Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am going to be here numerous times this week. This legislation is too important to have it shortcut. There is not enough time in the debate to say it all at one time.

Last night, this body had the opportunity to vote on proceeding to changes to the liability crisis that exists in health care today, but the minority denied us the ability to move forward. They denied the ability of the American people to hear an honest debate, to consider thoughtful amendments, and then to judge up or down on the content of the legislation.

They had two opportunities: liability that was reform for all medical professionals; and, then, liability that was only changed for those who are OB/GYNs--that next generation of medical professionals who are going to deliver our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren, that profession that is going to regenerate the population of this country and, in fact, is suffering today because of the high rate of liability costs for the premiums they have to have.

Now we are here. We are in debate--30 hours of debate--to see if we can proceed on a bill to bring small business group health insurance reforms into law, to enable small businesses in America to be able to price insurance for their employees in the same way large corporations are able to produce products for their employees.

Today, small businesses' choice is between nothing and nothing. It is not something and something. It is nothing and nothing. And what will we do? We will debate, for 30 hours, whether we should proceed. Some don't believe this is important enough or, if it is important enough, that there ought to be all sorts of changes to it that are unrelated to these millions of Americans for whom their employer cannot afford to provide health care. Why? Because they are not big. The marketplace discriminates because they are small.

Let me give you some statistics about North Carolina. In North Carolina, 98 percent of firms with employees are small businesses. Ninety-eight percent of my employers are shut out of the ability to negotiate a reasonable cost of health care for their employees. Because of that, their employees have a choice between nothing and nothing.

We will have 30 hours of debate to see if we are going to proceed in this body to provide something versus nothing--not something and something. How can anybody object to providing a choice of something for those who do not have an option today?

Additionally, in North Carolina, we have 1.3 million uninsured individuals. And 898,000--almost 900,000--North Carolinians are uninsured individuals in families or on their own with one full-time worker. Those are all individuals who potentially could be covered under an individual or a family plan.

Of the 1.3 million who are uninsured in North Carolina, 900,000 could be affected with this one piece of legislation in the Senate. But for the next 30 hours, we will debate whether we proceed or never get to the process of an up-or-down vote; in other words, it is a choice as to whether we keep them with nothing and nothing and the uninsured numbers stay at 1.3 million or, in fact, we are going to provide something for North Carolina--900,000 people who today have nothing provided for them.

Later today, I am going to come to this floor, and I am going to read for my colleagues real letters, handwritten letters--handwritten letters--from people who live in North Carolina, whose choice is nothing and nothing. These are individuals who have the same health needs, individuals who would like to have health insurance but whose employers cannot afford it today, who want the opportunity in employer- based health care, but because of the way the system is designed today, it is not achievable because it is not affordable for them.

We are here today and tomorrow, and we ought to be here as long as it takes to make sure Americans at all levels have choices between something and something. These 30 hours will determine, in fact, whether this historic institution will provide that for the American people or we will walk away; whereby, once again, the American people will be denied because some in this body do not believe there is a responsibility to move to a point where there is an up-or-down vote. Truly, people can look and say: You have my future in your hands. My health security is in the hands of the Senate, the Members of the Senate, and whether they are going to, in fact, respond to that.

Well, I think people in North Carolina desperately want choice. I think they desperately want this bill. They want their employers to have the opportunity to be able to look at health insurance and to find it affordable. Why? Because that is their security. That is their ability to have coverage.

My hope today is that the outcome of this legislation will not be a quick death such as last night with medical liability reform. We all agree health care is too expensive. We disagree on what the solutions are. But to end up with nothing, to deny the ability to move forward, to deny the ability for the American people's voice to be heard through the amendment process on this floor is disgraceful.

My hope is after these 30 hours we will proceed, we will have a robust debate on the amendments, and, at the end of the day, the American people will have an opportunity for an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the chairman has brought a carefully crafted piece of legislation to the Senate floor, one that took a tremendous amount of skill to negotiate and one that has incredible support--more support when the bill passed out of committee than it does today. Why? Because people now fear it might become law. People fear this might pass, and they never believed it would. What does it do? It brings additional competition to the marketplace, but more importantly, it brings health care coverage to Americans who have no coverage today.

Why are we here today, on Tuesday afternoon at almost 5 o'clock? Because the Senate is in a 30-hour debate about whether we are going to be willing or able to proceed. We are not even on the bill yet; we are in a procedural mode which requires us to have a vote to proceed to consider whether we are going to have a debate on this bill, S. 1955, a bill that changes the choices of the uninsured population in America.

The choices they have today are nothing and nothing. Under any scenario, you would have unanimous support to change that. But there are actually people who are against that up here, but not across the country. As a matter of fact, in this poll done by Public Opinion Strategies in March of this year, over 80 percent of the people polled overwhelmingly support small business health plans; in other words, they support this legislation--the effort to bring new choices of products that are affordable to small businesses, to employers, and, more importantly, to the employees they hire.

In North Carolina, we have 671,000 small businesses. Ninety-eight percent of firms with employees are small businesses in North Carolina. Don't let anybody come to the floor and tell you that this bill does not have an effect except on a select group of people. It may be a select group of people, but it is 98 percent of the employers of North Carolina. Women-owned small businesses have increased 24 percent in North Carolina since 1997, Hispanic-owned small businesses have increased 24 percent since the same date, Black-owned small businesses have increased 31 percent since 1997, and Asian-owned small businesses have increased 74 percent since 1997. These are companies which benefit from this legislation. These are companies which today can't afford the premium costs of health insurance; therefore, their employee base goes without. They are in that category of uninsured that so many people come and talk about on this floor, but they talk about uninsured without the solution as to how to cover them.

This is a population which in some cases today is on Medicaid. They work full-time. Their income level qualifies them for Medicaid. And what would be the incentive for them to get off of Medicaid? It would be if their employer has the option to offer them health care the way the majority of America is now provided health care: through their employer. But we are here in 30 hours of debate trying to decide whether we are going to allow Members to come to the floor and debate a bill and offer amendments which will allow us to switch from nothing and nothing to nothing and something, which will allow us to inject something, some ray of hope into the millions of Americans who don't have coverage today.

Let me read a few letters. I think it is always helpful to hear from people whom this affects, the human face behind the issues that sometimes we lose on this floor simply because we don't want to talk about names or pictures.

This is a woman from Sunbury, NC. She wrote me in mid-April of this year. I am just going to read some pieces. She says:

Support SBHP legislation, S. 1955. I feel that this is very

important because I haven't had health insurance in many

years, because my employer doesn't have access to affordable

insurance to offer us.

Some suggest on this Senate floor that is not the case, that everybody has the opportunity to have health insurance. ``I haven't had health insurance in many years.'' Why? ``Because my employer can't afford what is available.''

Another letter received in April of this year from a young lady in Elizabeth City, NC:

Please support Senate bill 1955, the Health Insurance

Marketplace Modernization and

Affordability Act. My employer cannot afford health insurance

for their employees. My husband works for Ford. They are

closing his plant soon. We will have no insurance unless my

employer offers it. I have premature twins. They were born 3

months early. It costs me $2,000 a month to feed them. That

does not include any doctor's appointments we have to go to.

I feel that this is a great bill.

What is America looking for? They are looking for hope. They are looking for us to produce a product out of this institution that actually fulfills their needs. I don't know how it can be any clearer.

It is not offered to me today, because my employer can't

afford the options that are in our marketplace.

What do we do? We create new options that are affordable. That is, in fact, what the chairman is trying to do with this bill.

Here is a third letter, also from Elizabeth City but a different business. It says:

Small businesses need help with insurance--

In big bold letters--

I am now paying $986 per month for my wife and myself. This

is for only 60 percent coverage and a $2,500 deductible. I

know people with group insurance who are paying $600 a month

for 80 percent coverage and a $250 deductible. Many of those

have dental insurance as well. My policy provides none.

Please vote for this bill. Allow small businesses to have

coverage equal to employers of other companies.

That is all we are doing. We are using the scale of what people who have a tremendous amount of employees can do, and that is they can go to insurance carriers and they can negotiate for products based upon the volume of their employees. But how does a small business owner do that when he has five or six or seven employees? Well, it is real simple. We allow them to band together. We allow them to band together into a common association, and we allow that association to then market their entire association based upon the volume.

Another letter that I received on April 6 says:

As a small business owner, it is important to enable some

economy of scale in allowing franchises to obtain more

affordable health care coverage.

The last one I am going to read is quite unique.

As a professional photographer, I have seen firsthand the

difficulty that my fellow professional photographers face

when attempting to purchase health insurance on their own. S.

1955 would allow photographers and other independent business

owners to band together across State lines and purchase

health insurance. Having this as an option and choice will

improve our access to quality health care and help control

costs through competition.

These letters are from people on the front lines. They are from employees whose employers can't offer coverage today because it is not affordable. They are from individuals who own businesses and would like to offer coverage to their employees. They are even from photographers, people whose lives are in their hands every day in a camera, but they cannot afford the individual costs of health insurance in today's marketplace.

In North Carolina, we have 1.3 million uninsured North Carolinians. Of that 1.3 million, almost 900,000 uninsured individuals are in families or are on their own where one person at least works full-time. With the passage of this bill, 900,000 of the 1.3 million uninsured in North Carolina could potentially be offered health insurance. We can narrow it down from 1.3 million to 400,000 individuals who are uninsured in North Carolina with the passage of one simple bill, or at least they would have the option to be able to purchase it for once. Ninety-one percent of workers in large firms of 1,000 employees or more have health insurance, yet 66 percent of workers in small businesses defined as 10 employees or fewer have health insurance. Well, if you remember the North Carolina numbers, I said 98 percent of firms with employees were small businesses. Think of the millions of Americans who are going to be touched by the passage of this one piece of legislation that provides them choice. Where today their choice is between nothing and nothing, tomorrow their choice is between nothing and something.

Why are we here? We are here for 30 hours of debate--not debate on the bill, not debate about the amendments, debate about whether we are going to move forward. We do that at a time when--I just went back and did a quick calculation on the back of my calendar--we have 76 legislative days left between now and adjournment. That is assuming we have productive days on Fridays and Mondays, and as the chairman knows, Fridays and Mondays are not always productive in the Halls of Congress. People are either slow to get here or quick to leave. If you take out Fridays and Mondays, we are down to 45 days. But we are going to spend 30 hours trying to decide whether we are going to move forward to debate this bill, and we will spend another 30 hours after we file cloture on the bill to get to a point where we can have an up-or-down vote, if, in fact, we get that far.

Last night, we voted on two medical liability bills--medical liability that covers the entire medical professional world--and last night, we were denied the ability to proceed and to debate the legislation, much less amend it. The second bill is legislation in which--and I think the American people would be shocked at this--we were denied the ability to move forward to debate or amend legislation that limited the liability to OB/GYNs in America, a specialty we are losing specialists out of every day, where every year people aren't continuing to practice. But we will spend 30 hours debating whether we proceed to debate not necessarily the merits of the bill--and my hope is that the chairman will be successful, and I will be beside him arguing every step of the way, because without this, these Americans don't have hope of a choice of anything other than nothing and nothing.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my amendment builds upon work Senator Lieberman and Senator Brownback undertook last year in the fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations bill, which also included the first avian flu supplemental. It enhances our domestic capacity to undertake wild bird surveillance coming into and across the United States by utilizing the expertise of the Smithsonian Institute to support our Federal agencies.

I agree that avian flu surveillance is critical to our ability to protect public health. Mr. President, I ask Senator Lieberman, is the global program he supported in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process for international surveillance currently up and running? The Smithsonian Institute and the domestic surveillance program they are working on and his international surveillance program will be important partners. We urge all parties to begin their activities immediately.

The Smithsonian has agreed to provide the samples and the data it collects to United States agency partners without delay. In turn, we will count on the DOI, USDA, HHS, and any other agencies to negotiate the full coordination and integration of the Smithsonian domestic component, the GAINS network, and any other ongoing effort into a public database. This way we know samples will be stored and shared between governmental and nongovernmental organizations and that data will work with additional efforts in the future.

I understand that Senator Lieberman has an amendment related to GAINS.

An international avian flu surveillance component is an important investment and I hope HHS and CDC recognize the need to enhance our surveillance capabilities. I encourage the Appropriations Committee and Chairman Cochran to give it full consideration.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.

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

Mr. President, some in this institution suggest that there is no liability crisis in health care in America. I am here today to say that I don't think anyone in America believes that. They may believe it in this institution. As a Senator from North Carolina, I can state no one from North Carolina believes it.

Not only has the out-of-control litigation in health care over the last decade inflated the cost for every American, it has now begun to affect the access we have to health care services.

Doctors across the State in North Carolina report they have been forced to reduce the coverage of critical medical services, especially in obstetrics, neurosurgery, orthopedics, plastic surgery, and primary care because of the sharp increase in the cost of medical malpractice insurance coverage. It has gotten so high they cannot afford the coverage.

Hospitals are concerned about the potential reduction in their services to their communities in the future as a result of the current crisis in medical liability insurance where premium increases and declining reimbursements continue. Hospitals report that the insurance crisis is making it increasingly more difficult for their medical staff to obtain adequate insurance coverage, and more importantly, at affordable prices.

The crisis is real. We can no longer in this institution act like an ostrich, put our head in a hole in the ground, and believe because we cannot see it, it does not exist.

Some nursing homes in North Carolina this year have no choice but to operate without liability insurance in order to stay open. The oldest and the frail in this country would not have the facilities to live in but for the brave decision of some owners that forego the insurance they can't afford.

Other long-term care facilities, faced with the huge increase in premiums, have been forced to reduce staff hours, freeze wages and reduce residents' activities. Those are things we do not want to see happen to that population.

North Carolina faces a medical liability insurance crisis. I had a friend who graduated from Wake Forest with me and was lucky enough to go to medical school. Today he is a nephrologist. I don't even know what a nephrologist is. I am not sure that too many people in America know what a nephrologist is. But I can tell you that he tells me nephrologists rarely get sued. In the last 3 years, his liability insurance has increased 300 percent. He has had a 300-percent increase in his cost to continue to practice medicine in a specialty that rarely sees lawsuits.

North Carolina hospitals have experienced medical liability insurance premiums increasing from 400 to 500 percent for the past 3 years, with small rural hospitals experiencing the greatest increases.

According to two recent studies, North Carolina's nursing homes are experiencing a tremendous increase in their medical liability premiums. Premiums for some nursing homes in North Carolina have skyrocketed by as much as 1,800 percent since 1995. But some in this institution suggest there is not a liability crisis in health care in America.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that the leading cause of the national liability insurance crisis is the recent explosion in multimillion dollar litigation awards and the resulting instability this creates in the medical liability insurance market.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services cited that North Carolina is tied with Nevada for the most mega malpractice awards in recent years. But some in this institution suggest that there is not a medical liability crisis in America.

Not only is it a crisis, health care services are out of the realm of the average American. It is driving doctors out of the profession of delivering medical services. In medical schools across the country this year, just as last year and the year before, many students will make a decision as to the specialties they choose for their entire medical profession based upon the likelihood of being sued in a court versus where their interests and their love might exist in health care. But some suggest there is not a liability crisis in America.

In North Carolina today we have a shortage of OB/GYNs, we have a shortage of neurosurgeons, we have a shortage of thoracic surgeons. When you look at the demographic shift that is happening in America, the Census Bureau projects that in North Carolina alone we will have a 53-percent increase in the State's population over the next 20 years. We will be the seventh most populated State. The OB/GYNs better move there because without OB/GYNs we are not going to deliver new babies. If they move there for retirement, which is probably our largest growth area, they may find out that they are moving to a State that has a tremendous health care infrastructure but the state does not have the specialists in neurology, in neurosurgery, and thoracic surgery available for their age group, and then they will have not made the wisest decision. But some suggest there is no crisis.

Lawsuits today are the leading cause of liability insurance increases. Changes are needed to protect patient access to health care. States that have enacted comprehensive common sense liability reforms have experienced much lower increases in medical liability insurance premiums compared to States such as North Carolina and Nevada because we have yet to adopt such reforms.

It is imperative this institution accept the national responsibility to end this crisis in health care, to make sure that the next students in our medical schools make decisions based upon where they want to practice and who, in fact, they want to help and not based upon where their fear exists of where the trial bar is most likely to target for the next lawsuit.

Over the years, I have heard from a lot of folks in North Carolina. I received this letter from a doctor in Greensboro, NC, in the month of April. It says:

As an orthopaedic trauma surgeon, I urge you to pass

medical liability reform this year. Each year, reform

legislation passes the House of Representatives, but stalls

in the Senate. Special interests are standing in the way of

reform.

I can say that special interests are not the patients across this country, it is not the patient who is looking for the specialist in North Carolina.

The letter goes on to say:

I can tell you from the point of view of someone on the

front line of medicine that America's (and North Carolina's)

medical liability crisis has to be solved. Medical lawsuit

abuse and unpredictable and huge verdicts are forcing good

doctors out of practice. Fewer young doctors are entering

important, but high risk specialties, including orthopedics,

obstetrics, and emergency medicine. Others are cutting back

on critical, but risky procedures, leaving patients to wonder

where they will get care when they most need it.

The cost of defensive medicine alone is staggering. I see it all the time: doctors ordering tests and referring patients to specialists more out of fear of lawsuits than because doctors believe the tests or extra visits are medically indicated. These costs are dragging down our health care system and our economy, and they ultimately increase out- of-pocket patient costs. It is time we fix this broken system.

I am not sure that anyone summed up the crisis in America in a one- page letter better than this doctor, this doctor who said that he is on the front line of medicine in America and in North Carolina. He put his finger on the point that if we don't solve it today, fewer young doctors will be entering the profession. That means less choice. Fewer doctors doing high-risk procedures in trauma care, something that doctors perform because they are trying to save a life.

Others are cutting back on critical but risky procedures, leaving patients to wonder who will be there to do these procedures.

In this institution, we fight cost and access. In America, we fight cost and access. Many times the decisions we make as Americans, such as choosing to move to a particular area because the schools are good, also includes the big component that there is a major medical facility available for us and our family.

The realities are, as this goes on, those major medical areas are going to be more and more important because in rural America there will not be doctors. And if there are no doctors, we know today, based upon what doctors tell us, there won't be OB/GYNs. We will have to tell pregnant women, let us know when you think you are going to go in labor because it is a 2-hour drive to the nearest facility that delivers babies. Or, as we have seen in some places, no natural child births, only Caesarian, because there is a risk of litigation to natural delivery that does not exist with the procedure of Caesarian birth. But some suggest in this institution that the liability crisis does not exist in America.

We come to the Senate to debate how we change health care policy so that health care is accessible and affordable for all Americans. We understand today how many Americans, or we think we do, go without insurance, without coverage, without the security at night of knowing that whatever happens to them, they have a policy to take care of.

If we did not solve this problem, it does not matter what the policy says. If the doctor is not there, where is our level of security? Where is the level of security of an American today that lives in a rural market where their hospital is closed? Not just their doctor left, but because of an 1,800-percent increase in the cost of liability insurance, they have decided to close the doors.

The burden falls on the payer--us--on insurance companies to try to raise the reimbursements big enough to make the payments for liability coverage. Why? Because of mega-awards, because of the influence those mega-awards have, in fact, had on the insurance product itself.

Dr. Handy was not the only one who wrote me. I had an interesting note from a doctor in Fayetteville, a member of a four-person neurology practice that cannot attract physicians to join the practice because of the inhospitable liability environment that exists. She and her husband are both neurosurgeons. They want to stay in North Carolina, but they may need to move and are actively looking elsewhere because they cannot even attract a neurologist to come into an existing practice.

They realize, as two neurosurgeons, if your practice cannot grow based on today's reimbursement structure, there is no way they can survive. Increases in their costs of insurance have limited their ability to deliver charity care. They have also decreased their participation in workers' comp. Their practice writes off more than $1 million a year in uncollectible accounts. There are currently only four neurosurgeons in Fayetteville, NC--the pentagon of the Army, Fort Bragg, NC, where over 55,000 men and women in the U.S. Army call home.

But some still suggest there is not a crisis. You see, it is easy to suggest that something does not exist because I think there is a tendency in our system that until it directly affects us, it really does not exist.

The reality is that every day we meet in this incredible, historic institution, there are people across this country who do not have access to a doctor, who cannot afford the services, who have been affected by the fact that the liability crisis in America is, in fact, real and has affected them.

Well, the challenge for this Senate, as we move forward, is to make sure our voices are louder than those who suggest there is not a crisis, to make sure the human face of those around America--who are affected directly and indirectly by the liability crisis that exists in medicine today--to make sure their voice is heard, their face is seen, that in this institution, as we talk about solutions, we look around the country and say: What have others done?

Well, that is what we are getting ready to do next week. We have looked around the country and seen who has been successful. And we are going to adopt a model that exists in Texas. It is not one that tightens as much as California. California, usually not necessarily the one that looks at Washington and says: Limit something for us-- California woke up and said: There may not be a liabilities crisis in America, but there is a liability crisis in California, and we are going to put caps in, we are going to bring some sanity to the system, we are going to bring in the parameters that drive price's down and encourage doctors to practice here in, yes, obstetrics, in neurology, in neurosurgery, and thoracic surgery.

California thrives today. What was California's comment about what we might do in Washington? It was: My gosh, don't make us raise our caps to what you are going to establish in all the States. We are below that today. I never thought I would say: California does something right. Let's mirror it. But that day has come in the Senate but at a time where some still suggest there is not a crisis.

What do we want to do? Replicate what, in fact, States have replicated to address the high cost of health care, the lack of access, the flight of doctors, the need for specialists. We want to adopt that nationally. It is as simple as that.

Next week, people will come to the floor of the Senate and they will, in an incredible way, suggest there is not a crisis in America. I want those in the Chamber today to remember next week not just the doctors who say there is a crisis, and it is real, but to remember the patients out there who are directly affected by our inability to solve this problem. They are the ones for which the safety net is supposed to be there to protect them. But the safety net only works if the infrastructure is there. This is not about cost by itself today. This is about access. And when access goes away, our ability to address it with a safety net is gone.

I urge my colleagues to stay engaged. I look forward to next week's debate.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the time, and I yield back.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and call up amendment No. 3713.

Mr. President, I will be brief because I know we are in debate on another amendment.

Avian flu is the concern of not just this Congress but of this country and the rest of the world. As it has spread by migratory birds--and in some instances around the world--it has infected humans. It is the responsible thing on the part of this country to prepare for that.

Part of preparation is not only being prepared for the human side, it is being prepared to track its entry and possible migration through the United States. Today we have devoted, with the leadership of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, moneys to the Fish and Wildlife Service to successfully do that, and we do it between Russia and Alaska. Unfortunately, there is a lot of geography in North America that goes uncovered and has routes for migratory birds.

My amendment is simple. We would like to reprogram $5 million of surveillance money that is in this emergency spending bill to the Smithsonian, directed to work with all of their nonprofit affiliates to set up a migratory bird surveillance program. This Congress has committed a tremendous amount of dollars to be prepared and to respond if bird flu becomes a human-to-human transmission. If we look around the world at successes, one would look at Taiwan and Japan specifically, where their migratory birds surveillance program detected, contained, and eliminated on their islands the infection. That is not to say that they are home free, but they certainly have a track record of eliminating the threat, even before it hit in total their domestic population of poultry.

We are concerned about the human-to-human transmission. With that concern has come a tremendous amount of resources from the Federal Government. It deserves us spending as much time focused on the economic impact before human-to-human transmission. I think it is safe to say that a majority of this country can be affected with our poultry flocks, and we have an opportunity, with a successful surveillance program, to make sure that we do what Japan and Taiwan did, and that is detect its entry, try to contain it, try to eliminate it when it first enters.

I am not sure that we have an entity that has a track record of doing what we are asking the Smithsonian. In the past, the Appropriations Committee has devoted some funds to some entities that suggested they could do it. The reality is they are not doing it today. This effort is to take an agency, a Federal arm, and to try to extend to them the resources to do what they say they can do and that is a successful migratory bird surveillance program.

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Without it, we have no hope of a surveillance program for migratory birds, with the exception of what we currently do in Alaska with Fish and Wildlife. We have a commitment to make sure that the efforts of the Smithsonian and their successes are integrated into the database of Fish and Wildlife. This is not to duplicate. It is not to create something that might be a threat to the existing program we have under way. It is to complement it. It is to say that we understand this is a large continent and that we have to tap the pool of people who are in nonprofits across the country and across the continent, if we want to be successful with a surveillance program.

I ask my colleagues to support reprogramming $5 million for this year. It is not new money. It is reprogrammed money. It is money that we had devoted to surveillance. It is shifted from human surveillance to migratory bird surveillance.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I thank the chairman and recognize there might be an individual who wants to speak in opposition.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, would the Senator from Colorado yield for a question? If the Senator would allow me, it is my understanding we would be able to voice vote my amendment that is pending right now. If the Senator would allow me to do that, we could dispose of this amendment in 30--I have been told I am incorrect.

I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. President, if it helps my colleagues, it will take me 20 seconds to offer this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment, and I call up my amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment No. 3114 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise on the Senate floor today to not only offer

this amendment and talk about it, but to speak on an amendment of another Member of the Senate, an amendment that also focuses on the avian flu.

Our country faces threats, some of which we know and some of which we don't know today. One real threat is the threat of pandemic bird flu. The President of the United States was ahead of the curve on this with a proposal to the Congress of over $7 billion for advanced development of vaccines, for the preparation the country needs to go through, and for the stockpiles of antivirals and countermeasures.

The fact is that Congress has responded to his request. This year the budget resolution highlights the fact that the President's request of $2.3 billion of taxpayers' money is in this budget resolution.

My colleague from North Dakota, for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect and who has helped, along with Senator Gregg, to move this budget resolution through this body, has asked we increase that amount by $5 billion. If for 1 minute I thought $5 billion would make America safer, I would be on the floor as a cosponsor of that amendment. But the reality is, we are at a point where we are absorbing all the money we can, given where we are in this process.

I just left a hearing with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. My direct question to him was: The President's budget asked for $2.3 billion. Is that sufficient for 2007?

He looked at me and said: Senator, where we are in the development of vaccines, where we are in our need for stockpiles, that amount fulfills everything we can do in preparation.

So I urge my colleagues not to support the amendment for an additional $5 billion of taxpayers' money to potentially go into a black hole. I remind my colleagues that the way this is funded is to raise taxes on the American people. We have used tax loopholes for corporations to fund many items suggested in amendments on this floor. The fact is, once again, the American people realize this is a covert way of raising taxes on them.

My amendment does something very simple. It creates a reserve fund. It has been described as hollow because it has no money. I believe the American people demand that we bring fiscal responsibility to this institution, to the Congress of the United States. I don't want to tie the hands of individuals within the agencies if they see a need for something, but the creation of this reserve fund allows them to do it in a budget-neutral way.

I believe this will be overwhelmingly supported because, in fact, it doesn't spend any new money, but it provides the flexibility and authority to those who are charged with addressing this threat.

The amendment establishes a reserve fund, and that can help to rebuild our domestic vaccine industry, support advanced development and acquisition of needed drugs and vaccines, strengthen the public health infrastructure, and increase surveillance and outbreak containment.

We are at a point in this Congress where we have the opportunity to reauthorize the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act, and we are considering legislation on advanced development of vaccines and countermeasures against chemical, biological, or radiological and natural threats. There are many issues that we have to decide exactly how we are going to handle. But to throw money at them is, in fact, not the answer today.

Those who are charged with the responsibility of making sure this country is prepared, in fact, have sufficient funding today. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Conrad amendment, to vote for the Burr amendment, and to make sure this administration is able to carry out what has been a well-planned preparation for a known threat to this country and, I might add, to the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would provide an above-the-line tax deduction for individuals who purchase their own health insurance and are not receiving it through their employer. An above-the-line tax deduction would allow a taxpayer to take the deduction even if they don't itemize their taxes. Current law allows those individuals who are self-employed and purchase health insurance to take an above-the-line tax deduction. My legislation would make the tax code fairer by allowing those people who are not self- employed to take the same deduction.

An estimated 17.4 million Americans in 2005 were covered by individually purchased health insurance policies. Some of these people are self-employed and can currently take this deduction. However, based upon these statistics, I estimate that up to 2 million families who have purchased health insurance do not have access to this deduction. My legislation seeks to correct that. Additionally, the legislation will make it cheaper for uninsured people to purchase their own health insurance policies. Health care costs in general are expected to rise 7.2 percent per year for the next ten years, so it is important for Congress to pursue steps to attempt to rein in this inflation and also to try to make health care and health insurance more accessible and affordable. This legislation is a part of those efforts.

Another important aspect of the legislation is that it would also allow individuals to take an above-the-line deduction for the purchase of long-term-care insurance. Most employers do not offer any subsidized long-term-care insurance to their employees, so those who need this protection often have to purchase it in the individual market. It is very important for Americans to purchase this insurance, since many people assume that Medicare covers long-term-care costs when people turn age 65. However, this is not true. Often, seniors will find themselves on Medicaid, the low-income federal health care program, when they have long stays in nursing homes that they cannot pay for. Long-term-care insurance is a far better alternative to having seniors go onto Medicaid. It is important for Congress to incentivize people to purchase this insurance, and my legislation is a step in the right direction.

I want to urge my colleagues to look at this legislation. It is short and to the point, but helping people to have private health insurance and long-term-care insurance is an important part of improving our health care system.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would provide an above-the-line tax deduction for individuals who purchase their own health insurance and are not receiving it through their employer. An above-the-line tax deduction would allow a taxpayer to take the deduction even if they don't itemize their taxes. Current law allows those individuals who are self-employed and purchase health insurance to take an above-the-line tax deduction. My legislation would make the tax code fairer by allowing those people who are not self- employed to take the same deduction.

An estimated 17.4 million Americans in 2005 were covered by individually purchased health insurance policies. Some of these people are self-employed and can currently take this deduction. However, based upon these statistics, I estimate that up to 2 million families who have purchased health insurance do not have access to this deduction. My legislation seeks to correct that. Additionally, the legislation will make it cheaper for uninsured people to purchase their own health insurance policies. Health care costs in general are expected to rise 7.2 percent per year for the next ten years, so it is important for Congress to pursue steps to attempt to rein in this inflation and also to try to make health care and health insurance more accessible and affordable. This legislation is a part of those efforts.

Another important aspect of the legislation is that it would also allow individuals to take an above-the-line deduction for the purchase of long-term-care insurance. Most employers do not offer any subsidized long-term-care insurance to their employees, so those who need this protection often have to purchase it in the individual market. It is very important for Americans to purchase this insurance, since many people assume that Medicare covers long-term-care costs when people turn age 65. However, this is not true. Often, seniors will find themselves on Medicaid, the low-income federal health care program, when they have long stays in nursing homes that they cannot pay for. Long-term-care insurance is a far better alternative to having seniors go onto Medicaid. It is important for Congress to incentivize people to purchase this insurance, and my legislation is a step in the right direction.

I want to urge my colleagues to look at this legislation. It is short and to the point, but helping people to have private health insurance and long-term-care insurance is an important part of improving our health care system.

Mr. President, I today speak on a bill I introduced, and which the Senate passed last night, to extend the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, Ed-Flex. My State of North Carolina is one of ten Ed-Flex states. As the citizens of North Carolina know well, gone are the days when an individual with just a high school diploma or GED could make a good living in industries such as textiles and furniture. For the future of North Carolina, it is imperative that we do all that we can to assist all students, regardless of background, reach high academic standards. Only through a strong public education system can we secure a bright economic future for individual citizens and for our communities.

Ed-Flex is a program that allows the Secretary of Education to delegate to states with strong assessment and accountability systems the authority to waive certain Federal education requirements that may, in certain instances, impede local efforts to reform and improve education. By allowing additional flexibility in their implementation of Federal programs, Ed-Flex is designed to help local districts and their schools implement the educational reforms needed to raise student academic achievement.

The Ed-Flex waivers in North Carolina are helping local school systems improve student achievement while meeting Federal No Child Left Behind requirements in a number of ways. Examples of how local schools and districts are using Ed-Flex to advance local reform strategies include: providing tutoring for low-achieving or at-risk students through coordinating Federal, state, and local services; developing more inclusive parent involvement initiatives; collaborating and planning with Head Start, developmental specialists, and faculty from local day care centers to facilitate a smoother transition and more appropriate placement of pre-K students; implementing a hands-on, inquiry-based science curriculum to promote critical thinking skills; providing for ongoing literacy group instruction that allows students to move into and out of the groups, as necessary, during the school year; and expanding afterschool science clubs and purchasing resources for afterschool programs.

Ed-Flex was first enacted as a demonstration program in 1994 as part of Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Initially, the Secretary of Education was authorized to designate six states as Ed-Flex demonstration states. The 1996 amendments to the Goals 2000 legislation authorized the granting of Ed-Flex

waiver authority to six additional states. On April 29, 1999, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 was signed into law, providing all states that had rigorous assessment and accountability systems the opportunity to participate. Because of North Carolina's comprehensive assessment and statewide school accountability system, the ABCs, North Carolina became an Ed-Flex state on December 19, 2000.

Ed-Flex has played a vital role in North Carolina's educational system by allowing local school districts to have the increased flexibility they need in the implementation of various Federal education programs. I am proud of North Carolina's exceptional school accountability program. As a result of our strong accountability safeguards, the Ed-Flex Program is helping our schools to meet the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. Continuing the Ed-Flex Program will further enhance the efforts of North Carolina local districts and schools to ensure that all students achieve academic proficiency. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I think it is safe to say that Chairman Specter has committed more time to the nomination of Samuel Alito than any single person in this body and in this country, with the exception of one, and that would be Judge Alito.

I rise today in support of the nomination of Samuel Alito to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Voting on the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is a rare event in the Senate, but this year this body has now considered two nominations in only a few short months. To cast this vote is a privilege, and it is one this Member takes seriously. Most Americans did not know Sam Alito 6 months ago, but now millions of citizens have seen him in the news. They have heard him answer countless questions during his confirmation hearing. We have learned a great deal about Judge Alito.

We have seen his family. We have listened to his stories about his childhood. We have heard about his educational background, and we have learned of his service on the bench. We have learned that his temperament and his character, are in fact solid. I personally have had the opportunity to sit with him, and I believe he respects the U.S. Supreme Court and the seat for which he has been nominated.

Americans have probably also heard the Senate debate Judge Alito's nomination. I would guess by now most Americans understand that there is no substantive debate over Judge Alito's qualifications for the Supreme Court. Clearly, Judge Alito has the legal qualifications to be an Associate Justice. He has remarkable academic credentials, extensive experience, not only on the bench but in trying cases as an attorney, and he was given a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating by the American Bar Association. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court, and he served on the bench of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the past 15 years.

It is my assessment that those who oppose Judge Alito's nomination do it for purely political purposes. They believe he might take positions contrary to their own political ideologies. Therefore, they believe he should be disqualified. He should not be considered for a slot on the Supreme Court.

Let me take a moment to provide an example of how critics have severely distorted the facts about Judge Alito's record. Quite honestly, if those same critics chose to rely upon the facts rather than the political sound bites, they might be quite surprised.

Judge Alito has been viciously attacked by critics over his record on civil rights. As we all know, Judge Alito serves on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. This appellate court in New Jersey has been described by the Associated Press as one of the most liberal courts in the Nation. My guess is it is probably only second, within that categorization, to the Ninth Circuit Court. It seems that opponents of Judge Alito have become so fixated on criticizing his record that they disregard the actual facts of his record.

When analyzing Judge Alito's civil rights record based on the more than 4,800 cases he has decided, the facts are these: Judge Alito has agreed with the other members of his ``liberal'' Third Circuit judicial panel 94 percent of the time on civil rights issues. Judge Alito has agreed with judges appointed by President Clinton on that bench 95 percent of the time on civil rights issues. Judge Alito has agreed with judges appointed by Jimmy Carter on the Third Circuit Court 96 percent of the time on civil rights issues. Finally, when Judge Alito sat on a three-judge panel where both other judges were appointed by Democratic Presidents, the decision handed down in those cases was unanimous 100 percent of the time on the civil rights cases. These are the facts. Those are the numbers.

Clearly, by the standards some in this body have chosen to apply to Judge Alito, no judge on the Third Circuit Court would therefore qualify to be considered for the Supreme Court. The statistics are one example of the distortion of Judge Alito's record by some. I could stand here on the floor for hours to discuss other misrepresentations of Judge Alito's record on individual issues, but I believe it is important to speak on why this Supreme Court confirmation should matter to the American people.

When I say I am going to speak about why this confirmation matters, I don't mean that I am going to talk about why the debate matters in the daily battles inside the beltway in Washington, DC. I want to speak about why it matters to the American people. It has become clear to me and to the 8\1/2\ million people in North Carolina that I represent, that Washington, DC, is overshadowed by partisan bickering and is arguably more polarized now than ever before.

As I discussed in this Chamber and in front of this body when considering the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts a few months ago, my constituents in North Carolina care about civil liberties. They have questions about life and death, property rights, basic freedoms, as well as their own economic prosperity and personal security.

That is why this vote is important today. The Supreme Court affects every aspect of our daily lives. But

more importantly, the decisions being made on the High Court today will affect the lives of our children and future generations yet to come. I am a father and I am a husband first; I am a Senator second. I believe while it is part of my job to vote on Supreme Court confirmations, I think of this vote in terms of how it will affect my family as well as the rest of the families in North Carolina and across the country. When my sons are my age, how will this decision, my vote on Sam Alito, affect them or eventually affect their children? That is what we are here to debate.

As we all know, public opinion frequently changes with time as opposed to the Constitution which changes rarely. While the legislative bodies across the country are intended to be flexible branches of our government institution, charged with addressing the needs of the people by making new laws, the judiciary is intended to be the equitable and impartial check, charged with preserving and protecting our Nation's basic fundamental principles.

I believe a nominee's judicial philosophy should translate to their legal interpretations, not their political positions. The legislature makes the law and the judiciary interprets it. Both branches serve an equally legitimate and important function, but they are very different. My constituents want justices who apply the law, not judges who make the law.

Opponents of Judge Alito continuously cite political reasons to vote against his nomination. Unfortunately, this sounds all too much like your typical Washington, DC, partisan battle. But I assure my colleagues, the American people outside of the beltway of this town don't care to hear us bicker about partisan political issues when it comes to the future of the Supreme Court. This should be a thorough debate on an individual's legal qualifications and judicial philosophy.

This debate is much bigger than Republicans and Democrats. This debate is about our children's future. For me, it is about doing what is right, and about doing what is right as a father and a husband. It demands that this body, the Senate, come together. Stop the character assassination, the distortion of a nominee's record, and support this nominee because of his expertise and his accomplishments.

After meeting Judge Alito, having the opportunity to review his questions in front of the Judiciary Committee, having an opportunity to ask him questions personally, I am confident that he does, in fact, have a sound judicial philosophy and that he will administer justice according to the strict interpretation of our Constitution. I am confident that he will preserve our Nation's longstanding principles and that he will interpret the law, not make it.

I am also convinced that Sam Alito is a man of character and honesty. Judge Alito is not only a good nominee, he is a good man. He deserves the support of every Member of the Senate. I will vote in favor of Judge Alito's nomination to be an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court. I urge my colleagues in this body to join me and to come together to stop the character assassinations and to speak up for the American people and the future of our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we will learn tonight that being No. 1 doesn't mean that you win, and being the largest doesn't mean you are the best. In fact, North Carolina pork chops are better than Iowa pork chops, and North Carolina football is, in most cases, as good if not better than Iowa football.

I commend the Northern Iowa Panthers. They have had a miraculous season. They deserve to be in the championship game based on how they performed in the second half of the season.

Appalachian State was ranked fifth by the Sporting News and fourth by ESPN/USA Today in the I-AA polls. Appalachian has a record of 11-3, and they have reached the I-AA semifinals now for the third time. They did it in 1987, 2000, and now in 2005. But they have never reached the championship game until this year.

This is a magical year for Appalachian State. Over 10,000 of my constituents will make the trek today to Chattanooga, TN, for tonight's football game. I remind my good friend, Senator Harkin, that almost all of the tickets turned back in by the Northern Iowa Panthers were purchased by North Carolina constituents who will be at that game.

Appalachian State advanced to the championship game with a 29-23 victory over rival Furman University. Appalachian took the lead with 2 minutes 17 seconds left, with an 11-play, 67-yard drive led by backup quarterback Trey Elder, who was filling in for a starting quarterback Ritchie Williams. They held off a last-minute threat and picked up a fumble by Furman and ran it back to Furman's 1-yard line, where that game ended.

Two of the team's three losses were to I-A teams--Kansas University and the tenth-ranked LSU Tigers. The Charlotte Observer named the Mountaineers the most successful college football program in the State over the past 20 years.

Among their famous alumni are Dallas Cowboys linebacker Dexter Coakley, and former Redskins runningback John Settles.

Coach Jerry Moore is the winningest coach in Southern Conference history, with a string of 16 winning seasons in 17 years, with a record of 139-67. This is his 13th playoff appearance as a head coach. Coach Moore perfected his coaching skills as an assistant under our colleague in the House, Congressman Tom Osborne.

When Appalachian wins tonight's showdown, it will be the first time a university from the State of North Carolina has ever won a national football championship.

Senator Harkin doesn't need to take my word for it or the sports reporters or the commentators opining on the success of Coach Moore and his Mountaineers. Senator Harkin needs to go no further than his own backyard to find someone who can attest to Jerry Moore's ability to prepare the Mountaineers for tonight's game. That is because Coach Moore counts as one of his closest friends a man synonymous with Iowa football--former Hawkeyes head coach, Hayden Fry, with whom Jerry Moore started his coaching career at SMU.

Mr. President, Appalachian State University was started as a teachers college in 1899. Its enrollment is slightly over 14,000 students. It is the sixth largest State university in our university system in North Carolina. It has one of the highest graduation rates of student athlete football players in the State, and a few years ago it ranked only behind Duke in that distinction.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Northern Iowa Panthers. I congratulate Chancellor Peacock and Coach Moore but, more importantly, these two teams who have reached the final championship game tonight.

Tonight there will be only winners; there are no losers. Tomorrow there

will be one loser, and that will be my colleague from Iowa as he prepares to send those pork chops to North Carolina.

With that, I yield the floor.