Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrea Harris and Andrew Garrett, staff in Senator Kennedy's office, be granted floor privileges for today's session.

Madam President, before he departs from the floor, I commend our colleague from Delaware, our new colleague from Delaware, Senator Kaufman.

Senator Kaufman was appointed to fill the seat of my great friend and colleague and seatmate for many years, Joe Biden. And while he has only been here about 6 months as a new Member of the Senate, what a wonderful contribution he has made. I have watched him over the last number of weeks, with his focus and attention on people who work for our country every single day but who probably will never get much credit for showing up every day and doing a wonderful job on behalf of the American people. Whether they be civil servants, police officers or others--the military--the fact he has taken as much time--almost on a daily basis, I say to my colleagues and others who may be watching these proceedings--Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware has made it his business to express our collective gratitude to these people who serve our country every single day to keep us safe and secure and to keep us functioning as a society.

It may not seem like much to some, but I will guarantee there are thousands of people today who are at work who appreciate it. And there are millions more, I suspect, whose family members, whose neighbors, whose coworkers, and others appreciate the recognition he has given them, as well as some ideas he has brought to the table legislatively to make a difference for people.

So I commend my fellow colleague. For a relative newcomer and a short timer, he has made a substantial contribution to our country, and I thank him for it.

I thank the Senator. I did not intend to turn this into a recipient compliment, but I thank him tremendously, and if he wants to talk a little longer, that is fine.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I have been on the floor every day and speaking about health care, for a few minutes anyway, although I know there are other matters of business before this body.

I am privileged to work with the Presiding Officer on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--a new member who has made a tremendous contribution as well to our efforts--and as she knows, back a few weeks ago, we went through that marathon session to try to at least fulfill our obligation on the health care debate and to deal with the matters over which we have jurisdiction--things such as prevention and the quality of health care, the workforce issues, the fraud and abuse questions, as well as other matters. Obviously, the Finance Committee has to grapple with these as well. So I thought it would be worthwhile, over these last number of days, to talk about things we have done in our bill. It will be a part, I hope, of a combination of efforts when we meet hopefully in the next few weeks, depending upon the outcome of the efforts in the Finance Committee, which we are all waiting for with anticipation, and confidence, I might add, as well.

I have a lot of confidence in Kent Conrad, and Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley, and Jeff Bingaman, and others involved in these negotiations to try to reach some understanding that will allow us to move forward. But I thought in the meantime it would be helpful to talk about various constituencies in the country and what this means to them. Because I think we all want to know how does this affect me and my family--what we are doing here. People are saying: I know you are talking about access, and you are talking about quality of health care, talking about the cost of health care, but I wish to get some idea of what are you doing and how it affects me and my family, and where is this all heading.

So while we are only in the first stages of developing what we hope will be a comprehensive proposal on health care reform, it is important that we at least communicate with people where we are coming from and how we look at these issues.

We have all heard the numbers, that 47 million Americans have lost or do not have health care today--a statistic I bring up every day, because I think it is important to point out. We completed our work about 2 weeks ago on the Affordable Health Choices Act. Since we completed our work 2 weeks ago, 196,000 fellow citizens have lost their health insurance. About 14,000 a day lose their health care coverage. About 100 people in Connecticut lose their health coverage, for one reason or another--they lose their jobs or their employers decide to drop their coverage; all sorts of reasons that can cause someone to lose their health care. Overall, it is about 14,000 a day.

These are people who have health insurance but are losing it. These are not people who have no insurance. They are just added to the rolls. And some people get health insurance as well and come off the rolls. So it is important to point out that happens as well.

But it is worthwhile to note that every single day we go forward in this process--and it is an important and deliberative process. I am not in favor of rushing something through. We need to get this thing right. It is a terribly complex matter. We have all noted that almost every single Congress over the last 70 years, along with almost every administration over the last 70 years, has tried to solve this issue. Some have succeeded in part. But there is a reason this has not happened up to now. It is because it is not easy. I commend our colleagues for trying as well as commend the Obama administration for insisting this issue be such a high priority.

Why is that the case? It is not just because it would be nice to get it done. It is because if we do not get something done, the status quo is debilitating, to put it mildly--first, in macroeconomic terms of what it does to our country, in terms of consuming such a large part of our gross domestic product, that easily could jump to 35 percent. What does that mean to the average family? That gross domestic product number, which may not mean much to many people--what does that mean? It means the average family could, in 8 to 10 years, if we did nothing and let the status quo continue, that about 50 percent of your gross income would be consumed in paying for health care premiums if you wish to have your family covered. Obviously, that is unacceptable and unsustainable. If we were to end up consuming that much of our gross domestic product and our incomes each year, families could not survive.

Today I would like to speak for a few minutes about a group of Americans who are being cheated by the current system. Those are the very people who are affected by this number, people who have health coverage but lose it every day because of various economic circumstances or other problems they face and for whom I would also say the status quo is unacceptable. These are Americans who have insurance but are underinsured. Their numbers are roughly 25 to 30 million of our fellow citizens. Obviously, it changes every day as many lose their coverage. These are about 25 to 30 million people who cannot get the care they need. These people paid good money for health insurance, and they think in exchange they are going to receive at least some guarantee that if things go wrong--if someone in their family gets a cancer diagnosis or is hit by an automobile or some other injury occurs--at least they will not have to be concerned about whether they can afford to pay for the care they need.

They worry, obviously, about getting better, getting back on their feet. But there is that sense of stability and certainty that I have a health care plan. I am not going to get wiped out. I am not going to get ruined economically. I have insurance. It may not be great, but I am in pretty good shape. I feel pretty confident, if something tragic happens, I will be OK. That is what insurance literally is supposed to mean.

Life is uncertain. Unfortunately, things happen to all of us. People get ill, injured, people get hurt. While you expect to get better, you want to be sure you are not going to get wiped out. But in our Nation, the wealthiest in the world, of course, nobody should lose their home or their economic security because of an illness or injury, in my view. We write checks to insurance companies every month or see premiums deducted from our paycheck and what do we expect in return? We expect that if something happens, we at least will not have to worry about anything but getting better, getting back on our feet again.

Unfortunately, for tens of millions of our fellow citizens, that is not how it works at all. These are people who have insurance, but they cannot be sure about anything. There is the uncertainty of what will happen. Some find out the hard way that their insurance does not cover what they thought it covered. That fine print you kind of glazed over when you signed onto that contract, I know we all wish we had read it better, understood it better, but the reality is, when you finally are in some situation and you go to this company and say I think I am covered, they say: I am sorry, but if you had read this more carefully you would have understood that fact situation is not covered, that your preexisting condition that you didn't properly let us know about excludes you from the kind of coverage in these situations. You may have high deductibles and copays. You may have an injury that can be taken care of for $5,000 or $10,000, but your insurance doesn't kick in until after that.

Five or ten thousand dollars may not seem like much for some, but for a working family, that can also be a major economic crisis.

Some who suffer from serious illnesses, such as cancer, hit an annual or lifetime benefit cap; thus, the sickest Americans find themselves cut off entirely.

Our legislation, by the way, that we adopted, the Presiding Officer, myself, and 21 other Members of the Senate, we eliminate preexisting conditions so you never again have to be excluded from coverage because of that preexisting condition. We will not exclude you because of portability. Today if you moved you could lose your coverage. And we will not allow these caps either. Today you could find out that while you have a serious illness, your coverage will take care of you for a week or two, or three or four or five visits, but that is it. Our legislation eliminates those kinds of concerns that people have worried about for a long time.

Many of our fellow citizens, of course, have children. Children have different health care needs than adults. For millions of children who fall under insurance provided by their parents' employer, those needs are not covered. Some have that coverage taken way by a profit-hungry bureaucrat at the moment when they need it the most, and many of our fellow citizens watch as skyrocketing premiums slowly consume more and more of their family budget until they have to choose between having their kids uninsured or having them receive the kind of benefits they ought to be receiving as children.

When we talk about health care reform, we are not talking about a free gift for the American people. We are talking about keeping a promise to our fellow citizens. We are talking about guaranteeing that insurance actually insures against economic ruin for working families. As it stands today, millions of our fellow citizens with health insurance are spending their life savings on care; 50.7 million insured Americans spent more than a dime out of every $1 they earned on health care last year. That is, more than 10 percent of their income today is spent on health care; last year, more than 50 million of our fellow citizens. For almost 14 million of our fellow insured Americans it was more than 25 cents out of every $1 of their income that was spent on health care. As it stands, millions of our fellow citizens, not just the uninsured, are unable to get the care they need when they need it.

Let me share some numbers, if I can. I am always reluctant to do this because numbers can glaze over the eyes of people, but people can find themselves in these situations. These numbers affect people with insurance primarily. Some here are without insurance but primarily with insurance. Today I wish to focus on the underinsured--not the people, the 47 million without insurance, I am talking about the 30 million now underinsured or those who have insurance but have high deductibles and expect out-of-pocket expenses.

Thirty-seven percent of people insured in our country took home remedies or over-the-counter drugs instead of seeing a doctor. They decide to go that route rather than getting the kind of care that would reduce their health care problems; or 31 percent postponed getting health care they need because of cost; or they skipped a recommended test or treatment, 27 percent; or they did not get a prescription filled, around 25 percent; and close to 20 percent cut pills in half or skipped doses altogether in order to try to meet their health care obligations. Obviously, in doing so they put themselves at greater risk for even more problems medically, thus raising the cost for care when they end up going back in to treat a problem that could have been contained if, in fact, they were taking the medication as prescribed.

This gives you some idea of the kind of choices people make who are insured. These are not the uninsured now, these are insured. This is in terms of what they need in order to provide for themselves.

When we talk about health care reform, I think it is very important we talk about the many people in this country who believe they are in good shape and are not worried they are going to lack coverage if, in fact, a health care crisis confronts them. The reality is, this constituency of our fellow citizens with insurance has much to worry about with the status quo; thus, the necessity for reforming a system in areas where it is broken and leaving alone those areas where it works pretty well.

This is not just people, again, who do not have insurance. These numbers include people, obviously, who have insurance. Americans with health insurance are forced into bankruptcy, as we know, as well. The numbers are not ones I make up; 62 percent of the bankruptcies in our country over the last several years occur because of a health care crisis in that family. That statistic is alarming. The next statistic is even more alarming to me--75 percent of that 62 percent are people with insurance. Here are people with insurance who ended up in bankruptcy because of a health care crisis. That is the last thing you would assume to have happen to you. If you have health insurance and you run into a major health care problem, you are assuming because you paid those premiums you are not going to be put into bankruptcy or financial ruin. Three out of four people in that 62-percent number had health insurance and still ended up being bankrupt or put into a bankruptcy situation.

Fifty percent of foreclosures--there are 10,000 foreclosure notices every day in the country, roughly. Those have been rather static for a long time. But 50 percent of those notices went out to families who are losing their homes because of a health care crisis.

I don't know the number of how many of that 50 percent had insurance or not. I don't have the same statistic as I did for the numbers of bankruptcies. We ought to try to get that number if we can, to find out what percentage of the 50 percent actually had insurance at the time they got the foreclosure notice.

Americans with health insurance give up the financial foundation they have worked a lifetime to build because we have not taken the action to fix the system that too often is designed to deprive them of the coverage they thought they bought at the very critical moment they need it. What I discovered over the years is there are sort of two groups of people within the insured category. Everyone in that category has insurance. As long as you have never had to deal with it, then you feel pretty secure about it--and you should--because you think you are covered. If all of a sudden you find yourself dealing with it and you thought you had the coverage, that is when it drives you to frustration, to put it mildly, when you discover that condition was a preexisting condition; there were caps on how much you could get for that; that, in fact, the very illness you have was never covered under the insurance policy.

That is where an awful lot of people discover, despite that sense of security they had, that the present system is more designed to deprive them of the coverage they need rather than to help out during those crises. That is why this issue is so important.

Again, this is a complicated one. There are no simple answers to it. We are not going to resolve all those problems even with one bill. It will be a perpetual struggle for us to get this right in the years ahead, but we need to from an economic standpoint, as well as serving the needs of individual people.

This debate is not just about the uninsured. I think we make a huge mistake if we leave that impression with our fellow citizens. This is not just about the 47 million without insurance. We would all like to do something to see to it that people who are uninsured get coverage, but it is about the millions of people who have insurance, the 30 million underinsured, and the many more who have insurance but could find themselves without the kind of coverage they anticipate having.

Each one of us, of course, insured or not, is hurt by inaction. Premiums are rising faster than wages. One insurance company in my State of Connecticut the other day announced they were raising their rates by 32 percent. Imagine that, a 32-percent increase in premium cost for health insurance coverage.

The average family writes a check for $1,100 in our country, $1,100 to cover the uninsured because we in this country take care of people. If you are uninsured in Connecticut or North Carolina and something terrible happens to you and you show up in a hospital in Charlotte or Hartford, we take care of people. That is because of who we are. If you walk into the emergency room, we do not throw you out, we take care of you. I am proud I live in a country that does that. But Americans need to know it is not free when people show up without insurance, with no ability to pay for the care they get in North Carolina, Connecticut or anywhere else. That bill gets passed on.

To whom does it get passed on? To the insured who get added costs in premiums to get covered. That is a tax you are paying each year, about $1,100 to pay because of uncompensated care. We try to address that because we ought to.

That is one way to bring down the costs for the insured in our country. There are other ideas as well that our committee worked on: prevention; the quality of care; reducing some of the problems with the five chronic illnesses that consume 75 cents of every $1 in our Nation for health care. These are measures we take to try to move that curve, if you will, downward when it comes to affordability and cost, as well as, of course, improving the quality of health for all our fellow citizens.

Of course, in this body, we all have health insurance--I made that point over and over again, every Member of Congress, every Member of this body. I never had to go to bed at night with one eye open, wondering whether, if something happened to my 4-year-old or 7-year-old daughters, I would be able to pay for it in the morning with the policies we have. I am glad we do have good health insurance. I just think it is important, as we are here, to remember a lot of the people we represent are not in that situation, to remember the uncertainty and lack of stability they live with. When a crisis happens--and it happens every single day to people--when that happens, they ought not to have a sense of free-fall: I will get wiped out; I can't possibly take care of this; I can't even provide the care my child needs.

I will never forget Senator Kennedy--who is the chairman of the committee I have been asked to help, to temporarily step in and write this legislation because of his own illness. Senator Kennedy has told the story over the years of when his 11- or 12-year-old son, Teddy Kennedy, Jr., developed cancer, and it was a serious form of cancer, one that was very dangerous and could take his life. He had to have his leg amputated. But there were some protocols to determine whether they could treat that cancer. They let Senator Kennedy's son be part of that protocol because during that kind of test they welcome you into it. It doesn't cost anything.

Halfway through that test, that protocol, it was determined that treatment actually worked. It could save Senator Kennedy's son's life, as it could the lives of the other children who were utilizing that drug. The difference was, of course, once the protocol was determined to be successful, it no longer was free, and it was very expensive-- thousands and thousands of dollars.

Senator Kennedy, obviously, as he tells the story, comes from a family who had the resources to be able to write that check to continue to make sure his son would get the treatment that allowed Teddy, Jr. to recover, to lead a very healthy life. Today he lives in my State of Connecticut with his wife Kiki and their children, and he got that kind of medicine.

But he tells the story of other families at that time, years ago now, who did not have the money and begged the hospitals and doctors: Could they get a quarter of the treatment, could they get a half of it, to see that their child may have the same chance to succeed and recover as Senator Kennedy's son did.

It was that moment that Senator Kennedy, some 40 years ago, 35 years ago, decided this would be the cause of his life, when his child, because they had the resources to get the treatment, could get back on his feet but some other child, through economic circumstances, could not.

In the United States of America, no child ought to be deprived the opportunity--or that family--to get back on his or her feet again. I think that is what joins us here together. I think this is hard. We realize that. It is difficult. But I believe it demands our attention and time.

So for those who are insured today, and while they are feeling pretty secure--and I hope you do--understand that these moments can happen. If you are uninsured, obviously it is a frightening feeling of what can happen in your family. I know these are difficult questions and there are not going to be easy answers. There is going to be some shared responsibility in all of this. But I believe we have an obligation, as U.S. Senators, at this moment in our history, to rise to that challenge and not to fail, as others have in years past because it is too hard.

There was a great line Edward R. Murrow once used when talking about another subject matter. He said: The one excuse history will never forgive you for is that the problem was too difficult.

I do not think history will forgive us if the answer we give is: It was just too hard. We just could not figure out how to come together. I think history will judge us harshly if that is the excuse we use for not rising to the moment and dealing with this issue in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner. It can never be too difficult. It is hard. We ought to have the ability to resolve this issue. That is my plea today.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, it is the responsibility of my committee colleagues and I to oversee and consider legislation to award Congressional Gold Medals to prospective candidates deemed worthy of the honor. Indeed, it is the highest honor that Congress can bestow on an individual or group, and as such, my committee has to ensure that these bills garner broad bipartisan support in the form of two-thirds cosponsorship in the Senate before they can receive full consideration. This year, I am pleased that a bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Women Airforce Service Pilots, or

WASP, secured my committee's approval and passed the Senate unanimously on May 20, 2009.

This bill, authored by Senators Hutchison and Mikulski, recognizes the brave actions of more than a thousand women who served our country so courageously during World War II. Their patriotism and sacrifice were essential to our war effort. Quite simply, they were responsible for transporting critical military aircraft throughout the United States. Ferrying over 12,000 aircraft, of nearly 80 different types, these groundbreaking women operated war machines, from the fabled B-29 Superfortress to the lethal P-51 Mustang fighter. The purpose of their missions was to prepare these aircraft for combat and ensure their readiness.

The WASPs were so effective that they logged over 50 percent of these kinds of missions for our Nation, flying more than 60 million miles over the course of the war. Their likes included Jacqueline Cochran, one of the greatest female pilots of all time, who was chosen to be the director of the WASPs flight training. Jacqueline set the women's U.S. high altitude and international speed records and was also the winner of the coveted Bendix trophy in 1938. During the famous air race, she earned an epic victory flying from Los Angeles to Cleveland in just over 8 hours. Jacqueline was further commended for her service during the war when she was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, the highest decoration she could have received from the military without being recognized as an Active-Duty servicemember. When the war ended, Jacqueline's passion for flying would drive her to set new aviation records, becoming the first female pilot to fly a bomber across the Atlantic. Additionally, six WASPs are still living in my home State of Connecticut. One of them, Gloria Heath, flew a dangerous mission as a B-26 bomber pilot, flying at 6,000 feet while towing a banner that fighter pilots would use for target practice during live fire exercises. Now Gloria is nationally recognized as a leader in aviation safety, having served as a founding board member of the Flight Safety Foundation. She also established an international safety information dissemination service to provide a unified, global response to emergencies on the land, in the air, and on the sea. Her pioneering efforts to ensure the safety of pilots and travelers all over the world have undoubtedly saved lives. Throughout her endeavors, Gloria never lost sight of her lifelong commitment to flying. She would become the director of summer aviation programs at Connecticut College, helping young students discover their passion for flight, just as she did half a decade before.

But these women did more than just serve our country they were also pioneers for women's rights. They will forever have the honor of being the first female aviators in American military history, serving as the forerunners to women's equality in the Armed Forces. In doing so, they paved the way for women's rights in the military and other workforces across the country. And although much still remains to be done to eradicate gender discrimination, women military combat pilots are now flying alongside their brothers in arms a true testament to the barriers broken down by the WASPs more than six decades ago.

These women often faced scorn and ridicule, but they refused to back down in their conviction that they could fly as proficiently as men. Ultimately, they were proven right and demonstrated that success should be measured in terms of merit and talent, not by gender.

Therefore it is with great pride and honor, Mr. President, that I support this bill. I commend Senators Hutchison and Mikulski for all their hard work and join them in their gratitude for the pioneering women of the WASP program.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Rachael Holt, an intern in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor during today's session.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes, if I may, as in morning business.

Are we in morning business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, let me take a few minutes, if I may, on the subject that I know is the preoccupation of many of us, even if you are not on one of the committees. The discussion about health care is, obviously, the dominant debate that is occurring here and in our Nation. I know our colleague from the State of Montana, Senator Baucus, along with Senator Grassley, is working in the Finance Committee.

As many of my colleagues, I know, are aware, I was asked to fill in for Senator Kennedy, who is struggling with his own battles with brain cancer, as the acting chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We completed, as most of my colleagues are aware, our efforts about 2 weeks ago on our portion of the health care debate dealing with prevention, with quality, with workforce issues, with the fraud and abuse allegations in the Medicare, Medicaid systems, as well as coverage questions. The rest is left to the Finance Committee. At the end of that process, the goal is to marry these two pieces of legislation together in one bill.

So we made that effort. We spent about 5 weeks with over 23 sessions, and considered nearly 300 amendments in that process. In fact, we agreed to about 160 of my fellow colleagues' amendments from the Republican side--good amendments, I might add. Some were technical, but many were substantive, which I think added to the value of the bill.

While it did not turn out to be a bipartisan bill in terms of the votes that were cast, if you can define at least one definition of ``bipartisan'' to be that the bill itself reflected the contribution of ideas from all people, then to that extent this bill is a bipartisan bill. But we are obviously waiting until the Finance Committee completes its process. I realize people want us, as they should, to have a deliberate process, one for which we can say at the conclusion we did our very best, that we evaluated the situation as well as we could and came up with the best ideas we could to move forward.

It has been 70 years, as most people know, since we adopted the health care system we have in our country. Every

President, from both political parties, and every Congress, since the 1940s, has grappled with this issue unsuccessfully. Obviously, we passed Medicare and Medicaid and the SCHIP program and other ideas that I think have contributed to a large extent to the health care system we have today. But certainly the overall reforms in the system to move from a sick care system to a truly health care system have defied resolution.

So we are at it once again to see if we cannot defy the odds and do that which no other Congress and no other government has been able to do for more than 65 years; and that is, to come up with an answer that will give people primarily a sense of confidence, a sense of stability, to take away the uncertainty that many people feel about the present health care system.

Most of us, of course, in this country have health care insurance. A lot of those who are insured are underinsured. They have to pay a lot of out-of-pocket expenses or have very high deductibles, and so a lot of what they may face in terms of a health care crisis has to be paid for out of their own pockets. Their insurance coverage does not cover them. Others, of course, have no insurance at all. The numbers vary, but I think most agree the number hovers around 45 million people who are uninsured. There are about 25 million or 30 million who are underinsured in the country.

But, again, I state, most people have a plan they think is pretty good and they do not want the government or anyone else fooling around with it. So the first principle is to say: Leave well enough alone that which is working well. If you like your doctor, if you like your hospital, if you like your coverage, leave that alone. We are not out to change, nor should we, part of a health care system that works.

What we are trying to do is fix that which does not work, that which is costing us more than any other nation on the face of this Earth on a per capita basis--some $2.5 trillion a year. How do we increase access? How do we improve the quality of health care? And how do we make this affordable so people do not end up paying more and more costs in premiums? Of course, how do we provide that sense of confidence, that sense of stability, that sense of certainty that a plan will be there, Lord forbid, if I need it, if my spouse, my child, or I need that kind of health care coverage to pay for that unexpected accident, that unexpected illness that could afflict every family.

It is at that moment, that critical moment, that you want to make sure what you have will not put you into economic ruin, because all of a sudden the fine print excludes the very kind of coverage which you would anticipate based on the policy you have had for years. Or you find yourself in a situation where even if it does, it limits the amount you can receive to pay for that hospitalization or that care.

Those stories go on every single day. People want that notion that: If you are going to change this, if you are going to reform this, the thing I am looking for more than anything else is that I will have the confidence of knowing that policy I have is not going to bankrupt me in costs and will be there when I need it. That, more than anything else, is what we are talking about.

The problem, of course, is while we are waiting to do this--and, again, I emphasize that doing it right is certainly very important. I would like to think in our committee, while we did not get unanimous support at the end of it, we listened to every one of our 23 Members in that committee, over 5 weeks. There was extensive debate and discussion over all of these issues. So we have gone a long way, I think, in that process.

But while we are waiting, there is a cost to all of this. Let me point out what has happened in terms of the numbers. Mr. President, 14,000 people every day in our Nation lose their coverage. Again, that may be due to job loss, that may be because all of a sudden the plan they have does not cover the circumstances they are in. Since we have passed our bill in the HELP Committee 3 weeks ago, 182,000 of our fellow citizens have lost their health insurance. And 14,000 people do every day--again, through no fault of their own: job loss, as I say, or discovering that a policy did not cover the events they thought it covered and they find themselves in this situation.

While we are talking about doing this slowly, and waiting a while to get it done, it is important, I think, for those of us here who have great health care coverage--if you are a Member of the Senate, if you are a Member of the Congress, we have a Cadillac health care plan for every one of us and our families, as do Federal employees. I certainly welcome that. It is reassuring. It certainly gives you that sense, as a Member of Congress, that you have a stable, certain plan in place if you are unfortunate enough to be hit with a health care crisis.

I merely make that point because, as I say, a lot of our fellow citizens do not have that same sense of certainty and that same sense of confidence about their health care. Of course, if they are faced with a health care crisis, we also know what can happen. We now know that 62 percent of the bankruptcies in our country that have been occurring over the last several years are health care crisis related. I might point out, which I think may surprise some people, that 75 percent of that 62 percent are people with health insurance. It wasn't the person without health insurance who got caught with a tremendous health care cost and had no means to pay for it and thus went into bankruptcy. Seventy-five percent of those people actually had health care coverage. Fifty-four percent of the foreclosures in our Nation are related to a health care crisis as well. As I say, 10,000 homes today will receive a foreclosure notice.

So while we are waiting here and trying to get this right--and we should--it is important to be mindful that while we are comfortable about being assured that we have the coverage, millions of our fellow citizens do not have that same sense of certainty and confidence they would like to have as well, the certainty and confidence that they are not going to get wiped out by rising premium costs to pay for someone else, despite the fact that today most families write a check for about $1,100 a year as part of their health insurance to cover the uninsured who show up in emergency rooms--the uncompensated care, as it is called. That is $1,100 a year, on the average, for a family, a check they have to write because in our country, if you show up in an emergency room and you need health and care, I think virtually every medical facility in our country takes you in and they will treat you. They will care for you in that moment of an emergency, but it doesn't come free of charge. The costs of that are borne by those who pay the premiums for their own coverage, and the pricetag per health insurance policy, on average, is $1,100 a year. That is a tax we pay today as a result of not having a more comprehensive health care system in our Nation. So those 182,000 people who have now lost their health care in the last 2 weeks, and the 14,000 who will lose it today, some I presume will show up in an emergency room because of a condition or a tragedy that befalls them. They will get health care under the status quo we have today. They will get health care, but the rest of the country will pay for it one way or the other. We have to change that. You cannot bankrupt the country by having a system that fails to provide for the coverage as well as the cost of these matters on the present system we are living under. It will not be sustainable, in my view.

So these numbers are real. They happen every day. The longer we delay in getting this done, these numbers will mount. So it is important to not do so recklessly, to not do it at such a speed that we don't know what we are doing, but we need to keep in mind that as we move along in this process, it does not come without a cost to those out there who find themselves in that free-fall, that terrible feeling--that terrible feeling that if something happens, I can't take care of my family.

If I may, I will ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Again, there are stories of people in my State, as I know there are all across this country, who are losing this. I was going to tell the story of Mrs. Carrasco in Hartford, CT. She now

skips her examinations, such as her colonoscopy and others things, because they are not paid for under her policy. Several months ago, she said she had an infection but didn't go to the doctor because she was afraid it would cost too much. Again, doesn't go and the problems can get worse.

Another woman in Connecticut, by the name of Theresa, has a cluster of autoimmune disorders including rheumatoid arthritis and connective tissue disease. Because she doesn't have health insurance, she doesn't see the doctor. Those problems are going to get worse and she is going to show up and the cost goes up. So stability in terms of what we have, making sure the cost of these premiums doesn't outstrip the ability of working families to meet them, is certainly a great challenge before us as well as improving the quality of care for all Americans.

Lastly, I would just say I spent a good part of Saturday this last weekend at the Manchester Memorial Hospital in Manchester, CT, looking at their new ICU unit as well as meeting with hospital personnel. It is remarkable what small hospitals do all across our country and how well they serve the people in keeping down costs and increasing quality. Many of our hospitals do. Our providers are truly good Samaritans in case after case after case. The nurse practitioners, the doctors, and others who support the health care professions do a remarkable job every single day. But we need more primary care physicians, we need more nurses, if we are going to meet the demands of a growing population who has coverage. But we truly need to reform this system; leave in place that which works, fix that which doesn't. That is the goal the President has laid out for us.

That is our collective responsibility. I am confident we can do it. If we will sit down with each other and work through this process, we can achieve that result to bring that level of stability and certainty that people want when it comes to their health care needs.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

I thank the Presiding Officer. I am going to take a few minutes, if I can, to talk about health care again. I did on Wednesday evening, and I intended to speak yesterday, but there was an objection raised to having any morning business yesterday while we were considering the Defense authorization bill. So as a result of that, I was unable to come to the floor and talk about the health care issues in our country and the pending legislation in this body and in the other body.

As some may know--I know my colleagues are aware of this--I have been in the position of being the acting chairman of the Senate HELP Committee. The committee is chaired by our dear friend and colleague Senator Ted Kennedy, who is wrestling with his own health care crisis at this very hour and so has been unable to be with us these last several months as we have begun the process of marking up, that is, considering the legislation dealing with health care. So as the person sitting next to him on that committee, I was asked to assume the responsibility of chairing the committee as we considered the health care legislation.

We have finished our work. We finished it a week ago on Wednesday after numerous hours. I point this out to our colleagues--I know many of them may be aware of this already--we on the HELP Committee spent close to 60 hours in consideration of our bill. I am told it was the longest time that--at least in memory of all here--the committee has spent on the consideration of any single bill.

We had some 23 sessions over 13 days. There were around 800 amendments filed before our committee. We considered just shy of 300 of them. Of that 300, we accepted 161 amendments from our Republican friends on the committee.

Many of these amendments were technical amendments. But they were not all technical amendments. They were worthwhile and positive amendments, and there were a number of very important amendments that were offered by our Republican colleagues that I think strengthened and made the bill a better bill, substantially a bipartisan bill.

At the end of the day, after all of these hours and work, we did not have the votes of our Republican friends on the committee. But their contribution to the product was significant. As I mentioned earlier, Senator Gregg and a number of our Republican colleagues on the committee were concerned about the long-term fiscal impact of the new voluntary insurance program for long-term care. We agreed with that amendment. It was a tremendous help.

Senator Isakson of Georgia raised the issue of end-of-life care, drawing on his own family experiences. We were able to accommodate his ideas in that area.

Senators Enzi, Gregg, and Alexander suggested that we increase employers' flexibility to offer workplace wellness programs with incentives for employees. That was a very sound proposal, one that has been recommended to us by others. It was added to the bill. Senator Harkin did a very good job, along with others, in reaching that accommodation.

Senator Hatch's amendment was dealing with follow-on biologics. The full Hatch proposal was adopted by the committee.

Our friend Tom Coburn from Oklahoma proposed an amendment to empower individuals to make healthy decisions by having the CDC establish a

Web-based prevention tool that would create personalized prevention plans for individuals. That was accepted as well.

We accepted Senator Hatch's proposal to establish a coordinated environmental health tracking network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Senator Murkowski offered an amendment which allows insurers to rate based on tobacco use. Specifically, Senator Murkowski's amendment allows insurers to vary premiums from one to one and a half for the use of tobacco.

Several amendments were offered by Senator Burr, and accepted by unanimous consent, to ensure that the community health insurance option is operated on a level playing field with all of the other private insurers, and provided a clarification that Federal and State laws relating to rating preexisting conditions, fraud and abuse, quality improvements, and many other provisions apply to the community health insurance option as well.

Senator Hatch and Senator Coburn offered amendments that will now ensure that independent insurance agents and brokers will be eligible to be navigators in the gateway.

My point is that in addition to the technical amendments, there were substantive amendments that were adopted as part of the committee effort. I invite our colleagues' attention. We have offered to brief any single member or others who are interested. This bill has now been on the Web site for the public to read there, to add comments and ideas, or to pose questions regarding provisions of the bill.

While we are waiting to see what the outcome in the Finance Committee will be, the second half of the equation, it is worthwhile to note that in the Senate, there are two committees with jurisdiction over health care. The HELP Committee has completed its committee work, and we invite our colleagues' attention and ideas and thoughts on how we might improve or add to the provisions dealing with quality and prevention, dealing with workforce issues, dealing with the fraud and abuse issues that are critically important, as well as coverage questions which are also essential.

Obviously I had hoped that we might stay here in August to deal with this issue or continue the process, but the decision has been made to delay consideration of the health care issues until the fall. I understood how this works, and things have not moved as quickly as we all would have liked.

Some say we need to slow down a little bit, we are going too fast on this issue. I remind my colleagues that it has been 70 years, 7 decades, with many administrations serving our country in that time, as well as many Congresses that have convened to grappled with this issue.

While we have dealt with various aspects of health care, from children's health and Medicare and Medicaid in that time, every single Congress, every single administration, has failed in reaching the kind of consensus necessary to adopt national health care reform measures.

We have been challenged by the American people now to try and defy those odds, to do what no other Congress and no other administration has ever been able to achieve. I understand we are going at it a little too fast in the minds of some, but for those out there beyond the halls of Congress, that issue of how fast we are going may seem rather perplexing.

I am stating the obvious here. I know my colleagues know this, and I presume many of our fellow citizens do. Every single one of us who is serving in this Chamber, every single Congressman who serves down the hall, every single employee you see here, has very good, comprehensive health insurance coverage. We are blessed, as a part of the Federal employees benefit health package. We never have to worry, Lord forbid, something happens to one of us tonight, or tomorrow, to our children, or our spouses. We are well covered with insurance. And so taking a break in August and sort of rolling along poses no real threat to any of us or the Federal employees who have this health care program.

But for millions of other Americans who do not have the privilege of having the kind of coverage we do, this is an unsettling time, a very unsettling time. In this country of ours, millions of our fellow citizens do not get to sleep with that same sense of security and assurance. If something happens to their family, Lord forbid, they know they are going to wake up with the inability to either take care of the health care problem or maybe at the same time go through a financial crisis that destroys their economic future.

I have said this many times, and it is worth repeating. Of all of the bankruptcies that occur in the United States, 62 percent of them occur because of a health care crisis in that family; 62 percent. Of the 62 percent that go into bankruptcy because of a health care crisis, 75 percent of those people have a health insurance program. They are not uninsured. These are people with health insurance.

So if you are out there today and saying: Well, I have got health insurance, I could not possibly end up in financial ruin, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of people who have gone into bankruptcy because of a health care crisis have been covered with insurance.

Fifty percent of all foreclosures are occurring as a result of a health care crisis in a family. Today, before the sun sets in the United States of America, 14,000 of our fellow citizens will lose their health care coverage. Fourteen thousand people today and every single day in America, that many people will lose their health care coverage.

So while we sit here and say: Look, we are going too fast on this subject. Slow down. Boy, slow down. That is easy for us to say because none of us ever has to worry about what most Americans have to worry about, and that is, God forbid, they end up with a health care crisis and end up being destroyed economically or sitting with the anger and frustration of knowing that I cannot provide for my child, I cannot provide for my spouse, and they need the kind of medical care they deserve.

This is the United States of America. We rank 37th in the world in medical outcomes, and we spend more money than any other nation, way beyond, way more than any other country in the world on health care. So we pay the most and we rank like a Third World country when it comes to outcomes. I do not think most Americans like to think of our country as being incapable of taking care of our Nation in such a way.

It has occurred to me that some people in this town seem to think this process of health care is about them: Did I get appropriately consulted? Did I get invited to enough meetings? Did I get a headline? What do my consultants think I should say about all of this? What are the right words to use here? Let's hire people to tell us how to describe all of this.

Well, let me ask all of my colleagues: Is anybody here worried that they are going to lose their health care insurance over the August break? Is anybody here unable to afford the care they think they may need for themselves or their family? Has any Member of this body or the other body been staying up late at night recently with a sick child for whom they cannot afford to get treatment?

Has anyone I serve with here spent the last 3 hours bouncing from voicemail to voicemail as you try to find out why the insurance company you pay thousands of dollars to every month suddenly refuses to pay for your spouse's cancer treatments?

Is any Member of Congress, as they go through the August break back in their States and districts or on vacation someplace, stuck at a job that pays too little because they have a preexisting condition and will not be able to get coverage anywhere else they may get hired?

Has anybody here been driven into bankruptcy or lost a home, as 10,000 people will today? Their homes will get a notice of foreclosure because of medical bills their insurance company would not cover.

Has anyone in this Chamber or anyone in the other Chamber, a small business owner, had to choose between cutting coverage or laying off your employees whom you care about, who have been loyal to you and helped you build your products every day? Has anyone had to talk about laying them off or not providing the health care coverage that you have? I suspect no.

Then why are so many in Washington acting as if this were about us, about

whether you are a Blue Dog or a Red Dog, a Democrat, a Republican, a conservative, a moderate, a liberal, as if that was the most important issue, rather than the people who sent us here to grapple with an issue they wrestle with every single hour of every day. We are in danger of losing this once again, of failing, as has every other Congress and every other administration for 70 years, because we are forgetting that this is about the people who sent us here, asking us to try and come up with answers that would relieve them of the fear and frustration that confronts them every day and grows as a result of our inability or unwillingness to come up with national health care reform.

We in this Chamber have good insurance and we're in no danger of losing it. The same is not true for the American people. That is why it isn't about us. It is about the 47 million people who are uninsured, the 87 million who are underinsured, the 14,000 a day who lose their insurance, and the millions who will lose it if we don't act. It is about the people who pay our salaries and our great health insurance as well, the people who sent us here to fight on their behalf. When we pretend this is about us, when we treat health care reform as if it is some kind of a game, a political contest--who is going to face their Waterloo, who is going to lose, who can go in for the kill and defeat someone, put them into trouble, maybe they will lose an election over this--as it appears in the minds of some, then is it any wonder why the American people get so angry and frustrated when they watch us talk about ourselves, as if we were the only people on the face of the planet?

If any of us had to go through some of the things I suspect every one of us has heard from constituents--and there is nothing unique about what I am about to say; you can go to almost any State at almost any hour and repeat some of the stories I will share this morning, as I have heard in Connecticut--there wouldn't be anybody calling for more delays if they listened carefully. Sometimes we get involved in numbers, as we mention 14,000 and 87 million and 47 million. It sort of glazes over the eyes in a way. Is there anybody involved in these numbers? Are any stories involved? This legislation would be done by now if we paid more attention to some of these individual stories.

In 2005, a young woman in Connecticut named Maria was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. When she asked her insurance company to cover her treatments, the insurance company found out Maria had once gone to a doctor for what she thought was a pinched nerve. Even though no tests had been done for cancer, the insurance company decided the doctor visit meant Maria's condition was a preexisting condition and denied her claim. Maria died from that illness.

A young man in Connecticut named Frank disclosed on his insurance application that he sometimes got headaches. Several months after he got his policy, he went in for a routine eye exam. His eye doctor saw something he didn't like and sent Frank to a neurologist who told Frank he had multiple sclerosis. Frank's insurance company decided Frank should have known his occasional headaches were a sign of multiple sclerosis, and they took away his coverage retroactively. Frank's doctor wrote them a letter saying there was no way anyone could have possibly suspected that an ordinary headache was related to multiple sclerosis. But the insurance company left Frank out to dry. He was stuck with a $30,000 medical bill he simply couldn't afford. His condition got worse. He left his job and went on public assistance.

This is Kevin Galvin. I have held a series of townhall meetings in my State, four or five of them over the last number of months, to invite people to share their concerns and stories about health care. The first one I held, to give Members an idea, I held outside Hartford at 8:30 in the morning, on a Friday morning. My first reaction to my staff was: Why are we having a townhall meeting at 8:30 in the morning? No one could possibly be there. Mr. President, 750 people showed up at that small community college on the banks of the Connecticut River in Hartford to be heard and to listen and talk about what was going on in their lives.

Kevin has shown up at a lot of my townhall meetings to talk about this issue. I met him at a number of gatherings we have held around the State to listen to people's concerns.

Kevin owns a small business, a maintenance company. He employs seven people in that little firm--some older, some younger--and can't afford to insure them. His younger employees use emergency rooms in their home communities as their regular doctor. If one of them has a child with an ear infection, they will spend all day, as Kevin has told me, in the ER waiting for them to get basic treatment, costing the employee a day's pay and Kevin a day's work from that employee.

By the way, to remind people who say we can't afford any additional costs, think of this: If you have an insurance policy, on average, your family is paying $1,100 a year on your insurance policy to cover people such as Kevin's employees, the uninsured. That is the average cost per family. That is a tax on every insurance policy to pick up the cost of Kevin's employee, the one who shows up in that emergency room. You don't get free medical care there. They are charging for it. How do they charge? The premium costs go up for everyone else, on average, $1,100 per family.

Kevin has three employees in their twenties and thirties who have never had a physical, never had a dental cleaning by a hygienist. One of them, age 28 with two children, was out of work for 12 weeks and nearly died from a staph infection he got from an untreated cavity. Kevin stepped in, paid that man's salary during those weeks, and also all of his medical bills. That is the kind of person this individual is. Even though he doesn't have the kind of business that allows him to pick up the insurance tab for all his employees, Kevin stepped in to make a difference in that family. I know many do that. He is not alone in that regard. But it is awfully difficult to make a business work when you have to turn around and pick up the wages for someone who is not there at work, not to mention the medical bills and expenses.

Another one of Kevin's employees recently left for a job with health insurance, even though the new job gives him far fewer hours and pays one-third less than he got from Kevin. Another employee has been with Kevin's company for 24 years, relying on his wife's job for their health insurance. She got laid off recently. They will be able to get COBRA insurance for a short period, but Kevin's employee has a preexisting condition and his wife is a breast cancer survivor. You tell me whether you think they will get health care coverage, under the present circumstances, with one of them having a preexisting condition and the other being a breast cancer survivor. You don't need to be a Ph.D. in health care issues to know what is going to happen. Under the present circumstances, if we do nothing around here, that guy and his wife get nothing. They will be looking for any kind of help they can get.

They, similar to millions of our fellow citizens, are looking to us, those of us gathered here. I don't know what Kevin's politics are. I don't know whether he is a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal, conservative, moderate, a Blue Dog. I don't think he thinks that way. I think all he thinks about is trying to take care of his employees and his family. I don't think Maria's family--Maria, with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma--wondered what politics they were. I don't think any American does. All they know is, once again, we are sitting around here deciding we will drift off for a few more weeks or months because we can't seem to come together, or we are going to sit there and attack each other politically, as this problem grows by the hour. We don't have to worry about that. I say that respectfully, but nonetheless, it does impact the decisionmaking process.

When you don't have an ounce of concern about your insurance and your ability to take care of yourself and your family, you lose some of the motivation, it seems to me, that we ought to have, when it comes to addressing these issues.

I will be talking about this every day we are in session and every day until we get to the point of coming together and addressing this issue. It is what I tried to do for nearly 60 hours, replacing my dear friend, Senator Kennedy, on the committee. I thank my 22 other

colleagues who stayed there day after day to work on this. I particularly thank Tom Harkin of Iowa, who spent hours working on the prevention side of this bill, doing everything he could to come up with ideas to encourage behaviors that would reduce cost and improve the quality of health; Barbara Mikulski, who is going through her own medical issues, having broken her ankle in four different places and undergoing treatment, she did a magnificent job working on quality issues; Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico, who did the work on coverage issues and the important issue of how we pay for this to come up with ideas that will reduce cost and make health coverage more affordable. Then, of course, there was Patty Murray, who did a great job working on workforce issues. I see Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who is a member of our committee and did a great job on a number of issues affecting the bill. On down the line: Kay Hagan; Jeff Merkley; Sheldon Whitehouse was tremendously helpful; Bernie Sanders did a great job; Bob Casey; Sherrod Brown of Ohio was terrific as well.

I thank my Republican colleagues--even though they didn't vote for the bill in the end, I have mentioned the ideas they brought to our bill that made it a better bill: Mike Enzi, Judd Gregg, Lamar Alexander, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, Pat Roberts, Orrin Hatch, Tom Coburn, Johnny Isakson, Richard Burr. The idea is, we came together and it worked. We have a product now. We look forward to working with the Finance Committee. But we need to get on to the business of getting this done. We cannot sustain the present situation, and the American people deserve a lot better. They need the same kind of security we have provided for ourselves as Members of Congress. I don't think the American people are going to accept the notion that they should have to live with the fear and frustration that is associated with having the kind of health care system presently in our Nation, knowing we can do better.

I thank my colleagues for the work we have done already and urge them, over this break, if they are not here working, to listen to their constituents, hear their voices, and then come back to this Chamber in early September with a serious determination to do what no other Congress and no other administration has been able to achieve in nearly a century: to come up with a health care plan for the Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I rise on this early evening in July to spend a few minutes to talk about health care. I know it has obviously been a subject of great interest over the last number of days, having been asked to fill in for my dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, who as we all know is struggling with his own health issues.

I was asked to fill in for him to mark up the HELP Committee's legislation on health care, and I was fortunate to have as my allies in that effort some remarkable Members of this body--both Democrats and Republicans--who, we are told, spent as long a time, maybe longer than for any other markup in the history of that committee and one of the longest in the history of this body. There were some 23 sessions over 13 days, covering nearly 300 amendments that were offered on behalf of the 23 Members of the Senate--almost a quarter of this body--serving on that committee.

After that lengthy period of time, we drafted a bipartisan bill. It did not end up being a bipartisan vote. It was a partisan vote coming out of committee, regrettably. But that doesn't mean it will end up that way. I have often been involved in legislative efforts where the committee action would have a partisan conclusion, only to find that after further work, those efforts can attract a broad base of support and develop the kind of broad-based backing that is, I think, an important feature of good legislation.

So while I regret we didn't have any Republican votes in that committee, I am deeply grateful to my Democratic colleagues for their efforts--and also to my Republican colleagues for their efforts--which I will talk about. I intend, in the coming days, to talk about this issue through the remaining weeks we are in session--and possibly even beyond that, if we stay in session in August to work on this issue.

This is not any ordinary issue or ordinary time. I have been around long enough now to have witnessed the debates on this issue going back 30 years. Every single Congress and every single administration predating my arrival here has grappled with this issue--Republicans and Democrats alike. Since the days of Harry Truman in the 1940s, literally every administration has tried to come up with an idea to reform our health care system.

In years past, those efforts were talked about in terms of describing the present condition of health care as being an unacceptable situation; that it was wrong, unethical, immoral that we weren't serving people who should be served. The debate has now changed because it is no longer just unacceptable--which has always been the case--but we are now in a situation where the present conditions are unsustainable. Yesterday and again this morning the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, testifying on monetary policy, was asked the question in both the other body as well as in the Banking Committee, which I chair, how important health care was as a matter of economic recovery. In both forums, in different language, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve--while not getting into the details of

the various plans--pointed out, once again, if there was any doubt about this, that unless we resolve the health care issue, the economic issues we are grappling with today will be unresolved and only grow in their complexity and in their depth.

So this issue of health care is obviously one that affects real people every day. As we conclude the work day here on the east coast, and will do so in a few hours across America, remember this: Today, and every day, as we grapple with this issue, 14,000 of our fellow citizens will lose their health care. That is 14,000 today, 14,000 tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day. Every day we wait and delay on this issue, that many more of our fellow citizens and their families can fall into that abyss, that free-fall of wondering whether some accident, some injury, some diagnosis will tell them and their families they are in deep trouble, from a health care perspective.

If they lack the kind of coverage and insurance or lack the kind of personal wealth, that family will not only face the hardship of confronting a health care crisis without the adequate quality of care to provide for them and their families, but they may very well find themselves in economic ruin as a result of the situation that persists today.

I am not talking about the uninsured alone. I am talking about the 25 or 30 million who are underinsured in this country. They struggle every single day, wondering whether those deductibles are going to be low enough to pay when crisis strikes and, even if they have a policy, whether there are going to be an adequate number of doctor visits, prescriptions covered, and the like that provide them with the necessary protection to recover from their health care situation and avoid the economic crisis that can befall them.

To put it in perspective for you, Mr. President, consider this: Of all the bankruptcies that occur in the country, and there are many in economic times such as this, 62 percent of those bankruptcies are directly related to a health care crisis in that family; that they would not be in that situation except for the fact that they are suffering through a health care crisis that has forced them into financial bankruptcy. Consider this, if you will: 50 percent of all home foreclosures--and there are 10,000 of those every day, today 10,000 families got a foreclosure notice--50 percent, one out of every two foreclosures that occurred in this country occurred because of health care costs for that family.

Eighty-seven million of our fellow citizens every year find themselves in some period when they lack health insurance. Yet, as I say all of that from this Chamber, all 100 of us here have a great health care system, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. All of the Federal employees in the Capitol and across this country have a good health care program, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Maybe if we were in the same situation as our fellow citizens, being uninsured or underinsured, maybe there would be a heightened sense of urgency about this issue. But as long as we are OK and have nothing to worry about because of the jobs we hold, the titles we have, because of the good health care at relatively low cost that we have, none of us have to worry about that. We hope nothing happens, we hope we do not get sick, we hope a child of ours or a grandchild doesn't face a health care crisis, but if they do, Lord forbid, we have the resources to protect our family. That is not the case for millions of our fellow citizens.

So this issue demands our attention. It is an issue that cries out for solution. It is one that we must address. This is not one we can delay on, it is not one we can postpone for some future Congress. In fact, the American President, Barack Obama, who will address the country about 55 minutes from now on this subject, has made the case publicly: There is no other issue more important to him than this one. He has announced he is willing to expend whatever political capital he has in order to resolve the health care issue. He has made it the central issue of his Presidency, and we in this body, regardless of what political label we wear, bear a similar responsibility and should be sharing a similar cause--and that is to address this issue in a way that will increase access, will reduce cost, and create the kind of quality health care all Americans ought to have.

Every American ought to have at least as good health care coverage as their Member of Congress. Every American ought to be able to go to bed at night with the security that if their spouse or their children or a loved one in their family were to face a health care crisis, they would not be facing economic ruin, that they would not be wiped out because of it. Every American ought to have that sense of security, that something in this great Nation of ours ought not to be depending upon the wealth you have in your family or the job you hold. It ought to be a basic right to be able to have access to affordable quality health care in America. That is the charge. That is the obligation. That is what stands before us as the issue of, not only the day or the hour, but I think of our time here in this Congress.

President Obama has said he is willing to expend every bit of his political capital. That is an extraordinary statement made by an extraordinary President at an extraordinary moment in our Nation's history. In my 35 years in Congress serving with seven Presidents, I have never heard another President on any issue make a similar statement of their willingness to expend their capital on a single issue. This President has made that statement. That ought to inspire all of us to join him in that effort.

The President recognizes, as I hope my colleagues recognize, that we have been given a mandate by the American people to deliver on health care reform. I hope my colleagues will join in this effort.

Already we have made significant progress toward legislation that cuts costs, protects consumer choice, and guarantees access to affordable quality care for every one of our citizens.

The American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the organizations representing America's hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, have all come to the table and agreed to support strong health care reform. Three of five congressional committees responsible for health care have already approved strong legislation. I was here in 1994. Those organizations which I just mentioned, believe me, were not at the table urging that this Congress pass major health care reform. They are today. That is a fundamental change that has occurred in the last decade and a half.

Even the notorious Harry and Louise, those actors who once were used in commercials to kill health care reform, stood with me last week in a group of our colleagues when we announced the first piece of health care legislation to emerge from the Senate. They stand strong for health care reform and change and intend to do everything they can to assist in that effort.

This bill, the one that passed the HELP Committee, the Affordable Health Care Choices Act, is a strong and sensible piece of legislation. It forbids insurance companies from cherry-picking applicants based on their gender, based on their health care status, or any preexisting conditions. Never, ever again, under our legislation, if adopted, would an American citizen be denied coverage of health care because he or she is a cancer survivor or the victim of domestic violence. Never, ever again under our bill would an American citizen who thought they had insurance find their coverage cut or taken away just at the moment they need it the most because our bill, if it is passed, not only eliminates caps on benefits, it bans insurance companies from cutting or taking away coverage after a policy has been signed.

Our bill, if adopted into law, cracks down on waste and fraud, focuses on preventive care, reduces the crushing burden of administrative costs, and has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office at $611 billion over 10 years. That is a savings of more than $400 billion from the original estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.

I am very proud we came in on time and under budget in the HELP Committee. We are not being talked about much these days because we got our job done a week ago today, but I am even more proud that with real contributions from each of the 22 of my colleagues who serve on that committee--a quarter of the Senate--we

were able to craft a uniquely American bill for the American people.

In the United States of America, we already find much we like in our health care system. We like our family doctors and compassionate nurses. We like our world-class hospitals and technology--and we should. They are remarkable. We like having the freedom of choice as Americans of our own health care and the ability to get it fast, if we can. Our bill will not touch these things that work in our health care system in the United States today.

In the United States, we hold the relationship between a doctor and his or her patient to be sacrosanct, and our bill, if signed into law, guarantees nothing can ever come between you and the doctor of your choice--not the Federal Government, not an insurance company, not a bureaucrat from the private or the public sector. In the United States of America, we believe in shared risk and shared responsibility. Our bill, if signed into law, lowers costs for everyone by ensuring that everyone is insured. The bigger the pool, obviously the broader the risk and the lower the cost.

In return, our bill asks individuals, employers, the Federal Government, all of us to share responsibility, not just for treating people when they get sick but hopefully for preventing them from getting sick in the first place.

In the United States of America, we know in our committee, as we drafted the bill, that good companies are not afraid of competition. Our bill includes a public insurance option that is just that--it is an option, purely voluntary, for consumers and providers to decide whether they want to participate, nothing mandatory, just a voluntary option, a little healthy American competition to give consumers and providers some choices in the health care system of our Nation. That is an outrageous and radical thought to some, I know. In my communities, it is pretty basic, pretty common sense, pretty traditional, and it is a red-blooded American idea--a little competition. It doesn't hurt anybody. In fact, we suspect it actually helps most.

In the United States of America, we have the best treatment and research facilities in the world, facilities that regularly produce remarkable advances. Our bill, if signed into law, ensures that those advances translate directly and efficiently into better outcomes and lower costs for our fellow citizens.

Most of all, in our United States of America, we have learned the hard way that we need health care reform. For nearly 70 years now, Democrats and Republicans, Presidents and Congresses alike, have all tried this. Every one of them has made a Herculean effort to deal with this issue. Here we are, close to a century later, still in the same ditch, unable to dig ourselves out of it as it gets deeper and deeper.

So this is the moment. This is why we are here. This is our opportunity now to step up or to step back, and history will judge which of the two directions we took at this moment; whether we have the intestinal fortitude and determination to sit down for the long, hard hours and hammer out something, to deliver not because it is good for us but because it is good for the people we seek to represent. That is why we are here.

We talk about these debates as if no one else existed. Who is working on this, who is bipartisan, who is not, what coalition or group, who is a Blue Dog or Red Dog. It must drive the American people nuts watching us acting as if we were the only people on the face this planet wrestling with this issue. We don't have to worry, none of us. Tonight you can sleep soundly, as a U.S. Congressman or Senator, because if you wake up in the morning with a health care crisis, there is nothing to worry about financially. We are well protected and taken care of. Unfortunately for millions of our fellow citizens all across this country, they cannot sleep as soundly as we do. They are the ones we ought to be thinking about in this debate--not whether we have some coalition that is going to produce some magical result. Keep our eye on the ball. The American people are expecting nothing less from us.

For far too often, of course, we have failed in these efforts that have been defeated by nothing more than cheap politics in too many instances. The well-being of our citizens is left to drown in today's political current, all the while we have paid, of course, a deep, deep price for that ditch we are in, a ditch that is growing.

American families pay an average of $1,100 extra. If you bought insurance and you have an insurance policy, by and large you are paying $1,100 more every year in premiums to cover the costs associated with the health care for the 47 million of our fellow citizens who are uninsured. It is not that they don't get health care. They show up. Where do they show up? They show up in emergency rooms. The most expensive health care in the country is in emergency rooms. So when you are paying tonight, as many Americans will be, that quarterly or monthly premium, or whatever the timeframe is for the premiums you pay, look at a percentage of what you are paying. On average, you are paying $1,100 more every year to cover the uninsured, whose health care gets paid for. You are paying for it. When people say we cannot afford any more cost on all of this, you are already paying an exorbitant amount.

One of the efforts in this bill, in our bill along with the efforts being made by others, is to see to it that the 47 million, a number that expands to 87 million at one point or another during the year, of our fellow citizens who are without insurance at all, is reduced.

But that is the pricetag, $1,100 on average for our covering the uninsured among our fellow citizens.

Three out of every five bankruptcies, as I mentioned already, in the United States of America are caused by high medical bills. More than 75 percent of those forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills had insurance, by the way. That number is not the uninsured, 75 percent of people who fall into bankruptcy are insured.

Of the 62 percent of the bankruptcies that are created by this health care crisis, 75 percent of those people had a health insurance policy. So do not assume this only happens to those people who have no health insurance. If you are insured tonight, and you run into a major health care crisis, then you can very well find yourselves in the same position millions of our fellow citizens have who fall into bankruptcy. It is not the destitute, it is average American families.

In many cases, half our Nation's foreclosures are a direct result of our broken health care system, as we now know. But it is not just families and businesses being bankrupted, health care costs have come to consume a simply unsustainable portion of our budget. The other day the Congressional Budget Office answered the question in the Budget Committee: Are we bending the curves up or down for these various health care plans. I have a lot of respect for the people who work at the Congressional Budget Office. I know they work very hard.

But I will do a little wager that no one on that committee, the Budget Committee, nor did the CBO in their calculations of cost, ask the question of whether bankruptcies or foreclosures were calculated into the costs, one way or another, that were part of their conclusions.

But why are they not? If 62 percent of all bankruptcies occur in the country because people who are insured could not afford the health care needs they had for their families, why is that not a cost to be calculated in bending curves? What about those foreclosures, 50 percent of which occur because of a health care crisis in that family.

Did the CBO write that number into its computer models to figure out costs? Why not? Is that not a cost to our country? If a family goes into bankruptcy or loses their home because of a health care crisis that is created by the present situation in this country, where are the calculations and computer models that will tell us the impact of those crises on families?

So we talk about this issue, and we are told now in these macroeconomic terms by actuaries and accountants and the ``green visor crowd'' that 16 percent of our gross domestic product is spent on health care and that number could quickly climb to 35 percent.

What does that mean? It means, we are told, in the next 8 or 10 years, if we do not act, if we listen to those who do not think the last 70 years or the last number of Congresses that we wrestled with these issues is somehow wasted time, that we can end up with the average family paying 50 percent of its

gross income on health care premiums. That is not an exaggeration, that is not a phony projection. The very same economists who are telling you about the 16 percent of our gross domestic product consumed today are the ones who predict, based on the present trajectories, unchanged, that 35 percent of our GDP can be consumed by health care costs.

You might be curious to know the next nation that is closest to us as a percentage of its gross domestic product is Switzerland, and Switzerland spends a little over 10 percent of its GDP on health care. Then the next country is us, around 16 percent and growing.

To give you some idea around the world how we rate and compare on a per-capita basis, pretty staggering numbers. By the way, you might say: Well, look, I am sorry, Senator. I know it is a lot of money, but you know what? We have great outcomes. We have remarkable outcomes. So we are paying more than Switzerland. But, by golly, our people here get great outcomes.

Well, I wish I could tell you that is the case. The fact is we rank 37th in the world in outcomes. What a great statistic, the United States of America, the wealthiest nation on the face of this Earth, we spend more, $2.5 trillion a year, than anybody, a larger percentage by almost double, with the closest of any other nation in the world, and we rank 37th in the world in medical outcomes.

There is something staggeringly wrong with that number--with that amount of money being spent and those outcomes coming in. If you wonder why people are frustrated by the subject matter, and they may not know these numbers, all they know is what they are going through and their family.

If we continue on this path, it only gets worse. By the way, to add additional shame to that number, we rank at the bottom of all industrialized nations when it comes to infant mortality, the bottom of industrialized nations, when it comes to infant mortality in the United States of America. I find that shameful, those numbers.

We like to think of ourselves as doing so many things so well as a country because of who we are and how we govern ourselves and the opportunities we create in the United States of America. We like to believe that this is not some Third World country, that we would take good care of our newborns. To rank at the bottom of the list in infant mortality is shameful, to come in 37th in medical outcomes is shameful, to spend almost double the percentage of our gross domestic product as our nearest competitor nation is also shameful.

We have reached a point where no Senator can, with a straight face, come on the floor of this body and argue for the status quo. That status quo is not only unacceptable, as I have said, it is unsustainable.

Of course, some will stand on this floor and argue that the best thing we can do when confronted with a house on fire is to walk around it a few more times and argue about how high the flames have grown. Well, when we began writing this legislation out of the HELP Committee, we did not forget that each of us were born with one mouth and two ears.

We started with a blank page. Long before I was asked to pinch-hit for Ted Kennedy, Senator Kennedy and his staff and others invited the minority, early on, to share their ideas. You are going to hear otherwise, that we got drawn into this, we were not informed. That is not the case. They were not drawn in. They were invited. They had no idea what they wanted to offer, only that they got nervous about this plan going forward.

That started, I am told, at the end of last year, not when the President was inaugurated after January 20. So we began by listening. We listened to stakeholders, providers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies. Anyone we could gather who had an interest in the subject matter was invited to come and talk about what they thought a Federal health care reform package ought to look like. The culmination of that effort was to draft a bill. Why did we draft a bill? Well, because the rules of the Senate require it. You cannot begin a markup in the HELP Committee unless you have a product on the table. There has to be legislation written. The rules require it. So we wrote a bill and put it on the table and invited our colleagues on the committee to come and comment on it, talk about it, amend it, change it, do whatever they thought might improve it.

That is what took us to 54 hours, over 13 days and 23 sessions and nearly 300 amendments; a rather long and elaborate process. It was good work. Frankly, the bill got a lot better because of the effort. It got better because my Republican colleagues offered terrific ideas.

Contrary to what some may think, they did not come and just shove their hands in their pockets, put their heads in the sand and refuse to participate or walk away and not show up. Mike Enzi, Judd Gregg, Lamar Alexander, I can go down a long list of the Republican members who were there day after day, sat in that committee room and contributed mightily to our effort.

I was blessed to have Tom Harkin and Barbara Mikulski and Jeff Bingaman and Patty Murray, who were asked by Senator Ted Kennedy months ago if they would each take on a separate piece of the bill.

Tom Harkin grappled with prevention issues; developed a staff with expertise and knowledge. Barbara Mikulski worked on quality issues; did the same as Tom Harkin. Patty Murray did it on workforce. Jeff Bingaman did it on coverage. They had 12 hearings themselves on this subject matter even before a word was written on the bill, to bring people together, to listen to ideas and how we could shape those ideas as part of the structure of reform for the health care system.

Then that culminated with us sitting down in the beginning, back 5 or 6 weeks ago now, to actually mark up this bill, as we are expected to do. True, the Republicans on the committees did not vote for the bill, I have said that, regrettably. That was pretty clear to me that was probably going to happen no matter what we did. But they contributed and they made significant contributions. Of the 161 amendments that we accepted were offered by the Republican side--of the nearly 300 amendments that we considered, 161 amendments offered by the minority are very much a part of the bill that I have been talking about this evening. Some were technical amendments, clearly. But many were very substantive.

They do not want to admit it maybe because they voted against it in the end. You can define bipartisan any way you want. But I define it by contributions made to the product. They made a bipartisan contribution to the product and a better bill, not a perfect bill, was the result. It obviously needs more work. But we think it is a good, sensible bill that ought to enjoy the support of our colleagues.

Senator Gregg, for instance, and a number of his fellow Republicans were concerned about the long-term fiscal impact of our provisions on long-term care. So Judd Gregg offered an amendment that would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set and adjust premiums based on a 75-year outlook of the program's solvency.

We had a robust debate for an hour on this issue. The committee recognized the tremendous value, frankly, of what Judd Gregg was proposing. So his amendment was accepted unanimously, and the bill is a better bill for it. Johnny Isakson, my very good friend from Georgia, brought to the table the issue of end-of-life care, drawing on his own family's experiences. He gave very moving remarks in our committee about the importance of end-of-life care issues. He was able to talk about the importance of planning for the last days of one's life, how difficult that can be.

I just went through that with my sister who was diagnosed on May 22 with lung cancer, and she was gone in 6 weeks. She died on July 6, the first of my siblings to be lost. She was 68 years of age, with 5 children and 17 grandchildren. She knew in the last 9 days of her life what the outcome was going to be.

So she insisted upon each of us spending an hour or so alone, every one of her 17 grandchildren, every one of her children and their spouses, every one of her siblings, every one of her close friends. Her best friend in the world was a woman she met on the first day of college when she was 18 years of age. Her name is Nancy

Pelosi, Speaker of the House. She was there for the funeral.

Joe Biden came up. Joe and my sister were great friends, and he came up for the wake the night before. So I knew she was thinking, my sister, in planning what she wanted to have happen those last nine days of her life. A lot of families go through that. Senator Isakson made a very substantial contribution, nothing technical about what he was talking about. Our bill is a better bill because Johnny Isakson's ideas were incorporated in it.

Mike Enzi and Judd Gregg and Lamar Alexander wanted to increase employer's flexibility to offer work-based wellness programs with incentives for employees. Some of my fellow Democrats had reservations about their proposal. But Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and myself and several others on the committee worked with our colleagues on the Republican side to craft a compromise, a version we were able to pass on a bipartisan basis unanimously.

As a result, today, employers at some point can offer as much as a 50-percent reduction in premiums to employees who have engaged in lifestyle behaviors that will reduce their threat of illness and thus bring down the cost to those people. It was a great idea. We attributed a lot of it to Steven Burd, the CEO of Safeway, who brought the ideas to the table.

But our fellow Democrats, working again with Mike Enzi and Judd Gregg and Lamar Alexander came up with those ideas in that compromise. That is not technical. The bill is a better bill because of their efforts. I can go on and talk of the rest of the members who made contributions-- but I will not tonight. Every one of them have contributions in this bill. But let me be clear: If we deem bipartisanship more important than timely and effective health care reform, the only thing that will be bipartisan will be our collective failure as an institution. I have introduced a lot of bills over the years, and passed a lot of legislation. On every major bill I have written in this place, I have had a Republican partner, going back to the earliest days when I arrived here and offered the first child care legislation since World War II.

My ally on that was a guy named Orrin Hatch from Utah, who stood with me and we passed it. I offered the Family and Medical Leave Act. That took 7 years, two vetoes. Today there are some 50 million Americans who take leave without pay without losing their jobs. My partner on that was Dan Coates of Indiana, and Arlen Specter at the time was a Republican, obviously, along with people not here who were involved. Kit Bond played a very important role in developing the Family and Medical Leave Act.

I could go on with a list of bills, and on every single one of them I had bipartisan support. So I understand the value of it. It is a very important means by which to get a job done. But let me suggest to you at this hour, while bipartisanship is a means to get to an end, what really is missing right now is leadership in all of this--leadership from each one of us.

The President is leading as strongly as he can, and is deeply involved in this issue. Members of various committees are also leading. But in this institution everybody can be a leader, if they want to be.

Right now, I think what the country is looking for is leadership on this issue. Yes, bipartisanship is a nice quality, an important element, to pass bills. But leadership is what is most missing in all of this--the willingness to understand the moment, the unique opportunity to address a crippling issue that faces our country.

Every single one of our citizens will be adversely affected if we fail to act. There are very few bills that can ever make that claim, and yet health care issues affect 100 percent of the Nation. Most bills we deal with deal with percentages. Family and medical leave--50 million benefited by it, far short of the 300-plus million in our country. Health care affects every single one of our citizens and is why, again, it demands our attention and our resolution.

So to those who are not ready to join in this effort, we invite your suggestions, your improvements, your thoughts to come to that table. Listening to some of our colleagues say this is all about defeating the President or making sure no one has a political victory, I have to ask what planet are they living on to believe this debate ought to be about who wins and who loses a political contest on this issue?

Again, it is not about us. It is about people across this country who are expecting a lot more from us who do not wake up and wonder what political party they belong to or what section of the country they live in. If their child gets sick, if their spouse is sick and struggling and needing help, the last thing they want to hear about is whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent or live in a blue State, a red State, or whatever other color you want to attribute to them. They want to know if we have the sense to deal with this issue.

The truth is, we have waited too long. We have waited far too long. We have waited decades now. And the American people have been waiting even longer. Their wait is much more painful than ours. There is no cause for delay.

Yes, you have to examine the bill. We have to look at it, consider suggestions, but that only happens when you sit down and work together.

We spent those 60 hours in the HELP Committee, and it was not easy and it was not comfortable, and people got tired and frustrated at various moments, and there were times I thought it was going to fall apart. But I knew if we ever stopped and walked away, then those who wanted no result, no answer to this, would win. So day after day I asked my colleagues to come back and sit at that table and work.

What I said earlier I mean deeply: There were those who, frankly, might have decided not to show up, and that might have had a political conclusion; but they did show up. My Republican colleagues, as well as my Democratic colleagues, showed up every single day and worked to make that a better bill, even though there were those who voted against it. So there is no cause for delay. There is no cause for obstruction. And there is no excuse for inaction, in my view.

In a few weeks, we will return to our various States for the so- called August break, although, frankly, I am prepared to stay here and work. That may not be a popular idea, but I cannot think of anything more important than this issue, including whether we take some time off in August to go to the beach and go to the mountains or go to the lakes or wherever we go to visit with our constituents. Remember that every day we are on our break, another 14,000--every day in that August break we will take--will be without health care at the end of that day--every day; 14,000 a day--while we are drifting off instead of engaging in what we ought to be doing, in my view, and coming to terms with this issue.

Some will be among the ranks of the uninsured. Some are struggling and scared, bearing the emotional and physical scars that come with delaying the foregoing needed care, worrying that one car accident, one diagnosis could mean bankruptcy, foreclosure, or, in fact, the inability to get any care at all. Some will have insurance, but they will share the same worries because their insurance costs are much too high and covers far too little. They will be thinking about the jobs they wish they could leave to maybe start a small business but cannot because they would lose their insurance lifeline. They will be wondering whether their plan will decide to cover cancer screening when they are told by their doctor they actually need it. They will be wondering how many visits to the doctor, how many visits to the hospital will be adequate. Some will not be worried about their insurance today, but they will be among the millions who will lose their insurance if they do not step up to the plate and take some action.

But everyone we see when we go home will be watching us over the next 3 weeks. You better believe they are going to ask us about health care. They are going to ask us whether we are up to the job of passing a bill this year. They are going to ask us why we have not made more progress. They are going to ask us fundamental questions, ones we will have to answer for ourselves based on what we do in these coming days and weeks.

At this very moment, we stand at the cusp of history--one of those unique moments. It does not happen very often around here, but every now and

then it happens, and we are in one. And it is not going to last long. It is only going to last a few more weeks, maybe a couple of months, as to whether, in this moment, we have the ability to rise up and do what we should be doing--even though it does not meet our ideals; it is not the bill each one of us would write on our own--but that moment when we recognize our failure to act at all is a moment missed and not likely to be recaptured during our tenure.

I know for newer Members here that may seem like an exaggeration, but to those of us who have been here a while, we will tell you, these moments do not come very often. Most of the time we go through the routine of reauthorizing bills, reappropriating money, and that consumes about 95 percent of our time--not unimportant business, I will be the first to admit, but fairly routine.

And every now and then--every now and then--in our Nation's history, there have been moments of critical importance: in the early 1960s, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare; going back in the depression years; the Eisenhower years, with the Federal Highway System in our country. You can point to various times through the 20th century when Congress, contrary to what everyone else thought--this institution--decided to take on an issue that made a difference in our country.

I suspect Barack Obama, in part, had a chance to be elected President of the United States because people he never knew and who never knew him sat here day after day, week after week, and engaged in the debate on civil rights--back long before any of us were ever here, except for Bob Byrd, who was here, and Ted Kennedy, who was here. Those two Members actually were in this Chamber in those days in the early 1960s, and today we are a lot better country. We are a lot better country because of it.

And that was one heck of a fight, let me tell you. I was a young page sitting on the floor here in the summer of 1961 and 1962, when Lyndon Johnson was sitting where the Presiding Officer is, watching the all- night debates on civil rights. And they were raucous, and they were wild, and they were tough. There was no bipartisanship on that, I can tell you. It was down right tough and nasty. Those memories fade. What remains is the fact that this institution had leaders who stood up and said: We are going to get this done. And they achieved those results. And today we celebrate those moments.

We have forgotten about the bitterness that occurred in the debates. No one is asking whether it was bipartisan or whether coalitions got what they wanted. The response was: the United States got closer to that more perfect union that our Founders described more than two centuries ago.

Well, we are in that moment again. And in many ways this is a civil rights debate about health care, because too many of our fellow citizens are denied that right of health care based on economic circumstances beyond their control. The issue is very simply this: Will we come together and decide, at a moment like this, to get a job done or will we take the easier path and step back because it is a little too tough?

Others have failed at it. It means I might lose some votes back home. But there are certain issues that are worth losing an election over. That is not the worst thing that ever happened to someone. Watching your family go bankrupt, losing your home, watching a child or a spouse suffer because you do not have enough money to buy health care, that is a problem. That is a real problem.

So the issues here are complicated. I know that. I know they are difficult. I know if they were easy, they would have been solved a long time ago. But I have a lot of confidence. I listened to 22 of my colleagues over 5 weeks in a markup become educated and grapple with these issues. We did not resolve all of them, but we educated ourselves and made a difference and produced a bill--a bill that is now the only one in this Chamber that is before us. We hope our colleagues will examine it, take a look at it, make whatever recommendations they could as we move forward. I know the Finance Committee is wrestling with this. Senator Baucus and I arrived on the same day in Congress in 1975. We have been friends for 35 years. I know he is struggling to get the right kind of bill to come out of that committee. I wish him the very best and have offered whatever help we can to assist in that effort. I hope we can get a product that moves forward, that we can embrace and be proud of, and that will make a difference.

So for the coming days, I won't take as much time as I have this evening, but I want to talk about this bill in detail. I want to engage in the debate. I want to get away from the cheap politics, the bumper sticker slogans about things that don't exist, the fear that is so easy to arouse in people--the easiest emotion to appeal to is people's fears and hates--and talk constructively and positively about what we can do together to overcome this issue that is a scourge on our society and worthy of this Chamber's efforts.

I thank my colleagues for their the patience this evening and for listening to all of this, and I thank the Chair for his patience. I look forward to the hour when we will come together as a body here--not as Democrats and as Republicans, but as United States Senators--at this moment and pass a major health care reform bill that moves our country to accessibility, to affordability, and equality of health care.

Mr. President on a separate matter, I wish to note that some 20 minutes ago, the junior Senator from Alaska, the Presiding Officer, is the first Member of this new class to come in to win the Golden Gavel, presiding over 100 hours of Senate business. I am the only one here in the Chamber, but I give you a round of applause.

I am proud to have been here engaged in this discussion and to have you presiding over this conversation. I thank you very much, Senator Begich, and congratulations on serving our Senate admirably and as well as you have over these 100 hours.

Mr. President, how much time remains for those of us in opposition?

I ask to be recognized for 10 minutes, and if I need a little more, I will ask for it.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Chambliss for his eloquent and persuasive argument about why this amendment is a dangerous one, and I say that respectfully. I have great admiration for Carl Levin and John McCain, but there are serious problems with this approach, from a national security standpoint as well as a manufacturing and industrial base standpoint.

To put this into context for our colleagues, we are being asked to authorize $1.75 billion, or two-tenths of 1 percent of the budget before us of $680 billion. We are told there are at least 25,000 direct jobs and 95,000 direct and indirect jobs at stake for that $1.75 billion--again, two-tenths of 1 percent of the budget--which Senator Chambliss has offset, by the way. It is not an expenditure that is not going to be accounted for.

We are going to put those jobs at risk--not because this industry is in trouble, unlike the automobile industry, which we bailed out to the tune of $63 billion, by the way--understanding the reason many of us supported that was to maintain an industrial manufacturing base.

In this case, we lead the world in aerospace. Nobody comes even close to the ability of the United States to produce the most sophisticated aircraft in the world. Yet with an industry doing relatively well-- although commercial orders are way down, which is causing serious problems but that is as a result of the economic conditions. We are unwilling to come up with $1.75 billion or two-tenths of 1 percent to put those many jobs at risk, not to mention retreating on our air superiority.

One of the critical components of national security is maintaining superiority both at sea and in the air. The F-22, by any estimation, is the most superior aircraft in the world. It is not even close in terms of competitors. Yet with the numbers we have and that we are relying on, we leave ourselves way short of the earlier projected numbers.

As Senator Chambliss pointed out, the testimony over the years of those who advocated this program has been significant. In fact, in the letter most recently received from General Corley, head of the Air Combat Command Office, headquartered at Langley, VA, June 9, it points out how serious this would be in terms of exposing our Nation to national security risks. The head of the Air National Guard Bureau, Lieutenant General Wyatt, makes the same claim. Chief of Staff Schwartz, before he changed his mind a week earlier, advocated the F-22 as well, and its importance.

From both a manufacturing perspective and job loss, at a time when unemployment rates are skyrocketing, this body is about to lay off anywhere from 25,000 to 90,000 people--at a time when unemployment rates are going up, because we decided that $1.75 billion is too expensive at this juncture, even though we have offset it, and we have put that many jobs at risk, not because the industry is failing or because it is a bad aircraft but because the Secretary of Defense and the administration have decided this program isn't worthy of our support.

So explain to those 90,000 people--somewhere in that range--once they lose their jobs and get laid off, and they will--why it was we decided today, because of two-tenths of 1 percent of the budget, to move in a different direction. Put aside, if you will, the $63 billion we spent to develop this aircraft.

I raised these concerns expressed by our military commanders--again, most notably, GEN John Corley of the Air Combat Command, LTG Harry Wyatt of the Air National Guard--I have mentioned them. In my State, there are 2,000 to 3,000 jobs at risk, and 1,000 of the jobs are down because commercial orders are down. So it is really 2,000 to 4,000 people in my State who will lose their jobs.

No matter how much I care about the people in my State, I could not oppose this exclusively on that basis. You ought to look nationwide. It is not just my State; it is all across the country.

I raised concerns about what this amendment would do to our global competitiveness and discussed the potential harm to our economy posed by terminating the world's most advanced fighter jet.

I raised concerns over the industry's ability to build the less sophisticated F-35--which has only one engine not two, and the word ``stealthy'' applied to the F-35 is a myth; it is not as stealthy, even remotely, as the F-22--that the United States and its allies are counting on buying over the next decade.

Mr. President, before I revisit these critically important arguments, let's be clear on the context in which we are having this debate. The proponents of this amendment suggest they are saving taxpayers valuable resources in terminating the F-22. They claim such cost savings are well worth the risk Generals Corley and Wyatt have warned us about.

But out of a total of $680 billion in the Defense authorization bill, this amendment is valued at $1.75 billion. That is two-tenths of 1 percent of the total authorization. Since the planes are fully offset, there are no real savings in this amendment.

Instead, this amendment will come at enormous cost to our security and our economy. We are in the midst of a national manufacturing crisis. Everybody has talked about it. It is why we voted for so much support for the automobile industry only a few weeks ago right here in this body.

According to the Federal Reserve's July 15, 2009, Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization Report, manufacturing production has declined 15.5 percent nationwide, between June 2008 and June 2009. I will repeat that: There has been an over 15 percent decline in our manufacturing sector. This quarter's manufacturing production is the lowest in 27 years, which was the previous low point in production since 1967, when the Fed started to keep track of the data.

We in Congress tried to respond to this crisis. We passed the Emergency Economy Stabilization Act, designed to relieve credit markets and get banks lending again.

We passed the $787 billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to stimulate the economy and boost demand in various sectors and put people back to work.

We have provided $63 billion to Chrysler and General Motors to keep their production lines running--companies that were brought to their knees, in part, due to dismal business planning and severe mismanagement of their companies over the years.

Additionally, the government has acquired unprecedented equity stakes in these companies--8 percent in Chrysler and a whopping 60 percent in General Motors.

I have not opposed these efforts. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I worked with my colleagues who represent those States to provide Federal assistance through the legislative process. But we took this step because we were responding to a national manufacturing crisis. We did it because we are responding to the dire and credible warnings about the potential impact of the auto industry's collapse-- particularly in Midwestern States, which greatly depend on the auto business.

I will discuss briefly another critically important manufacturing base and its economic impact: the aerospace industry.

While my home State of Connecticut ranks 29th in total population, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it ranks sixth in total aerospace employment.

In 2008, according to the Connecticut Department of Labor, aerospace employed over 36,000 residents of my State. So any discussion of terminating the fighter jet production has an outsize effect on the people I represent.

I would not be arguing this case for the F-22 if it were strictly a parochial matter. We don't have a right to ask 99 other people exclusively because of something happening in our own States. The truth is, halting this production will have consequences for our industry's ability to continue to build aircraft for our military. I will lay out the argument for you.

The expertise of these people cannot be duplicated overnight. These trained engineers, scientists, manufacturers, and machinists are highly skilled and trained. I am concerned their skill sets and experience are being taken for granted, without consideration for the peculiarities of jet engine construction. That doesn't just hurt the workers and their families; it hurts all of us. Let me explain how.

According to the Defense Contract Management Agency, there is a 20- to 24-month lag between payment for and production of jet engines. So the number of planes ordered in any 1 given year doesn't correspond with the delivery time of those engines.

Under Secretary of Defense Gates's plan in calendar year 2010, Pratt & Whitney is expected to make 48 F-22 engines and 19 F-35 engines, for a total of 67 fighter jet engines. The following year, the number will drop precipitously to a total of 43 engines, since the F-35 is not scheduled to begin what is called ``full-rate production'' until 2014.

Thus, in calendar year 2011, Pratt & Whitney will be producing 11 F- 22 engines and 32 F-35 engines, for a total of 43 fighter engines. In 2012, since there will be no F-22 production, there will only be 41 F- 35 engines built.

The problem is even more acute when you compare overall military engines being built in 2010 versus 2011 and 2012. Under current plans, Pratt & Whitney is expected to go from building 194 military engines to 130 in 2011. That is an average drop of 33 percent in work volume.

What will happen? It is the same thing occurring in manufacturing States all across the country: layoffs. Thousands and thousands of people--not just in my State but across the country.

In the absence of military aircraft work orders for 3 years, companies will be forced to tell the legions of highly skilled engineers, technicians, and machinists--workers such as the Pratt & Whitney mechanics I introduced and mentioned last week--that they are not needed now. They need to retrain. They need to find another vocation.

Then, 3 years later, after these workers have settled in a new job, or have retired, the Department of Defense and our allies will try to ramp up production of the F-35. But they will not be able to. They will be left scratching their heads, wondering: Why can't industry meet our production needs right now? No doubt, we will ask the same question on the Senate floor.

To assume that the thousands of workers across the Nation who work on the F-22 will stand idly by until 2014 when we begin to build the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is naive at best. This argument I make is not new at all. The Defense Department recognized this point in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, published by the military to identify the needs and strategy of our Armed Forces.

The report stated that F-22 production should be extended ``through fiscal year 2010 with a multiyear acquisition contract to ensure the Department does not have a gap in fifth generation stealth capabilities.''

At the same time, the F-35 was scheduled to begin construction in 2010. Since then, of course, it has been pushed back 4 years to 2014. There are some rumors that this date may be pushed back even further.

This means the military identified only 3 years ago--36 months ago-- the most recent published report of this type, that our Nation would suffer a loss in aerospace manufacturing capability if fighter production doesn't have a seamless transition.

Their response was to ensure that we keep building F-22s until the F- 35 reached full-rate production. Yet when the F-35 production schedule was pushed back 4 years, we did not extend the F-22 production to stabilize our industrial base. That is why you have the job losses I have mentioned.

Now we find ourselves in the very situation the Department of Defense was

trying to avoid 36 months ago, as we face looming job losses across our Nation, commercial orders down--losing these people on that basis and now because of the vote we may take on this issue--and thus a degradation of our ability to meet the aerospace production capability our national security requires. So I believe it is our duty and responsibility to protect these workers from losing their employment and make sure our country retains a viable and competitive capacity in the years ahead.

Let me also point out--and I did the other day on a national security basis--that, again, superiority is critical. Right now, there are some 40 nations that have the SU-27, which is a sophisticated aircraft, and the MiG-29, which competes with the F-15 and the F-16. Forty nations have that capability. I had a larger chart earlier--I don't have it with me today--but there are little red and yellow dots all over this map that indicate advanced surface-to-air missile capability where there have been orders made or they have already been acquired. Our F- 15s and F-16s are vulnerable to those surface-to-air missiles. All over the globe they exist.

The F-22 literally could avoid the kind of detection these surface- to-air missiles provide. So we now have a capacity to be able to respond. Now we may not--and as long as we are dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq, that is one issue. But, frankly, we have to prepare for situations that could get a lot more dangerous for our Nation. The Chinese and the Russians are aggressively pursuing a fifth generation aircraft to compete with the F-22. And to say that the F-22 and the F- 35 are virtually alike I think is a mistake. That is not the case at all. There is a difference.

From a national security standpoint as well, there was a reason why General Corley and General Wyatt and others have made a case on these aircraft. There is a reason why we invested some $65 billion to develop this aircraft. There is a reason why the quadrennial report 36 months ago warned about these gaps and what it would do to our industrial base and manufacturing.

I hope our colleagues, in the midst of all of this, would understand what is at stake. Again, here we are, on an economic basis, where many jobs could be lost in our country with critical technology that hangs in the balance. It would be one thing if we were arguing here this plane was no longer needed, it was not going to do the job we thought it would do, it wasn't as sophisticated as we hoped it would be. Then you might decide dropping this, giving up some jobs, may make some sense. But to give up an aircraft of this sophistication and this capability, and simultaneously, in an economic situation such as we are in, to lose as we are predicting somewhere between 25,000 and 90,000 jobs with this decision, for $1.75 billion in this budget--two-tenths of 1 percent out of a $680 billion authorization bill, I think is terribly shortsighted.

I hope my colleagues would listen to these arguments, would debate and understand there is an ability, to reach a compromise where we can go forward with production, reduce some of the cost that the proponents argue for in this amendment, and then move toward together. But to make the decision that we may make in the next hour and a half or so would be a great danger for our Nation.

I appreciate my colleague Senator Chambliss giving me the opportunity to respond on this issue, and I thank him for his work as well in making the case to our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans. This ought not to be an issue that divides along those lines at all. We need to understand what is at stake for our Nation, both in terms of our manufacturing base as well as the national security needs that have been identified.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the two letters, one from General Corley and one from General Wyatt.

Madam President, if I may respond.

I wanted to state where the numbers came from. They are from the Defense Contracting Management Agency. That is where the numbers came from.

Madam President, I will wait a couple of minutes.

Madam President, I have 2 minutes; is that correct?

Madam President, first of all, let me begin where I did a few moments ago; that is, with my great respect for Carl Levin and John McCain and for their work in this area.

Let me begin with a point my friend from Arizona has made. There is nothing more important than the national security of our Nation. It is that very argument which brings those of us on this side of the table in support of this program and in opposition to this amendment.

This program is a critically important program to maintain superiority--not parity but superiority--which has always been our goal in protecting our national security interests. It was the very Pentagon itself which advocated we move forward with this program only 36 months ago. Obviously, people can change their minds. But over the months, when they were preparing for the needs of our Nation, it was the Commission on the Future of Aerospace, authorized by this Congress, which concluded the following. They said that ``the Nation immediately reverse the decline in and promote the growth of a scientifically and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce,'' adding that ``the breakdown of America's intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national security and our capability to continue as a world leader.''

It was the Pentagon, only 36 months ago in their Quadrennial Review, that said the following--and they said in this report--that: The F-22 production should be extended through fiscal year 2010 with a multiyear acquisition contract to ensure the Department does not have a gap in fifth-generation stealth capabilities.

There are reports that the F-35 could be delayed an additional 11 months--what we have already heard about. That creates a gap of 5 years that we are talking about. The danger of losing not just any jobs, anywhere from 25,000 to 90,000 aerospace workers is not insignificant.

Four days ago, we were warned there has been in excess of a 15- percent decline in our industrial capacity in the aerospace industry. This will hit us even further. The ability to have a workforce capable of building these aircraft we need in the 21st century is at risk. That is why the issue not only of the technical capability of the aircraft but the workforce to produce it is at stake with this amendment. And I say that respectfully. But we have this gap in production, which we have been warned about now by the Pentagon--not by the industry itself, by the Pentagon, by the very Commission this Congress authorized to determine what our capacities were and the industrial capacity in aerospace. We are defying both reports and both recommendations by canceling this program at this number and placing at risk the future generation of superior aircraft that we need in the 21st century.

So again, Madam President, I urge my colleagues, respectfully, to reject this amendment. There is a compromise, in my view, available to end up with a number far less than the originally projected numbers. But to cancel the program prematurely and create the gap in our production capabilities is a great danger for our Nation, not to mention these jobs which are critically important to our Nation and its future.

For those reasons, I urge the rejection of the amendment.

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

Madam President, what is the business before the Senate?

And that is the Defense authorization bill; is that correct?

Madam President, I wish to spend a couple of minutes talking about one of the issues we are going to be debating and voting on in the next number of days, and that is the consideration of the F- 22 Raptor.

I, first of all, want to inform my colleagues, as I have on previous times, of my interest in the subject matter. I am not a member of the Armed Services Committee. I have great respect for Carl Levin, one of my dearest friends, chairman of the committee, and John McCain, who is the ranking Republican on the committee, and my colleague Joe Lieberman serves on this committee, and many others who worked hard, I know, on the Defense authorization bill.

One of the matters that is going to be the subject of some debate, as I mentioned, is the consideration of the additional F-22 fighters that were voted on by the committee, in a narrow vote, a

13-to-11 vote, I am told. Now Senator Levin and Senator McCain have offered an amendment that would strike the $1.75 billion for these additional aircraft. I want to address that subject matter.

My State is going to be adversely affected. Somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs will be jeopardized if this amendment carries. Obviously, that is of great concern to us in Connecticut. It is an argument I hope will have some weight with our colleagues as we are all faced with these matters from time to time. I know just making a Connecticut argument to 99 Senators is not necessarily going to prevail. I hope my colleagues will consider what we are doing.

Our Nation leads the world in aerospace. There is no one even close to our ability to produce the most sophisticated aircraft in the world. The F-22, without any doubt, is the most sophisticated aircraft in the world. But we are told the Chinese and the Russians are quickly developing fifth generation technology to compete with our F-22.

My concern is, if we end up doing what the Levin-McCain amendment does--and that is to terminate this program prematurely--we end up with a number of F-22s that will hardly provide the kind of security that will be required. And for that $1.75 billion in this budget, we help sustain 25,000 jobs nationwide.

I cannot help but notice that over the last few months the federal government provided $65 billion to prop up a failing automobile industry. Chrysler and GM have gone through bankruptcy. A lot of people lost their jobs. I was supportive of the effort to try and make a difference there. The industry had failed in many ways. They had not modernized and had fallen behind world competition. So taxpayers provided $65 billion and acquired significant equity stakes in the companies to prop up our domestic automobile industry.

Here we are talking about $1.75 billion to support an important segment of the aerospace industry that helps to provide jobs to thousands of American workers. And we are about to say to our workers that the resulting production gap is acceptable, at a time when unemployment rates are expected to exceed 10 percent. But for some reason, some of my colleagues insist that we should not sustain part of the most sophisticated and advanced aerospace industrial base in the world for $1.75 billion. In contrast, as I mentioned we are devoting $65 billion to the automobile industry, which to many is a different matter.

I don't understand that logic. This is the very same government that says our domestic auto industry is worth saving, and I joined with my colleagues on that issue. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I led the fight to help save that industry in the Senate, an industry run into the ground by shoddy management and no business plan whatsoever.

While the government is picking winners and losers, I have to ask my colleagues: Do we truly believe that the domestic auto industry is more worth saving than a critical portion of America's aerospace industry? Because that is what we are talking about.

A government-mandated commission on the future of the U.S. aerospace industry recently recommended that ``the Nation immediately reverse the decline in and promote the growth of a scientifically and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce,'' adding, ``the breakdown of America's intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national security and our capability to continue as a world leader.'' Here we are with unemployment rates going through the ceiling, and for $1.75 billion--and it is expensive; I am not saying it is not--but we are not in any situation to allow any more American jobs to be lost. These job losses are entirely preventable; it is within our power to protect the jobs of thousands of workers across the country.

And if the Levin-McCain amendment prevails, I am afraid that some day people will look back, and say: What in the world were we thinking? What in the world were we thinking of, with jobs at risk and talented people--engineers, machinists--whom we rely on every day to maintain our superiority in this area.

Madam President and my colleagues, we are about to face a 3-year production gap between the F-22 and F-35. During that time, we will see many of our most skilled and experienced industry workers walk away. And it will be incredibly difficult, in fact I am not sure it is possible, to reconstitute this type of workforce.

So either today or sometime next week we are going to, once again, consider legislation to strip this provision of the bill--the provision that would keep the most advanced fighter jet production lines humming. Before that vote, I hope my colleagues will ask themselves a very simple question: At a time of heightened security concerns and economic uncertainty, is it in our interest to cancel this program? According to the F-22's prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, the F-22 directly employs 25,000 people across the Nation and an additional 70,000 in indirect jobs. With over 1,000 suppliers in 44 States, it has an economic impact of over $12 billion.

The decision to kill the F-22 will have further ramifications. With this decision, America's production lines of advanced tactical aircraft will grind to a halt, and we are not expected to ramp up again for another 3 years. What happens to that workforce? I know what happens to it. If my colleagues vote for this amendment, they will be voting against our tactical aircraft industry. They will be saying that the government can no longer support these 95,000 skilled workers across our Nation. And to me, it doesn't add up.

The other day I went through a chart explaining the capabilities of this aircraft versus those that exist in nations around the world. We are going to put ourselves at some risk, I would say to my colleagues. And that is not my conclusion alone. Listen to General Corley, who heads up the Air Combat Command, and listen to General Wyatt, the director of the Air National Guard. They have warned us about this very issue. This is a very critical and dangerous decision we are making.

We have spent billions of dollars to develop this plane--billions. We were supposed to build 381 of them. Now we have reduced that number to 187. In doing so, we are committing ourselves to ending the production line. Terminating the program will eliminate the opportunity for us to explore the merits of developing an export model of the F-22. We have allies that would benefit from purchasing a modified version of this technology. By offering them this capability, we would enhance our shared commitment to protecting global security. But this option will not be available if we adopt the Levin-McCain amendment.

I urge my colleagues to consider this issue. I know Members are facing a great deal of pressure from all sides of this issue. But I think, as Members, we have an obligation, obviously, to respond to the calls we get, but I would argue that we have a higher responsibility to analyze the implications of a vote such as this.

The implications of this vote, I think, are profound and serious for our country in terms of not only the economic and national security impact, but, for the thousands of American jobs that are sustained by the F-22. $1.75 billion is small in comparison to the $65 billion we have spent already to prop-up an industry that, frankly, should have shown far more leadership. The industries involved in this are not failing. These are solid, sound businesses. Yet they are going to be damaged as a result of a vote that is quite frankly, not in the interest of our national security or our economy.

I would urge my colleagues, over the next several days, to think through this issue, to examine some of these facts before coming here to cast a ballot that will jeopardize both American jobs and our position as the global leader in aerospace industry.

With that, I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1511

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

Madam President, I rise this evening to express my opposition to the Levin-McCain amendment which would cut short the production of the F-22 fighter. I understand my position on this puts me at odds with our President, President Obama, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, both fine public servants for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect and with whom I have worked on numerous occasions, and I look forward to doing so in the future once we get beyond this.

I also think I have a duty to stand up for an airplane built by constituents of mine. I wouldn't make the case strictly on job loss in an individual State. That is not a legitimate argument to make to 99 of my colleagues from around the country. If we made the case that job losses would occur in our own respective districts or States, obviously it would lead to chaos and we wouldn't have a situation like that.

My argument in support of this F-22 goes far beyond the potential job losses in my State, although that is not insignificant. Some 2,000 jobs could be lost potentially in Connecticut. More important than the job loss, as important as that is, is the potential loss of the industrial base that is absolutely critical to maintaining the ability to produce the superior engines that we historically have been able to produce at the Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies, a corporation in my home State. The work being done by machinists and engineers and technicians in my State and others all across the country not only produce quality work but also make a significant difference in saving lives and in giving us the superior ability to deal with potential threats that our Nation faces. That has been a hallmark of every generation that has come before us, not to achieve parity with potential adversaries but to be in a superior position to potential adversaries.

So let me begin with my concerns over this amendment's potential impact on our national security. Since the advent of modern warfare, military strategists have sought the highest

ground on the battlefield to gain technical advantage. In the age of the fighter jet, that means commanding the skies. In a modern era, air superiority has become a cornerstone of American strategy. The F-22 is the reason we can lay claim to this superiority at this critical time. It is a fast plane, reaching speeds of mach 1.5 in 90 seconds. That is without thrusters. It is stealthy. It also has the ability to engage targets before it can be detected. It is highly equipped with advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance tools.

As an instrument of air superiority, the F-22 Raptor is unmatched by any foreign competitor, including the much heralded MiG-29, the Russian-built MiG-29 flown by various militaries around the world.

I am going to point to this particular chart I have, which is rather difficult to read even from where the Presiding Officer is, given it is a map, obviously, of the world, and there are a series of color-coded dots on this map. Let me explain what the dots are, and then I will explain what we are looking at in existing technologies in the fourth generation of development of aircraft technology and what is being done on a fifth generation by nation states, particularly the Russians and the Chinese.

The countries in red on this chart indicate those nations that already operate or have ordered fourth generation fighters, and there are a number of countries around the world in that category. The yellow coded areas are expected to order by the year 2010, these fourth generation fighters. You get an idea in the Middle East, some of the North African States, and some out in the Far East as well. The red dots themselves operate or have ordered advanced surface-to-air missiles. Again, this is critical technology that has the capacity to take out our aircraft. Then the yellow dots, the round dots, they are ordering or are considering advanced surface-to-air missiles.

So we get some idea of what is occurring.

This over here: Air dominance is not guaranteed, is the point I wanted to make with this chart. According to the information on this map sanctioned by the Air Force, there are Russian-made aircraft known as SU-27s, which have air-to-air capability, more of the dogfight kind of capability. Those planes are operated already by Algeria, Belarus, China, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Vietnam. And then there is the MiG-29, which is both an air-to-air and an air-to- ground fighter. It is also a Russian-built aircraft, and is capable of challenging our current fleet of F-15s and F-16s. The MiG-29 is operated by the militaries of Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Eritrea, Hungary, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Myanmar, North Korea, Peru, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. Again, widespread globally, that air-to-ground capability and air-to-air capability.

Today, there is a fifth generation being developed that will be highly competitive with the F-22 and the F-35. That fifth generation fighter is currently being developed by Russia and China to challenge the F-22 and the F-35. So that gives us some sense of where we are today. These are very sophisticated aircraft operating today. The surface-to-air missiles are very sophisticated and in countries today that can take out, in fact, our existing technology in many areas.

Of course, the fifth generation is what we are talking about being ready for the midpart of this century. Our air superiority has not gone unnoticed by others in many ways, as identified by this map. All the countries in red, as I have pointed out, have an air capability comparable to the MiG. That means they are all on a par with our current aircraft technology; specifically, the F-15 and F-16 fighters known as the fourth generation of jets.

So our F-15 and F-16 are very competent, very good, and they are on parity--they are not superior but on parity--with these aircraft.

To give my colleagues some idea of what I mean by the comparison of generations, an exercise was conducted in January 2007, in which the F- 22 was matched up against the F-15 and F/A-18, to demonstrate how each aircraft would fare in actual dogfights with one another. The F-22 in comparative battles beat the F-15 and F/A-18, 144 to 0--144 to 0--to give my colleagues an idea of how much more superior the F-22 can be in command of the airspace as opposed to what is comparable to the F-15 today. So the F-22 is a very important piece of technology when it comes to regaining the superior capabilities that are absolutely essential.

According to the Air Force, what is more, this map shows that 30 nations are at parity with or exceeding the capabilities of the F-15 and F-16, and that puts our missions and the lives of our pilots at risk. On top of that, Russia and China are currently both developing their own fifth generation of fighter to counter the F-22 and the F-35. There are a dozen nations around the world, marked by these red dots, that are today operating surface-to-air missile launchers capable of shooting down the F-15 Strike Eagles that the F-22 would replace.

The yellow dots indicate other countries considering the purchase of such weapons, and I pointed those out as well.

Our current fourth generation fighter jets are vulnerable to these threats because they don't have the stealth technology found in the F- 22. Regrettably, we witnessed this danger during Operation Desert Storm when 37 of our nonstealthy aircraft were shot down and 40 more were damaged, and an early stealth fighter, the F-117, as well as the F-16, were brought down during the 1999 Kosovo operations by rudimentary Serbian surface-to-air missiles. These are risks that we shouldn't have to take and don't have to take. These are risks we don't have to force upon our pilots. These are risks that are entirely preventable if we arm ourselves with the next generation, and that is why the F-22 is so critically important.

If this amendment is being offered to strike and eliminate the F-22, then we cannot guarantee America's continuing air dominance. Our allies will not always look like those we faced in Afghanistan in 2001 or Iraq in 2003, enemies whose air defenses were in tatters. We do not always choose when and where our battles are going to be fought. We must be prepared and we must retain our competitive edge for the sake of our national security and the lives, obviously, of our troops.

If the pending amendment is approved, our F-22 fleet will be limited to 187 aircraft. According to military officials, such a figure is simply not enough to address the current capabilities of our military's competitors.

I have a letter dated June 9 of this year from GEN John Corley who is currently in charge of Air Combat Command for the Air Force. In this letter he reiterated his perception. I think my colleagues will understand as well that when we have a general serving in charge of air combat and command missions for the Air Force who disagrees with the Secretary of Defense in a public way, we get some idea of the depth of feeling that occurs with a matter like this.

Let me quote:

At Air Combat Command, we have held the need for 381 F-22s.

. . . In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of

our current national security strategy at high risk in the

near to mid term. To my knowledge, there are no studies that

demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national

military strategy. Air Combat Command analysis, done in

concert with Headquarters Air Force, shows a moderate risk

force can be obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250

aircraft.

General Corley, responsible for the aircraft readiness of the U.S. Air Force, says we will incur moderate risk with even 250 aircraft, and the command needs 381 aircraft to be fully capable. Yet we insist on giving them only 187.

That is deeply troubling. I think we owe to it our troops to give them what they need to protect our Nation as well.

Our security also depends on a robust manufacturing base, and the proposed amendment could be devastating to our critical aerospace industrial capabilities.

If this amendment we are talking about passes, the F-22 assembly will halt at 2011, and fighter jet production lines will run down until 2014, when the F-35 manufacturing begins in earnest.

What does this mean for the aerospace industry in this Nation?

In Connecticut, we are blessed to have a large contingent of skilled aerospace workers who keep our country safe and produce, of course, magnificent engines. They are highly skilled engineers, machinists, and technicians and, on average, they are in their mid to late forties. They may retire, obviously, they may pack up and relocate, they may leave the trade entirely; but they won't sit idle for 3 years. Our Nation cannot afford to lose them.

That is represented by this area here on the chart. To lay these people off and then to once again rehire them--in many cases, they will be in their midfifties--is unrealistic. That synergy that is critically important is going to be lost.

The Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry recently recommended ``that the Nation immediately reverse the decline in and promote the growth of a scientifically and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce . . .'' adding that ``the breakdown of America's intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national security and our capability to continue as a world leader.''

The Commission also stated that resolving the crisis will require government, industry, labor, and academia to work together to reverse this trend.

I am afraid this amendment does the opposite of what we are being warned to try to stop. According to the Aerospace Industry Association, the industry faces impending retirements and a shortage of trained technical graduates, a situation already expected to worsen within the decade.

Some companies address this issue by outsourcing work around the globe. In aerospace and defense, however, security requirements dictate that most design work on military systems must be done by U.S. citizens. Thus, the need for U.S.-developed technical talent is particularly acute if we want to ensure a world-class aerospace workforce ready to lead in a global economy of the 21st century.

On this chart, this is the F-22 production, which ends in 2011, marked by this point here. This is the F-35 production, which begins in 2014. This gap represents hundreds of jobs at Pratt & Whitney--as many as 2,000 in Connecticut--and it represents tens of thousands of jobs across the nation. You can take those numbers--and I cannot speak for other places around the Nation, but you end up with that kind of loss in an economy that our people are already struggling with. That is not the only argument that I make, but we ought to keep people working on a new defense system. The most important issue is our national security. You ought to understand that even if you decide to ramp up F-35 production after 2014, because F-22 production will prematurely end under this amendment, you will lose a workforce that is critical, and it gets harder and harder to reconstitute.

In fact, the Defense Department recognized this gap years ago. In the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, published by the military to identify the needs and strategy of our Armed Forces, they stated that F-22 production should be extended ``through fiscal year 2010 with a multiyear acquisition contract, to ensure the Department does not have a gap in fifth generation stealth capabilities.''

That is a direct quote from the Quadrennial Defense review report in 2006.

The military identified in 2006, the most recent published report of this type, that our Nation would suffer a loss in aerospace manufacturing capabilities if fighter production doesn't have a seamless transition.

Yet, for some reason, we find ourselves in the very position the military had, only 3 years ago, realized we should avoid.

In addition to our national security and the readiness of our aerospace production industry, this amendment would have a negative impact on jobs. Our unemployment rate is at 9.5 percent, and we continue to face the worst economic conditions in decades.

That is why the administration and this Congress have taken unprecedented steps to put Americans back to work. It is why the government has stepped in to save critical manufacturing sectors, such as the domestic automobile industry.

This amendment suggests that the same government doesn't believe our tactical aircraft manufacturing sector warrants similar treatment.

In my State, where the impact of the Recovery Act is just beginning to be felt, the success of this amendment would be a devastating blow. I am determined to do everything I can to see that we can avoid it. I don't want to see America's aerospace workers--among the finest workers in the world--remain under assault.

Allow me to introduce two such workers, Frank Lentini and Rocco Marone. They are workers at the Pratt & Whitney plant in Middletown, CT, which manufactures the engine for the F-22. They are both engine test mechanics.

In this picture, the two of them are preparing an F-22 engine for testing by attaching instrumentation used to collect data as the engine goes through a series of computerized tests. The highly advanced nature of this engine requires countless hours of testing and retesting, inspection and reinspection, to ensure that when it is shipped to the assembly plant, it operates flawlessly.

These workers understand that a mistake on their part could cost the lives of our American forces. That is why it is so important that these gentlemen have years of experience to ensure that only the best quality engines are put on these aircraft.

These are the same workers who will build the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's engine--but only if the F-22 production is allowed to continue for the next 4 years.

Frank, the one in the blue shirt, has worked in the Middletown plant for 31 years, starting on the assembly line, finally rising to his current job on the test line for the plant's most advanced engine, the F-22. He is married, with two sons, ages 17 and 12, whom he hopes to send off to college.

The prospect of cutting the F-22 production makes him worry every day about his sons' futures, not only about whether he will be able to send them to college but also whether there will be any jobs for the next generation of children in Connecticut's aerospace industry.

Rocco Marone--known as Rocky--has worked at the Pratt & Whitney engine facility in Middletown for 34 years. Like Frank, he is an engine test mechanic. He trains and works with the younger mechanics and imparts his experience to them, both from his time on the assembly line and working in the test cell.

It is workers such as these two men at the Middletown plant in Middletown CT--with a combined 65 years, taking that knowledge they have acquired and building the finest engines in the world for the past 80 years--the plant has. It is these seasoned workers who, by training the next generation, will ensure that the trade secrets of engine building are never lost. This amendment puts all of that at risk.

As I mentioned, if the F-22 is canceled in 2011 at 187 aircraft--the numbers we are now talking about--then these two individuals and tens of thousands of others in our country will face very difficult odds. These highly skilled, quality control experts will be left wondering what lies ahead for them and their families. Will they retain their jobs? How many of their colleagues will be signing on to the unemployment rolls? What other opportunities exist for workers with such highly refined but specialized skill sets?

If we end the F-22 before 2014, we will all be wondering something as well: When these gentlemen walk out the door, and take decades of experience and skills with them, will we ever get them back again?

I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment being offered by the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I have tremendous respect for both these individuals, but I think it is important not just on a parochial basis--I couldn't stand here and ask my colleagues merely to vote for this program because of jobs in my State. I also want them to understand what happens to people. This isn't just numbers we are talk about. There are lives, skill sets, and there is a valuable resource at risk when we cast our votes on whether to continue this program and allow for that seamless transition that will maintain the superiority and effectiveness necessary for our aircraft in the 21st century.

On the chart I showed you of these nations around the world--others are not sitting idly by. They are developing surface-to-air missiles and the

fifth generation of fighters to challenge us. We find ourselves in a situation where we might be taking a backseat at a time when I think we can least afford it. This is not inexpensive to do this. Senator Chambliss provided an offset in committee for the cost of continuing this program until 2014. That is an important consideration.

I respect the members of the committee who wrestle with these issues. I wished to share with my colleagues this information, and particularly what it means in a State such as mine that has an 80-year history of producing these terrific engines, and workers such as the two individuals I have introduced to you this evening, whose talents and abilities we will potentially lose as a result of this decision. It is one of great importance to our country, to our national security, and to the people who provide the wonderful skill sets that give us these remarkable engines.

With that, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator. That number of 144, I suspect people won't believe that number, but that is a real number. Pilots don't always necessarily comment on these matters. I am told by those who have been interviewed, pilots who fly the F-22 use superlatives to describe that aircraft they have never used about any other aircraft, including the ability to reach the speed of Mach 1.5 in 90 seconds, the stealthy quality, the maneuverability, and the agility exceeds anything else that exists anywhere else in the world.

There is a generation coming along in nations with whom we have pretty good relationships, but we can never predict what is going to happen. We have seen what happened with the SU-27 and the MiG 29, where those are widely disseminated worldwide now. They pose a parity with the aircraft we have. We need to have that superior quality.

I thank my colleague.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday I was unable to be here for the consideration and final passage of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act because of a death in my family, but I would like to submit my support for this important legislation for the Record.

Whether it is a natural disaster or an act of terrorism, we must maintain the ability to respond quickly and efficiently to security challenges. No job is more important than keeping our citizens safe, and no one does that job better than our front line public safety officials. This legislation provides them with the resources they need.

My fellow Connecticut residents and I know first hand how important it is to be prepared. Just last week, officials from FEMA and DHS toured Farmington and Wethersfield after tornadoes toppled trees and utility lines, damaging buildings and closing roads. The worst of the storm hit Wethersfield square-on, severely damaging 70 houses and leaving several to be condemned.

It is rare that a tornado touches down in Connecticut, but it reminds us that disaster can happen anytime, anyplace, anywhere.

At these moments of crisis, we must be assured that our communities have the first-responder personnel, training, and equipment necessary to keep families safe.

That is why I authored and continue to support the Assistance to Firefighters, FIRE, Grant Program to help equip and train firefighters, and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, SAFER, Grant Program to increase the number of firefighting personnel.

We have made the Federal Government a partner to our Nation's firefighters and because we did, we have delivered more than $55 million to Connecticut communities in the last decade.

This year's bill includes $420 million in SAFER grants--double the amount appropriated last year. This funding will help to stem the tide of layoffs so that our communities can be protected by an adequate number of dedicated firefighters.

In addition, I was pleased that the Senate accepted an amendment I offered that provides an additional $10 million to the FIRE Grant Program. This increase will help more local fire departments equip and train first responders in Connecticut and across the country.

The bill also provides $300,000 for the Coast Guard Academy in New London to begin work on Eagle Pier, which will be the permanent home of the EAGLE, the historic tall ship seized from Germany during World War

Mr. President, just before we left for the Fourth of July work period, U.S. diplomats hosted a forum in Washington to bring together representatives from 33 countries, a host of nongovernmental organizations, and others interested in Sudan. The purpose of the gathering was to reiterate their support for Sudan's 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, CPA, and to develop an effective way forward on Sudan. During the forum, leaders from Sudan's southern region and the Khartoum Government agreed to a joint communique highlighting ``the importance of credible, peaceful and transparent nationwide elections'' in 2010 and to holding a referendum on the south's secession in 2011.

While this appears to be a positive step on north-south relations, like many of my colleagues, I remain deeply concerned about the situation in the south and about the policies of Sudanese President Omar Bashir in the Darfur region--policies that have led to the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. So while I appreciate the significance of the communique I remain skeptical of the Khartoum Government's commitment to the north-south peace process, and to fair elections, and hope the Obama administration will maintain pressure on the government of President Bashir and hold that government accountable for a change in direction and real results. Following up on this event, I wish to discuss the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 and to update my colleagues on its recent implementation.

In October of 2007, after months of consulting with interested stakeholders, I was joined by Ranking Member Shelby in introducing a bill that empowered our country's State and local governments to divest from companies with business operations in Sudan. My colleagues, particularly Senators Durbin and Brownback, and I were very concerned about the ongoing violence in Sudan, especially in the southern and western regions such as Darfur where the Sudanese Government arms the militias which have ravaged communities and killed many innocent people. The international community has condemned President Omar Bashir for his role in authorizing this genocide, and he has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for these crimes. Given the developments in Sudan and a worsening situation there, we thought it was imperative that we help strengthen the growing movement in the United States of those interested in divesting from Sudanese businesses whose presence serves to bolster and support Sudan's Government, enabling its security forces, and those militias responsible to them, to continue to commit these atrocities.

By the time this bill was brought to the floor, 20 U.S. States had initiated some form of divestment from Sudanese firms, and divestment campaigns were underway in many other States. However, a Federal district court in Illinois had held the State's divestment law unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act was written partly in response to these complications and designed to provide States and local governments, as well as businesses and investors, the authority and legal framework to proceed with divestment. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent, the House took it up and adopted it several days later, and the President signed it into law on December 31, 2007.

The law was deliberate in targeting four specific economic sectors widely recognized as key sources of revenue for the Sudanese Government: oil, power production, minerals, and military equipment. According to one former Sudanese Finance Minister, 70 percent of the Khartoum Government's share of oil profits was spent on military equipment used to bolster militias like the janjaweed.

According to the Sudan Divestment Task Force, since the enactment of our legislation, five more States have passed divestment laws targeting Sudan, with many State and local retirement funds divesting hundreds of millions of dollars in assets. Four States have prohibited contracting with corporations that provide support to the Sudanese Government, demonstrating broad-based support for the divestment movement.

The law also serves to enable acts of conscience in the private sector, allowing businesses and investors the right to divest from Sudan-related assets without violating their normal fiduciary responsibilities. The number of universities, companies, and investment funds, as well as international and religious organizations, engaged in divestment is growing. For example, shareholders of Vanguard and Fidelity funds and pensioners from TIAA-CREF recently assembled to ask their managers to withdraw investments from Sudan.

Finally, the act requires Federal Government contractors to certify that they are not conducting business operations in Sudan that bolster the Sudanese Government's capabilities. This provision was meant to ensure that U.S. taxpayers' money is not aiding, even indirectly, a regime that systematically murders its own population. Even so, some critics have suggested that the law's implementation at the Federal level has come up short, particularly regarding limits on U.S. Government procurement. It is critical that the U.S. Government enforces a fair and appropriate certification process on companies that are conducting certain business sanctionable under the act. Additionally, updated information must be maintained by relevant contracting agencies. Such a process requires a concerted, interagency effort, not an ad hoc approach. Some work remains to be done to coordinate such a policy. I have been in contact with various Federal agencies to address these concerns and will continue to work with them to get this right.

Meanwhile, various nonprofit organizations such as the U.S.-based Genocide Intervention Network and its newly initiated Conflict Risk Network are providing innovative solutions to investors who feel motivated to divest out of moral and prudential obligations. Thanks to such efforts, investors can make well-informed assessments of Sudan's conflict zones and understand the political and reputational risks associated with investments in Sudan. Moreover, States and local governments now have more credible information on which to base their divestment decisions. Save Darfur, another nonprofit organization, continues to educate millions of people around the world about the ongoing atrocities in Sudan and provides activists with effective tools and resources. Others are following suit.

In the end, these efforts are being made to maintain pressure on the Sudanese Government and to effect positive change there. But much work remains to be done. Actions, not words, must be the true test of progress there.

As State and local governments, businesses, and private investors continue to press the government in Khartoum through their divestment efforts, they should be applauded. But we must maintain the pressure and closely monitor the situation. And the Obama administration must stay actively and assertively involved. The President understands this, and I am pleased that he has appointed a new special envoy to Sudan, retired general Jonathan Scott Gration, to coordinate U.S. policy on Sudan. I look forward to working with him on these important issues. I hope that the many ways the international community is seeking to

press the Sudanese Government for real change, and the many ways our government is joining that effort--including by tough and thoroughgoing implementation of the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act--will begin to bring critical change to this troubled region and to its suffering people.