Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, from what I understand we just got the managers' amendment. It is 115 pages. I think the Senator from Arizona is one of the first ones to acknowledge getting a managers' amendment with 115 pages, and then agreeing to a time agreement would be a little unreasonable. So if you would take out the agreement to have a vote directly on the managers' amendment until we have a little bit of time to go through it, I think the unanimous consent would be agreeable.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006. This legislation, The MINER Act, represents the most comprehensive overhaul of our Nation's mine safety laws in a generation.

S. 2803, was unanimously reported out last week by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. It is the product of a truly bipartisan effort undertaken with the single goal of improving the safety of our Nation's miners. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the HELP Committee, Senators Isakson and Murray, the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety; and Senators Byrd and Rockefeller of West Virginia for their long and tireless efforts in fashioning this legislation. I would also like to express my

thanks to Senators DeWine, Santorum, Specter, McConnell, and Bunning for their cosponsorship of this legislation.

This year we have witnessed a series of tragic losses in the coal mining community. The year began with the deadly accidents at the Sago and Alma mines in West Virginia. It continued this weekend with the deaths of five miners in a coal mine explosion in eastern Kentucky. Nothing we can do here can bring back those whose lives have been lost. We can, however, best honor those who have lost their lives by making such accidents less likely in the future, and making it more likely that miners will survive such accidents when they do occur. That is the aim of the MINER Act.

The MINER Act would require that coal mines develop and continuously update emergency response and preparedness plans that are designed to make mining accidents more survivable. These plans will incorporate technological advances designed to enhance surface to underground communication, to aid in the location of underground personnel, and to provide additional breathable air for miners that are trapped underground. The legislation codifies the requirements for mine rescue teams, affords protections for these heroic volunteers, and ensures that they, and other necessary Federal resources, will be promptly called upon when an emergency occurs.

The bill further recognizes that the development of mine safety technology, and the education and training of all those who work in the industry are vital elements in the effort to improve mine safety. Thus, the legislation enhances the mine safety research and development efforts of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. It encourages private sector technology development, and speeds the approval of new equipment. It also provides a mechanism for sharing technical research and development among Federal agencies. The bill will also provide grants for additional safety training, and scholarship funds for mine safety related education.

In addition, the legislation recognizes the fact that despite the tragedies of this year, the safety record in the mining industry has been a good one that continues to improve. This has been due to the concerted efforts of State and Federal regulators, mine employees, and mine operators, the vast majority of whom are serious and steadfast in meeting their workplace safety responsibilities. However, there are a few operators that fall outside the mold; thus, the legislation contains enhanced penalty provisions targeted at these few ``bad actors.''

Those who work in our Nation's mines play a vital role in our country's economic well-being and energy security. They deserve our best efforts to provide for their protection as they perform their often dangerous work. I believe that the MINER Act does make major safety improvements that will better protect miners both today and in years to come.

Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment introduced by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe.

I firmly believe a common language promotes unity among citizens and fosters greater communication. Establishing a national language would save the Government the expensive and time-consuming task of preparing documents in many languages.

A recent Zogby poll showed 84 percent of our population believes that English should be the official language of our Government. Twenty-seven U.S. States have already made English the official language, including Louisiana which agreed to it as a condition of statehood. My home State of Wyoming made English the official language of the State in 1996. Fifty-one nations also have English as their official language, but the United States does not. It is time that we have a clear statement on our national language.

This amendment also addresses the important issue of English proficiency for new citizens. On May 15, 2006, President Bush addressed the Nation about the needed reform of our current immigration situation. He stressed the positive role that the English language has for new citizens. Many improvements need to be made to the current process that our new citizens go through. I am pleased that this amendment creates a set of goals for updates to the new citizen exam. Some of the goals are demonstration of sufficient understanding of English usage in everyday life and an understanding of American common values. These common values include the principles of our U.S. Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, and the significance of our American flag. The goals will help new citizens better understand our Nation and become productive members of our society.

Senator Inhofe's amendment is a good strong statement in support of English as our national language and the importance of sharing this common value with new citizens. I have worked on legislation that would establish English as the official language of the U.S. Government during my service in the Senate and in the Wyoming State Legislature, and I encourage all Senators to support this important amendment to the immigration reform bill.

Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions I am pleased to announce today the introduction of comprehensive legislation designed to make our Nation's mines and miners safer--the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, the MINER Act. I am particularly pleased to note that the MINER Act is the product of a truly bipartisan effort that includes Senator Kennedy, the committee's ranking member, Senators Isakson and Murray, the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, and Senators Rockefeller and Byrd. They have all worked tirelessly to make this bill a reality, and I am grateful for their leadership on this issue and their co-sponsorship of the MINER Act.

Mining, and coal mining in particular, is vital to our national and local economies, and to our national energy security. No aspect of mining is more important than protecting the health and safety of those whose hard work fuels the industry.

This year our Nation has experienced tragic losses in the coal mines of West Virginia. Following the accident at the Sago mine, Senators Isakson, Kennedy, Rockefeller, and I traveled to West Virginia to meet with the families of those miners whose lives were lost. We were all deeply moved by that experience, and committed to do our best to ensure that such tragedies will not be repeated. To further that commitment, we have sought the views of experts and stakeholders on a wide range of mine safety issues and have conducted hearings and roundtables on such issues as mine safety technology. In the MINER Act, we have done much to reach our common goal of safeguarding the lives of all those who work in our Nation's mines.

The legislation we introduce today addresses the issue of mine safety in a variety of ways. First, the MINER Act would require the development of mine-specific emergency response plans that incorporate safety and technology provisions designed to enhance miner safety. In the area of technology, in particular, the MINER Act recognizes that as safety technology evolves, so, too, must our approach. Thus, the plans that are initially developed must be periodically modified to reflect such changes.

Second, the MINER Act recognizes the critical role of mine rescue teams, and those who serve on them, in enhancing the safety of miners. The legislation directs the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations that will make new provisions for mine rescue teams, and it creates liability protection for those who serve on those teams and their employers.

Third, the MINER Act recognizes that in emergencies the ability to craft a prompt response is dependent upon prompt notification. Thus, the MINER Act provides that in the case of serious life-threatening accidents notification must be made to Federal Mine Safety officials within 15 minutes.

Fourth, the legislation recognizes that despite all efforts, accidents may occur in the future, and that in those instances MSHA should be prepared to provide assistance to and communicate with the families of those affected. Accordingly, the MINER Act requires MSHA to establish a policy to meet both of these objectives.

Fifth, the legislation recognizes the key role of technology in improving mine safety and the key role of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in advancing such technological development. The MINER Act establishes an Office of Mine Safety within NIOSH, a NIOSH-administered grant and contract program designed to foster the development and manufacture of new mine safety equipment, and a NIOSH-chaired interagency working group designed to facilitate the transfer of technology that may be adaptable to mine usage from such other Federal sources as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, the Department of Defense. The bill also contains provisions to streamline the testing of new technologies.

Sixth, the MINER Act recognizes there are some areas regarding technology and engineering and mining practice about which uncertainty remains. The MINER Act recognizes that such issues are better addressed with the informed assistance of experts. Thus, the MINER Act creates a technical study panel to review the belt air issue and directs further NIOSH study and testing regarding refuge chambers. It also requires the Secretary to utilize the regulatory process to issue final regulations regarding the strength of seals used in abandoned mining sections. These directives do not prejudge the issues or dictate any result or action. They do, however, provide an important means of developing a body of expert opinion with regard to these Issues.

Seventh, throughout the development of this legislation my long-held view that the vast majority of mine operators take their safety responsibilities with great seriousness has been reinforced. The conscientious efforts of mine operators throughout the country have been the principal reason behind our continual improvement in mine safety over the years. We must recognize this essential fact even as we must also recognize that there are a handful of operators who do not fall in this camp. In the instance of these ``bad actors,'' the MINER Act provides tools MSHA can use to more readily deal with those who fail to pay civil penalties. The MINER Act codifies a tenfold increase in the available criminal penalties, and it creates an increased maximum for flagrant violators in line with the administration's proposal and creates minimum penalties for the most serious types of infractions.

Lastly, the legislation recognizes that training and education play a critical role in the effort to make mines and miners safer. Therefore, the legislation contains scholarship provisions to address the anticipated shortages of trained miners and MSHA personnel as well as fostering the skills of those who will work on the next generation of mine safety technology. It also contains provisions for the establishment of a program to provide a full range of mine safety training grants.

These steps, when taken together, will help make our nation's mines a safer workplace today and in years to come.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

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

(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions I am pleased to announce today the introduction of comprehensive legislation designed to make our Nation's mines and miners safer--the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, the MINER Act. I am particularly pleased to note that the MINER Act is the product of a truly bipartisan effort that includes Senator Kennedy, the committee's ranking member, Senators Isakson and Murray, the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, and Senators Rockefeller and Byrd. They have all worked tirelessly to make this bill a reality, and I am grateful for their leadership on this issue and their co-sponsorship of the MINER Act.

Mining, and coal mining in particular, is vital to our national and local economies, and to our national energy security. No aspect of mining is more important than protecting the health and safety of those whose hard work fuels the industry.

This year our Nation has experienced tragic losses in the coal mines of West Virginia. Following the accident at the Sago mine, Senators Isakson, Kennedy, Rockefeller, and I traveled to West Virginia to meet with the families of those miners whose lives were lost. We were all deeply moved by that experience, and committed to do our best to ensure that such tragedies will not be repeated. To further that commitment, we have sought the views of experts and stakeholders on a wide range of mine safety issues and have conducted hearings and roundtables on such issues as mine safety technology. In the MINER Act, we have done much to reach our common goal of safeguarding the lives of all those who work in our Nation's mines.

The legislation we introduce today addresses the issue of mine safety in a variety of ways. First, the MINER Act would require the development of mine-specific emergency response plans that incorporate safety and technology provisions designed to enhance miner safety. In the area of technology, in particular, the MINER Act recognizes that as safety technology evolves, so, too, must our approach. Thus, the plans that are initially developed must be periodically modified to reflect such changes.

Second, the MINER Act recognizes the critical role of mine rescue teams, and those who serve on them, in enhancing the safety of miners. The legislation directs the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations that will make new provisions for mine rescue teams, and it creates liability protection for those who serve on those teams and their employers.

Third, the MINER Act recognizes that in emergencies the ability to craft a prompt response is dependent upon prompt notification. Thus, the MINER Act provides that in the case of serious life-threatening accidents notification must be made to Federal Mine Safety officials within 15 minutes.

Fourth, the legislation recognizes that despite all efforts, accidents may occur in the future, and that in those instances MSHA should be prepared to provide assistance to and communicate with the families of those affected. Accordingly, the MINER Act requires MSHA to establish a policy to meet both of these objectives.

Fifth, the legislation recognizes the key role of technology in improving mine safety and the key role of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in advancing such technological development. The MINER Act establishes an Office of Mine Safety within NIOSH, a NIOSH-administered grant and contract program designed to foster the development and manufacture of new mine safety equipment, and a NIOSH-chaired interagency working group designed to facilitate the transfer of technology that may be adaptable to mine usage from such other Federal sources as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, the Department of Defense. The bill also contains provisions to streamline the testing of new technologies.

Sixth, the MINER Act recognizes there are some areas regarding technology and engineering and mining practice about which uncertainty remains. The MINER Act recognizes that such issues are better addressed with the informed assistance of experts. Thus, the MINER Act creates a technical study panel to review the belt air issue and directs further NIOSH study and testing regarding refuge chambers. It also requires the Secretary to utilize the regulatory process to issue final regulations regarding the strength of seals used in abandoned mining sections. These directives do not prejudge the issues or dictate any result or action. They do, however, provide an important means of developing a body of expert opinion with regard to these Issues.

Seventh, throughout the development of this legislation my long-held view that the vast majority of mine operators take their safety responsibilities with great seriousness has been reinforced. The conscientious efforts of mine operators throughout the country have been the principal reason behind our continual improvement in mine safety over the years. We must recognize this essential fact even as we must also recognize that there are a handful of operators who do not fall in this camp. In the instance of these ``bad actors,'' the MINER Act provides tools MSHA can use to more readily deal with those who fail to pay civil penalties. The MINER Act codifies a tenfold increase in the available criminal penalties, and it creates an increased maximum for flagrant violators in line with the administration's proposal and creates minimum penalties for the most serious types of infractions.

Lastly, the legislation recognizes that training and education play a critical role in the effort to make mines and miners safer. Therefore, the legislation contains scholarship provisions to address the anticipated shortages of trained miners and MSHA personnel as well as fostering the skills of those who will work on the next generation of mine safety technology. It also contains provisions for the establishment of a program to provide a full range of mine safety training grants.

These steps, when taken together, will help make our nation's mines a safer workplace today and in years to come.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

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

(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

Mr. President, I am here to propound a unanimous consent request. I want to make sure when we have the cloture vote tonight, that after cloture we are assured we can still have a vote on the Durbin-Lincoln bill as well as S. 1955.

I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the substitute amendment, notwithstanding rule XXII, it be in order for the Senate to consider the Durbin-Lincoln substitute amendment, which is the text of S. 2510; provided further that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside immediately after cloture is invoked and the Senate proceed to the Durbin-Lincoln amendment.

I further ask that following 2 hours of debate, equally divided in the usual form, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no other amendments in order prior to that vote.

Our purpose is to get a vote on small business health plans of some form. You proposed a small business health plan. I proposed a small business health plan. I would like for both of them to be able to get a vote so that small business can get something out of this session.

We have already been promised there will be a debate on stem cells and a vote on stem cells. I heard some of the discussion last night about the three votes that will be taken on that issue. I am pretty sure that will be covered. It would be difficult to amend onto this bill because it is a totally different subject. We need to do something for

small business. This allows your small business plan and my small business plan to be considered and to get a vote.

I appreciate the request and the emphasis of making a decision by Monday. I hope millions of people across the United States are using all of the different mechanisms--the volunteers, the phone numbers, the Internet--to get to a very simple result, having Medicare do the math so they can make that decision.

Deadlines are a marvelous thing. I operate on deadlines. So to do it before Monday would probably preclude a lot of people from making that decision and will give people the impression that we will move the deadline now, move the deadline next time, move the deadline next time. That won't get people signed up. We have time to move the deadline after the deadline if that seems to be a major concern--I am sure there is a major concern--but to move it beforehand and not to put the pressure on it would be a huge mistake.

That falls under the Committee on Finance, not under the HELP Committee, not under HELP, and the Finance Committee has to make those determinations to bring that forward. It would not be possible to put that in this amendment.

Again, we are trying to keep it a small business health plan so that small business can have a chance for the first time in 12 years to have something done for them.

It would do me no good to change the unanimous consent, so we have 2 more hours of debate or have germane amendments available to your bill?

And there is only one opportunity to talk about small business. I have been trying to expand that opportunity as much as possible. That is why I propounded this unanimous consent, so that it could be absolutely clear that both methods of taking care of small business would be done. I am sorry the other side is not willing to do that.

Yes.

Yes, it has.

I have been next to conversations but not a part of the conversation where that was absolutely the case. I have heard speeches in the Senate where that absolutely was the case. I know there are three different proposals that will be voted on and debated in regard to that, so it is something which will be covered this session.

Over a period of years, that has been debated and voted on here, and it has been voted down.

It has not been debated in the Senate before. The House has done it for the past 12 years. They passed it eight times, but we have never done it on the Senate side. It has not made it out of committee before.

That is the reason that was given.

All I am asking is that we do something for small business. I know they were concerned about getting a vote on the Durbin-Lincoln amendment. I tried to make any concessions I possibly could to get that vote postcloture so that we would both be able to get a vote on the two bills and do something for small business. We can weed out what will work for small business. We can do additional amendments. There are actually unlimited amendments that can be done to S. 1955 that the other side could use to improve that, if they so desire. What we do is have 30 hours of debate and then a vote-arama on any issues remaining and a final vote on whether small business has anything different.

I yield the floor.

I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, actions speak louder than words. People are going to have a chance in a little while to show some action for small business. Once in a while there is a moment when you have a chance to make a difference.

Today, most of the Democrats appear to be willing to sacrifice that moment to make a statement. They are saying we cannot give small business anything until we have votes on stem cells, until we have votes on prescription drugs, until we have votes on drug importation, and to heck with the small businesses. What kind of an attitude is that?

The Democrats' argument is: We are going to deny small business anything until we get them everything. Of course, they are promising everything in their bill.

Let us get this clear. The Democrats care so much about families employed by small business that they are willing to keep them from having any insurance until they find a way to provide everything they think they need. Spare me the care. We have a lot of smokescreens. One of the smokescreens is the process did not allow them to have votes.

I asked unanimous consent a little while ago, and I said I will guarantee you a vote on Durbin-Lincoln. I will guarantee you debate on Durbin-Lincoln. I will let that happen right after cloture.

The reason that has to happen is because of the process of the Senate; otherwise, they only get a vote and they still block me from getting a vote on this bill that has been worked out with the insurance companies, with the insurance commissioners, and with the associations.

That is a smokescreen. There is going to be a vote on whether we care to debate some more on small business. There can be amendments after cloture. Amendments will allow you to cover everything that has been mentioned over here, whether it is ratings or whether it is mandates.

Let me tell you that mandates is another smokescreen. Where this has been done inside States, the companies that had the right not to have mandates, it covers the ones that you mentioned. This is about being able to have enough opportunity to expand across State lines where there are 1,800 different mandates. You have to be able to get them together so that small businesses can go together across State lines and gather a big enough pool to effectively negotiate against insurance companies.

Yes, there are some insurance companies that are writing letters saying: Do not let them do this. There is a profit motive. I can't blame them for that. But what the small businesspeople are really asking for on that is the same thing that big businesses have. We already excluded big business from all of the mandates and the oversight by States. We are not going that far.

We even have some provisions in there, and I am sure with some amendments there would be some mandates in there. Here is where the savings come in for these small businesses. I am extremely excited about this.

The cost for administration for a small business policy is about 35 percent. If you check with Wal-Mart, which is excluded from everything and gets to have their own plan, their cost of administration is 8 percent. The savings are in the administration. That is 27 percent which they save.

For every 1 percent of savings, insurance brings in 200,000 to 300,000 people into the market.

There are 27 million uninsured small businesspeople and employees out there. They are like families.

I was talking to Senator Harkin. He was telling me about a small businessman he knows. These small businesses are kind of interesting. They go to church with the same people who work for them. They go to watch baseball with the same people who work for them. Their kids are in the same little league. They go to the same organizations. And this small businessman said: I have to tell them that I can't afford the insurance anymore. And I still want to live with them. I want my family to have insurance, but that is not going to happen.

This is an opportunity to make a difference, to offer amendments to perfect the bill in whatever way the majority of people think needs to be done. Anything else is a smokescreen.

I gave them an opportunity to vote on Durbin-Lincoln. I gave them an opportunity to vote on this, but it was an assurance that we would get to vote on both, so small business would get a vote. There is going to be a vote on small business.

There are hundreds of people around the Capitol right now who are with small business who are saying: We need the opportunity to have a better health care plan. Some of them will get insurance for the first time; some will get a better health insurance plan.

As an accountant, I have to remind you that this is not a case of subtraction. This insurance plan is an addition. We are bringing in newly insured people. Anybody who votes against cloture needs to go to their dry cleaners tonight to pick up their laundry and look that person in the eye and say: I do not think you deserve health insurance because you might not demand enough for yourself. So you know what? I saved you from yourself. Can you say that to the mom and pop running the business down the street from your home? Can you say that they do not deserve health insurance? As you go home today after you leave the Hill, think about the people around you, the regular people--the cab driver, the worker at the dry cleaners, the person in the neighborhood restaurant, all of those people you may not notice who really make the world operate. Many of them do not have any insurance. Some may even own that little restaurant around the corner and still not be able to afford the insurance. I am not talking about deluxe insurance; I am talking about any insurance.

So please overlook the smokescreen and vote to have some more debate and amendments and a vote on a small business health plan.

I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his kindness.

I want to thank everybody who has been involved in the debate on small business over the last several days. I thank Senator Nelson for the hours he and his staff put in working with me on this bill, along with Senator Burns and his staff. I have said several times that our staffs worked in the same room with the same people from the different coalitions, including the insurance companies and the insurance commissioners, for so long that I thought some of them must be related. I really wasn't sure which ones were from whose staff anymore, either, because they were all working this important issue together. Obviously, we have some more work to do, but I am pleased with the vote we got.

I am disappointed that we didn't get the 60 and couldn't continue the debate right now, that we couldn't have amendments right now and for the next several days, resulting in a vote-arama that would have put the best possible face on it that we could from the Senate. I talked to Senator Kennedy before and promised I would preconference it with the House before we did anything because this is a very critical bill. But this is the first time the Senate has gotten it to a cloture vote. We will only get it to cloture by working with people and getting some agreement. I am hoping we can bring this back up yet this year. I know there are small businesses that are going to be asking, pleading, begging that it be brought up again this year. Perhaps we can work some changes in the meantime that might make a difference and get us over that 60-vote margin. It is a little tougher in the Senate to pass than in the House because they only have to have a mere majority. We have to have that 60 percent which is a little bit tougher.

Senator Kennedy and I have worked together on a lot of bills. I appreciate the courtesy he gave in committee. We had 68 amendments. We finished the work in two half days. That is probably a record around here for any committee which does show some cooperation. I am just sorry we didn't get to do the amendments like we did in committee, probably many of the same ones we had in committee. I guess my strategy was that those votes might put it over the top here and bring a few people in. I didn't know there would be such strong resentment built up by this time.

Of course, I am extremely disappointed with the cancer society and the diabetes society because I have never seen a letter that said, I don't care what you do, vote against this bill. That means if we had done the Cadillac of diabetes care and put it in the bill, they were still suggesting that people vote against it. That is unconscionable on behalf of the people that have diabetes or the people who have cancer. Both letters said the same thing. It was truly a disappointment to me.

I know some opposition was built for this bill. The insurance companies said they would be neutral. I noticed there was a little unneutrality there. But the small businessmen will be coming to town. They will be talking to people and expecting us to do something. I hope we can continue to do so.

There are a whole list of people I need to thank, but I will defer for the moment for some others to speak and come back and do that later.

I appreciate the fact that we were able to have a cloture vote.

Mr. President, I had intended to present a list of people who worked for me, but a question was asked. I assume it was rhetorical, but I can't let it pass. The question--to me, I assume-- was, why offer what you wouldn't buy for yourself for others?

If I were in small business--and I was--and I was faced with rising health costs--and I was--I would have been happy to have been able to buy this insurance for my employees. There is a whole different level of living out there. It is called small business. We usually think if you are in small business, you are making lots of money. A lot of times the employees are making more than the bosses. The bosses buy insurance because that is how they insure their family and they get a group. That helps them, too. But when you have a group, that means that the people in the group get exactly the same insurance you do. You don't get the same package as the Senate.

I will admit that the Senate has a pretty nice package. I would also like to tell you, though, that when I was in small business, when I was in the accounting business, I had a better package than I have in the Senate. So it is available out there. It costs a lot of money. I was trying to find some way to bring that cost down.

On your bill that you would have liked for everybody in America to have--the same thing as the Federal employees--it didn't get there. I would have been happy to have had a vote on that and had that debate. I offered you that opportunity. I wish you would have taken me up on it. We would have had cloture. We would have had a vote on your bill, and we would have had a vote on my bill. That is all it took. It just took a few more votes and we would have had the 60, and small business would have had some resolution tonight that they are not going to have.

You have to remember that everybody isn't living at the same level out there, and we have to watch out for those small businessmen because they are the ones who are taking care of the backbone needs of this country every single day.

I apologize for going on with a little bit more debate. I thank the Senator from Hawaii. I do need to express some thanks because there are a couple people here that are on this list that I have to keep away from ledges and high buildings yet tonight. They have devoted their life for about the last year and 5 months to this, every day that they possibly could, and through the nights and the weekends, and we came up with this bill, working with

some unusual groups. I particularly have to thank Andrew Patzman for his patience, ingenuity, capability, and his constant work. Of course, Steve Northrop probably helped a lot on that because he has a fine sense of humor and an extremely quick wit. That helped us out in a lot of those situations where we were trying to pull everything together after a long time.

I thank Katherine McGuire, who is the director of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. While we are doing this, we are also trying to do the pensions conference and a whole bunch of other things. I don't know of anybody who has the capability that she has to juggle as many things at one time as she does and still do a great job of being a mother. I have some really good people.

I could go through a whole list and mention Flip McConnaughy, my Chief of Staff, who held everything together for all of the Wyoming issues and my Wyoming staff. I will just mention some of these other people more quickly. The same kind of thanks to them, and I know what they have done to help out. Brittany, Tod Spangler, Craig Orfield, Ryan Taylor; and then from Senator Gregg's staff, Conwell Smith and David Fisher; from Senator Talent's staff, Faith Cristol; from Senator Snowe's staff, Alex Hecht and Wes Coulam; from Senator Ben Nelson's staff, Kim Zimmerman and Amy Terrell; from Senator Isakson's staff, Brittany Espy; from Senator Hatch's staff, Pattie DeLoatche and Roger Johns; from legislative counsel, Bill Baird has just done tremendous work with us; from Senator Frist's staff, the leader, Elizabeth Hall and May Khosla and Charlotte Ivancic; from Senator Ensign's staff, Michelle Spence; from Senator McConnell's staff, Scott Raab and Laura Pemberton; from Senator Burr's staff, Jenny Hansen; from Senator Alexander's staff, Page Kranbuhl; from Senator Roberts' staff, Jennifer Swenson; from Senator DeWine's staff, Melissa Atkinson and Karla Carpenter.

That is a whole group of people who have spent days, nights, and weekends working on this bill and making it possible to put together what we have.

I know they are dedicated to it and they will continue to work and we will work across the aisle and look forward to getting something done for small business. I know small business will be asking--perhaps even demanding--but there is a need out there. I hope everybody will recognize that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to comment a little bit on that. I think there is plenty of blame to go around for any delays that are happening around here. When we are talking about incorporating in this bill, which deals with small business health plans, an opportunity to give small businessmen a chance at negotiating in the market to bring down costs, with an alternative being proposed--when we are being asked to incorporate into this and put all the weight of the stem cell debate or drug reimportation or Medicare Part D on top of this as a full-blown debate, everybody in this body knows that any one of those would easily take up not just a full week but probably 3 weeks because there would be other kinds of motions and parliamentary objections and processes that would drag any one of those out for that time.

The difficulty with being able to debate anything around here is the

length of time as a result of the right to offer any amendments that anybody wants on any topic. So we do make some efforts to try to keep them relevant. If we do cloture, then they are germane. Germane is a much tougher test, but relevant is not any health care idea in the whole world that could be amended and amended and amended and debated and have processes put in against it that would keep us from ever getting to a decision on small business health plans.

So we are trying to stay with small business health plans. I know Senators Durbin and Lincoln have an alternate approach. The alternate approach ought to be voted on, but the alternate approach should not be voted on to the exclusion of ever getting to a vote on this. So we don't want to have just one of them vote and one side feel very good because they got a vote for that one and the other side never gets to their vote. We are trying to find a way to make sure there are votes on both sides on the issues and that not just one side is taking the tough votes but that we do something so we can get to a conclusion for small business. Yes, we are trying to focus this on the problems of small business.

I would like to speak a little bit on the managers' amendment that is before us because there are some changes to the bill that I think the other side of the aisle will like. In most respects, this amendment corresponds very closely to the underlying bill reported out of the HELP Committee in March. It enables small businesses to pool together to save costs and increase access. It allows small business health plans and other plans to offer more affordable coverage options. It will also help streamline the current hodgepodge of health insurance regulation. However, the managers' amendment does make a number of new and important changes to the bill, most importantly in the area of premium rating.

Before I address the managers' amendment, I want to first emphasize, as I have throughout this debate, that I am eager to start sorting the amendments my colleagues might want to offer. As we start the amendment process, I look forward to debating all amendments from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that are relevant--I mean relevant to the goal of more affordable health insurance for small business owners and their employees and their families.

I have reviewed some of the amendments Members have filed and want to offer. There are many that don't have any place on this bill and only serve to obstruct or delay passage of the bill--amendments addressing the energy efficiency of hybrid cars, Medicare benefits, hate crimes, and environmental air standards. They don't have any place on this bill. This bill is about health insurance for small business owners and their families and their employees and their families. I stand ready and willing to debate all relevant amendments to this bill.

For instance, Senator Snowe will file an amendment on the issue of benefit mandates. Her amendment would ensure that benefits and services which have been mandated by a majority of States would continue to apply to small business health plans and other insurers. I know there is a lot of strong feeling on all sides of this issue, and I look forward to a lively and serious debate on it. I will have more to say about the Snowe amendment later.

For now, I will focus on what we have done in the managers' amendment to address the concerns raised by many Members of this Chamber. The main change we have made is related to how health insurance premiums are priced for small business. Most States do have rating laws. Those laws limit the amount of variation between premiums charged to different small businesses. Some States allow a great variation; some States allow very little variation.

During debate on this bill yesterday, I heard my Democratic colleagues make a number of speeches on this issue. They expressed their concern about how the bill, as reported from our committee, would affect the health insurance market in their States. They expressed concerns about how the rating rules in our bill might affect businesses with older workers or workers who have serious or chronic illnesses. I also heard these concerns in private conversations with a number of my colleagues over the past few weeks. I don't believe everybody should have to pay exactly the same amount for health insurance. Rules like that hurt young families and lower income workers. They get hurt because they get priced out of the affordable health insurance market.

But I have listened to my colleagues. I have also consulted with some of my colleagues on our committee and with Senator Nelson of Nebraska, who coauthored this bill with me. I value his perspective as a former State insurance commissioner. I also reviewed the bill Senators Durbin and Lincoln have offered. I have talked with experts in the insurance markets and insurance regulation, and they don't think the bill Senators Durbin and Lincoln have offered would create new and affordable options. In fact, some of those experts think that bill would make things worse, not better.

I will speak some other time in more detail on that. I prefer to go in the direction that we know can work. We know small business health plans will work because they worked in the past before the thicket of conflicting State laws made it too cumbersome to offer such plans.

Our committee heard testimony on this last year, but Senator Nelson and I looked at the Durbin-Lincoln bill anyway to see if there were some ideas we could harvest, some ideas we could incorporate.

After talking with Senator Nelson and my colleagues on the committee, we have developed an amendment that should address the concerns of most of my colleagues on the issue of rating.

The managers' amendment would do two things: First, it would permit States to limit the allowable variation in premiums to a much narrower ratio between the highest and the lowest rates as compared to the bill my committee originally reported.

Second, it would allow States to continue to require community rating of the health insurance policies. What that means is that the bill would allow States to prohibit small business health plans or insurance companies from using the health status of a group of workers as a factor in determining the group's premium.

If States want to allow health status as a factor, they can allow it; if they don't, they can disallow it. This means two things: First of all, most States would be unaffected by the new rating threshold of the managers' amendment. As a matter of fact, we estimate the rating provisions would have no impact on approximately 40 States. The vast majority of those States have reasonably competitive markets, although those markets would be even more competitive if we allow for the creation of small business health plans, allowing small business to band together across State lines to increase their leverage and to cut administrative costs. That is a huge factor.

Second, the managers' amendment preserves much of our original intent to create greater affordability for low-wage workers and for younger workers and their families, but it also allows States to retain reasonable limits on what high-risk groups can be charged. The managers' amendment sets a different threshold for allowable variation in premiums.

The new threshold is similar to the model act published by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and updated in 2000, its most recent model, and it is what Senators Durbin and Lincoln used as the basis of their bill.

So under the managers' amendment, the States use community rating and could continue to use community rating. That means these States could still prohibit the use of health status as a rating factor as long as their system is adjusted to the point that it maintains affordability for low-wage workers and young people and families.

Under the managers' amendment, States would also be permitted to limit small business health plans and other insurers from setting rates that vary by more than a 5-to-1 ratio. In other words, the highest rate for a group in a particular insurance pool could not be more than five times the lowest rate. That would ensure that the insurance pool has a better and more stable balance of risks in the pool while ensuring meaningful limits on premiums for higher risk groups. This is an adjusted community rating standard used in the bill authored by Senators Durbin and Lincoln.

Again, just like the Durbin-Lincoln bill, the managers' amendment follows the most recent model from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The Durbin-Lincoln standard works out to the same 5-to-1 ratio between lowest and highest rating. So I hope my colleagues understand that here is an area where we have tried to strike a compromise, where we tried to work with them.

I should point out that most States don't use community rating. They use what is known as rating bands. These bands allow for a variety of factors to be used in setting premiums, including health status. We will allow States that use rating bands to continue to use rating bands. None of these States would be required to use community rating if they don't want to. They can continue to allow greater premium variation than the 5-to-1 ratio if they choose. It is a very important point.

The managers' amendment allows States to continue the use of two systems for rating health insurance policies. They can use either the community rating or what is known as rating bands. All the managers' amendment asks is that community-rated States follow the model set forth in the Durbin-Lincoln bill. At least if some reasonable variation in premiums is allowed, young families and lower wage workers may be able to find affordable policies. Of course, affordability would be enhanced if their State markets became competitive enough to attract small business health plans. So we are saying in 10 States it may not attract small business health plans.

I know the rating is extremely complex. This is a very difficult issue to talk about. I kind of enjoy it as an accountant. But the bottom line is very simple. First, we need to maintain a minimum level of affordability in how premiums are set across the country. Young families and lower wage workers in certain States deserve access to affordable health insurance and, therefore, affordable health care, and they deserve the ability to join together with other employees as part of a pool of small business workers through the association in their industries.

Ensuring that all the States have competitive health insurance markets will enable small business health plans to create truly national pools so they can maximize the full size of their membership as they negotiate for better benefits and for better prices.

This is a major area of compromise, and I hope my colleagues recognize it. We have taken a major concept from the bill authored by Senators Durbin and Lincoln and we have incorporated it in the managers' amendment. We have done this because Senator Nelson and I and the other cosponsors of the bill are working in good faith to find common ground.

While rating is the most significant issue that we revised in the managers' amendment, it is not the only one. For example, the managers' amendment includes several provisions to make it clear that the scope of the bill's preemption of State law is very narrowly tailored to only three areas. Those three areas are rating, as I have already discussed, benefits, to enable small business health plans to offer national benefit packages, and administrative functions, to reduce some unnecessary costs of health insurance regulation.

It has been a key priority for my Democratic cosponsor, Senator Ben Nelson, that State oversight authority be retained to the maximum extent possible. We have a few former State insurance commissioners in the Senate, and I know they share Senator Nelson's opinion on that. There are also a few former attorneys general in the Senate, and I have listened to them. I have also listened to some of our current attorneys general who have voiced their concerns recently.

I mention that some of their concerns refer more to the House- associated health plans bill, and it is important for people to know this is different from that bill.

We have listened and done these appropriate changes. We have added new provisions that make it very clear that this bill does not preempt, affect, or even disrupt traditional State authority regarding consumer protection, plan solvency, and insurance oversight. That stays with the State.

Most importantly, it would be crystal clear that the bill does not limit in any way a consumer's right to petition their State insurance commissioner or the State courts. That is a very important point. I want to repeat that. It should be crystal clear that it does not limit in any way a consumer's right to petition the State insurance commissioner or their State courts.

The managers' amendment before the Senate represents a significant effort to find common ground. It addresses the issue of rating, which is one of the two major concerns that Senator Nelson and I have heard from colleagues. Senator Snowe's amendment with respect to State- mandated benefits is an attempt to address the other major concern.

So Members who have raised concerns about these two issues ought to see we are willing to work toward a compromise. There should be no reason we can't arrive at a solution over the next couple of days. Small business owners and working families I don't think are going to accept excuses.

The matter at hand is small business health plans. It is not stem cell research, it is not drug importation, and it is not Medicare. The matter at hand is about creating more affordable health insurance options for small business, and it is an issue that I think can be covered this week or a very small part of next week.

As a manager of this bill, I am willing to entertain any germane amendments. With the consent of my colleagues, I will even go further than that. I will consider relevant amendments. But stem cell research is not relevant to this bill. Drug importation is not relevant to this bill. Medicare is not relevant to this bill. What is relevant to this bill is amendments that address the 27 million Americans without health insurance who work for or depend on small businesses.

If my colleagues have amendments like that, Senator Nelson and I are more than willing to discuss them. Let's focus on the matter at hand. Let's take a meaningful step forward to give America's small business owners and working families more affordable health care.

In regard to some of the comments that have been made, as an accountant, I do remind my colleagues that this is not a case of subtraction. This insurance plan is addition. It will be bringing in newly insured people. When you go to the dry cleaners tonight to pick up your laundry, can you look that person in the eye and say: I don't think you deserve health insurance because you might not demand enough for yourself, so I saved you from yourself? Can you look them in the eye and say to the mom and pop running the business down the street from your home: You don't deserve health insurance either; you don't have it now, we're not going to make it more affordable for you; too bad, we had other things we wanted to discuss?

As you go home today, after you leave the Hill, think about the people around you, the regular people--the cab driver, the worker at the dry cleaner, the person in your neighborhood restaurant, all those people you may not notice who really make the world operate. Many of them don't have any insurance. Some may even own a little business just around the corner, be the owners of it, and still not be able to have insurance.

I am not talking about deluxe insurance, I am talking about any insurance. We are not talking about the employees at the big hotel chains or the big chain restaurants. We are not talking about the employees at Wal-Mart. We already said to them: You can form whatever benefits package you want. You don't have to answer to any State. You don't even have to have review or oversight by insurance commissioners. You don't have to meet any State requirements. We already said that to big business, and big business has done that. They haven't left out critical things. They said: Let's see, this is a competitive market. We have to be competitive. We want to have employees. And you know what. I think they included almost everything that has been talked about here. They did it because they wanted to compete.

Small business isn't any different. They need good employees. They want good employees. They know that if they are going to have good employees they have to do as much as they can afford.

Oh, yes, and when they are doing that, they can also pick up some insurance for themselves, and what they do for themselves, they do for their employees. We hear the estimates of how much this will or will not save. I would like to make a couple of comments on that. We have already seen that the big businesses, instead of paying 35 percent in administrative costs--35 percent--remember, each 1 percent of insurance costs drives 200,000 to 300,000 people out of the market. We are talking about 35 percent administrative costs. But those big businesses that we gave permission to do whatever they wanted to, theirs runs about 8 percent. Do you think they would be more competitive than the small businesses? What keeps the small businesses in business is their flexibility and how much less they make.

So I am not talking about deluxe insurance; I am talking about any insurance. Did you know that in several States there is only deluxe insurance? Did you know that in some States there may only be one insurance provider? Others have been driven out of the market. No, it hasn't been the competition that has driven them out; it could be well- meaning legislators wanting to make sure that everybody has everything they need.

There is a lot with our bodies that we ought to be doing on a regular basis. We ought to be taking care of our body like we take care of our car--well, maybe not like we take care of our car. But the way we usually take care of our body is similar to a rental car. We drive it until something goes wrong and then we take it into the shop. But there are regular services that we ought to provide for our own bodies, and we can do that.

The big companies get to do that tax deductible. It would be nice if the small businesses were able to do that tax deductible as well, and we can get into several of those issues later. We do have a plan here. We are willing to make modifications to it. We are willing to take relevant amendments. We do want to be sure that we get a vote on this bill, if we vote on an alternative measure. I think that is fair.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like a chance to answer the 45 minutes of accusations that were made about my bill and also bring up a few things about the Durbin-Lincoln bill that I have not had a chance to talk about yet, but could I inquire how long the Senator from Massachusetts will speak?

I almost hate to break the continuity of the debate when we are talking about some very specific things.

Probably about as long as it took Senator Durbin to cover the fallacies and to boost his bill. I ask that I be the next to speaker after the Senator.

That went a little longer than I anticipated. I have now listened for an hour and 25 minutes to the other side. I ask unanimous consent that our side have that kind of an opportunity.

I have an office that is kind of interesting. It is Phil Gramm's old office. He retired from the Senate after several years of mentoring a number of us and was a real force around here. Occasionally, when I am sitting in my office, some phrases will come by that he used. I grab them and I put them in a jar. I figure I will never have an opportunity to use them. But I think today I will pick out of the jar again. He said: When the Democrats talk about health care, they want national health care. The ship of health, they do not care who steers it, as long as it wrecks, and we can have national health care. That is a little bit about what we are talking about today, that plus a combination of saying we are not going to let anybody out there have anything unless they can have everything. That would be nice. I would like for the people of this country to have better insurance than we in the Senate have. That would be my dream.

I wish we could give them better insurance than we have.

Before I came to the Senate, I had better insurance than I have now. When the Democrats say that they want to open up the Federal employee health plans to everybody, they want everybody to have the same thing we have, they don't really mean that. They can't really mean that. I am willing to bet that if we were actually opening up that same pool and letting the Federal employee insurance be used by everybody in the country, the Federal employees would say: Whoa, not on my shift. The Federal unions would say: No, not on my shift. That is a closed pool. That isn't open to everybody. If it was open to everybody, it would be a whole different range of costs. And it is subsidized.

The Democratic alternative, S. 2382, is an open, voluntary pool purchasing agreement. That kind of an arrangement has failed nearly everywhere they have been tried. There is no evidence that they would succeed if they tried it now and would succeed where others have not. Many States have tried this. It is with very little success.

It may look like the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, but the Federal employees plan is a closed pool that provides premium support to all eligible individuals. The Democratic alternative is an open pool that would provide a tax subsidy to some of the eligible employers. In other words, it would be apples versus oranges.

A tax subsidy? Let's see, would everybody be able to get a tax subsidy for their health? No, you only get a tax subsidy if you buy the Durbin-Lincoln health plan, a one plan fits all for the United States.

Now, there was some discussion about whether it was $78 billion or $73 billion over 10 years. Let me tell you, they have never scored it, so they have no idea what it would cost. That is what some of the separate actuaries have looked at and said it would score. The Enzi- Nelson-Burns bill would reduce costs and increase coverage, and that is according to respected actuaries. No one can say for sure what that Democratic alternative would do--whether it is tens or hundreds of billions over 10 years.

The Durbin-Lincoln proposal eliminates the ability for national plans in that bill to offer uniform benefit packages. Why is that important? The plan I have put forth--the plan that has come out of committee-- allows small businesses to work across State lines to form bigger pools so that they can negotiate effectively against the insurance companies. That is where the savings are. We talk about mandates a lot in here, but the savings come from the ability to have a uniform package so that people in adjoining States can all be bargaining for the same package and have a big enough pool to go up against the insurance companies to be sure they get a better price.

The national plan--the Durbin-Lincoln plan--would still have to meet the requirements of each and every State, even down to the specific particulars of each mandate. Did you know that there are currently 1,700 mandates in the United States? Did you know that those mandates are seldom the same from State to State? They may have the same title, but they are not the same. So how do you put together a package where you say you have to do all of them and be able to go across State boundaries to form bigger pools? You cannot. You would have to do 1,700 mandates if you wanted it to be uniform across the United States.

I need to tell you, too, that some of these mandates we are talking about are screenings. We heard about mammography over there. That is very important. I hope women get mammographies. But did you know that in Wyoming, we really emphasize at this time of year--and I will mention it because Mother's Day is coming up, and this is a huge program in Wyoming to encourage people to buy that for their mother for Mother's Day. It works well. People know exactly what they are buying and exactly how much it costs. It isn't one of many mandates that are in the package that they pay for even though they don't use it.

Somebody said that mandates only add 3 to 4 percent to the bill. No. In the State with the minimum amount in mandates, it adds 5 percent, up to Massachusetts, which adds 22 percent in mandates. Now, I am not suggesting that any of those mandates should not be done. The bill I worked on does set up the ability to have a basic plan. Would people necessarily do the basic plan? They can do the basic plan up to whatever they think is responsible coverage for the people in their association. That doesn't mean nothing; it means they can pick.

You get the impression here that if you allow a basic package, everybody in the country is going to jump on the basic package and say: I can really sock it to my employees; I don't have to provide them with anything anymore. That is not America, and that is particularly not small business America. In small business America, they know they need their employees. Of course, as somebody pointed out, sometimes the only employees are mom and pop. They would like to be insured if they could possibly afford it. So we have to find some way for them to be able to afford it. But this notion that just because there is a mandate out there, everybody will use it, and this notion that just because there is a mandate out there, if we don't require it, it will be dropped--you know, we allow big business in this country to do whatever they want. And do you know what. They provide those basic things.

Now, one of the things which has been mentioned is colorectal cancer screening. Again, the facts suggest that health plans cover important tests like this regardless of State mandate, so it is likely that small business health plans would cover them as well.

In 2004, the Government Accountability Office found that 20 States had laws mandating coverage of colorectal cancer screening tests, which are strongly recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for people 50 years or older. Now, the GAO then surveyed 19 small employer plans in 10 of the States without laws mandating this coverage--without laws mandating that. This is an opportunity for those small businessmen, if they are the way they are accused of being here, to just drop it for everybody. Now, despite the absence of State mandates to cover colorectal cancer screening, all 19 small employer plans in those 10 States provided the benefit. Can you believe that? If you have been listening to the discussion this week, you would think they would just drop it. They didn't drop it. They said: Our employees are valuable, and we need to do whatever we can afford to to help them.

Now, how do we help them to afford it better? Let's see. If we could join up with all of the other realtors in the United States-- incidentally, the realtors are coming to town next week to their regular annual meeting. As I understand it, 9,000 of them will be here next week, coming to a national convention. Oh, how I wish they would have come 1 week earlier. They could have explained their case. But we have a whole bunch of small businesses out there that really think it is important to be able to band together and get a better deal. It works.

Part of the discussion we have heard today has gone off on some other tangents. That is one of the reasons we are talking about relevant amendments. One of them that we went off on is prescription drug Part D and how, by Monday, people need to sign up for a plan. I really appreciate the coverage we have gotten to get that word out to people across America to make that decision this week. Make it this week. Don't have a penalty because you missed the deadline.

Now, for months I have listened to the Democrats say: This is terrible; this is confusing; this doesn't work; we need to do something different; we have to make it simpler for our seniors. Let's see. Let's just have one Federal plan for them to pick from. It sounds like Phil Gramm again, doesn't it? Ship of state wreck so we can have a national opportunity.

Let me tell you what happened. I was really worried about this prescription drug plan. Wyoming has such a small population--less than 500,000--and we keep hoping we will get off that mark. So far, we have never gotten a city big enough to kind of feed on itself and grow. I said that Wyoming just doesn't have any luck attracting businesses for competition, and we probably won't have any luck on prescription drugs, so I wanted to make sure there was an underlying thing that says if nobody is interested in Wyoming, the Federal Government will take care of it. Do you know what. Wyoming got 41 plans--41 of them. Competition works.

Now, that is what causes the confusion the Democrats keep talking about on prescription drugs. They say that there are too many plans out there for people to make a logical choice. That makes it confusing for seniors. If we infuriate them, we can really get them storming. They have done a pretty good job of that.

You know, I did town meetings, and I tried to help them out. Not only were they appreciative, but a whole bunch of people already signed up and were getting far more benefits than they ever dreamed of. I said: How were you able to make such a critical decision all by yourself? They said: There is this 800 number, and all I needed was to know my prescriptions and the dose and whether I want to buy them locally or do them by mail order, and I got a list of four plans that line up, line by line, that I can make a comparison on. So I know exactly what I am buying, what it is going to cost, and I know what it will be in the long run. How difficult is that?

Oh, but the telephone isn't your only opportunity. You can also go online. There is an online spot that will do the math for you, provide this same kind of list for you to make the comparison. I did it for my mom. Quite frankly, a lot of seniors are going to need help from their kids--kids who are young like me--and they will go through the process and find out how it works. There were things I had questions about, and I got ahold of Health and Human Services and got some changes to make it easier. At first, it looked as if you were signing up before you knew what you were buying, but they changed that so you could get the evaluation first.

Did you know that competition brought down the price by 25 percent even before the first person signed up? That is what those 41 companies who were competing did. Yes, the Democrats say: Wait a minute, there is this penalty and there are a whole bunch of people who don't need any drugs now, so they should not have to sign up now. That is not how insurance works. You buy insurance in case something happens to you. This is a Federal program, so we built in a benefit so that if you had something already happen to you, you can still get low-cost insurance.

In Wyoming, there is a package you can buy for $1.87 a month and avoid all penalties. It gives you assurance that you have coverage in a number of areas. And this is something that would only happen on the Federal level, too. If you come up with something that changes your whole drug prescription thing and it goes up dramatically, every November 15 to December 30 you can change plans. You can go to somebody who will provide all of the benefits you need--the cheapest possible plan. Again, you can have Medicare do the math for you.

So one-size-fits-all doesn't bring prices down. Competition brings prices down. I know that the dream of every person is not to have to sit down with every insurance agent and try to work out something or even understand what their package is. That is where the confusion in the Medicare prescription plan comes in--that possibility of having to sit down with 41 different insurance agents. How many evenings will that take you? There has to be simplification. The simplification we provide in the bill I have been talking about is the ability for your association to work across State lines, build a big pool that is competitive, and to be able to sit down and talk to all of those insurance agents so you can come up with the best possible plan for your association and to save administrative costs.

I am not talking about eliminating the mandate to save the 5 percent to 22 percent--although when they are doing those, they don't only use 25 percent of them, so maybe there is some consideration there. I am not worried about that part. That is not where the savings come in. The savings come in being able to negotiate in a competitive way and reduce administrative costs. Right now, a small businessman pays 35 percent in administrative costs. Big companies that do their own plans pay 8 percent. That is a pretty nice savings, especially if every 1 percent in costs brings 200,000 to 300,000 more people into the market. Let's find a way to bring them into the market. So 35 percent minus 8 percent is a 27-percent savings. Multiply that by 200,000 and see how many people it brings into the market.

We have small businessmen out there--22 million of them--who work in small businesses who are uninsured. That is counting the owners and the employees in the small businesses. We have another 5 million who are self-employed who are uninsured. That is 27 million people in whose lives we can make a difference because they can work through their associations to get better prices--not by eliminating mandates. They want those for their employees. They need those for their employees, to keep their employees; otherwise, they move on to bigger companies. Employees are the heart of the business, and small businessmen realize that more than big businessmen.

But there is another reason the Durbin bill won't work. He has taken away the ability of plans to form these uniform benefits on a national basis, like the national Federal employees plans can do.

So there is not going to be this national pooling because they are not going to be allowed to do what our Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan does because there would not be any insurers who would want to offer a national plan without the same freedom from State mandates that exists for national plans under--get this--the national plans under FEHBP, what we are proposing and what is referred to as the Enzi bill. I like to think about it as the small working peoples bill.

This bill would just create 50 State pools, no true national pools, and all of the 50 State pools will have all the other problems we cited. The Enzi-Nelson-Burns bill trusts small business owners to band together to negotiate for good benefits, while the Democratic alternative gives small business no say in the matter.

They say: The Federal Government is right again; we are going to do what the Federal Government does; oh, but we can't do what the Federal Government does or anything like what the Federal Government does, but that is what you have to settle for.

The Democratic alternative will create a new insurance pool that will operate under a different set of rules which creates the same opportunity for cherry-picking which is adverse selection that Democrats claim the House bill creates. You have to look because the Enzi-Nelson-Burns bill solves that. It solves that cherry-picking. It levels the playing field. It doesn't just grab the best customers from the insurance companies and move them over into the health plans. It allows the insurance companies to compete and also to reinsure, but they have to work with a bigger group.

The Democratic alternative sets up a dual Federal-State regulatory structure that would create confusion for consumers and participating insurers. I will probably cover that a little bit more later. I made a lot of notes on points I ought to cover.

There is one very important one. We were talking about childcare a while ago, and everybody considers childcare to be extremely important. We talked about newborn care. I think everybody considers newborn care to be extremely important. When they talk about eliminating mandates, they like to expand that well beyond what the bill ever allows.

There are requirements in States for who are covered persons. This doesn't change that one bit. Newborns who are covered are not touched-- not now, not ever, no intention to do that. So if they are covered now, they will be covered then. It is the law.

I have several other people who would like to use a portion of this time that I just reserved a while ago. I yield time to Senator Burns who has been very patient. I yield Senator Burns 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana. I thank him for all of the work he went through during the past year as we talked with the insurance companies sitting down with us and the insurance commissioners sitting down with us, trying to work out a plan. I appreciate the efforts of those two groups and all of the associations, and I will talk about those a little bit later.

At this time I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.

Mr. President, I do have several things I need to cover. I think I have another speaker or two on their way down. People are talking about being able to offer amendments. They can offer amendments. We want to have discussion, debate; we want to cover objections, answers, proposals on this bill, and we are willing to do anything that is relevant.

There has been a lot of talk about needing to talk about drug reimportation. That is important--at least a 3-week topic. Prescription drugs, that one best wait until after Monday until we see what the exact problem is before we do it. And stem cells, that is probably another 3-week debate.

It took us a year to be able to get this one to the floor so we could talk about small business health plans.

I need to make some comments in regard to a couple of the letters that were read earlier because I am aghast at what was in the letter. The American Cancer Society, as part of that, said: No matter what is done to the Enzi bill, don't vote for it.

That means that should we have an amendment that does everything that is done across the United States for cancer at the present time, they are still urging people to vote against it? It is a little early to say that. It is a little early to say there are not going to be any changes because we will have votes. It may require cloture in order to stay with germane ones instead of the ones that I mentioned and also to make sure--I want to have a vote on the Durbin-Lincoln bill. But I want to have a vote on my bill as well. I think we both ought to have them.

If we release the Durbin-Lincoln one for a vote now, then they can put all kinds of blockages on there so I can't ever get to a vote. And the only vote that we will have had will have been theirs.

We are trying to have some fairness, and so far we have not been able to get to that point.

Another one was the diabetes letter. Again, it said: No matter what you do to the Enzi bill, vote against it. That means, if we instituted every single thing that is being done for diabetes in any State in the Nation, they are still suggesting that they will vote against the bill? Wow. I mean, I have never run into anything such as that.

We looked at the diabetes thing and we said: How do we do this? Because out of the States that do it, there are no two that do it alike, so how do we get these agreements across State lines so they can pool into bigger pools and be able to negotiate against the insurance company so they can bring down rates through negotiation and they can bring down rates by eliminating administrative costs? We are not talking about bringing down rates by eliminating mandates. We are allowing

them to have some flexibility in the mandates so they can come up with a common package, and I am sure that it would include that, just as I did the thing on colorectal cancer. All 19 places that they have been allowed to do that, they included that, even though it wasn't a mandate. They were excluded from that.

I also wanted to put into the Record an editorial from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. It was in the ``Opinion'' section. It says:

Ever face a really tough decision like where to attend

college, or whether to take that new job, or should you go

with the lasagna or the meatloaf for lunch? So you get out

the yellow legal pad and make a list of the pros and cons,

right? Well, maybe not for the meatloaf vs. lasagna bit. Some

things are a simple gut decision.

But it helps to compare and contrast. And it sure helped to

compare and contrast the two bills now floating around the

U.S. Senate to make it easier for small businesses to offer

health-insurance to their employees. One bill is co-sponsored

by Arkansas' senior Senator, Blanche Lincoln.

You could find the comparison on page 2A of Wednesday's

paper. There was Senate Bill 1955 (sponsored by Mike Enzi of

Wyoming) on one side, and Senate Bill 2510 (Blanche's bill)

on the other.

Both sounded fairly similar.

Both promised to make it simpler for businesses to band

together and buy cheaper health insurance.

Both promised to save businesses money and cover more

folks.

Then we got down to the bottom, to the very latest, biggest

question, and, boyohboy, talk about a pro and a con.

The question: What would it cost the Federal Government?

The answers: Nothing for the Enzi Bill.

For the Blanche bill, oh, somewhere in the ritzy

neighborhood of between $50 billion and $73 billion over 10

years.

When an estimate for new government spending has a margin

of error of some twenty-three billion dollars, you know that

new program is just gonna bleed money.

What's worse, or at least as bad, is that Senator Lincoln's

bill creates a national health program that'll be under the

administration of the federal Office of Personnel Management.

Translation: We the American Taxpayers will be in charge of

the care and feeding of yet another bloated bureaucracy.

Why? Why do we need another federal program under federal

so-called management adhering not just to federal rules and

regs but all the state rules and regs, too? (It gives us a

headache just thinking about filling out those insurance

forms.)

We suppose it's because some politicians, who may have the

best intentions in the world, can't imagine a health plan

that doesn't have the government deciding what should and

should not be offered at every single bureaucratic level.

Thank goodness that isn't required of private employer plans.

Can you imagine the red tape? Perish the pencil-pushing

thought.

Senator Enzi's proposal, unfortunately entitled the Health

Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act,

takes a freer-market approach. His bill would let small

businesses band together and get better deals on health

insurance through trade associations.

Now for the devilish detail: Senator Enzi's bill would be

regulated by the feds but largely exempt from individual

state mandates. The better to offer these plans nationwide

and keep costs down.

Remember, the idea is to help small business, not burden

them with more state regulations.

Besides, it's nothing new. Major companies like General

Motors long have been granted exemptions from state laws

regulating insurance--it's called an ERISA exemption, because

they have employees all over the country. They couldn't very

well insure their employees from sea to shining sea while

abiding by every queer detail of every law in every state.

Especially when employees move or get transferred and want to

keep their insurance.

But won't the absence of state regulations lower standards?

Not if the small businesses offering the insurance want to

keep their employees. It's in businesses' interest to have

good health insurance for their workers, or their workers

will go somewhere else. It's how the free market works.

Think of these small-biz health plans like charter schools.

They'd be free of, to quote Senator Enzi, ``the current

hodgepodge of varying state regulation.'' That way, small

businesses across the country can band together and negotiate

group health insurance on their terms. Which would be more

affordable for the businesses, the employees and, unlike the

Blanche bill, the taxpayers.

If we gotta have a federally regulated Small Business

Health Plan, we sure don't need one as costly as Blanche

Lincoln's. And, yes, we gotta have a Small Business, etc.

Because what we've got now isn't working.

Look at the numbers: Of the more than 45 million uninsured

Americans, 60 percent are employed by small businesses or are

in some way dependent on those businesses. But it's getting

harder for a small business to offer health plans because

insurance premiums cost so much these days. Since 2000, the

cost of health-care premiums for employers has gone up almost

60 percent, including some 11 percent in 2004 alone.

Pass the Enzi Bill and, according to a study by a Milwaukee

consulting firm, small businesses would save 12 percent on

health insurance premiums. Even more important, some 900,000

uninsured folks would finally get coverage.

Hey, sounds like a plan. Blanche Lincoln's bill, meanwhile,

sounds like an expensive, bureaucratic pain in the

pocketbook.

I would like to have you see the small business organizations that are supporting the Enzi-Nelson bill. There are a couple of hundred of them here--12 million employers, 80 million workers.

I would like for you to see the small business organizations that are supporting the Durbin-Lincoln bill. Oh, there are two. OK.

I want to share a letter from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as well. They are writing in response to our May 2 request for a review of S. 2510 Small Employers Health Benefits Program sponsored by Senators Durbin and Lincoln.

I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

The experts on S. 2510, the Durbin bill, from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, write:

S. 2510 creates an unlevel playing field . . . could create

an unworkable market in some states. . . . Few carriers would

want to participate in this program. . . .

Again, people can read the entire letter, and I am sure they will find that very enlightening. There is a lot more detail there.

Last, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter from the National Association of Health Underwriters printed in the Record.

Again, it is a much more extensive letter. I hope people will take the time to read the Record, but it is from the National Association of Health Underwriters. These are the experts on health insurance. They look at this stuff all the time.

It says:

``2510 creates the worst kind of unlevel playing field;''

``the cost of coverage would be predictably high;'' ``an

increased number of people being priced out of coverage;''

and, ``Bottom line: More rather than fewer people would be

uninsured.''

That is the National Association of Health Underwriters.

I wish to have some time to go over the good comments, too. But I have been joined on the floor by the majority whip. I will relinquish a few minutes for him to say a few words.

Mr. President, I thank Senator McConnell. I appreciate all of his effort and help. I appreciate the Senator bringing up Senator Talent. I need to mention Senator Snowe as well. They were the original sponsors of associated health plans on this side. They asked for a hearing. We held a hearing. After the hearing, people on my committee were saying, Golly, this is a problem for small business. What can we do to solve it?

It was also obvious from the discussion that there were some difficulties with the true AHP approach which we modified in the meantime. That is how we got to the position we are now in.

Mr. President, I don't have any idea. I spent a lot of hours and my staff people spent a lot more hours. Senator Nelson's staff and Senator Burns' staff worked on this for so long that I actually thought maybe their staff people worked for me, too.

I was pleased spending days on end and sitting down, understanding all of the parts of this and getting it to work.

Another important part of this, Senator Durbin asked me to talk to him about his plan. I made an appointment that same day and met with Senator Durbin and Senator Lincoln. We tried to work some of the principles which they had into this format. Eventually, we were kind of invited to leave by staff. We need to resolve more of that.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, as an accountant I have to remind people that this bill is not a case of subtraction. This insurance plan is an addition. It will bring additional insurance to people. There are 27 million people out there who are uninsured. This will bring a number of them into the market. It will also allow people who are already insured to increase the amount of insurance which they have because they will be able to save some dollars. I am sure they will put that back into insurance and into more benefits for people. So it is an addition, not a subtraction, and it will bring in newly insured people.

One of the things I ask people is, when you go to the dry cleaners tonight to pick up your laundry, can you look that person in the eye and say, I don't think you deserve health insurance because you might not demand enough for yourself? So I am going to save you from yourself. Can you say to the mom and pop who are running the business down the street from your home, You don't deserve health insurance?

As you go home today, as you leave the Hill, think about the people around you, the regular people, the cab driver, the worker at the dry cleaner, the person at the neighborhood restaurant, all of those people who often you may not notice, the real people who make the world operate. Many of them do not have any insurance. Some may even own the little business around the corner and still are not able to have insurance. We always assume that if people own a business, they make a lot of money. There are times that the employees make a lot more than the owner of the business. They always have to pay themselves last.

As Senator Burns said, when he was in business he provided health care to his employees, but he couldn't afford it for himself and his wife. But you do that to keep employees. I am not talking about deluxe insurance, I am talking about any insurance.

When people get the kinds of screenings that they would like to have, or even get the screenings they would like to have, and then find out there is a problem, if they don't have any insurance, they can't get anything done unless they pay for it.

We are not talking about the employees at the big chain hotels or the big chain restaurants. We are not even talking about the employees at Wal-Mart. We already said to them you can form whatever kind of benefit package you want. You do not have to answer to any State. You don't have to have review or oversight by the insurance commissioners.

Those are all things we provide for in our bill. You don't have to meet any State requirement. So instead of 35-percent administrative costs, you only pay 8-percent administrative costs. I am not talking about deluxe insurance, I am talking about any insurance.

Right now in several States, there is only deluxe insurance. Did you know that in some States there may be only one insurance provider because others have been driven out of the market?

I hope people will take a close look at this bill. I hope the other side will offer some amendments which are relevant to this bill and let us work through the bill. I hope, if the only way we can maintain germaneness is through cloture, that they will join in cloture because there are thousands of businesses out there that need insurance. They need hope. They want to ensure their employees. Think about that--27 million uninsured.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of the difficulties around here is the process we have to use. Another one is that nobody listens to anybody's debate. We have covered this in some detail earlier today, that relevant amendments would be accepted. The Durbin-Lincoln bill ought to be voted on. But it should not be voted on and then S. 1955 precluded from getting a vote. That is one of the possibilities in the organization and the rules that we have around here, that we could wind up voting on that one and skipping the vote on S. 1955 and saying: Look, all these people voted against that; that means they don't like health care for small business. But they wouldn't have gotten to vote for the one that they might have liked.

I went through a number of the reasons why S. 2510 has some problems. I object to people saying we ought to give everybody the same health care the Senators have. We ought to give them better health care than the Senators have. The only problem is we can't do either of those things. The bill that is on the floor by Durbin-Lincoln doesn't do either of those things. It is a different plan that uses kind of the same structure so we build the same kind of bureaucracy, except a lot bigger bureaucracy to handle all the people in America, and it limits all of the pools to each State because they will have to meet all of the mandates of each of those States instead of what we have in the Federal plan which is a national level of mandates.

We have our own level of mandates. We don't go by what the States do. But that is not what is in that bill. In that bill they would still have to go State by State, and if you go State by State, you can't form the kinds of pools that we need to be able to have the clout to negotiate a better price and to bring around the administration.

People say you want to get rid of mandates so that will save money. No. Every experiment, every minilab that has happened out there where small business people have been given the opportunity to band together and to do something, they have covered those mandates. They didn't give those mandates up.

How do you save money with this thing? Small businesses pay 35 percent for their administration. Big business, which we already excluded from all mandates, we excluded them from Federal control, we excluded them from State oversight and consumer protection, which is in my bill--it still has the State oversight and consumer protection in there--we gave the big businesses the wave on all of those things. They still kept the mandates. But where they saved the money is in administration. It costs them 8 percent to administer their plans. So 35 percent minus 8 percent means they save 27 percent over what a small businessman will do. And every 1 percent we can save on insurance brings 200,000 to 300,00 people back into the market.

That is why we want to have associations to be able to offer plans under State consumer protection, under the insurance commissioner's oversight.

But with some kind of a blended plan, they can cross State lines and have a uniform package, and they can have a big enough group so they can negotiate. That is what 1955 is about. We need to have a vote on that as well.

As far as mandates, Senator Snowe is putting in a bill that will cover those basic things people are talking about.

The letter that the Senator read from--the American Diabetes Association--I talked about that a little bit earlier today. One of the difficulties we had in trying to do something with diabetes is that 42 States--it may even be 47 States--are doing something with diabetes, but no two do it alike.

Again, how do you blend across State boundaries unless you can get some kind of basic package? I know they will cover diabetes. Under the Snowe amendment, they will for sure.

The distressing part of their letter was, no matter what changes are made to the Enzi bill, defeat it. That is not a very reasonable approach by any disease group. That means that if I have an amendment that said find out everything that is done for diabetes and do everything for diabetes that is done anywhere, they would still be suggesting voting against my bill. I don't think that is a reasonable approach by any group.

The American Cancer Society wrote pretty much the same letter and said pretty much the same thing.

We are not trying to subtract, we are trying to add. We want people who are uninsured to come into the market, and we want people who already have insurance to be able to get more and better insurance for the same dollar. That is what employers are able to afford. We are trying to come up with a system such as that.

The only thing about filling the tree--which I agree with the Senator is gobbledygook--the only thing with that is to stick to small business health insurance.

There are another dozen things on insurance and health care that we ought to be debating. Each of them would take about 3 weeks to debate. At this point in the season, we are not going to get 3 weeks to debate anything. I am lucky to put together a few days to be able to talk about this. I hope to make more progress on that.

I have been working hard with everybody to try to come up with some kind of mechanism that will work. That is where we are on the bill. If we could do the things that are relevant to this, or also germane after cloture, then we could stay on the bill a little longer and keep working on it. If we don't get cloture, we are probably done with this discussion for the whole year. That will probably be the end of health care for the year. People have to keep that in mind when they are voting on cloture.

Even individual mandates can be brought up one at a time and put into the thing, or at least be voted on. The desire is not to keep votes from happening but to stick to small business health plans.

These folks have been asking us for 15 years for a change and some way to handle it. They have been encouraged several times because eight times the House has passed the association health plan. That was very exciting for them. They said I think we can get it. It never made it out of committee on the Senate side because there are some problems with the basic plan that the House passed.

When I got this chairmanship, I said we are going to do something to change this. We are going to find out what the objections are and see if there isn't a way to get something done that will get relief for the small businessman. The insurance companies were convinced that we were going to do something, so they sat down with me. The insurance commissioners had concerns, and they have always been one of the stakeholders. They sat down with me, and they had their representatives sit down with us days on end to work on some kind of a compromise. This is one.

Nobody is raving about it except the small businesses because they see it as an answer--not the final answer, not the total answer, but an answer--that moves closer to what they can afford to do. Again, it isn't by cutting mandates.

Yes.

Not quite.

Even during the course of today and any other debate we have on this bill, we have said if there is a relevant amendment, we would consider taking that up and voting on it. One exception we have on that is the difficulty with Durbin-Lincoln. If we vote on that, that might be the only vote we ever get because the other side can block any further votes from happening because you would have to have unanimous consent to have a vote. So we would be blocked from ever having a vote on our bill.

No, I wasn't suggesting that S. 2510 would pass. I was saying that a lot of Democrats would vote for it and it would fail. Then there will be no further votes on it. You folks could all say we voted for small business and the Republicans didn't vote for small business. It would be because the Republicans wanted S. 1955 with a few amendments which can be offered by both sides. That would happen postcloture. The only thing that happens postcloture is amendments have to be germane. That means they actually would have to apply to the bill. The Durbin-Lincoln bill is germane. Many of the things people talked about would be germane. What wouldn't be germane are some of the long-term debates and things people would like to do, namely the stem cell debate which we are going to have a debate on. They promised a vote on it. We don't know how much debate there would be with that; prescription drugs, Part D, and those would not be germane to the bill. Each of those would take about 3 weeks to debate.

The Senator certainly is not the only one. I would love to have a lot of time. We have had a lot of bills that came out of committee already that could be brought up. We have some more that are going to come out next Tuesday. A lot of those I think would pass here by unanimous consent. I would love to have some agreement. The Senator knows how hard it is to get 1 week around here. We spent 3 days getting cloture to proceed. That is to proceed; that wasn't to actually do any votes on the bill. So we were offered the moment, but between the two sides we didn't get the moment.

It was 98 to 2.

If there was no problem with it, why did we have to wait 3 days to get the vote?

I am talking about time limits and that sort of thing. Those requests were made between leaders to come up with some tight time agreements. It is beyond my pay grade.

There were a lot negotiations to try to stick to small business and have some kind of a mechanism where the votes from both sides could be done. But there was not any agreement on that, so we are stuck in this kind of a situation where small business may be penalized once again.

If we get cloture, we could have a lot of debate on the small business stuff, not all of other ones. If we could get in a situation where we started doing these things a little quicker, with more time agreements, some of the more difficult ones could probably get some floor time. I am for that.

I am with the Senator.

Yes, it would be nice if we could wrap up something for small business. I think there is a plan there. I think there is a way to get there. I don't think it is going to happen without the cooperation of both sides in either coming to some time agreements or passing cloture.

We will have to wait and see what happens. I would wait until the end of next week to have a vote on either of them as long as we can do amendments. And I am excited about doing amendments. There are always perfecting things. No bill is perfect when we finish it. Even after conference it is never perfect. But it is usually much better than when we started. We need to have that process.

I thank everyone for their participation today.

Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss why I made the difficult decision to vote against H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery.

The United States is involved in operations overseas while dealing with natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. On May 4, 2006, I voted against a $109 billion spending bill that was $17 billion more than what the President originally requested. Of course, on occasion, times call for emergency spending, but this bill goes far beyond what anyone would call emergency spending.

Many items in this bill do not constitute ``emergency'' spending. The bill would funnel millions of dollars to a road in Hawaii, millions of dollars in grants for research not related to emergencies, and still millions more to subsidize the volunteer work program AmeriCorps. Are these projects necessary? Possibly, but they are not an ``emergency.'' These spending proposals should go through the annual authorization and appropriations process. Congress must tighten the definition of what qualifies as an emergency. The use of supplemental spending bills must be saved for the true emergencies. True emergency funding is being bogged down with nonessential projects that have no business being in an emergency supplemental spending bill.

We must not saddle our children, their children, and their children's children with debt that we incurred because we did not properly restrain our spending. My very first speech in the Senate Chamber was on the need for a balanced budget. In 1997, I said that the Federal Government must learn to live within its means. Without any restraint on spending, we are simply adding onto our Nation's enormous debt. Unfortunately, this is still true today.

I recently visited American troops stationed in Kuwait. I always have and will continue to support our troops. I appreciate the sacrifices they make and the sacrifices of the families, friends, businesses and communities they leave behind.

Our American service men and women should have the financial resources they need to fight this crucial war on terror. This bill should be about voting to provide financial stability that allows the U.S. Government to support our troops and our veterans into the future. It is unfortunate that other nonemergency spending projects made their way into an important bill that included vital funding for our troops. I wish that the Senate would have followed the President's proposal and only included funding for real emergencies.

Mr. President, I am here this morning to ask this body to support the motion to proceed to the debate. All we are voting on is whether we are going to get to debate, not whether we are going to have health insurance for small businesses. But if this vote does not get 60 votes, we will not have the opportunity in this Congress to see whether we can help out small businesses across this country.

The bill before us will provide for small businesses to be able to join across State lines to negotiate against the insurance companies with enough power to make a difference. This is something which the small businesses have been asking for for almost 15 years. In the last 12 years, it has passed the House eight times but has never even gotten out of committee in the Senate until this year. The reason it got out of committee is because we have drastically changed the bill. We are not talking about the old association health plans we had in the past. This is one which has had some modifications that have been helped with insurance companies and State insurance commissioners. It still keeps the power of oversight and consumer protection in the hands of the State insurance commissioners, but it does allow the ability to unify things so that we can get across State lines.

How is it doing? Well, the Washington Post says it went too far. The Wall Street Journal says it didn't go far enough. So maybe we are somewhere right there in the middle. But unless we get to debate this issue, we will never know until we can get through the motion to proceed and possibly 30 hours of still debating whether we are going to debate before we ever get to a motion. So I am hoping that this morning we can pass this motion to proceed.

I can't believe that any Senator here hasn't heard from enough small businessmen that he wouldn't allow us to proceed to the debate. I am hoping that following that motion to proceed to debate, we can limit the hours of debating that particular motion and get on with the substance of trying to perfect a bill.

In my 9 years in the Senate, I have never seen a perfect bill. I am not saying this is a perfect bill. I am saying it is one that has come out of compromise, long discussions, and has moved away from the point of huge objection on the Senate side to less objection on the Senate side. It is a bill that can be worked out, can be passed, and can have a significant difference for

small companies across the United States.

Will it make a difference? There are several surveys that say it will make a difference. I am saying that from the amount of advertising which was done before we even had the motion to proceed, there must be a lot of big bucks in savings in this thing to have the kind of opposition we have already had on it. But we will never know unless we get the right to debate. So I am asking my colleagues to vote aye on the motion to proceed so that we can proceed to a debate, sometime within the next 30 hours, hopefully.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his encouragement on his side of the aisle to vote for the motion to proceed. I think that will get us into a debate that will make a difference for the working people of America, the people up the street and across the street, the working families that are a part of small business.

Today, there are 45 million people in the United States who are without health insurance in this country. Twenty-two million people own or work for small businesses or live in families that depend on small business wages, and another 5 million are unemployed. Those are the 27 million people we are talking about whom this health care bill will be making decisions for in the next few days.

It is long past time for Congress to take some action. The American people aren't going to accept excuses any longer. It has been a long time getting to this debate. I am pleased that it sounds like we will be able to have it. I welcome any amendments that are alternate approaches or improvements to this bill. I know what the complaints are out there, I know what the counters to those are, and I know what the concerns are. It is very important that when we walk away from this week, we walk away with a plan which will help the small business people of the United States, the ones working for small businesses, the ones owning them, and their families who need the help.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for listing those 200 organizations. I have never done a count on them, and I am not familiar with quite that many; I am only familiar with about 40 that have expressed some concern that I suspect will be taken care of in amendment if we can get to the amendment process.

I would like to mention that there are over 200 business organizations that are looking forward to being able to unite these people across State lines to get lower rates for their people. There are actually 80 million employees in those businesses, in those organizations. The realtors are going to be here with 9,000 people next week, expecting that we will have already taken action. The National Federation of Independent Businesses is another big one that is supporting this. I could mention a lot more. Even some of the associations that have concerns about it want to be sure that this bill passes so their employees can be covered.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the postcloture debate on the motion to proceed be divided as follows: From now until 11 a.m. will be under majority control; from 11 to 11:30 will be under minority control; 11:30 to 12 will be under majority control; and noon to 12:30 will be under minority control.

The Senate will stand in recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. I ask that time count under the provisions of rule XXII. The time from 2:15 to 2:30 will be equally divided between the majority and minority; from 2:30 to 3 we begin majority control, with the next 30 minutes under minority control, and each 30 minutes rotating in this format until the hour of 5:30 p.m.

Before the Chair rules, we would like to make out a time certain to begin consideration of the bill. In the interim, this unanimous consent allows the Senate to have an orderly debate for speakers.

Mr. President, I thank virtually all Members in the Senate for their help in getting the motion to proceed. That will allow us to do 30 more hours of debate before we actually get into the substance of making any changes in the bill. I hope we can work out a unanimous consent agreement that will shorten that time and get us into the meat of the debate. I will push for some rapid consideration of some amendments so we can get this resolved for the small businessmen of this country in short order.

I will address some of the charges made against this bill. I listened yesterday and the day before to the minority leader's speech to the Senate on Friday. I was surprised by several of the statements he made regarding this bill. If I had not already known that he was talking about S. 1955, I would never have guessed it.

The first comment the minority leader made was that our bill threatens the coverage of those who have insurance now and does nothing to extend coverage to those who need it. I make two points in response to that. First, it seems to me the status quo is what is truly threatening the coverage of those who are insured now. Prices are going up dramatically. Small business has no leverage. No one can afford more of the same or more excuses from Washington.

Blocking an honest debate on this bill is a vote for more of the same. It is a vote for health insurance costs continuing to rise dramatically, for more small businesses dropping coverage for their employees, and for more uninsured American families. Year after year of more of the same is what is truly threatening America's health care security.

Second, this bill will indeed extend coverage to more people who need health insurance. If you do not believe me, listen to our nonpartisan CBO. The CBO says this bill will reduce health insurance costs for three out of every four small businesses. The CBO also said the bill will extend private health coverage insurance to 750,000 more people than have it today.

Is that a comprehensive solution to the problems of health care and the uninsured? Of course not. I understand this is not a comprehensive solution to the problem of health care costs and the uninsured, but it is definitely a step in the right direction and a building block for the future.

I have more comments about statements made about the bill in ads and in editorials, but at this point, I release the remainder of our time until 11 o'clock to the Senator from Missouri who has been working on this in the House for years in a totally different version but has brought his expertise, talent, and knowledge to this side of the building. He has been a strong advocate for doing something for small businesses. He has been extremely cooperative in finding ways to do things so we can have something for small businesses.

I relinquish the floor to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Talent.

Mr. President, as we wait on a couple of people to speak, I would like to make a few comments on the comments that have been made. I do appreciate the spirit in which they have been made. I know there are amendments waiting to modify several of the things that have been suggested, but my biggest concern is that there were some comments about the Attorneys General of the United States and the insurance commissioners who are against it, and even the Connecticut business associations who are apparently saying they are against the bill.

But what I need to correct is the comments they are making are not on this bill. What they are talking about is the bill that the House has passed eight separate times: the associated health plans bill. Associated health plans are different than this bill. It would be nice if some of the people who are going national and public on this would actually check with us on some of their comments to see if they are remotely right.

We have put forward a solution which they said that 85 million people would lose their benefits from. That would be just as ridiculous as me saying that all 27 million people who are uninsured who work for small business would be covered by this bill. Neither of those things is going to happen. There is a medium in there where there will be more people who are insured. The difficult parts that were talked about concerning things being taken away from people I am confident are not going to happen. There are a couple of reasons they are not going to happen.

First of all, there are experiments across the country which in a small way have done what we are talking about in the small business health plans, and in those experiments, they have worked: Taking away the mandates that States have and actually making a point of mandating that we take away the mandates. Around here, ``mandates'' is a bad word. Mandates means you are forcing somebody to do something and you are not paying for it. You are saying you have to have this, and whether you can afford it or not, we are going to make you do it. So your choice is to take the mandate or drop your insurance.

When we are talking about these mandates, a lot of them we are talking about are regular maintenance of your body, and we ought to be having everybody do those. It shouldn't matter whether they are covered by insurance or otherwise. In fact, in Wyoming, we have gone to great lengths to have more things done by public health for free. That means your insurance doesn't have to pay for it and you don't have to pay your insurance company for it and you don't have to pay your insurance company for the administration of that service. But you can get that service. Then we have some other screenings that are covered in a very reasonable way. We have a program in Wyoming trying to get everybody to have mammograms, and it is focused on Mother's Day, which is coming up this next weekend: Get a mammography for your mom. Show that you care. And thousands of people in Wyoming do exactly that.

I will cover some of the other issues, but I see that Senator Hatch, the Senator from Utah, has arrived and has some comments in this regard, and he has been a very diligent worker on all of the small business problems. So I yield time to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, reclaiming our time, I didn't realize they would be allowed to use part of it.

It would be helpful if the other side would actually share the details of their amendment with us so that we can take a look at it. The details of our bill have been through the committee, out here, and had hearings. We don't know what is going to be in there. The last time I looked at it, there was, I think, $9 billion of cost in it each year, and the huge bureaucracy that would be built up. I make that request to the other side--that we sure would like to take a look at their bill. It is hard to do until we have a copy.

We had some latitude here to allow 20 minutes on this and we were 5 minutes late from that one.

And Senator Thune does not have the time for his speech.

I object.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, we are alternating every 30 minutes.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator's side controls the time at that time. So if they want to give the Senator the 10 minutes, there would be no objection to that. It would come out of the Democratic time.

Mr. President, first, I apologize for the confusion over the unanimous consent that we had. It was designed early this morning to make sure each side had an opportunity to have an equal amount of say on the 30 hours that we are working on in order to actually get to amendments on this bill. Now that we have had cloture and everybody has agreed, or almost everybody, that we needed to proceed on the bill, we are talking about an issue that is huge to small businesses out there and wanting to find some kind of solution. We even suggested that perhaps they would like to reduce the number of hours of debate about the right to proceed so that we could actually get to offering amendments. But we have a 30-hour time requirement. That could be reduced by unanimous consent, or even eliminated by unanimous consent. But it has not been, so we will try to keep on a half-hour rotating basis so that as many people as possible can have something to say on the bill.

I am going to take a few minutes at this point to talk about this issue. We have been talking about health care. One advantage of having this 30 hours is to have some additional health care debate. I need to talk a little bit about prescription drugs Part D. That is not part of the motion to proceed, but it has been talked about a number of times on the Senate floor today. There are some confusing things out there for seniors that I would like to clear up.

I have been taking the last two recesses to travel across Wyoming and hold meetings with senior citizens to explain the prescription drug plan to get them signed up so they can get the benefit. There is some confusion out there. When we were designing the plan, we were worried that there would not be any plan interested in our small population in Wyoming. We have less than 500,000 people in our State. Our biggest city has 52,000 people. So we have a little bit of trouble finding a big enough pool for anything and to encourage interest. So I asked that there be kind of a Federal backup plan on it, and that was put in the bill.

But when the time came around for companies to offer plans in Wyoming, obviously, they were even excited about 500,000 people because we had 41

plans respond. That is competition. That competition brought the prices down by 25 percent before the people even applied for the benefit. A huge decrease in cost; that is cost by competition. The downside is that 41 plans create confusion. If you have ever tried to buy insurance and talk to a number of different insurance salesmen, every package is designed slightly different to make it a little bit more confusing so that their plan looks better, but it is also harder for you to make comparisons.

There is an easy way to make comparisons. Medicare saw that coming and set up a computer analyzation so that all you have to know is what your prescriptions are and what the doses are. You can put them in over the Internet or you can talk to somebody live by an 800 number or there are a lot of volunteers across America who are helping to get this information out. It lets Medicare do the math. They will present you with three or four plans that meet your prescription, your doses, and your criteria for where you want to buy it. You can look at these line by line. All the lines match up and you can compare them and find the best one for you. It has been a tremendous help.

My mother asked me to help her on her decision. There are kids across the United States--kids like me--who need to be helping their moms on these kinds of decisions. I was happy to do it because it gave me an opportunity to try out the telephone method, the Internet method, and I talked to a number of volunteers and the local pharmacist. We owe the local pharmacist a great deal of thanks for the way this is working and the difficulties that they have had doing a new program. We have not had a big change in the program in decades. When we first had Medicare, there were problems. They got worked out. When we started this one, there were problems, and I think they have mostly been worked out.

Occasionally, at these hearings, somebody was having a problem. A hour and a half was the longest it took us to straighten out any problem for anybody. I ran this process and came up with these four best at the least cost for my mom.

One of the things that people raise in those sections is they say: I don't need any drugs so I should not have to do this. I should not have to pay a penalty later.

The way insurance works is that you buy into the plan usually before you get sick. You pay a premium and when you get sick, then you have the coverage for the things that can happen to you in the future.

Medicare prescription Part D is completely different because you can already have a huge medical problem and a lot of prescriptions and you can sign up for this now and have a maximum guaranteed cost. I know of people who are actually saving thousands of dollars because they signed up. If you don't have anything the matter with you and you don't want to buy into a big plan, you run the evaluation and you can find a small plan you can buy into.

One in Wyoming is $1.87 a month. What if the $1.87 a month doesn't cover me if I have something really bad happen to me? Well, every November 15 to December 31 you can change your mind. You can change your company, and they cannot stop you. Tell me where else insurance works like that. Every November 15 to December 31, you can change your mind and sign up for a plan that has new kinds of benefits for you that match new illnesses that you might have.

This is working for the people who have paid attention. It is easy to have Medicare do the math. So everybody out there who hasn't signed up needs to talk to the volunteers, probably at their senior citizen center or call the 1-800 number or get on the Medicare Internet site and have that plan figured out for you. It takes a few minutes and you can be set so that you, first of all, won't have any penalties, but, secondly, you will have some tremendous benefits as you need the medication. It has made a huge difference.

Some people have talked about negotiating the price. When I was doing these hearings, I had some difficulty with people who showed up and said: You know, there are some medications I really want to have, that I am supposed to have, and I cannot get them. Well, when I checked, those were the veterans, and the veterans' prices are negotiated, and when they negotiate prices, they pick a similar drug and get the best price by kind of fixing the price on it and driving the price down through this bidding war. But it eliminates medications. Yes, there are medications you can take. It may not be the medication your doctor thinks is absolutely the best. But that is what happens with negotiated prices.

So what we relied on in the Medicare prescription Part D was competition, and competition has happened. Prices came down 25 percent, and then people who signed up for the program who are using medications found out that they are also saving another 25 percent as the least amount, or 37 percent as the average amount, and some people are getting 83 percent--I say some people. I know some people who are getting several thousand times more than what they are paying in because they are into the catastrophic care. I wasn't even listing the catastrophic care.

The important thing is that we need to tell people and help people to sign up by May 15. It is a tremendous benefit. We have had more people sign up than we had anticipated signing up. That means, again, a bigger market; that means lower costs. So it works for all of us when people sign up. Remember, there are plans out there. If they have them for $1.87 a month in Wyoming, I bet they have that at $1.87 or less every place in the country. Look at those if you are not using any medication.

So that is what competition does. That is the purpose of the bill that we are talking about and that we have actually had the motion to proceed on, not the ones that fall under other committees' jurisdictions, such as Medicare or stem cells or some of the other things that have been talked about here. Those are things that actually--this falls under the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. We took the bill through committee that has never been through the Senate before. The House passed a bill that is considerably more liberal and difficult than the one that we passed. They passed it eight times over there in a very bipartisan way. If we have the same Democratic Senators over here vote for it that had Democrats in the House vote for it, we will pass this bill easily. Even if there is a filibuster, we will pass it because it is a concept that small businesses have been asking for. This is the first opportunity we have had to provide it for them.

We did it by being very conservative in the approach and going to a situation where we could work across State borders, so that associations could build a big enough pool that they could effectively work with their insurance companies to get these multiple competition bids. We are certain that it will work. One of the reasons we are certain that it will work is because it has been tried within States. But those who have tried it within States have found that it works very well, and they know it would work even better if they could go across State borders. So even those who are doing it are asking to do it on a wider scale than what they have been. For a lot of the States that have less population, yes, they want to be able to do it at all. They don't have big enough pools within their States to do it, so they want to be able to go across the State borders.

I want to discuss a little bit why we need to pass S. 1955 and allow for the creation of these small business health plans. First of all, the concept of allowing small businesses to join together to find better prices for health insurance is not new, as I mentioned. Many organizations have offered nationwide health plans to members in the past. But States continued to add mandated benefits and other regulations to their insurance markets during the 1980s and 1990s, and the administrative hassles and costs associated with the mandates and regulations became too much of a burden for existing plans that could no longer offer an affordable benefit on a national basis. So they discontinued the plans.

The Associated Builders and Contractors organization, known as ABC, is an unfortunate example of this problem. Their insurance carrier refused to continue doing business with the ABC insurance trust in the late 1990s because

the panoply of 50 different State regulations and excessive benefit mandates made it impractical and unattractive for the insurance company to continue the program. ABC was unable to find another carrier to pick up their business.

This chart kind of shows how health care costs have gone. I don't think there is any argument on either side of the aisle that this is what has happened. There has been a rapid escalation, and compared to what it used to be, there has been a rapid escalation for a long time, oddly enough. We are up to a national average cost per employee of about $8,000 a year. That doesn't include the part the individuals are paying, which brings it up to about $11,000 a year. That is the amount we have been talking about on both sides of the aisle today.

What is truly unfortunate is that workers at ABC's member companies were benefiting from this program, and the companies were saving money on their health care expenses. The health plan sponsored by ABC for nearly 45 years had total administrative expenses of about 13 cents for every dollar in premium. These costs included all marketing administration, insurance company risk, claim payment expenses, and State premium taxes. Compare this to the small business employers who purchase coverage directly from an insurance company. The total expenses for most small businesses today can approach 35 cents for every dollar of premium. So saving nearly 25 cents on a dollar is real money, especially in today's health insurance prices.

The other benefit to ABC's member companies and employees is that any profit generated by their health plan stays in the plan. This also helped keep costs down. So the idea isn't new, and it has worked before.

But Congress needs to act before small business organizations can resurrect their defunct programs and before other organizations can start new ones. Congress considered fixing this problem during debate over the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in 1996-- it is better known as HIPAA--but the small business affordability provisions in the House bill were dropped during the conference between the House and the Senate in the final bill. As a result, HIPAA only addressed access to health insurance and not affordability. So now everyone has access to health insurance policies, but the policies themselves are unaffordable to many. When I became chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions last year, I announced that I would bring a health insurance affordability bill before the committee so we could finish the job we started 10 years ago--in other words, to make it possible for all Americans to have access to a health insurance policy that is affordable.

Many were skeptical then, and some may still be skeptical now, but the time for more of the same is over. America's working families want change, and they are tired of excuses from Congress.

Small businesses and working families are demanding relief from high health insurance costs. And it is no wonder. This year, employers are paying twice what they were paying in the year 2000 for health insurance. That is correct. What businesses paid for health insurance has doubled over the past 6 years. That is a pace we can't keep up.

This cost squeeze hurts small businesses the most. The highest rates of uninsured workers can be found in businesses with 25 or fewer workers. Only 60 percent of the Nation's businesses are offering health insurance these days, down from nearly 75 percent just 5 years ago.

Small businesses and working families are stuck on the escalator of rising health insurance costs, with no end in sight. And in a tight labor market, small business owners don't want to jump off this fast- moving escalator because dropping health insurance puts them at a major disadvantage in competing for the best workers. We need to give them a safe place to get off this escalator of rising costs, somewhere where it is more affordable for themselves and working families, and the small business health plan will give them that option.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from North Carolina.

That is assuming it comes within the 30-minute parameters?

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation's Subcommittee on Aviation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. on the Department of Transportation's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, at 2 p.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The witness list will be provided when it becomes available.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``An Introduction to the Expiring Provisions of the Voting Rights Act and Legal Issues Relating to Reauthorization'' on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List:

Panel I: Chandler Davidson, Radoslav Tsanoff Professor Emeritus and Research Professor, Rice University, Houston, TX; Ted Shaw, Director- Counsel and President, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), New York City, NY; Richard L. Hasen, William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, CA; Laughlin McDonald, Director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, Atlanta, GA; and Samuel Issacharoff, Reiss Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law, New York, NY.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, at 10 a.m. on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her kind comments. I want to make a few comments about medical liability, and then I want to talk about a bill for which we will be voting tomorrow morning on the motion to proceed. There is not much debate time on that so I will try to work in about 5 minutes on it and hope that that will convince everybody it needs to be debated. That is all we are going to be voting on, whether we ought to debate it at all.

First, I want to read a little bit from a book entitled ``Fixing Our Broken Health Care System.'' It was written by Senator Charles Scott, a State Senator from Wyoming. He has been the chairman of the Labor, Health, and Social Services Committee for many years. He was chairman of that committee when I served. He writes in his book:

We in Wyoming are having the problem in one of our

communities right now. In 2003 the doctors in Newcastle quit

delivering babies. The community is small and the doctors

each were delivering between 20 and 25 babies a year. At that

rate their malpractice insurance costs had risen to over

$1,000 per delivery.

He does the math to show what the difference would be between obstetrics and family health, and divided it by the 20 babies.

Roughly half of their deliveries are paid for through the

state Medicaid program which pays $866.25 per delivery for a

normal . . . delivery; the payment increases to $1,401.87 if

normal prenatal and post-partum care is provided.

The cost for them is $1,317, and the most they can get is $1,401.87. Usually you get $866. You can see where they are losing money before they pay rent, before they pay the nurses, before they pay themselves a dime. They couldn't raise their private rates because in that community most young couples starting a family couldn't afford a higher rate, and too many were not covered by insurance.

The economics were clear--the doctors were losing money

with each delivery. They dropped the obstetric part of their

practice, and now a woman in Newcastle has to be driven 73

miles to Gillette, Wyoming, or 80 miles to Rapid City, South

Dakota, to have her baby delivered by a medical doctor.

You have to remember that we get a little bit of snow out in Wyoming sometimes, which can make that journey a little bit hazardous because there is a lot of cost to traveling 73 or 80 miles to have your baby, and probably cuts into the prenatal care.

I want to devote the remaining couple of minutes I have to talking about the bill we will vote on tomorrow morning with hardly any debate. It shouldn't hardly take any debate because the motion that we will be debating is whether we are going to debate a bill that will provide health care for small businesses across this Nation, that is supported by over 200 small business associations that recognize that there are about 22 million employers and employees out there who are uninsured because they can't afford it. This bill is designed to give them access to insurance. They have none right now. They recognize what they need to be able to do is ban together across State lines with their association to have enough clout to negotiate with their insurance carrier so they can get a lower rate.

But what we are talking about now is cloture on a motion to proceed. That allows for about 3 days' worth of debate, normally, before you get the vote. Then when you have the vote, you devote another 30 hours to deciding whether you are going to debate the bill or not. I am hoping the other side will see the need not to have this vote. I know they are hearing from their small businessmen. Everybody knows that small business is the backbone of the U.S. economy. If they have looked at the polls, they have found that 89 percent of the people in the United States, even after hearing the disadvantage of the old AHP form of this legislation, which is not this legislation, even after hearing those disadvantages, 89 percent said this legislation was needed to save small businesses.

We shouldn't be taking a needless vote. I am hoping it will be vitiated in the morning, and we will go ahead with the debate so people can see where the bill is going to go. I have never seen so much money spent in opposition to a bill before there was even permission to debate it. And neither have all the people who called me from Wyoming, other places in the United States, and in the District. You may have heard ads that said: Stop Enzi.

It isn't stop Enzi. It is keep small business from being able to get reasonable insurance. That shouldn't happen before a debate. That kind of thing sometimes happens when a bill is coming out of conference committee, after it has been amended on the floor of the Senate, after it has been amended on the floor of the House, after the two sides have gotten together and said: Is

there a solution on which we can agree?

If they agree on something that is radical, then this kind of action is usually done, not when we are talking about whether we ought to debate it, whether we ought to amend it, where it ought to go, where it can go, and what can be done. This bill needs to be voted on after a debate, not stopped from having a debate.

The NFIB collected 500,000 petitions asking for us to debate this bill. It isn't the same bill that we have been talking about before, the bill that the House has passed eight times in the past. This is a different bill. I got the insurance companies and the insurance commissioners to sit down with the associations and talk about a fair way of maintaining State control and maintaining consumer oversight at the State level. I have to say there are a lot of rumors out there. That is partly what PBS did. They reported a bunch of assertions without verification.

We are trying to get that corrected now. But I have never seen a bill that generated so much opposition before it was even debated. I hope we will cut that out and go ahead and vitiate the cloture motion so that we don't have to take the 30 minutes it is going to take to do that vote, and get right to the debate and start offering amendments and debate what can be done.

That is the process we ought to use. That is the process that we normally use. But I suspect there is a lot of money that can be lost if those small businessmen can actually negotiate against the insurance companies. I will get into that more when it is the appropriate time, not when we are talking about whether we ought to proceed on the bill at all.

I see that I have used my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.