Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to speak to the Senate today about a subject on which I have risen to speak before, a very important piece of legislation that I think has the potential to solve what is probably the No. 1 problem that small businesspeople and their employees confront today. I am talking about the bill which I have cosponsored along with Senator Snowe, who is the chairman of the Small Business Committee, and others. It is a bill to allow small businesspeople to create association health plans. This bill is not a Government program. In a time of great deficits, it does not require us to spend any money. It is going to take a long step toward solving the problems of the uninsured, reducing the number of the uninsured, and getting working people better health insurance at less cost. It does not cost the taxpayers anything because all it does is allow people to work together and do for themselves, as small businesspeople and employees of small businesses, what big companies and employees of big companies can already do. Most people in the United States who have health insurance are a part of a big national pool--almost everybody is. You are either in Medicaid or Medicare or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan or covered by a labor union plan or a multi-employer plan with a labor union or you work for a big company. If you are in any of those situations, you are covered by health insurance, and it is health insurance where you are a part of a big national pool. The only people who are not in that situation are people who work for small businesses. I define that very broadly. That includes farmers. It includes people who are self-employed consultants operating out of their own home. They are in the small group market. They have to buy insurance. If they own or run a small business or a farm, they are buying insurance for small groups of people, 5 people or 10 people or 20 people or 25 people. Insurance works better when you spread the risk across as large a pool as possible. It doesn't take an advanced degree to understand that. All association health plans do--and it is very important what they do--is simply allow the employees of small businesses to get the same efficiencies and economies of scale that employees of big business already enjoy. All I would do is allow trade associations--the Farm Bureau, the NFIB, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association--to sponsor health insurance coverage nationally the same way the human resources side of a big company would do. Let's take a big company such as Emerson Electric, a great company in Missouri, or Sprint, or Anheuser Busch, all headquartered there. They have a human resources side, an employee benefits side. They contract with insurance companies nationally; they may have a self-insured side. Then their employees all over the country can enjoy an option in different plans as part of pools of 5 or 10 or 20 or 30,000 people. The administrative costs of such plans are much lower because they are spread across a much wider base of employees. They have much greater purchasing power and negotiating power when dealing with the big insurance companies. They have the competitive possibilities of self- insurance. So insurance is better in that situation and it costs less. It doesn't mean they don't have problems, but you are a lot better off there than you would be and are right now if you are struggling as a small business owner or the employee of a small business. Of the 44 million people uninsured in the country, about two-thirds either own a small business or work for a small business or are dependents of somebody who owns or works for a small business. I am including farmers. Then there are tens of millions of other people who may have health insurance through a small business, but it is bare- bones health insurance. It is not what it should be because the costs are so high, and they are going up every year. There is a human side to this. Senators who have not done this--I imagine most Senators have--go out and talk to people who work in small businesses or run small businesses. I guarantee you, they will tell you the No. 1 problem they are confronting, short and long term, is the rising cost of health insurance and increasing unavailability. This hits people where they live. We have had too many layoffs in Missouri. We have lost more jobs in Missouri in a 1-year period than any other State. There are a lot of bad results connected with the layoff, obviously. But I think maybe the first that hits a family when they lose a job or are concerned about losing a job, particularly if it is a family with kids, is: What about my health insurance? What do I do for that? It is as important as people's wages. Folks in the small business sector, employees of people in the small business sector have labored too long in a market that does not work. It is dominated by a few companies, and they are acting more and more like monopolists, raising prices higher and higher, providing fewer and fewer services, less and less quality insurance. We need to do something about it. We can do it, if this Senate will pass association health plans. It passed in the House by 100 votes last month--strong bipartisan support. It has passed several years in a row in the House. The President supports it. We in the Senate ought to pass it. I fought on the floor of the Senate for it. I will continue to do so. It is a great bill. We have great sponsors. We will take up the debate again in the fall. I am very hopeful we can pass it. It is no secret--and Senators know this because I have been talking to them and I know how strongly they are being lobbied on both sides, lobbied in opposition to association health plans--who is at the core of the lobbying effort against association health plans. It is the Blue Cross Insurance Company. It is no secret why. Blue Cross is dominant in many States. It is one of the few big insurance companies in almost every State that currently provide health insurance to small businesses. They have a big stake in not having association health plans enter the market to compete. It would be a huge competitive force. It would take business away from them or cause them to lower their prices in order to keep the business. I don't begrudge them or anybody else their opportunities or rights to lobby on legislation that comes before this Senate. They have lobbied. They spent $4.3 million last year on lobbyists. I don't know how much of that was spent on association health plans. We do know this is the No. 1 priority for that company--to stop this bill. We can all infer why. I don't begrudge them that. But the debate ought to be done honestly, and it ought to be done within the limits of fair play. That is not happening. I want the Senate to know about it. First, I said it is not being done within the limits of honesty. The No. 1 charge being brought against association health plans is not only not true, it is exactly the inversion of the truth. It is exactly the opposite of the truth. If you want to fool somebody, tell them something that not only isn't true but is the opposite of the truth. Try and sell them on that. The No. 1 charge against association health plans is that they would result in cherry picking; that is, that small businesses that are healthy would want to go into the association health plans; small businesses with employees who are sick would not want to go into association health plans. That is the exact opposite of the truth. I think everybody who currently is trapped in the small group market is going to want to be a part of an association health plan. Who would not want to get insurance through a big national pool as opposed to a small group of 5 or 10 people, if you could do it? It is simply economics. It operates more efficiently. It operates better. It is going to lower costs for everybody. By our estimates, it will lower costs for small business, on average, 10 to 20 percent and reduce the number of uninsured by millions. It will provide good quality health insurance to others who right now are laboring with bare-bones insurance because the market is so difficult. Everybody is going to benefit. The people who will benefit especially are people who are trapped in small groups where somebody has become sick. I have talked about this subject and toured scores and scores of small businesses. I have brought up this charge of cherry picking. I say to people: If you had a history of medical problems and you had a choice of working for a big company which provides health insurance the way an association health plan would or, on the other hand, working for a small company which is trapped in this small group market and that was all you knew about the two opportunities--big company, national pool; small company, small group market--and you were sick, for which one would you want to work? I have never had a single person say: I want to work for the small business; I think I am going to get better health insurance there. One of the big competitive advantages big businesses have over small businesses is that generally they offer better health insurance. Everybody in the job market knows it. I have had a lot of small business people tell me: We have lost employees to big companies on the health insurance issue. We have not been able to hire people we want to because they went to work for a big company because they thought they would get better health insurance. I don't begrudge the larger companies. But why should small businesses and their employees not have the same opportunities? This will benefit everybody in the small business market, but it is going to benefit most the people who are ill, or employers who are struggling along with people who are ill and are doing the best they can to provide good health insurance. Here is another reason it is not association health plans that will cherry-pick. The legislation requires that they take everybody, all comers. Must offer/must carry. Join the association and you get the health insurance. They cannot screen you out because you have somebody who has cancer or heart disease or something like that. Mr. President, it is the big interest companies now who are cherry- picking. Just talk to people who run small businesses. When somebody in their business gets sick and files a claim, their rates get jacked up or they get canceled. Everybody knows it. I could give a lot of examples. One example is Janet Poppen, a small business owner from St. Louis. Like many small business owners, she wants to do right by her five employees, so she tries to provide them health insurance. How many hours and hours does Janet and people like her spend just on the administrative details? It is hours they need to spend running their small business. If we had an association health plan, they would join the trade association, and the trade association has done all that work. It just sends them the papers and they sign up their employees. She had health insurance through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and one of her employees had the temerity to get sick with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. As soon as she started getting treatment for the cancer, Janet's premiums increased by 16 percent. That is on top of the substantial premium increases that had occurred the year before. Her premiums had gone up 35 percent over 2 years. This is not an uncommon story. Everywhere I go, small businesses say that premiums are going up 15, 20, 25 percent a year, doubling over 3 years, going up by a third over 2 years. That happened to Janet Poppen, and she is insured by Blue Cross. They are the ones cherry-picking. Association health plans are the remedy, and to say otherwise is the exact opposite of the truth. One other point, and then I will close. I have trespassed on the Senate's time enough. We ought not to turn this debate, which is one of the most important ones we are going to have in the Senate, into a sweepstakes. Blue Cross is doing that. They have sponsored a Web site. There are other problems as well, but on that Web site they have a sweepstakes. You can enter the sweepstakes to win a trip to Washington for four people, and they will give you $300 cash on top of it. Do you know what you have to do to enter the sweepstakes? You have to click on the place where you can send an e-mail to your Congressman and Senator opposing association health plans. Then you get in the sweepstakes. Then you get a chance to win a trip to Washington--if you will just click on the e-mail and send a letter to Washington opposing association health plans. You don't get anything if you send in a letter supporting association health plans. I will show the Senate where it says enter to win. Here is a chart, and this is the Web site now. It says that you can make your voice heard by sending a free fax to Congress. That is what they tell people. They don't tell you what the fax is about, that the fax has to oppose association health plans and support their business interests. Then they have some misrepresentations about association health plans. Go to the third chart. This is what you get if you do it. At least you have a chance at this. It is a drawing. The grand prize is a trip for four to Washington, DC, including round-trip coach class air transportation at the U.S. airport nearest the winner's home, double occupancy, standard hotel accommodations, two rooms, a 4-hour Washington, DC, bus tour, shuttle bus airport transfers, and a total of $300 in spending money. It has an approximate retail value of $4,000. All you have to do is join Blue Cross, sending in an e-mail opposing the association health plans. You don't get to join if you decide you want to support them. You don't get a chance at the sweepstakes then. I always encourage people to contact their Congressmen and Senators. I like it when people contact me, even if they disagree with me on something. That gives me a chance to write back and explain my position. I have had great exchanges with constituents that way. But we ought not to give people a monetary incentive one way or another because that means the opinions we are getting are not unnecessarily unbiased, are they? I don't blame anybody who wants a shot at a $4,000 trip and participates in a sweepstakes in order to get it. But I sure blame the people who have sponsored that Web site and are distorting the debate on this serious issue before the Senate. And this is a serious issue. There are millions and millions of people in this country who don't have health insurance and who need it. Most of them are stuck in a market that isn't working and is dominated by a few competitors, and we have a chance to change that. It doesn't even cost the taxpayers anything. I hope we can do it. They have done it in the House with a bipartisan vote. I hope we can do it in the Senate. At the very least, we need a debate that is conducted honestly, conducted fairly, and that doesn't turn health care into a sweepstakes. I hope after this we will have it. I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Friday, August 1, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226 on ``Examining the Senate and House Versions of the `Greater Access to Pharmaceuticals Act'.'' Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Timothy J. Muris, Esq., Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC; Mr. Jon W. Dudas, Deputy Under Secretary for Intellectual Property, Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, Arlington, Virginia; Mr. Dan Troy, Esq., Chief Counsel for Food and Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD; and Mr. Sheldon T. Bradshaw, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: Mr. Robert Armitage, Vice President and General Counsel, Eli Lilly and Company, Washington, DC.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, today I salute George and Lois Fernau of St. Louis, who are the founders of a very talented, very patriotic singing group, the Futures of America. The Fernaus are parents of four children, and something Mr. Fernau saw on television in the early 70s as he was about to take his daughter to softball practice disturbed him very deeply. He watched as a group of protesters burned the American flag. Mr. Fernau thought this was a slap in the face to those who fought to defend freedom under that flag and a desecration of an enduring symbol of freedom and democracy. He was inspired to do something to express his love for the country, so he asked his daughters after softball practice if they would be willing to be part of a singing group that would tour the country and spread patriotic feeling through music. Thus, the Futures of America were born. The mission of the Futures of America is to strongly encourage all Americans, but especially young people, to learn what they call the ``M.V.P.P's of Life'': morals, values, principles and patriotism. They sing classic American songs such as The Battle Hymn of the Republic, Put On a Happy Face, God Bless America, as well as songs written by Mr. Fernau, such as Missouri: Our Home State, St. Louis, My Kind of Town, and You're My Music. They have performed on radio and television, and have also released several albums of their music. Since their inception in 1971, the Futures of America have kept up an ambitious and impressive schedule, traveling close to a million miles and performing over 2,500 times. They have sung for a number of dignitaries, including two Presidents, an African king, and a host of Missouri's State and local elected officials. They also sing at venues such as Air Force bases, parades, and conventions for groups such as the Knights of Columbus, the American Legion, and the Rotary Club. The Futures of America also have the distinction of having performed before all 172 VA hospitals in America, warming the hearts of many veterans. I commend George and Lois Fernau and the Futures of America for their service to the community over the past 32 years. Their patriotism and strong moral values are a good example for everyone. I am honored to share their accomplishments with my colleagues, and I wish them all the best for the future.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I doubt I will use the full 3\1/2\ minutes. It is just that I ran out of time before when I was in the middle of ranting and raving on this subject. I would hate to close my remarks on that tone, anyway. Let me explain to the Senate why this is so important to me personally. I recently visited the Kansas City Ford plant where they make the new Ford 150 truck. It is a triumph of American engineering and the productivity of American workers. The workers there are proud of that truck. And they should be proud of it. It means many people will be able to travel in this country safely and with comfort. I drive an SUV. I don't drive it because I am trying to hurt the environment or affect our energy independence. I drive it because we have small children. I used to drive a hatchback, but if we got in an accident in that hatchback, it would fold up like an accordion. That is why I drive an SUV. That is why millions of people do. The Senator from Mississippi is right to say it is wrong to disparage these vehicles. People who make these vehicles in Missouri and around the country are proud of what they do. They are satisfied with their jobs. Let's not gamble with their jobs. We are trying to come out of a recession. We are trying to create jobs in this country. Vote for the Bond-Levin amendment. It is a good, modern amendment and moves us forward. It protects people's jobs. I urge the Senate to support the amendment. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for yielding me a few extra minutes. I yield back whatever time remains.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. We have six production facilities in Missouri that make vehicles. In Kansas City, they make the F-series truck for Ford, and the Escape. In St. Louis, they make the Dodge Ram and the Mercury Mountaineer. There are 36,000 jobs in Missouri that are directly dependent on auto manufacturing, and 220,000 jobs that are indirectly dependent on auto manufacturing. The proposal before the Senate would require an immediate and substantial increase in CAFE standards which would increase the cost of those vehicles by anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 and would mean, in short, that sales would go down and thousands and thousands of people in Missouri would be out of a job. It would be a disaster for them. These are jobs that pay $50,000, $60,000, or $70,000 a year. These are jobs that mean kids can go to school and families can take vacations. That is what we are talking about. This is not theory. This is not abstraction for them. It is bad enough when we try to help people get jobs and preserve their jobs and we fail because of extreme philosophies or partisanship or personalities or whatever. It is worse when we do something that actually takes their jobs away from them. They ought to be able to expect this Government is going to try to help them get jobs and preserve jobs. At a minimum, we ought not to pass legislation that takes it away from them. I know this isn't going to happen. The Union of Concerned Scientists says the technology is available to do this without costing any jobs. That is a great comfort for my people back in Missouri who are trying to come out of a recession. Maybe we can forgive them for being concerned and not trusting the Union of Concerned Scientists when the people who make the cars--the auto manufacturers--say they can't do it. The engineers who design the cars say they can't do it. The unions that produce the cars say they can't do it. I hope we will forgive my people back home in Missouri who depend on these jobs for being a little bit concerned. I presided over the House while we were debating the measure to explore for oil in ANWR, which I think is related to this a little bit. A lot of folks who didn't want to explore for oil in ANWR wouldn't accept the fact we have the technology available today to do that without affecting the environment. They said we can't take that chance because it might adversely affect the caribou. It might be bad for the tundra in ANWR. Many of the same people who are advocating this big increase in CAFE standards said the technology is not available and we can't do it. They weren't going to take a chance when what was at stake was the caribou or the tundra. But they are willing to take a chance when what is at stake is somebody else's job in Missouri. I thank the Chair. I will look forward to having a little more time later.

Mr. TALENT

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

Mr. TALENT

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

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, within the larger discussion of how homeland security funds are allocated, there is a very clear need for some limited discretionary authority for State officials to reallocate homeland security funds to needs not foreseen months earlier and which may arise due to increased threat assessments. During my discussions across the State of Missouri about homeland security, nearly every police chief and every first responder tells me the same thing: Look, don't tie our hands on how we are going to use money you give us. Leave us some discretion on how to use those funds. My colleague and friend, Senator Kit Bond, has heard the same message all over Missouri. On the other hand, the Department of Homeland Security asserts it must tightly control how every dollar is spent. I appreciate the need for accountability given the Department's mission. I also appreciate that in many instances our first responders know best how to allocate these funds and that sometimes very legitimate concerns fall outside the narrow spending guidelines of the Department. Accordingly, the amendment I would have offered--and I am not going to offer it--would have expressed the sense of the Senate that: Five percent of State grants may go to provide security costs as identified by the Office of Domestic Preparedness for ``non-national security special events'' as approved by the Department of Homeland Security. In closing, I will give a very brief illustration of my point for the chairman and the Senate. In August, St. Louis is going to host a Jewish Youth Olympics called the Maccabi Games. It is a great event. It is going to draw over 5,000 Jewish youth from around the globe. The State's own Homeland Security Office threat assessment team stressed the need for greater security, but there is no latitude to reallocate even a modest sum from the monies awarded to the State. Clearly there are instances where greater latitude is needed, and I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me and with Senator Bond to address this issue.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill in general. Secondly, I thank the chairman and ask unanimous consent for the two of us to engage in a bit of a colloquy. I also thank the Senator from West Virginia for allowing me to go forward first with this very brief colloquy.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I close by thanking the chairman and the Senator from West Virginia and look forward to working with the chairman and the committee to establish a means for greater latitude in how Federal homeland security funds are expended. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1376

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill in general, and second, I thank the chairman for his support of hypersonics funding in the bill. The bill increases funding above last year's appropriated level. I do have a couple of concerns and I appreciate the chairman's willingness to address them with me in a colloquy. Hypersonics are the future of aerospace. Later this year NASA will carry out a further test of the X43-A. This will be done as part of NASA's hyper-X project, a program devoted to the study and creation of vehicles that use air-breathing engines at hypersonic speed. If this test is successful, the aerospace industry will prove that the physics of hypersonics are correct and our engineers can begin creating the models that will become the future of the aerospace industry. This technology will yield unprecedented results, opening up new commercial markets for industry, furthering human and robotic exploration in the solar system, and significantly improving national security. This transformational technology holds great promise for the development of missiles, unmanned combat air vehicles, manned flight and next-generation space shuttles. I thank the chairman for his support, and I ask him for his comments about hypersonics.

Mr. TALENT. I close by thanking the chairman again and look forward to continuing to work with him and the committee to advance the technology and research necessary to ensure a strong hypersonics program. I thank the chairman for the colloquy.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:15 a.m, Thursday, June 26. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1, the prescription drug benefit bill, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 167, S. 498.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 185 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the immediate consideration of the following post office naming bills: Calendar No. 150, S. 867; Calendar No. 152, S. 1207; Calendar No. 153, H.R. 825; Calendar No. 154, H.R. 917; Calendar No. 155, H.R. 925; Calendar No. 156, H.R. 981; Calendar No. 157, H.R. 985; Calendar No. 158, H.R. 1055; Calendar No. 159, H.R. 1368; Calendar No. 160, H.R. 1465; Calendar No. 161, H.R. 1596; Calendar No. 162, H.R. 1609; Calendar No. 163, H.R. 1740; and Calendar No. 164, H.R. 2030.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. I object to further proceedings on the measure at this time.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I understand S. 1323 is at the desk and is due for its second reading.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1, the prescription drug benefit bill. Under the previous agreement, the Senate will begin with two back-to-back rollcall votes upon returning to the bill. The voting sequence will be as follows: The first vote will be in relation to the Harkin amendment No. 991. The second vote will be in relation to the Edwards amendment No. 1052. Again, the first vote of tomorrow's session will occur at 9:15 a.m. For the remainder of the day, we will continue to process amendments to S. 1. Members can expect rollcall votes throughout the day and late into the evening tomorrow as the Senate progresses toward completion of this landmark legislation.