Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I thank you, and I thank the managers of this legislation. It was my hope I could come to the floor with another amendment that was acceptable on both sides, and I am still anxious and optimistic that we can do it because the spirit of this amendment is not for the purpose of a poison pill to the bill. It was the recognition that when we deal with an expansion of these volunteer efforts that we reach out in a much bigger way and cast a much bigger net to Americans. Let me say this: To offer this amendment is not to imply that those who work in AmeriCorps today in any way are criminals or nefarious individuals; it is to recognize the fact that we are creating an architecture to take care of the American people, and that includes specifically children, individuals over the age of 60 who are in the senior years of their lives, and individuals who are classified as disabled and have some deficiencies, and we owe it to them and we owe it to the general population to take into consideration as we, the Federal Government, allow a funding mechanism for people to come in and to participate. So let me explain for my colleagues simply what this amendment does. What we do is apply this to individuals who, on a continual basis--a recurring basis; let me make that correction--on a recurring basis work with vulnerable populations: kids, the elderly, and the disabled. The amendment allows a 2-year period to ramp up this program before becoming effective. We understand rulemaking will most likely be needed, and we know it doesn't happen overnight in this town. Three, this legislation retains the good cause exemption language. Now, let me explain. We are asking that individuals who work with vulnerable populations be fingerprinted. We would like them to go through the FBI check process. We would like to know there is no criminal history, that there is not a reason for us to be suspect if they are with our children, our parents, or with a vulnerable person who is disabled. The good exception clause is there and very broadly written, and I might go to the language. It says ``shall except in a case approved for good cause by the Corporation''--``shall'' not ``will''; it is not mandatory--``shall go through a fingerprint process, good cause exception, for good cause,'' very loosely defined. That could be the size of the corporation, no access to FBI fingerprint check, it could be the size of the entity without the financial capabilities to go through it. Now, I added something overnight to this bill. I didn't want to do it, but I did. I added drug testing. Drug testing is a very applicable thing, I say to my good friend, the manager on the majority side. This is not in stone for me. It wasn't in my original amendment. I think it shows my frustration that I went through last night, not being able to work out something that made unbelievable common sense to me. I would think this would be a threshold we would set. I would prefer to do it in a bipartisan way versus just to have a vote because I know today the vote would be on a motion to table, I would lose, and this initiative would not be in place. Although my children aren't old enough, my father is. If, in fact, there was any volunteer who came into the facility he lives in and works with him, I would like to have the comfort of knowing at least somebody said: Let's make sure the individuals, in fact, don't have criminal backgrounds, that they have gone into this with a truly volunteer reason versus for some aspect of criminal intent. Now, my chief concern and the reason for wanting this is kids, the elderly, and the disabled. It is no more than that. We know a vast majority of folks who work in these programs do it because they believe in it. They want to have an effect, a positive effect on somebody's life, and that is what they have chosen to do. I think it is important for us to realize that it doesn't matter whether it is AmeriCorps for title I schools or childcare centers or an entity that accepts CDBG subsidies. When parents leave their children in the hands of somebody every day while they are at work to look after their kids, they want to know the volunteers who are there meet the threshold, the standard they would expect. We really wouldn't have an investment except we are talking about Federal Government funding, and I think the American people expect us to uphold what their expectations are; and that is, people who shouldn't be there aren't there. So I say to my colleagues on both sides, it is my hope we can come to an agreement. It is my hope this can be whittled down to FBI checks only. It is my hope we will all understand the full latitude of the clause for the exception and the word ``shall'' versus ``will.'' It is my hope we can pass the bigger bill with an amendment that resembles what I have offered so we can look at every American family and say: We have looked at those who are the most vulnerable, and to the best of our ability we have tried to make sure somebody who shouldn't be there isn't there. Now, as every American realizes, even the FBI fingerprint check is not perfect. There is no way for us to look at the population and say nothing can ever happen. But I would suggest today that the standard America holds us to is that we should do something, not nothing; that we should attempt, not just roll over and play dead. If, in fact, we come to the tabling of this, we are going to roll over and play dead. We are not going to take it on. I don't think this requirement chases anybody away except the individuals who shouldn't be in the program to start with, who might not pass the threshold, who might be found to be in one of those databases, so that we certainly wouldn't want them to participate in this program. So at this time, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BURR. That would be fine.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, again, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Mikulski and myself. We worked diligently over the last several hours to try to fix a previous amendment. We have come to that agreement. I remind my colleagues that what we have done is clearly targeted at individuals who, on a recurring basis, deal with vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and the disabled. We have allowed the 2-year ramp-up to remain in the bill. In addition, we have left the ``for good cause'' exemption and added specific additional exemptions to the bill. This is a good piece of legislation. It should give every Member a strong belief that we are doing everything we can to protect those individual populations by making sure those who volunteer, in fact, meet the threshold we think is appropriate. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment that I filed on behalf of myself and Senator Mikulski.

Mr. BURR. I hope the Senator will interpret it the same way I have spelled out the exception clause, and that exception clause could be interpreted, and has been interpreted, to mean the lack of financial capability for a company to engage. I thank the Senator and yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her remarks. She is right. I think we can come to a suitable agreement. I can assure her that if I did not think it was necessary to do an amendment, I would not have done it. It might not be the first time I have been wrong, my wife tells me that frequently. But in my understanding of it, the teeth that are in the bill are not the teeth I have in this amendment as it relates to the FBI background check. Make no mistake about it. I am not married to the drug testing, though I will tell my colleague this: I think a lot of Americans listening to this would probably say: Why not? But I think in the spirit of how I started this negotiation, it is not an area I believe is important to make as a foundation of this amendment. So I accept the Senator's offer. I will bring my staff over immediately, even though I won't be able to stay, and we will both then be briefed by our staffs and know exactly what we are dealing with. If, in fact, we have misinterpreted what the content of the bill says, and we believe the appropriate protections are in it, I will be the first to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 722.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce bipartisan legislation that would end an arbitrary process through which our own government takes away the 2nd Amendment rights of veterans. I am pleased to be joined by three of my fellow Veterans' Affairs Committee Members on this legislation--Senators Webb, Graham, and Wicker--and 12 other members of the Senate, all as original cosponsors. The legislation is nearly identical to the bill I introduced last Congress under the same title. Unfortunately, after it was approved as an amendment at a Committee markup and reported to the full Senate, no further action was taken. I am hopeful that things will be different this Congress. As most of my colleagues know, the Federal Gun Control Act prohibits the sale of firearms to certain individuals, including convicted felons, fugitives, drug users, illegal aliens, and individuals who have been ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires the government to maintain a database on these individuals called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or ``NICS''. The Brady Law and the NICS database aim to prevent those who may pose a danger to society or themselves from purchasing a firearm. Gun shop owners reference the NICS to screen customers. Needless to say, it is a serious matter to have one's name on the NICS. Every American should expect a rigorous and fair process before their right to bear arms is taken away. Unfortunately, when it comes to certain veterans, spouses, dependent children, and dependent parents, the process is neither rigorous nor fair. Since 1999, VA has sent the names of 116,000 of its beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS. None of these names were sent to the FBI because they were determined to be a danger to themselves or others. They were listed in NICS because they could not manage their financial affairs. We should not take away a Constitutional right because someone can't balance a checkbook or pay their bills on time. VA's review process for assigning a fiduciary is meant to determine one's financial responsibility in managing VA-provided cash assistance such as disability compensation, pension, and other benefits. For example, a veteran may be assigned a fiduciary if they have credit problems. VA focuses on whether or not benefits paid by VA will be spent in the manner for which they were intended. Nothing involved with VA's appointment of a fiduciary even gets at the question of whether an individual is a danger to themselves or others, or whether the person should own a firearm. Yet that is exactly what happens if VA appoints a fiduciary. Over 116,000 individuals have been listed in NICS since 1999 because they were appointed a fiduciary. Again, this includes veterans, surviving spouses and, strangely enough, dependent children. That's right, a child entitled to receive survivor's compensation because their mother or father died as a result of service has their name sent to a government database filled with criminals. Even worse, the child's name stays on this list permanently unless he or she petitions to have it taken off. This makes no sense. States have age restrictions preventing kids from purchasing firearms. VA sending the names of innocent children to Government database of criminals just because their parent died as a result of service to their country simply makes no sense, and it is downright insulting. This process is not only arbitrary, it is unfair. Taking away a Constitutional right is a serious action and veterans should be afforded due process under the law. At the very least we should expect such decisions to be made by a competent judicial authority and not by civilian government employees. The current process is also a double standard. Only VA beneficiaries fall under these guidelines. The Social Security Administration assigns fiduciaries to help beneficiaries, yet it does not send their names to the NICS. Why are we singling out those who fought for this country and those who sacrificed while their spouse or parent served? My legislation would end this arbitrary and unfair practice that strips the finest men and women of this country of their right to bear arms. This legislation would require a judicial authority to determine that an individual is a danger to themselves or others before their 2nd Amendment rights are taken away. I am not here to ask that we put guns in the hands of dangerous people. I am here to ask that we treat our veterans fairly and that we take their rights seriously. Many of our veterans' organizations and other groups agree. The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act has the support of the The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, AMVETS, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Rifle Association, and Gun Owners of America. No matter where my colleagues fall on the gun issue, I hope we can all agree that we need a process that is consistent and fair. Our veterans took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They deserve to enjoy the rights they fought so hard to protect. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce bipartisan legislation that would end an arbitrary process through which our own government takes away the 2nd Amendment rights of veterans. I am pleased to be joined by three of my fellow Veterans' Affairs Committee Members on this legislation--Senators Webb, Graham, and Wicker--and 12 other members of the Senate, all as original cosponsors. The legislation is nearly identical to the bill I introduced last Congress under the same title. Unfortunately, after it was approved as an amendment at a Committee markup and reported to the full Senate, no further action was taken. I am hopeful that things will be different this Congress. As most of my colleagues know, the Federal Gun Control Act prohibits the sale of firearms to certain individuals, including convicted felons, fugitives, drug users, illegal aliens, and individuals who have been ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires the government to maintain a database on these individuals called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or ``NICS''. The Brady Law and the NICS database aim to prevent those who may pose a danger to society or themselves from purchasing a firearm. Gun shop owners reference the NICS to screen customers. Needless to say, it is a serious matter to have one's name on the NICS. Every American should expect a rigorous and fair process before their right to bear arms is taken away. Unfortunately, when it comes to certain veterans, spouses, dependent children, and dependent parents, the process is neither rigorous nor fair. Since 1999, VA has sent the names of 116,000 of its beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS. None of these names were sent to the FBI because they were determined to be a danger to themselves or others. They were listed in NICS because they could not manage their financial affairs. We should not take away a Constitutional right because someone can't balance a checkbook or pay their bills on time. VA's review process for assigning a fiduciary is meant to determine one's financial responsibility in managing VA-provided cash assistance such as disability compensation, pension, and other benefits. For example, a veteran may be assigned a fiduciary if they have credit problems. VA focuses on whether or not benefits paid by VA will be spent in the manner for which they were intended. Nothing involved with VA's appointment of a fiduciary even gets at the question of whether an individual is a danger to themselves or others, or whether the person should own a firearm. Yet that is exactly what happens if VA appoints a fiduciary. Over 116,000 individuals have been listed in NICS since 1999 because they were appointed a fiduciary. Again, this includes veterans, surviving spouses and, strangely enough, dependent children. That's right, a child entitled to receive survivor's compensation because their mother or father died as a result of service has their name sent to a government database filled with criminals. Even worse, the child's name stays on this list permanently unless he or she petitions to have it taken off. This makes no sense. States have age restrictions preventing kids from purchasing firearms. VA sending the names of innocent children to Government database of criminals just because their parent died as a result of service to their country simply makes no sense, and it is downright insulting. This process is not only arbitrary, it is unfair. Taking away a Constitutional right is a serious action and veterans should be afforded due process under the law. At the very least we should expect such decisions to be made by a competent judicial authority and not by civilian government employees. The current process is also a double standard. Only VA beneficiaries fall under these guidelines. The Social Security Administration assigns fiduciaries to help beneficiaries, yet it does not send their names to the NICS. Why are we singling out those who fought for this country and those who sacrificed while their spouse or parent served? My legislation would end this arbitrary and unfair practice that strips the finest men and women of this country of their right to bear arms. This legislation would require a judicial authority to determine that an individual is a danger to themselves or others before their 2nd Amendment rights are taken away. I am not here to ask that we put guns in the hands of dangerous people. I am here to ask that we treat our veterans fairly and that we take their rights seriously. Many of our veterans' organizations and other groups agree. The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act has the support of the The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, AMVETS, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Rifle Association, and Gun Owners of America. No matter where my colleagues fall on the gun issue, I hope we can all agree that we need a process that is consistent and fair. Our veterans took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They deserve to enjoy the rights they fought so hard to protect. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I recognize the Duke Eye Center in North Carolina for its determined efforts to promote awareness, treatment, and prevention of glaucoma. Glaucoma, an optic nerve disease, is the leading cause of incurable blindness in the United States. Worldwide, 70 million people suffer from the disease, 2.2 million of those in the United States. Because the disease does not usually show signs until the point that irreversible vision loss occurs, the development of early detection and prevention strategies is imperative. We recently observed World Glaucoma Day, on March 12, 2009. In light of this important observance, I express my thanks for the researchers and staff at the Duke Eye Center, who are devoted to the task of uncovering the cause of glaucoma. Historically, most research and treatment has focused on reducing elevated pressure within the eye. However, not everyone with glaucoma has elevated pressure, and not everyone with elevated pressure develops glaucoma. Researchers at the Duke Eye Center are working diligently to uncover other possible causes of the disease. Researchers and clinicians have excellent working relationships, collaborating on genomics, oxidative stress, and even links to Alzheimer's disease. They are performing cutting edge research, while at the same time delivering cutting edge patient care. In 2008, Ophthalmology Times ranked the Duke Eye Center fourth best among U.S. ophthalmology programs. I applaud their hard work and achievements in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of glaucoma.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 485, the Select Agent Program and Biosafety Improvement Act of 2009. Today, I reintroduced this important legislation with my friend Senator Ted Kennedy. We first introduced this bill in June 2008. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his partnership. I enjoyed working closely with him in the 109th Congress on the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, which was signed into law in December 2006. He continues to be one of the great leaders in the United States Senate, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to ensure our laws protect the American people from health threats of all kinds. This bill will enhance our nation's biosecurity and improve the biosafety of our most secure laboratories. We must do everything we can to make sure that biological agents and toxins that could present a serious threat to public health are kept safe and secure in containment laboratories and out of the hands of terrorists. In December 2008; 6 months after we introduced this legislation for the first time, the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism reported it is ``more likely than not'' that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack by the end of 2013. The Commission's report, World at Risk, found that terrorists are more likely to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon and, therefore, the U.S. government should make bioterrorism a higher priority. According to the report, ``Only by elevating the priority of the biological weapons threat will it be possible to bring about substantial improvements in global biosecurity.'' Many of the specific recommendations contained in that report are reflected in this legislation. S. 485 achieves two overarching goals. First, it reauthorizes and improves the Select Agent Program. This program was created in the 1990s to control the transfer of certain dangerous biological agents and toxins that could be used for bioterrorism. The program expanded after the anthrax attacks in 2001; however, the authorization expired at the end of September 2007. Second, the bill evaluates and enhances the safety and oversight of high containment laboratories. These laboratories are used by scientists to study select agents and other infectious materials. Labs are categorized by their safety level. There are four levels, termed Biosafety Level-- BSL--1 through 4, with 4 being the highest level. The number of these labs has grown, both domestically and internationally, in the last several years. The Select Agent Program is jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--CDC--and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's--USDA-- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--APHIS. The program was intended to prevent terrorism, and protect public and animal health and safety, while not hampering important life-saving research. This is an obvious struggle that requires careful consideration, particularly when science is rapidly advancing around the globe. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, it is illegal to possess ``select agents'' for reasons other than legitimate research. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 further required laboratories and laboratory personnel to undergo background checks by the FBI prior to approval for possession of select agents. As of February 2009, there are 82 select agents, meaning the agents pose a severe threat to public or animal health and safety. Thirteen of these agents are found naturally in the United States. There are 336 entities and 10,463 individuals registered with the CDC to work with select agents and toxins, and 64 entities and 4,149 individuals registered with APHIS. We take four key actions in S. 485 to strengthen the Select Agent Program. First, our legislation reauthorizes the program through 2014 and calls for a comprehensive evaluation of the program. The review, to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, will look at the effects of the program on international scientific collaboration and domestic scientific advances. This is timely because the WMD Commission recently suggested the need for an interagency review of the Select Agent Program and its impact on biological security and legitimate scientific research. Historically, the United States has been an international leader in biosecurity. In fact, last year Canada proposed legislation to tighten safety and access to pathogens and toxins of concern for bioterrorism. Canada's legislation, which was reintroduced earlier this month, would establish a mandatory licensing system to track human pathogens, similar to our Select Agent Program. It also ensures compliance with the country's Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines across the country. Second, the bill ensures a comprehensive list of select agents. Currently, CDC and APHIS develop a list of agents and toxins to which the program regulations apply. However, we believe some additional factors should be considered in revising the list. For example, scientific developments now make it possible to create agents from scratch or to modify them and make them more deadly. Highly infectious viruses or bacteria that are otherwise difficult to obtain can now be created by scientists using ``synthetic genomics.'' In addition, we now have more information from the Department of Homeland Security--DHS-- about the threat posed by certain bioterrorism agents. In 2002, U.S. researchers assembled the first synthetic virus using the genome sequence for polio. Later, in 2005 scientists reconstructed the 1918 Pandemic Influenza virus. Then in January 2008, ``safe'' form of Ebola was created synthetically. While this ``safe'' Ebola can be used for legitimate research to develop drugs and vaccines to protect against it, a scientist could also change it back to its lethal form. Also, earlier this year, advancements in technology yielded the first synthetic bacterial genome. We must consider these scientific advances, including genetically modified organisms and agents created synthetically, if we are to address all agents of concern. In addition, DHS's recent bioterrorism risk assessments provide new information for our assessment of biological threats. This information should also be considered when determining which agents and toxins should be regulated. Next, the bill encourages sharing information with state officials to enable more effective emergency state planning. State health officials are currently not made aware of which agents are being studied within their state. This leaves medical responders, public health personnel, and animal health officials unprepared for a potential release, whether accidental or intentional. Lastly, S. 485 clarifies the statutory definition of smallpox. The Intelligence and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 criminalized the use of variola virus, the agent that causes smallpox. The statutory definition of the virus includes agents that are 85 percent identical to the causative strain. Researchers are worried this could be interpreted to also include the safer strain used to develop the smallpox vaccine, as well as less harmful naturally occurring viruses. This sort of ambiguity could be detrimental to necessary medical countermeasure research and development. Our bill requires the Attorney General to issue guidance clarifying the interpretation of this definition. In addition, in this legislation we take three key actions to evaluate and enhance the safety and oversight of high containment laboratories. First, our bill evaluates existing oversight of BSL 3 and 4, or high containment, labs. The bill requires an assessment of whether current guidance on infrastructure, commissioning, operation, and maintenance of these labs is adequate. As I mentioned, the number of these labs is increasing around the globe. As these new facilities age, we need to make sure they are appropriately maintained. It is essential that laboratory workers and the public can be assured that these facilities are as safe as possible. If the guidance we currently have in place is not adequate, then we need to know how to improve it. In addition, the recent report by the WMD Commission called for HHS and DHS to lead an interagency effort to tighten government oversight of high-containment labs. Second, the bill improves training for laboratory workers. The WMD Commission report also called for standard biosafety and biosecurity training for all personnel who work in high-containment labs and funding the development of such educational materials. As the number of laboratories and personnel increases, we must ensure workers are appropriately trained. Accidents and injuries in the lab, such as chemical burns and flask explosions, may result from improper use of equipment. Our bill develops a set of minimum standards for training laboratory personnel in biosafety and biosecurity, and encourages HHS and USDA to disseminate these training standards for voluntary use in other countries. Finally, the bill establishes a voluntary Biological Laboratory Incident Reporting System. This system will encourage personnel to report biosafety and biosecurity incidents of concern and thereby allow us to learn from one another. Similar to the Aviation Safety Reporting System, which gathers information on aviation accidents, this system will help identify trends in biosafety and biosecurity incidents of concern and develop new protocols for safety and security improvements. Lab exposures to pathogens not on the select agent list will also be captured through this type of voluntary reporting system. The WMD Commission recommended promoting a culture of security awareness in the life sciences community and establishing whistleblower mechanisms within the life sciences community so that scientists can report their concerns about safety and security without risk of retaliation. We believe such a reporting system would help fulfill this recommendation. In closing, I encourage my Senate colleagues to join Senator Kennedy and me as we work to improve our nation's biosecurity and biosafety systems by passing S. 485, the Select Agent and Biosafety Improvement Act of 2009. I want to thank the many researchers, scientists, and state health officials from across the country who shared with me and my staff their ideas, experiences, and recommendations. In this time of exciting scientific advances, we must ensure our laws and prevention programs are updated to reflect current conditions. In addition, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to protect the American people from bioterrorism. The Select Agent Program is an important part of ensuring the nation's safety and security, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize and improve the program.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 485, the Select Agent Program and Biosafety Improvement Act of 2009. Today, I reintroduced this important legislation with my friend Senator Ted Kennedy. We first introduced this bill in June 2008. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his partnership. I enjoyed working closely with him in the 109th Congress on the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, which was signed into law in December 2006. He continues to be one of the great leaders in the United States Senate, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to ensure our laws protect the American people from health threats of all kinds. This bill will enhance our nation's biosecurity and improve the biosafety of our most secure laboratories. We must do everything we can to make sure that biological agents and toxins that could present a serious threat to public health are kept safe and secure in containment laboratories and out of the hands of terrorists. In December 2008; 6 months after we introduced this legislation for the first time, the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism reported it is ``more likely than not'' that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack by the end of 2013. The Commission's report, World at Risk, found that terrorists are more likely to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon and, therefore, the U.S. government should make bioterrorism a higher priority. According to the report, ``Only by elevating the priority of the biological weapons threat will it be possible to bring about substantial improvements in global biosecurity.'' Many of the specific recommendations contained in that report are reflected in this legislation. S. 485 achieves two overarching goals. First, it reauthorizes and improves the Select Agent Program. This program was created in the 1990s to control the transfer of certain dangerous biological agents and toxins that could be used for bioterrorism. The program expanded after the anthrax attacks in 2001; however, the authorization expired at the end of September 2007. Second, the bill evaluates and enhances the safety and oversight of high containment laboratories. These laboratories are used by scientists to study select agents and other infectious materials. Labs are categorized by their safety level. There are four levels, termed Biosafety Level-- BSL--1 through 4, with 4 being the highest level. The number of these labs has grown, both domestically and internationally, in the last several years. The Select Agent Program is jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--CDC--and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's--USDA-- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--APHIS. The program was intended to prevent terrorism, and protect public and animal health and safety, while not hampering important life-saving research. This is an obvious struggle that requires careful consideration, particularly when science is rapidly advancing around the globe. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, it is illegal to possess ``select agents'' for reasons other than legitimate research. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 further required laboratories and laboratory personnel to undergo background checks by the FBI prior to approval for possession of select agents. As of February 2009, there are 82 select agents, meaning the agents pose a severe threat to public or animal health and safety. Thirteen of these agents are found naturally in the United States. There are 336 entities and 10,463 individuals registered with the CDC to work with select agents and toxins, and 64 entities and 4,149 individuals registered with APHIS. We take four key actions in S. 485 to strengthen the Select Agent Program. First, our legislation reauthorizes the program through 2014 and calls for a comprehensive evaluation of the program. The review, to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, will look at the effects of the program on international scientific collaboration and domestic scientific advances. This is timely because the WMD Commission recently suggested the need for an interagency review of the Select Agent Program and its impact on biological security and legitimate scientific research. Historically, the United States has been an international leader in biosecurity. In fact, last year Canada proposed legislation to tighten safety and access to pathogens and toxins of concern for bioterrorism. Canada's legislation, which was reintroduced earlier this month, would establish a mandatory licensing system to track human pathogens, similar to our Select Agent Program. It also ensures compliance with the country's Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines across the country. Second, the bill ensures a comprehensive list of select agents. Currently, CDC and APHIS develop a list of agents and toxins to which the program regulations apply. However, we believe some additional factors should be considered in revising the list. For example, scientific developments now make it possible to create agents from scratch or to modify them and make them more deadly. Highly infectious viruses or bacteria that are otherwise difficult to obtain can now be created by scientists using ``synthetic genomics.'' In addition, we now have more information from the Department of Homeland Security--DHS-- about the threat posed by certain bioterrorism agents. In 2002, U.S. researchers assembled the first synthetic virus using the genome sequence for polio. Later, in 2005 scientists reconstructed the 1918 Pandemic Influenza virus. Then in January 2008, ``safe'' form of Ebola was created synthetically. While this ``safe'' Ebola can be used for legitimate research to develop drugs and vaccines to protect against it, a scientist could also change it back to its lethal form. Also, earlier this year, advancements in technology yielded the first synthetic bacterial genome. We must consider these scientific advances, including genetically modified organisms and agents created synthetically, if we are to address all agents of concern. In addition, DHS's recent bioterrorism risk assessments provide new information for our assessment of biological threats. This information should also be considered when determining which agents and toxins should be regulated. Next, the bill encourages sharing information with state officials to enable more effective emergency state planning. State health officials are currently not made aware of which agents are being studied within their state. This leaves medical responders, public health personnel, and animal health officials unprepared for a potential release, whether accidental or intentional. Lastly, S. 485 clarifies the statutory definition of smallpox. The Intelligence and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 criminalized the use of variola virus, the agent that causes smallpox. The statutory definition of the virus includes agents that are 85 percent identical to the causative strain. Researchers are worried this could be interpreted to also include the safer strain used to develop the smallpox vaccine, as well as less harmful naturally occurring viruses. This sort of ambiguity could be detrimental to necessary medical countermeasure research and development. Our bill requires the Attorney General to issue guidance clarifying the interpretation of this definition. In addition, in this legislation we take three key actions to evaluate and enhance the safety and oversight of high containment laboratories. First, our bill evaluates existing oversight of BSL 3 and 4, or high containment, labs. The bill requires an assessment of whether current guidance on infrastructure, commissioning, operation, and maintenance of these labs is adequate. As I mentioned, the number of these labs is increasing around the globe. As these new facilities age, we need to make sure they are appropriately maintained. It is essential that laboratory workers and the public can be assured that these facilities are as safe as possible. If the guidance we currently have in place is not adequate, then we need to know how to improve it. In addition, the recent report by the WMD Commission called for HHS and DHS to lead an interagency effort to tighten government oversight of high-containment labs. Second, the bill improves training for laboratory workers. The WMD Commission report also called for standard biosafety and biosecurity training for all personnel who work in high-containment labs and funding the development of such educational materials. As the number of laboratories and personnel increases, we must ensure workers are appropriately trained. Accidents and injuries in the lab, such as chemical burns and flask explosions, may result from improper use of equipment. Our bill develops a set of minimum standards for training laboratory personnel in biosafety and biosecurity, and encourages HHS and USDA to disseminate these training standards for voluntary use in other countries. Finally, the bill establishes a voluntary Biological Laboratory Incident Reporting System. This system will encourage personnel to report biosafety and biosecurity incidents of concern and thereby allow us to learn from one another. Similar to the Aviation Safety Reporting System, which gathers information on aviation accidents, this system will help identify trends in biosafety and biosecurity incidents of concern and develop new protocols for safety and security improvements. Lab exposures to pathogens not on the select agent list will also be captured through this type of voluntary reporting system. The WMD Commission recommended promoting a culture of security awareness in the life sciences community and establishing whistleblower mechanisms within the life sciences community so that scientists can report their concerns about safety and security without risk of retaliation. We believe such a reporting system would help fulfill this recommendation. In closing, I encourage my Senate colleagues to join Senator Kennedy and me as we work to improve our nation's biosecurity and biosafety systems by passing S. 485, the Select Agent and Biosafety Improvement Act of 2009. I want to thank the many researchers, scientists, and state health officials from across the country who shared with me and my staff their ideas, experiences, and recommendations. In this time of exciting scientific advances, we must ensure our laws and prevention programs are updated to reflect current conditions. In addition, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to protect the American people from bioterrorism. The Select Agent Program is an important part of ensuring the nation's safety and security, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize and improve the program.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce legislation that would give our veterans, surviving spouses, and certain dependent children the option to buy dental insurance coverage through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, VA. My bill is based on a very successful program that has been in place since 1998 for military retirees and their families. Under the TRICARE Retiree Dental Program, TRDP, military retirees are given the option to purchase dental coverage through the Department of Defense. Since the program started, over 1 million eligible participants have chosen to buy dental coverage through this plan, including over 56,000 in my home State of North Carolina. Those individuals have access to a network of about 112,000 dental plan providers across the Nation. Premiums range from $14 to $48 per month per person, depending on the region and type of dental plan selected. With this kind of success, it seems only fitting that we offer the same kind of benefit to our veterans. VA runs the largest integrated health care system in the Nation. Although VA provides dental benefits to the 7.9 million veterans enrolled in the healthcare system, these benefits are either limited to a select group of people or can only be provided under very limited circumstances. For example, VA provides comprehensive dental care to veterans for 180 days after they leave service; who have service- related dental conditions; who are in nursing homes and require dental care; or who fall under other very strict guidelines. My bill would supplement this limited coverage by giving veterans and survivors the option to purchase a more comprehensive dental plan. Of course, many veterans may have dental coverage through their employers or through an individual policy. My bill extends this dental plan option to all enrolled veterans. As I mentioned, the bill is modeled after the successful program that is now offered to TRICARE retirees. Federal employees also have access to a similar benefit option for dental coverage. Like these other programs, this VA program would be entirely voluntary and provide needed coverage from a network of dental professionals in local communities. This bill would not replace VA's dental services; it is just another option for those who want to have access to group insurance rates that they could not otherwise get on their own. This idea is like the 44 year relationship VA has with Prudential, who provides active duty servicemembers and veterans with group life insurance policies. The most important part of the relationship is that servicemembers and veterans get to reap the benefits of group rates and competition.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce legislation that would give our veterans, surviving spouses, and certain dependent children the option to buy dental insurance coverage through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, VA. My bill is based on a very successful program that has been in place since 1998 for military retirees and their families. Under the TRICARE Retiree Dental Program, TRDP, military retirees are given the option to purchase dental coverage through the Department of Defense. Since the program started, over 1 million eligible participants have chosen to buy dental coverage through this plan, including over 56,000 in my home State of North Carolina. Those individuals have access to a network of about 112,000 dental plan providers across the Nation. Premiums range from $14 to $48 per month per person, depending on the region and type of dental plan selected. With this kind of success, it seems only fitting that we offer the same kind of benefit to our veterans. VA runs the largest integrated health care system in the Nation. Although VA provides dental benefits to the 7.9 million veterans enrolled in the healthcare system, these benefits are either limited to a select group of people or can only be provided under very limited circumstances. For example, VA provides comprehensive dental care to veterans for 180 days after they leave service; who have service- related dental conditions; who are in nursing homes and require dental care; or who fall under other very strict guidelines. My bill would supplement this limited coverage by giving veterans and survivors the option to purchase a more comprehensive dental plan. Of course, many veterans may have dental coverage through their employers or through an individual policy. My bill extends this dental plan option to all enrolled veterans. As I mentioned, the bill is modeled after the successful program that is now offered to TRICARE retirees. Federal employees also have access to a similar benefit option for dental coverage. Like these other programs, this VA program would be entirely voluntary and provide needed coverage from a network of dental professionals in local communities. This bill would not replace VA's dental services; it is just another option for those who want to have access to group insurance rates that they could not otherwise get on their own. This idea is like the 44 year relationship VA has with Prudential, who provides active duty servicemembers and veterans with group life insurance policies. The most important part of the relationship is that servicemembers and veterans get to reap the benefits of group rates and competition.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2009. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Akaka, and all of the Committee's members in introducing this important bill. As part of its mission to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan,'' the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, provides a range of benefits to veterans and their families. These benefits include disability compensation for veterans who suffer from disabilities incurred in or aggravated by their military service and dependency and indemnity compensation for the spouses or children of disabled or deceased veterans. Although we can never fully repay them for their service or sacrifices, these payments may help ease their financial burdens and improve the quality of their lives. The bill we are introducing today will ensure that more than 3 million veterans and their family members--including more than 130,000 in my home state of North Carolina--will receive a cost-of-living increase in their VA benefits this year. These annual increases help ensure that the value of the benefits provided by a grateful nation will not decline over time as a result of inflation. Last year, I was proud to support the enactment of the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008, which resulted in a 5.8 percent increase in VA benefits. Under this bill, the amount of the increase for 2009 would be the same as that provided to Social Security recipients, which will be announced later this year.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2009. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Akaka, and all of the Committee's members in introducing this important bill. As part of its mission to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan,'' the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, provides a range of benefits to veterans and their families. These benefits include disability compensation for veterans who suffer from disabilities incurred in or aggravated by their military service and dependency and indemnity compensation for the spouses or children of disabled or deceased veterans. Although we can never fully repay them for their service or sacrifices, these payments may help ease their financial burdens and improve the quality of their lives. The bill we are introducing today will ensure that more than 3 million veterans and their family members--including more than 130,000 in my home state of North Carolina--will receive a cost-of-living increase in their VA benefits this year. These annual increases help ensure that the value of the benefits provided by a grateful nation will not decline over time as a result of inflation. Last year, I was proud to support the enactment of the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008, which resulted in a 5.8 percent increase in VA benefits. Under this bill, the amount of the increase for 2009 would be the same as that provided to Social Security recipients, which will be announced later this year.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to enthusiastically support the bill of my good friend and colleague Senator John McCain. Let me address one thing that was said. My good friend Senator Jack Reed said we are in this deficit problem because of the way George Bush spent money. I happened to look back at the last two Congresses. There was not an appropriation bill that Senator Reed voted against. The President cannot spend money; only the Congress can spend money. That is one of the reasons we are here today having alternatives presented; it is because Congress is in charge of the purse. There are objections and disagreements and different ways of looking at everything. I think most Members want to look at this legislation called a ``stimulus''--I call it a ``spending'' bill--and try to get it back to something that is targeted, timely and, more important, temporary. That is what Senator McCain's substitute proposal does. As a matter of fact, the differences we have today are over economic recovery. The question that Americans should ask is: Is economic recovery the result of how much Congress spends or is economic recovery about how targeted our spending is and how we use those dollars to leverage job creation and investments in job creation? I believe it is the latter. I believe we have to encourage investment. Senator Thune did a great job of talking about the trillion dollar- plus on this bill--$900 billion plus in spending, at a very crucial time, plus interest, comes to about $1.2 trillion. I point out to my colleagues that several weeks ago, we appropriated $350 billion to the TARP. This week, I am convinced that this Senate and this Congress will hand to the President that $1.2 trillion spending bill. It is my understanding that appropriators plan to come to the floor in the next couple weeks with an omnibus spending bill of a trillion dollars. It is also my understanding that the Secretary of the Treasury will suggest to the President that the administration come back to the Congress in the very near future to ask for at least a half trillion dollars in additional TARP money, meaning that over a 60-day period this Congress could spend almost $3 trillion. Let me put that in perspective. If you extrapolate that almost $300 billion is the interest on this bill alone, that means that the commitment, the obligation, the debt to the next generation that we will do in this Congress over the next 60 days is almost a trillion dollars in interest. Ask yourself, can your children retire that debt over their lifetime, much less pay back the money we have spent? It is clear that the McCain proposal will fail. I hate to start a debate with an admission that that is going to happen. But when one of the key elements of this bill is rejected, with only 44 members supporting it, I think the die is pretty well cast. What was that key point of the McCain proposal? It simply said this: After two quarters of positive growth over 2 percent, adjusted for inflation against GDP, that an amazing thing would happen in Washington: we would stop spending money. If for some reason we still had money left out of the $1.2 trillion commitment, it would stop; that there is no longer a reason to fuel growth if, in fact, we have growth that is happening and that we would do a rescission on the rest of the money. In other words, we would pull back the commitment we made, and we would reserve that money for reduction of our debt. In addition to that, he said we will automatically go in and make sure that every new program that was created, 30-plus programs, were no longer there, they would be eliminated. For the people who follow inside-the-park way we do things in Washington, we would go to the baseline of spending and we would take all of that new spending out of the baseline so we did not automatically start next year's appropriations at a higher point, reflective of what is supposed to be targeted, timely, and temporary. It did not pass. More Members said: We understand we said we want it targeted, timely, and temporary, but we really didn't mean it on the temporary part; we want to expand permanently the size of spending for the Federal Government. When we do that in a deficit situation, we have compound interest. Just as many of us as we grew up understood and learned, compound interest was something we gained on deposits. This is compound expenses, obligations to future generations. What Senator McCain's substitute does is it focuses how much we spend and where we spend it. We have been criticized because Senator McCain's substitute proposal only spends a little over $400 billion. You have to ask yourself: Who came up with $900 billion? I haven't heard an economist saying: If you spend $900 billion, you will solve the economic crisis in America. This is a number that has been pulled out of the sky. It was constructed based on where people wanted to spend money. I compliment the chairman because last night he accepted--this body accepted by voice vote an amendment in Senator McCain's substitute which jump-starts housing again, and this bill was deficient on jump- starting housing. I think this is a good amendment they accepted. It is part of the core of the McCain substitute. Part of the core of the McCain substitute, though, is also making sure we leave money in the pockets of the American people--$275 billion that has been proven over time to stimulate growth, to go into the economy, not targeted at rich people. We have had that debate way too much. It is targeted at individuals by eliminating the payroll tax for 1 year going away. It is targeted at people at the 15-percent tax rate going to 10 and the people at the 10-percent tax rate going to 5. It is targeted at the individuals who have an income, who are likely to spend. I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. What we have to do, in addition to stabilizing the financial markets, is get us participating in the U.S. economy again. This alternative proposal is targeted to leave that $275 billion in the pockets of the American people. It is targeted to put $50 billion into programs that help those who have been most affected by job loss, by the need to feed their families. It has targeted $32 billion to restart this housing market, and it has targeted $64 billion in a combination of infrastructure in communities across this country and our military installations and the reset of programs that are absolutely vital. Let me end where I started by saying that the single most important thing the McCain substitute does is it has a 3-year sunset. It says that in 3 years, everything goes away. If, in fact, this bill accomplishes what its author says it will, then we will not wait 3 years, if you accept this spending proposal, because after two consecutive quarters of economic growth, everything would stop. I believe the American people deserve sunsets such as this. They deserve triggers in bills that say once we accomplish what we set out to accomplish and we all agree we need, let's stop it there. Let's not just consider because we authorized it to be spent that we are going to continue to open the spigot and the next generation suffers. We will not be here. I don't think there is a parent in America or a grandparent in America who is not willing to make sure the next generation and the next generation and the next generation has as good an opportunity as we had. I am going to tell you, Mr. President, over the next 60 days, we will spend, we will appropriate, we will authorize over $3 trillion. If we look at the portraits that are around the Senate and the Capitol, our forefathers would be turning in their graves today if they could. They did not even envision what a trillion dollars was, much less that Congress would talk about spending over $1 trillion in one bill or $3 trillion in 60 days, almost a trillion dollars' worth of interest obligation to the next generation. But we are doing it like routine business. We are going to rush through this in less than a week. I remember when there was an energy bill in the Senate. We spent 3 weeks, not stalling but debating different types of solutions to the problem. That is what we are doing today, offering substitutes, offering amendments. But the die is cast. They are not going to be accepted. As Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, said, and I think her remarks are embraced over here: We won; therefore, we have a right to do it exactly like we want to do it. It is time for bipartisanship. It is a time for compromise. Compromise is not ``take ours and not have yours heard.'' Compromise is also not ``you can offer all of yours, and we will just routinely object to them, vote them down.'' Who loses then? It is not me. It is not the minority. It is the American people. This is a debate that is worth having. It is a debate for the American people and for the next generation. So understand, if changes are not made, it is not that the minority lost, it is that the American people lost. What we are trying to do is targeted, it is temporary, and it hopefully is timely. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, we are at a point where the rubber meets the road. We are challenged daily in this institution and across the country by the American people to find solutions to real problems. In 1997, we found a problem. It was called uninsured children. In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I was one of those who crafted the original SCHIP program. It was the right way to go at that time. Health care has changed a lot since 1997. We have continued to reauthorize SCHIP. We have talked about expansions. As a matter of fact, we debated, over the last couple days, why an expansion of eligibility actually hurts low-income children, the ones below 300 percent of poverty. Why does a State want to increase the eligibility income of beneficiaries under SCHIP? It is because there are some kids who are hard to get to. They are hard to find to give them health care. Rather than leave anything on the table, states would like for us to make it easier by expanding the pool of eligibility so we can take higher income kids and put them in the program. In 2008, there were 7.4 million kids enrolled in SCHIP. It is a 4- percent increase from 2007, but it is a little bit misleading because within that 7.4 million, the monthly average was 5.5 million kids enrolled in SCHIP. What that implies is there are 1.9 million kids who sort of rotate in and rotate out of SCHIP because they possibly migrate from one State to another. So they are not permanent enrollees. Throughout these days, we have heard Members say our objective is that we want to cover as many kids as possible. Now we have Members standing and saying, as many kids as possible is not what the goal should be of the Senate. The goal should be every child under 300 percent should be covered. Dr. Coburn did a very good job of spelling out for us that we have quite a large pool of individuals. We have 49 million kids under 300 percent of the poverty level. Of the 78 million kids in America, 22.1 million are currently under Federal programs--Medicaid and SCHIP; 8.9 million kids are uninsured. We have a proposal in front of this body. That Baucus proposal is to raise taxes of $70 billion-plus and to cover 5.7 million of the 8.9 million uninsured. Actually, that is not the case because of the 5.7 million, 2 million are currently covered by their parents' insurance. We are actually going to increase the rolls by 3.7 million children for $70 billion-plus. We still leave quite a few kids out there without insurance, without coverage. Even though their families have too much money for Medicaid, and they are not enrolled in SCHIP. This is the time to reform this program. This is the time to say let's design a program that catches 100 percent of the kids at 300 percent of poverty and below. This is the time to totally rethink how we deliver this care. As a matter of fact, the proposal that Dr. Coburn has made not only can be funded without the $70 billion tax increase and cover 100 percent of the kids, but it actually saves the American taxpayers $144 billion over 5 years. There is the part you did not hear from Dr. Coburn. We actually save $144 billion over 5 years. You see, the current Baucus proposal on the table is going to increase enrollment of uninsured children under 300 percent of poverty, and it is going to cost $74 billion. If you add that to the number of uninsured who remain in the pot, which is 2.9 million, under the way they have approached this bill, it would cost roughly $70 billion more to cover that pool of 2.9 million. So, in fact, for my colleagues, if you want to know what we have done in this amendment, as Dr. Coburn said, we have come up with a health care proposal that covers 100 percent of the uninsured children under 300 percent of the poverty level, and in doing it, we have saved the American taxpayers $144 billion over the next 5 years if--if--the goal is to cover 100 percent of the uninsured children under 300 percent of poverty. We only save $144 billion if that is the intent to cover all. If the intent is to cover all, why in the world would you spend $144 billion more dollars if you can do it with today's dollars? Congress--the Senate and the House--has been deficient since the beginning of this program because we do not cover all the kids. Yet I remember that was the objective the day we wrote the bill. Let's get on a path to cover all. We are also deficient in the fact that the way SCHIP is structured, we rely on the 60 percent of all health care providers who actually see this population. Forty percent of the health care professionals in this country restrict access to Medicaid beneficiaries or SCHIP beneficiaries. We have now limited the pool of professionals to 40 percent. With the changes in this amendment, we now open the pool to 100 percent. We increase the choice of a child with Medicaid and SCHIP, and we have now put them in a product where 100 percent of the health care professionals, in fact, will invite them in and be their medical home or their primary doctor, their pediatrician. Without this amendment, we will continue to serve less than 100 percent of the 300 percent of poverty and below, and we also limit the number of health care professionals who are going to see these children, that generation whom we feel incredibly committed to make sure are successful, not just in life but in health. This does not need to go on, but I do wish to make this point to my colleagues. This is not another amendment. I know we have had votes on amendments for the last 2 days, and we routinely come down here and it is pretty much a party-line vote, although I learned earlier in this debate that when one Republican votes for it out of committee, it is now bipartisan. I am not sure that is the definition President Obama had of ``bipartisanship'' when he gave a wonderful inauguration speech on these Capitol stairs. Given that one Republican did vote for the bill, it is now bipartisan. This amendment is about the next generation. It is about the most at- risk children in this country. It is about a real option and a real choice, where that population has full coverage, sees any doctor, enters any medical delivery point in the system, and saves $144 billion over what we would have to spend under the current method. It does not eliminate SCHIP. As a matter of fact, we reauthorize SCHIP for 2 additional years while the Secretary is able to put together the architecture for this product to be in the marketplace. This is a real opportunity for this body to change the direction and, more importantly, to fulfill the promise that is made over and over on this Senate floor, that what we are doing is to make sure every child in America has health care coverage. If we adopt this amendment, if we vote yes for Tom Coburn's amendment, we will have completed that promise we made to America's children. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. If the Senator will yield, that is the definition I understand exactly. But that is not the process we completed on SCHIP or the stimulus package. My hope is the President will win at the end of the day.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. The chairman alluded to the fact that some States need more flexibility because the income in their States is higher. One of those States that is grandfathered is the State of New Jersey. It is allowed to include up to 350 percent of poverty for SCHIP participants. Now, it is important to understand that when you increase flexibility, you decrease the likelihood of people under 200 percent of poverty being enrolled. New Jersey ranks 47th out of 50 States in the enrollment of kids 100 percent above poverty to 200 percent above poverty. Twenty-eight percent of the kids in that category in New Jersey are uninsured. Increase flexibility, decrease the number of enrollees targeted in the 100 to 200 percent of poverty--the uninsured, at-risk, low-income children. It is very simple. I yield.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I would be happy to disclose to my colleague that I voted against the bill, for the same reasons that without changes I will oppose it this year because the eligibility requirement is being expanded. As I said, and I thought fairly clearly, when you expand eligibility, you take the pressure off of making sure the enrollees come from the most at risk. It is my hope we can modify this bill. I am not embarrassed to be on the Senate floor and talk about the aspects of this legislation that I am unhappy with. But certainly I can count, and I know the majority can move this bill at any point they feel comfortable, and I am sure they will. At the end of the day, it is my hope we will cover as many of the originally targeted children in that 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty as possible.

Mr. BURR. Let me suggest to the Senator--and I will not ask him to yield much longer--there was the same expansion of eligibility in last year's bill, so the likelihood is any increase in enrollment would have been spread across not just the 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty, but all the way up to the 400 percent of poverty.

Mr. BURR. Would any of those 3.3 million children have been in 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty?