Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank our distinguished ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), for her work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth piece of legislation that the Committee on Small Business has brought before this House in these first months of the 106th Congress. We have moved all these measures on a bipartisan basis and in fact, so far, Mr. Speaker, we have been able to move our legislative agenda on a bicameral basis. I would like to thank all the members of the committee for making the past few months a success for the committee. I also want to thank the committee staff on both sides of the aisle that worked so effectively to help our committee accomplish its goals. I do not normally thank staff in these kinds of debates, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is appropriate given the fine work so far. On the Democratic staff, I would like to thank George Randels, Catherine Cruz- Wojtasik, Michael Klier and Michael Day. On the Republican staff, I would like to thank Charles Rowe, Meredith Matty, Dwayne Andrews, Stephanie O'Donnell, Larry McCredy, Paul Denham and Harry Katrichis. This is a very important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, to help our small business community in dealing with what could be a very significant problem. I urge the House to support it.

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

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Year 2000 computer problem, commonly known as Y2K, has the potential to disrupt many of this Nation's small to medium- sized businesses at the turn of the century. The Y2K problem exists because many computers and embedded chips cannot process dates beyond December 31, 1999. Although computer programmers have known about this problem since at least the late 1960s, many small business owners have not taken any action toward correcting any possible Y2K problems they may have. In fact, according to a recent study by the NFIB, a small business association, only one in four small business owners consider Y2K a serious problem. Today we are considering a very important piece of legislation that will help small businesses achieve Y2K compliance. The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, S. 314, requires the Small Business Administration to establish a limited-term loan program to assist small businesses in correcting Y2K computer problems. Any of the more than 6,000 lenders nationwide that are eligible to participate in SBA's 7(a) business loan program are eligible to participate in the Y2K loan program. Under current law, the SBA may not guarantee more than $750,000 to any single borrower. This legislation establishes a limited exception to current law so that the SBA may exceed that amount by up to $250,000 for loans under the Y2K loan program. Small businesses may use the proceeds of a loan for two purposes. First, a small business may use the loan to correct Y2K problems affecting its own information technology systems and other automated systems. For example, a small business is permitted to purchase or repair hardware or software or pay for consultants to repair its information technology systems. Second, a small business may use the loan proceeds to provide relief from economic injury suffered as a direct result of its own Year 2000 problems or some other entity's Y2K problems. The belief of many small businesses that the Y2K problem does not affect them because they do not own a large mainframe or PC is unrealistic. Many of these businesses rely on a wide range of suppliers and customers who use automated and computerized systems for production, inventory, shipping and billing purposes. If one of these links in a small business' supply and demand chain is broken due to a computer system that is not Y2K complaint, it could lead to irreparable damage to a business that lacks a large capital pool. Other Y2K-related problems that could affect small businesses include interest calculation errors, bank account balance errors, and disruption of service on production lines. Additionally, in our continuously expanding marketplace, small business owners who have contact with overseas corporations need to discover whether or not their foreign trading partners are Y2K compliant. There is one positive aspect of the Y2K problem, Mr. Speaker. We know what it is and we know when it will strike. Unlike other disasters that strike unexpectedly, American small businesses can prepare for this potential problem and, in fact, help to blunt its impact. The loan program established by the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act will be instrumental in preparing our Nation's small businesses for the turn of the century. In closing, I would like to read a letter I recently received from one of my constituents which I believe clearly illustrates the problems small businesses may face in the Year 2000. ``Dear Congressman Talent: I own and operate a small payroll service bureau in your district providing payroll services for over 100 client companies and approximately 6,000 people. Our gross income in many cases is just 50 cents per check in this extremely competitive environment. It is my estimate that it will cost us about $27,000 to $35,000 to obtain the needed payroll software and computer hardware to become Y2K compliant. ``Obviously payroll checks issued for January of the Year 1900 are not likely to be cashable at many banks. None of my clients will stay with us without some assurance of valid checks come January 1, 2000, so not complying would mean the death of my company. It is going to take a significant portion of our revenues for several years to pay for the compliance we absolutely must have. This may mean going without an income for me, possibly pay cuts for my employees, and paying high loan interest rates for years. ``We are currently struggling to figure out a way to finance the upgrades needed to become compliant, instead of working on getting the equipment and software and becoming compliant. It will take us about 3 months to convert all records, even after installing equipment and software. ``I would ask that you and the House of Representatives move as quickly as possible to approve a matching bill to S. 314 already passed. Once any legislation passes, and the money finally comes down to my small business, I still face months of work to finish what you are starting. ``Thank you very much for your consideration of the immense pressures this issue has added to many small businesses already dealing with a host of other problems,'' and it is signed with a constituent's name. That, I think, illustrates the reason why we have this bill before the House. I thank my friend, the ranking member of the committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for her help. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 68) to amend section 20 of the Small Business Act and make technical corrections in title III of the Small Business Investment Act.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to praise the officer and crew of the U.S.S. Phaon, and their sister ships within the Mobile Service Squadrons. Although often overlooked, their contribution to the War in the Pacific was central to U.S. and allied success in that theater. A close reading of history will show that America's naval strategy in the Pacific theater, which called for the ability to maintain continuous operations at extreme distances from American port facilities, was in a very real sense made possible through the efforts and sacrifice of the Navy's logistics repair squadrons. Japan's wartime plans envisioned an active defense across the periphery of its sphere of control, thus denying the United States the bases from which to launch and support offensive operations. Their leadership never prepared for the likelihood that their own forces, operating at extended distances from home port, would be forced to fight against an American navy that would develop and refine the ability to conduct nearly continuous offensive operations. Under Admirals Halsey and Spruance, the Japanese would commit to battle at one point and then find themselves overextended, or ``whipsawed,'' as American forces struck elsewhere. ``Hit 'em where they ain't.'' Underpinning this effort, and indeed making much of America's success in the Pacific possible, were the essential contributions made by the Navy's mobile Service Squadrons, which provided at-sea battle damage repair in order to return vessels to combat duty as quickly as possible. The Phaon, a battle damage repair ship within Mobile Service Squaron Ten, and her sister ships, materially contributed to fleet support at Tawara, Kwayalein, Eniwetok, Saipan and Tinian. In the words of historian Eric Larrabee, ``[t]he fleet had become truly free of its landbound bases.'' While much glory is rightly given to the front-line combatants, it is important that we should also recognize the contributions and the sacrifice of our combat support personnel who made ultimate victory possible.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will close briefly. I appreciate very much the comments from my colleagues in support of this legislation. I want to make a couple of points in closing, Mr. Speaker. One is that we certainly are given to understand that it is the intention of the administration to implement this legislation quickly, and I would hope that is the case. It is just a pilot program. There is no reason why it should not be more than a pilot program. It makes perfect sense, and it is going to help a lot of people. That is what it comes down to. So we hope that the administration, the executive branch, will move quickly in implementing this, and the Committee on both sides of the aisle is going to assist in any way that we can. The second point I wanted to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is as we have all noted, we hope that this does save dollars for the Federal government, for the Federal Treasury. I am confident it will do that. But the human cost of disasters is what we really have to look at here. On a very practical level, to the extent we can make this program a working program, it means that small business people on flood plains, small business people on coasts that are consistently battered by typhoons or hurricanes, will have the opportunity to prevent this damage from occurring. They can get glass windows replaced by plexiglass. If they are a small accounting firm in a building, they can get the building raised so that the flood does not affect them as much as it otherwise would. Anybody, Mr. Speaker, who has talked to individuals whose lives have been devastated by natural disasters knows how important it is that we give them an opportunity to prevent that from occurring in the first place. That is what H.R. 818 does. I commend it to all the Members of the House. I thank, once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and in particular, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for her assistance. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 818) to amend the Small Business Act to authorize a pilot program for the implementation of disaster mitigation measures by small businesses.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking my colleague, the ranking member on the Committee on Small Business, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), for her assistance in moving this bill and also my colleague from Washington (Mr. Baird) for his assistance in handling it. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 818, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1999, is a common-sense approach to applying the principle of preventive care in coping with natural disasters. H.R. 818 is substantially identical to a measure reintroduced by Senator Cleland, the measure which actually passed the Senate last year. It is part of the administration's budget request, and it has substantial bipartisan support. Since 1953, the Small Business Administration has administered the Disaster Loan Program authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business Act. This program provides loans to help small businesses rebuild after natural disasters. In past years, the loan program has spent billions of dollars helping small businesses recover from natural disasters. For example, in fiscal year 1998, the SBA lent $728 million for 30,154 disaster loans. In 1997, it lent $1.1 billion for 49,515 disaster loans. In 1994, the SBA's highest demand came when it loaned over $4.1 billion for damage done due to the Northridge Earthquake in California. It was important, Mr. Speaker, that we do this to help people recover from the damage inflicted by natural disasters. We should also recognize that the cost of disaster assistance has risen over the past several years due to increases in construction and other costs, and it is clear that efforts must be made to help prevent this kind of damage in the first place, both to prevent the human injury and toll and also to hold down costs to the taxpayers. Implementing the program to help small businesses use techniques to lessen damages caused by natural disasters offers the potential to save much anguish for many people across the United States and also to save millions of dollars in the future. The Federal Emergency Management Agency currently manages Project Impact which works in conjunction with communities and businesses on such mitigation policies and techniques. Passage of H.R. 818 will complement and further these efforts at mitigation by offering small businesses low-interest loans for disaster mitigation through the Small Business Administration. H.R. 818 authorizes the SBA to establish a pilot program to make loans to small businesses for purposes of mitigating the effects of natural disasters. These loans will be made in support of the mitigation program established at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The mitigation techniques are varied. They include a wide range of activities, including building improvements, relocation and the like. H.R. 818 will authorize SBA to lend up to $15 million each year through fiscal year 2004 in support of the Disaster Mitigation Pilot Program. These funds will come from existing section 7(b) disaster loan appropriations and will be subject to appropriations available for that program, so the bill does not authorize any new Federal spending. Finally, H.R. 818 will require the SBA to report to Congress on January 31, 2003. The report will document the number of loans made, the areas served by the pilot and the estimated savings to the government as a result of the program. I want to again thank my colleagues, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), for their assistance in moving the measure before us. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 818. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on H.R. 818.

Mr. TALENT

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

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleague, the ranking member on the Committee on Small Business, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), for her generous support in moving this bill, as well as thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for co- managing and bringing this bill with me to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, the microloan program was established as a pilot program in 1991 and was made permanent in 1997. The program provides small loans, under $25,000, to the Nation's smallest entrepreneurs. These loans are made through intermediaries, SBA-certified and approved nonprofit lending and business development organizations. These intermediaries borrow funds from the SBA and, in turn, lend those funds to small businesses. In order to protect taxpayer assets, the intermediaries are required to maintain a loss reserve based on the amount of microloans they have outstanding. When the program was made permanent in 1997, changes were also made to modify the loan loss reserve for microloan intermediaries. That legislation specified microloan borrowers were to maintain a loss reserve of 15 percent of their outstanding microloans for the first 5 years of their participation in the program. After that, intermediaries were to maintain a loss reserve equal to 10 percent of their outstanding loans or twice their loss rate, whichever was greater. Unfortunately, this provision was interpreted by the Small Business Administration to mean an amount equal to twice an intermediary's aggregate losses. That interpretation created an immense burden on microloan intermediaries. We attempted to fix that problem last year with statutory language similar to H.R. 440. Unfortunately, that failed to pass prior to Congress's adjournment. H.R. 440 is necessary to correct this interpretation and clearly establish that the loss loan reserve will be 15 percent for the first 5 years for all intermediaries, and that intermediaries may apply for a reduction of that reserve to reflect their actual annual average loss rate, but no less than 10 percent. The loan loss reserve reduction is to be based on the actual annual average loss rate over a 5-year period. We want to make that legislative history absolutely clear. The committee expects that intermediaries will request such reviews no more than annually, and that such reviews will not affect the SBA's ability to conduct further reviews for oversight and management purposes. H.R. 440 also replaces the cap on the amount of microloan funds that can be made available to intermediaries in any one State. This cap was originally imposed to ensure that microloan funds would not be used disproportionately in those States with more aggressive microloan programs. As the program has matured, however, the restrictions become unnecessary. Finally, H.R. 440 will establish a floor for the availability of microloan funds for all States. The availability of these funds is subject to appropriations and the approval of the SBA. In addition, the committee expects any reserve established by the SBA will be held for no more than the first half of the fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, this bill will have a real impact on the very smallest of businesses in this country seeking start-up financing, and at the end of the day, that is one of our most important jobs. Let me again thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and her staff for their assistance in moving the measure before us. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 440, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 440) to make technical corrections to the Microloan Program, as amended.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying I appreciate very much the gentleman's kind words. I really should emphasize what he is saying. This program is very important to the smallest of our entrepreneurs, those just getting started. It many cases, these are folks who are moving off of lives in some cases of dependency into lives of entrepreneurship. They are the people who need these small loans. In order to make this program work we have to correct this misperception, as well as make some other technical corrections. So it is a very important bill. I thank the gentleman for his support, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 440. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House, enclosed are the rules of the Committee on Small Business for the 106th Congress. Rules and Procedures of the Committee on Small Business U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress 1. general provisions The Rules of the House of Representatives, and in particular the committee rules enumerated in rule XI, are the rules of the Committee on Small Business to the extent applicable and by this reference are incorporated. Each subcommittee of the Committee on Small Business (hereinafter referred to as the ``committee'') is a part of the committee and is subject to the authority and direction of the committee, and to its rules to the extent applicable. 2. referral of bills by chairman Unless retained for consideration by the full committee, all legislation and other matters referred to the committee shall be referred by the Chairman to the subcommittee of appropriate jurisdiction within 2 weeks. Where the subject matter of the referral involves the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee or does not fall within any previously assigned jurisdictions, the Chairman shall refer the matter as he may deem advisable. 3. date of meeting The regular meeting date of the committee shall be the second Thursday of every month when the House is in session. A regular meeting of the committee may be dispensed with if, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need for the meeting. Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman as he may deem necessary or at the request of a majority of the members of the committee in accordance with clause 2(c) of rule XI of the House. At least 3 days notice of such an additional meeting shall be given unless the Chairman determines that there is good cause to call the meeting on less notice. The determination of the business to be considered at each meeting shall be made by the Chairman subject to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the House. A regularly scheduled meeting need not be held if there is no business to be considered or, upon at least 3 days notice, it may be set for a different date. 4. announcement of hearings Unless the Chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the committee by majority vote, determines that there is good cause to begin a hearing at an earlier date, public announcement shall be made of the date, place and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by the committee at least 1 week before the commencement of that hearing. 5. meetings and hearings open to the public (A) Meetings Each meeting of the committee or its subcommittees for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, shall be open to the public, including the radio, television and still photography coverage, except as provided by clause 4 of rule XI of the House, except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House; Provided, however, that no person other than members of the committee, and such congressional staff and such executive branch representatives as they may authorize, shall be present in any business meeting or markup session which has been closed to the public. (B) Hearings Each hearing conducted by the committee or its subcommittees shall be open to the public, including radio, television and still photography coverage, except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of the hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evidence or other matters to be considered would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate any law or rule of the House; Provided, however, that the committee or subcommittee may by the same procedure vote to close one subsequent day of hearings. Notwithstanding the requirements of the preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in attendance the requisite number required under the rules of the committee to be present for the purpose of taking testimony, (i) may vote to close the hearing for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or violate clause 2(k)(5) of rule XI of the House; or (ii) may vote to close the hearing, as provided in clause 2(k)(5) of rule XI of the House. No member of the House may be excluded from non- participatory attendance at any hearing of the committee or any subcommittee, unless the House of Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its hearing to members by the same procedures designated for closing hearings to the public. 6. witnesses (A) Statement of Witnesses Each witness shall file with the committee, 48 hours in advance of his or her appearance, 100 copies of his or her written statement of proposed testimony, and shall limit the oral presentation at such appearance to a brief summary of his or her views. Each witness shall also submit to the committee on the day of the hearing a copy of his or her final prepared statement on a 3.5'' computer diskette in Word or a similar format. The committee will provide public access to its printed materials, including the proposed testimony of witnesses, in electronic form. (B) Interrogation of Witnesses The right to interrogate witnesses before the committee or any of its subcommittees shall alternate between the majority members and the minority members. In recognizing members to question witnesses, the Chairman may take into consideration the ratio of majority and minority members present. 7. subpoenas A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman of the committee in the conduct of any investigation or series of investigations or activities to require the attendance and testimony of such witness and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers and documents as he deems necessary. The ranking minority member shall be promptly notified of the issuance of such a subpoena. Such a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the chairman of a subcommittee with the approval of a majority of the members of the subcommittee and the approval of the Chairman of the committee. 8. quorum No measure or recommendation shall be reported unless a majority of the committee was actually present. For purposes of taking testimony or receiving evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum. For all other purposes, one-third of the members shall constitute a quorum. 9. amendments during mark-up Any amendment offered to any pending legislation before the committee must be made available in written form when requested by any member of the committee. If such amendment is not available in written form when requested, the Chairman shall allow an appropriate period for the provision thereof. 10. proxies No vote by any member of the committee or any of its subcommittees with respect to any measure or matter may be cast by proxy. 11. number and jurisdiction of subcommittees There will be five subcommittees as follows: Empowerment (five Republicans and four Democrats) Government Programs and Oversight (five Republicans and four Democrats) Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction (five Republicans and four Democrats) Rural Enterprises, Business Opportunities and Special Small Business Problems (five Republicans and four Democrats) Tax, Finance and Exports (five Republicans and four Democrats) During the 106th Congress, the Chairman and ranking minority member shall be ex officio members of all subcommittees, without vote, and the full committee shall have the authority to conduct oversight of all areas of the committee's jurisdiction. In addition to conducting oversight in the area of their respective jurisdiction, each subcommittee shall have the following jurisdiction: empowerment Promotion of business growth and opportunities in economically depressed areas. Oversight and investigative authority over regulations and licensing policies that impact small businesses located in high risk communities. General oversight of programs targeted toward urban relief. government programs and oversight Small Business Act, Small Business Investment Act, and related legislation. Federal Government programs that are designed to assist business generally. Small Business Innovation Research program. Participation of small business in Federal procurement and Government contracts. Opportunities for minority and women-owned businesses, including the SBA's 8(a) program. Oversight and investigative authority generally. regulatory reform and paperwork reduction Oversight and investigative authority over the regulatory and paperwork policies of all Federal departments and agencies. Regulatory Flexibility Act. Paperwork Reduction Act. Competition policy generally. rural enterprises, business opportunities and special small business problems Promotion of business growth and opportunities in rural areas. Oversight and investigative authority over agricultural issues that impact small businesses. General promotion of business opportunities. Oversight and investigative authority over novel issues of special concern to small business. tax, finance and exports Tax policy and its impact on small business. Access to capital and finance issues generally. Export opportunities and promotion. 12. committee staff (A) Majority Staff The employees of the committee, except those assigned to the minority as provided below, shall be appointed and assigned, and may be removed by the Chairman. Their remuneration shall be fixed by the Chairman, and they shall be under the general supervision and direction of the Chairman. (B) Minority Staff The employees of the committee assigned to the minority shall be appointed and assigned, and their remuneration determined, as the ranking minority member of the committee shall determine. (C) Subcommittee Staff The Chairman and ranking minority member of the full committee shall endeavor to ensure that sufficient staff is made available to each subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the committee. 13. powers and duties of subcommittees Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the full committee on all matters referred to it. Subcommittee chairmen shall set meeting and hearing dates after consultation with the Chairman of the full committee. Meetings and hearings of subcommittees shall not be scheduled to occur simultaneously with meetings or hearings of the full committee. 14. subcommittee reports (A) Investigative Hearings The report of any subcommittee on a matter which was the topic of a study of investigation shall include a statement concerning the subject of the study or investigation, the findings and conclusions, and recommendations for corrective action, if any, together with such other material as the subcommittee deems appropriate. Such proposed reports shall first be approved by a majority of the subcommittee members. After such approval has been secured, the proposed report shall be sent to each member of the full committee for his or her supplemental, minority, or additional views. Any such views shall be in writing and signed by the member and filed with the clerk of the full committee within 5 calendar days (excluding Saturdays Sundays, and legal holidays) from the date of the transmittal of the proposed report to the members. Transmittal of the proposed report to members shall be by hand delivery to the members' offices. After the expiration of such 5 calendar days, the report may be filed as a House report. (B) End of Congress Each subcommittee shall submit to the full committee, not later that November 15 of each even-numbered year, a report on the activities of the subcommittee during the Congress. 15. RECORDS The committee shall keep a complete record of all actions which shall include a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded. The result of each subcommittee record vote, together with a description of the matter voted upon, shall promptly be made available to the full committee. A record of such votes shall be made available for inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of the committee. The committee shall keep a complete record of all committee and subcommittee activity which, in the case of any meeting or hearing transcript, shall include a substantially verbatim account of remarks actually made during the proceedings, subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the person making the remarks involved. The records of the committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House. The Chairman of the full committee shall notify the ranking minority member of the full committee of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of rule VII of the House, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the committee for a determination of the written request of any member of the committee. 16. access to classified or sensitive information Access to classified or sensitive information supplied to the committee and attendance at closed sessions of the committee or its subcommittees shall be limited to members and necessary committee staff and stenographic reporters who have appropriate security clearance when the Chairman determines that such access or attendance is essential to the functioning of the committee. The procedures to be followed in granting access to those hearings, records, data, charts, and files of the committee which involve classified information or information deemed to be sensitive shall be as follows: (a) Only Members of the House of Representatives and specifically designated committee staff of the Committee on Small Business may have access to such information. (b) Members who desire to read materials that are in the possession of the committee should notify the clerk of the committee. (c) The clerk will maintain an accurate access log which identifies the circumstances surrounding access to the information, without revealing the material examined. (d) If the material desired to be reviewed is material which the committee or subcommittee deems to be sensitive enough to require special handling, before receiving access to such information, individuals will be required to sign an access information sheet acknowledging such access and that the individual has read and understands the procedures under which access is being granted. (e) Material provided for review under this rule shall not be removed from a specified room within the committee offices. (f) Individuals reviewing materials under this rule shall make certain that the materials are returned to the proper custodian. (g) No reproductions or recordings may be made of any portion of such materials. (h) The contents of such information shall not be divulged to any person in any way, form, shape, or manner, and shall not be discussed with any person who has not received the information in an authorized manner. (i) When not being examined in the manner described herein, such information will be kept in secure safes or locked file cabinets in the committee offices. (j) These procedures only address access to information the committee or a subcommittee deems to be sensitive enough to require special treatment. (k) If a member of the House of Representatives believes that certain sensitive information should not be restricted as to dissemination or use, the member may petition the committee or subcommittee to so rule. With respect to information and materials provided to the committee by the executive branch, the classification of information and materials as determined by the executive branch shall prevail unless affirmatively changed by the committee or the subcommittee involved, after consultation with the appropriate executive agencies. (l) Other materials in the possession of the committee are to be handled in accordance with the normal practices and traditions of the committee. 17. other procedures The Chairman of the full committee may establish such other procedures and take such actions as may be necessary to carry out the foregoing rules or to facilitate the effective operation of the committee. The committee may not be committed to any expense whatever without the prior approval of the Chairman of the full committee. 18. amendments to committee rules The rules of the committee may be modified, amended or repealed by a majority of the members, at a meeting specifically called for such purpose, but only if written notice of the proposed change has been provided to each such member at least 3 days before the time of the meeting.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for remembering Mr. Malry. It is a good opportunity for us all to remember the staff who supports our work and supports the work we do on behalf of the country. They are, in a very enduring sense, the House, and the Congress, and I appreciate the gentleman and his comments and join them. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleague, the ranking member on the Committee on Small Business, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), for her assistance in moving the bill and her help in fashioning it. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 68 is to make technical corrections to Title III of the Small Business Investment Act. Title III authorizes the Small Business Investment Company program. Small business investment companies, or SBICs, are venture capital firms licensed by the Small Business Administration that use SBA guarantees to leverage private capital for investment in small businesses. The technical corrections proposed by H.R. 68 will improve the flexibility of the SBIC program and allow increased access to this program by small business. Congress revamped the SBIC program during the 103rd Congress to provide for a new form of leverage geared specifically toward equity investment in small businesses. Over the past few years as the new program has become established, certain deficiencies have come to light; and, in addition, certain statutory provisions have become obsolete. H.R. 68 seeks to correct these deficiencies and remove provisions that may produce confusion due to changes in law and the character of the SBIC program. First, H.R. 68 will modify the SBIC program to exclude contingent obligations from the calculation of interest and loans made by SBICs. These contingent obligations include financial tools like royalties, warrants, conversion rights and options. Second, under H.R. 68, a provision in the Small Business Investment Act that reserves leverage for smaller SBICs will also be repealed. Changes in SBA policy regarding applications for leverage, statutory changes in the availability of commitments for SBICs and the makeup of the industry present the possibility that that provision may in fact create conflicts and confusion. Third, H.R. 68 will increase the authorization levels for the participating securities segment of the SBIC program. The authorization levels will rise from $800 million to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1999 and from $900 million to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2000. These increases are necessary to meet the rising demand for this section of the SBIC program. Mr. Speaker, they in no way reflect the general revenue subsidy, simply the amount in the authorization levels for the program itself. Fourth, H.R. 68 modifies the test for determining the eligibility of small businesses for SBIC financing. Current statutory language does not account for small businesses organized in pass-through tax structures such as S corporations, limited liability companies and partnerships. Finally, H.R. 68 will allow the SBA greater flexibility in issuing trust certificates to finance the SBIC program's investments in small businesses. Current law allows fundings to be issued every 6 months or more frequently. This inhibits the ability of the SBICs and the SBA to form pools of certificates that are large enough to generate serious investor interest. Allowing more time between fundings will permit SBA and the industry to form larger pools for sale in the market, thereby increasing investor interest and improving the interest rates for the small businesses financed. Mr. Speaker, this bill is important work. It will have a real impact on the businesses in this country seeking start-up financing and, at the end of the day, that is the most important part of our job. Let me again thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and her staff for their assistance in moving the measure before us. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 68. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have had discussion here on the floor about the importance of this bill, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments about the importance of this program. It is the only equity investment program as opposed to loan program in which the Federal Government plays a part for small business and it is therefore particularly important. Those of us who are familiar with small business start-ups and expansion know that there are many small businesses that need investment, rather than additional loans. They are carrying enough debt but they needed some additional money put into the business. The SBIC program is the avenue for accomplishing that. We have nurtured it and shepherded it over the years and it is doing extremely well. This bill is necessary in order for the program to continue moving forward, and I would appreciate the House's support for H.R. 68. Once again, I want to express my appreciation to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, this is an important measure, but before we get to it, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) who has another very important subject he wishes to discuss before the House. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to speak out of order.) Tribute to Charles Billy Malry

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 68) to amend section 20 of the Small Business Act and make technical corrections in title III of the Small Business Investment Act, as amended.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Beyond that I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue. If ever there was a voice more or less in the wilderness, it was the voice of my friend and the friend of America's safety and America's greatness the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) who ever since I have been in the Congress has been sounding the alarm about what is happening to America's military and finally people are beginning to listen. Let us hope that they have not begun to listen too late. Mr. Speaker, the American military is broken. Everything my colleagues have heard tonight, the statistics, the charts, the passionate speeches, the details offered by Congressmen and women who are in a position to know. That is what it all amounts to. America's military is broken. If the Joint Chiefs of Staff were in a position to tell the unvarnished truth, that is exactly what they would say, that America's military is broken, and they have been saying it, using the language of the Pentagon, for the past several months. I am very glad that they are saying it. Wisdom is always welcome, even if it comes late in the game. It is no surprise and it should come as no surprise to anyone that America's military is broken. It is the inevitable result of a series of decisions taken over the last 10 years and accelerated by the administration. It had to happen and it has happened. We have had 13 years of declining defense budgets. That chart shows it. Nobody argues this. Nothing I am going to say today and nothing that has been said tonight is going to provoke any argument as to the facts of what happened. At the same time as America's spending on defense was going down, we were cutting the size of America's force by approximately one-third. We have a military that is approximately one-third less than it was 10 years ago. And at the same time as we have been doing that, we have been increasing the responsibilities of America's servicemen and women around the world. There were 10 deployments of America's military in the Cold War era till the fall of the Berlin Wall. There have been 28 since then. They have been costly and they are ongoing and nobody expects that trend to stop. We have asked our servicemen and women to do more and more and more, and we have given them less and less and less to do it with. As a result, the American military is broken. It is not their responsibility. What have they done? What have the services done in response to these trends? They did the only thing they could do. They had to make the dollars go further. So they cannibalized units that were not deployed, units that were here in the United States, they took key personnel away from them, they took key pieces of equipment away from them in order to bring up to readiness those units that have been deployed all around the world, in Bosnia and in Haiti, and everyplace else. They borrowed from the long-term accounts, the procurement accounts, the modernization accounts, things that we needed for the future, they borrowed from them in order to meet the immediate needs of today. And so we have not recapitalized the force as we should. We have in a few years a huge bill to pay. In fact we are in a position where we are beginning to have to pay it now. I am going to talk about that in just a minute with the chairman's indulgence. We are going to have to pay for the ships and the aircraft and the tanks that we should have been paying for all along in addition to those that have to be replaced in the normal course of events. And then the services did something else they did not want to do and it may be most tragic. They bled the people. They took the money away from personnel. We just heard the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) talk about the shortage of military construction in his district. We have made the servicemen and women live in facilities they should not have to live in because we do not have the money to build them decent barracks. They have not had the pay increases they should have because we do not have the money for that. We have underfunded systematically their health care system, not just for them but for the retirees. We have broken the promise we made to them because we did not have the money because we were trying to do more and more with less and less and playing this essentially dishonest trick on them and on the American people. We forced them to do more without giving them the funds that they needed. It is amazing that they have done it. We have held up as well as we have held up because we have the finest people ever to serve in the history of humankind in the military in America's Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. But the train is reaching the end of the line, Mr. Speaker. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has come before the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee in the last few months, the Secretary of Defense came before the House Armed Services Committee today and affirmed that we are $148 billion short over the next 5 years of the minimum necessary funding to provide for minimum readiness for America's military in the short and long term, $148 billion, $30 billion a year over the next 5 years. It did not just happen overnight. It happened as a result of these decisions and the neglect on the part of the government that owed more to its servicemen and women. What is the impact on the average serviceman, the average servicewoman? Mr. Speaker, I flew to Washington today and on my airplane I met a couple of men who were coming up to do work for the Air Force. They are pilots. They are in the reserves now. They told me the story. I have heard this 100 times. The people in the reserve components, in the Guard and the Reserve, they sign up to do a very important job. They sign up to be ready and to go to war if we have a war. And they are being involved in all these deployments all over the world. I said to them, what is happening as a result of that? They said people are leaving. We are 18,000 sailors short in the Navy. So when an aircraft carrier task force comes steaming home from the eastern Mediterranean, another one is steaming out to take its place, we have to take sailors off the decks of the carriers that are coming in and put them on the decks of the carriers that are going out. They have just been at sea 6 months, they have got to go out for another 6 months. Mr. Speaker, this is a volunteer force. These are highly qualified, highly trained people. They do not have to stay. Most of them have families. They love their country and they love their duty, but they cannot do it year after year after year after year while we play games here not giving them what they need. It is terrible for this country and, more than that, it is just wrong. What does it mean to the American people? Well, it means this force is going hollow. If we do not do something about it, it is going to be hollow and it is going to be hollow fast, and a hollow military is very bad for you and me and your families. It means we cannot effectively counter the growing power of China or fight a war against terrorism the way we should around this globe. It means we cannot defend the Korean peninsula. We could not fight another Desert Storm without unnecessarily high risk and high casualties. It means we have no missile defense. If these rogue nations get long-term missile capability as fast as we now believe they will, we cannot defend our allies or ourselves because we have not been doing our duty in this government and in this body. It means, Mr. Speaker, that war is more likely to happen and more likely to kill an unnecessarily high number of servicemen and women if it does happen. And it is wrong. We have given these years over to the locusts and given the men and women who count on us in this country and in the services over to the locusts with it and it is wrong. It is worse than wrong. It is just shameful. What do we do now? We do the one thing that will make a difference. We put our money where all our mouths have been tonight. We step up to the plate, this Congress, this year, not 2 or 3 or 4 years from now when many of us are out of office and we can make promises on behalf of successor Congresses and successor administrations, we step up now and we put enough money in this budget to enable these people to do what we have asked them to do on our behalf and on behalf of our families. And not smoke and mirrors, not a couple billion dollars in projected increases, and then the rest of it is supposed to come out of existing spending authority. We do not assume that fuel costs are going to be 27 percent less next year than they are now and say, therefore, we are going to be able to spend more money on other things. We stopped the dance; we have been doing that long enough. This issue is vital to America's safety, it is vital to our commitment to our men and women, and it is vital to our greatness, and we have to do something now. That is why the chairman is here organizing this special order. That is why those of us on the committee on both sides of the aisle are so concerned. That is why this House has to act in the people's House. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for holding this special order, and I thank him for his tireless efforts, his persistence year after year in sounding this alarm. You were right, Mr. Chairman. I bet you wish that you had not been right, but you were right. Now we have a chance to do something. There is no stronger signal that we can send to the men and women in uniform that we care about them than to do something. Now I am going to close with a story from my first year on the Committee on Armed Services. It was then under the chairmanship of the gentleman from South Carolina's predecessor, Mr. Ron Dellums, our friend from California, an outstanding and gracious gentleman. We had a hearing on a very contentious issue, and there was a retired officer who testified, and he talked about the issue, and then he talked about the military life. He said, you know, it is hard being in the military; we move a lot, it is a big strain on our families, it is very difficult. He said we have to put our lives on the line, we have to contemplate the fact we may have to go to war and die, and it is not easy. He said we are glad to do it because we care about our country and we care about the traditions of our services. He said we are glad to do it. And then he looked up at the Armed Services Committee, all three tiers of us sitting there, and there I was on the lowest tier over on the side because I was a freshman. And he looked at us, and he said: But we count on you to protect us. We count on you. They count on us, Mr. Speaker, and we have let them down. It is time to stop letting them down. We need to do it this year, now, not on the next guy's watch.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, it is not my preference or custom to speak on matters relating to the misconduct of others who hold public office. I have never done so before during my time in Congress. I hope never to have to do so again. But the Constitution confides in Members of this House the obligation to decide whether high officers have acted in a manner that requires their impeachment. Where an official has a legal or moral obligation to judge misconduct and when that obligation cannot honorably be avoided, it is necessary to stand without flinching for what is clearly right. Those failing to do so become inevitably part of the wrong against which they failed to act. The issue before the House is not whether Bill Clinton has acted with integrity. We all know the answer to that question. The issue is whether we have the integrity to do our duty under the Constitution and laws. Public men and women commit private wrongs, just like everyone else. And just like everyone else, they are usually called to account for those wrongs in the fullness of time. If they act honorably when called to account, and accept responsibility for what they have done, they can emerge with a measure of their integrity intact. If they act less than honorably and refuse to own up to their actions, they may, and often are judged by the voters. Their fellow officers in government have no warrant to judge them formally if they at least conform to the minimum standards of law and morality in how they react. But the minimum standards are just that: the minimum that we have the right to expect and insist upon. No one can fall below those standards with impunity. No officer of government can actively subvert the law, abuse the powers of his office and flout the standards of decency without facing the consequences that any other person in a position of trust would have to face. That is the gravamen of the charges against President Clinton. The genesis of this matter was the President's liaison with Monica Lewinsky. But that affair, however sordid, was a private wrong. The Articles of Impeachment deal exclusively with what the President did to avoid the consequences when that private wrong reached the eyes and ears of the public. When the President was called to account before the people, he lied to the people; when he was called to account before a civil deposition, he lied under oath; and then, to cover up those initial lies, he tampered with witnesses, abused the trust of other officers of government, perjured himself before a federal grand jury, and abused the powers of the Presidency to avert investigations into his wrong doing. From the record before the House, it is impossible to conclude anything other than that the President is guilty of these wrongs. He is therefore, in my judgment unfit to hold any position of trust, much less the Presidency. I do not blame anyone for wishing somehow to avoid impeachment. It is a terrible thing to have to participate in the shipwreck of a person's reputation and public career, and it is not a sign of health for our country that two Presidents within a generation must face removal from office. But none of the arguments offered in defense of the President present an honorable alternative to impeachment. I will discuss them one by one: (1) Some suggest that the misconduct in question does not meet the Constitutional standard for impeachment. But I believe the President's actions not only qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors; they present a classic example of what the term signifies, fully within the intentions of the Framers and the precedents of history. The term ``high crimes or misdemeanors'' means a deliberate pattern of misconduct so grave as to disqualify the person committing it from holding a position of trust and responsibility. The President's misconduct qualifies as such an offense according to the commonly accepted understandings of civic responsibility, never before questioned until this controversy arose. No one would have argued a year ago that a President could perjure himself, obstruct justice, and tamper with witnesses without facing impeachment, and no one would argue that a business, labor, educational, or civic leader should stay in a position of trust having committed such misconduct. Congress has impeached and removed high officers for less than the President has done. Are we to lower the standards of our society because the President cannot live up to them? (2) Others have suggested that the House censure the President. But the alternative of censure would constitute too small a penalty for Mr. Clinton's gross misconduct and too great a danger to the Presidency, suggesting that the House of Representatives has a power, never contemplated in the Constitution, to harass future Presidents for behavior not rising to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors. As many have pointed out, this is not a parliamentary democracy. It is a constitutional republic with separate branches of government. The House may act formally against a President only when the Constitutional standard of impeachment has been met. If censure is intended as a meaningless action, a cover for those who for other reasons want to do nothing, it should be discarded as a sham. If it is intended as a formal and real punishment, it represents an extra--constitutional action, a power arrogated by the Congress to itself, with more potential for harm in the future than good for the present. I would prefer that the House do nothing rather than that--better not to act at all then to twist the Constitution because we are unwilling to enforce it. (3) Finally, some have argued that impeachment is too traumatic for the country to endure. I believe the opposite is more nearly true. Hard as impeachment may be, to ignore misconduct so grave and notorious would be to suggest that the importance to the country of an office can place the holder of the office above the country's laws. Mr. Speaker, this whole affair, distasteful as it is, presents an opportunity for the House to make a clear statement. There is such a thing as right and wrong. No society, and certainly not a constitutional republic like America, can endure without acknowledging that fact; and if we believe in right and wrong, we must give life to that belief by trusting that the right thing will be the best thing for our country. I urge each member of the House to do his duty today in the faith that only in that way can America emerge stronger

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question before the House is whether the President has acted in integrity in this matter. With all due respect, I think in our hearts we all know the answer to that. The question is whether we have the integrity to do our duty under the Constitution and laws, and to stand up for what is right, or whether by failing to do that we are going to become part of what is wrong. Public officials commit private wrongs. We know that happens. The issue is whether, when they are called to account for it in some forum, they act honorably and live up to the consequences of what they do, or at least they act accordingly the minimum standards that we are entitled to expect and insist upon from people who occupy positions of trust. Mr. Speaker, on this record it is impossible not to conclude that the President obstructed justice, that he perjured himself, that he flouted his oath of office, that he abused the powers of his office, that he manipulated other high officers of government, and that he did all these things, first to obstruct a sexual harassment lawsuit against him, and then to cover up the fact that he had committed perjury. Impeachment is a hard thing, Mr. Speaker. But again, what is at stake here is our integrity. If we do not stand up for something that is clearly right when we have an inescapable obligation under the Constitution to do it, we become part of what is wrong. I am not going to vote for these articles because I want to, I am going to vote for them because I see no other honorable alternative for me to follow than to support these articles calling for the impeachment of the President.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the recently concluded budget agreement. In fact, the more I look at that budget agreement, the more I like it. It begins to implement the Dollars to the Classroom principle, whereby we defund Federal bureaucracies and empower parents and teachers. It provides that with the Census, we are going to count people. We are not going to guess how many people are in the United States. It says we are going to stop child porn on the Internet. We are going to reinvigorate the war on drugs. We are going to spend $9.5 billion on the national defense, money that is vital to America's greatness. We are going to have the first ever IMF reforms, and all this on top of a balanced budget with a surplus, tax relief, and welfare reform. It is an implementation of commonsense conservative values, Mr. Speaker. It looks like we are going to have support from the other side of the aisle. I hope we come back here as soon as possible and pass it.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I know I am close to being out of time, Mr. Speaker. I will just repeat again, we had a good bill. It would have provided the people the care they need, when they need it, when their physician recommends it, without big government and a lot of lawyers' fees. As the gentleman from Georgia said, we will be back with it. I am confident we will have success. It is what the American people want. It is the best thing we could have done in the 30 years since the Congress passed Medicare.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding to me and for all his really excellent work on this bill. It is a great pleasure to get up and talk about the Patient Protection Act which passed the House this year. We made enormous progress in the direction of ensuring that people get the care that they need and that their physician has prescribed when they need it and that we could do that without big government. It was a great bill. It passed the House. Unfortunately it got caught up in politics and some partisanship both in the other body and on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and that is unfortunate. We have all heard some specimens of that this afternoon. But that should not keep us from talking about this bill and what it would do for people, because, as I said before, we have made an enormous amount of progress. We need to make progress in this area. When I go around my district and talk with people about health care, they are concerned. It is less about the reach of the coverage that they are promised in their insurance. There is some concern about that. The concern is that if they get sick, they will not get the care they have been promised. They will not get the care that their physician has prescribed. They have some reason for that concern, Mr. Speaker. We have all heard about these horror stories around the country. They are not just horror stories, they are horrible stories. People losing their children because an HMO turned down the care that their physician had recommended, pregnant women not being allowed to go into the hospital when they have high-risk pregnancies, seniors being denied chemotherapy on the grounds that it was supposedly experimental. These are horrible stories. We should not have that. We do not have to have that. We can have a system that refocuses the health care system and the power in the system on the patient and on their physician. That is what the Patient Protection Act does. The gentleman from Illinois has talked about some of the good things in it. I am going to be yielding to people in a few minutes to go into greater depth on that. Let me just say the bill does two things that are very important and it is the only bill that was before the House this year that did these two things: The first thing, it expanded the coverage that was available, good private sector coverage available to people around the United States. At any given time about 42 million people do not have health insurance coverage, working people. But they work for employers, typically small employers who typically cannot afford to provide the coverage to them. Our bill had a feature in it that no other bill had that we have needed to do for decades here that makes perfect common sense and would make good, solid, private sector health care available to millions of those people who currently do not have it. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell) is going to discuss it later, but briefly, Mr. Speaker, it is the concept of association health plans. All that means is that these small businesses who cannot afford them, they may only have 5, 6 or 10 employees and cannot afford to go through all the administrative costs and the hassle of offering health insurance, can pool together as associations. Then the association is a sponsor of a health plan and the small business can send its employees to that health plan, can put up some money for the employees, they put up some money on their own and they are able to buy health insurance from a plan that can offer them all the choices that currently employees of big companies have. Why should an employee just because he or she happens to work for a restaurant have no health insurance offered to him or her or have fewer choices offered to him or her than somebody would if they worked for IBM or they worked for Emerson Electric or they worked for Boeing or any other of the big employers in the country? This provision in the bill when we pass it out of here, and I think we will get it early next year because it is an idea whose time has come, will make health care available to millions who currently do not have it. It is the only bill that does that. I will say, Mr. Speaker, we were enlightened on that issue when at a press conference a reporter asked a very important member of the other body what the administration bill does for the uninsured. He thought about it and said, with his typical candor, ``Not much.'' That is true. It did not do anything for the uninsured. This bill would make health care available to millions of people who currently do not have it. It is part of the whole idea behind this bill, to provide health care to people when they need it, when their physician prescribes it, without big government. But the feature I am up here to talk about and I am going to be yielding to other Members of Congress to talk about other features in the bill, the feature I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is the accountability features in the bill. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) referred to this generally, but what we did, we worked on this for months and months and came up with the tightest, best accountability procedure anywhere in this country to ensure that patients get the care their physician recommends at the time their physician recommends it, notwithstanding some bean-counter at the HMO. It is low-cost to the patient, it is easily accessible, it is quick, and it is certain. I think it is going to be a model that will be used in States, and I certainly hope in Federal legislation when we pass it next year. Basically what it does is this: The problem now is that if you belong to a plan, an HMO, let us suppose your physician recommends care for you or your family. I will just take an example. Let us suppose, because I have three children, Mr. Speaker, 8, 6 and 2. None of them have a problem with their ears. Some kids have a constant problem with ear infections. With my kids it is sinus infections. With some people it is ear infections. Let us suppose that after two or three times the pediatrician says, for a 4 or 5-year-old, ``Look, we got to put in the ear tubes.'' That is a very common procedure. So you call up the HMO and they say, ``No, we don't think that's medically necessary. So we're not going to pay for the ear tubes.'' What would you do today? What would you do without this bill? You would either pay for the ear tubes yourself or you would file some amorphous appeal with the HMO that would take months and months and months and then they could turn it down and never tell you why and if you wanted to then you can go to court and sue them for the cost of putting in the ear tubes and who is going to do that? It is just not a feasible procedure for the average person who belongs to an HMO. Under this bill what you could do is this: You could immediately file an appeal, what we call it is an internal review. The first stage is an internal review before a physician in the plan. It would have to be a physician. No more would the plan be able to turn down the care your physician has recommended on the authority of an accountant, or even a nurse or some other allied health care professional. So immediately you would get a review before a physician in the plan. That review would be either within 3 days if your physician said it was an emergency situation, 10 days if your physician said it was urgent care or 30 days if your physician said it was routine care. This would probably be considered, absent some kind of really bad side effect of the infection, a more or less routine situation. But that would be up to your physician, the treating physician, to say whether it was emergency, urgent or routine care. If the plan did not return a result from the appeal within the time limit specified in the statute, the appeal would be taken as granted and the care would be paid for, so they could not spin you out and deny the care just by indecision. So you go before the plan physician. Let us say the plan physician backs up the plan, says, ``No, I don't think it's medically necessary, either.'' Then you would get an appeal to an external panel of independent specialists. Our bill was the only one that provided for easy, low-cost access to a panel of independent specialists in this field. In this case it would be pediatricians, and so the plan would have had to contract, let us say, with the Mayo Clinic or the local research hospital, they would make their pediatricians available, it would be a double-blind kind of situation. The plan would not know who the pediatricians were who were reviewing that case, the pediatricians would not know the name of the patient, just the information before them. Then these specialists would make a decision about whether it was medically necessary. If they said it was medically necessary and the plan still refused to pay for the care, you could go immediately to court. When you went to court, you could sue not only for attorney's fees, not only for the cost of the treatment, not only for the court costs but for a penalty of up to $1,000 a day up to $250,000 if they refused to pay the cost of providing those ear tubes. What are the plans going to do, Mr. Speaker? Under those situations they are going to say, ``We better pay because if we don't pay up front now, we're going to end up paying up front, we're going to end up paying in a few weeks anyway. And in addition we're going to have to pay all these attorney's fees and we're going to get whacked with this huge penalty.'' The key to this plan, and we have outlined it here, from the time the initial claim is denied, within a matter of weeks you get an internal appeal before a physician. It is the only bill that provides for that. You get an external review with no threshold. It does not have to be a $1,000 claim or a $5,000 claim or a $10,000 claim, and it should not be. If it is a $200 claim but it is required under the insurance contract, you should get it. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.