Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would provide an above-the-line tax deduction for individuals who purchase their own health insurance and are not receiving it through their employer. An above-the-line tax deduction would allow a taxpayer to take the deduction even if they don't itemize their taxes. Current law allows those individuals who are self-employed and purchase health insurance to take an above-the-line tax deduction. My legislation would make the tax code fairer by allowing those people who are not self- employed to take the same deduction. An estimated 17.4 million Americans in 2005 were covered by individually purchased health insurance policies. Some of these people are self-employed and can currently take this deduction. However, based upon these statistics, I estimate that up to 2 million families who have purchased health insurance do not have access to this deduction. My legislation seeks to correct that. Additionally, the legislation will make it cheaper for uninsured people to purchase their own health insurance policies. Health care costs in general are expected to rise 7.2 percent per year for the next ten years, so it is important for Congress to pursue steps to attempt to rein in this inflation and also to try to make health care and health insurance more accessible and affordable. This legislation is a part of those efforts. Another important aspect of the legislation is that it would also allow individuals to take an above-the-line deduction for the purchase of long-term-care insurance. Most employers do not offer any subsidized long-term-care insurance to their employees, so those who need this protection often have to purchase it in the individual market. It is very important for Americans to purchase this insurance, since many people assume that Medicare covers long-term-care costs when people turn age 65. However, this is not true. Often, seniors will find themselves on Medicaid, the low-income federal health care program, when they have long stays in nursing homes that they cannot pay for. Long-term-care insurance is a far better alternative to having seniors go onto Medicaid. It is important for Congress to incentivize people to purchase this insurance, and my legislation is a step in the right direction. I want to urge my colleagues to look at this legislation. It is short and to the point, but helping people to have private health insurance and long-term-care insurance is an important part of improving our health care system.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I today speak on a bill I introduced, and which the Senate passed last night, to extend the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, Ed-Flex. My State of North Carolina is one of ten Ed-Flex states. As the citizens of North Carolina know well, gone are the days when an individual with just a high school diploma or GED could make a good living in industries such as textiles and furniture. For the future of North Carolina, it is imperative that we do all that we can to assist all students, regardless of background, reach high academic standards. Only through a strong public education system can we secure a bright economic future for individual citizens and for our communities. Ed-Flex is a program that allows the Secretary of Education to delegate to states with strong assessment and accountability systems the authority to waive certain Federal education requirements that may, in certain instances, impede local efforts to reform and improve education. By allowing additional flexibility in their implementation of Federal programs, Ed-Flex is designed to help local districts and their schools implement the educational reforms needed to raise student academic achievement. The Ed-Flex waivers in North Carolina are helping local school systems improve student achievement while meeting Federal No Child Left Behind requirements in a number of ways. Examples of how local schools and districts are using Ed-Flex to advance local reform strategies include: providing tutoring for low-achieving or at-risk students through coordinating Federal, state, and local services; developing more inclusive parent involvement initiatives; collaborating and planning with Head Start, developmental specialists, and faculty from local day care centers to facilitate a smoother transition and more appropriate placement of pre-K students; implementing a hands-on, inquiry-based science curriculum to promote critical thinking skills; providing for ongoing literacy group instruction that allows students to move into and out of the groups, as necessary, during the school year; and expanding afterschool science clubs and purchasing resources for afterschool programs. Ed-Flex was first enacted as a demonstration program in 1994 as part of Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Initially, the Secretary of Education was authorized to designate six states as Ed-Flex demonstration states. The 1996 amendments to the Goals 2000 legislation authorized the granting of Ed-Flex waiver authority to six additional states. On April 29, 1999, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 was signed into law, providing all states that had rigorous assessment and accountability systems the opportunity to participate. Because of North Carolina's comprehensive assessment and statewide school accountability system, the ABCs, North Carolina became an Ed-Flex state on December 19, 2000. Ed-Flex has played a vital role in North Carolina's educational system by allowing local school districts to have the increased flexibility they need in the implementation of various Federal education programs. I am proud of North Carolina's exceptional school accountability program. As a result of our strong accountability safeguards, the Ed-Flex Program is helping our schools to meet the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. Continuing the Ed-Flex Program will further enhance the efforts of North Carolina local districts and schools to ensure that all students achieve academic proficiency. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I think it is safe to say that Chairman Specter has committed more time to the nomination of Samuel Alito than any single person in this body and in this country, with the exception of one, and that would be Judge Alito. I rise today in support of the nomination of Samuel Alito to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Voting on the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is a rare event in the Senate, but this year this body has now considered two nominations in only a few short months. To cast this vote is a privilege, and it is one this Member takes seriously. Most Americans did not know Sam Alito 6 months ago, but now millions of citizens have seen him in the news. They have heard him answer countless questions during his confirmation hearing. We have learned a great deal about Judge Alito. We have seen his family. We have listened to his stories about his childhood. We have heard about his educational background, and we have learned of his service on the bench. We have learned that his temperament and his character, are in fact solid. I personally have had the opportunity to sit with him, and I believe he respects the U.S. Supreme Court and the seat for which he has been nominated. Americans have probably also heard the Senate debate Judge Alito's nomination. I would guess by now most Americans understand that there is no substantive debate over Judge Alito's qualifications for the Supreme Court. Clearly, Judge Alito has the legal qualifications to be an Associate Justice. He has remarkable academic credentials, extensive experience, not only on the bench but in trying cases as an attorney, and he was given a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating by the American Bar Association. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court, and he served on the bench of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the past 15 years. It is my assessment that those who oppose Judge Alito's nomination do it for purely political purposes. They believe he might take positions contrary to their own political ideologies. Therefore, they believe he should be disqualified. He should not be considered for a slot on the Supreme Court. Let me take a moment to provide an example of how critics have severely distorted the facts about Judge Alito's record. Quite honestly, if those same critics chose to rely upon the facts rather than the political sound bites, they might be quite surprised. Judge Alito has been viciously attacked by critics over his record on civil rights. As we all know, Judge Alito serves on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. This appellate court in New Jersey has been described by the Associated Press as one of the most liberal courts in the Nation. My guess is it is probably only second, within that categorization, to the Ninth Circuit Court. It seems that opponents of Judge Alito have become so fixated on criticizing his record that they disregard the actual facts of his record. When analyzing Judge Alito's civil rights record based on the more than 4,800 cases he has decided, the facts are these: Judge Alito has agreed with the other members of his ``liberal'' Third Circuit judicial panel 94 percent of the time on civil rights issues. Judge Alito has agreed with judges appointed by President Clinton on that bench 95 percent of the time on civil rights issues. Judge Alito has agreed with judges appointed by Jimmy Carter on the Third Circuit Court 96 percent of the time on civil rights issues. Finally, when Judge Alito sat on a three-judge panel where both other judges were appointed by Democratic Presidents, the decision handed down in those cases was unanimous 100 percent of the time on the civil rights cases. These are the facts. Those are the numbers. Clearly, by the standards some in this body have chosen to apply to Judge Alito, no judge on the Third Circuit Court would therefore qualify to be considered for the Supreme Court. The statistics are one example of the distortion of Judge Alito's record by some. I could stand here on the floor for hours to discuss other misrepresentations of Judge Alito's record on individual issues, but I believe it is important to speak on why this Supreme Court confirmation should matter to the American people. When I say I am going to speak about why this confirmation matters, I don't mean that I am going to talk about why the debate matters in the daily battles inside the beltway in Washington, DC. I want to speak about why it matters to the American people. It has become clear to me and to the 8\1/2\ million people in North Carolina that I represent, that Washington, DC, is overshadowed by partisan bickering and is arguably more polarized now than ever before. As I discussed in this Chamber and in front of this body when considering the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts a few months ago, my constituents in North Carolina care about civil liberties. They have questions about life and death, property rights, basic freedoms, as well as their own economic prosperity and personal security. That is why this vote is important today. The Supreme Court affects every aspect of our daily lives. But more importantly, the decisions being made on the High Court today will affect the lives of our children and future generations yet to come. I am a father and I am a husband first; I am a Senator second. I believe while it is part of my job to vote on Supreme Court confirmations, I think of this vote in terms of how it will affect my family as well as the rest of the families in North Carolina and across the country. When my sons are my age, how will this decision, my vote on Sam Alito, affect them or eventually affect their children? That is what we are here to debate. As we all know, public opinion frequently changes with time as opposed to the Constitution which changes rarely. While the legislative bodies across the country are intended to be flexible branches of our government institution, charged with addressing the needs of the people by making new laws, the judiciary is intended to be the equitable and impartial check, charged with preserving and protecting our Nation's basic fundamental principles. I believe a nominee's judicial philosophy should translate to their legal interpretations, not their political positions. The legislature makes the law and the judiciary interprets it. Both branches serve an equally legitimate and important function, but they are very different. My constituents want justices who apply the law, not judges who make the law. Opponents of Judge Alito continuously cite political reasons to vote against his nomination. Unfortunately, this sounds all too much like your typical Washington, DC, partisan battle. But I assure my colleagues, the American people outside of the beltway of this town don't care to hear us bicker about partisan political issues when it comes to the future of the Supreme Court. This should be a thorough debate on an individual's legal qualifications and judicial philosophy. This debate is much bigger than Republicans and Democrats. This debate is about our children's future. For me, it is about doing what is right, and about doing what is right as a father and a husband. It demands that this body, the Senate, come together. Stop the character assassination, the distortion of a nominee's record, and support this nominee because of his expertise and his accomplishments. After meeting Judge Alito, having the opportunity to review his questions in front of the Judiciary Committee, having an opportunity to ask him questions personally, I am confident that he does, in fact, have a sound judicial philosophy and that he will administer justice according to the strict interpretation of our Constitution. I am confident that he will preserve our Nation's longstanding principles and that he will interpret the law, not make it. I am also convinced that Sam Alito is a man of character and honesty. Judge Alito is not only a good nominee, he is a good man. He deserves the support of every Member of the Senate. I will vote in favor of Judge Alito's nomination to be an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court. I urge my colleagues in this body to join me and to come together to stop the character assassinations and to speak up for the American people and the future of our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, we will learn tonight that being No. 1 doesn't mean that you win, and being the largest doesn't mean you are the best. In fact, North Carolina pork chops are better than Iowa pork chops, and North Carolina football is, in most cases, as good if not better than Iowa football. I commend the Northern Iowa Panthers. They have had a miraculous season. They deserve to be in the championship game based on how they performed in the second half of the season. Appalachian State was ranked fifth by the Sporting News and fourth by ESPN/USA Today in the I-AA polls. Appalachian has a record of 11-3, and they have reached the I-AA semifinals now for the third time. They did it in 1987, 2000, and now in 2005. But they have never reached the championship game until this year. This is a magical year for Appalachian State. Over 10,000 of my constituents will make the trek today to Chattanooga, TN, for tonight's football game. I remind my good friend, Senator Harkin, that almost all of the tickets turned back in by the Northern Iowa Panthers were purchased by North Carolina constituents who will be at that game. Appalachian State advanced to the championship game with a 29-23 victory over rival Furman University. Appalachian took the lead with 2 minutes 17 seconds left, with an 11-play, 67-yard drive led by backup quarterback Trey Elder, who was filling in for a starting quarterback Ritchie Williams. They held off a last-minute threat and picked up a fumble by Furman and ran it back to Furman's 1-yard line, where that game ended. Two of the team's three losses were to I-A teams--Kansas University and the tenth-ranked LSU Tigers. The Charlotte Observer named the Mountaineers the most successful college football program in the State over the past 20 years. Among their famous alumni are Dallas Cowboys linebacker Dexter Coakley, and former Redskins runningback John Settles. Coach Jerry Moore is the winningest coach in Southern Conference history, with a string of 16 winning seasons in 17 years, with a record of 139-67. This is his 13th playoff appearance as a head coach. Coach Moore perfected his coaching skills as an assistant under our colleague in the House, Congressman Tom Osborne. When Appalachian wins tonight's showdown, it will be the first time a university from the State of North Carolina has ever won a national football championship. Senator Harkin doesn't need to take my word for it or the sports reporters or the commentators opining on the success of Coach Moore and his Mountaineers. Senator Harkin needs to go no further than his own backyard to find someone who can attest to Jerry Moore's ability to prepare the Mountaineers for tonight's game. That is because Coach Moore counts as one of his closest friends a man synonymous with Iowa football--former Hawkeyes head coach, Hayden Fry, with whom Jerry Moore started his coaching career at SMU. Mr. President, Appalachian State University was started as a teachers college in 1899. Its enrollment is slightly over 14,000 students. It is the sixth largest State university in our university system in North Carolina. It has one of the highest graduation rates of student athlete football players in the State, and a few years ago it ranked only behind Duke in that distinction. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Northern Iowa Panthers. I congratulate Chancellor Peacock and Coach Moore but, more importantly, these two teams who have reached the final championship game tonight. Tonight there will be only winners; there are no losers. Tomorrow there will be one loser, and that will be my colleague from Iowa as he prepares to send those pork chops to North Carolina. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the pension reform legislation we have been working on for months. Many have said that the policy goal of any major reform to the current pension system is to ensure that the defined benefit system remains a viable option for companies and that employers keep the retirement promises they have made to their employees. In these discussions, one often hears about the proposed new rules and mandates concerning funding rules or asset and liability valuations. Given that the pension statute has not received a major overhaul since the 1970s, new rules are certainly necessary to ensure that past and present employees and the American taxpayer are protected from financial loss. Nevertheless, what is often left unsaid in our discussions is the fact that the defined benefit system is a voluntary, not a mandatory, system. While rules and mandates exist for companies that choose to participate in the defined benefit system, no such rules or mandates exist requiring companies to participate. Thus, if strengthening the defined benefit system is the basic premise behind this proposed legislation, it is critical that we ask ourselves if the proposed rules and mandates might have the unintended consequence of driving companies out of the voluntary defined benefit system once and for all. Alternatives to the voluntary defined benefit system do exist. For many companies and employees, they are good alternatives, such as the defined contribution system and its 401(k)s. However, the personal savings rate of Americans remains one of the lowest among the industrialized nations, and the average balances in 401(k) accounts are quite modest. There is no question that without defined benefit plans, fewer Americans would be able to retire comfortably. Further, the disappearance of defined benefit plans, including hybrid defined benefit plans, could very well result in increased pressure on Federal entitlement and income maintenance programs, not to mention an increase in old-age poverty. Given these troubling facts, the value of defined benefit plans to many American families is clear. Sadly, we have seen a decline in defined benefit plan sponsorship, and these are perilous times for the defined benefit system. Employers are leaving the system for many reasons. Among these are uncertainty about how future pension liabilities will be measured, new pension funding rules that are complicated and unpredictable, the worry over new and more onerous pension funding and premium requirements, upcoming changes to the pension accounting rules, and, of course, legal questions regarding hybrid pension plans. I appreciate the efforts of my Senate colleagues to craft meaningful defined benefit pension reform legislation. The proposed legislation, however, will have the unintended consequence of driving away company after company from the defined benefit system and further exacerbate the looming deficit of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, PBGC, thereby passing an unnecessary financial risk on to the American taxpayer. Rather than strengthening the defined benefit system, this proposed legislation contains elements that could negatively affect the retirement security of the current 44 million participants in defined benefit plans. Further, workers coming behind them are at risk if the legislation is not done in a way that encourages plan sponsors to stay in the voluntary defined benefit plan system. I wish to highlight a few of the provisions contained in the proposed legislation I believe will lead employers to opt out of the voluntary defined benefit system. To plan business investment and operations, employers must be able to anticipate required pension contributions several years into the future. Required contributions cannot be too volatile; otherwise, they will be too difficult to accommodate in cash flow operations of the business. To determine the amount of money an employer must contribute to its pension plan, assets in the plan are compared to the liabilities of the plan. Under the bill, plans would determine the amount of their funding liability using an interest rate averaged over only a 12-month period and asset values also averaged over just a 12-month period. This will make it very difficult for businesses to plan and will force them to set aside assets in the event they are needed for liabilities due to spikes in interest rates. The alternative is to force companies to shift assets out of the equity markets and into fixed income markets which could hike costs and discourage plan sponsorship. This is bad policy. The proposed legislation also sets a new target liability--100 percent of liabilities promised under the plan. This is a significant increase from the current law target--90 percent. If companies must meet this new target too quickly, sharp upticks in contributions may be required for many companies that are currently considered well-funded. Because the new interest rates will adjust liabilities for some companies, companies that are currently at their maximum funding level could be facing very large contributions. Since obligations are due over a very long period in many instances, these contributions will be unnecessary. Pensions could be frozen, other benefits could be frozen, costs of goods and services could increase, and jobs could be lost as a result. The 3-year phase-in of the new target is insufficient to avoid harmful consequences to American workers and the economy. Another very troubling provision of the proposed legislation relates to credit ratings. A company's credit rating, determined by private ratings agencies and not the Federal Government, should not determine a pension plan's liability. The credit rating of a company does not determine the funded status of a plan. A company can have a below investment grade credit rating and pose absolutely no risk to the PBGC. It serves no policy goal to impose new liabilities on a company because it is financially weak. That will simply make it more difficult for a company to recover, leading to potentially lower credit ratings, and could result in death-spirals and plan terminations that the legislation seeks to avoid. Furthermore, the credit rating provision would introduce a whole new concept--credit rating of private companies by the Government. If an at-risk liability is to be imposed, it should be based solely on the funded status of the plan. A final concern I wish to raise relates to one of the most urgent crises in retirement security--clarifying the outstanding issues regarding hybrid pension plans. Hybrid defined benefit pension plans such as cash balance and pension equity plans were developed to meet the needs of our highly mobile workforce by combining the features of both traditional defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans, such as 401(k) and other individual account plans. Traditional defined benefit plans are most effective for employees with long careers with only one employer. Yet, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, very few employees are spending a full career with just one company. Today's workers need a pension benefit that is portable and that will produce meaningful benefits, even if they don't stay with one employer for their entire career. In light of these facts, nearly 30 percent of the Nation's largest companies with defined benefit plans have moved to a cash balance or other hybrid plan design. As of 2003, the PBGC reported that there are estimated to be between 1,200 and 1,500 of these plans providing benefits to around 8 million Americans and their families. Employees know that cash balance and other hybrid plans contain many of the positive features of traditional defined benefit plans such as the safety of an employer-funded, PBGC-insured benefit where the company bears the risk of the investment, while at the same time providing defined contribution plan features such as individual account balances, portability, and a more even benefit accrual pattern. Many people who criticize hybrid plans do not realize that they are defined benefit plans, and as such, they provide a tremendous benefit to Americans, helping them achieve better retirement security. Hybrid plans also provide greater benefits than traditional pensions for the majority of employees. This is because hybrid plans accrue benefits ratably, rather than toward the end of a long career, which is typical in a traditional pension plan design. For the minority of workers for whom a conversion from a traditional defined benefit plan to a hybrid plan design may result in future benefits that could be less generous than under the old plan, employers have employed a variety of transition assistance techniques to boost their benefit formulas. And of course, benefits earned by employees for service they have already put in are fully protected under the law. Despite the value that hybrid plans provide to workers, current legal risks threaten their continued existence. One court case has placed all hybrid pension plans, both cash balance and pension equity plans, into doubt. Three other courts have found to the contrary, that hybrid pension plans do not violate the age act and are permissible under law. Yet it is this one single decision on which opponents of the hybrid pension plan hang their arguments. To preserve the retirement security of millions of Americans, it is essential that Congress comprehensively clarify for existing and future plans that the design of hybrid plans is not age discriminatory. In Cooper v. IBM--274 F. Supp. 2d 1010, S.D. Ill. 2003--a District Court judge held, in the face of legal authority to the contrary, that cash balance and pension equity plans are age discriminatory. This decision was based on the fact that younger workers have more time to earn compound interest on their pension benefit than older workers. Compound interest is a feature of all defined contribution plans and of all savings plans. The logic behind declaring compound interest age discriminatory in defined benefit plans is seriously faulty and would nullify many longstanding defined benefit pension plan designs, including contributory defined benefit plans common in the Federal, State, and local government sectors. As a result of the Cooper decision, every hybrid pension plan sponsor today finds itself in potential financial and legal jeopardy. It is a pity that we have come to this state. I say this because policymakers should be working to create an environment that promotes hybrid plans-- not subjects them to greater risk. I had hoped that Congress would have responded to the Cooper case by providing legislative certainty and clarity for hybrid pension plans, both retrospectively and prospectively, to prevent widespread abandonment of these programs by employers. I do not want my colleagues to think that I have not heard the critics of hybrid plans. I have. However, I believe that the majority of the criticisms of the plans are unfair. Let me review some of these criticisms and rebut them. Some critics of hybrid plans have claimed that the plans are discriminatory on the basis of age. It is true that there has been one single court case that found that compound interest is age discriminatory in the hybrid plan context. As I said, three other courts have found to the contrary, yet critics give credence to this odd case. Hybrid plans provide the same or greater wage and interest credits for older participants than for young participants. Because older workers under these plans are treated the same as or better than similarly situated younger workers, the plans cannot possibly be in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ADEA. Others have criticized the ``wear away'' or benefit plateau that occurs in some hybrid plans. This has generated numerous questions and concerns through the congressional review of the hybrid plan issue. It is important to understand that parallel rules in ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code protect all benefits that an employee has already earned for service, to date. Thus, despite assertions to the contrary, existing benefits are not reduced in a hybrid conversion. ``Wear away'' is the term used for the benefit plateau effect that some employees can experience in conjunction with a cash balance conversion. Still others criticize hybrid plan conversions because they frequently eliminate an early retirement subsidy, although they do so only prospectively. Some have complained about allowing employers to eliminate any benefits in their retirement plans. My own feeling is that employers must be able to maintain their flexibility to eliminate early retirement subsidies, but only on a prospective basis, as is the case under current law. Early retirement subsidies are a better alternative to layoffs in many workplaces and they can help a company to manage its workforce. On the other hand, if an employer's right to eliminate early retirement subsidies on a prospective basis is not protected, no employer would ever adopt such an early retirement program in the first place. It makes no sense for employers to encourage highly productive workers to take retirement in their fifties by paying a premium for them to leave the workforce. While current law protects any subsidy that employees have already earned for their service to date, it allows employers to remove those incentives from their plans going forward. The conclusion that all hybrid plan designs are inherently age discriminatory also raises the question why the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, issued determination letters for many years specifically permitting the hybrid designs and why it issued proposed regulations providing that the cash balance plan design is not inherently age discriminatory. The Cooper decision completely ignored this regulatory history. Of even more interest is that the Cooper decision disregarded the legislative history of the pension age discrimination laws adopted in 1986. That conference report made it clear that intent of Congress was limited to prohibiting the practice of ceasing pension accruals once participants reached normal retirement age, i.e. the so-called post-65 pension accrual. The Cooper decision emboldened cash balance critics to demand an appropriations rider that prohibited the Treasury Department from finalizing its age regulations addressing hybrid plan designs and conversions. At that time, Congress directed the Treasury Department to publish a legislative proposal regarding conversions from traditional to cash balance plans. In the legislative history, the conference report did state that ``[t]he purpose of this prohibition is not to call into question the validity of hybrid plan designs (cash balance and pension equity). The purpose of the prohibition is to preserve the status quo with respect to conversions through the entirety of fiscal year 2004 while the applicable committees of jurisdiction review the Treasury Department's legislative proposals.'' While the Cooper case is a rogue decision, there is significant authority to the contrary concluding that hybrid plans are age- appropriate. Unfortunately, the Cooper case has led to what are called copycat lawsuits both in the Southern District of Illinois and elsewhere in the Nation. The Cooper case has also had a chilling effect on the plan sponsor community. Concerns over potential damages from these cases are causing CEOs and CFOs to have very sober discussions regarding the future of their plans. There seems to be a slow, but steady, domino effect of freezing hybrid pension plans as a result of concerns over potential liability from fallout of the Cooper case. This is occurring despite a general belief that the Cooper case could be overturned on appeal. I fear that if Congress fails to bless the hybrid pension plan design in short order, these voluntary plans could all become frozen. If we can conclude that the design of these plans is consistent with the ADEA, but the conversions to hybrid plans raise questions, why can't we legislate in this area to simply bless the hybrid plan design? Clarifying only the legality of prospective plans does not address any of these problems; it does nothing to eliminate the potential for devastating suits directed at the prior operation of hybrid plans. Retroactive legislation is needed because the consequences of inaction or prospective-only legislation could be disastrous. If retroactive legislation is not adopted and the Cooper case is decided adversely on appeal, the liabilities of hybrid plans would triple if companies are forced to pay the enormous windfalls created under Cooper. This would impose such enormous costs on employers that large numbers of them would have no choice but to eliminate future benefits in their defined benefit plans. Many companies will not be able to absorb those additional liabilities, causing business declines and bankruptcies, as well as widespread damage to the economy. Many have ignored the taxpayer interest in the outcome of retroactivity legislation. As we contemplate the precarious state of the PBGC, it is important to consider the potential impact of failing to provide retroactive relief on that troubled agency's solvency. Conservative estimates of the national liability attributable to the Cooper theory of age discrimination are well in excess of $100 billion. Many employers would undoubtedly be forced into distress plan terminations by this liability, shifting the liability to the PBGC. Other employers would simply terminate their plans, resulting in a precipitous contraction of the PBGC's premium base. The PBGC reports that for 2004, 24.6 percent of the participants in covered single employer plans are in hybrid plans; this means that such plans generate almost a quarter of the single-employer flat-rate premiums. Both developments would make a taxpayer bailout of PBGC far more likely. I must also raise an additional issue regarding the hybrid pension plan provisions of the bill before us. As you know, it is the cash balance pension design that has been at the center of the congressional discussion about the need to provide legislative clarity for hybrid plans. Yet, another leading variety of hybrid plan, called the pension equity plan, is in equal need of congressional attention. In a pension equity plan, employers provide credits for each year of employee service and these credits are multiplied by an employee's final pay to produce a lump sum figure. Typically, the benefit credits given to employees increase with age and/or years of service, making this design an attractive one for older and long-service workers. Dozens of large employers around the country offer pension equity plans, including a number of very large employers in my state. Pension equity plan sponsors and participants face the same risks and are in need of the same legislative clarification as cash balance plans--that their basic design is not, in fact, illegal and does, in fact, satisfy our age discrimination rules. To achieve this objective, the legislative provision clarifying the age discrimination rules for hybrid plans must specifically reference pension equity plans in the statutory language. The legislation before us does not do this. Rather, it leaves the issue of whether pension equity plans receive the same beneficial clarification as cash balance plans up to the Treasury Department in later administrative guidance. This will simply prolong the legal uncertainty that is driving many employers to consider ending their pension equity plans altogether. I believe this must be remedied--that we must give pension equity plans the same explicit statutory treatment as cash balance plans. I hope that, along with applying the clarification of the hybrid designs to existing plans under current law, we can explicitly address pension equity plans as we move toward conference on this pension bill. I likewise hope that we can make several other refinements to the bill's hybrid provisions so that these provisions more appropriately address some of the unique issues surrounding pension equity plans. For example, the bill currently has a requirement that hybrid plans pay certain minimum interest rates. Yet, unlike in cash balance plans, the benefits in pension equity plans grow with pay increases, as traditional defined benefit plans do, rather than with interest, so this requirement really does not make sense in the pension equity context. In addition, conversions to pension equity plans are typically handled differently than conversions to cash balance plans, and this needs to be acknowledged in the legislation. Finally, just as there are unique differences between cash-balance and pension equity hybrid plans that we must acknowledge, we must also recognize and support unique differences among cash-balance and pension equity plans respectively. No two plans are identical, nor should they be. Congress should not be so overly prescriptive in the rules for hybrid pension plans that it prohibits sponsors from adding unique features that may better serve their employees in retirement. I hope that during the conference on this bill, for example, we can recognize that there are cash balance plans that have returns based on equity indices. Such plans may provide returns that do not fall within the interest rate corridor established in this bill because their returns may be greater or lesser than required under this bill for the plan to be considered a qualified cash balance plan. While I do believe it is good policy for these plans to have a principal protection feature, to ensure workers are guaranteed upon retirement to receive the investment credits they have earned, I also believe that we should not discourage plans which provide participants the opportunity to receive higher returns that are attainable through the equity markets. I would like to finish my statement by thanking the chairmen and ranking members for their work on the prospective hybrid language. While the bill does not address existing plans, serious discussions have begun to do so. It is imperative that these discussions continue so that we can clarify the validity of the hybrid pension designs, both cash-balance and pension equity, under current law. Hybrid defined benefit plans play an invaluable role in delivering retirement security to millions of Americans and their families. To prevent total abandonment of hybrid plans by employers and the resulting harm to employees, I hope Congress will quickly provide legislative certainty and clarity for existing cash balance and other hybrid pension plans such as pension equity plans. Waiting for the Cooper case to be resolved on appeal is not the answer; as time goes by, more companies are reacting to the current uncertainty and potential liability by freezing or terminating their plans. At the same time, more and more companies are being dragged into copycat litigation. The losers in this terrible failure to act are my constituents in North Carolina and workers across America who will lose the opportunity to be covered by an employer-provided pension plan. Failure to resolve the status of hybrid defined benefit plans comprehensively is a betrayal of employers who are trying to do the right thing by their employees and the millions of workers who are counting on a pension for their retirement.

Mr. BURR. I thank the distinguished chairman for this important clarification and for his hard work in developing this important legislation.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, the proposed Treasury regulation ``safe harbor'' in the Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005 states: The accrued benefit determined under this subparagraph shall be determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary which are consistent with the purposes of this paragraph and which may require a plan to provide a credit of additional amounts or increases in additional account balances in amounts substantially equivalent to the benefits that would be required to be provided to meet the requirements of subparagraphs (B) or (C). Mr. Chairman, am I correct in my understanding that the intention of this provision authorizing Treasury regulations is that the Secretary be given the widest latitude possible to approve cash balance conversions falling within the spirit of the conversion requirements?

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, do you agree that the provision is intended to allow Treasury to consider for purposes of the regulatory safe harbor cash balance plan conversions that are announced 5 or more years in advance, allow employees to continue to accrue benefits under the old formula until the conversion date and thereafter provide full protection for previously accrued benefits as well as the opportunity to ``grow into'' early retirement subsidies under the old formula; and that provide full cash balance plan accruals after conversion without wear away?

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to honor our Nation's veterans for their service and their sacrifice. We will celebrate Veterans Day tomorrow, and I am proud of the improvements we have made in providing benefits and care to our country's heroes. In the past 10 years, since I first came to Congress, the veterans budget has increased by 77 percent, an annual average increase of over 7 percent. The VA's health care budget has increased over 85 percent during this time. We have also enacted a fix to the concurrent receipt problem and made groundbreaking progress with computerized health records at the Veterans Department. I am proud of these efforts, but I certainly understand the need to do more to stay ahead of the curve. I also want to detail the recent growth in the veterans population in North Carolina. Our State's veteran population has increased by over 100,000, to 780,000 veterans since 1980. This growth rate comes at a time when the number of veterans in the United States is decreasing. Veterans are moving to the State because many of them were stationed there while on active duty, and they have moved back because of the quality of life in North Carolina. I have two bills I have introduced today that I believe will improve the services we currently provide to our veterans. The first is the Services to Prevent Veterans Homelessness Act which makes grants to nonprofit and faith-based organizations to provide services to extremely low-income veterans who are in permanent housing. The goal is to keep them from becoming homeless. The services provided for in this bill--from vocational counseling and personal finance planning to health and rehabilitation--were designed to address the root causes of homelessness. The VA estimates on any given night as many as 200,000 veterans are homeless and as many as 400,000 are homeless at some point during the year. We also know that 45 percent of the homeless veterans have a mental illness, and 50 percent have some sort of addiction. The cost of this bill is $25 million annually, a small sum to help the poorest of our veterans. In North Carolina alone, over 43,000 veterans live below the poverty line. This bill would allow the VA to partner with nonprofits in order to help poor veterans escape the root causes of homelessness. I urge the Senate to consider whether we are doing enough on this issue. More importantly, I invite my colleagues to study this bill and to become a cosponsor. Next, I introduced the Veterans Outreach Improvement Act which authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to partner with State and local governments for outreach to veterans. This bill provides grants to State veterans agencies and county veterans service offices to help them with outreach and claims development and to provide education and training of officers. The bill would also authorize $25 million annually for this outreach program. County veterans service officers are charged with assisting veterans and their dependents in seeking benefits as a supplement to the work being performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. They are overseen by the Division of Veterans Affairs in North Carolina and receive accreditation from organizations approved by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Many veterans need assistance in filing claims in order to make sure that the claim is accurate and complete. County veterans service officers and officials from State veterans agencies are often the officials who can actually sit down face to face with a veteran to develop a claim and to send it to the VA. This bill makes the VA a partner in that outreach process. On the eve of Veterans Day this year, I join my colleagues in honoring veterans across this country for their heroic service to our Nation.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

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

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to honor our Nation's veterans for their service and their sacrifice. We will celebrate Veterans Day tomorrow, and I am proud of the improvements we have made in providing benefits and care to our country's heroes. In the past 10 years, since I first came to Congress, the veterans budget has increased by 77 percent, an annual average increase of over 7 percent. The VA's health care budget has increased over 85 percent during this time. We have also enacted a fix to the concurrent receipt problem and made groundbreaking progress with computerized health records at the Veterans Department. I am proud of these efforts, but I certainly understand the need to do more to stay ahead of the curve. I also want to detail the recent growth in the veterans population in North Carolina. Our State's veteran population has increased by over 100,000, to 780,000 veterans since 1980. This growth rate comes at a time when the number of veterans in the United States is decreasing. Veterans are moving to the State because many of them were stationed there while on active duty, and they have moved back because of the quality of life in North Carolina. I have two bills I have introduced today that I believe will improve the services we currently provide to our veterans. The first is the Services to Prevent Veterans Homelessness Act which makes grants to nonprofit and faith-based organizations to provide services to extremely low-income veterans who are in permanent housing. The goal is to keep them from becoming homeless. The services provided for in this bill--from vocational counseling and personal finance planning to health and rehabilitation--were designed to address the root causes of homelessness. The VA estimates on any given night as many as 200,000 veterans are homeless and as many as 400,000 are homeless at some point during the year. We also know that 45 percent of the homeless veterans have a mental illness, and 50 percent have some sort of addiction. The cost of this bill is $25 million annually, a small sum to help the poorest of our veterans. In North Carolina alone, over 43,000 veterans live below the poverty line. This bill would allow the VA to partner with nonprofits in order to help poor veterans escape the root causes of homelessness. I urge the Senate to consider whether we are doing enough on this issue. More importantly, I invite my colleagues to study this bill and to become a cosponsor. Next, I introduced the Veterans Outreach Improvement Act which authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to partner with State and local governments for outreach to veterans. This bill provides grants to State veterans agencies and county veterans service offices to help them with outreach and claims development and to provide education and training of officers. The bill would also authorize $25 million annually for this outreach program. County veterans service officers are charged with assisting veterans and their dependents in seeking benefits as a supplement to the work being performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. They are overseen by the Division of Veterans Affairs in North Carolina and receive accreditation from organizations approved by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Many veterans need assistance in filing claims in order to make sure that the claim is accurate and complete. County veterans service officers and officials from State veterans agencies are often the officials who can actually sit down face to face with a veteran to develop a claim and to send it to the VA. This bill makes the VA a partner in that outreach process. On the eve of Veterans Day this year, I join my colleagues in honoring veterans across this country for their heroic service to our Nation.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado. It is seldom we have an opportunity to effect a change for a specific individual. We have an opportunity to do that today for an individual we will never meet, an individual who might be placed in the same situation as Candace. In fact, in 2001, Candace Newmaker, the granddaughter of David and Mary Davis of Vale, NC, was killed. She was killed during a so-called rebirthing therapy session. This dangerous practice involves therapists, as my colleague said, wrapping sheets and towels and pillows around a patient who almost always is a young child, who is curled in a fetal position. The therapists attempt to recreate the child's birth by physically restraining and pushing against the child, urging the child to escape. The stories are horrendous. Rebirthing has resulted in numerous injuries as well as the suffocation and death of five children. If there was ever a time that called out for us to act on a resolution like this, this is it; to reach out to States and say: Do what North Carolina did, do what Colorado did--outlaw this practice. In 2003, North Carolina did outlaw this unsafe therapy, largely due to the Davises' efforts. Today, Senator Salazar and I urge other States to do exactly that. The Candace Newmaker resolution encourages States to examine the rebirthing technique and enact laws prohibiting this dangerous practice. Organizations such as the American Psychological Association fully support the ban of this technique. The possible loss of another child to this harmful therapy should be enough reason for the Senate to pass this resolution; if we can affect one child with our action, a child we have not met who might be exposed to this, we should do so. The House of Representatives, led by my colleague, Representative Sue Myrick, passed a similar resolution on December 17, 2002. The Davises are here today, and I thank them personally for their passion and for their commitment to have rebirthing outlawed. Their dedication to this cause is a reflection of the amount of love and loss they feel toward Candace. Mr. President, I proudly join my colleague, Senator Salazar, to raise awareness of this resolution and to urge our colleagues in this body for a quick consideration.

Mr. BURR

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

Mr. BURR

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

Mr. BURR

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

Mr. BURR

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

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. If the minority leader will allow me a few more minutes, I will conclude my comments as they relate to the amendment by the Senator from Iowa. Let me say, if I can, for the purposes of what the Senator raised with me, there is a willingness on the part of Members on both sides of the aisle that this body move expeditiously to address this threat. I don't believe the timing is going to be a problem as we move through this year. I think it is a question of whether we sufficiently construct a mechanism to assure us that we have done the right thing; that just to dump money into any system that might be deficient today would be a mistake. I truly believe that with the support on both sides of the aisle and both bodies of leadership, this is an issue we can sufficiently resolve and we can do it in an expeditious way. With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleague from Iowa. My colleague recognizes the need for this country to prepare for a possible influenza pandemic. I am not here to be a historian, to determine what has happened in the past on Defense appropriations bills. I will share that disease surveillance is not something new. It occurs day in and day out. The Centers for Disease Control is an active participant in the surveillance efforts for a potential global outbreak of avian flu. Post-9/11, this country became not only concerned but began actively preparing for consequences of chemical, biological, and radiological threats that could be used by terrorists. We should pause and remind ourselves these potential acts can be deliberate, accidental, or natural. Clearly, the threat of avian flu is a natural occurrence. The Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, all participate in preventing the spread of avian flu and work to make us better understand when that threat may affect us here at home. The Senator from Iowa targets a number of things that are very appropriate and important: stockpiles, global surveillance, a national investment in domestic vaccine infrastructure, additional grant moneys for local public health agencies. But clearly, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is right; the majority of these need to be considered in and appropriated from the committees that have jurisdiction over the relevant agencies--the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control. We are all alarmed about any of these threats, whether it is deliberate, accidental, or natural. This year the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Preparedness has held six hearings and/or roundtables on this subject. We have examined the infrastructure we currently have to research, develop, and approve countermeasures against all of these threats. These countermeasures can be antivirals, as the Senator spoke of, for avian flu. They could be vaccines, as we have already purchased with BioShield, for anthrax for example. We are committed to ensure that we have the right kinds of countermeasures to protect the American public. But we have a fiduciary responsibility to the American people, too. That is to make sure that we do not invest billions and billions and billions of dollars into a stockpile that, in fact, has a life expectancy shorter than the threat. I have come to plead with my colleagues, let's approach this in a comprehensive way. Let's, in fact, put together a plan that addresses not only avian flu but all of those chemical, biological, radiological threats that exist today. I remind you of the threat from anthrax and smallpox we have debated in this building before this date. I remind my colleagues that we have currently invested some $800 million for anthrax vaccines for the national stockpile. We have this week received a briefing from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as Senator Harkin said, and the Director of the CDC and the head of National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases during which they talked about their initial approach to the threat of avian flu. I stress the word ``initial'' because it is yet to have the input of this body, of the committees, and the subcommittees that have held hearings, that have met with representatives from industry, that understand the deficiencies in our infrastructure to confront this and other similar threats. Vaccine shortages are not just an infrastructure deficiency for avian flu. There is a deficiency across the board for vaccines in this country, in large part because of the policies we have adopted. I suggest this is not an issue we can just throw money at. This is an issue that needs a comprehensive plan and approach as to how we set up a structure and mechanism so we are not on this floor in the future talking about further deficiencies. In many cases, everything Senator Harkin lists will be components of comprehensive legislation that we plan to deal with how much and what we should stockpile. It will deal with global surveillance and whether we can do it better than we do today. It will deal with the vaccine infrastructure and our reliance on having the manufacturing, research, and development capabilities on the shores of the United States and not have us reliant on a company that might have a facility outside of the United States. Once again, I urge my colleagues, let's do it in a comprehensive way so we are prepared to move forward in an expedited process that would answer all these questions before we adjourn this calendar year.

Mr. BURR. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BURR. Will the Senator from Iowa allow me to yield to the minority leader?

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, let me try to connect the logic with the reality, that if the Senator permits me, I will sit down with him next week. I believe I can show him at least the initial language that puts this altogether in a comprehensive way and in fact addresses not only the deliberate and accidental biological, chemical, and radiological threats but also includes the natural threat that avian flu clearly emanates from. I believe there is a new structure, not an existing structure, within the framework that will work, and if the Senator will work with me next week, I think his comfort level would be as great as mine today that we can address this threat in a comprehensive way, and that is a pledge that we will do it expeditiously, this year.

Mr. BURR. I would be happy to yield time to the minority leader.

Mr. BURR. Does the Senator need time before 2:30?

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, we have several minutes remaining before we move on. I take this opportunity to assure the minority leader that I was in the same briefing. I think all Members were somewhat shocked at some of the things we heard. This is a Member who was not shocked because I have been charged as a subcommittee chairman since the beginning of the year with looking at all the aspects of this. I read daily the international press reports of how many new cases of avian flu, in what country, how many humans have contracted it from an animal source, how many humans potentially have contracted it from another human. The reality is this is something that from a committee standpoint we keep up with. We understand the sense of urgency. I plead with my colleagues that the answer is not to throw money at the threat. It is to have a comprehensive plan where research and the investment for that research pays off in countermeasures to protect the American people. Senator Harkin described very well that what is H5N1 avian flu in most of Southeast Asia today, by the time it travels, whether it is by humans or potentially by wild birds, the mutations that may take place might make irrelevant any vaccine that is produced today and antivirals that exist today, used to treat it might have potentially less than a satisfactory effect. Without a system that invests in research and development, how in the world do we expect new antiviral drugs and new vaccines to be produced? To suggest that we put all our eggs into this limited approach--let's put this money up, and let's buy whatever is available on the marketplace--is comforting if, in fact, we believe this is a threat for tomorrow or next week or next month. The reality is this pandemic may occur next year or 3 years or 5 years down the road, and if we want to protect the American people, if we want to do our job, then you have to set up a comprehensive mechanism for that research, that development, and whatever product is needed to address the threat we may face. Again, I commend those Members who have come to the floor and proposed the appropriations for this item. I disagree that this is the appropriate bill. I disagree that you should appropriate this much money or any money without a comprehensive plan as to how we produce countermeasures that continue past this one appropriations. I pledge to the minority leader and to Senator Harkin, but more importantly to every Member of this body, to work with them aggressively over the next 60 days to not only produce legislation out of the subcommittee, but to work with my chairman, Chairman Enzi, and to work with both leaders and all 100 Senators to make sure this legislation is passed in this body and by the House of Representatives, and signed into law by this President. I believe that it is that urgent. But, there is also a requirement for us to do it right, in fact, that is the single most important factor that we should consider. I yield the floor.