Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to speak about poverty and, specifically, how we measure it and its influence on millions of Americans. When we return from the August recess, the Census Bureau will release its annual report documenting the number of Americans living in poverty. But these numbers will provide a flawed picture of poverty in America since they are based almost exclusively on 50-year-old food prices. The bill I am introducing today, the Measuring American Poverty, or MAP, Act, directs the Census to develop a new poverty measure that is based on a more comprehensive definition of need. Improving the poverty measure is not just an academic exercise for statisticians, it is essential in helping us identify and implement effective policies that address this crisis. Even with an inaccurate measurement, the picture of poverty in America is startling. In 2007, the year for which we have the most recent data, one in eight Americans--and nearly one in five children-- didn't have the resources to meet their basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter. Think about that. One in five children in America in 2007 went to bed without even the most basic elements that we take for granted. In my home State of Connecticut, more than 85,000 kids lived in poverty. And that was before the economic downturn in which we now find ourselves. The Center for American Progress estimates that the cost to our Nation of persistent child poverty is $\1/2\ trillion each year. Every year a child stays in poverty reduces future productivity over the course of his or her working life by nearly $12,000. But the cost is more than just financial--it is moral. We are judged, Hubert Humphrey famously said, by how we treat those in the shadows of life. And every child who goes to bed hungry, every American who lacks the basic necessities of life, is a mark on our national conscience. As we struggle with the great challenges of our time, the crisis of poverty is growing. More and more Americans find that shadow creeping toward them. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that if unemployment were to rise to 9 percent--our current unemployment rate is 9.5 percent, the highest rate in 26 years--the number of Americans in poverty would increase by as many as 10.3 million, and the number of children in poverty would rise by as many as 3.3 million. To put those numbers in perspective, this recession will add a number of Americans equivalent to the population of Michigan to the current number who live in poverty, which is already equivalent to the population of California. In my home State of Connecticut and across this country, people who have long worked hard to get ahead are falling further behind. Folks who have worked two jobs with an eye toward sending their kids to college are having to choose between purchasing food and medications. They are hoping that a child's hacking cough doesn't turn into something more serious because they can't afford to see a doctor. They are staying up late staring at unpaid bills, wondering how to pay their mortgage when their only incomes from their meager savings and unemployment insurance, wondering what happened to their America dream. The vast majority of people who are poor do not lack the desire for a better life for themselves and their family. They are not poor in their work ethic, their love for their country and their communities. They are in poverty, but they are not poor in the qualities that we so admire in America. The truth is, many are unlucky and face insurmountable hurdles. For some that hurdle is their inability to pay for higher education. For others it is that they work two jobs and can't read to their kids at night like they want to. And far too many others are struggling to pay their mortgage and are spending all their retirement savings just to keep a roof over their heads. As many hard-working Americans are engulfed by the shadow of poverty, we remember Hubert Humphrey's admonition, but too often we can't even see into those shadows because the way we measure poverty in America is badly outdated. It is that challenge to which I today urge this body to rise. Currently, we measure poverty by comparing two numbers: the money a family has, which the census refers to as an ``income measure,'' and the money a family needs to meet its basic needs, which experts call the ``poverty threshold.'' If a family's income measure is less than the threshold, they are counted as poor. It is a simple calculation. But unfortunately both elements--the income measure and the threshold-- are flawed. The poverty threshold was created using data from the 1950s and 1960s. Currently, it is calculated by taking the 1950s cost of emergency foodstuffs--food only for temporary use when funds are low-- and multiplying that number by three because in the 1960s, food represented one-third of a family budget. But today, food represents one-sixth or one-seventh of a family's budget. Similarly, a family's cash income before taxes was once an accurate and straightforward way to measure a family's resources. But today, many Americans are subject to both State and Federal income taxes and may face exorbitant health costs or other critical needs which drain their resources. In addition, many women now work outside the home, meaning they now need pay for childcare and for getting to and from work. And on the other side of the ledger, we now provide many benefits to low income workers that are not cash payments--they are provided through our Tax Code, or like energy assistance programs, paid directly to providers. I have fought throughout my career for programs that lift people out of poverty. Think of the earned-income tax credit, food assistance, housing assistance, home energy assistance, child care assistance--hundreds of billions of dollars spent to help Americans that aren't accounted for when we calculate whether our efforts are working. So, we need a new way to measure both what a family needs and what a family has. When Mayor Bloomberg decided to tackle poverty in New York City, he started by doing what any successful businessman would--he surveyed the problem. But he discovered that our outdated system of measuring poverty simply didn't allow him to see what was really happening. So the mayor charged his Center for Economic Opportunity with creating a system that would better represent that threshold, as well as a family's resources. They followed the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences 1995 panel described in ``Measuring Poverty: An Improved Approach.'' The legislation I offer today also follows these guidelines. Specifically, this bill--the Measuring American Poverty Act--updates the calculations for both threshold and resources in the Federal poverty measure. The poverty threshold would be based on the current prices of food, clothing, shelter, utilities, and a few basic household expenses. And it would revise the current measurement of income to better reflect the reality that Americans not only must pay taxes but also certain unavoidable expenses like transportation to and from work, childcare, and medical expenses. This revised measure would also include the value of near-cash benefits like energy assistance, food stamps, section 8 housing vouchers, and tax credits such as the earned- income tax credit. Let me be very clear: this isn't a bill to change eligibility for programs or the allocation of Federal funds. In fact, the bill's text is explicit about that. The MAP Act creates a new measurement. It does not replace the Federal Poverty Line. It does not change eligibility for programs. It will not lead to an unprecedented automatic increase in spending. What the MAP Act will do is help us to understand the scope of the poverty crisis in America, and to better evaluate the effectiveness of our solutions to it. We have a difficult job ahead of us, as we look to lift Americans out of poverty, provide middle-class families with a strong safety net, and restore the American Dream for working men and women. But we must begin by facing unafraid the true nature and scope of the poverty crisis. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Livable Communities Act. Our communities are growing and changing. And the way we plan for their futures needs to evolve, as well. At stake is whether or not we will be able to enjoy the places where we live and work without excessive traffic, skyrocketing fuel costs, and sprawling development patterns that eat up our open space. As our communities grow, people are living farther from jobs, commuting longer distances on more crowded roadways, paying more at the pump at a time when family budgets are stretched thin and putting more greenhouse gases into the air at a time when climate change has emerged as an urgent threat. We are losing our rural land and open spaces. Transportation costs are making housing less affordable. Even though our communities are growing in size, we are losing the community spirit that makes American towns and cities so great. It is clear that current trends simply cannot continue. Sustainable development will cut down on the traffic that has long plagued my home State of Connecticut and connect people with good- paying jobs. Done right, it will protect the environment and help us meet energy goals; protect rural areas and green spaces; revitalize our Main Streets and urban centers; create and preserve affordable housing; and make our communities better places to live, work, and raise families. But does that mean sustainable development is a transportation issue? An energy issue? A housing issue? An environmental issue? The answer, of course, is ``all of the above,'' and unfortunately, that tends to short some circuits here in Washington. Our policy has long been stovepiped within the various agencies responsible for each of the issues affected by planning and development. In February, I wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to establish a White House Office of Sustainable Development to coordinate housing, transportation, energy, and environmental policies. I felt confident I would find a partner in the White House. The President has been a strong leader on these issues, and he has shown a willingness to shake up a Federal Government that hasn't always succeeded when it comes to thinking outside the box and addressing related issues in a comprehensive, effective way. Sure enough, last month I brought together Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson at a Banking Committee hearing--three public servants who don't often find themselves in the same hearing room at the same time. They brought with them a pledge that the administration would work across agency lines to take a holistic look at development policy--and a firm commitment to livability principles that would serve as the foundation for that policy going forward. The administration's principles demonstrate a true understanding of the best way forward. Sustainable development, as grounded in these principles, provides more transportation choices for families, expands access to affordable housing, enhances economic competitiveness by connecting families with jobs and services, targets funding towards existing communities to spur revitalization and protect our open spaces, values the unique character of both our cities and our small towns, and improves collaboration between different government agencies to better leverage our investments. As Secretary LaHood said at the hearing, we are now all working off the same playbook. But now it is time to snap the ball and move down the field. Last month the White House announced the selection of Shelley Poticha to head up these efforts. If the Livable Communities Act becomes law, as I hope it will, Ms. Poticha will head a new HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities. This new office will serve as a clearinghouse for best practices, so that successful initiatives can be easily replicated. And it will give HUD Secretary Donovan, Deputy Secretary Ron Simms, and Ms. Poticha the tools and authority they need to really dig in and become a partner to our communities in creating a sustainable future. One successful play from our playbook could be modeled after a project in my home State of Connecticut. It links housing and transportation policy, encourages smart land use, generates economic growth, and will reduce our carbon footprint around what's known as the Tri-City Corridor in Connecticut. This proposal would provide commuter and 110-mile-per-hour intercity rail service between New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield, MA, and feature 12 stops, creating ``transit villages'' and revitalizing local economies. Already, we are seeing how this proposed service is serving as a catalyst: attracting new business, commuters, and residents, and transforming struggling local economies. Along the corridor is Meriden, a small city of nearly 60,000 residents located roughly halfway between New Haven and Hartford. In anticipation of a commuter stop on the rail line, the city would like to transform 15 acres of brownfields into new commercial and residential developments, including a public green that doubles as a flood buffer. Immediately north of that site is the Mills Memorial public housing complex, providing 140 units of affordable housing to low income residents. By linking transit, housing, and commercial planning, the city of Meriden will be able to transform its downtown into a bustling economic center ready to support a wide range of residents. The vision of Meriden and so many communities throughout the country needs the support and planning tools to take these initiatives from idea to action. So, today, I offer for your consideration legislation that encourages communities across the country to begin planning for more prosperous and livable futures. In addition to creating the new HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities I mentioned earlier, this bill creates a competitive grant program that States and localities can use to better integrate transportation, housing, land use, and economic development when making long-term planning decisions. In addition, it provides funding for communities to implement these comprehensive regional plans through a challenge grant program. This program will help communities invest in public transportation, affordable housing, complete streets, transit-oriented development, and redeveloping brownfields. Finally, this bill creates an Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities to break down the ``stovepiping'' that exists within the Federal Government and coordinate Federal policies to encourage sustainable development. In my home State of Connecticut, integrated planning and sustainable development is critical to growing stronger communities. We have a state-level program called HOMEConnecticut that provides grants to plan Incentive Housing Zones. In these zones, mixed-income housing is built near jobs and transit centers, in downtowns and in redeveloped brownfields. More than 50 cities and towns have either applied for grants or already received them. The investment will pay off in affordable homes, good jobs, and more livable communities. Like bragging on Connecticut, but I would love to see this success replicated in communities around the Nation. The Obama administration has indicated its commitment to encouraging sustainable development and helping local authorities build a better future. It is time for us to do the same. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to speak about poverty and, specifically, how we measure it and its influence on millions of Americans. When we return from the August recess, the Census Bureau will release its annual report documenting the number of Americans living in poverty. But these numbers will provide a flawed picture of poverty in America since they are based almost exclusively on 50-year-old food prices. The bill I am introducing today, the Measuring American Poverty, or MAP, Act, directs the Census to develop a new poverty measure that is based on a more comprehensive definition of need. Improving the poverty measure is not just an academic exercise for statisticians, it is essential in helping us identify and implement effective policies that address this crisis. Even with an inaccurate measurement, the picture of poverty in America is startling. In 2007, the year for which we have the most recent data, one in eight Americans--and nearly one in five children-- didn't have the resources to meet their basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter. Think about that. One in five children in America in 2007 went to bed without even the most basic elements that we take for granted. In my home State of Connecticut, more than 85,000 kids lived in poverty. And that was before the economic downturn in which we now find ourselves. The Center for American Progress estimates that the cost to our Nation of persistent child poverty is $\1/2\ trillion each year. Every year a child stays in poverty reduces future productivity over the course of his or her working life by nearly $12,000. But the cost is more than just financial--it is moral. We are judged, Hubert Humphrey famously said, by how we treat those in the shadows of life. And every child who goes to bed hungry, every American who lacks the basic necessities of life, is a mark on our national conscience. As we struggle with the great challenges of our time, the crisis of poverty is growing. More and more Americans find that shadow creeping toward them. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that if unemployment were to rise to 9 percent--our current unemployment rate is 9.5 percent, the highest rate in 26 years--the number of Americans in poverty would increase by as many as 10.3 million, and the number of children in poverty would rise by as many as 3.3 million. To put those numbers in perspective, this recession will add a number of Americans equivalent to the population of Michigan to the current number who live in poverty, which is already equivalent to the population of California. In my home State of Connecticut and across this country, people who have long worked hard to get ahead are falling further behind. Folks who have worked two jobs with an eye toward sending their kids to college are having to choose between purchasing food and medications. They are hoping that a child's hacking cough doesn't turn into something more serious because they can't afford to see a doctor. They are staying up late staring at unpaid bills, wondering how to pay their mortgage when their only incomes from their meager savings and unemployment insurance, wondering what happened to their America dream. The vast majority of people who are poor do not lack the desire for a better life for themselves and their family. They are not poor in their work ethic, their love for their country and their communities. They are in poverty, but they are not poor in the qualities that we so admire in America. The truth is, many are unlucky and face insurmountable hurdles. For some that hurdle is their inability to pay for higher education. For others it is that they work two jobs and can't read to their kids at night like they want to. And far too many others are struggling to pay their mortgage and are spending all their retirement savings just to keep a roof over their heads. As many hard-working Americans are engulfed by the shadow of poverty, we remember Hubert Humphrey's admonition, but too often we can't even see into those shadows because the way we measure poverty in America is badly outdated. It is that challenge to which I today urge this body to rise. Currently, we measure poverty by comparing two numbers: the money a family has, which the census refers to as an ``income measure,'' and the money a family needs to meet its basic needs, which experts call the ``poverty threshold.'' If a family's income measure is less than the threshold, they are counted as poor. It is a simple calculation. But unfortunately both elements--the income measure and the threshold-- are flawed. The poverty threshold was created using data from the 1950s and 1960s. Currently, it is calculated by taking the 1950s cost of emergency foodstuffs--food only for temporary use when funds are low-- and multiplying that number by three because in the 1960s, food represented one-third of a family budget. But today, food represents one-sixth or one-seventh of a family's budget. Similarly, a family's cash income before taxes was once an accurate and straightforward way to measure a family's resources. But today, many Americans are subject to both State and Federal income taxes and may face exorbitant health costs or other critical needs which drain their resources. In addition, many women now work outside the home, meaning they now need pay for childcare and for getting to and from work. And on the other side of the ledger, we now provide many benefits to low income workers that are not cash payments--they are provided through our Tax Code, or like energy assistance programs, paid directly to providers. I have fought throughout my career for programs that lift people out of poverty. Think of the earned-income tax credit, food assistance, housing assistance, home energy assistance, child care assistance--hundreds of billions of dollars spent to help Americans that aren't accounted for when we calculate whether our efforts are working. So, we need a new way to measure both what a family needs and what a family has. When Mayor Bloomberg decided to tackle poverty in New York City, he started by doing what any successful businessman would--he surveyed the problem. But he discovered that our outdated system of measuring poverty simply didn't allow him to see what was really happening. So the mayor charged his Center for Economic Opportunity with creating a system that would better represent that threshold, as well as a family's resources. They followed the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences 1995 panel described in ``Measuring Poverty: An Improved Approach.'' The legislation I offer today also follows these guidelines. Specifically, this bill--the Measuring American Poverty Act--updates the calculations for both threshold and resources in the Federal poverty measure. The poverty threshold would be based on the current prices of food, clothing, shelter, utilities, and a few basic household expenses. And it would revise the current measurement of income to better reflect the reality that Americans not only must pay taxes but also certain unavoidable expenses like transportation to and from work, childcare, and medical expenses. This revised measure would also include the value of near-cash benefits like energy assistance, food stamps, section 8 housing vouchers, and tax credits such as the earned- income tax credit. Let me be very clear: this isn't a bill to change eligibility for programs or the allocation of Federal funds. In fact, the bill's text is explicit about that. The MAP Act creates a new measurement. It does not replace the Federal Poverty Line. It does not change eligibility for programs. It will not lead to an unprecedented automatic increase in spending. What the MAP Act will do is help us to understand the scope of the poverty crisis in America, and to better evaluate the effectiveness of our solutions to it. We have a difficult job ahead of us, as we look to lift Americans out of poverty, provide middle-class families with a strong safety net, and restore the American Dream for working men and women. But we must begin by facing unafraid the true nature and scope of the poverty crisis. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I wish to thank Pat Leahy, my seatmate here in the Senate, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his leadership. Let me also thank Jeff Sessions, who is the ranking Republican on the committee, and all members of the committee. Those are pretty important jobs they have. Obviously they are considering nominees for the district court, the appellate court. But moments when you consider a nominee to the Supreme Court do not happen every day and are pretty significant moments. I commend the committee for the speed with which they handled this. A lot of time these matters can get tied up for weeks on end, as we have seen in prior years. But I particularly commend Pat Leahy, who does a great job chairing the Judiciary Committee, and all members for their work in this area. Article II of the Constitution gives the Senate an awesome responsibility for providing advice and consent on judicial nominations. Those who we confirm are in a lifetime position as one of the nine men and women who will have the ability to literally shape every phase of American law and society. Other than authorizing war or amending the U.S. Constitution, this body has no more important power than the one we exercise when we choose to confirm a nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Clearly, then, the Constitution demands that we subject nominees to very close scrutiny. But it does not tell us how. Each Senator must determine for himself or herself the appropriate criteria. Over the years I have been here, I have had the privilege of listening, not as a member of the Judiciary Committee, but as a Member of this body, to debates, and there have been some tremendous ones over the years on various nominees. Most have been confirmed, some have not. But it is usually a robust debate, an important debate, and the scrutiny of these nominees is the highest any nominee for any office receives. I have always relied on a three-part test. The first test I apply, and have done this across the board over the years: Does the nominee have the technical competence and legal skills to do the job? Second: Does the nominee have the proper character and temperament to serve on the highest Court of our land? And, third: Does the nominee's record demonstrate respect for and adherence to the principle underlying our legal system--that is, equal justice for all? I am convinced, without any doubt or hesitation, that Judge Sotomayor passes all three tests with distinction. As to Judge Sotomayor's competence: Her resume is that of experienced and accomplished jurist, one who will take her seat with more bench experience, I might point out, as I am sure others have, than any other Justice currently serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. She graduated from Yale Law School in my home State of Connecticut, has been a prosecutor and private attorney, and spent 17 years on the Federal bench as both a district court judge and an appellate court judge. As to Judge Sotomayor's character: Her long list of enthusiastic recommendations and her terrific performance before the Judiciary Committee revealed her to be a remarkable woman of deep integrity. Her incredible life story, rising from a housing project in the Bronx to the height of American jurisprudence, is truly an inspiration. And, of course, as someone who would be the first Latina and third woman to serve on the Court, Judge Sotomayor is an historic figure. As to Judge Sotomayor's legal philosophy: Her writings and her thoughtful answers to difficult questions raised by our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee make it clear that Judge Sotomayor is committed to the principle of equality that forms the foundation of America's system of jurisprudence. For Judge Sotomayor, as for any nominee, that is enough to earn my vote, regardless of what I think about any particular decision. I voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts, much to the consternation of people in my own party and others who felt we should object because we did not agree with Judge Roberts' decisions in a number of cases. But I applied my three-part test and Justice Roberts passed. I have applied that test over the years. So while I have not agreed with every decision that the Chief Justice has taken during his tenure on the bench, I would still tell you it was a good choice, despite my disagreement with some of his decisions. It is the kind of quality you want on the Supreme Court. I worry deeply in this body that if we start taking standards to apply to the nominees for the Supreme Court, such as we appear to be doing, I think we do damage to the tradition we must uphold in this body of applying standards that go far beyond our particular concerns about decisions here and there, or to listen to constituency groups to such a degree that they dominate the vote patterns here in the Senate. Frankly, I do not think I am telling any of my colleagues anything they do not know already. I do not think anybody in this Chamber believes that she is incompetent or temperamentally unsuited for the job, or that she does not believe in equal justice under the law. The actual debate, however, has focused not on the nominee's enormous body of exemplary work but a few examples from her career, selected for their ability to create controversy. Out of thousands of decisions--and that is not hyperbole; she has been involved in thousands of decisions--if it were not amusing to me it would be disturbing to me. There are eight cases that were the subject of debate in her nomination, eight cases out of thousands in which she rendered an opinion either as a joint participant in the opinion or as the sole decider in the case. So out of thousands of cases, eight items were brought up. Frankly, you could do that with anybody. But someone who has had 17 years on the bench, going through thousands of cases, if that is the basis for being against this nominee, I do not know if anyone can ever pass the test here if that were the case, if you are looking for people with experience and temperament and ability to judge. She should not be confirmed just because of her ethnicity. As someone who is proud that he speaks the Spanish language, served the Peace Corps in Latin America, in the Dominican Republic, and knows the area where Judge Sotomayor grew up in the Bronx, her nomination should not rest solely on ethnicity. And she would be offended if she thought it were the case. But it also is a moment of celebration as well, that we in this country respect diversity of our population. Many have said this is a remarkable story, and I appreciate the point they are trying to make. But it is not terribly remarkable, it is America. And in America that story is not remarkable. That is the great brilliance of our country. We have a President of the United States who was raised by a single mother under difficult circumstances. Bill Clinton, whom we are talking about today because of his heroic efforts to help release the two women who were held in North Korea, had an equally compelling story. Ronald Reagan had a compelling story. There are many people who have risen to incredible heights in our country in success in the private and public sector who have come from similar circumstances as Judge Sotomayor. It is a great tribute to our country that people such as Judge Sotomayor can achieve the success she has because we celebrate it in our country. So it is more a reflection I think of today's political climate than it is on this terrific nominee who we have the privilege of voting for. The legal and political issues raised during her confirmation hearings are complex and interesting, as they should be. But the decision currently facing the Senate is not a hard call, in my view. I have been here when there have been hard calls. This is not a hard call. This ought to be an easy call for Members here. She is a brilliant jurist. She is a remarkable American. And she is going to make a fantastic Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I could not be prouder, when the time arrives, to cast my vote in favor of this nominee. The Judiciary Committee has received letters of support from several State and local bar associations, including the New York City Bar, the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York, and the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association. The Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association, which honored Judge Sotomayor in 1998 with its Achievement Award at its Annual Awards Dinner, wrote: Since being appointed to the bench, Judge Sotomayor has compiled an exemplary and distinguished record. She has earned a stellar reputation as a defender of the rule of law and praise for her thoughtful and thorough written opinions. I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the Record. Exhibit 1 Women's Bar Association of the State of New York, New York, NY, July 1, 2009. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: As president of the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York (WBASNY), I am pleased to present the attached statement in support of the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor--a WBASNY member--to the United States Supreme Court. Her outstanding experience, her philosophy of judicial moderation, and her distinctive perspective, as demonstrated by her legal opinions, make her superbly qualified for this service. I respectfully request that WBASNY be given the opportunity to testify about Judge Sotomayor during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings. Sincerely, Cynthia Schrock Seeley.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last night I rose to speak on health care reform. Today, another 14,000 Americans lost their health insurance. That is 14,000 Americans who had health insurance when I spoke on the floor last night, but tonight each will go to bed fearing that if something happens to them or their family, they could lose everything-- their home, their life savings, their economic security, gone. Tomorrow, it will be another 14,000. Another 14,000 the day after that. And another 14,000 every single day until we finally pass real health care reform. Between now and when we return from recess, half a million Americans will lose their insurance. Some will have preexisting conditions that, under our current system, will prevent them from ever finding coverage again. Some will have medical issues requiring expensive treatments that they will no longer be able to afford. Some will end up in bankruptcy. Some will end up on public assistance. And some will end up in the emergency room with a sick child whose illness could have been prevented with a simple doctor's visit. The tragedy caused by our broken health care system is ongoing. It is happening right now. And when we come back from recess, I have every hope and expectation that we will be ready to work together to stop it. I take my Republican colleagues at their word when they say they don't want to stall this effort to death, they simply want bipartisanship. The Affordable Health Choices Act, passed in the HELP Committee, didn't win bipartisan support, but it is a bipartisan bill. It incorporates 161 Republican amendments, and reflects a spirited and robust debate with participation from all sides--exactly the sort of debate I expect we can have when we come back from recess. We are not going to agree on every detail, and there will be times when we have to have a simple up-or-down vote and live with the results. But surely we can all agree that the status quo isn't just unacceptable--it is unsustainable. That is why doctors and nurses, insurance companies and drug companies, Democrats and Republicans--all say we need reform. Well, it is time for us to make that happen. I believe that our bipartisan approach has yielded a good bill. If you don't have health insurance, the Affordable Health Choices Act will put it within reach by giving you a range of affordable options to choose from. It forever banishes the term ``preexisting conditions'' from the American vocabulary. If you have health insurance, the Affordable Health Choices Act will make it less expensive by investing in preventive care to bring down the long-term cost of keeping our citizens well, not to mention eliminating waste and fraud from our system. And if you like your doctor and your insurance plan, and you are worried about keeping it, the worst thing in the world you could do would be to stand in the way of reform. The Affordable Health Choices Act guarantees that you won't see your insurance be taken away at the moment you need it most or watch as it is priced out of your family's budget. Whether you have insurance or not, whether you like your health care options or not, whether you are sick or healthy, Democrat or Republican, working-class or a small business owner, reform is for you. Let us take action on behalf of the 14,000 Americans who will lose insurance tomorrow. Let us take action on behalf of the 45 million uninsured and the 30 million underinsured. Let us take action on behalf of the American people who are looking to us to succeed.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I yield to my colleague from Vermont. Amendments Nos. 2276 and 2271 to Amendment No. 1908

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleagues this evening. I am going to momentarily turn to my colleagues from Iowa, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island--all of whom participated with us nearly 3 weeks ago in the markup of our bill, the Affordable Health Choices Act, which took up an inordinate amount of time, longer than I think any markup certainly in the history of our committee, maybe the longest in the history of this body. We actually spent about 56 hours, 23 sessions, and 13 days on this bill. We considered just shy of 300 amendments, of which 161 amendments were offered by our colleagues from the minority and contributed significantly and substantively to the outcome of that bill. They did not support the bill in the end, unfortunately, but any definition of ``bipartisan'' would have to include whether or not their ideas were incorporated in any significant degree in this bill, and they were. I am appreciative of their efforts. I am particularly grateful to Senators Harkin, Murray, Whitehouse, and Brown for their contributions, along with others on the committee: Senator Sanders, who is here; Senator Mikulski played such an important role; Senator Casey, Senator Merkley, Senator Bingaman, Senator Reed, Senator Hagan--all of whom contributed to the outcome of that legislation. We thought it might be worthwhile this evening to talk about exactly what is in this bill. We will be adjourning in a few days. We will be gone for a month. Unfortunately, during that month, nothing will happen on this bill. But I think it is an important month to educate our constituents and people across this country as to what is in this bill, what we are trying to accomplish with our reform efforts. Senator Harkin led the effort on prevention in our committee. The Senator was asked by our chairman, Ted Kennedy--who, as we all know, is struggling with his own illness, a brain tumor. We pray and hope he will be back to work with us and to chair his committee. But the distinguished Senator from Iowa, along with Senators Mikulski, Bingaman, and Murray, worked on various ideas. Prevention was the matter in which Senator Harkin became an expert. He developed very sound ideas in our legislation to promote the improvement of prevention ideas as part of our health care reform efforts. Senator Mikulski worked on quality. Senator Bingaman worked on coverage. Senator Murray worked on workforce issues, which are all so critically important. Senator Harkin brought to the committee his more than three decades' long commitment to prevention and wellness. He is no newcomer to this issue. In a minute, I am going to ask him, if he would, to go into detail about the prevention aspects of this bill and what is included. People ought to know what we have done. I am so sick and tired of hearing about socialized medicine, government takeover--nothing but absolute falsehoods about what is in this legislation and what we are promoting. I say at the outset, if you like what you have, you get to keep it, choose your doctor, hospital, choose the insurance program you have. What people don't have is a sense of stability and certainty that they are going to have the coverage they deserve if a crisis hits them in health care and that they will get the care they need. That is what people are uncertain about today. So many millions of our fellow citizens worry every night that the coverage they have and the coverage they would like to have is unavailable to them because the costs are rising almost on an hourly basis, and they worry about their families. Before I turn to my colleague from Iowa and my other colleagues, as well, to share some thoughts with us, I made an announcement last Friday which has become quite well known--the fact that I have been diagnosed with prostate cancer. It is in the very early stages. I am confident the outcomes are going to be great and all is going to work out well. I have known about this since June when I was diagnosed with it and did what I could to learn all about prostate cancer and what treatments and options will be available to me. The point I want to make is this: When I discovered in June that I had prostate cancer, I didn't lose a moment's sleep over whether I had the coverage to pay for it. I didn't lose a moment's sleep as to whether I have quality care. I am a Member of Congress. I have a great health care plan. I have great coverage. I never lost a moment's sleep over whether or not I would be able to access that coverage. What bothers me is it should not just be me or Members like me in this body. If every Member in this body had to go through what millions of Americans do every day, and that is wonder whether the quality is going to be there, the care is going to be there, maybe they would worry. But that is not the case. Our efforts over these days have been to try to bring, at long last, that sense of stability and certainty to our fellow citizens that we have in this body and that the other body has and that thousands and thousands of Federal employees and others who have good health care coverage have. I am confident everything is going to be fine. That is not the point of bringing this up. The reason I bring it up is because too many of our fellow citizens lack the kind of security and stability that those of us who are here have. I hear my colleagues--some of them--say: Well, we ought to wait a while longer. We can't afford to do this. We can't afford not to do this. The cost to the average American is rising by the hour. I had one insurance company in my State of Connecticut, a few weeks ago, announce a 32-percent increase in premiums. They announced it right in the middle of this debate, to jack up those prices. Of course, it goes on all across the country. We have working families who are losing their jobs, losing their homes, and we find that 62 percent of people who are in bankruptcy are there because of a health care crisis. We find 50 percent of the foreclosures that are occurring are occurring because of a health care crisis. So my interest in raising this is to bring home the point that we have an obligation, it seems to me, in this body, to address this issue; to do it carefully, do it well but to get the job done. We have a President committed to that. Our leadership is committed to it. The members of our committee who have worked so hard are committed to it. All we are missing is some folks willing to come to the table and help us resolve these matters in a way that will allow us to have some votes and decide whether to go forward with accessible, affordable, quality health care. No one is talking about socialized medicine or talking about big government-run plans. They use those words over and over and over again. You ought to be suspicious when they have nothing else to say about health care but scare tactics and fear. That is what they have done day after day in this debate, and it is a disservice to the American people to suggest that after 70 years, with millions of our fellow citizens uninsured or underinsured tonight, the only answer they have to our health care problems is to wait longer, do nothing, and be scared. What is more, if they were more serious about some of these issues, we might be engaged in more of a significant debate. As I said, that is not true for the 47 million without health insurance, the 30 million underinsured in our Nation or the 14,000 in America who lost their health insurance today. Every day we wait, another 14,000 people lose health coverage. Since we marked up our bill--and we finished marking up our bill in that committee back 3 weeks ago this Wednesday--266,000 people in the United States, more than a quarter of a million people, have lost their health insurance. That is what has happened in less than 3 weeks. My hope would be that while we are going to debate this issue at home over the month of August, we would come back with a renewed sense of commitment to getting this job done. But tonight, my colleagues and I would like to spend a few minutes talking about what is in our bill, what we tried to do with this, how we tried to increase access, quality, as well as affordability. I have heard my distinguished colleague from Iowa say on so many occasions--and I am confident he will probably say it tonight--we don't have a health care system, we have a sick care system. I think he coined the phrase in talking about it. I have heard him say it so many years in this body, talking about what we need to do to develop sound health care programs. So I wish to thank my colleague and ask if he would share with us his thoughts on this. Is it not the case that chronic disease accounts for about 75 percent of our health care costs, and these are preventable diseases in our country, such as diabetes and heart disease, among other things? I wonder if my colleague from Iowa could take a moment or two to talk about the cost savings achievable through increased prevention, not to mention what it means to individuals. It can lead to a longer life and a better quality of life. I thank him for his thoughts on the subject matter.

Mr. DODD. I yield to my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield at this point, again, because I am exhibit A. I had an annual physical this year. At my annual physical, my PSA score spiked--shot up. That was a signal to the doctors that maybe something more serious was happening. They decided a biopsy was appropriate. A biopsy showed I had cancer. But I had the annual physical, which my health care plan pays for. If you don't have a health care plan, that physical can be very expensive, so people don't get their annual physical. Prostate cancer is the slowest growing form of cancer, it is the easiest to manage. If you have to have cancer, it is the best one to have. If you have to have one, that is the best one--if you catch it early. A number of our colleagues have had prostate cancer. But the important thing, as my colleague pointed out, is to have an annual physical, get the screening, and detect it early. I will be able to deal with this, and I am told I will have a very healthy life for many more years to come. If I had gone years without detecting this and it migrated or metastasized into my lymph nodes or bones, I could be in serious trouble. Spark Matsunaga, our former colleague from Hawaii, died of prostate cancer. John Kerry, our colleague, his dad died of prostate cancer. Thirty thousand people a year die of prostate cancer, because they never caught it. That is what screening does. That is why what you are saying has such value. (Mr. MERKLEY assumed the chair.)

Mr. DODD. Headquartered in Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague, Mr. President. Before I turn to Senator Brown and Senator Whitehouse--and there are a lot of things to talk about in the work Senator Harkin and the committee did on prevention--one of the great successes in this bill is a matter he worked out with our friend and colleague from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg. You mentioned Pitney Bowes and Safeway. The Presiding Officer is, of course, a member of our committee as well and will recall this conversation. But the amendment we worked out will allow for companies to reduce by as much as 50 percent the premium costs of employees who decide to take personal responsibility for improving their health care: getting involved in smoking cessation programs; those who can lose weight will go on programs to take that poundage off. I will never forget Steve Burd, the CEO of Safeway, telling us that for every pound a person who could lose weight loses in a year, it is a $50 savings in premium costs--for every 1 pound. Think about what that can mean in terms of not only a healthier employee but also bringing down that cost of health care, not to mention, of course, that person is less likely to contract diabetes or related problems. You get a cost savings, you get a healthier person, you get a more productive worker. That language exists in this bill because of what Tom Harkin did with Judd Gregg on a bipartisan basis to make this a better and stronger bill. I commend the Senator and thank him for it.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I see our colleagues from Ohio and Rhode Island are here.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague and thank him for making that contribution on so many points, particularly on the public option. As our colleague from Ohio has pointed out, and some may find it somewhat alarming--but the whole idea of competition is about as basic in America as any I can think of. The idea that people can have choices out there is something we cherish in this country. In fact, what exists today in so many case is the lack of choice. I listened to my colleague from Iowa talk about western Iowa, rural Iowa, where you only get one or two choices. In the State of Virginia, almost 70 percent of all insurance is written by two companies in the entire State--two companies in the entire State of Virginia. That is not untrue in most places. I cannot speak specifically State by State, but it is not uncommon that in many areas the choices are very limited. So today, for most Americans, the ability to shop for the best health care plan that serves their needs and the needs of their families is very limited. What is being discussed here is not a subsidized plan, not taxpayer subsidized in any way, but a plan that would offer an option, a safety net in many cases, probably for some kind of illness that can afflict someone, which most people worry most about that could ruin them financially. It is a pretty straightforward kind of a plan that would provide some basic coverage, at a competitive price, a nonprofit operation that would take the element of profit out. I know that may be intimidating to people, to have someone out there competing with an idea. If it is not a good plan and people don't like it, they will not go to it, in which case it will not work very well. If it is a well- drafted plan that does what many would like it to do, it might just have the effect of bringing down the cost in a competitive environment. I mean, under a capitalistic system, competition is what contributes to price fairness. If one company controls the whole game, or two do, you get a predictable result--price fixing--and you pay an awful price as a consumer, whether you are buying shoes or automobiles or any other product or service. So the idea of injecting a level of competition--I find it somewhat ironic that our Republican friends are frightened of this idea. I traditionally think that all of us embrace the free enterprise system as providing the best results for our country throughout 200 years of history. Why in the 21st century should that be any different from the 20th or the 19th century, where competition helped produce the greatness of this country? I appreciate the Senator from Ohio today raising the point about the value of injecting some competition. We all know ultimately that could have the desired effect of bringing down those costs and making insurance or health care coverage more affordable. At some point, I hope someone might explain to me why competition is a bad idea. I though quite the contrary, and it is almost un-American to suggest that we ought to make this a noncompetitive environment, that everything else ought to be competitive but not health care. It seems to me that quite the opposite ought to be the case. I see my colleague from Rhode Island here, who made a significant contribution in crafting the public option and the very public option that was praised by the so-called Blue Dogs in the House, the more conservative Democrats in the House who were reluctant to be supportive of that specific health care package. But to their great credit, they took a good look at what we had created in our bill on the public option, and they were so impressed by the work done by our committee-- specifically, our colleagues from North Carolina, Senator Hagan, Senator Brown from Ohio, and Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, who were the principal authors of this provision in our bill--that the House Blue Dogs insisted that this language be incorporated in part of their health care effort in the House. I thank my colleagues from Rhode Island and Ohio and Senator Kay Hagan from North Carolina for their work in this regard. Possibly my colleague from Rhode Island would like to talk about that or some other aspect of this bill.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield on that point, those very fact situations the Senator describes would be totally prohibited under the bill we marked up in our committee nearly 3 weeks ago. Every one of those fact situations would be prohibited under the legislation we sent to the body for its consideration.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. There will be many more opportunities for us to go over this, but I want to make some points that are important and are part of the legislation that came out of our committee and that are now available for colleagues and others to consider. Under our legislation, you can never discriminate again for a preexisting condition. So when someone comes in and says, I am sorry but that condition precludes you from getting coverage, under our legislation, drafted and approved by our committee, that would not happen. Never again can a preexisting condition be used to deprive coverage. No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles, or copays. Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses. There will be minimal or no cost sharing for preventive care. The insurance industry would fully cover regular checkups and tests that help prevent illness such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetes, the kind of thing Senator Harkin talked about. It doesn't make sense to pay $30,000 to amputate your leg instead of paying for the coverage to determine if you are susceptible to the illness. No dropping coverage for the seriously ill. Companies would be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill. No gender discrimination. There has been a problem of tremendous discrimination in the cost of coverage based on gender. Under our legislation, insurance companies would be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender. No annual or lifetime caps on coverage. Again, you have coverage. You have never had to use it. All of a sudden you get that crisis in your family, and then you start reading the fine print and discover all you get are two hospital visits or three doctor visits. You have a serious problem on your hands. That coverage you have been paying for month after month, year after year, all of a sudden might as well not exist at all. Under our bill, the industry would be prevented from placing annual and lifetime caps on coverage that you receive. Extended coverage for young adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage, not stopping at age 21 but up to 26. That is a huge gap, 21 to 26. Then we have young adult plans that would allow another option. Young people often think they will live forever and never have any problems. We are trying to help out this age group that too often slips through the cracks. This group often doesn't think coverage is that important and, as a result, suffers when they are faced with illnesses or accidents. Lastly, guaranteed insurance renewal is the point I wanted to raise-- when you discover all of a sudden that you are no longer covered. Under our legislation, the industry would be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays premiums in full. The companies wouldn't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick. Every one of these provisions is now written into our legislation. Our bill absolutely makes major reforms that will make a difference on behalf of the citizenry who are counting on a program that would not deprive them of the coverage they deserve. I see our colleague from Oregon is here. I want to say that Ron Wyden has been a tremendous advocate of health care reform for so long. He has written a bill that has attracted a lot of bipartisan support. He and I have had long conversations about some of his ideas. I have asked him to take a look at what we have done as well. I am confident we will end up with health care reform. And I want to thank Ron Wyden for his energy and passion about this issue and the very creative ideas he has brought to the table.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Iowa, and I thank, again, Ron Wyden for his contributions. I wish to reintroduce a constituent of mine, Kevin Galvin. I spent the morning with Kevin today. He is a true American hero, in many ways. He did not want to become an American hero. Kevin employs, I think, 13 people. He has a small business in Hartford, CT. He started out in a hardware business about 27 years ago and changed his business model to meet the needs and times of our country. He was never able to provide health insurance for his people, and it bothered him deeply because he did not have enough business, and health care coverage, even years ago, was more expensive than he could afford. Students sometimes ask: Can one person make a difference? This person--I suppose the legislative leaders in my State would acknowledge this as well--this one person, on his own, over 2 years, organized 19,000 small businesses in my small State to lobby my State legislature about doing something at long last to make a difference for small businesses on health care. They achieved it about a week ago, in no small measure because one guy, who employs about 13 people, got fed up. The average small business pays 18 percent more for health care than larger businesses and gets a lot less coverage than others do as well for the very reason Senator Harkin pointed out: pooling, the idea of being able to work together, get together. They can hardly lift up their heads. In a small business, you are struggling every day to survive. Seventy-five percent of our employers employ fewer than 25 people in our country. The majority of people in our Nation get a job in a small business. Yet they work so hard every day trying to keep that business afloat, particularly in times such as these. It bothered Kevin Galvin so much, that employees of his, in some cases, had to leave him. They did not want to leave but had to because their spouse lost their job, which is what they were relying on for health insurance. He told us about one fellow today, who I think was with him 20-some-odd years, who had to go off and find a job that paid 30 percent less in income but because they had a health care plan. He left the job he loved to take a 30-percent pay cut so his family could have health care. A young man whom we talked to today, an employee, a Hispanic American, in Hartford, CT, is raising a family on his own and has a child with a severe disability and his parents have Alzheimer's and there is no coverage under this guy's plan, Kevin Galvin's plan, in his workplace. But they are doing everything. Kevin does whatever he can to help that family out because he loves that young man who has worked with him. He cares about him. But he cannot afford to do it forever. He cannot survive as a businessperson that way. So we need to pay attention. Our bill does. We talked about prevention. But one of the things I am most proud of in our bill is providing those credits to small businesses so they can afford coverage, giving them the option of going to those alternative plans out there that may suit their needs the best, which they do not have today, allowing them to come together, so they have an opportunity to drive down those costs when they bargain together for the best cost for their employees, as the Senator from Rhode Island pointed out. But I wished to point out Kevin Galvin. Today we met in his shop in Hartford, CT. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, was there. The new Administrator for the Small Business Administration, Karen Mills, was there. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro was there. The speaker of the State house was there. The president of the State senate was there. The head of the small business community was there. They were there to say thank you to Kevin Galvin for what he had done. If one person like that can make a difference, we ought to listen to them. When the Kevin Galvins of this country--he is a small business guy with 13 employees, struggling every day. He decided he was going to do something about it, and we ought to listen to him. He made a difference in my State. But if we listen to him, we can make a difference with small businesspeople all across this country. If we will take the language we wrote in our bill that can make a difference with small business--13 million people in this country who work for small business every day don't have health insurance. Of that 47 million, 13 million--being able to make a difference in their lives, giving them the kind of coverage, the accessibility and the affordability to health care, can make a huge difference. One thing we don't mention enough: This week is the 44th birthday of Medicare--this week. It is a great program. It took the poorest sector of our society out of poverty, the elderly. It also did something else. How many of us in our generation were able to do other things and make investments in other things because in 1965, this Congress, the men and women sitting in this Chamber--mostly men in those days--passed Medicare? All of a sudden, that financial burden children had to look at--the cost of pharmaceutical drugs their parents needed, going to the doctor with their parents--all of a sudden, a lot of it got taken care of. It was a financial benefit to their children. I don't know if there are any economic models that look around and say: How much did that program not only benefit the elderly who got Medicare, but how did it benefit their children who were then able to make investments in their own children's education and in that better home and that better neighborhood, buying that second car? How much did our economy actually grow and improve because we invested in Medicare? We always talk about what it did for those who receive Medicare, but how about those who didn't receive Medicare but had removed from them-- or at least partially removed--the burden of those costs they would otherwise pay? How many people today, because of the uncertainty about their health insurance, are not making the kinds of investments in other things because they are trying to protect themselves against that crisis that could befall them? We don't talk about that. All I hear about is how expensive this is. It is going to be expensive, but if we don't do something about it, it will be lot more expensive--expensive to our economy, expensive to individuals, and expensive to our Nation. So when we talk about these issues, it isn't just those who benefit as a result of having access; it also is the relief, it is the sense of comfort, that sense of confidence that, Lord forbid, something happens to me and my family, I am protected against catastrophic ruin-- catastrophic ruin that can happen. I don't think we talk about that enough here. One of the reasons is because none of us here--none of us here--have to worry for one single second about that. None of us are going to be economically ruined as Members of the U.S. Congress if a health care crisis befalls us. Not one of us. Yet the millions of people we represent worry about it every single day. That is at the heart of all of this, to be able to establish a system in our country which protects our Nation--the greatest, the wealthiest Nation in the history of mankind--from the absolute and very predictable knowledge that you have either been sick, you are sick, or you are going to get sick. I guarantee you, if you are a human being living in this country, that is going to happen to you. To what extent does that occasion, that event put you and your family in financial ruin? It happens to millions in this country. So that as much as anything else ought to motivate us to get back here and do the job. I see my colleague from Oregon is here, Senator Merkley of our committee, who has done a great job as well.

Mr. DODD. My colleague is absolutely correct. This is the point. People probably know, but the younger generation may not realize it. Prior to 1965, the poorest population of our country were our elderly. It was a great tragedy--the generation that grew up and then contributed so much. The 20th century--of course, by 1965, those were the veterans of World War I. They were the people who had lived through the Depression and held us together as a nation time after time, and here they were reaching their retirement years, and, as we all know, when health care problems become pretty routine. A generation that came before us sitting in this very Chamber decided we could do better than that, and so crafted Medicare. The leadership again began with President Kennedy and culminated with the work of Lyndon Baines Johnson putting a package together with Hubert Humphrey and others, putting together that Medicare Program and taking a substantial portion of our population and giving them the assurance and the confidence that as they grow older and face health care problems, the Nation would be there to back them up and to say thank you as a gesture of gratitude for the contribution they made. Also, there was a note of selfishness in that it relieved that younger generation from the burden of financially caring for parents beyond their economic means, in many cases. So it freed up their children to provide for that generation's grandchildren. In so many ways we have benefited from that. So while we talk about the recipients of Medicare--and that is extremely worthwhile--we all benefited from that. It was a great economic relief to an entire Nation, not just the recipients of Medicare's assistance and support.

Mr. DODD. Again, I thank my colleague for mentioning that. He is absolutely correct. As I mentioned earlier, the average small business pays a lot more for insurance than larger businesses do, and they get far less coverage than others do as well. That is why we provide new credits in this bill: $2,000 per employee, family coverage; $1,500 for couples; and $1,000 for individuals. That may not satisfy all of their health care costs, but it is a major break and an assistance to small businesses and guys such as Kevin Galvin who would like to be able to buy that coverage for his employees out of loyalty to their family. One thing about small business is it becomes a family. Everybody knows everybody. You know about what their kids are doing. You know what is going on in their homes. There is a far greater deal of flexibility in trying to meet the needs because it is a family in so many ways. So being able to jump in and help them provide, as Kevin has tried to do with his own employees over the years, we open up the insurance gateway to all small businesses to give affordable insurance options to employers. This gives small businesses the same bargaining leverage as I mentioned earlier, protection from hiking up rates on small businesses, watering down coverage, or denying coverage altogether just because one worker gets really sick--and you heard cases of that. I think Senator Harkin talked about that small business where one employee contracted a very serious illness and the industry then jacked up the premiums for everyone, thus making it impossible for other employees to get coverage. Our bill, as our colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, mentioned, bans that case. We exempt businesses from having to pay any penalty if you employ 25 or fewer employees, and that is a great asset. Again, 75 percent of all employers employ 25 or fewer in our country. We don't count seasonal workers. Our colleague Senator Kay Hagan offered that amendment in our committee to exclude seasonal workers toward the total size of a small business, which is important in small agricultural communities where seasonal workers become absolutely critical. But if you start adding them all up, it would drive that small business into a larger number category. I assume in Oregon that could be a major problem, I know in the agricultural sector of your State, and it helps self-employed workers by allowing them to purchase health insurance through the gateways. So a lot of businesses are single employers. They employ themselves. That could be tremendously costly, and by pooling, it makes it possible for those people to drive down those costs. So a major part of our bill, as Senator Merkley has pointed out, is focused on small business--again, the great engine of our economic success in this country, and we pay a lot of attention to their needs in this bill.

Mr. DODD. Absolutely.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. There is so much to talk about, and there are so many pieces of this. I was listening to Secretary Sebelius today, and I am sure all of us have mentioned this in our own States, and we hear colleagues talk about this ``tax'' being imposed as a result of this bill. There is no tax being imposed by this bill. However, there is a tax that exists today, which is $1,100 for the average family, and that is the amount the average family pays in health care premiums every year to cover the uncompensated care--that is, for those of the 47 million who show up in emergency rooms for health care. We take care of them. If you show up in a hospital, just walk in, and you have a problem, there is not a hospital in America that doesn't take you into that emergency room. They don't throw you out on the streets and say: I am sorry, you don't have any money, so you are going to have to suffer. Communities all across the country do this job every day. We need to understand that, of course, it is not free. That care costs. It is the most expensive health care in the country that occurs in an emergency room. The cost of that, on average, is $1,100 per family in the United States. If that is not a tax, I don't know what is. You are not getting anything for it. You are helping to pick up the cost of the people who don't have coverage who are showing up--usually in a critical state, because they have waited until such a point that it is catastrophic, and they haven't had any prevention, as Senator Harkin talked about earlier, and they waited forever. Now it has come down to a crisis, and they show up in the emergency room with the child at 1 or 2 in the morning. It is not just filled with car accidents and violence. People walk in every night because they have a child or a spouse who needs care. They are reaching out in desperation, and that is expensive health care. We are paying a tax of $1,100, and the average family pays that.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Oregon, a great advocate. We appreciate his involvement this evening with us. As a member of the Finance Committee, it will be critically important that we come together.