Sue Kelly

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1497) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the women's business center program, as amended.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers H.R. 1497, the Women's Business Center Sustainability Act of 1999. As a member of the Committee on Small Business, I know how important this bill is to Members on both sides of the aisle. The committee held a hearing in February and thoroughly examined this program before drafting this legislation. The Committee on Small Business passed H.R. 1497 unanimously. Before I take a moment to explain the bill, I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman Talent) for offering the amendment in the nature of a substitute that the committee marked up. I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, for her help in moving this legislation forward. Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), the author of H.R. 1497. This Congress, the Committee on Small Business sought more information about the Women's Business Center Program as we considered reauthorization. It soon became clear that while the program was expanding around the country to States without centers, existing sites were experiencing obstacles to their own growth. H.R. 1497 addresses this concern. This legislation balances the immediate needs of re-competition for centers in their fifth year of funding and the desire for new centers each year. The bill also allows for graduated centers to receive funding once the SBA selects the centers in their fifth year of funding to re-competition. Since our hearing to examine this program in February, I have come to understand the urgent need for re-competition. But we must take a practical, well-balanced approach. That is what this pilot program is designed to do. Next, I would like to take the opportunity to briefly explain the bill. First, the legislation increases oversight and review of women's business centers. SBA is directed to do an annual programmatic and financial examination of each center and then to analyze the results to determine whether the center is programmatically and financially viable. Second, H.R. 1497 requires the SBA to issue the request for proposals for new centers and centers competing for sustainability grants at the same time in order to better manage the selection and award process. This provision is intended to ensure that new centers and sustained centers get equal consideration during the application review process and that funds are appropriately awarded. With regard to sustainability grants, the SBA shall make awards in two rounds, giving preference to graduating centers. Third, based on the conditions described in the bill, the committee intends for the selection panel to judge on merit how well a center provided service to its market under its first award and how it plans to service its market in the next 5 years. The committee wishes for the Small Business Administration to use the conditions for participation in the legislation as guidelines for establishing strict criteria for re-competition. The bill goes a step further by requiring the SBA as part of the final selection process to do a site visit of each center competing for a sustainability grant. The committee feels strongly that site visits are an important tool to help panel judges distinguish between the centers and to improve the oversight program. Recognizing that site visits are expensive, this bill makes available the equivalent of $275,000 per year proportionate to appropriations to be used for site visits and other uses. Fourth, H.R. 1497 incrementally raises over 4 years the annual authorization levels from $12 million in fiscal year 2000 to $14.5 million in fiscal year 2003. The committee increased the authorization levels to ensure that there are adequate monies to fund 45 existing centers, an average of eight re-competing centers, and an average of 10 new centers per year. The bill reserves a percentage of money each fiscal year for sustainability grants. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 1497, I believe that this pilot program is the best approach to ensure that our invested Federal funds do not go to waste. As a former small business owner and co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus, I know how important this legislation is to our women-owned businesses. H.R. 1497 has been a top legislative priority of our Women in Business team, and I know our Members have been awaiting action on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, I want to state that H.R. 1497 has broad bipartisan support. As the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) pointed out, this is a very bipartisan committee. We work well, and I believe that that bipartisanship works very well for sound public policy. As I stated earlier, this legislation passed the Committee on Small Business unanimously. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) for his efforts on this legislation. I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the entire Committee on Small Business for their work on this important legislation. Finally, I would like to commend the exceptional staff work that was performed on this legislation. Meredith Matty of the committee's majority staff and Michael Day of the committee's minority staff worked tirelessly on this issue and were instrumental in developing the legislation before us today as was Mr. Harry Katrichis. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1497.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1497.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, without check, hate can vein our society like subterranean mold, popping up now and then to spread vitriol over the land. On the occasion of the anniversary of Matthew Shephards' brutal killing, and in memory of those who have also lost their lives due to their race, national origin, disability or sexual orientation, I speak out today in support of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. Additionally, I urge my colleagues to preserve its inclusion in the Conference Report for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State and the Judiciary Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The hate crimes legislation in both the House and the Senate have been widely supported. The inclusion of the House and Senate versions of this bill in the C/J/S Conference report is critical to its success. I urge my colleagues on the Conference Committee to include this measure in their final report. Its long past time. Over the last year we have heard from the families of individuals whose lives have been viciously ended. These families, and those they speak for, have asked us to expand the federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes. With hope, the day will come that this type of measure will no longer be necessary. But until that time, let us act now so that more families do not have to live through the tragedy of losing a loved one to this type of vicious hate.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, it is as a professional health care advocate that I rise in support of the Goss-Coburn-Shadegg-Greenwood- Thomas substitute amendment. This amendment provides patients with vital protections that the Norwood-Dingell bill does not, such as shorter external appeal times, network adequacy standards, access to ambulance services, guaranteed pathology services, and a prohibition on plans labeling FDA approved drugs and devices as ``experimental.'' This amendment ensures patients get the care they need when they need it. It leaves medical decisions up to doctors, not insurers, and not lawyers. It allows doctors to treat their patients and prevents insurers from making medical necessity decisions. Insurers will be held accountable for wrongful actions; and patients, if injured, can go to court to sue for damages. This substitute amendment also broadens the appeals process a patient may use by allowing binding arbitration as an alternative option to court. Arbitration will provide those patients who choose to select it the opportunity to appeal medical coverage decisions and to hold health insurers financially accountable for wrongful decisions in a nonthreatening forum with the same protections as court, but without the cost and time consumption.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, the Commission on Health Care Dispute Resolution, formed by the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Arbitration Association, issued a draft report in 1998 recommending the use of alternative dispute resolutions for medical insurance disputes. The Houghton-Graham substitute amendment allows this, using binding arbitration as an alternative option for a patient to appeal the decisions of their health insurers, and follows the standards set by the commission, which include independent and impartial arbitrators with sufficient medical or legal expertise, appropriate credentials, and who have no conflicts of interest. Additionally, the arbitration process must include a fair de novo determination, the opportunity to submit evidence, have representation, and make oral presentation. The health insurer must also provide all records and provisions of the plan relating to the matter. Arbitration is a voluntary option to operate in lieu of court. Some people just do not want to go to court. Because arbitration is voluntary for the patient to choose, it will not take away from the patient's right to sue in court, but instead, adds a choice to the accountability process. I think we should expand choice for patients who are harmed by wrongful decisions. The Norwood-Dingell bill does not offer this choice. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the Houghton-Graham substitute.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the floor debate today on patient protections, it is important that we do not forget those 44 million uninsured Americans who have no protections at all. More than 60 percent of the uninsured have one thing in common; they are either self-employed or their family is employed by a small business that cannot afford to provide health benefits. As a former small business owner, I understand firsthand that small businesses have difficulties in providing health care to their employees. Conventional health insurance and administrative costs are just too expensive for small businesses. In 1997, a typical small business owner paid $4,342 per employee for a family plan, yet a Fortune 500 company paid an average of $3,521. Association health plans would empower small business owners with the purchasing power of a large business. In fact, AHPs would reduce health care costs for small businesses by 10 percent. Providing health care for small business employers ought not to be a choice between feeding their own families and taking care of their employees. The small business owners of this Nation want and need to do both. AHPs will help 8 million small business employees obtain coverage. Small businesses need equal fitting in the health insurance market. That is protection we cannot afford to pass up. Let us open up health care for all working people. I strongly support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of it.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation introduced by my colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Pryce. This body has long worked to promote policies which seek to protect our children, guided by common sense, and by the general idea that a child's environment and experiences may have an influence on the type of person he or she will turn out to be. Extensive research on child development issues in recent years has made it increasingly evident that the relationship between the nature of a child's upbringing and the mental and emotional health of that child undoubtedly exists. Though there is still much for us to learn, we know that the link is there, and this knowledge alone should be enough to strengthen our resolve to enact policies which shelter our children from harmful behavior and influences. I believe the work of this Congress attests to an active recognition of the importance of promoting such policies. In June, I was encouraged to see the House approve unanimously as an amendment to the juvenile justice legislation my bill on child hostages, which strengthens the penalties against those individuals who take a child hostage. The House consideration of H.R. 764 today, I think, further demonstrates the strength of this body's commitment to our children, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution offered by my colleague from New Jersey. Throughout our history, Americans have always distinguished themselves and our Nation through their ability to persevere through trying times. This ability must be attributed in large measure to the faith that we have always had in our neighbors, in our fellow citizens, to help in times of need. The efforts of assistance, not only by those in government but also by those who simply cared, to the victims of Hurricane Floyd certainly stands in validation of this faith. Having worked very closely with representatives of FEMA in New York State, New York State's Emergency Management Office and its extraordinary Director, Edward Jacoby, the Small Business Administration, and many of the fire departments, town supervisors and sheriff and police departments as we tried to clean up and understand the enormous devastation that hit my district, I know firsthand their selfless devotion and caring work to help people whose lives have been diminished by the fury of this hurricane. Though lives have been lost and communities damaged and disrupted, the effort to recover and rebuild has generated a sense in many that better days will lie ahead. So we rise today to reaffirm our fellowship to those affected by Hurricane Floyd. This House extends to these victims our sympathy and our continued commitment to assisting them as they work to rebuild their lives and their communities.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2392, the bill just passed.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent). I would also like to thank the committee's ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). And I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from California, the chairman, and ranking members of the Committee on Science and the committee staffs of both committees who have worked on this piece of legislation.

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2392) to amend the Small Business Act to extend the authorization for the Small Business Innovation Research Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2392, the Small Business Innovation and Research Program Reauthorization Act of 1999. The Small Business Innovation and Research Program was established in 1982 as a vehicle for helping give small businesses the most dynamic and innovative segment of our economy access to millions of dollars of Federal research and development funds. The SBIR program operates at every Federal agency with an extramural research budget of more than $100 million and offers funding to small businesses in three phases: phase one, the initial research and development; phase two, continuing research for the most promising projects; and, phase three, the final assistance for moving technologies to the Federal procurement marketplace and to the private sector. The result has been an unqualified success. Small businesses given access to these Federal dollars have created exciting new technologies, created new jobs along with them, and helped expand their business and our economy. Let me give my colleagues just one example. PCA, Incorporated, a small company in New York, has developed, through the SBIR program, new quality-assurance software that is being used in almost every system at the Department of Defense. This innovative software allows our armed forces to debug the software and check the metrics in every software system they have from the on-board systems in an F-16 fighter to the navigation systems in all of the Navy's attack submarines, new technology that will enable the Navy to protect our country. That is the SBIR program, harnessing the entrepreneurial spirit and technological skill of small business and putting it to work in defense, medicine, and commerce. Let me briefly describe the provisions of H.R. 2392. It has 10 provisions, not including the short title. Section 2 of H.R. 2392 expresses the sense of Congress regarding the overwhelming success of the SBIR program. Section 3 will authorize the SBIR program for 7 years. Section 4 includes the Committee on Science in certain reporting requirements regarding the SBIR program. Section 5 clarifies the funding requirements for third-phase participation in the SBIR program. Section 6 requires the SBA to clarify, through policy directives, the rights and technical data that are granted to SBIR awardees. Section 7 requires that agencies participating in SBIR include the program in their annual performance plans. Sections 8 through 11 are new provisions, added with the bipartisan cooperation and assistance of our colleagues at the Committee on Science. Section 8 provides for the creation of a database to compile information on the project's funding through the SBIR program. It also contains technical corrections to improve the data collection currently required by the program. Section 9 authorizes the SBA to issue new policy directives to SBIR program managers at the various Federal agencies. These new directives would allow them to increase under certain situations the funding levels provided to small businesses in phase 2 of SBIR. Section 10 will require SBIR to phase 2 award winners to file a commercial plan detailing their marketing strategies and plans for the new technologies they are developing. Finally, section 11 of H.R. 2392 will authorize the National Research Council, in consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy and other interested parties, to conduct a comprehensive study of the SBIR program. Mr. Speaker, these are all simple, common sense improvements to a successful program with strong congressional support. This support is exemplified by H.R. 2392's 7-year reauthorization, which is a serious commitment to this program. The Committee on Small Business believes that this extended authorization will allow SBIR program managers to plan for future years' activities without concern over the status of the program. In closing, let me urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2392 and the SBIR program. This is an outstanding program which enables small businesses to contribute to our economy, health, and national defense. It deserves our continued support and this reauthorization. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I have no speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2116, the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, in its present form. This is a position I take after a great deal of deliberation and review of the effects of some of the provisions in this legislation. I want to begin by recognizing the many positive initiatives contained in this legislation that will truly benefit our veterans population, such as the requirement for long term care for veterans with 50 percent or greater service connected disability. This issue is one of my highest priorities in Congress and is the reason I introduced H.R. 1432, the Veterans Long Term Care Availability Act, which requires, essentially, the very same thing. Additionally, the provisions that provide coverage for emergency care services to veterans, priority care for Purple Heart recipients and expansion of the enhanced use lease authority available to VA facilities with extra unused space are all good initiatives that I wholeheartedly support. Unfortunately, these good provisions are coupled with two problematic provisions that we should be given the opportunity to offer amendments to correct. By suspending the rules to pass this bill we are unable to offer amendments to correct some of the bill's problems. For instance, Section 107 of this legislation, entitled ``Enhanced services program at designated medical centers,'' sounds like a good program. In reality, however, this section stipulates the conditions under which a VA hospital can be closed. This is a very important process before us now that entails a great deal of controversy that should be debated on its merits. I have to question why we would want to put into place a procedure for closing VA hospitals in a time when we are facing unprecedented growth of the health care needs of veterans. One of the stipulations of this section is that Congress gets 30 in session days to review the VA's findings. I believe this period should be longer. We all know that Congress was intentionally created to be a very deliberative body. If we are going to have an opportunity to review such a report we will need more than 30 days to do so. Additionally, Section 201 entitled ``Medical care collections,'' would enable the VA to raise co-payments that veterans would be required to pay on their prescription drug benefits. Veterans I have spoken to in my area are frustrated enough with the current co-payments they are required to pay. The typical veteran from New York is poorer, sicker and older than the rest of the nation. The current prescription drug benefits that veterans have are one of the few benefits that genuinely helps them. If we need more money we should appropriate it, not charge veterans. Finally, the question that comes to my mind is the cost of this legislation. CBO testified before the House Veterans Affairs Committee that this bill would cost $1.4 billion a year to implement. Where are we going to get this money. The last thing Congress should do is pass costly mandates upon the VA without passing appropriate funding. If we fail to pass appropriate proper funding, the VA will be forced to cut back or end other services in order to comply with these new mandates. This year the House has passed a VA-HUD Appropriations Act that increases VA spending by $1.7 billion. This level is currently in question and I wonder if we will be able to achieve it. With the funding requirements this bill would incur, where is the money going to come from? Do we have a commitment to provide a $1.4 billion increase next Congress? This is one of the questions that must be answered before we pass such a large bill. We cannot afford to short change veterans. Finally, the supporters of this bill speak of the many endorsements H.R. 2116 has received from national veterans groups. I have contacted these groups and found that many of them agree with my concerns. Let me quote from a letter from Richard Esau, Jr., the National Commander of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. H.R. 2116 was ``the topic'' of conversation at our Convention. We concur completely with your evaluation of this bill. Yes, we need long term care for veterans with service connected disability of 50 percent or greater. Yes, we need VA provided emergency care services and most assuredly we need priority care for Purple Heart recipients and military retirees. If a percentage of these funds is to be recovered via the Federal tobacco lawsuit, so be it. I can't ever remember a C-ration package that didn't have a cigarette pack in it. Congresswoman, we couldn't agree more with your concerns about the bill's procedures for closing VA hospitals. You have only to look at the State of Maine to see how the laissez faire attitude of federal bureaucrats is working a hardship on thousands of veterans who soon will have to travel from their homes (some on the Canadian border) to Boston, Massachusetts for treatment. Further, we wouldn't want the VA Secretary to have the authority to increase prescription co-payments for veterans with service connected disabilities of less than 50 percent. Too often, the VA Secretary is a political animal who has never had a shot fired at him in anger. This type of Secretary just doesn't seem to understand how important medicines are to older vets and what a slap in the face it is to require them to pay more rather than less for this service. Do other Members of Congress realize a plurality of these veterans are on fixed incomes? I personally would like to see your bill, H.R. 1432, taken out of committee and debated on the floor of the House. I am, however, a realist who knows that ``half a loaf'' is better than none. Therefore, along with my fellow patriots, I support passage of H.R. 2116 and ask you, Sue Kelly, to continue your watchdog activities to ensure vets have their medicines at reasonable prices and needed ``old'' VA facilities stay open. As we see from this letter, veterans are ready to take the good portions of this bill along with the bad portions of this legislation. We should pass the best bill possible, not a good and bad bill. We should allow for a full and open debate of these provisions and take H.R. 2116 off the suspension list and allow amendments. It is only through the full open democratic process that we can ensure that all sides are properly represented. If this bill fails tonight when the full House votes, I pledge to do everything in my power to ensure that this bill is given the proper time for full House consideration of all germane amendments. I am joined in opposition by members who want only the best for our veterans and the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association. I urge members on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider these issues before casting their vote on this all too important legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, we all appreciate the committee's efforts on that and look forward to continuing our work, Mr. Chairman. We would like to have the chairman's assurances that he will continue in the future to work with us on this allocation.

Mrs. KELLY. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the committee for their continued efforts on behalf of our veterans and look forward to working with them to ensure the proper medical care for all veterans in the Nation. We thank the gentleman so much for his hard work.