Floor Statements

Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arizona. I commend Senator McCain for his leadership on this important issue. This amendment prohibits the cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under custody or control of the U.S. Government. In other words, it outlaws the torture of prisoners by agents of the United States, regardless of their geographic location.

I am, and always have been, opposed to the use of torture. I believe that our brave men and women serving in the Armed Forces share this view. Now more than ever, we must make it absolutely clear to our allies and our enemies that the United States does not and will not condone this practice. This amendment does that in no uncertain terms. It acknowledges and confirms existing obligations under our own Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Let me be clear on another point. I am committed to fighting terrorism and protecting our citizens and troops at home and abroad. I have the utmost respect, gratitude and admiration for our troops who are fighting on the frontlines of the War on Terror, and I have no intention of undermining the important job that they do.

But the use of torture does not enhance our national security. In fact, senior U.S. military officers have argued that practicing torture can place

U.S. troops in grave danger--especially if they are taken prisoner. In working to keep our Nation and troops safe, we must not lose sight of this critical truth.

The United States should set an example for the international community. Senator McCain's amendment reaffirms a fundamental value of the American people--that torture is morally reprehensible and has no place in this world. I am proud to support this affirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, my understanding is that Senator Sessions is going to speak for approximately 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to speak as soon as he is finished.

Mr. President, I request 7 or 8 minutes, but as my esteemed colleague from West Virginia knows, I am happy to defer to him if we do not have enough time before the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a critical issue--the possibility of an avian influenza pandemic.

When I started talking about this 7 months ago, not too many folks paid attention. Perhaps because the shorthand for this looming crisis is the ``bird flu,'' people assume it is just going to get birds and animals sick.

In reality, however, what is at stake here is the potential of a pandemic that we have not seen in the United States since 1918. As has already been stated, our top scientists and medical personnel, including the heads of the NIH, CDC, and the Department of Health and Human Services, all agree that it is almost inevitable that an avian flu pandemic will strike.

The key question is the extent of the damage, especially in terms of lives lost. The answer to this question will, in large measure, depend on our level of preparedness and the amount of resources we are willing to immediately commit to deal with this looming crisis.

After Katrina, I hope we all learned a lesson about the critical value of preparedness.

I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Reid, Bayh, and Kennedy, S. 1821, legislation that dramatically enhances the ability of the United States and international community to prevent and respond to an avian flu pandemic.

The bill we are introducing today--the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act or PPRA--incorporates much of my AVIAN Act, and has a number of new and important provisions, that will protect Americans from pandemic flu.

The PPRA establishes leadership at the very top level by requiring the President to name a national director for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, who will sit in the executive office. This director will be in charge of all preparedness and response activities at the national level, including coordinating the activities and programs of each Federal agency.

It is not enough for the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Homeland Security to be ready; we must have a commerce plan, a transportation plan, a diplomatic plan aimed at our foreign partners, and a plan for our military personnel and veterans.

We have asked this director to procure enough antivirals to cover 50 percent of the populations, and sufficient vaccines and other supplies we need for the Strategic National Stockpile. The director will also create a national tracking and distribution system to ensure the fair and equitable allocation of drugs and vaccines when the pandemic strikes.

On the State level, we have asked the Director of the CDC and HRSA to work with States and give them the help they need to make sure they are ready to respond as well. Our success at preventing or containing an outbreak of avian flu will depend on the preparedness of our State and local partners.

Understanding that international collaboration and cooperation is key to surveillance and quick response, we have created an international pandemic fund, and requested the Secretary of State develop and implement a diplomatic policy aimed at the Southeast and East Asian countries. Senator Lugar and I have been hard at work on this last point for months.

Finally, we recognize that this Nation will never have enough vaccines, or the ability to produce sufficient vaccines, if we don't create the incentives for more drug manufacturers to get into the vaccine business. We just have three domestic flu vaccine manufacturers, and that is unacceptable. This bill authorizes the Secretary to enhance vaccine production capacity by creating a guaranteed market for seasonal flu vaccine through a Federal buyback program for unsold doses of seasonal flu vaccine. It also increases public education and outreach activities for Americans, to stimulate demand for the seasonal flu vaccine.

An outbreak of the avian flu could occur in a year, 5 years, 10 years, or if we were incredibly lucky not happen at all. But the one good thing about investing in measures to deal with this looming crisis is--and I will end on this point--if we spend the money now, it will pay dividends, even if this particular strain of the avian flu outbreak does not occur.

Why is this the case?

This is not--no pun intended--a case of Chicken Little.

The risk of some sort of pandemic, and the mutations of flus for which we have no immunity, is almost inevitable. The H5N1 strain may not be the strain that leads to a full blown pandemic. But, another strain could easily come along and cause serious damage in the future.

My point is this: undertaking these measures is going to be a wise investment that will help protect the lives of millions of people here in the United States and across the globe. This legislation gets at the heart of this issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a critical issue--the possibility of an avian influenza pandemic.

When I started talking about this 7 months ago, not too many folks paid attention. Perhaps because the shorthand for this looming crisis is the ``bird flu,'' people assume it is just going to get birds and animals sick.

In reality, however, what is at stake here is the potential of a pandemic that we have not seen in the United States since 1918. As has already been stated, our top scientists and medical personnel, including the heads of the NIH, CDC, and the Department of Health and Human Services, all agree that it is almost inevitable that an avian flu pandemic will strike.

The key question is the extent of the damage, especially in terms of lives lost. The answer to this question will, in large measure, depend on our level of preparedness and the amount of resources we are willing to immediately commit to deal with this looming crisis.

After Katrina, I hope we all learned a lesson about the critical value of preparedness.

I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Reid, Bayh, and Kennedy, S. 1821, legislation that dramatically enhances the ability of the United States and international community to prevent and respond to an avian flu pandemic.

The bill we are introducing today--the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act or PPRA--incorporates much of my AVIAN Act, and has a number of new and important provisions, that will protect Americans from pandemic flu.

The PPRA establishes leadership at the very top level by requiring the President to name a national director for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, who will sit in the executive office. This director will be in charge of all preparedness and response activities at the national level, including coordinating the activities and programs of each Federal agency.

It is not enough for the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Homeland Security to be ready; we must have a commerce plan, a transportation plan, a diplomatic plan aimed at our foreign partners, and a plan for our military personnel and veterans.

We have asked this director to procure enough antivirals to cover 50 percent of the populations, and sufficient vaccines and other supplies we need for the Strategic National Stockpile. The director will also create a national tracking and distribution system to ensure the fair and equitable allocation of drugs and vaccines when the pandemic strikes.

On the State level, we have asked the Director of the CDC and HRSA to work with States and give them the help they need to make sure they are ready to respond as well. Our success at preventing or containing an outbreak of avian flu will depend on the preparedness of our State and local partners.

Understanding that international collaboration and cooperation is key to surveillance and quick response, we have created an international pandemic fund, and requested the Secretary of State develop and implement a diplomatic policy aimed at the Southeast and East Asian countries. Senator Lugar and I have been hard at work on this last point for months.

Finally, we recognize that this Nation will never have enough vaccines, or the ability to produce sufficient vaccines, if we don't create the incentives for more drug manufacturers to get into the vaccine business. We just have three domestic flu vaccine manufacturers, and that is unacceptable. This bill authorizes the Secretary to enhance vaccine production capacity by creating a guaranteed market for seasonal flu vaccine through a Federal buyback program for unsold doses of seasonal flu vaccine. It also increases public education and outreach activities for Americans, to stimulate demand for the seasonal flu vaccine.

An outbreak of the avian flu could occur in a year, 5 years, 10 years, or if we were incredibly lucky not happen at all. But the one good thing about investing in measures to deal with this looming crisis is--and I will end on this point--if we spend the money now, it will pay dividends, even if this particular strain of the avian flu outbreak does not occur.

Why is this the case?

This is not--no pun intended--a case of Chicken Little.

The risk of some sort of pandemic, and the mutations of flus for which we have no immunity, is almost inevitable. The H5N1 strain may not be the strain that leads to a full blown pandemic. But, another strain could easily come along and cause serious damage in the future.

My point is this: undertaking these measures is going to be a wise investment that will help protect the lives of millions of people here in the United States and across the globe. This legislation gets at the heart of this issue.

I am happy to defer to Senator Stevens if he has something he would like to say.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska. I will try to be brief.

I just want to offer my strong support for the amendment Senator Harkin is going to propose and state why I think this is such an important issue.

Let me first say, that I am generally of the view that we should not be tacking on unrelated amendments to the defense bills.

The money in this legislation is badly needed by our men and women in uniform and I do not want to slow this bill down.

But, this amendment dealing with the avian flu pandemic is so important to our public health security--and our national security--so important to the lives of millions of people around the world, that it simply cannot wait. In fact, the situation is so ominous that Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the CDC, said that an avian flu outbreak is ``the most important threat that we are facing [today].''

In light of these developments, I believe it is worth the U.S. Senate spending just a few hours on this critical issue, even if it is not directly related to the underlying legislation.

Over the last few months, we have heard alarming reports from countries all over Asia--Indonesia, China, Vietnam, Thailand--about deaths from the avian flu.

International health experts say that two of the three conditions for an

avian flu pandemic in Southeast Asia already exist. First, a new strain of the virus, called H5N1, has emerged and humans have little or no immunity. Second, this strain has shown that it can jump between species.

The last condition--the ability for the virus to travel efficiently from human to human--has not been met, and it is the only thing preventing a full blown pandemic. Once this virus mutates and can be transmitted from human to human, because of global trade and travel, we will not be able to contain this disease. We learned this lesson from SARS, which took less than 4 months to get from Asia to Canada, where it caused human and economic devastation.

When I started talking about this issue 7 months ago, many people thought that the avian flu was a mild concern, an Asian problem, an unlikely threat to Americans here in the U.S.

As time has progressed, the Nation's top scientists and experts have focused greater attention on the possibilities of an avian flu pandemic, and they have rapidly come to consensus that it is not a matter of if the pandemic will hit but when? It is not a question of whether will people die but how many? And the main question, the question that keeps me awake at night, is whether the United States will be able to deal with this calamity?

From what we have seen with the lack of readiness and dismal response to Hurricane Katrina, I think that all of us would have to conclude that the answer, at this point in time, is no.

Whether we are talking about having adequate surveillance capacities in our State and local health departments, having enough doctors and hospital beds and medical equipment for infected individuals, or having a vaccine or treatment that is guaranteed to work, I don't want to be an alarmist, but here in the U.S., we are in serious trouble.

Several of us here in the Congress--on a bipartisan basis--have taken the first steps needed to address this looming crisis. In April of this year, I introduced the AVIAN Act, S. 969 that would increase our preparedness for avian flu pandemic. Senators Lugar and Durbin and several others have cosponsored this act and I thank them for that. We need to move this bill as quickly as possible.

In May, I and Senators Lugar, McConnell, and Leahy included $25 million for avian flu activities as part of the Iraq supplemental. Today, this money is helping the World Health Organization to step up its international surveillance and response efforts.

In July, I included an additional $10 million to combat avian flu in the Foreign Operations assistance bill. That bill is currently in conference, and I hope this funding will be retained.

I am also working with Senate Defense authorizers on an amendment to require the DOD report to Congress on its efforts to prepare for pandemic influenza.

This report must address the procurement of vaccines, antivirals and other medicine; the protocols for distributing such vaccines or medicine to high priority populations; and how the DOD intends to work with other agencies, such as HHS and State, to respond to pandemic flu.

Today, with leadership by Senator Harkin, we are introducing an amendment to the DOD appropriations bill to provide $3.9 billion in emergency funds for avian flu activities. Senator Harkin has already outlined what this amendment does, so I will not rehash what he has already said.

The bottom line is that this amendment needs to be passed and passed as quickly as possible.

I know that $3.9 billion is a lot of money--especially given our fiscal situation today. But this is one issue on which we cannot be penny-wise and pound-foolish. If we don't invest the money now, this pandemic will hit America harder, more lives will be lost, and we will have to spend significantly more in resources to respond after the fact.

As we learned the hard way after Hurricane Katrina, the failure to prepare for emergencies can have devastating consequences. This nation must not be caught off guard when faced with the prospect of the avian flu. This amendment will help the Federal agencies to prepare the Nation to prevent and respond to avian flu.

America is already behind in recognizing and preparing for a potentially deadly and economically devastating avian flu pandemic that public health experts say is not a matter of if but when. We must face the reality that in this age when you can get on a plane in Bangkok and arrive in Chicago in hours, this is not a problem isolated half a world away but one that could impact us right here at home.

The need is great, and the time to act is way overdue. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and support this amendment.

To reiterate, Senators Lugar, McConnell, and Leahy already worked with me to include $25 million for avian flu activities as part of the Iraq supplemental. I included an additional $10 million to combat avian flu in the foreign operations assistance bill. But as Senator Harkin noted, we need much more based on the briefing we received from the administration yesterday. We have to move now on this issue. It has to be moved rapidly. We have to build an infrastructure to create vaccines and to purchase enough antiviral drugs. I strongly urge that on a bipartisan basis we make this one of our top priorities. This is a crisis waiting to happen. If we are not prepared for it now, we will all be extraordinarily sorry.

The only other comment I will make is, I know times are tough with respect to our budget. I am working with my colleagues across the aisle to figure out ways we can come up with the money for Katrina and Iraq. This is a sound investment. If we don't make this investment now, we will pay much more later.

So I hope the amendment Senator Harkin is going to offer will get bipartisan support and receive the utmost consideration from this Chamber.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to an important step towards progress for Afro-descendants in Colombia, and an important opportunity for Afro-descendants throughout Latin America.

I wish to commend the work of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus on this issue, as well as the tireless efforts of nongovernmental organizations and religious groups both here and in Colombia.

This August, President Uribe of Colombia created a cabinet-level position on Afro-Colombian issues, and appointed an Afro-Colombian to fill the post. The creation of this position is especially significant because it signals both a recognition of the severity of the situation of Afro-descendants in Colombia and a willingness to address these inequalities.

At the same time, many of us recognize that this is only a first step and much more needs to be done.

I will be monitoring the progress of this office very closely in the coming months, and I especially look forward to the development of President Uribe's Committee on Civil Rights and Sustainable Development for Afro-Colombians.

It is my hope that this institution will have the resources and mandate to do an effective job of bringing some measure of equality and justice to a marginalized segment of Colombian society. It is my hope that this will encourage other governments in Latin America to consider taking additional measures to address racial discrimination, as well as economic and social marginalization, faced by Afro-descendants in their countries.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, our own country is being awakened to a great divide in our midst. As we struggle with troubling intersections of race and class, and how we have failed the most vulnerable members of our population, I hope we will be able to take a moment to reflect on similar struggles in places such as Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil and Venezuela.

While I realize that Colombia continues to face many challenges--from human rights to narco-trafficking--I wanted to bring some good news, that is often overlooked, about the country of Colombia to the attention of the Senate. I applaud these efforts.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure to join Senator Clinton to introduce legislation that will help us all find common ground on the debate over patient safety and medical malpractice claims.

Today, medical error is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. Every year, these tragic mistakes cost the lives of up to 98,000 Americans. This is unacceptable in America, and we must do more to ensure that every patient gets the right care, at the right time, in the right way.

The debate in Washington over this issue has been centered on caps and lawsuits. But across America, hospitals and medical providers are proving that

there's a better way to protect patients and doctors, all while raising the quality of our care and lowering its cost.

From the Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota to the VA hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, doctors and administrators aren't trying to cover up medical errors--They're trying to admit them. Instead of closing ranks and keeping the patient in the dark, they're investigating potential errors, apologizing if mistakes have been made, and offering a reasonable settlement that keeps the case out of court.

This program is often known as ``Sorry Works,'' and it's led to some amazing results. When patients are treated with respect and told the truth, they sue less. More are actually compensated for their injuries, but medical providers pay less because the reward is the result of a settlement, not an expensive lawsuit. Malpractice costs for doctors go down, and health care professionals actually learn from their mistakes so they're not repeated and lives are saved.

At the VA hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, this program has reduced the average settlement to $16,000, compared with $98,000 nationwide. This ranked in the lowest quartile of all VA facilities for malpractice payouts. At the University of Michigan's hospital system, this program helped them cut their lawsuits in half and save up to $2 million in defense litigation.

The bill we're introducing today builds on these hopeful results and incorporates them into a national program. The National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act, or MEDiC Act, will help reduce medical error rates and medical malpractice costs by opening the lines of communication between doctors and patients--encouraging honesty and accountability in the process.

The bill will also set up a National Patient Safety Database, which will be used to determine best practices in preventing medical errors, improving patient safety, and increasing accountability in the healthcare system.

We expect participants to see a cost savings, and we will require them to reinvest a portion of these savings into patient quality measures that will reduce medical errors. This bill also requires that some of these savings are passed along to providers in the form of lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Certainly, these are lofty goals. But what Senator Clinton and I hope to do with this legislation is promote the type of creative thinking that will be required if this country is going to overcome some of the gridlock in the healthcare debate. The MEDiC Act of 2005 brings together some of the best ideas currently out there, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will work with Senator Clinton and me to put these ideas in action.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure to join Senator Clinton to introduce legislation that will help us all find common ground on the debate over patient safety and medical malpractice claims.

Today, medical error is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. Every year, these tragic mistakes cost the lives of up to 98,000 Americans. This is unacceptable in America, and we must do more to ensure that every patient gets the right care, at the right time, in the right way.

The debate in Washington over this issue has been centered on caps and lawsuits. But across America, hospitals and medical providers are proving that

there's a better way to protect patients and doctors, all while raising the quality of our care and lowering its cost.

From the Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota to the VA hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, doctors and administrators aren't trying to cover up medical errors--They're trying to admit them. Instead of closing ranks and keeping the patient in the dark, they're investigating potential errors, apologizing if mistakes have been made, and offering a reasonable settlement that keeps the case out of court.

This program is often known as ``Sorry Works,'' and it's led to some amazing results. When patients are treated with respect and told the truth, they sue less. More are actually compensated for their injuries, but medical providers pay less because the reward is the result of a settlement, not an expensive lawsuit. Malpractice costs for doctors go down, and health care professionals actually learn from their mistakes so they're not repeated and lives are saved.

At the VA hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, this program has reduced the average settlement to $16,000, compared with $98,000 nationwide. This ranked in the lowest quartile of all VA facilities for malpractice payouts. At the University of Michigan's hospital system, this program helped them cut their lawsuits in half and save up to $2 million in defense litigation.

The bill we're introducing today builds on these hopeful results and incorporates them into a national program. The National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act, or MEDiC Act, will help reduce medical error rates and medical malpractice costs by opening the lines of communication between doctors and patients--encouraging honesty and accountability in the process.

The bill will also set up a National Patient Safety Database, which will be used to determine best practices in preventing medical errors, improving patient safety, and increasing accountability in the healthcare system.

We expect participants to see a cost savings, and we will require them to reinvest a portion of these savings into patient quality measures that will reduce medical errors. This bill also requires that some of these savings are passed along to providers in the form of lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Certainly, these are lofty goals. But what Senator Clinton and I hope to do with this legislation is promote the type of creative thinking that will be required if this country is going to overcome some of the gridlock in the healthcare debate. The MEDiC Act of 2005 brings together some of the best ideas currently out there, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will work with Senator Clinton and me to put these ideas in action.

I was not aware my senior colleague from Illinois was going to speak so I don't want to unnecessarily hold up the entire Chamber.

I am aware of that.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I will be brief. I know we have gone way over the time here today.

Mr. President, in the midst of so much difficulty that our Nation is facing--Katrina and Rita, the ongoing challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan--I recognize it is hard to get the public, the leadership in Congress, and senior administration officials to focus on yet one more challenge.

But as has already been stated by the Democratic leader, Harry Reid, and my senior colleague, the minority whip, Senator Dick Durbin, this is a crisis to which the entire country simply must awaken itself.

When I started talking about this 7 months ago, not too many folks paid attention. Perhaps because the shorthand for this looming crisis is the ``bird flu,'' people assume it is just going to get birds and animals sick.

In reality, however, what is at stake here is the potential of a pandemic that we have not seen in the United States since 1918, 1919. As has already been stated here tonight, our top scientists and medical personnel, including the heads of the NIH, CDC, and the Department of Health and Human Services, all agree that it is almost inevitable that an avian flu pandemic will strike.

The key question is the extent of the damage, especially in terms of lives lost. The answer to this question will,

in large measure, depend on our level of preparedness and the amount of resources we are willing to immediately commit to deal with this looming crisis.

Over the last few months, we have seen alarming reports from countries all over Asia--Indonesia, China, Vietnam, Thailand, and Russia, just to name a few--about deaths that have resulted from the avian flu.

The situation has turned so ominous that Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the CDC, said that an avian flu outbreak is ``the most important threat that we are facing [today].''

International health experts say that two of the three conditions for an avian flu pandemic in Southeast Asia already exist.

First, a new strain of the virus, called H5N1, has emerged, and humans have little or no immunity to it. Second, this strain has demonstrated the ability to jump between species.

The only thing preventing a full blown pandemic is a lack of efficient transmission of this strain from human to human. Once that happens, as a consequence of international travel and commerce, there is not going to be any way to effectively contain this pandemic.

Moreover, the news on this last point is not good. In recent months, the virus has been detected in mammals that have never previously been infected, including tigers, leopards and domestic cats. This suggests that the virus is mutating and could eventually emerge in a form that is readily transmittable among humans.

Mr. President, Senator Reid and Senator Durbin both outlined some of the measures that have to be put in place here domestically to protect our population. We have to drastically ramp up our stockpiles of Tamiflu, which, if taken properly, could act as a treatment from the avian flu once a person is infected. Right now, we only have a couple of million doses. We need 80 million to 100 million doses in order to be adequately prepared. That is going to cost us significant amounts of money, as the cost of Tamiflu is approximately $20 per dose.

In addition, we are going to have to develop flu vaccines of a sort we have not seen in the past. In order to create sufficient quantities, we are going to have to go push the boundaries of existing technologies and science--going beyond the agricultural mechanisms of developing vaccines that we have used in the past.

Third, we are going to make sure that local and State governments understand how urgent this is. We have to ensure there are clear plans, coordination mechanisms, and lines of authority--that will stand up in a time of crisis. Right now, we do not have sufficient plans in place to make sure local and State agencies are able to generate the kinds of rapid responses that are going to be necessary in the case of a flu outbreak.

After Katrina, I hope that local and State governments understand they have to work with the Federal agencies more effectively to deal with these kinds of emergencies.

Another issue I would mention is that we are going to have to establish international protocols to ensure we can alert ourselves rapidly if we have confirmed cases of human-to-human transmission of the avian flu anywhere in the world. Why do I mention this? If we detect efficient human-to-human transmission, it is likely that we are going to have only weeks before we are going to see those first cases in the United States.

This means placing effective trigger mechanisms in all these countries to make sure everyone is cooperating and providing rapid information, which could mean the difference in terms of tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.

Now I don't want to suggest that nothing is being done. For example, months ago, Congress, on a bipartisan basis including myself, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, and Senator Leahy--included $25 million as part of the Iraq supplemental to make contribute to an urgent WHO appeal on this issue. Today, this money is making a difference in the field trying to set up some of the international measures I just described.

I, along with Senators Lugar, Durbin and others, introduced legislation, S. 969, to enhance our ability to deal with this potential crisis. But that was months ago, and we need to broaden the number of people involved in this effort.

Moreover, these is are modest first steps. Going forward, we are going to need significantly more resources. I am eager to work with leaders on health issues, including Senator Harkin and Senator Reid, as well as others across the aisle.

I hope we can work not only to make sure we have an effective international regime to deal with this problem overseas but that we also invest the time, the energy, and the resources needed to put in place effective measures well before we have a full blown crisis on our hands.

An outbreak of the avian flu could occur in a year, 5 years, 10 years, or if we were incredibly lucky not happen at all. But the one good thing about investing in measures to deal with this looming crisis is--and I will end on this point--if we spend the money now, it will pay dividends, even if this particular strain of the avian flu outbreak does not occur.

Why is this the case? The risk of some sort of pandemic, and the mutations of flus for which we have no immunity, is almost inevitable. The H5N1 strain may not be the strain that leads to a full blown pandemic. But, another strain could easily come along a cause serious damage in the future.

Presently, we simply do not have the public health infrastructure to deal adequately with this contingency.

My point is this: undertaking these measures is going to be a wise investment that will help protect the lives of millions of people here in the United States and across the globe.

Mr. President, I appreciate your patience very much and look forward to working with you on this issue.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Hurricane Katrina Fast-Track Refunds for Working Families Act of 2005,'' a bill I am introducing with Senators Murray, Corzine, Kerry, and Levin to accelerate the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit for some of the neediest victims of Hurricane Katrina.

A few weeks ago, I visited some of the victims who had been evacuated to the Reliant Center in Houston. These families have nothing left. Imagine having nothing left. All their belongings have been destroyed or washed away and most of their jobs have simply vanished.

We have done a lot of good work here in the Senate so far to bring tax relief and emergency support to these families. And many of us are hard at work now developing strategies for the long-term rebuilding of the Gulf Coast in such a way that doesn't re-create the poverty and inequality of the past but instead builds a more hopeful region with greater opportunity for all of its residents.

But there is more we can do quickly to help affected families reestablish and resettle their lives and also to stimulate their local economies. In the past we have accelerated tax refunds with the goal of economic stimulus. In 2001, Congress directed the IRS to provide an ``advance tax rebate'' of 2001 taxes, and, in 2003, Congress accelerated the Child Credit. Now, with the dual goals of economic stimulus and support for needy Americans, we should do it again.

Fast-tracking refunds will put money into the hands of parents that they can use for food, clothing, housing, transportation, medical services--whatever they need. How they spend the money is up to them. But it's up to us to make sure they get it as soon as possible. It's up to us to make sure the necessary outreach, systems, and delivery mechanisms are in place.

And that's what this legislation does. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to refund or credit eligible taxpayers from the affected region as rapidly as possible and to take the steps necessary to get the funds into the hands of eligible recipients. Companion legislation has been introduced by Reps. Emanuel, Melancon, Taylor, and Lewis in the House of Representatives.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this bill now so we can quickly bring relief and support to those who have nothing left. The Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit are designed to support working families with children. Let's fast track this support to help these families get back on their feet and help their communities rebuild themselves even stronger than before.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Hurricane Katrina Fast-Track Refunds for Working Families Act of 2005,'' a bill I am introducing with Senators Murray, Corzine, Kerry, and Levin to accelerate the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit for some of the neediest victims of Hurricane Katrina.

A few weeks ago, I visited some of the victims who had been evacuated to the Reliant Center in Houston. These families have nothing left. Imagine having nothing left. All their belongings have been destroyed or washed away and most of their jobs have simply vanished.

We have done a lot of good work here in the Senate so far to bring tax relief and emergency support to these families. And many of us are hard at work now developing strategies for the long-term rebuilding of the Gulf Coast in such a way that doesn't re-create the poverty and inequality of the past but instead builds a more hopeful region with greater opportunity for all of its residents.

But there is more we can do quickly to help affected families reestablish and resettle their lives and also to stimulate their local economies. In the past we have accelerated tax refunds with the goal of economic stimulus. In 2001, Congress directed the IRS to provide an ``advance tax rebate'' of 2001 taxes, and, in 2003, Congress accelerated the Child Credit. Now, with the dual goals of economic stimulus and support for needy Americans, we should do it again.

Fast-tracking refunds will put money into the hands of parents that they can use for food, clothing, housing, transportation, medical services--whatever they need. How they spend the money is up to them. But it's up to us to make sure they get it as soon as possible. It's up to us to make sure the necessary outreach, systems, and delivery mechanisms are in place.

And that's what this legislation does. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to refund or credit eligible taxpayers from the affected region as rapidly as possible and to take the steps necessary to get the funds into the hands of eligible recipients. Companion legislation has been introduced by Reps. Emanuel, Melancon, Taylor, and Lewis in the House of Representatives.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this bill now so we can quickly bring relief and support to those who have nothing left. The Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit are designed to support working families with children. Let's fast track this support to help these families get back on their feet and help their communities rebuild themselves even stronger than before.

Mr. President, I rise today to support this important piece of legislation. As many of you know, the young soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are already coming home with post traumatic stress disorder. A recent Army study found that one in six soldiers in Iraq reported symptoms of major depression. Some experts predict that more than 100,000 soldiers may need some kind of mental health treatment when they come home.

It is not only our patriotic duty to provide these soldiers with the benefits they deserve; it is our moral duty at the most fundamental level. Unfortunately, PTSD is a disease that is still all too often misunderstood, and as I speak, there are efforts at the VA to require those folks who suffer PTSD to undergo additional scrutiny in the disability benefits process.

According to VA, it will review 72,000 cases in which the maximum amount of PTSD disability benefits was awarded. The rationale for reviewing these cases is VA's belief that 2.5 percent of these cases are ``potentially fraudulent.'' But notably, this review will entirely ignore cases in which benefits may have been unjustly denied.

This review sends a troubling message to the brave men and women who defended this country. Too many veterans see the VA as a bureaucracy with the singular goal of denying services and benefits to veterans. This decision to reopen only approved PTSD claims merely serves to promote that impression.

It is unconscionable for our Government to put the onus on law- abiding veterans to affirmatively demonstrate that they are not engaging in fraud. The process of gathering evidence to prove PTSD disability is extremely time consuming. It requires the compilation of medical records, military service records, and testimony from

other veterans who can attest to a person's combat exposure. I cannot fathom why the VA would require veterans to go through this emotionally painful process for a second time.

The VA--and our Nation's veterans--would be better served by creating nationwide standards for evaluating PTSD claims. As underscored by the inspector general's report in May that evaluated the chronic disparity between benefits received by veterans in Illinois and veterans in the rest of the country, PTSD is a highly subjective evaluation subject to significant variation. That same report uncovered significant variation in PTSD ratings from State to State--with Illinois consistently in the bottom rung for those ratings. The variation in PTSD ratings across the country may very well be the result of a lack of training or standardized practices on the part of the VA, not fraud on the part of our Nation's veterans.

I am pleased that Chairman Hutchison and Ranking Member Feinstein worked with me and Senators Durbin and Murray to include an amendment that prohibits the VA from proceeding with its review unless and until the VA reports to the Appropriations Committee on its plan for implementing this recommendation and outlines the staffing and funding requirements.

While this is an important provision, I am disappointed that there was no requirement that the VA look at denials of benefits as well as grants. To get an accurate and fair depiction of PTSD claims in this country, we need to ensure that denials are reviewed as well as grants of benefits. I will continue to work with my colleagues to see that this fundamental issue of fairness is addressed.

I also want to thank Chairman Hutchison and Ranking Member Feinstein for their assistance in accepting an amendment to provide notice to veterans in certain States about their right to seek a review of their cases.

This provision addresses an important issue in Illinois. As some of you may know, Illinois has for more than two decades ranked 50th out of all 50 States in terms of disability benefit compensation. This staggering disparity in payments may well be the result of poor staffing and a lack of standards for disability payments across the Nation.

I have been pleased that Secretary Nicholson has agreed to provide the veterans of Illinois with extra disability raters so that the veterans in Illinois who may have been unjustly denied benefits will have the opportunity to seek a special review of their cases.

Unfortunately, up to now, there has been no special effort made to alert veterans to this special opportunity. This amendment will provide the funds for information campaigns in states with less than average disability compensation rates. These campaigns will alert veterans of the past history of below-average disability benefit rates and provide these veterans with information on how to request a review of any past claims. The hiring of additional disability raters is important, but it is meaningless unless veterans know of their right to get their cases reopened.

I thank my colleagues for their assistance with these amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

First of all, let me congratulate Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for moving the process of confirming the nomination of Judge Roberts along with such civility, a civility that I believe speaks well of the Senate.

Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us.

Having said that, the decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court--adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face--a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts--is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases--what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled--in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court's historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.

Let me conclude with just one more comment about this confirmation process.

I was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups when ranking member Senator Leahy announced that he would support Judge Roberts. Although the scales have tipped in a different direction for me, I am deeply admiring of the work and the thought that Senator Leahy has put into making his decision. The knee- jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks on Senator Leahy's motives were unjustified. Unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure.

I believe every Senator on the other side of the aisle, if they were honest, would acknowledge that the same unyielding, unbending, dogmatic approach to judicial confirmation has in large part been responsible for the kind of poisonous atmosphere that exists in this Chamber regarding judicial nominations. It is tempting, then, for us on this side of the aisle to go tit for tat.

But what I would like to see is for all of us to recognize as we move forward to the next nominee that in fact the issues that are confronted by the Supreme Court are difficult issues. That is why they get up to the Supreme Court. The issues facing the Court are rarely black and white, and all advocacy groups who have a legitimate and profound interest in the decisions that are made by the Court should try to make certain that their advocacy reflects that complexity. These groups on the right and left should not resort to the sort of broad-brush dogmatic attacks that have hampered the process in the past and constrained each and every Senator in this Chamber from making sure that they are voting on the basis of their conscience.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for his work in crafting this legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. This amendment would provide critically needed disaster relief to Illinois farmers who face significant financial jeopardy from crop losses due to this season's historic drought.

Illinois agriculture is experiencing one of the driest periods in the last century and certainly one of the most severe droughts in two decades. Illinois is the Nation's leading producer of corn and soybeans. However, U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, reports show that more than half of the corn crop and almost a third of the soybean crop have been decimated by drought. Of the 102 counties in Illinois, 98 have reported crop damage due to the lack of rainfall.

In July, Senator Durbin and I asked the Secretary of Agriculture to declare the affected counties in Illinois an agriculture disaster area. I am pleased that President Bush granted our request to give our Illinois farmers some much-deserved relief, qualifying Illinois farmers for USDA assistance programs, including low-interest emergency loans.

While this action provided an important amount of economic assistance, the scope and severity of this year's drought requires that additional measures be taken. At the present time, most of northern and western Illinois remains in a severe or extreme drought. Much of eastern Illinois is classified as abnormally dry. This is particularly alarming because farmers are at a critical point in the growing season.

Moreover, the reduction in fuel refining capacity caused by Hurricane Katrina has resulted in Illinois farmers facing a sudden surge in unanticipated fuel costs on top of already escalating fuel prices. The disruption in Mississippi River traffic at gulf ports, where half of the Nation's grain exports are shipped for foreign markets, has spiked shipping costs for farm commodities transported by barge downriver. The threat of an aflatoxin outbreak that affects corn during times of crop stress and drought is also of particular concern in recent weeks; should this condition progress after harvest and storage, farmers may face additional financial consequences in the coming months.

I understand that the Senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, has made a commitment to address this issue in the next hurricane supplemental appropriations bill that is sent to Congress. Given that commitment, I support Senator Durbin's decision to withdraw the amendment, and I thank Senator Cochran for his cooperation.