Floor Statements

I thank our chairman, the leader on this issue. Would the Senator yield?

First, I say to Senator Dodd, I heard all this talk about socialized medicine. Socialized medicine. These are scare tactics. There are a lot of scare tactics going on.

I was in my State over the weekend, and people were talking about euthanasia in the bill. We hear all this crazy stuff going on out there, and I got to thinking about this. There is a lot of money on the table. We spend $2.3 trillion a year, if I am not mistaken. There is a lot of money, and a lot of people have a vested interest in not changing the system because they are making a lot of money. Obviously, what they are trying to do is scare people.

People elected us--and I think elected President Obama--to make some changes in the way we do things, but there are a lot of vested interests out there that don't want to change. There are a lot of scare tactics going on out there. They are unduly scaring people and obviously by people who don't want to change the system. They want the status quo.

The other thing I might say, as to all this talk about socialized medicine, historically, when President Harry Truman first proposed a kind of national health insurance program, that is the issue that was raised in 1951, I think it was. I could be off a year. Maybe 1950 or 1951 it was raised, when he was proposing this. The origins go back to an individual whose name I forget right now, but he was an advertising executive hired by the AMA at that time to stop Harry Truman's program. So he came up and he coined this whole phrase ``socialized medicine.'' It was picked up by then-Senator Robert Taft, and he kept harping on the Truman program was socialized medicine. Well, that was in 1949- 1950, I think it was, and here we are, all these many years later, and we hear the same arguments coming up again. It wasn't socialized medicine then and it is not socialized medicine now.

What we are trying to get is a system that is stable, that people can rely on, that they know is going to be there for them and that is affordable and gives them a quality health program--as my colleague, Senator Dodd, said--as we have. What we are trying to get for the American people is the same kind of system all Federal employees have. We are on the same system as your local postal employee in a small town in Connecticut or a small town in Iowa or somebody who works for the Farm Service Agency in the Federal Government. We are all on the same plan. We have a lot of choices, don't we? Every year, I think we get 20-some plans to pick from. We sort of have an exchange out there, where every year, if we don't like what we have, we can go to something else. Why shouldn't the rest of the American people have that kind of access?

I spoke with a small businessman in Iowa last week. He has 12 employees and spends 15 percent of his gross revenue on health care. He has 12 employees, and one of his employees had a kidney transplant. Another came down with cancer. In 2 years, his insurance premiums went up 100 percent. In 2 years. He has a $5,000 deductible, and he said he needs some work done. He wanted to go in for a colonoscopy because he turned 50, but a colonoscopy costs $3,000. Well, that is out of pocket because he has a $5,000 deductible.

I am trying to get to my point of prevention. Because we know if he has a colonoscopy and something happens, they can stop it. It is one of the most preventable forms of cancer, this colon cancer, but it is one of the most deadly if you don't get it in time. So I asked Art: Why don't you get a different plan? He said: I can't. We only have one in rural Iowa I can go to.

What we are trying to do is get more plans for people out there in small towns in Iowa, in Connecticut, and everywhere else so they do not have to be stuck with one plan; they can shop around and get other plans.

He asked me if he could get on the public option plan that we have in our bill. I said: Sure. Small businesses such as you? Absolutely. That means he can get in a pool with everybody else around the country and reduce his costs. I just remembered that, and I remembered him talking about trying to get a colonoscopy. This kind of gets to the nexus of what I wanted to talk about, briefly, which is the focus on keeping people healthy.

President Obama said very clearly, when he addressed a joint session of Congress earlier this year, that we have to make a major investment in prevention and wellness because that is the only way we are going to keep people healthy and reduce medical costs. Well, President Obama gets it. He understands we have to make a major new investment. That is what we have done in our bill--our Affordable Health Choices Act--which Senator Dodd so greatly led through our committee. We make a major investment in prevention and keeping people healthy.

My colleague is right. I started out saying we have a sick care system instead of health care. I started saying that in 1992; that we have a sick care system, not a health care system. If you get sick, you get care, one way or the other. But there is not much there to try to keep you healthy in the first place and to focus on prevention. Again, our bill has a very strong prevention provision in there.

Some ideas on what we have tried to do. The real health reform starts with prevention, it does. If we don't do prevention and wellness, you can jiggle the payment system all you want and you are not going to save a dime, unless we start focusing on keeping people healthy in the first place. Is there support for that out there? Sure. The American people get it. They understand this. They were asked: Should we invest more or not invest more in prevention and wellness? Well, you can see that 76 percent of the American people said we had to invest somewhat or strongly; invest more, 53 percent; invest somewhat, 76 percent; not invest any more, 10 to 16 percent.

The American people get it. They get it. You can talk to anyone you want about health care and ask them: Would you rather just have something that takes care of you when you get sick or would you rather have more focus on keeping you healthy? I will tell you the response will be: I want to stay healthy. People want to stay healthy. But in a lot of cases, they don't know how. There are not the support systems there to do that.

Again, on saving some money; a lot of times we hear that: Oh, this won't save money, and the CBO--Congressional Budget Office--doesn't score it. But we asked voters. The poll question was: Will prevention and wellness save us money? Seventy-seven percent said yes. Yes, it will save us money. Again, the American people get it, that we have to focus more on prevention and health.

We have some problems with CBO. That is the Congressional Budget Office, for those who don't understand the jargon around here. The Congressional Budget Office doesn't score us very well. Score means they do not give us much savings when we invest in prevention and wellness. Well, I have gone over that with the Congressional Budget Office, and the problem is they do not give a savings because they do not give savings on what they call secondary savings. Secondary savings is what prevention provides. It saves you money from going to the hospital or getting sick. But they do not give us a good score for that on savings. But do we have data on that? Do we know if it saves money? Sure, we do.

This is from the Trust for America's Health. They did a big survey of community-based interventions and for $10 per person, in 1 to 2 years, they save $2.8 billion; 5 years, $16.5 billion; 10 years, $18.5 billion. That is just $10 per person, and that is just community programs. So we address the whole gamut. We address the community-based programs and the clinical-based programs.

For example, what we do in our bill is we set up an investment fund to do a number of different things. Let me give one example. We are going to train health professionals in how to work with prediabetic individuals, people who have tested high, who look like they are prediabetic. We will train them to work with them to manage their condition, to get them on the proper diet, to manage them as they go along. What is so important about that? Well, what is important about

that is that right now, for example in Medicare, Medicare will pay $30,000 to amputate your foot if you have diabetes. They will not reimburse one cent for nutrition counseling before so you don't get diabetes. But they will pay for nutrition counseling after you get diabetes. That doesn't make any sense.

Right now, the cost of diabetes in our society is $174 billion a year. That is $174 billion a year on diabetes. Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if we can get hold of people who test prediabetic and get them on a well-managed program so they do not come down with diabetes, we will save money. But the Congressional Budget Office doesn't score that as any savings.

So at the clinical level we will do that. We will reimburse, for example. There will be a reimbursement for cancer screenings, for smoking cessation, nutrition counseling, colorectal screening. There will be reimbursements for that, and you will not have to pay any deductibles or copays. So for my friend who is now facing $3,000 for a colorectal screening, this will not cost him anything. No copays, no deductibles, and the insurance company has to reimburse for that.

Again, if we catch these things early, it is just like mammogram screening. We know if we get breast cancer early, it is curable. Again, let me say something that is public. The mayor of Cedar Rapids is a woman. I was in Iowa this weekend, and it was announced she has breast cancer. She went in today for a small surgery, and she will be back to work tomorrow because they got it early.

I appreciate the Senator saying that, and that is why we have to have more focus on this prevention and getting people in for early screenings. If you get it early, you are cured. We know that. So we want to remove any of the obstacles people have going in and getting screening.

Again, the Congressional Budget Office says they cannot figure out the savings. I said: Why don't you go look at Pitney Bowes. It is a big company, 200-some thousand employees, scattered all over the United States--

I didn't know that. Pitney Bowes, and their CEO, Mike Critelli, went on a big program of wellness and prevention for all their employees. I think they called it Health Care University or something such as that. Here is what they found.

They found, through their wellness and prevention program, they reduced their number of hospitalizations for all their people by 38 percent--38 percent. Think of the savings. They reduced their disability payments and claims by 50 percent, just through their wellness and prevention programs.

Again, this will save us money. It will make people healthier. Not only that, I say to my friend, just the productivity level--people will work harder, they will work better when they are healthy and they are well.

One other thing I wish to mention. We have a fund in the prevention title of the bill that will increase over the years to a significant amount of money. People say: What are you going to use that money for?

Right now at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for cardiovascular disease prevention and heart disease prevention, the current funding is $50 million for all States. That is barely enough to even print a pamphlet to get information out to people--$50 million for cardiovascular disease. Yet angioplasties alone and bypasses, we spend over $90 billion a year--just on those two items. But if they are caught early and if there are prevention programs out there, we can cut those down.

You mentioned diabetes. Right now diabetes costs us $174 billion a year--for diabetes. So the current funding is $62 million a year for diabetes prevention and control in the entire United States.

Arthritis, the current funding is $13 million. For nutrition, physical activity and obesity, right now $42 million is all we spend through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--$42 million a year.

You get my point. My point is, we are not focusing enough on prevention and wellness. That is what this bill does.

I thank our chairman, I thank Senator Dodd for his great leadership. That is what people have to understand. In our bill, we have defined what we want to do on prevention and wellness. Frankly, I think we had good support on both sides of the aisle for that. I think the American people support putting more emphasis on keeping people healthy.

Andrew Weil, Dr. Andrew Weil has come out with a new book, ``Why Our Health Matters.'' One of the things Andrew Weil pointed out to me a while ago--he said the natural state of the human body is to be healthy. It is in our DNA. Our body wants to be healthy. Yet everything we do lends itself to be unhealthy. We have to do things to make it easier to be healthy and harder to be unhealthy. Right now we do the opposite. It is easy to be unhealthy and hard to be healthy--especially after you find you have to make all these copays and deductibles. There is not much out there if you are prediabetic. Where do you go to get the kind of counseling and help you need so you don't get diabetes? I suppose if you have a lot of money you can probably do it, but for the average person, they have no idea where to go.

The last thing I might mention, I say to Senator Dodd, also in our appropriations we have, and we hope we get some more in other bills, but: workplace wellness programs, to buttress what Pitney Bowes and Safeway and others have done in that area.

For this bill, it is key to reducing costs and changing the structure of health care in America. I am grateful for my colleague's leadership in pulling this together and making sure in this bill we have a very strong investment in prevention and wellness.

I thank my colleague. I think that is a very good point.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend from Oregon, with whom I have had numerous conversations, going back over years, on the whole wellness ethic and how we can kind of get this big ship of health care moving in a different direction. Senator Wyden has been one of the great leaders in this area, and I have consulted with him often on this issue. I look forward to his work on the Finance Committee.

Of course, on workplace wellness, we have to make sure small businesses are able to help their employees in wellness programs. We know from other businesses and what they have done--some larger businesses but some smaller ones that have done good workplace wellness programs--it pays off immensely in savings but also in productivity. Of course, that is something the CBO does not look at--increased productivity. They do not look at that.

But I say to Senator Wyden, he is absolutely right. What we have done, what we anticipate will be coming now from the Finance Committee, and in putting these together, we will have a whole new--what is that fancy word called Paradigm--a new paradigm in health care in this country, where people will have a lot of choices. They will be able to shop. They will not be like my friend Art in Storm Lake, IA, who only has one place to go with a $5,000 deductible.

Now we will be able to take a lot of these small businesses and they will be able to go on these exchanges and they can be in a pool with a lot of other people all over the country. We know a principle of insurance--I say to Senator Wyden, he knows this very well--one of the basic principles of insurance is: The more people in the pool, the cheaper it is for everybody.

So we set up the bigger pools with our small businesses, my farmers and farm families to get into bigger pools, and not just these small pools that cost them so much money. But the idea behind it, of course, the one big paradigm, is to start focusing on wellness and health promotion, keeping people healthy. We have to put more incentives in there for people.

You talk to anyone. Go out and talk to anyone and ask them would they like to be healthier or would they like to be sick. That answer is easy. They want to be healthy. What kind of help do you get? When you go to your doctor, when you talk to your doctor and stuff, do they tell you how to be healthy? Well, I do not know. I do not think so. When is the last time you went to a doctor and walked out without getting a prescription? So the doctor gave you a prescription. Go get a drug. We have to change this. In our bill, we do.

Again, part of our prevention package is to focus on medical schools and how we get more people in general practices and family practices and residencies in prevention and wellness so they begin to understand how they can start working with people to keep them healthy.

So this is a way we are going to try to shift this so the person can say: Yes, I want to be healthy. And do you know what, I went to my health care practitioner--maybe a doctor, maybe a nurse

practitioner, maybe a physician's assistant, and it could be a host of different people; it could be a chiropractor--and, do you know what, they spent a lot of time with me, and they gave me a program to follow to stay healthy. And guess what. They check up on me and they find out: Are you following your program? Come in. You come in here in 6 months. I am giving you this program to show you how to stay healthy. And they call me up after a month. Someone in the office called me up, asking: Are you doing this? In 6 months, I have to come back in to make sure I am doing it.

No one has ever done that before. But in our bill, you see--in our bill--they will be able to get reimbursed for that. They will be able to get reimbursed for keeping someone healthy and not just taking care of you when you are sick.

I wish to thank my friend from Oregon. He has been a great leader in this area for so many years. I look forward to working with the Senator to get us over that finish line sometime this year.

I thank Senator Dodd again for all his great leadership. I say to the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Rhode Island--talking about the public option, to digress for 1 second away from prevention--here is one of the reasons we need a public option: From 2003 to 2007, the combined profits of the five largest health insurance companies went up 170 percent. Their profits went up 170 percent. The CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies right now: $14.2 million a year.

Well, that is why we need a public option out there, to kind of put some brakes on that, to give some competition out there so these health insurance companies know they have to be a little bit more stringent on maybe what they pay their CEOs, and maybe the profits will not be so high because they will have a public option out there that will act as a check both on their profits but also a check on the quality of care they provide. That is why the public option is so vital and necessary.

Well, again, I say thank you to Senator Dodd for having us here tonight, and I thank him again for his great leadership on this health care bill.

I say to my friend from Oregon, we are going to get it done. We are going to make this a wellness society, not a sick society.

I thank my friend from Oregon.

Mr. President, I can't thank Senator Dodd enough for getting the information out on what our bill does. A lot of people don't know that we have a very comprehensive bill. This one dealing with small businesses is so important.

Now, it is true we excepted businesses that employ fewer than 25, as we should. However, I just told the story about my friend in Iowa who employs 12 people, and they buy health insurance but they only have one plan, and this would give them more.

I believe that with the bill we have and setting up these exchanges and letting different insurance companies come on the exchange, and with a public option there are a lot of small businesses out there that would like to cover their employees; they just simply can't afford it or the deductible is so high that it is not even worth it. Now I believe they will be able to take, with our bill, after it is fully implemented--it takes about 3 years to phase in, if I am not mistaken-- there will be a lot of small businesses out there that employ 10 or 15 people that now will be able to get an insurance policy for their people that will be a heck of a lot more reasonable than what they can get now, and they will be able to shop for that.

So even though we have exempted them, I think a lot of small businesses want to cover their employees. They live in the same community; they go to the same church; they know one another, and they want to buy some health coverage for their employees. They can't now, but I believe under the bill we have through our committee, once we get it fully implemented, we will have that public option out there, we will have the exchange with all of the insurance programs out there, and they will be able to now shop around and find one that can fit their needs. So we will have a lot more support for small businesses that way.

I thank the Senator.

I ask unanimous consent that Stephanie Woodward and Jeremy Girton be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, yesterday, July 26, marked the 19th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act by President George Herbert Walker Bush, on July 26, 1990. Passage of that law was a great national achievement. I remember being there. I was the chief sponsor of the bill. I was at the White House when it was signed. It was a beautiful sunny day. More people were on the White House lawn for the signing of that bill than for the signing of any bill in the history of this country. It was huge. It was a wonderful day. It was one of the landmark civil rights bills of our generation--of the 20th century.

Passage of the original Americans with Disabilities Act was a bipartisan evident. As the chief sponsor of that bill, I worked very closely with Senator Dole. Of others on the other side of the aisle, two come to mind: Senator Orrin Hatch, who worked very closely with us to get it through, and also Senator Lowell Weicker, of Connecticut. Senator Weicker was the first proponent of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but by the time we were able to get it passed, he was no longer in the Senate. But Senator Weicker did yeoman's work in getting it going and pulling everything together before he left the Senate.

We received invaluable support from President Bush and key members of his administration. I mention, in particular, White House Counsel Boyden Gray, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, and Transportation Secretary Samuel Skinner.

We look back, after 19 years, and what do we see? We see amazing progress. Thanks to the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA as we call it, streets, buildings, and transportation are more accessible for people with physical impairments. Information is offered in alternative formats so

it is usable by individuals with visual or hearing impairments. Need I mention the closed captioning through which one can be watching the words of my speech on television right now? Closed captioning is now going all over the country, not just for speeches on the Senate or House floor but for television programming and important events and weather announcements. Again, it all started after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

These changes are all around us--curb cuts, widened doorways, accessible buses, accessible trains. You never could get on an airplane before with a seeing-eye dog. Now when you get on an airplane you see people come on with a seeing-eye dog. They are allowed to do that.

These changes are now so integrated into our daily lives it is sometimes hard to remember what life was like before the ADA. After ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations so people with disabilities have an equal opportunity in the workplace. There were four goals of the ADA, four stated goals in the law: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

Last year, again with broad bipartisan support, we were able to pass the ADA Amendments Act, overturning a series of Supreme Court cases that greatly narrowed the scope of who is protected by the ADA. Beginning in 1999 and going to 2000 and 2001, there were a series of cases, the three most important are what we call the Sutton, the Murphy, and the Kirkingburg cases that came before the Supreme Court. In each of those cases, the Supreme Court did not look at the report language and the findings we had made in the Congress on who is covered by the ADA--the fact that mitigating circumstances were not to be taken into account and that there was not a demanding standard to be met. The Supreme Court turned that on its head. They narrowed who was covered by the ADA. They said that mitigating circumstances had to be taken into account and that there had to be a demanding standard for who was covered.

Again, we worked on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to straighten out these hearings, to overturn the Supreme Court's findings as a matter of fact, and we did. We did it on a bipartisan basis, both the House and the Senate, and President George Herbert Walker Bush's son, then- President George Bush, was able to sign those into law, and I was able to be down at the White House on that. Again, it was a very poignant moment with both President George W. Bush and his father, President George Herbert Walker Bush, being there for the signing of the ADA amendments. Thanks to that legislation of last year, people who were denied coverage under the ADA will now be covered.

As we celebrate the 19th anniversary of this great civil rights law, it is remarkable to think that many young people with disabilities have grown up taking advantage of these changes, and they have no memory of the way things used to be before the law was passed. I remember recently as I--as we are wont to do as Senators--had my picture taken out here at the front of the Capitol with a group of young people, one of whom was using a wheelchair, I was talking about the upcoming anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I pointed to the curb cuts so someone could come up and use a wheelchair. I said: You know, those were not there before 1992.

This young person in the wheelchair was astonished to find this out. He assumed they had always been able to move around freely.

As we look around after 19 years, we see a lot of changes--a lot of changes for the good. We see more young people taking advantage of educational opportunities, travel opportunities, families going out to restaurants, traveling with family members who have a disability, schools. We see a lot of wonderful changes that have taken place because of the ADA. But, frankly, there is more work to do. We have not yet reached the promised land of those four goals of the ADA.

At the top of the list is the need to pass the Community Choice Act. This bill has been around a long time. It was first introduced in the 1990s. It was then called MCASSA; that stood for the Medicaid Community Attendance Support Services Act. No one could ever remember what it stood for so we changed the name to the Community Choice Act.

What is this all about? Right now, all over America there are people with disabilities who qualify for Medicaid coverage. They are low income and they have severe disabilities, so they qualify for Medicaid. If they want to get their full coverage for support services, they have to go to a nursing home. If they go to a nursing home, under the law, Medicaid must pay for their support services. If they go to a nursing home, it must pay.

But let's say a person with a disability doesn't want to go to a nursing home, they kind of like to live in their own home, they would like to live with their friends, their family, in the community where they know people. Do they get any support services? None. Medicaid does not have to pay one single dime. If they go to a nursing home, they will pay for it; if you want to stay in your own home and get those support services, Medicaid doesn't have to pay for it. They do not have an equal right to choose where they want to live.

Again, I will say this, some States have applied for waivers, and they have extended these support services to people with disabilities in the community. But it varies from State to State. Some States don't have the waivers, some States do. Even in some States that have waivers--my State of Iowa has one--the waiting lists are long. It will take you 3 or 4 years to ever get up in the queue to be eligible. So it has been a patchwork of different things around the country.

On top of that, in 1999, 9 years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a case came to the Supreme Court. We call it the Olmstead case, Olmstead v. L.C. It came out of Georgia. The Supreme Court made an important decision. It said that individuals with disabilities have the right to choose to receive their long-term services and support in the community rather than in an institutional setting. The Supreme Court said they have a right to that.

So this year marks the 19th anniversary of the ADA, it marks the 10th anniversary of that decision of Olmstead by the Supreme Court. Yet people with disabilities still have to go to a nursing home to get their long-term services and supports.

Listen to what the Supreme Court said in 1999:

Institutional placement of persons who can handle and

benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted

assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or

unworthy of participating in community life.

Changing these assumptions is what the ADA is all about. Again, as I said, some States have done it. But it is kind of a patchwork quilt around the country. The Community Choice Act is focused on increasing the availability of attendant services and supports.

We know from studies done--the most important being done by Dr. Mitch LaPlante at the University of California at San Francisco--we know from studies that for a person with a disability to go into a nursing home to receive those long-term services and support costs three times more than what it does in the community. In other words, it would cost three times as much. So for every one person in a nursing home, you can support three people living in their own homes in the community.

You would say: Why aren't we doing that? Because there are about 600,000 people in this country. These are individuals who are on the bottom rung. Let's be frank about it; they are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. They are poor because they are Medicaid eligible; they have varying degrees of disabilities that, if they do not have their support services, they cannot get out, they cannot go to work. They may be capable of working. After all, we have curb cuts, we have buses that are accessible, we have subways that are accessible, we mandated that employers must make reasonable accommodations--wonderful. But if you can't even get out of your house in the morning, what good does all that do you? So 600,000 people. CBO did a cost analysis and said this would cost about $50 billion over 10 years--$50 billion over 10 years.

That is a lot of money. But, keep in mind, the health care bill we are talking about passing, recent estimates by

CBO put it at $1 trillion over 10 years--$1 trillion over 10 years. So $50 billion, that is about 5 percent. Is that too much to ask to help people on the lowest rung of the economic ladder in our country, to help them take advantage of what is their civil right, what the Supreme Court said they have a right to: a right to live independently, a right to live in their own home, to get those services?

As we all know, civil rights such as this are not self-executing. They require some support from the Congress. Frankly, I must tell you I disagree with the estimate of the CBO because here is what they do not take into account. They don't take into account that many of these people with disabilities who could live in the community if they had these services and support can now get out the door in the morning, get to work, make a living, and pay taxes.

I think of my nephew Kelly. My nephew Kelly was injured in the military. He was serving on an aircraft carrier and got sucked down a jet engine. He lived, but he is a severe paraplegic for the rest of his life.

My nephew Kelly came back out of the military. He had that terrible accident. He was 19 years old, a big strapping kid. He went to school, went to college. Then he lived by himself--he still does. He lives in his own home. He has a van he drives with a lift on it.

He gets up in the morning, goes to work, comes back. How is he able to do this? He has support services. He has someone who comes in his house in the morning, gets him ready; someone who comes in the house at night, gets him ready for bed. He does his own shopping and cooking, but he has to have a nurse there, someone to help him get going. If he did not have that, he would not be able to go to work. But he has that. He is able to go to work, and he is a taxpaying citizen of this country.

There are hundreds of thousands of Kellys around this country who, if they had that support mechanism, could go to work. So when they say it costs $50 billion, I say, well, you are not taking that into account. They are not taking that into account. So as we enter the critical stage in hammering out comprehensive health care reform, we must not miss this opportunity to extend the availability of attendant support and services which so many have been fighting for for so many years.

Every individual with a significant disability deserves the choice about where to live and with whom to live and where to receive his or her essential services. That has a lot to do with employment, and as I look back over 19 years of the ADA, there is one thing that is still lacking: that is employment of people with disabilities.

Recent surveys show 63 percent of people with disabilities are unemployed. They want to work. They have abilities, but they are unemployed. A lot of this is because there are no support services. Much of this has to do with the fact that some employers are not providing reasonable accommodations. Some of it has to do with the fact that there is not an affirmative action program to hire people with disabilities. Some 21 million people with disabilities are not working, are not employed. So we need to do a better job with providing these people with disabilities the opportunity for economic self-sufficiency as we promised in the ADA.

On a closing note, on Friday of last week, President Obama announced the President of the United States will sign the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, an international treaty that identifies the rights of persons living with disabilities and obligates countries to maintain those rights. The convention, after it will be signed, I understand, this week by our Ambassador to the U.N., will go through a process and then it will be referred to the Senate for ratification.

Well, we should take pride in the fact the United States has always been a leader in ensuring the rights of individuals with disabilities. We have made great progress toward the goal of equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

By becoming a party to the convention, the United States will continue its leadership role. So on this 19th anniversary of the ADA, I thank our President, President Barack Obama. I thank him for the statement he made last Friday that he was going to sign this week and for maintaining the leadership role of the United States in ensuring the rights of people with disabilities.

I only hope the convention will get through the process rapidly so we can get it to the Senate, and I hope the Senate can ratify it as soon as possible.

Lastly, on a more poignant note, I want to pause on this anniversary to remember people who played such a vital role in passing the ADA. Some are no longer with us, such as Justin Dart, who was the person who pulled it through. Justin Dart. We are fortunate that his wife Yoshiko continues to carry on this legacy day after day and week after week and year after year.

We remember Ed Roberts, the father of the independent living movement, whose work and vision continues to inspire powerfully. He is also gone.

Others who are still with us: Pat Wright, my staff director; Bobby Silverstein, who worked so hard and pulled this through. Of course, the one person, when the going got tough, when we did not know if we could get everything pulled together, who worked his magic to bring people on both sides of the aisle together--and herein I speak of Senator Ted Kennedy, the chairman of the committee, the HELP Committee, at that time, and I was chairman of the Disability Policy Subcommittee. But that was under the tutelage of Senator Kennedy. He was the chairman of the HELP Committee at that time. It was because of his great work we were able to pull people together to get the great compromise to pass the ADA.

I would mention one other person I think might be somewhat responsible who is no longer with us. That is my late brother Frank. I have spoken of him many times as my inspiration for working on disability issues.

Frank became deaf at a young age. He was taken from our home and sent across the State to the Iowa School for the Deaf. At the time, many people called it the State School for the Deaf and Dumb. That is how they referred to people who could not hear, as deaf and dumb.

I remember my brother said to me: I may be deaf, but I am not dumb.

He also said to me one time: The only thing that deaf people cannot do is hear. He fought, not only in school, but after school to be independent and to make his own way in life, and he was able to do that.

I saw how many times he was discriminated against, whether it was getting a driver's license, so many things he was told he couldn't do because he was deaf. They were always trying to hold him back. But he was always pushing, and he was able to carve out a life of independence and dignity for himself. Why did he have to fight so hard for all of this? Why did he have to struggle so much just to get people to accept him for what he was and who he was and not just to look at the fact that he was a deaf man, but that he was a person of great capabilities.

Great ethics. Great work. Very hard. But why did he have to struggle? Then I started looking around and saw all of those people with disabilities in America who just had to overcome almost insurmountable obstacles just to be a contributing member of our society, not to get welfare. My brother was never on welfare in his entire life. He always worked hard. They just want to work and contribute and to be a part of our society. Why did it require extraordinary efforts to do things we just take for granted in our country?

So he was sort of my inspiration and continues to be today. So, yes, we have had our share of frustrations. We have not reached the promised land. We have a 60-percent or more rate of unemployment, and people with disabilities have to go to a nursing home to get support rather than living in the community.

So we do have a ways to go. We have come a long ways, but we do have a ways to go. So we can celebrate this great law, this great civil rights bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act. But now we also have to say we have to take these next steps.

On July 26, 1990, when he signed the ADA into law, President George Bush spoke with great eloquence. I will never forget his final words before taking up his pen. He said: ``Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.''

Well, today that wall is indeed falling. We have to continue the progress. We have to go forward and not backward. We must enact the Community Choice Act so that people with disabilities can finally have not only independence but they can have full participation and they can have economic self-sufficiency.

Their goal, their home, not the nursing home, has been their cry for many years. We ought to hear that, heed it, and make sure we do not pass a health reform bill unless we have something in it to address this one fundamental flaw in our society that wreaks havoc against people with disabilities in our country.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that Alec Schierenbeck and Matthew Steffen, of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, Saturday, July 25, marks the 35th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation, LSC. In 1974, Congress-- with bipartisan support, including that of President Nixon--established LSC to be a major source of funding for civil legal aid in this country. LSC is a private, nonprofit corporation, funded by Congress, with the mission to ensure equal access to justice under law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. LSC distributes 95 percent of its annual Federal appropriations to

137 local legal aid programs, with more than 900 offices serving all 50 states and every congressional district.

LSC and LSC funded programs make a crucial difference to millions of Americans. In fact, LSC-funded programs close nearly 1 million cases per year and provide other assistance to more than 5 million people.

Recipients of LSC funding help clients secure basic human needs, such as access to wrongly denied benefits including Social Security, pensions and needed health care. Families of 9-11 victims, flood victims, and hurricane evacuees have received crucial legal assistance in obtaining permanent housing, unemployment compensation and government benefits. Further, members of our Armed Forces and their families receive help with estate planning, consumer and landlord/ tenant problems and family law.

It is LSC-funded attorneys who help parents obtain and keep custody of their children, help family members obtain guardianship for children without parents, assist parents in enforcing child support payments and help women who are victims of domestic violence. In fact, three out of four legal aid clients are women, and legal aid programs identify domestic violence as one of their top priorities.

I know firsthand the important work of the Legal Services Corporation. Before I was elected to Congress, I worked as a legal aid attorney in Polk County, IA. I experienced the challenges--and also the rewards--of representing people who otherwise would not have the legal assistance they deserve. And I developed a deep appreciation for the role that legal aid attorneys play within our system of justice.

The fact is, our promise of ``equal justice under law'' rings hollow if those who are most vulnerable are denied access to quality legal representation. As former Justice Lewis Powell said: ``Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building. It is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society . . . it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status.''

Given the vital role played by LSC-funded attorneys, it is disturbing to note that, this year, more than 50 percent of eligible clients who seek assistance will be turned away because of lack of LSC program resources. With unemployment nearly 10 percent, and with poor Americans struggling to keep their jobs, cars and basic necessities, the need for legal aid attorneys has never been greater, yet funding for LSC remains inadequate. This is something Congress needs to address and I look forward in the coming months and years to doing so.

On this anniversary, I salute the Legal Services Corporation and LSC- funded attorneys for the vital work they do every day on behalf of Americans who need qualified counsel. Every day that a legal aid attorney protects the safety, security and health of our most vulnerable citizens, they bring this nation closer to living up to its commitment to equal justice for all.

Mr. President, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has adopted subcommittees for the 111th Congress. On behalf of myself and Senator Chambliss, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the subcommittees be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this week marks the 10th anniversary of the landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C.

In the Olmstead case, two Georgia women brought suit on the grounds that their needless confinement in a mental institution violated the Americans with Disabilities Act--ADA. Even though their treatment professionals concluded that the two could receive the services they required in a community-based setting, the women remained institutionalized.

The plaintiffs' argument--that their institutionalization violated the ADA--was consistent with our findings in the ADA. There we said:

Historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate

individuals with disabilities, and, despite some

improvements, such forms of discrimination against

individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and

pervasive social problem.

We also said:

Discrimination against individuals with disabilities

persists in such critical areas as . . .

institutionalization.

This is precisely what had happened to the two women in the Olmstead case, Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson. Lois had been confined in an institution since the age of 14. Elaine had been living in a locked ward in a psychiatric hospital for more than a year.

Elaine told the district court judge in the case that, confined to the institution, she felt like she was sitting in a little box with no way out. Day after day, she endured the same routine, the same four walls. This is exactly the kind of exclusion and isolation that the ADA was designed to end. So Elaine and Lois brought suit under the ADA.

The Supreme Court agreed with them. The Court ruled that needless segregation is discrimination on two grounds. First, the Court said that needless segregation perpetuates the unwarranted assumption that individuals who are so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life. And, second, the Court said that confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational achievement, and cultural enrichment.

The Supreme Court said that, under title II of the ADA, States are required to provide community-based services and supports for individuals with disabilities who want to receive their necessary services and supports in noninstitutional settings, where such placement is appropriate, and where such community-based placement can be reasonably accommodated.

I mentioned that Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson were institutionalized for long durations. How did they fare afterwards?

At a hearing in the case, they both spoke of the little things that had changed. They could make new friends and attend family celebrations. They could make Kool-Aid whenever they pleased. They could go outside and take walks.

We all take these kinds of things for granted. But these kinds of ordinary activities are not ordinary if you are in an institution and someone else dictates every aspect of your life.

Since the Olmstead decision 10 years ago this week, we have made progress in giving individuals with disabilities the choice to receive their necessary services and supports in home- and community-based settings, rather than only in an institution.

Many of the provisions in my Money Follows the Person legislation were included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The goal of Money Follows the Person is that Medicaid money would follow the person with a disability from an institution into the community.

In 2007, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services awarded more than $1.4 billion in Money Follows the Person grants to States, making it possible to transition 37,731 individuals out of institutional settings over the 5-year demonstration period. Thirty States and the District of Columbia were awarded grants to reduce their reliance on institutional care, while developing community-based long-term care opportunities--thus enabling people with disabilities to fully participate in their communities.

But our work is not nearly done. Despite our efforts, the institutional bias remains for low-income individuals with significant disabilities. States still spend about 60 percent of their Medicaid long-term care dollars on institutional services, with only about 40 percent going to home- and community-based services.

Although almost every State has chosen to provide some services under home- and community-based Medicaid waivers, to get these services individuals with disabilities must navigate a maze of programs where there are caps for costs, caps for the number of people served, and limits on the specific disabilities that are covered. In many States, there are also significant waiting lists for these basic services.

Some States have adopted the optional Medicaid benefit of providing personal care services under their Medicaid Program. But this is only 30 States, not everywhere. Services provided in an institutional setting still represent the only guaranteed benefit.

So while more than 2.7 million people in this country are already receiving home- and community-based services at a cost of more than $30 billion each year, there are an estimated 600,000 individuals with significant disabilities on Medicaid who do not have the same choices that were promised by the

Olmstead decision. Their only choice is to live in an institution or to try to get by with the help of family and friends, often at the expense of their health.

To fulfill the promise of Olmstead, Congress must pass the Community Choice Act. This legislation, which I have introduced and continue to champion, would require Medicaid to provide individuals with significant disabilities the choice of receiving community-based services and supports, rather than receiving care in an institution. These services and supports can include assistance with activities of daily living, such as eating, toileting, grooming, dressing, and bathing, as well as other health-related tasks.

We know that, over the long term, providing home- and community-based services is likely to be less expensive than providing those same services in institutions, especially in the case of adults with physical disabilities.

In 2007, 69 percent of Medicaid long-term care spending for older people and adults with physical disabilities went for institutional services. Only six States spent 50 percent or more of their Medicaid long-term care dollars on home- and community-based services for older people and adults with physical disabilities, while half of the States spent less than 25 percent. This disparity continues even though, on average, it is estimated that Medicaid dollars could support nearly three older people and adults with physical disabilities in home- and community-based services for every person in a nursing home.

The majority of individuals who use Medicaid long-term services and supports prefer to live in the community, rather than in institutional settings. Olmstead says they should have that choice.

I think of my nephew Kelly, who became a paraplegic after an accident while serving in U.S. Navy. The Veterans' Administration pays for his personal care services. This allows Kelly to get up in the morning, go to work, operate his own small business, pay taxes, and be a fully contributing member of our economy and society.

The costs of the Community Choice Act would be mostly offset by the benefits of having people with disabilities who are employed, paying taxes, and contributing to the economy.

With appropriate community services and supports, we can fulfill the promise of the Olmstead decision, and we can make good on the great goals of the ADA--equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for all people with disabilities.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, on behalf of the majority leader, I yield back whatever time remains in morning business for this side.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk read the entire text of the resolution.

Madam President, the clerk read, for the first time ever in this body, what we should have done a long time ago: an apology for slavery and the Jim Crow laws which, for a century after emancipation, deprived millions of Americans their basic human rights, equal justice under law, and equal opportunities. Today, in the Senate, we unanimously make that apology.

First of all, I wish to thank my friend, Senator Sam Brownback, for all his hard work over the last couple years working together to get this finally to this point. I can't thank him enough. He wouldn't give up, and he stuck in there with us all the time, working to make sure that this day would come. I thank him profusely for his help in this effort.

I also wish to publicly thank Congressman Steve Cohen, on the House side, who is the leader of this resolution that they will pass soon over there.

John Quincy Adams once remarked that:

Our country began its existence by the universal

emancipation of man from the thralldom of man.

Indeed, America's purpose and enduring ideal can be summed up in one simple, but powerful, sentence:

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are

created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain

inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness.

Yet, as we all know, for too long, many in this country were not free. Many lived in bondage. Many Americans were denied their basic human rights and liberty. From 1619 to 1865, over 4 million Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States. Millions were kidnapped from their homeland and suffered unimaginable hardships, including death, during the Middle Passage voyage to America--a crime against humanity. In Elmina Castle, on the coast of Ghana, a place I recently visited, there is a chillingly named ``Door of No Return''--an infamous open portal which, as one looks over the horizon across the Atlantic, makes all too clear the excruciating inhumanity and horror faced by the men and women shackled inside this Castle as they were led through that door and put on the slave ships bound for America; led through that door, enslaved, never to return to their families, their tribe or their native land.

On American soil, these individuals were treated as property. These human beings were denied basic rights, including the right to their own name and heritage; any rights to education; even the right to maintain a family were denied to them. As Chief Justice Taney sadly made all too clear in the infamous Dred Scott case, he said of African Americans-- and I quote from his decision--African Americans:

[Were] not included, and were not intended to be included,

under the word ``citizens'' in the Constitution, and [could]

therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that

instrument provides for and secures to the citizens of the

United States. On the contrary, they were at that time

considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who

had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether

emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority,

and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held

the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

That is one of the saddest decisions ever made by the Supreme Court of the United States.

While the Reconstruction amendments--the 13th amendment banning slavery, the 14th amendment granting full citizenship to all Americans, and the 15th amendment guaranteeing the right to vote--espoused the principles of equality for all, widespread oppression continued. Under slavery's harsh replacement, Jim Crow, African Americans were denied voting rights, denied employment opportunities, denied access to public accommodations, denied entry into military service, denied criminal justice protections, denied housing, education, police protection, and due process. In short, they were denied their very humanity. Not until passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other Federal protections, did legal segregation officially cease in this country.

The destructive effects of both slavery and Jim Crow remain, however. As President Bush noted, ``The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation.'' President Clinton likewise stated that the racial divide is ``America's constant curse.'' Today, many African Americans remain mired in poverty, and average incomes remain below that of White Americans. There remains an achievement gap in education, and for many health conditions, African Americans bear a disproportionate burden of disease, injury, death, and disability. African Americans are, moreover, disproportionately involved with the criminal justice system.

Recently, States--Alabama, Connecticut, Maryland, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia--enacted resolutions apologizing for the role their States played in sanctioning and promoting slavery and segregation.

Corporations such as J.P. Morgan, Aetna, and Wachovia have also acknowledged and apologized for their role in, and profit from, slavery.

Slavery, Jim Crow laws, and their lasting consequences, however, are an enduring national shame. It was the United States that enshrined slavery in the Constitution and protected it for nearly a century. It is Congress that passed the shameful laws, such as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which protected and furthered slavery. It was our Nation's Supreme Court which bolstered slavery and legally sanctioned segregation, as I said, in the Dred Scott case of 1857, and Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. The Court said we could be separate but equal. It was the Federal Government which was officially segregated. By 1913, all Federal departments were segregated. It was the United States which kept African Americans who wanted nothing more than to serve their country segregated in the military. It was not until 1948 that President Truman issued the executive order desegregating the military.

Presidents as far back as John Adams have acknowledged the injustice of slavery. In 1998, President Clinton spoke of the evils of slavery and expressed regret for America's role in the slave trade. In 2004, President Bush visited Goree Island, a holding place for captured slaves in Africa, and spoke of the wrongs and injustices of slavery, calling it ``one of the great crimes of history.''

Moreover, in 1988, Congress rightly apologized for the internment of Japanese Americans held during World War II. In 1993, Congress justly apologized to native Hawaiians for overthrowing their king. The Senate has correctly apologized for its failure to enact antilynching legislation. Last year, as part of the Indian health bill, the Senate passed an amendment apologizing, rightfully, to Native Americans.

Yet this Congress has never offered a formal apology for slavery and Jim Crow, and it is long past due. A national apology by the representative body of the people is a necessary, collective response to a past collective injustice. It is both appropriate and imperative that Congress fulfill its moral obligations and officially apologize for slavery and Jim Crow laws.

As we acknowledge and apologize for this great injustice, we would be remiss, however, to fail to recognize those Americans who, with great courage, fought to ensure that this country lived up to its founding ideals. Hundreds of thousands served their country

and risked their lives so others could be free, and many gave, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, ``the last full measure of their devotion.''

From the beginning of the Republic to the present, individuals of all races, nationalities, genders, creeds, and religions have risked much, including their lives, striving for a better and more just America. It is these often nameless individuals who registered voters in the Mississippi Delta, marched over the bridge at Selma, fought for better jobs and housing in northern cities, and desegregated lunch counters.

I point to people such as Edna Griffen, John Bibbs, and Leonard Hudson. In 1948, they entered Katz Drugstore in Des Moines, IA, on a hot summer day and ordered Cokes and ice cream at a segregated lunch counter. When the manager refused to serve them because the store did not ``serve coloreds,'' Ms. Griffen refused to leave, and outraged Iowans responded with sit-ins and picketed Katz and other restaurants that refused to serve people because of their race. And they won. The lunch counters were desegregated. Who but a handful knows of Edna Griffen, John Bibbs, or Leonard Hudson? It is only because of the extraordinary acts of bravery by ordinary Americans like these in all corners of this country that the mighty walls of oppression have been torn down. As this Nation formally apologizes and acknowledges slavery and Jim Crow, we must also recognize that this Nation owes these individuals, most known only to their friends and families, an enormous debt of gratitude.

As we make this formal apology, moreover, we must acknowledge and celebrate the deep, lasting contributions that slaves, former slaves, and their descendents have made to this country in every field of human endeavor--law, literature, science, medicine, art, business, education, sports, and politics. Indeed, the list goes on and on. Six months ago, an African American took the oath of office as President of the United States for the first time in our Nation's history.

In conclusion, I want to read from the resolution, so all those in the gallery and the American people hear the long overdue words emanating from this body:

Congress acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty,

brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow law;

apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of

the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and

their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow law;

and expresses its recommitment to the principle that all

people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights

to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and calls on

all people of the United States to work toward eliminating

racial prejudices, injustices and discrimination from our

society.

In closing, I think it is important to note that this resolution will soon pass by unanimous consent, which means every Senator supports it without objection.

Finally, let us make no mistake, this resolution will not fix lingering injustices. While we are proud of this resolution and believe it is long overdue, the real work lies ahead. Let us continue to work together to create better opportunities for all Americans. That is truly the best way to address the lasting legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I know other speakers are coming down to speak on this resolution. Before the time runs out and since no one is here right now to speak, I wish to acknowledge several people who have been very instrumental in getting us to this point.

First, I thank the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights for all they have done to not only bring us to this point--to this apology--but for all they have done to enhance and promote civil rights for Americans. I also recognize the longtime president, Wade Henderson, who has devoted his entire life to the cause of racial injustice and ensuring this Nation lives up to its founding ideals.

Second, I acknowledge and thank the NAACP. February marked the end of the NAACP's 100th birthday, founded on the 100th birthday of Abraham Lincoln by a multiracial group of men and women committed to equality. For 100 years, the NAACP has fought for justice for all Americans, and I thank

their president, Benjamin Todd Jealous, and through him all the members of the NAACP.

Third, I wish to acknowledge several staff members whose assistance made this resolution possible. Senator Brownback already recognized LaRochelle Young, but I also thank her for helping to shepherd this through and working to get us to this point. Jackie Parker, a senior adviser to Senator Levin and cofounder of the Senate Black Legislative Staff Caucus, has been instrumental in planning the upcoming ceremony with civil rights leaders and other luminaries to recognize the apology and injustices of slavery and Jim Crow.

Finally, I would like to recognize the tireless work that my counsel, Daniel Goldberg, has dedicated to seeing this historic resolution become a reality. The countless hours he has committed to make this occasion happen are almost uncountable. I thank him publicly for making this possible.

Last, I would like to add Senators Leahy, Dodd, Murray, and Kerry as cosponsors of the resolution.

If the Senator will just yield, I thank my friend for his wonderful statement this morning and, again, for the many months and years we have worked together on this to get here, I thank him very much.

In closing, Madam President, again I say a fitting ceremony is being planned for sometime early in July that will take place in the main Rotunda of the Capitol to mark this occasion. As I understand, we don't have a firm date yet, but that date will be coming about shortly in consultation with the Speaker and the minority leader in the House and the majority leader and minority leader here in the Senate. We are looking forward to that occasion, and I think it is one that will be poignant and one that will again bring home to all of us and to the American people the enormity of what we have done in terms of finally acknowledging the official role of the U.S. Government in promoting and sanctioning slavery and Jim Crow laws.

I say to my friend from Kansas, we look forward to that ceremony, and I am sure the American people are looking forward to it also.

I might ask, how much time remains?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Menendez, Feingold, and Bennet be added as cosponsors.

Madam President, on behalf of the majority leader, I yield the remainder of our time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2009 at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Administration's Proposal to Modernize the Financial Regulatory System.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, 2009.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, 2009 at 9:30 am in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 325 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining State Business Incorporation Practices: A Discussion of the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act,'' S. 569.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Caitlin Miller and Edwina Hambridge of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

I would respond to the Senator from Georgia that it is my understanding that nothing in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act would restrict the Administrator's authority provided under