of the gain from the sale of qualified small business stock when the stock is held for at least 5 years. Now, that concept is a sound one, but unfortunately, section 1202 prescribes a complicated set of requirements, and its attractiveness has been diminished due to the fact that when capital gains rates were lowered in 1997, the section 1202 rate remained the same. In addition, the increasing application of the alternative minimum tax has reduced its value. Indeed, early data on the use of section 1202 suggests that the alternative minimum tax has sharply limited its effectiveness. Our bill restores section 1202 to its original role as a potent engine of small business capital formation. Our legislation simplifies section 1202, enhances its incentives, and eliminates the threat that gains on small business stock will be subject to the alternative minimum tax. In short, our bill makes a number of commonsense changes designed to encourage investment in small business. The Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act is supported by the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Women's Business Council, the National Commission On Entrepreneurship, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Biotechnology Association Of Maine. Our legislation would implement changes recommended by a recent Securities and Exchange Commission forum on small business capital formation. In sum, our legislation would accommodate the capital- raising needs of small business, the foundation of our economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold hearings entitled ``The Role of U.S. Correspondent Banking In International Money Laundering.'' The upcoming hearings will focus on correspondent banking as a vehicle for money laundering; the role of offshore banks in international money laundering; and the efforts of financial entities, federal regulators, and law enforcement to limit money laundering activities within the United States. The hearings will take place on Thursday, March 1; Friday, March 2; and Tuesday, March 6, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. each day, in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate office Building. For further information, please contact Linda Gustitus of the subcommittee's minority staff at 224-9505.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use my 15 minutes starting now.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, are there time limitations currently in effect for speaking?

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I first commend the Senator from Texas for her excellent statement on the needs of our men and women in uniform. As the Senator from Texas, I had the opportunity earlier this week to accompany President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, as well as a number of Members of Congress, on a trip to Fort Stewart in Georgia. There we had the opportunity to talk firsthand with our soldiers. We also had the opportunity to tour their barracks. I must say I was shocked with what I saw. We saw soldiers living three in a very cramped space, 55 square feet per soldier, housing that is an embarrassment to the United States of America. Mr. President, there is an old statement that nothing is too good for our troops. Well, ``nothing'' appears to be exactly what they are getting in some parts of this country. We need to recommit ourselves, if we are going to solve our recruitment and retention problems, to providing quality housing, competitive pay, and good health and retirement benefits to our men and women in uniform. For that reason, I applaud the President's initiative and his announcements this week of his commitment to remedy the pay, housing, and benefit problems that were so evident on this trip.

Ms. COLLINS. I am happy to yield.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her comments. I was, indeed, so impressed with the pride and professionalism of the soldiers that I met. They were so committed to their jobs and to serving our country. We simply need to do better by them.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Kerry, I am introducing the Mercury Reduction and Disposal Act of 2001. This bill addresses the very serious problem of mercury in the environment and mercury disposal. It takes special aim at one of the most common and widely distributed sources of mercury, and that is mercury fever thermometers. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that is widespread in the environment and particularly harmful to developing children and pregnant women. In fact, a National Academy of Sciences report released last year attributed mercury exposure to birth defects and brain damage in up to 60,000 newborn children each year. Although mercury can be safe in an elemental form or in amalgamations such as dental fillings, mercury takes on a highly toxic organic form known as methylmercury when it enters the environment. Methylmercury is almost completely absorbed into the blood and distributed to all tissues, including the brain. This organic mercury can accumulate in the food chain and become concentrated in some species of fish, posing a health threat to those who consume them. For this reason, 40 States have issued public health warnings advising certain individuals to restrict or avoid consuming fish from certain affected bodies of water. Mr. President, the largest sources of mercury in the environment include incinerated solid waste, powerplant emissions, and emissions from chlor-alkali plants, such as the now closed HoltraChem Manufacturing Company in Orrington, ME. About 50 tons of mercury are estimated to enter the environment from medical and solid waste incinerators, about 45 tons from powerplant emissions, and a large but uncertain amount derives from chlor-alkali plants. Of the 50 tons of mercury that enters the environment from medical and solid waste incinerators, mercury thermometers are one of the largest, if not the largest, source. The EPA has estimated that mercury thermometers contributed approximately 17 tons of mercury to solid waste per year in the early 1990s. Although this number may well be declining due to innovative efforts, such as those in towns like Freeport, ME--the first town in Maine to ban the sale of mercury fever thermometers--it is still a very large amount. Mr. President, I have a mercury thermometer right here. It is very familiar to all of us. Many of us know from personal experience how easily it can be broken. I have broken a couple myself, and not realizing the dangers of mercury back then, I used my hands to gather up the various beads of mercury and throw them away, not realizing the danger I was creating. In fact, in 1998, the American Poison Control Center received 18,000 phone calls from consumers who had broken mercury thermometers. This one mercury thermometer contains about 1 gram of mercury. That does not sound like much, but let me tell you, despite its small size, just one of these thermometers per year contains enough mercury to contaminate all of the fish in a 20-acre lake. Let me repeat that. The mercury in one of these thermometers is sufficient to pollute a 20-acre lake. The bill I am introducing today calls for a nationwide ban on the sale of mercury fever thermometers such as the one I just showed. It will also provide grants for swap programs to help consumers exchange mercury thermometers for digital or other alternatives. I have an example of an alternative right here. This is a digital thermometer. Digital thermometers like this one are easier to read, much quicker to use, they do not break easily, and, most important of all, they do not contain a toxic element such as mercury. My bill will allow millions of consumers across the Nation to receive free digital thermometers in exchange for their mercury thermometers. By bringing mercury thermometers in for proper disposal, consumers will ensure the mercury from their thermometers does not end up polluting our lakes and threatening our health. It will also reduce the risk of breakage and contamination inside the home. Another important component of my bill is the safe disposal of the mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs. My legislation directs the EPA to ensure that the mercury is properly collected and stored to make sure it is kept out of the environment and out of commerce. This mercury will not reenter the environment, and it will not be sent, for example, to India, one of the largest manufacturers of mercury thermometers. The mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs addresses only one part of the problem. The other aspect is the global circulation of mercury. When the HoltraChem chlor-alkali manufacturing plant in Orrington, ME, shut down last year, the plant was left with over 100 tons of unwanted mercury and no way to permanently dispose of it. In total, about 3,000 tons of mercury are held at similar plants across the United States. In addition, large amounts of mercury are still being mined around the world. In 1999, Algeria mined 400 tons of virgin mercury and Kyrgyzstan mined 600 tons. In total, approximately 2,000 tons of new mercury are mined every year. Moreover, the Department of Defense currently has a stockpile of over 4,000 tons of mercury it does not want and does not know what to do with. What can we do about these problems? What can we do about the situation where some countries are still mining large amounts of an element that is a known neurotoxin, while the United States and other countries are doing their best to remove this extremely toxic element from the environment? How will the United States dispose of the huge amounts of mercury at chlor-alkali plants and other no longer needed sources? My legislation creates an interagency task force to address these very issues. This task force will be chaired by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and comprised of representatives from the States, other Federal agencies involved with mercury, and public health officials. Specifically, my bill directs this task force to find ways to reduce the mercury threat to humans and the environment, to identify a long- term means of disposing of mercury, and to address the excess mercury problems from mines as well as from industrial sources. In sum, this task force is directed to identify comprehensive solutions to the global mercury problem. In one year, the mercury task force will make recommendations to Congress for permanently disposing of mercury, for retiring mercury from chlor-alkali plants and other sources, and for reducing the amount of new mercury mined every year. At that time, it will be up to Congress to act on their recommendations. In the meantime, this bill will make significant progress toward reducing one of the most widespread sources of mercury contamination in the environment, something that many of us still have in our medicine chests at home, and that is the mercury fever thermometer. I thank the Presiding Officer for his attention. I urge support and cosponsorship of my colleagues for this initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Kerry, I am introducing the Mercury Reduction and Disposal Act of 2001. This bill addresses the very serious problem of mercury in the environment and mercury disposal. It takes special aim at one of the most common and widely distributed sources of mercury, and that is mercury fever thermometers. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that is widespread in the environment and particularly harmful to developing children and pregnant women. In fact, a National Academy of Sciences report released last year attributed mercury exposure to birth defects and brain damage in up to 60,000 newborn children each year. Although mercury can be safe in an elemental form or in amalgamations such as dental fillings, mercury takes on a highly toxic organic form known as methylmercury when it enters the environment. Methylmercury is almost completely absorbed into the blood and distributed to all tissues, including the brain. This organic mercury can accumulate in the food chain and become concentrated in some species of fish, posing a health threat to those who consume them. For this reason, 40 States have issued public health warnings advising certain individuals to restrict or avoid consuming fish from certain affected bodies of water. Mr. President, the largest sources of mercury in the environment include incinerated solid waste, powerplant emissions, and emissions from chlor-alkali plants, such as the now closed HoltraChem Manufacturing Company in Orrington, ME. About 50 tons of mercury are estimated to enter the environment from medical and solid waste incinerators, about 45 tons from powerplant emissions, and a large but uncertain amount derives from chlor-alkali plants. Of the 50 tons of mercury that enters the environment from medical and solid waste incinerators, mercury thermometers are one of the largest, if not the largest, source. The EPA has estimated that mercury thermometers contributed approximately 17 tons of mercury to solid waste per year in the early 1990s. Although this number may well be declining due to innovative efforts, such as those in towns like Freeport, ME--the first town in Maine to ban the sale of mercury fever thermometers--it is still a very large amount. Mr. President, I have a mercury thermometer right here. It is very familiar to all of us. Many of us know from personal experience how easily it can be broken. I have broken a couple myself, and not realizing the dangers of mercury back then, I used my hands to gather up the various beads of mercury and throw them away, not realizing the danger I was creating. In fact, in 1998, the American Poison Control Center received 18,000 phone calls from consumers who had broken mercury thermometers. This one mercury thermometer contains about 1 gram of mercury. That does not sound like much, but let me tell you, despite its small size, just one of these thermometers per year contains enough mercury to contaminate all of the fish in a 20-acre lake. Let me repeat that. The mercury in one of these thermometers is sufficient to pollute a 20-acre lake. The bill I am introducing today calls for a nationwide ban on the sale of mercury fever thermometers such as the one I just showed. It will also provide grants for swap programs to help consumers exchange mercury thermometers for digital or other alternatives. I have an example of an alternative right here. This is a digital thermometer. Digital thermometers like this one are easier to read, much quicker to use, they do not break easily, and, most important of all, they do not contain a toxic element such as mercury. My bill will allow millions of consumers across the Nation to receive free digital thermometers in exchange for their mercury thermometers. By bringing mercury thermometers in for proper disposal, consumers will ensure the mercury from their thermometers does not end up polluting our lakes and threatening our health. It will also reduce the risk of breakage and contamination inside the home. Another important component of my bill is the safe disposal of the mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs. My legislation directs the EPA to ensure that the mercury is properly collected and stored to make sure it is kept out of the environment and out of commerce. This mercury will not reenter the environment, and it will not be sent, for example, to India, one of the largest manufacturers of mercury thermometers. The mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs addresses only one part of the problem. The other aspect is the global circulation of mercury. When the HoltraChem chlor-alkali manufacturing plant in Orrington, ME, shut down last year, the plant was left with over 100 tons of unwanted mercury and no way to permanently dispose of it. In total, about 3,000 tons of mercury are held at similar plants across the United States. In addition, large amounts of mercury are still being mined around the world. In 1999, Algeria mined 400 tons of virgin mercury and Kyrgyzstan mined 600 tons. In total, approximately 2,000 tons of new mercury are mined every year. Moreover, the Department of Defense currently has a stockpile of over 4,000 tons of mercury it does not want and does not know what to do with. What can we do about these problems? What can we do about the situation where some countries are still mining large amounts of an element that is a known neurotoxin, while the United States and other countries are doing their best to remove this extremely toxic element from the environment? How will the United States dispose of the huge amounts of mercury at chlor-alkali plants and other no longer needed sources? My legislation creates an interagency task force to address these very issues. This task force will be chaired by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and comprised of representatives from the States, other Federal agencies involved with mercury, and public health officials. Specifically, my bill directs this task force to find ways to reduce the mercury threat to humans and the environment, to identify a long- term means of disposing of mercury, and to address the excess mercury problems from mines as well as from industrial sources. In sum, this task force is directed to identify comprehensive solutions to the global mercury problem. In one year, the mercury task force will make recommendations to Congress for permanently disposing of mercury, for retiring mercury from chlor-alkali plants and other sources, and for reducing the amount of new mercury mined every year. At that time, it will be up to Congress to act on their recommendations. In the meantime, this bill will make significant progress toward reducing one of the most widespread sources of mercury contamination in the environment, something that many of us still have in our medicine chests at home, and that is the mercury fever thermometer. I thank the Presiding Officer for his attention. I urge support and cosponsorship of my colleagues for this initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Bond, Reed, Jeffords, Kerry, Roberts, Murray, Hutchinson, Levin, Enzi, Mikulski, Santorum, Hutchison, Chafee, DeWine, Helms, Specter, Murkowski, Warner, Bob Smith, Lugar, Snowe, and others in introducing the Home Care Stability Act of 2001 to eliminate the automatic 15 percent reduction in Medicare payments to home health agencies that is currently scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2002. The legislation we are introducing this morning will also extend the temporary 10 percent add-on payment for home health patients in rural areas to ensure that these patients continue to have access to care. Health care has gone full circle. Patients are spending less time in the hospital. More and more procedures are being done on an outpatient basis, and recovery and care for patients with chronic diseases and conditions has increasingly been taking place in the home. Moreover, the number of older Americans who are chronically ill or disabled in some way continues to grow each year. Concerns about how to care effectively and compassionately for these individuals will only multiply as our population ages and as it is at greater risk for chronic disease and disability. As a consequence, home health care has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kind of highly skilled and often technically complex services that our Nation's home health agencies provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable senior citizens to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and to receive the care they need just where they want to be: in the security, privacy, and comfort of their own homes. By the late 1990s, home health care was the fastest growing component of Medicare spending. The program was growing at an average annual rate of 25 percent. For this reason, Congress and the administration, as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, initiated changes that were intended to slow the growth in spending and make the program more cost- effective and efficient. These measures, however, have unfortunately produced cuts in home health care spending that were far, far beyond what Congress ever intended. According to preliminary estimates by the CBO, home health care spending dropped to $9.2 billion last year, half the amount that was being spent just 3 years earlier, in 1997. On the horizon is yet an additional 15-percent cut that would put many of our already struggling home health agencies at risk and which would seriously jeopardize access to critical home health services for millions of our Nation's seniors. It is now crystal clear that the savings goals set for home health in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have not only been met, but far exceeded. The most recent CBO projections show that the post-Balanced Budget Act reductions in home health will be about $69 billion between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. That is more than four times the $16 billion the CBO originally estimated for that time period, and it is a clear indication that the Medicare home health cutbacks have been far deeper and far more wide-reaching than Congress ever intended. As a consequence, we have home health agencies across the country that are experiencing acute financial difficulties and cashflow problems. These financial difficulties are inhibiting their ability to deliver much needed care. Approximately 3,300 home health agencies have either closed or stopped serving Medicare patients nationwide--3,300, Mr. President. That is how deep these cuts were. Moreover, the Health Care Financing Administration estimates that 900,000 fewer home health patients received services in 1999 than in 1997. This points to the most central and important consequence of these cuts. The fact is that cuts of this magnitude simply cannot be sustained without adversely affecting the quality and availability of patient care. The effects of these regulations and cuts have been particularly devastating in my home State of Maine. The number of home health patients in Maine dropped from almost 49,000 to 37,545. That is a change of 23 percent. This means there are 11,000 senior citizens or disabled citizens in Maine who are no longer receiving home health services. What has happened to those 11,000 individuals? I have talked with patients, and I have talked with home health nurses throughout the State of Maine, and I found that many of these patients have ended up going into nursing homes prematurely. Others have been repeatedly hospitalized with problems that could have been avoided had they been continuing to receive their home health benefits. Still others are trying to pay for the care themselves, often on very limited means. And yet others are going without care altogether. A home health nurse in Saco, ME, told me of a patient who she believes ultimately died because she lost her home health benefits. She lost those nurses coming to check on her condition. The result was that she developed an infection that the home health nurse undoubtedly would have caught. The result was a tragedy in this case. We have seen a 40-percent drop in the number of visits in the State of Maine and a 31-percent cut in Medicare reimbursements to home health agencies. Keep in mind that Maine's home health agencies have historically been very prudent in their use of resources. They were low cost to begin with. The problem is, when you have cuts of these magnitudes imposed on agencies that are already low-cost providers, they simply cannot sustain the cuts and continue to deliver the services that our seniors need. The real losers in this situation are our Nation's seniors, particularly those sicker Medicare patients with complex care needs who are already experiencing difficulty in getting the home care services they deserve. I am very concerned that additional deep cuts are already on the horizon. As I mentioned, on October 1, 2002, an additional automatic 15-percent cut is scheduled to go into effect. We need to act. Last year we passed legislation, the Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, which did provide a small measure of relief to our Nation's struggling home health agencies. It did, for example, delay by another year the 15-percent cut I have discussed this morning, but I do not think that goes far enough. The automatic reduction should be eliminated completely. We do not need it to achieve the savings estimated by the Balanced Budget Act. Those have already been far surpassed, and the implications for health care for some of our most frail and ill senior citizens are enormous. The fact is, an additional 15-percent cut in Medicare home health payments would ring the death knell for those low-cost agencies which are currently struggling to hang on, and it would further reduce our seniors' access to critical home care services. This is the fourth year we have fought this battle. To simply keep delaying this cut by yet another year is to leave a sword of Damocles hanging over our home health system. It makes it very difficult for our home health agencies to plan how they are going to serve their Medicare patients in the future. It encourages them to turn away patients who are going to be very expensive to care for, and it forces us to spend valuable time, energy, and resources fighting for repeal every single year--time and resources that would far better be spent ensuring the success of the Medicare home health prospective payments system. The legislation we are introducing today would once and for all eliminate the automatic cut. It would also make permanent the temporary 10-percent add-on for home health services furnished patients in rural areas. That was included in the legislation last year. We would make it permanent. As the Presiding Officer well knows, it is sometimes very expensive for home health agencies to deliver services to rural patients. They have to travel long distances, and it takes a long time to reach those patients. That all adds to the cost. In fact, surveys show that the delivery of home health services in rural areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly because of the extra travel time required, higher transportation expenses, and other factors. This provision will ensure that our seniors living in rural areas continue to have access to critical high-quality home health services. Mr. President, the Home Health Care Stability Act will provide a needed measure of relief and certainty for cost-efficient home health agencies across the country that are experiencing acute financial problems that are inhibiting their ability to deliver much needed care, particularly to chronically ill Medicare patients with complex care needs. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation. Let's get the job done once and for all this year. Let's repeal that 15-percent cut that otherwise would go into effect. Let's remove that uncertainty that is hanging over our home health agencies, and let's recommit ourselves to providing quality home health care benefits to our seniors and our disabled citizens.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 14, 2001, to conduct a hearing on ``Saving Investors Money and Strengthening the SEC.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 14, 2001, to hear testimony regarding Education Tax and Savings Incentives.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 14, 2001, at 11 a.m., in closed session to receive a briefing form the navy on the submarine accident near Hawaii.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 at 10 a.m. in SD226.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 14, 2001, to conduct a hearing on ``Establishing an Effective, Modern Framework for Export Controls.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 14, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. on ICANN Governance.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Bond, Reed, Jeffords, Kerry, Roberts, Murray, Hutchinson, Levin, Enzi, Mikulski, Santorum, Hutchison, Chafee, DeWine, Helms, Specter, Murkowski, Warner, Bob Smith, Lugar, Snowe, and others in introducing the Home Care Stability Act of 2001 to eliminate the automatic 15 percent reduction in Medicare payments to home health agencies that is currently scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2002. The legislation we are introducing this morning will also extend the temporary 10 percent add-on payment for home health patients in rural areas to ensure that these patients continue to have access to care. Health care has gone full circle. Patients are spending less time in the hospital. More and more procedures are being done on an outpatient basis, and recovery and care for patients with chronic diseases and conditions has increasingly been taking place in the home. Moreover, the number of older Americans who are chronically ill or disabled in some way continues to grow each year. Concerns about how to care effectively and compassionately for these individuals will only multiply as our population ages and as it is at greater risk for chronic disease and disability. As a consequence, home health care has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kind of highly skilled and often technically complex services that our Nation's home health agencies provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable senior citizens to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and to receive the care they need just where they want to be: in the security, privacy, and comfort of their own homes. By the late 1990s, home health care was the fastest growing component of Medicare spending. The program was growing at an average annual rate of 25 percent. For this reason, Congress and the administration, as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, initiated changes that were intended to slow the growth in spending and make the program more cost- effective and efficient. These measures, however, have unfortunately produced cuts in home health care spending that were far, far beyond what Congress ever intended. According to preliminary estimates by the CBO, home health care spending dropped to $9.2 billion last year, half the amount that was being spent just 3 years earlier, in 1997. On the horizon is yet an additional 15-percent cut that would put many of our already struggling home health agencies at risk and which would seriously jeopardize access to critical home health services for millions of our Nation's seniors. It is now crystal clear that the savings goals set for home health in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have not only been met, but far exceeded. The most recent CBO projections show that the post-Balanced Budget Act reductions in home health will be about $69 billion between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. That is more than four times the $16 billion the CBO originally estimated for that time period, and it is a clear indication that the Medicare home health cutbacks have been far deeper and far more wide-reaching than Congress ever intended. As a consequence, we have home health agencies across the country that are experiencing acute financial difficulties and cashflow problems. These financial difficulties are inhibiting their ability to deliver much needed care. Approximately 3,300 home health agencies have either closed or stopped serving Medicare patients nationwide--3,300, Mr. President. That is how deep these cuts were. Moreover, the Health Care Financing Administration estimates that 900,000 fewer home health patients received services in 1999 than in 1997. This points to the most central and important consequence of these cuts. The fact is that cuts of this magnitude simply cannot be sustained without adversely affecting the quality and availability of patient care. The effects of these regulations and cuts have been particularly devastating in my home State of Maine. The number of home health patients in Maine dropped from almost 49,000 to 37,545. That is a change of 23 percent. This means there are 11,000 senior citizens or disabled citizens in Maine who are no longer receiving home health services. What has happened to those 11,000 individuals? I have talked with patients, and I have talked with home health nurses throughout the State of Maine, and I found that many of these patients have ended up going into nursing homes prematurely. Others have been repeatedly hospitalized with problems that could have been avoided had they been continuing to receive their home health benefits. Still others are trying to pay for the care themselves, often on very limited means. And yet others are going without care altogether. A home health nurse in Saco, ME, told me of a patient who she believes ultimately died because she lost her home health benefits. She lost those nurses coming to check on her condition. The result was that she developed an infection that the home health nurse undoubtedly would have caught. The result was a tragedy in this case. We have seen a 40-percent drop in the number of visits in the State of Maine and a 31-percent cut in Medicare reimbursements to home health agencies. Keep in mind that Maine's home health agencies have historically been very prudent in their use of resources. They were low cost to begin with. The problem is, when you have cuts of these magnitudes imposed on agencies that are already low-cost providers, they simply cannot sustain the cuts and continue to deliver the services that our seniors need. The real losers in this situation are our Nation's seniors, particularly those sicker Medicare patients with complex care needs who are already experiencing difficulty in getting the home care services they deserve. I am very concerned that additional deep cuts are already on the horizon. As I mentioned, on October 1, 2002, an additional automatic 15-percent cut is scheduled to go into effect. We need to act. Last year we passed legislation, the Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, which did provide a small measure of relief to our Nation's struggling home health agencies. It did, for example, delay by another year the 15-percent cut I have discussed this morning, but I do not think that goes far enough. The automatic reduction should be eliminated completely. We do not need it to achieve the savings estimated by the Balanced Budget Act. Those have already been far surpassed, and the implications for health care for some of our most frail and ill senior citizens are enormous. The fact is, an additional 15-percent cut in Medicare home health payments would ring the death knell for those low-cost agencies which are currently struggling to hang on, and it would further reduce our seniors' access to critical home care services. This is the fourth year we have fought this battle. To simply keep delaying this cut by yet another year is to leave a sword of Damocles hanging over our home health system. It makes it very difficult for our home health agencies to plan how they are going to serve their Medicare patients in the future. It encourages them to turn away patients who are going to be very expensive to care for, and it forces us to spend valuable time, energy, and resources fighting for repeal every single year--time and resources that would far better be spent ensuring the success of the Medicare home health prospective payments system. The legislation we are introducing today would once and for all eliminate the automatic cut. It would also make permanent the temporary 10-percent add-on for home health services furnished patients in rural areas. That was included in the legislation last year. We would make it permanent. As the Presiding Officer well knows, it is sometimes very expensive for home health agencies to deliver services to rural patients. They have to travel long distances, and it takes a long time to reach those patients. That all adds to the cost. In fact, surveys show that the delivery of home health services in rural areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly because of the extra travel time required, higher transportation expenses, and other factors. This provision will ensure that our seniors living in rural areas continue to have access to critical high-quality home health services. Mr. President, the Home Health Care Stability Act will provide a needed measure of relief and certainty for cost-efficient home health agencies across the country that are experiencing acute financial problems that are inhibiting their ability to deliver much needed care, particularly to chronically ill Medicare patients with complex care needs. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation. Let's get the job done once and for all this year. Let's repeal that 15-percent cut that otherwise would go into effect. Let's remove that uncertainty that is hanging over our home health agencies, and let's recommit ourselves to providing quality home health care benefits to our seniors and our disabled citizens.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 12 minutes.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Loring Pipeline Reunification Act, a bill to authorize the conveyance of a segment of the Loring Petroleum Pipeline from the U.S. Air Force to the Loring Development Authority, LDA, in Limestone, ME. The LDA will soon control more than two-thirds of this pipeline as the result of a process that was initiated nearly 3 years ago. By conveying the remaining segment to the LDA with this bill and placing the pipeline under the control of one entity, its value will be maximized as will its ability to foster the economic development of northern Maine. The pipeline at issue originally was built to supply the Loring Air Base with fuel products critical to its mission. Prior to the base's closure in 1994, Defense Fuels, now known as the Defense Energy Support Center, DESC, would deliver fuel products by tanker to Searsport, where the line originates, and then pump them through the line to the base. For a period following the base closure, the Maine Air National Guard continued to use the Searsport to Bangor segment to supply their activities in Bangor. After a study by Defense Fuels, however, the Air National Guard changed their means of transporting fuel from pipeline to truck. Consequently, in 1999, the U.S. Air Force made the largest segment of the pipeline, which runs from Bangor to Limestone, available to LDA for reuse. The Air National Guard supports the reunification of this pipeline under LDA's control as does the Maine State Department of Transportation. In consideration of the large geographical expanse of my State, the often treacherous winter driving conditions, and the fuel shortages that have vexed the Northeast over the past two winters, I believe that the reunification and return to use of this pipeline would serve the public good in northern Maine. It would provide a safer and more efficient means of transporting fuel and, thereby improve the climate for manufacturing and processing plants currently considering new operations in the economically challenged area surrounding Limestone. It is also worth noting, that from a cost-avoidance perspective, my bill will save the U.S. taxpayer more than $100,000 which would otherwise be required to support the administrative disposal of this currently unused pipeline. By passing this bill, the Senate and, ultimately, the Congress can help expand the options and opportunities for Aroostook County.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Loring Pipeline Reunification Act, a bill to authorize the conveyance of a segment of the Loring Petroleum Pipeline from the U.S. Air Force to the Loring Development Authority, LDA, in Limestone, ME. The LDA will soon control more than two-thirds of this pipeline as the result of a process that was initiated nearly 3 years ago. By conveying the remaining segment to the LDA with this bill and placing the pipeline under the control of one entity, its value will be maximized as will its ability to foster the economic development of northern Maine. The pipeline at issue originally was built to supply the Loring Air Base with fuel products critical to its mission. Prior to the base's closure in 1994, Defense Fuels, now known as the Defense Energy Support Center, DESC, would deliver fuel products by tanker to Searsport, where the line originates, and then pump them through the line to the base. For a period following the base closure, the Maine Air National Guard continued to use the Searsport to Bangor segment to supply their activities in Bangor. After a study by Defense Fuels, however, the Air National Guard changed their means of transporting fuel from pipeline to truck. Consequently, in 1999, the U.S. Air Force made the largest segment of the pipeline, which runs from Bangor to Limestone, available to LDA for reuse. The Air National Guard supports the reunification of this pipeline under LDA's control as does the Maine State Department of Transportation. In consideration of the large geographical expanse of my State, the often treacherous winter driving conditions, and the fuel shortages that have vexed the Northeast over the past two winters, I believe that the reunification and return to use of this pipeline would serve the public good in northern Maine. It would provide a safer and more efficient means of transporting fuel and, thereby improve the climate for manufacturing and processing plants currently considering new operations in the economically challenged area surrounding Limestone. It is also worth noting, that from a cost-avoidance perspective, my bill will save the U.S. taxpayer more than $100,000 which would otherwise be required to support the administrative disposal of this currently unused pipeline. By passing this bill, the Senate and, ultimately, the Congress can help expand the options and opportunities for Aroostook County.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the remarkable public service of the Honorable Arthur M. Levitt, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the longest- serving chairman in the history of the SEC. Mr. Levitt will be departing the Commission soon with a proud legacy of accomplishment--a legacy that has made his tenure as Chairman one of extraordinary distinction as well as one of unusual duration. Correctly seeing his position as a stewardship for the public good, Chairman Levitt has consistently set aside partisan concerns to advocate tirelessly on behalf of the individual investor. He has also implemented changes that have strengthened the public's trust in U.S. securities markets. Chairman Levitt was first appointed to a five-year term in 1993, and was reappointed in 1998. No stranger to economic issues and the American securities market, he previously had served as Chairman of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, as well as Chairman of the American Stock Exchange. In addition, Mr. Levitt owned a newspaper that is very familiar to those of us who work on Capital Hill: Roll Call. During his eight-year tenure, Chairman Levitt has consistently worked to deliver the important message that investors must use the increasing amounts of information available to them to do more research before investing. He traveled extensively across the country to spread this message, holding 43 Investors' Town Meetings. At these events, Chairman Levitt took pains personally to educate investors about their rights and their obligations, while giving them the tools they need to invest wisely and to protect themselves from securities scams. On one particularly memorable occasion in 1998, Chairman Levitt was scheduled to speak at an Investor's Town Meeting in Bangor, Maine. When bad weather thwarted his efforts to reach Bangor and the nearly 600 Maine citizens awaiting him, Chairman Levitt improvised, answering all of the questions from the audience by phone in what may have been the biggest conference call in the history of the State. In Maine, we truly appreciate a person's ability to overcome the elements. Chairman Levitt also brought his expertise to Capitol Hill, testifying in 1997 before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, about problems in the micro-cap markets--including penny stock fraud--and providing investors valuable insights on how to avoid falling victims to the predators who lie in wait for the unwary. Chairman Levitt testified before my Subcommittee again in 1999, this time on the risks associated with day trading. Investor alertness and diligence have been his watchwords, and his advice in this regard has been consistently sound. A strong proponent of technological advances, Chairman Levitt worked to promote the use of technology not only in securities transactions, but also in helping inform and educate investors through the Internet. Under his guidance, the SEC's first Web site went online in 1995. Today, it provides valuable information and services--including access to the Electronic Data Gathering Analysis and Retrieval database (also known as ``EDGAR''), which contains a large volume of information about public companies, including corporate annual reports filed with the SEC and disclosures of purchases and sales by corporate insiders. The SEC's Web site also has an Investor Education and Assistance service, which advises investors on how to invest wisely and avoid fraud, answers the public's questions, and reviews investors' complaints. Chairman Levitt has truly been a man for his time. With Americans flocking to take part in what has been the longest bull market in U.S. history, he championed the right of the small investor to a level playing field with the big institutions. Last year, for example, the SEC approved the adoption of a regulation on Fair Disclosure, which requires companies to disclose material, nonpublic information--such as earnings results and projections--simultaneously to Wall Street analysts and the public. This new regulation makes significant strides toward bringing individual investors into the information ``loop'' on a timely basis. In addition, Chairman Levitt oversaw the SEC's adoption in 1998 of the Plain English Rule, which requires that public companies and mutual funds prepare the cover page, summary, and risk factor portions of their prospectuses in clear, concise, and understandable English. The Plain English Rule finally makes prospectuses accessible to those outside the small circle of securities lawyers and market professionals accustomed to reading them. Chairman Levitt has worked to ensure that the small investor gets the best available price. In 1997, the SEC adopted its Order Handling Rule, which places individual investors' bids on an equal footing with those of professional traders on the NASDAQ. This Rule is designed to prevent collusion among dealer and to promote competition in the market. At the same time, Chairman Levitt has overseen the SEC's vigorous efforts to root out Internet securities fraud and bring the perpetrators to justice. Protecting investors' rights and rooting out securities fraud have long been among my primary interests, and I have been both delighted and very fortunate to be able to work toward these ends with an SEC Chairman who shares a powerful commitment to these goals. Mr. President, while small investors are losing a true friend at the SEC, I am confident that the benefits he brought them will endure for many years to come. Mr. President, I wish to thank Chairman Levitt for shepherding the securities market into the 21st Century, and ensuring that America's thriving markets are open to all investors, big and small, and are worthy of the public's confidence. I offer him my very best wishes for his future undertakings.