A bill to amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to provide funding for successful claimants following a determination on the merits of Pigford claims related to racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Snowe and Lincoln to make healthcare more affordable and accessible for our nation's small businesses and self-employed individuals. This bipartisan legislation is known as the Small Business Health Options Program Act, or the SHOP Act, and I am working with the Finance and HELP Committees to incorporate it into the broader healthcare reform bill the Senate is developing.

Health reform is a priority of the American people and a central element of this Congress's agenda. While more must be done, we have taken some small but important steps already.

We expanded the CHIP program to provide healthcare to an additional 4 million children who are uninsured today.

We provided assistance to laid-off workers to help them pay for health insurance under the COBRA continuation program, so that families receiving an average monthly unemployment check of $1,300 aren't expected to pay $1,100 in insurance premiums.

We included in the Recovery Act $87 billion for the Medicaid program over the next 2 years.

We provided $2 billion for community health centers, which serve more than 18 million patients.

But we have more to do. Overall, 46 million Americans are uninsured. At the beginning of this decade, fewer than 40 million people were uninsured. Over the same period, health insurance premiums have risen 4 times faster than wages.

This is the year to enact reforms to reduce healthcare costs, expand coverage, and improve the quality of the healthcare we receive.

It is not easy for small businesses and the self-employed to afford health insurance. Without the benefits of large group purchasing, double-digit rate increases are not uncommon.

The recession has made it worse. The Main Street Alliance recently polled nearly 500 small businesses in a dozen states and found that 35 percent have reduced coverage and 12 percent have dropped it altogether in the past 2 years.

More than 50 percent of the uninsured in America are in households led by someone who is either self-employed or works for a business with fewer than 100 employees.

Workers in the smallest businesses are almost three times likely to be uninsured as those who work for the largest businesses. That is not because small businesses don't want to offer health insurance; it is because insurance is more expensive for them than for large companies.

Administrative costs for health insurance are higher for small businesses than larger businesses. About 20-25 percent of a small business's premium goes to administrative expenses, compared to about 10 percent for large employers.

Small businesses are less able than large employers to spread the risk that someone will get sick. Even a single employee with a serious medical condition can cause a dramatic increase in a small business's health insurance premium.

Small businesses are also more likely to have lower wages and narrower profit margins than large businesses, making it more difficult for these employers and employees to cover the cost of health coverage.

Small business owners like Doug Mayol of Springfield, IL, and David Borris, of Northbrook, IL, know all too well the difficulty of maintaining health insurance in this struggling economy.

Since 1988, Doug Mayol has owned and operated a small business in downtown Springfield that sells cards, gifts, and other knick-knacks. He has found that his profits are at the mercy of the rising costs of healthcare. He is fortunate that his only employee is over 65 and qualifies for Medicare and also receives spousal benefits from her late husband. If this were not the case, Doug does not think he would be able to provide her with coverage.

In terms of his own insurance, Doug has a preexisting condition and fears the real possibility of becoming uninsured. Almost 30 years ago, Doug was diagnosed with a congenital heart valve defect. He has no symptoms, but without regular healthcare he is at risk of developing serious problems.

Like most Americans, his healthcare premiums have risen over the years, but recently the increases have been

dramatic. In 2001, he paid $200 a month. By 2005, he was paying $400 a month. The next year, after he turned 50, his rate shot up to $750 a month.

Trying to work within the system, he chose a smaller network of providers and a higher deductible to bring his premium back down to $650. Unfortunately, last year it jumped to $1037 a month. Only by taking the highest deductible allowed, $2500, was he able to bring it down to $888. And these rates will continue to rise.

Ironically, Doug is not even a costly patient. With his high deductible, his insurance rarely kicks in, as he has never made a claim for illness or injury and has received only routine primary care. Yet more affordable insurance carriers reject him due to his preexisting condition.

Meanwhile, Doug avoids seeing a cardiologist, even though periodic visits would be a good idea, because he fears it would add another red flag to his already imperfect health record.

What kind of healthcare system is it that causes even those with coverage to avoid care? Americans need the peace-of-mind that comes with knowing that health insurance companies will not be able to reject you, or keep raising your rates, because you have a preexisting condition.

David Borris faces another dilemma. David is the owner of Hel's Kitchen Catering, an off-premise catering company located along suburban Chicago's north shore in Northbrook, IL. Over 2 decades ago, David and his wife opened their business in a 900 square foot storefront with a handful of recipes from his mother and his wife. Both David and his wife left good-paying jobs in the hospitality industry to take their shot at the American dream of owning their own business.

David now employs 25 full-time employees and has offered health insurance to them since 1992. At first, David offered to contribute 50 percent of the premium in an employee's first year and 100 percent thereafter. The company had 8 full-time employees and David felt a moral obligation to offer insurance to the people who were helping to grow his business.

Around 2002, the company started to see staggering premium increases. In 2004, the premium jumped 21 percent. In 2005, it increased by 10 percent. In 2006, the increase was 16 percent. In 2007, he was quoted a 26 percent rate hike, and only a change of carriers allowed him to hold the increase to 17 percent. In total, his premiums have doubled since 2002, forcing him to ask longtime employees to contribute toward the cost of the premiums.

Today, David insures only 13 of his 25 full-time employees--the other 12 cannot afford their 50 percent share of the premium in the first year, and the company cannot afford to pay more.

David spent almost 13 percent of his covered employees' payroll on health insurance premiums last year, and he expects he will have to ask employees to contribute more again next year.

He knows that one employee's wife has a kidney problem and another employee's son receives an expensive treatment for a health condition. Trying to maintain health coverage for his loyal workers has become a major complication as he tries to grow his business.

Both Doug and David are living the American dream as small business owners. Providing health insurance for their employees should not destroy that dream.

As Congress works to reform the healthcare system, we need to keep in mind the struggle of small business owners like Doug and David. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. They need to be able to count on health insurance premiums that are reasonable and predictable. They need something better than our current system offers.

That is why I am reintroducing the SHOP Act with Senators Snowe and Lincoln. Our legislation offers new hope for entrepreneurs who struggle to afford health insurance. It will make health insurance more accessible and more affordable for small businesses and the self- employed.

Our bill has three core elements: purchasing pools for small businesses and the self-employed; health insurance rating reforms; and tax credits.

Our bill would create incentives for States to establish purchasing pools and would create a national pool that we call SHOP, the Small Business Health Options Program, for small businesses with up to 100 employees and for the self-employed.

Purchasing pools will lower administrative costs, give employers and employees more private health insurance plans to choose from, and enhance competition by making it easier to compare plans.

Our bill would prohibit insurers from setting premiums based on health status in both the national SHOP pool and in States' small group markets, and would gradually reduce other sources of premium variation. These rating changes will make premiums more stable from year to year and make coverage more affordable for those who need it most.

To lower the cost of providing health coverage, our bill would provide a tax credit to small businesses with up to 50 workers who pay at least 60 percent of their employees' premiums.

The size of the tax credit would be targeted to the size of the business. A full tax credit of $1,000 for self-only coverage and $2,000 for family coverage would be available to the smallest businesses, with the value of the tax credit phased down as the size of the employer increases.

Employers who cover more than 60 percent of the premium would be rewarded with a bonus credit.

In addition, we would move to a system where individual employees can choose their own health plan instead of having their employer choose it for them. Where rating rules permit it, each worker would be able to enroll in the health plan in SHOP that best meets his or her needs.

The bill we have introduced reflects our commitment to find reasonable compromises and address the challenges faced by small employers and the self-employed. This bipartisan legislation has the support of a range of business, labor, and consumer groups.

We have worked closely with the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Realtors, and SEIU in the development of the bill, and we also have the support of Families USA, the National Restaurant Association, and the Partnership for Women and Families.

We have received valuable input from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and have taken the hard steps they have recommended to address rating issues and ensure that the approach is viable over the long haul.

Although each group that supports SHOP has its own priorities for broader health reform, this diverse coalition of stakeholders from across the political spectrum came together to address the needs of small businesses as one important component of reform.

Everyone understands that this bill is not comprehensive health reform, and none of us would stop with SHOP. However, the renewed focus on broader reform has given us an opportunity to offer SHOP as a carefully-crafted component of broader reform that addresses the specific needs of the small business community. We believe our approach is consistent with the broader conversation and can help the greater reform effort move forward on a bipartisan basis, and we look forward to including the features of SHOP in the broader bill.

In a town hall meeting in March this year, the President spoke to a crowd about the new mindset of this Administration. He talked about ``understanding that we're all in this together and that if the middle class is working well, if working people are doing well, then everybody does well.''

This bill is consistent with that thinking. Its seemingly disparate supporters may disagree on many things, but they have worked together to develop this legislation because they agree on a greater principle: that our current system is hurting everyone--families, businesses, and our economy.

We must keep working together on a bipartisan basis to try to enact legislation that will give all Americans access to affordable health insurance, and solving the healthcare challenges faced by small businesses is an important part of that process.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact such legislation and ensure that the healthcare needs of small businesses and all Americans are met.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there continues to be discrimination against women in the individual insurance market. As you know, the individual insurance market is often the last resort for health coverage for individuals who do not have access to an employer- sponsored plan or who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid.

To assist these women, I am today introducing the Women's Health Insurance Fairness Act of 2009, a bill that would end the discrimination against women who seek to purchase an insurance policy on the individual market.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, of the 94.7 million women between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2007, 64 percent had insurance through an employer, 18 percent were uninsured, 13 percent were enrolled in Medicaid or another type of public insurance, and 6 percent were in the individual market. In other words, about 5.7 million American women in 2007 received health insurance on the individual market. With rising unemployment, it is likely that more women will rely on individual insurance market for coverage in the future.

This market is too often a problem for women for a number of reasons. First, women are often charged more than men for insurance in the individual market. Gender rating is a common insurance practice under which most women are charged higher premiums than men for identical coverage. Federal civil rights law prevents employers with more than 15 employees from charging different premiums based on gender and other factors. This protection is not extended to policies sold in the individual insurance market.

According to a recent report entitled ``Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women'' by the National Women's Law Center, a 25 year old woman can pay up to 45 percent more than a 25 year old man for the same coverage. A 40 year old woman can pay up to 48 percent more than a 40 year old man for the same coverage. A 55 year old woman can pay up to 37 percent more than a 55 year old man for the same coverage.

Today, only 10 states prohibit and 2 States limit gender rating in the individual market. I am pleased that Massachusetts is one of the 10 States that prohibit insurers from charging different premiums based on gender. But, we should-make sure that this prohibition is extended to every state in the nation.

A second problem facing women on the individual market is that insurers may delay, deny, or limit coverage to women due to pregnancy or delivery method. Over 30 years ago with the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Federal civil rights law established as sex discrimination denial of coverage for pregnancy, childbirth and related conditions in employer-based insurance policies. Unfortunately, this protection is not extended to policies sold in the individual insurance market.

Individual market insurers can deny coverage to women based on a ``pre-existing condition''. If the insurer discovers that a woman applying for coverage had a Cesarean section in the past, they can: charge a higher premium; impose a waiting period during which it refuses to cover another C-section or pregnancy; or deny coverage unless the woman has been sterilized or is no longer of childbearing age.

Currently, there are only 5 States which prohibit insurance carriers from refusing to sell individual health insurance coverage to applicants who have health conditions or problems. Massachusetts is one of the five states which require insurers to accept applicants regardless of health status. Again, this prohibition should be extended to every state in the nation.

A third problem facing women is that the vast majority of policies do not provide coverage for maternity care. The 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act specified that employers with more than 15 employees must cover pregnancy on the same basis as other medical conditions. Once again, similar protections do not exist in the individual insurance market.

The National Women's Law Center recently analyzed over 3,500 individual insurance market policies and found that just 12 percent included comprehensive maternity coverage and another 9 percent provided coverage for maternity care that is not comprehensive. They also found that a limited number of insurers sell separate maternity coverage for an additional fee known as a ``rider'', but this supplemental coverage is often expensive and limited in scope.

Currently, 5 States, including Massachusetts, have enacted laws requiring insurers to include coverage for maternity services in all individual health insurance policies sold in their state. Every woman should have access to these services.

That is why I am introducing the Women's Health Insurance Fairness Act of 2009, to end the discrimination against women who seek to purchase an insurance policy on the individual market. It has three basic parts.

First, the bill prevents insurers in the individual market from charging women higher premiums than men. Gender rating is insurance discrimination based on sex and should not be tolerated. Over 40 years ago, the insurance industry voluntarily abandoned its practice of using race as a rating factor and now it is time to end rating discrimination against women. Gender rating hurts women's health by inflating premiums and creating substantial financial barriers for women seeking to obtain health care coverage.

Second, the bill prevents insurers in the individual market from denying or limiting coverage based on a current or past pregnancy or a past or future method of delivery. No longer will insurance companies be able to deny coverage to women simply by treating a pregnancy like a pre-existing condition. Similarly, they will not be able to impose waiting periods relating to a pregnancy. They will no longer be able to impose higher premiums or deductibles on women with prior Cesareans.

Finally, the bill will require all insurance policies offered on the individual market to provide comprehensive maternity coverage for the full scope of maternity services from preconception through postpartum. There is a huge cost to our society by denying maternity coverage. In 2005, the costs associated with preterm birth, one of the most expensive pregnancy complications linked to lack of prenatal care, totaled over $26.2 billion. Yet, for every $1 spent on preconception care saved anywhere from $1.60 to $5.19 in maternal care costs.

If women do not have the necessary maternity coverage, they will be exposed to substantial out of pocket

costs. Too many women are unable to pay these costs. The average U.S. hospital cost for an uncomplicated vaginal delivery ranges from $7,500 to $15,000 and from $11,000 to $19,000 for a caesarean delivery. I believe comprehensive maternity coverage will save money and improve maternal and child health outcomes. Those currently without coverage often turn to our public safety net for assistance. Today, forty percent of all pregnancies are covered by Medicaid. We need to do everything possible to increase health outcomes for our children.

The bill would provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to monitor compliance with the requirements of this act. It gives the Secretary the ability to assess fines of at least $10,000 against any health insurance company that fails to submit the required data. Additionally, the bill directs the Government Accountability Office to issue a report by December 31, 2010 about problems any remaining for women on the individual insurance market in all 50 States.

I would like to thank a number of organizations who have already endorsed the legislation including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Children's Defense Fund, Consumers Union, Families USA, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and OWL--The Voice of Midlife and Older Women.

During the Senate's consideration of comprehensive health care reform, I will work with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley to make sure that discriminatory insurance practices against women are ended. I will also work with my Massachusetts colleague, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Ted Kennedy to make sure this legislation is enacted into law. As in other areas of health reform, Massachusetts is already leading the way in preventing insurers from engaging in practices that harm women. I believe the rest of the country should benefit from our experience.

I find it especially appropriate to introduce this legislation as we approach Mother's Day on Sunday, May 10th and National Women's Health Week on May 10th-16th. I can think of no better gift to our mothers, daughters, and sisters than the gift of affordable and accessible insurance that meets their health needs.

Mr. President, I want to first start off by thanking the Senate and in particular the Senate Agriculture Committee for addressing a new cause of action in Federal court for those African- American farmers who may have been discriminated against and who were denied entry in the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 including a provision entitled Determination on Merits of Pigford Claims.

For those who do not know, the Consent Decree was a settlement that resulted from a class action lawsuit initiated by a class of African- American farmers who had for decades been discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the administration of its FSA loan program. The discriminatory treatment was well-documented by both the USDA's own Inspector General and an internal task force appointed by then USDA Secretary Glickman.

We had some unanticipated consequences in the Consent Decree's implementation. There was denial of approximately 77,000 African- American farmers into the Decree even though these farmers filed petitions by the late-claim deadline. More than half of these late- claim petitioners didn't even know about the Consent Decree. The Court said the lack of notice was not a sufficient reason to allow them into the Consent Decree. Thus, these individuals were denied entry and their discrimination complaints went unresolved. This was not a fair outcome for farmers or those attempting to farm at that time.

The farm bill did the right thing by allowing late filers to have their claims heard and judged on the merits. These farmers deserve justice and at least the opportunity to have their claims heard.

Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to determine how many of the 77,000 actually have valid claims. Lots of different folks have lots of different calculations. Either way, it's likely to be expensive. Because of the budget constraints, the Farm Bill only could put $100 million towards the endeavor.

I think we can and must do better than that. That is why today I am introducing bipartisan legislation with Senator Hagan of North Carolina. This bill will make 3 changes to the farm bill. First it will allow the claimants to access the $100 million already appropriated in the farm bill, but once that is expended gain access to the Department of Treasury permanent appropriated judgment fund. Second, it will allow reasonable attorney fees, administrative costs, and expenses to be paid from the judgment fund in accordance with the 1999 consent decree. Finally, it includes a section making fraud related to claims a criminal offense with punishment of a fine or up to 5 years in prison or both.

The claimants, who were able to timely file, were allowed access to the judgment fund and so it makes sense that we treat these new claimants the exact same way. The Department of Justice was treating the $100 million included in the farm bill as a cap, but Congress simply viewed it as a down payment to rectify the damage done.

The farm bill we passed last year does one thing right. It focuses a considerable amount of resources on new and beginning farmers and ranchers. Well, many of the Pigford claimants were in that same boat 20 years ago. It is time to rectify that.

The farm bill has simply opened up the door so that claims can be heard. If a person brings a claim and can not meet the burden of proof, then no award will be given. However, we know USDA has admitted that the discrimination occurred, and now we are obligated to do our best in getting those that deserve it, some relief. That is why I am introducing this legislation with Senator Hagan and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. It is time to make these claimants right and move forward into a new era of civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Federal Inspectors General are the frontline of protection for taxpayer dollars, ensuring that Federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars in an effective, efficient, economical manner that is in accordance with all applicable law. The Inspectors General root out fraud, waste, and abuse in Government programs by auditing, evaluating, and investigating how Federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars and how Government programs utilize funds. The Inspectors General occupy a unique position within our government. Created by the Inspector General Act of 1978 and by various subsequent statutes, the Inspectors General at Executive Branch agencies also report directly to the Legislative Branch. They were created to keep tabs on the government bureaucracy to make sure that agencies follow the spirit and intent of the laws while protecting taxpayer dollars.

I have been an outspoken advocate for Inspectors General during my time in the Senate and I was proud to be a cosponsor of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, which was signed into law by President Bush last year. That legislation ensures that Inspectors General are truly independent of the Federal agencies they oversee. The independence of Inspectors General is a critical requirement to their ability to get the job done. If Inspectors General lack independence from the agency they oversee, the quality of their work is impacted negatively and their reputation as independent watchdogs is tarnished.

Over the years, I have seen a number of Inspectors General come and go. It is a tough job to be an Inspector General. You can not go along to get along. You must buck the system, dig deep into the books of the agency, find where the secrets are hidden, and then report the truth to Congress, the President, and the American people. Unfortunately, Inspectors General must do all this with the agencies that often fight their every move. These entrenched bureaucracies have an interest in not seeing Inspectors General succeed--they do not want egg on their face. That is why we in Congress must make sure they have all the tools they need to get the job done and ensure that there is accountability for the billions in taxpayer dollars that are spent annually on the operation of the Executive Branch.

One growing area of concern I have seen over the years is procedural roadblocks being placed before Inspectors General to limit or prohibit their ability to do their job of protecting taxpayer dollars. One recent example relates to the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program SIGTARP, Neil Barofsky. Inspector General Barofsky notified me on January 22, 2009, that he intended to begin an oversight initiative that would have improved the transparency of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. Inspector General Barofsky's plan was to collect data from TARP recipients asking them for a response outlining the use of TARP funds, copies of support documents, a description of plans to comply with executive compensation restrictions, and certification by a senior executive officer of the accuracy of the statements they make. This sounded like a legitimate plan from the Inspector General tasked by Congress with ensuring that the $700 billion handed out by the TARP program wasn't lost to fraud or abuse. However, it was shortly after this letter that Mr. Barofsky ran into procedural hurdles erected by the Office of Management and Budget,

Mr. President, I want to first start off by thanking the Senate and in particular the Senate Agriculture Committee for addressing a new cause of action in Federal court for those African- American farmers who may have been discriminated against and who were denied entry in the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 including a provision entitled Determination on Merits of Pigford Claims.

For those who do not know, the Consent Decree was a settlement that resulted from a class action lawsuit initiated by a class of African- American farmers who had for decades been discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the administration of its FSA loan program. The discriminatory treatment was well-documented by both the USDA's own Inspector General and an internal task force appointed by then USDA Secretary Glickman.

We had some unanticipated consequences in the Consent Decree's implementation. There was denial of approximately 77,000 African- American farmers into the Decree even though these farmers filed petitions by the late-claim deadline. More than half of these late- claim petitioners didn't even know about the Consent Decree. The Court said the lack of notice was not a sufficient reason to allow them into the Consent Decree. Thus, these individuals were denied entry and their discrimination complaints went unresolved. This was not a fair outcome for farmers or those attempting to farm at that time.

The farm bill did the right thing by allowing late filers to have their claims heard and judged on the merits. These farmers deserve justice and at least the opportunity to have their claims heard.

Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to determine how many of the 77,000 actually have valid claims. Lots of different folks have lots of different calculations. Either way, it's likely to be expensive. Because of the budget constraints, the Farm Bill only could put $100 million towards the endeavor.

I think we can and must do better than that. That is why today I am introducing bipartisan legislation with Senator Hagan of North Carolina. This bill will make 3 changes to the farm bill. First it will allow the claimants to access the $100 million already appropriated in the farm bill, but once that is expended gain access to the Department of Treasury permanent appropriated judgment fund. Second, it will allow reasonable attorney fees, administrative costs, and expenses to be paid from the judgment fund in accordance with the 1999 consent decree. Finally, it includes a section making fraud related to claims a criminal offense with punishment of a fine or up to 5 years in prison or both.

The claimants, who were able to timely file, were allowed access to the judgment fund and so it makes sense that we treat these new claimants the exact same way. The Department of Justice was treating the $100 million included in the farm bill as a cap, but Congress simply viewed it as a down payment to rectify the damage done.

The farm bill we passed last year does one thing right. It focuses a considerable amount of resources on new and beginning farmers and ranchers. Well, many of the Pigford claimants were in that same boat 20 years ago. It is time to rectify that.

The farm bill has simply opened up the door so that claims can be heard. If a person brings a claim and can not meet the burden of proof, then no award will be given. However, we know USDA has admitted that the discrimination occurred, and now we are obligated to do our best in getting those that deserve it, some relief. That is why I am introducing this legislation with Senator Hagan and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. It is time to make these claimants right and move forward into a new era of civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.