Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3843.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I always appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do both sides have remaining?

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is H.R. 3843, the Small Business Authorization Act of 2000. This is a simple, straightforward, bipartisan bill. I hope the House will be able to deal with it in an expeditious fashion. H.R. 3843 is the 3-year reauthorization for the Small Business Administration and its programs by the Committee on Small Business. This year we return to a format the committee has not used since the 1970s. The bill is a straight numbers-only reauthorization bill. There are no modifications to programs, no new programs, just the authorization levels for the next 3 years and extensions of existing programs. The committee has, instead, passed focused bills in particular areas of the SBA's work where we felt there was statutory changes that were needed. The House has passed many of those, some of which have already become law. Mr. Chairman, let me briefly explain H.R. 3843. The bill contains the major authorizations for the SBA and its programs, programs which provide a variety of services for small businesses, financial assistance, technical and managerial assistance and disaster assistance. Every year, the SBA provides over $11 billion in financing to small businesses. This financing is made available through a variety of programs and at a cost of less than $200 million appropriated dollars, a large return for the investment. Programs include the 7(a) program, the 504 program, the Microloan program, and the SBIC program. Mr. Chairman, under H.R. 3843, authorizations for those programs will all rise steadily and modestly over the next 3 years. Our numbers reflect the administration's estimates and testimony we have heard from witnesses at the budget hearings for the regular salaries and expenses for the SBA. I believe the estimates are fair and reasonable authorization levels designed to provide for growth in the programs and take into account possible increases in demand. H.R. 3843 will also reauthorize the SBA's programs for providing technical and managerial assistance to small businesses. The two most significant technical assistance programs are the Small Business Development Centers, or SBDCs, and the Service Corps of Retired Executives, known as SCORE. In addition to its business assistance, the SBA also provides disaster loan assistance to homeowners and small businesses nationwide. The program is a key component of the overall Federal recovery effort for communities struck by natural disasters. The assistance is authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business Act, which provides authority for reduced-interest rate loans. Currently, the interest rates fluctuate according to the statutory formula. The lower rate, not to exceed 4 percent, is offered to applicants with no credit available elsewhere, while a rate of a maximum of 8 percent is available for other borrowers. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak from personal experience about the importance of this program. A few years ago, in 1993, large parts of my district were literally underwater. The help the SBA provided to my constituents and neighbors at the time was excellent and was vital to the rebuilding of our communities. Many other Members have experienced the same things in their districts. Because of the unpredictable nature of disasters, the committee provides no specific authorization level for this program, a course of action that enables us to respond more quickly when additional assistance is needed. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3843. It is a good bill, it is a clean bill, and it is a bipartisan bill. It will continue to provide assistance to small business in a cost-effective and sound manner and deserves our approval. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins). (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chief William L. Biele, who will be retiring from the Creve Coeur Fire Protection District. I hope you will join me in honoring his fine career and in wishing him a happy and healthy retirement. Chief Biele joined the Creve Coeur Fire Protection District in October of 1959. He was promoted to Captain in 1964 and after several promotions was named Chief in 1983. During his tenure, he established an aggressive educational program to enhance the management potential of his staff as well as the establishment of an In-house District Fitness Program. This fitness program led to the District's participation in the International Firefighter Combat Challenge, in which the Creve Coeur District continually demonstrates its commitment to athletic excellence. Not only has he distinguished himself with an impressive career with the Creve Coeur Fire Protection District, he has long been a civic leader in his community. His work with the Creve Coeur Lions Club, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the Dream Factory, the Missouri Mules, the Backstoppers, the Missouri Children's Burn Camp and the Salvation Army, stand as a testament to his tireless efforts to serve the community and the less fortunate. In addition to his many charitable and civic contributions, Chief Biele has provided leadership and expertise to several professional organizations, including: the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Greater St. Louis Area Fire Chiefs Association, the Missouri Valley Fire Chiefs Association, and the International Association of Arson Investigators. Numerous accomplishments and contributions to professional organizations highlighted his long service with the Creve Coeur Fire Protection District. Among these are: 1978 Firefighter of the Year Award, the 1981 Lion of the Year Award, the 1997 Creve Coeur--Olivette Chamber of Commerce Outstanding Businessperson of the Year, member of the Board of Governors for the Greater St. Louis Area Fire Chief Association, Co-Chairman of the St. Louis County Fire and Police Memorial Committee and Chairman of the Central County 911 Chiefs Operating Committee. Again, Mr. Speaker I hope you will join me in congratulating and thanking Chief Biele for his service to the residents and businesses of Creve Coeur. He is truly a great humanitarian, mentor, leader, and citizen. His efforts are indeed an inspiration to us all.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following eloquent speech entitled ``the True Goal of Education'' into the Congressional Record. The True Goal of Education (By Gov. George W. Bush) It is a pleasure to be here, and to join in marking the chamber's Business Appreciation Month. New Hampshire is a state of small businesses. Many of them here in the north country are prospering, and this organization has played an important part. I am honored by your invitation. I am an optimist, I believe that the next century will be a time of incredible prosperity--if we can create an environment where entrepreneurs like you can dream and flourish. A prosperity sustained by low taxes, unleashed by lighter regulation, energized by new technologies, expanded by free trade. A prosperity beyond all our expectations, but within our grasp. But this hope, in the long-run, depends directly on the education of our children--on young men and women with the skills and character to succeed. So for the past few months, I have focused on the problems and promise of our public schools. In September, I talked about disadvantaged children left behind by failed schools. The diminished hopes of our current system are sad and serious--the soft bigotry of low expectations. Schools that do not teach and will not change must have some final point of accountability. A moment of truth, when their federal funds, intended to help the poorest children, are divided up and given to parents--for tutoring or a charter school or some other hopeful option. Last month, I talked about raising the academic ambitions of every public school in America--creating a culture of achievement. My plan lifts the burden of bureaucracy, and gives states unprecedented freedom in spending federal education dollars. In return for this flexibility, each state must adopt a system of real accountability and high standards. Students must be tested on the basics of reading and math each year--and those results posted, by school, on the Internet. This will give parents the information to know if education is actually taking place--and the leverage to demand reform. My education proposals are bound by a thread of principle. The federal government must be humble enough to stay out of the day-to-day operation of local schools. It must be wise enough to give states and school districts more authority and freedom. And it must be strong enough to require proven performance in return. The federal role in education is to foster excellence and challenge failure with charters and choice. The federal role in education is not to serve the system. It is to serve the children. Yet this is only part of an agenda. Yes, we want our children to be smart and successful. But even more, we want them to be good and kind and decent. Yes, our children must learn how to make a living. But even more, they must learn how to live, and what to love. ``Intelligence is not enough,'' said Martin Luther King, Jr. ``Intelligence plus character--that is the true goal of education.'' So today, here in New Hampshire, I want to make the case for moral education. Teaching is more than training, and learning is more than literacy. Our children must be educated in reading and writing--but also in right and wrong. Of course, every generation worries about the next. ``Children today are tyrants,'' said one educator. ``They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers.'' And that teacher's name was . . . Socrates. Some things don't change. The real problem comes, not when children challenge the rules, but when adults won't defend the rules. And for about three decades, many American schools surrendered this role. Values were ``clarified,'' not taught. Students were given moral puzzles, not moral guidance. But morality is not a cafeteria of personal choices--with every choice equally right and equally arbitrary, like picking a flavor of ice cream. We do not shape our own morality. It is morality that shapes our lives. Take an example. A Massachusetts teacher--a devoted supporter of values clarification--had a sixth grade class which announced that it valued cheating, and wanted the freedom to express that value during tests. Her response? ``I personally value honesty,'' she said. ``Although you may choose to be dishonest, I will insist that we be honest on our tests here. In other areas of your life, you may have to be dishonest.'' This is not moral neutrality. It is moral surrender. Our schools should not cultivate confusion. They must cultivate conscience. In spite of conflicting signals--and in spite of a popular culture that sometimes drowns their innocence--most of our kids are good kids. Large numbers do volunteer work. Nearly all believe in God, and most practice their faith. Teen pregnancy and violence are actually going down. Across America, under a program called True Love Waits, nearly a million teens have pledged themselves to abstain from sex until marriage. Our teenagers feel the pressures of complex times, but also the upward pull of a better nature. They deserve our love and they deserve our encouragement. And sometimes they show character and courage beyond measure. When a gun is aimed at a seventeen-year-old in Colorado--and she is shot for refusing to betray her Lord. When a seventeen-year-old student, during a madman's attack on a Fort Worth church, is shot while shielding a friend with Downs Syndrome--and continues to comfort her, even after her own injury. We are finding, in the midst of tragedy, that our children can be heroes too. Yet something is lost when the moral message of schools is mixed and muddled. Many children catch a virus of apathy and cynicism. They lose the ability to make confident judgments-- viewing all matters of right and wrong as a matter of opinion. Something becomes frozen within them--a capacity for indignation and empathy. You can see it in shrugged shoulders. You can hear it in the watchword of a generation: ``Whatever,'' Academics like Professor Robert Simon report seeing many students--nice, well-intentioned young men and women--who refuse to make judgments even about the Holocaust. ``Of course I dislike the Nazis,'' he quotes a student, ``but who is to say they are morally wrong?'' At the extreme, in the case of a very few children-- lawless, loveless and lonely--this confusion can harden into self-destruction or evil, suicide or violence. They find no elevating ideals--from parents or church or school--to counter the chaos in their souls. ``We laugh at honor,'' said C.S. Lewis, ``and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.'' But something is changing in this country. Perhaps we have been sobered by tragedy. Perhaps the Baby Boom generation has won some wisdom from its failures and pain. But we are no longer laughing at honor. ``Values clarirfication'' seems like a passing superstition. Many states have instituted real character education in their schools, and many more are headed in that direction. After decades of drift, we are beginning a journey of renewal. Above all, we are relearning a sense of idealism for our children. Parents and teachers are rediscovering a great calling and a heavy burden: to write on the slate of souls. We must tell our children--with conviction and confidence-- that the authors of the Holocaust were evil men, and the authors of the Constitution were good ones. That the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not a personal opinion, but an eternal truth. And we must tell our children--with clarity and certainty-- that character gives direction to their gifts and dignity to their lives. That life is too grand and important to be wasted on whims and wants, on getting and keeping. That selfishness is a dark dungeon. That bigotry disfigures the heart. That they were made for better things and higher goals. The shape of our society, the fate of our country, depends on young men and women who know these things. And we must teach them. I know this begins with parents. And I know that is easy for a politician to say. Mark Twain once commented, ``To do good is noble. To instruct others in doing good is just as noble, and much easier.'' But the message of our society must be clear. When a man or woman has a child, being a father or mother becomes their most important job in life. Not all teachers are parents, but all parents are teachers. Family is the first school of manners and morals. And the compass of conscience is usually the gift of a caring parent. Yet parents should expect schools to be allies in the moral education of children. The lessons of the home must be reinforced by the standards of the school--standards of safety, discipline and decency. Effective character education should not just be an hour a week on a school's virtue of the month. Effective character education is fostered in schools that have confidence in their own rules and values. Schools that set limits, enforce boundaries, teach high ideals, create habits of good conduct. Children take the values of the adult worlds seriously when adults take those values seriously. And this goal sets an agenda for our nation. First, we must do everything in our power to ensure the safety of our children. When children and teenagers go to school afraid of being bullied, or beaten, or worse, it is the ultimate betrayal of adult responsibility. It communicates the victory of moral chaos. In an American school year there are more than 4,000 rapes or cases of sexual battery; 7,000 robberies; and 11,000 physical attacks involving a weapon. And these are overall numbers. For children attending inner-city schools, the likelihood of being a victim of violence is roughly five times greater than elsewhere. It is a sign of the times that the same security company used by the U.S. Mint and the FBI has now branched out into high-school security. Surveying this scene, it is easy to forget that there is actually a federal program designed to confront school violence. It's called the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. The program spends about $600 million dollars a year, assisting 97 percent of the nation's school districts. What's missing from the program is accountability. Nobody really knows how the money is spent, much less whether it is doing any good. One newspaper found that federal money had gone to pay for everything from motivational speakers to clowns to school puppet shows to junkets for school administrators. As president, I will propose major changes in this program. Every school getting this funding will report their results-- measured in student safety. Those results will be public. At schools that are persistently dangerous, students will be given a transfer to some other school--a safe school. No parent in America--no matter their income--should be forced to send their child to a school where violence reigns. No child in America--regardless of background--should be forced to risk their lives in order to learn. In the same way, it is a federal crime for a student to bring a gun into any public school. Yet this law has been almost completely ignored by federal prosecutors in recent years. Of some 3,900 violations reported between 1997 and 1998, only 13 were prosecuted. It is easy to propose laws. Sometimes it is easy to pass laws. But the measure of our seriousness is enforcing the law. And the safety of our children merits more than lip service. Here is what I'll do. We will form a new partnership of the federal government and states--called Project Sentry. With some additional funding for prosecutors and the ATF, we can enforce the law and prosecute the violators: students who use guns illegally or bring guns to school, and adults who provide them. And for any juvenile found guilty of a serious gun offense, there will be a lifetime ban on carrying or purchasing a gun--any gun, for any reason, at any age, ever. Tougher enforcement of gun laws will help to make our schools safer. But safety is not the only goal here. The excellence of a school is not just measured by declines in robbery, murder, and aggravated assault. Safety is the first and urgent step toward a second order of business--instilling in all of our public schools the virtues of discipline. More than half of secondary-school teachers across the country say they have been threatened, or shouted at, or verbally abused by students. A teacher in Los Angeles describes her job as ``nine-tenths policeman, one-tenth educational.'' And many schools, intimidated by the threat of lawsuits, have watered down their standards of behavior. In Oklahoma, a student who stabbed a principal with a nail was suspended for three days. In North Carolina, a student who broke her teacher's arm was suspended for only two days. In too many cases, adults are in authority, but they are not in control. To their credit, many schools are trying to reassert that control--only to find themselves in court. Generations of movies from The Blackboard Jungle to Stand and Deliver cast as their hero the teacher who dares to bring discipline to the classroom. But a modern version of this drama would have to include a new figure in the story--the lawyer. Thirty-one percent of all high schools have faced lawsuits or out-of-court settlements in the past 2 years. This is seriously deterring discipline, and demands a serious response. In school districts receiving federal school safety funds, we will expect a policy of zero-tolerance for persistently disruptive behavior. This means simply that teachers will have the authority to remove from their classroom any student who persists in being violent or unruly. Only with the teacher's consent will these students be allowed to return. The days of timid pleading and bargaining and legal haggling with disruptive students must be over. Learning must no longer be held hostage to the brazen behavior of a few. Along with this measure, I will propose a Teacher Protection Act to free teachers, principals and school board members from meritless federal lawsuits when they enforce reasonable rules. School officials, acting in their official duties, must be shielded from liability. A lifetime dedicated to teaching must not be disrupted by a junk lawsuit. We do not need tort lawyers scouring the halls of our schools-- turning every classroom dispute into a treasure hunt for damage awards. Safety and discipline are essential. But when we dream for our children, we dream with higher goals. We want them to love learning. And we want them to be rich in character and blessed in ideals. So our third goal is to encourage clear instruction in right and wrong. We want our schools to care about the character of our children. I am not talking about schools promoting a particular set of religious beliefs. Strong values are shared by good people of different faiths, of varied backgrounds. I am talking about communicating the values we share, in all our diversity. Respect. Responsibility. Self-restraint. Family commitment. Civic duty. Fairness. Compassion. The moral landmarks that guide a successful life. There are a number of good programs around the country that show how values can be taught in a diverse nation. At St. Leonard's Elementary School in Maryland, children take a pledge each morning to be ``respectful, responsible and ready to learn.'' Character education is a theme throughout the curriculum--in writing, social studies and reading. And discipline referrals were down by 70 percent in one year. At Marion Intermediate school in South Carolina, virtues are taught by studying great historical figures and characters in literature. Consideration is encouraged, good manners are expected. And discipline referrals are down by half in one year. The federal government now spends $8 million on promoting character education efforts. My administration will triple that funding--money for states to train teachers and incorporate character lessons into daily coursework. We will require federal youth and juvenile justice programs to incorporate an element of character building. Our government must get its priorities straight when it comes to the character of our children. Right now, the Department of Health and Human Services spends far more on teen contraception than it does on teen abstinence. It takes the jaded view that children are nothing more than the sum of their drives, with no higher goal than hanging out and hooking up. We owe them better than this--and they are better than this. They ask for bread, and we give them a stone. Abstinence programs show real promise--exactly because more and more teenagers understand that true love waits. My administration will elevate abstinence education from an afterthought to an urgent goal. We should spend at least as much each year on promoting the conscience of our children as we do on providing them with contraception. As well, we will encourage and expand the role of charities in after-school programs. Everyone agrees there is a problem in these empty, unsupervised hours after school. But those hours should not only be filled with sports and play, they should include lessons in responsibility and character. The federal government already funds afterschool programs. But charities and faith-based organizations are prevented from participating. In my administration they will be invited to participate. Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the YMCA and local churches and synagogues and mosques should be a central part of voluntary, after-school programs. Schools must never impose religion--but they must not oppose religion either. And the federal government should not be an enemy of voluntary expressions of faith by students. Religious groups have a right to meet before and after school. Students have a right to say grace before meals, read their Bibles, wear Stars of David and crosses, and discuss religion with other willing students. Students have a right to express religious ideas in art and homework. Public schools that forbid these forms of religious expression are confused. But more than that, they are rejecting some of the best and finest influences on young lives. It is noble when a young mind finds meaning and wisdom in the Talmud or Koran. It is good and hopeful when young men and women ask themselves what would Jesus do. The measure of our nation's greatness has never been affluence or influence--rising stocks or advancing armies. It has always been found in citizens of character and compassion. And so many of our problems as a nation--from drugs, to deadly diseases, to crime--are not the result of chance, but of choice. They will only be solved by a transformation of the heart and will. This is why a hopeful and decent future is found in hopeful and decent children. That hope, of course, is not created by an Executive Order or an Act of Congress. I strongly believe our schools should reinforce good character. I know that our laws will always reflect a moral vision. But there are limits to law, set at the boundaries of the heart. It has been said: ``Men can make good laws, but laws can not make men good.'' Yet a president has a broader influence and a deeper legacy than the programs he proposes. He is more than a bookkeeper or an engineer of policy. A president is the most visible symbol of a political system that Lincoln called ``the last best hope of earth.'' The presidency, said Franklin Roosevelt, is ``preeminently a place of moral leadership.'' That is an awesome charge. It is the most sobering part of a decision to run for president. And it is a charge I plan to keep. After power vanishes and pride passes, this is what remains: The promises we kept. The oath we fulfilled. The example we set. The honor we earned. This is true of a president or a parent. Of a governor or a teacher. We are united in a common task: to give our children a spirit of moral courage. This is not a search for scapegoats--it is a call to conscience. It is not a hopeless task--it is the power and privilege of every generation. Every individual can change a corner of our culture. And every child is a new beginning. In all the confusion and controversy of our time, there is still one answer for our children. An answer as current as the headlines. An answer as old as the scriptures. ``Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.'' If we love our children, this is the path of duty--and the way of hope. Thank you.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate Bill 791, ``The Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999.'' Women-owned businesses are the fastest growing sector of small business in America today. In fact, women entrepreneurs are starting new firms at twice the rate of all other business and own nearly 40 percent of all firms in the U.S. These strong numbers show the success that women entrepreneurs enjoy, but anyone who has ever started a new business, knows that the road is not always smooth. Women's Business Centers play a major role in making that road to success a little less bumpy. Women's Business Centers, like the public-private partnership of the St. Louis Women's Business Center in my District, play a major role in assisting women entrepreneurs establish strong business plans through courses, workshops, mentor services and provide access to financing for building businesses. H.R. 1497 builds upon the legislation we passed earlier this year to help grow the number of Women's Business Centers across the nation. But as with anything, we must continue to take a well-balanced approach that allows successful centers to continue to compete for funding as they make the transition to the private sector. The Women's Business Center Sustainability Act makes it possible for Centers like the St. Louis Women's Business Center to have a sort of safety net as they make that transition at the end of their 5-year grant cycle. Mr. Speaker, Women's Business Centers contribute to the success of thousands of women entrepreneurs by offering the critical community support necessary for them to succeed in today's business world. As more and more women decide to be their own boss, Women's Business Centers will provide them with the resources and training they need. I commend the spirit and innovation of all those whose entrepreneurial spirit has made America great and I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Women's Business Center Sustainability Act.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a resident of Missouri's 2nd District and a friend--Mr. Roy M. Quick, Jr. on his selection to serve as a member of the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC). Roy, who is a small business owner back home in St. Louis, runs Quick Tax and Accounting Service with his wife Edith. The primary role of the IRSAC is to advise the Commissioner of the IRS on the public's perceptions of IRS activities and current and future tax administration programs and initiatives. As a Member of Congress who attends many town hall meetings, women in chamber and business roundtable events back home, I can tell you that this is definitely an area where the IRS has plenty of room for improvement. The group suggests operational improvements and offers constructive observations about current or proposed policies, programs and procedures. In essence, the men and women who sit on this Council could be called the inner voice of the IRS. While I am proud to announce the selection of Roy Quick to the IRSAC, I am especially pleased by the fact that seven of the new IRSAC members are small business owners. For too long, small business owners have not had a seat at the table when talking about the complex regulatory and tax issues that leave them in a quagmire of compliance paperwork. I am hopeful that with seven of the fourteen slots on the IRSAC now being held by small business owners that these men and women will offer guidance and a real life perspective to the decision-making process that affects more than 12 million small business owners across the nation. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Committee on Small business, I ask all of you to join me in offering not only our congratulations but our appreciation to these men and women--the small business owners like Roy Quick--who every day are working to keep America's engine--small business--running and on course to a better tomorrow.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, we have a problem in America with health care today. We addressed one of the problems yesterday, trying to help the uninsured. The other problem is people who have insurance and cannot be certain that they will get the coverage they have been promised when they get sick. So their insurance is fine, and then when they get sick, they are concerned that their HMO may turn them down for coverage, and they have a right to be concerned, and we need to address that, and the Boehner bill does that. The idea is to provide people with the care that they need when their physician prescribes it before they become seriously ill or die. The key to that is the external review process that is in this bill, and what it says, quite simply, is this: your physician, let us say, prescribes for you a cardiac cath. The plan turns it down and says no, you only need beta blockers. You can appeal immediately to an independent panel of specialists, cardiologists in that field who are fully vested with the authority to reverse the HMO's decision. They have to take into account all of the evidence that is given, including the protocols that the plan wants to follow, but they are vested under this bill with the authority to reverse the decision of the HMO. I read that language this morning. It is frustrating how we all seem to agree we want the same thing here, and then we are arguing about what the bills actually say. The bill vests the authority in the independent reviewers to reverse decisions of the plan with regard to medical necessity. Now, why is that better than open-ended liability against employers and plans as is provided in Norwood-Dingell? Because that will take billions and billions of dollars out of treatment rooms and put it into courtrooms. That will take billions and billions of dollars out of care and put it into legal fees and defensive medicine and everything that we have been struggling with for years and years and years with regard to providers and physicians. Mr. Chairman, it does not have to be all or nothing at all. It does not have to be the world we have now where the plans are unrestricted, where you cannot control what they do, or where we open this thing up to lawsuits against every employer in the country who has a group health plan and all the plans in unrestricted fashions. We can have a good, measured response that makes sure people get the care they need when their physician prescribes it without big government, without thousands and thousands of lawsuits that will draw money out of treatment rooms and put it in the courtrooms. I think the gentleman has a good idea. I am going to support his bill.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, there are 44 million people who are uninsured.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is about people who do not have health insurance. Let us remember who they are. Three-quarters of them work for small businesses or they are dependents of people who work for small businesses or they own small businesses. They are our friends. They are our neighbors. They are people who have been down-sized by big companies and who have had to go to work as consultants. They are people who have retired from companies who are not old enough yet for Medicare. They are people who have histories of illnesses, and they cannot get insurance on the individual market unless they want to pay $1,000 or $1,200 a month. I bet everyone in this room is somebody like that or knows somebody like that. We know who the uninsured are. And we can help them. We can help all those people who are working for small businesses that cannot afford to provide them with health insurance or cannot afford to provide it at a cost that they can afford, and we can do it with Association Health Plans that allow small businesses to pool together just the way big businesses do and buy health insurance for groups of thousands and thousands of people across this country, with all the efficiencies that that means, without the insurance companies' marketing costs and the profit margin and with the efficiencies of a big pool. We have studied this bill a number of years. We passed it in the House last year. We can make a difference for people who desperately need to have us make a difference for them. What are the reasons given for not doing this? It costs too much. Well, the Associated Health Plans do not cost the Government anything. The rest of the bill costs $8 billion over the future 5 years. We paid $20 billion in agricultural relief over the last 2 years. I supported that. I thought that was important. Everybody in this House, the White House, and most of the people here want to pass a tax cut of at least a couple hundred billion dollars. So we cannot spend $8 billion helping the uninsured? We cannot afford not to help these people who are sick. The Association Health Plans are not safe. The reserves are not high enough. We met every objection of the American Academy of Actuaries. These are going to be fully regulated by the Department of Labor or by the States if they want to. The insurance companies do not like it. No, the insurance companies do not like Association Health Plans. We will have to live with that. It increases costs to small businesses and farmers. Tell that to the coalition of 90 small business people and farmers who support this bill because they know it will reduce their costs and enable them to make health insurance available. It is only for the healthy. Mr. Speaker, it is precisely the ill people who want to get in big groups. That is why they like to work for big businesses. They are the ones who will be benefited by Association Health Plans. And then the one I cannot understand more than any of the others: it is only for the rich. Only the rich people are going to benefit from this. Well, tell that to Lasette Lopez, who my friend from California talked about. Her mom is a migrant worker. She got a heart transplant and she is alive because of a State Association Health Plan. I do not think she is rich. Tell that to Linda Welch-Green, a report in the Baltimore Sun today, who works as a cashier at a garage. She would be able to get her health insurance under this and get her Bell's Palsy taken care of. She is not rich. Let us forget about those tired old arguments, the old class envy thing that gets brought out every time we try to do something good for America. Let us help these people. This is the only opportunity we are going to have to do that. It is a real opportunity. We have studied it long enough. We passed it last year. Let us pass it now and send it over to the Senate and insist that they do something for our friends and our neighbors who do not have health insurance and face the risk of illness every day without it.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond. The gentleman is quite correct, the insurance companies do not like this legislation and neither do the insurance regulators, because it will result in small businesses being able to participate in associations which will have at least some self-funded plans. The insurance companies do not like that because they lose business. The insurance regulators do not like that because they lose business. They do not get to regulate the self-funded plans. As for this costing small businesses more money, tell that to the small funeral home in North Carolina with less than 10 employees that was hit with a 73 percent increase this year by Blue Cross Blue Shield because it is on the small group market. Tell that to the members of the Western Retail Implement and Hardware Association which was hit with a 65 percent increase this year because it is on the small group market. Tell that to the small businesses around this country that are experiencing on average a 20 percent increase in health costs. No, the reason all the small business groups support this, Mr. Speaker, is because it is going to reduce their costs and decrease the number of uninsured. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), my friend and cosponsor of the Association Health Plan bill.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to address two points. We have very strong reserve requirements in this bill. There is no solvency problem, no reason why these associations cannot sponsor plans the same way that big companies do. The second thing is that the bill requires that employers must offer, must carry, they must offer this coverage to every employee they have on the payroll, even if they have a history of illness. This will result in sick people going into Association Health Plans because they are going to get better coverage there. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we said a little while ago that this bill is obfuscating the real issue. This bill is about the uninsured. Let us look at the 44 million people who some believe are obfuscating the real issue. Three-quarters of those people work for small businesses. One out of every six Americans is uninsured. Eleven million kids in the United States are uninsured. As I said, three-quarters of these people either own small businesses or work in small businesses or are dependents of people who own or work in small businesses. What does it mean to be uninsured in America today? It means you face the risk of illness without the shield of health insurance. You gamble that you are not going to get sick. We have 44 million people running that gamble every day, and a lot of them lose. Linda Welch-Green has lost. Her story was reported in the Baltimore Sun today. Three of her teeth have fallen out because she cannot afford to go to the dentist anymore. She has Bell's palsy that has paralyzed part of her face. She cannot get it treated. The reason is she works, she works full-time, and her employer offers health insurance, but it is so expensive for small employers that she cannot afford the buy-in, so she uses her money to pay for her mortgage instead of for health care for herself. We can do something about that, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this bill. This is the only bill we are going to have a chance to consider that does anything for the uninsured, and it does a lot, the part of it that we passed out of the Committee on Education on association health plans. It is a simple thing. It allows small businesses to pool together in their trade or professional associations or farm associations, would allow farmers to do this, and when they pool together, they can buy health insurance with the same kinds of economies and efficiencies that big businesses already have. So if you work for a restaurant, instead of being part of a six- person pool or an eight-person pool, you can be part of a pool of 20,000 or 30,000 people, because you can be part of a pool of restaurants all around the country. We have had hearings on this bill year after year after year. Our estimate is that, at a minimum, and this is a conservative estimate, it will reduce the cost of health insurance to small businesses by 10 percent to 20 percent. That means 4 to 8 million of these people are going to be able to get insurance who do not have it. Yes, by the way, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) said so eloquently, maybe others who now have access to one bare-boned HMO are going to have access to a whole lot more choices. It is about these people who are running this gamble every day. Many of them are losing. We can help them today. Let us help them. Let us not let politics get in the way of this. Let us vote for this bill today. We take up the second half of this health care reform later today or tomorrow. We can do this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the Association Health Plan provision in the bill about which I just spoke will, conservatively speaking, provide health insurance to 48 million people who currently do not have it. I would say to the gentleman, if there is a chance that this bill can provide help for these people, it is a chance that we ought to take. I would ask the gentleman why is he not willing to do that on behalf of these people.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the Baltimore Sun this morning appeared an article which begins as follows: ``She has stood in front of the mirror trying to practice her new smile because Linda Welch-Green can't afford the dentist. She has lost three front teeth. And Bell's palsy has paralyzed the right side of her face, so she struggles to pronounce words that start with ``P.'' She never used to miss annual medical checkups, but now she pretends not to notice when the dates slip by. Green, 50, hasn't had health insurance for two years. Even though she's working full time as a cashier at a downtown garage, the Baltimore woman can't afford the $200 a month to cover herself and her 13-year- old son.'' Mr. Speaker, there are 44 million Linda Welch-Greens around this country whose future depends on passing the accessibility bill that this rule is going to allow us to consider today. We cannot afford not to pass this bill. Talking about this in terms of what it is going to cost the Federal government has an air of unreality about it. These people are out there suffering. They are paying for it and we are paying for it in the illnesses that they have. We cannot afford not to pass this bill. I am told the 5-year cost, and it is the arcane way we figure cost out here, is $8 billion. And even the President agrees that we have well over $100 billion over 5 years to spend on tax relief without getting into the Social Security surplus. There is no Social Security surplus issue here. The other issue regarding linkage of this with health care reform is that health care reform does not do much good if an individual does not have health insurance. That is a linkage in common sense, not a linkage as a result of this rule. So, please, do not say that we are not doing anything for the uninsured, we are going to try to defeat the other side's attempts to do anything for the uninsured, and if the other side manages to succeed to do something for the uninsured, notwithstanding our opposition, we are going to kill the health care reform bill too. That is not the right attitude. Let us help the Linda Welch-Greens in this country. We cannot afford not to do that. This is a good rule; it is a natural rule. Let us pass it and then pass this legislation.