Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much does the person pay at $30,000, and how much does the person pay at $800,000?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Actually, I think the Senator from California is overlooking the fact that everyone gets an across-the-board tax cut. In fact, in the Senate plan, it is weighted toward the lower levels because you only have the 1-percent decrease in the 15-percent tax rate. The average person who pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes is going to receive about $400 in tax relief in the Senate plan. The House plan is different. The House plan gives 10 percent across the board based on how much you pay, which I think is fair. I think everyone should get the benefit according to what they have paid. The Senate plan is very heavily weighted. I am surprised the Senator from California would oppose something that does help people at the lower end of the scale.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for talking about the tax cuts and why we need them because we heard a lot of debate this morning about that very issue. I think we are getting down to the core issue between how the Democrats on their side of the aisle would spend taxpayer money and how the Republicans would spend taxpayer money. I think you can tell right off the bat what people are going to think about tax cuts by how they describe them. When they talk in terms of: How much is it going to cost us to give tax cuts to the American people, right away you know they believe the money you earn belongs to them. We believe the money you earn belongs to you. We do not think we have a choice to take that money and go spend it on some program that you may or may not like. But if you had the choice of whether to spend $500 to take your children on a vacation or to make a car payment or to save for a downpayment on a home, or a program that may or may not affect you, most people would rather make the decisions themselves. So let's talk about some of the issues that have been raised this morning. First of all, if I heard ``reckless'' one time, I heard it 100 times this past weekend. Let's talk about ``reckless.'' We have $3 trillion estimated as our surplus. Let's talk about how we are going to spend that, and let's see if it seems reckless. We are going to set aside 75 cents of every dollar of the surplus for paying down debt, for strengthening Social Security, for spending on Medicare, education, and other sources. That will be 75 cents on the dollar to pay down debt, strengthening Social Security, strengthening Medicare, and other spending items. And 25 cents of every dollar is going to be given back to the people who earned it. So 75 percent to pay down debt; 25 percent given back to the people who earned it. We are not a corporation. We do not have a choice of what to do with profits. We take just as much money as we are going to need to fund legitimate Government programs and services. That is what governments do. Anything left over goes right back to the people who earned it. Right now, the people of our country are paying more in peacetime taxes than ever in our history. They deserve to have some of that money back. Many families have two income earners just to cover the taxes so they can keep their quality of life for themselves and their children. We want them to have the quality of life they choose, not by taking taxes from them but by letting them decide how they spend the money they earn. I am reading a headline in the Washington Post that says: ``Clintons Plan Appeal to Women on Tax Cut.'' They make the argument that we are not going to do anything for Medicare, and if we do not strengthen Medicare it is going to hurt women the most because they live longer. I agree with the premise that women live longer, and cutting Medicare so that it is not there for them would hurt women the most, but that is not what the Republican plan does. The Republican plan does set aside the money for Medicare. I would ask the President, when he is talking about strengthening Medicare, why he chose to disregard his own Medicare trustees and the bipartisan plan they supported that would have strengthened Medicare on a bipartisan basis and would have given prescription drug help to those who need it that was agreed to by both sides of the aisle in Congress; and yet the President walked away from that Medicare reform. Today he is saying our plan does not help Medicare, when he had a chance to help Medicare and he walked away from it--a bipartisan effort of Congress to save Medicare. I do not think the President can have it both ways. Let me tell you what our tax plan does for the women of our country. No. 1, we eliminate the marriage penalty tax. If a policeman marries a schoolteacher, they owe $1,000 more in taxes to the Federal Government because they got married. The highest priority the tax cut plan has is to eliminate that penalty. I would say that is very good for the women of our country because they are often the ones who are discriminated against with the marriage penalty tax. We are going to correct that with our tax cut plan. I think that is good for the women of our country. No. 2, I have introduced a bill for the last 3 years that would allow women who leave the workplace and have children and decide to raise their children, either 6 years before they start school or even 18 years if they decide to, when they come back into the workforce they would be able to buy back into their pension plans as if they had not left. You see, women are discriminated against in our country, in the pension system especially, because they are the ones who live the longest and they have the lowest pensions. They have the lowest pensions because women are the ones who have children and who stay home to raise them for at least part of the early years, and they never get to catch up under the present system. I commend Senator Roth for making that a priority in the Senate tax cut bill, that we would stop discrimination in the pension plans of women in the workforce by allowing them to catch up. So I think we have done a lot for women. We are setting aside the money to strengthen Medicare; $500 billion over 10 years for added spending on Medicare, education, defense. We need to have that cushion--$500 billion. In addition to that, we set aside all of the Social Security surplus--every single penny. We fence it off for Social Security because that is the No. 1 concern, and it is the No. 1 stabilizing force for the elderly in our country. That is the first priority in our whole plan. Also, $2 trillion goes directly to Social Security reform and stabilization. That will be fenced off. The other $1 trillion we want to divide among spending increases and tax cuts. We believe it is a balanced plan. We believe the American people deserve to have back in their pocketbooks the money they earn in order to make the decisions for their families. Also, we have been especially attentive to trying to bring equality for women back into the system. It is the Republican Congress that gave women the right to contribute equally to IRAs. Before we had our tax cut plan 2 years ago, women who didn't work outside the home could only set aside $250 a year for their retirement security; whereas, if you worked outside the home, you could set aside $2,000 a year. That has gone away. We have equalized women who work outside the home and women who work inside the home with our IRA spousal opportunities. Now we have to go back and help them on pensions, too. That is where the lion's share of the stability is for our retired people. It is in their retirement systems. That is where women have been hit the hardest because it is women, by and large, who have the children and who will stay home and raise them. I applaud the men who do this, and I appreciate them, but by and large, it is the women who do it. When they come back into the workforce, they are penalized by not being able to have the opportunity to buy back into their pension system so they will have stability when they retire. Our bill does target women. It is a balanced bill. It saves Social Security. It contributes to more Medicare. It allows for added spending, and it gives tax cuts to the working people who earn this money. We don't own this money. The people who earn it own it. That is the difference I ask the people of our country to look at as we go through this debate. Listen to how people talk about tax cuts. If they talk about what it costs the Federal Government, then they don't think your money belongs to you. If they talk about it in terms of how do we best give it back to the people who own it, then you know we are looking out for the hard-working American who owns the money and wants to do his or her fair share to contribute to government but isn't looking to finance a landslide.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, I will answer that question because the Senator from California raises a good point. You have to look, in an across- the-board tax cut, at what people are paying in taxes. A family of four who makes $30,000 doesn't pay taxes. I am glad they don't.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if it is in order, I will speak on the bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It was.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is meant to close a gaping loophole we found in INS's sharing of information that allowed the serial killer, Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, whose real name is Angel Maturino Resendiz, to get through our borders, even though he already had a criminal record, because there was not enough communication in the identification system between the INS and the other Justice Department agencies. So we didn't catch this serial killer. This is an amendment I have worked on with Senators Kyl, Abraham, Hatch, and Leahy that would require the Commissioner of the INS, within 90 days, to develop a plan for coordinating and linking all relevant INS databases with those of the Justice Department and other Federal law enforcement agencies to determine the criminal history and the record of prior deportation and, upon the approval of the Judiciary Committee and Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Subcommittee, will implement a plan by fiscal year 2000. I am counting on the committees to come through on this because if we can get the plan in 90 days, we need to implement a plan that will identify criminal aliens in our country so when they try to enter again, they will be stopped. I ask that the amendment be accepted and that we move forward to try to close this loophole that allowed this serial killer to fall through the cracks or slip through our fingers, however one wants to say it, and cause havoc in our country for about a month.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Kyl, Senator Abraham, Senator Hatch, and Senator Leahy and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. This will do more than anything we can possibly do to increase the retention and the recruitment of Border Patrol agents. Amendment No. 1300

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment which would mandate to the Immigration and Naturalization Service that Border Patrol agents who are in the field, who have experience, not be capped at a GS-9 pay level, as they currently are but go to a GS-11 level after they pass the test that the INS, of course, would have in their rating system. I appreciate very much Senator Gregg's and Senator Hollings' support for the efforts to increase the number of Border Patrol agents. But the problem is that recruitment has not been successful. One of the reasons the recruitment has not been successful is that we have capped the pay of Border Patrol agents at a lower level than Customs agents who are working side by side with our Border Patrol agents on the border. So it is no wonder people are going to Customs and DEA and other very good Government agencies and not coming to the Border Patrol. This amendment will require that we go to the GS-11 level so that we can recruit and retain our best people for the Border Patrol and we can get on about the business of making sure the borders of our country are secure. So, Mr. President, I urge that this amendment be accepted. Both sides of the aisle have looked at it. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to offer two amendments that will be accepted.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. If there comes a time when the Senator from New Hampshire needs to break in, I will be happy to yield. I rise in support of the bill that is before us. It has been a tough bill. It is more than $888 million less than the appropriations bill that we enacted in last year, but it does provide sufficient resources. I believe Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings and their staffs have worked very hard to make sure we address the priorities for the Commerce, State, and Justice Departments and the very important issues with which they are dealing. I have passed two amendments to the bill tonight. There will be another amendment that has already been accepted that will allow the INS Commissioner to provide a language proficiency bonus for people who are proficient in Spanish to be hired in the Border Patrol. Of course, if people are already proficient in Spanish, it will save the money it will take to train them in the second language. That amendment has been cleared on both sides. I appreciate it because I am looking for every way I can to increase the capability to recruit new Border Patrol agents who will be able to hit the ground running and help stop the influx of drugs and illegal immigration into our country. I cannot imagine that we have continued to tell the INS that we want these Border Patrol agents to come on board, and we have not had the cooperation of the administration in either recruitment or retention. Certainly, I hope with this bill, which is much more narrow in its requirements, the Border Patrol will do what the Congress has mandated they do, and that is recruit and retain more Border Patrol agents so we can stop the influx of drugs into this country. As a matter of fact, $10 billion in marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines crossed our border last year. How in the world can we say that we have a handle on the sovereignty of our borders when we have $10 billion of illegal drugs flowing in in 1 year? I am very pleased that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, went to the Arizona border with Mexico during the Memorial Day recess. He was stunned at what he saw. I hope more Senators will go to the border so they will see the problem we are facing. During the markup of the bill that is before us today, Senator Stevens said: God forbid that the day comes when we have to have fences and walls between the United States and Mexico. I share his view. Mexico is our neighbor. They are strong cultural and historic ties between our two nations. I seek a border that is as open as possible, allowing people, goods, and services to move across the 2,000-mile-shared border quickly and efficiently. I am committed to putting in place the infrastructure, the bridges, the facilities, and the inspection personnel necessary for this to happen. I wish the President and this administration would work with us. The realities are otherwise, however. In Texas and along the border, we are witnessing a lawlessness that we have never seen since the days of the frontier. It is important to put the drug threat in its proper context and to understand its full dimensions. On March 24, 1999, Administrator Thomas Constantine of the Drug Enforcement Administration testified before our subcommittee. He said: Most Americans are unaware of the vast damage that has been caused to their communities by international drug trafficking syndicates, most recently by organized crime groups headquartered in Mexico. At the current time, these traffickers pose the greatest threat to communities around the United States. Their impact is no longer limited to cities and towns on the border. Traffickers from Mexico are now routinely operating in the Midwest, the Southeast, the Northwest, and increasingly in the Northeastern portion of the United States. Make no mistake: Drugs coming across the border are ending up on the streets of Manchester, NH; Columbia, SC; Baltimore, MD; and Denver, CO, and they are coming across in record numbers. In fiscal year 1998, there were 6,359 drug seizures along the Southwest border. The total value of these drug seizures was $1.28 billion, nearly $150 million more than last year. Nearly $1 billion of the drugs seized last year were on the Texas border, in the Border Patrol sectors there. Drug-related violence along the Texas border continues to increase. Ranchers in Maverick County, 150 miles southwest of San Antonio, reported that armed traffickers in black, wearing camouflage clothing, passed through their properties after walking across the Rio Grande River. The situation is no better on the immigration side. More than 1.5 million illegal immigrants were apprehended along the Southwest border just last year. Conservative estimates suggest that only one in four illegal aliens is apprehended. But the numbers hide the dark, evil side of this issue of alien smuggling, violent assault against migrating women, and other suffering. I commend to my colleagues an article that appeared recently in the New York Times. Rick Lyman reported on a disturbing development where infants and young children, some possibly kidnapped and others who are rented, are used to trick border agents. INS has no facilities to house families, especially babies. So illegal aliens are simply released and asked to report for a later court date. The borrowed children are then shuffled back and forth across the border to be placed in the hands of others to make yet another treacherous, illegal crossing. These examples highlight conditions along the border. They underscore that we have a moral obligation to provide the necessary resources to secure our border. That is why I find it incomprehensible that this administration has requested no new Border Patrol agents, Drug Enforcement Administration agents, or Customs agents in its budget recommendation to Congress this year. The 8,000 men and women serving in our Border Patrol are our Nation's first line of defense in the war on drugs and illegal immigration. Understanding this, Congress required, under the Illegal Immigration Act of 1996, that the Attorney General in each of the fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, shall increase the Border Patrol by not less than 1,000 full-time active duty Border Patrol agents within the INS. Unfortunately, our Nation's top law enforcement officer, Janet Reno, and the President opted not to abide by the law and put these agents in their budget. This is not the first time the administration has not complied with this law. In 1997, the administration only requested 500 new agents instead of a thousand. Thank heavens, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings have kept their commitment to secure our Nation's borders and provide $83 million in this year's budget to hire 1,000 agents. Mr. President, this is so very important to fund these agencies. Again, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings have gone a long way to pushing INS toward getting the 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. I have heard from every Border Patrol chief along the Southwest border, and all have told me that, yes, they can use better equipment. Better equipment helps them and it gives them a range much longer than one of them can cover. But what they need most, first and foremost, is manpower. They cannot operate the equipment, they cannot get to the places they need to be if they don't have enough Border Patrol agents, and they are woefully short. So after talking to our drug czar, General McCaffrey, it is clear that we need more Border Patrol agents. He has said we need 20,000 Border Patrol agents in order to stop the flow of drugs across our Southwest border. A University of Texas study done last year indicates that 16,000 agents are needed to do this job, and we only have 8,000. With only 200 to 400 likely to be hired this year, we are not even making progress in the right correction. I call on this administration to stop the excuses on why they can't recruit more Border Patrol agents, to stop refusing to even put them in their budget, and to come forward and say our border is a priority. That is what I am asking this administration to do--to say that our border has to stop letting in illegal drugs that are preying on our children in Seattle, WA, in Chicago, IL, and in Augusta, ME. We have to stop this. The only way we are going to do it is to make it a priority. I appreciate the leadership of Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings. They are making this a priority. The administration must come through and help us stop the sieve on our borders that is allowing drugs to come in. I want to say in closing that Senator Kyl has worked very closely with me on these issue. Senator Kyl and I cosponsored the bill that would raise the pay of the Border Patrol agents so we could be in the recruitment game. He cosponsored my amendment on the floor today that would make this happen. He has been an important voice for effective law enforcement along the Southwest Border. Mr. President, we cannot wait any longer. We must have action from this administration to beef up the Border Patrol, to beef up the Customs agents, to beef up the Drug Enforcement Agency, so that we can stop the influx of drugs into our country. We must get serious about it. That is what this bill does. But we must have the cooperation of this administration to do it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Edwards of North Carolina to offer legislation very important to those members of our Armed Forces who are deployed in defense of our nation's interests around the world. Our bill will provide for federal tax exemption to those serving in hostile areas not officially designated as combat zones. The current restrictions on this exemption to formally designated combat zones--which do not include many of our peacekeepers who face daily threats to their lives--are a half-century old relic of the Korean War that do not address the realities of the military missions in our post-cold-war world. Today there are two combat zones as designated by the President in Executive Orders. One is in the Middle East, including the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Oman, the Gulf of Aden, as well as Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. This area has been a combat zone since January 1991. The other combat zone is the Kosovo Area of Operations including the Federal Republic of Yugoslvia (Serbia/Montenegro), Albania, the Adriatic Sea, and the Ionian Sea. This combat zone has been in effect since March 1999. Members serving in those areas get a tax exemption. Yet, today there are 17 areas considered so dangerous that our troops there get a special allowance known as Imminent Danger Pay that do not receive the same tax relief that those in a designated combat zone get. In fact, combat zone tax provisions did not apply to our troops in Somalia, where we lost 18 Rangers in one bloody gunfight. Our bill argues, in effect, that if a location is dangerous enough to earn the allowance reserved for imminent danger, then it's dangerous enough to get favorable tax treatment, too. This would include troops that are in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, including Algeria, Burundi, Pakistan, Sudan, and Yemen. When our troops are deployed in harm's way anywhere, there should not be a discrepancy in tax benefits from one location to another. This is an administrative distinction that matters little to the brave young Americans who are out there defending us. These determinations are made after careful study by the Secretary of Defense, based on the inherent dangers in a foreign area. The Senate expressed its support for addressing this inequity in a resolution we passed as part of the FY2000 Defense Authorization Bill. Not only is this the right and fair thing to do, but during these times of increased deployments and personnel shortages, it is in our national interest to continue to show our dedicated service members that we appreciate their sacrifice and commitment. I commend the Senator from North Carolina for his leadership on this issue and urge other Senators to join us in this effort.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues with regard to the issue of funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). SCAAP is a vital reimbursement program for states like mine that assists in the significant cost of incarcerating criminal aliens. Although securing the border is the responsibility of the federal government, states and localities have had to bear the costs associated with incarcerating aliens should they enter the criminal justice system. In previous years, Congress has recognized their burden and worked to secure as much as $585 million for this critical program. Even at that level, less than 40% of Texas' costs of criminal alien incarceration have been reimbursed. Cutting SCAAP by over 80% as proposed in this measure would result in a reimbursement of only about 7% of the total cost to the State of Texas. It is estimated that the State of Texas would receive less than $7 million, and Texas counties would share in less than $3 million. Dallas County would receive less than $200,000 despite enduring costs of over $2.5 million; the County of El Paso, with costs exceeding $2.6 million, would be reimbursed only about $200,000; and Harris County, with costs nearing $14 million, would receive less than $1 million. Mr. President, this is the same Harris County that last week took custody in its county jail of the accused railway murderer, Angel Maturino-Resendez. In this case, Harris County is forced to assume the costs of detaining Maturino-Resendez, who is alleged to have repeatedly entered this country illegally and further alleged to have committed a string of stunningly violent murders across the United States. There could not be a more graphic illustration of why we need to support the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, so that our cities, counties and States are not left alone to pay the costs of the Federal government's failure to protect the border. I pledge to work with the chairman to see that adequate funding can be restored to this vital program and appreciate the Senator from California bringing this important matter to the floor. the harbor gardens economic development project

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the National Youth Science Foundation and the 99 outstanding high school students who have been chosen to represent their states in the sciences. The National Youth Science Foundation honors and encourages excellence in science education. Since its inception in 1963, the National Youth Science Camp has brought together thousands of outstanding high school students who excel in the sciences. I want to congratulate the two students chosen from my state for this high honor, Melissa Corley from Dallas and Jason Simon from Highland Village. These students are selected from the program through a competitive process in each state that stresses scholastic excellence, scientific curiosity, and leadership in their schools and communities. These students will participate in a four-week summer forum where delegates exchange ideas with leading scientists and other professionals from academic and corporate worlds. Lectures and hands-on research projects are presented by scientists from across the nation who work on some of the most provocative topics in science today--topics such as fractal geometry, the human genome project, global climate change, the history of the universe, the fate of our rain forests, and robotics. Delegates to the Science Camp are challenged to explore new areas in the biological and physical sciences, arts, and music with resident staff members. This week my constituent Bill Conner, of Nortel Networks, and an alumnus of the National Youth Science program, will speak at a luncheon in the Senate honoring this year's National Youth Science Camp participants. Bill Conner is an excellent role model for the young scientists who will be honored this week. The National Youth Science Foundation, Nortel Networks and Bill Conner have like-minded visions. America has much to lose if we do not nurture young scientists and engineers who have the skills, vision and enthusiasm to lead us into the twenty-first century. It gives me great pleasure to recognize the National Youth Science Foundation and thank all those who support America's educational system.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate concurrent resolution intended to focus the attention of Congress on the current plight of Medicare beneficiaries who receive home health care. Specifically, the resolution calls for increased Congressional oversight with regard to home health care of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), which has responsibility of implementing the federal Medicare program. Home health providers, or ``agencies'' as they are called, are being decimated by overly burdensome and complex regulations issued by HCFA. Ostensibly issued to implement the Medicare preservation provisions of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, these regulations instead have ignored or conjured Congressional intent and in the process have driven thousands of home health agencies out of business and left tens of thousands of homebound seniors scrambling to find care. Mr. President, my home state of Texas is very rural. Despite the fact that there are now almost 20 million people living in Texas, most areas of the state remain rural, even isolated from major population centers. Many of these areas are medically very underserved. There are counties in Texas without a single hospital, and several without so much as a clinic for people to go to find basic health services. It's not unusual for a Texan in some parts of the state to have to drive 100 miles or more just to see a doctor. When Congress created the home health benefit within the Medicare program, it dramatically extended Medicare's reach to senior citizens and disabled persons living in these rural areas. Home health also offered to bring much needed health services to many who, although they may reside in a city, nevertheless may live an isolated existence because they are homebound. Because of the tremendous need and demand for home health care, the program began to grow rapidly. This growth began to alarm some who felt that the cost of the program would soon outstrip the Medicare system's ability to pay for it. There were also a growing number of reports of abuse and fraud within Medicare generally, and specifically within the home health program. So in 1997, as part of a broader Medicare package, Congress acted to make the home health program more efficient and to crack-down on fraud and abuse. While these reforms were intended as a wake-up call to inefficient and fraudulent home health providers, they were not intended to pull the rug out from under the entire home health industry, and the 4 million patients nationwide who depend on the services home care provides. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened. Home health agencies have been besieged on all sides. Implementation of the Interim Payment System (IPS) has caused immediate cuts in payments to agencies by upwards of 60 percent. In many cases, these cuts are being implemented retroactively, resulting in many agencies being slapped with ``overpayment'' demand notices for hundreds of thousands of dollars. In some cases, these payment demands exceed the agency's annual payroll. Moreover, the manner in which HCFA has chosen to implement the IPS has caused the most efficient agencies to suffer the most severe cuts. Agencies that were less efficient, and thus were paid more in the past, are ironically given higher reimbursements under the IPS. At the same time, home health agencies have been hit with many new, complex, and burdensome regulations, some of which seem to have no real purpose other than to generate more paperwork and administrative costs by home care agencies. For example, home health providers are now required to keep track of and report their time in 15 minute increments. Many visiting nurses and other home health providers report having to use a stopwatch while they administer care to their patients in order to comply with this new requirement. Another example is HCFA's implementation of a sequential billing policy, wherein an agency cannot bill Medicare for services provided to a patient until all previous claims for that patient are resolved, even if those earlier claims are held-up by the Medicare bureaucracy. Across the nation, and particularly in my home state of Texas, the combined results of these payment cuts and new regulations have been nothing short of catastrophic. In Texas alone, an estimated 700 home care agencies have already gone out of business since 1997, and many more are on the verge of collapse. Nationwide, upwards of 2200 agencies have reportedly shut their doors, representing about a third of the total number of home care agencies. Mr. President, it seems that everywhere I travel in Texas, and I travel to some very rural areas, the one health complaint I hear consistently from my constituents concerns changes in the Medicare home health benefit. I have heard numerous instances of home health beneficiaries, particularly those with complex illnesses and demanding health needs, who have been left high and dry by the closure of their home care agency. Many of these individuals have been forced into hospitals or nursing homes. Others simply get no care, or must rely to the extent they can upon what care family or neighbors can provide. I and many of my colleagues have communicated with HCFA in an attempt to soften the blow of their regulations, with only very limited success. And while HCFA has been largely unresponsive to Congress, it has been even more insulated from the comments, suggestions, and complaints from the home health community. In many cases, payment system changes have been enacted with virtually no public participation or comment. Mr. President, our nation's homebound senior citizens deserve more. This resolution seeks to bring attention to the plight of home health beneficiaries under HCFA's cumbersome implementation of the reforms Congress enacted. It calls upon Congress to take a more active role in overseeing the Health Care Financing Administration with regard to home health care and HCFA's implementation of its home care regulations. Most importantly, the resolution calls upon HCFA to adhere more closely to Congressional intent in administering the Medicare home health benefit to ensure that the program is not further eviscerated. This resolution is certainly not the only solution to the current home health crisis. Just this month I joined with Senators Collins, Bond, and others, many of whom are original cosponsors of this resolution, in introducing substantive legislation that will repeal some of the most severe applications of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. While these changes cannot turn back time to restore the agencies and services that have been lost, it can help prevent even more providers from going out of business and even more homebound patients from being medically stranded. Mr. President, I call upon my colleagues to support this resolution, as well as the substantive legislation just introduced by my colleague, Senator Collins. But most importantly, I call upon my colleagues to recognize the real and ongoing health care crisis facing America's homebound seniors and disabled individuals.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I don't want to interrupt the flow on this bill, but I wanted 5 minutes to talk about the 30th anniversary of the landing on the Moon. I wonder if I could have 5 minutes at the end of the colloquy.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize a day that is certainly going to be remembered, as we go into the next millennium, as symbolizing this century. Each century has one or two things that define it. It is what schoolchildren remember. It is what adults remember. Everyone remembers where they were when certain events happened, whether it was President Roosevelt saying on the radio that the war was over, whether it was the assassination of President John Kennedy, or whether it was Neil Armstrong taking one giant leap for mankind. I believe July 20, 1969, 30 years ago, was clearly one of the defining moments of our century, although it would be very difficult to choose which moment had the most lasting impact. The day Neil Armstrong stepped on the Moon, the spirit of America was rejuvenated. It also was the culmination of years of discoveries, of scientific missions, of behind-the-scenes scientific experiments that were all a big show on July 20. I think it is important for us on a day such as today to recognize what all of those scientific experiences did and what we have gained from the space program. In fact, when we look at the cost of the Apollo project, it cost about $25 billion. In 1990 dollars, it would be about $95 billion. It was an investment. The good news is, because America was willing to go for it, because America said the Moon is there and we can do it, we have had a 9-to-1 return on every dollar we have invested. What is the 9-to-1 return? It is the newly created products and technologies and the new jobs that have come about as a result of those technologies that is the return on our investment. What space has given to our economy is a 9-to-1 return on our investment. There have been 30,000 spinoffs from our space research. Let me tell you a few. Satellites: Satellites are part of our daily lives. We now get instant access on the news anywhere in the world because of satellites. We can see press conferences anywhere in the world live because of satellites. We see satellites as part of our defense. A defense system for an incoming missile is going to result because we have satellite technology. Computers: The microchip--how has that made a difference in our lives? Who can even ask the question about what computers have done. We see people with laptops in the airports, on airplanes. It is just phenomenal. This started with space research, not on the Senate floor, Mr. President. High-quality software, high-performance computing, fiber-optic networks, water purification systems, Teflon--Teflon has improved the quality of life for all of us in this country who have spent even 1 minute in the kitchen. Digital watches, cordless tools, and, most notable, in my opinion, is space explorations' contribution to medical science. CAT scans and MRIs are revolutionizing our ability to detect tumors early enough so we can save lives. Our quality of life has significantly improved since Neil Armstrong took the giant leap for mankind. It was to that moment that all of us related what America had accomplished. That happened 30 years ago today. I congratulate Neil Armstrong, the Apollo 11 crew, and all those at Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX, who contributed to the giant leap for mankind and the quality of life that all of us live, because those brave astronauts were willing to take the risk and the chance. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank Senator Frist for his leadership in this area. Certainly all Members look to the one doctor in our body to give us advice, not only on what we need to do to make patient care better but to know the system well enough to know what will cause more harm than good. I appreciate the steady level-headedness of the Senator from Tennessee. We are fortunate to have a physician in our midst. Our Nation has the highest quality health care anywhere in the world. There is no question about that. In my home State of Texas, in our largest city of Houston, the biggest employer in the whole city is the health care industry, the Texas Medical Center. It contains world-class hospitals, including the renowned University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, which is the finest cancer treatment center in the world. Baylor College of Medicine, too, is a world leader in the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Houston is the home of the fathers of modern heart surgery: Dr. Michael DeBakey and Dr. Denton Cooley. In the city of Dallas, TX, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School has four Nobel laureates. They are doing research that is changing the quality of health care for our future. They are doing it because we have a system that allows for the investment in research. It allows for the treatment that is the best for diseases. We don't want to break something that isn't broken. We don't want to try to fix something that isn't broken. We want to make sure we are giving better quality health care, that we are going to continue to have research and be in the forefront of research and technology as we go into the next millennium, trying to make sure we are doing the right thing. There are problems. We have too many uninsured. Too rapid growth of HMOs and other service providers has caused some to be left behind. We must address these problems. Are there problems with HMOs? Absolutely. Do we need to increase the number of insured Americans? Of course. If the American people remember the health debate we had in 1993, this Nation soundly rejected an outright Federal takeover of health care. That bill went down once America realized that their doctor, their hospital, everyone involved in the health care industry in this country would have to answer to a massive bureaucracy in Washington, DC. Under global cost limits, total health care spending in this Nation would be capped by Washington. Any way you slice it, what the administration offered was Government rationing of health care. Today, we are considering legislation that would impose 350 new Federal mandates and regulations on our Nation's health care system. There has been discussion about the cost of these mandates, whether they will cost as much as a Big Mac or a McDonald's franchise. Either way, there will be increased costs, and more Americans could lose their insurance. Once a mandate becomes law, a Federal agency here in Washington will issue regulations or interpretations of that mandate. We have only to look as far as the Health Care Financing Agency to see what a total disregard of congressional intent can do in the health care industry. While Congress did mandate more efficiencies, they did not mandate the cuts that HCFA made in our hospital industry and to our health care providers, such as physicians and home health care service agencies. We can see what Federal control of a health care industry does by looking at what HCFA is doing to the health care providers in this country today. I think we need to move very carefully into the arena of more Federal regulations of our health care industry. We do need to do something more than we are doing right now. However, I think we need to be very aware that we could go too far and throw out the baby with the bathwater. I believe Democrats and Republicans want to make sure patients have basic rights when they and their family members need health care. It is wrong for an HMO to deny coverage for medically necessary treatment. It is wrong to allow a patient to get lost in red tape and unnecessary delays. Both of our bills seek to empower patients when they are dealing with their health care industry and their insurance companies. However, there are three major differences in the way in which Democrats and Republicans are approaching the issue of managed care. First, we believe that cost matters and that higher costs will translate into more Americans losing their coverage. Second, Republicans recognize that the Federal Government and a Federal bureaucracy should not impose a one-size-fits-all approach to ensuring quality care. Third, we believe good health care is better than a good lawsuit. With regard to costs, the Congressional Budget Office has said that the Democrats' plan will cause health insurance to increase in price by 6 percent above the current rate of inflation. By some estimates, that could lead to an estimated 1.8 million Americans losing their health coverage. Mr. President, 1.8 million people is a city the size of Houston relying on free clinics or charity coverage. That is what the Democrat bill will do. The new mandates in the Democratic bill will also cost an estimated 190,000 American jobs and additional out-of-pocket costs by the average family of $207 a year. This is not acceptable. The average cost per family for employer-provided health premiums has already more than doubled over the last decade from $2,530 in 1988 to $5,349. The provisions of the Republican bill will also cost money, but the total cost of our bill as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office is less than 1 percent in increased health premiums. These increases are more than offset by the provisions in our Patients' Bill of Rights Plus that will make health care more accessible and affordable for all Americans. For the self-employed, our approach will make 100 percent deductibility of health insurance available next year--not in 5 years, as currently envisioned. Next year, every small business owner, every stay-at-home parent with their own business, will get exactly the same tax treatment for health insurance that corporations presently enjoy. This is long overdue. The bill will allow employees the so-called flex plans or cafeteria plans to roll over to the next year up to $500 in unused funds to health insurance premiums or other out-of-pocket health costs. Under the present use-it-or-lose-it flex plans, they are not able to keep the money they have not spent. We want to encourage them not to spend money they do not need to spend by allowing them to roll it over. The second major difference between our two bills and our two approaches is that the Democratic plan assumes Washington knows better than individuals, States, and health care providers what is in their best interest. We heard so much this week about how some of the provisions of the Republican bill do not apply to all private health care insurance. That is true. For those health plans that are now regulated exclusively by the Federal Government, we ensure that patients have their rights, such as direct access to OB/GYNs, direct access to pediatricians, access to specialists, and access to emergency room care. But, for the vast majority of Americans with health care, it is the States that have jurisdiction over their plans. This has been the case for several decades, ever since there has been health insurance in our country. Since the advent of HMOs, more and more States have acted to regulate managed care plans to ensure that the residents of their States enjoy the same protections we are proposing for the federally regulated plans. Every State in America has some regulation of their managed care companies today. There are wide differences in approach by various States, but there are wide differences among the States. Why should there not be wide differences if the States are acting on behalf of their own constituents, which they know better than we do? Who is to say the patient protections and regulations in New York are the same that the citizens of Texas would want? I do not want to take responsibility for deciding that New York should be doing something because Texas likes it. The Democratic bill is too federally centered and heavyhanded in other areas as well. We have heard much discussion of medical necessity. The Democrats say they only want to allow physicians to do what is medically necessary. That sounds fine, but what do they mean by medical necessity? It goes to an agency that will have 250 pages of regulations about what is a medical necessity. And there we have it again, one-size-fits-all. By trying to do this in Federal law, the Democratic plan empowers a Federal Government employee to make those decisions, not your doctor talking to you about your needs. Under our system, we let an external review board of professionals, who are not associated with the HMO, decide who is right in making the call for the care. If the HMO says they are not going to cover a certain procedure, and the patient and the doctor decide that is not the right decision, the patient can internally appeal within the HMO, within a short period of time, and then appeal again to an outside panel of experts not associated with the HMO. That is the system we have in Texas, and it is working. In 1997, Texas enacted an innovative and broad set of managed care reforms, including a host of patients' rights that are included in our bill today. The Texas plan includes the right to both internal and external appeal if the HMO denies a claim. In fact, in Texas, before you can even think of suing your HMO in court, you must exhaust your administrative remedies, and because the State tried to apply its external review provisions to federally regulated as well as State regulated HMOs, a Federal court has struck down part of the State law. But it was working very well. The State recently acted to revive the external review section of the law. Now the system is voluntary. But, surprisingly, HMOs and other health plans are still willing to participate and be bound by the external review process in Texas. And it is working. The Republicans' Patients' Bill of Rights Plus establishes a national, internal, and binding external appeals process using the Texas statute as a guide. It is a good system. I think it will work for the federally covered plans as it has worked in Texas. In fact, in Texas it has worked so well that, of more than 300 appeals heard under the external review system, only one lawsuit has emerged, and the appeals have gone about 50-50 in favor of both patients and health plans. This brings me to the third major difference between the Democrat and Republican approach, and that is they believe lawsuits are the answer to better care, and we disagree. Good health care is prospective. A lawsuit is retrospective. An adequate external review process helps ensure that HMOs will not arbitrarily deny coverage for benefits. It will make them want to improve the quality of the care and services they provide in the future. A lawsuit, on the other hand, only seeks to shift money around long after the fact, to try to determine who was at fault and how much they owe. At that point, patient care is obsolete. We are talking about fault. I would rather focus on what we can do to give that patient the care when the patient needs it. All one needs to do, if the suggestion is that more lawsuits are the answer, is to look at our current medical malpractice tort system. Many physicians in this country may be upset with the growth of managed care, but most of them are far more concerned with the tidal wave of lawsuits against doctors and other health care providers that we have seen in recent decades. These lawsuits, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, have done little to improve the practice of medicine in America. In fact, I wonder if they do not cause more defensive medicine rather than better care. In fact, in some ways, I think they have alienated the doctor-patient relationship. So look at the range of views here. The Washington Post said last year that expanding lawsuits in this area was probably wrong. The Post wrote: There appears as well to be an impulse among congressional Democrats to make insurers and companies that self-insure liable for damages. The impulse is understandable but the threat of litigation is the wrong way to enforce the rational decisionmaking that everyone claims to have as a goal. The proposed appeals system should be given a tryout. ``First do no harm'' is the rule of medicine. It should be the rule on legislating as well. Mr. President, I know my colleagues across the aisle are trying to address complaints they have heard from their constituents. But rather than again mandating new rules that will drive up the cost of health care, the American people would be much better served with a carefully tailored approach that respects the ability of patients, professionals, and State regulators to make their own decisions about what is best practice in their States and within their communities. The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus does just that. It makes sure that HMOs are accountable, without scaring employers away from even offering insurance to their employees. It gives patients rights without encouraging inflationary rises, and empowers health care providers to provide the care their patients need but without Washington having to look over everyone's shoulder. It is the right answer, and it is the right time. Mr. President, I thank the leadership, Senator Frist, and Senator Collins, and those who have worked closely on the task force to make sure we do provide the rights to patients in an affordable way that will not drive up costs and drive people out of the system. That should be our goal. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is it possible to have 20 minutes?