I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. President, this past April, as the health care debate was getting underway, I sent my Republican counterpart, Senator McConnell, a letter outlining our priorities…
I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, this past April, as the health care debate was getting underway, I sent my Republican counterpart, Senator McConnell, a letter outlining our priorities for the debate. I wrote, of course, that Democrats are committed to lowering health care costs, expanding access, and improving the quality of care. I said that we look forward to a dialog about how to prevent diseases, reduce health disparities, and encourage both early detection and effective treatments that save lives. But in that letter of 5 months ago, I also said that in order to help struggling Americans, we cannot drown in distractions and distortions. I made clear that bipartisanship depended on Republicans demonstrating a sincere interest in legislating. It depends on their joining us to offer concrete and constructive proposals, even if we disagree on the content of those ideas. It depends on us working together in our common interests rather than against each other and against the interests of the American people.
I stand by that assessment as strongly today as I did this spring. It is painfully clear to everyone who has seen this debate's disturbing turns and dishonest tactics that more than ever, we now need people willing to work together in good faith. If we have learned anything from the recent rhetoric, both in our respective States and here in the Senate, it is that we need honest debate. It is regrettable that we have seen far too little of that lately.
Today, I want to talk about one area of the debate that has seen particularly reckless rumors and scare tactics--what health insurance reform will mean to seniors.
A Republican Congresswoman recently claimed that our plan to improve health care would ``put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.'' That was wrong when it was said, and it is wrong now. A Republican Senator made a similar statement to mislead his constituents. He actually accused Democrats of proposing a plan that would kill Americans. Others pretend our reforms will cut benefits when, in fact, the only thing they cut is waste. Is this any way to have an honest debate? I don't think so. Is this what our constituents sent us here to do? I don't think so. Some of our friends on the other side may not want to let reality get in the way of a good sound bite, but I think it is crucial that we get the facts straight.
The fact is, ever since a Democratic Congress and Democratic President created Medicare, Democrats have spent the past 40 years protecting seniors.
I know a little bit about Medicare. My first elective job in Nevada was on a countywide hospital board. It was then called the Southern Nevada Memorial Hospital. It is now called the University Medical Center. When I started my job, 40 percent of seniors who came into that hospital had no insurance. We had an aggressive plan to go after their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, whoever signed for them. That is no longer the case with Medicare. Virtually every senior who comes into that institution and all institutions has insurance to cover their hospitalizations. It is called Medicare. By the time I left that job, Medicare had come into existence.
The fact is, ever since Republicans opposed the creation of Medicare, they have spent the past 40 years on the wrong side of history when it comes to helping seniors. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
I don't carry much in my wallet. I have three credit cards. I have a few dollars. One thing I always carry with me is something I think is pretty important. I have carried this for years. You can see how wilted it is. I have done it for many years because I want to be able to quote accurately what I am talking about here. Republicans have hated Medicare from the very beginning, and they still hate it.
I was there fighting the fight, one of twelve voting
against Medicare because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.
Robert Dole, former leader of the Republicans in the Senate, candidate for President on the Republican ticket, that is what he said.
Now, we didn't get rid of it in round one because we don't
think it is politically smart, but we believe Medicare is
going to wither on the vine.
Newt Gingrich. I am not making this up. This is what they said.
Dick Armey, majority leader a few years ago in the House of Representatives:
Medicare has no place in a free world.
When I say that since Democrats created Medicare, we have spent 40 years protecting America's seniors, the fact is, ever since the Republicans opposed the creation of Medicare, they have spent the past 40 years on the wrong side of history when it comes to helping seniors. They were wrong then. They are wrong now. They conveniently ignore facts such as that in 1965, only half the Nation's seniors had health insurance. Today, virtually every senior has health insurance. It is called Medicare. Is it a perfect program? Of course, it is not. But it is a pretty good program. Seniors' life expectancy has gone up and the number of seniors living in poverty has gone down. Those on Medicare universally like it.
People complain about this program. Do you know what the overhead is on this program? It is less than 3 percent. It is one of the most effective programs in the history of the country. But that hasn't stopped Republicans from bragging about trying to kill Medicare. It hasn't stopped them from looking out for insurance companies instead of their constituents. And in the past 10 years, it hasn't stopped Republicans from voting against protecting and strengthening Medicare 59 times. Look at this. These are the votes by year. Just last year, these are the votes. I hope this year's reform will not be No. 60 because this bill will also protect and strengthen Medicare.
There will be an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to offer amendments to whatever bill comes out of the Finance Committee and out of the HELP Committee, and they will be melded together. What our legislation does is lower the cost of medicine. It provides a free yearly checkup, makes preventive care for seniors free. It will give doctors who treat seniors a raise, and it will cut waste from Medicare. For seniors, health insurance reform will mean all of that.
Rather than having a serious and real debate about a serious and real crisis, some would prefer to deploy tactics to frighten the American people. But what really frightens them is that under the status quo, they live just one
illness, one accident, one pink slip away from losing everything they have.
This is no time to let partisanship get the best of us. This is no time to obsess over rumors or oppose ideas simply because they were proposed by people who sit on a different side of this Chamber. This is no time to instill unfounded fears or incite hope that our Nation's leaders fail.
This is the time to get serious about making it easy for American citizens to afford and live healthy lives. When it comes to Republicans' attacks on Medicare, the messenger has no credibility and the message is nothing more than an excuse. At the end of the day, the other side's insistence on spreading fear above all else is what will truly hurt seniors and all Americans.
Our opponents' claims this time around are as disingenuous as they have been and phony at worst--disingenuous because they have a long track record of standing in the way of giving America's seniors what they need, phony because they completely and willfully misrepresent what the bills we are considering will actually do for seniors. Our bill will lower the cost of medicine, provide a free yearly checkup, make preventive care free, give doctors who treat seniors a raise, and cut waste from Medicare. That is what it is all about.
Mr. President, I have an amendment No. 2531, and I ask that it be brought before the Senate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. President, I appreciate my friend from Maine allowing me to speak for a couple minutes prior to her being recognized.
The amendment I have called up allows, not directs, the EPA Administrator to use $500,000 of the funds provided in the bill for preliminary planning and design to work to consolidate the many agency offices and labs in Las Vegas into one high-performance green building.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to continue spending money on aging facilities spread across several buildings in need of repair and rehabilitation, particularly with the leases that are not far from ending. Current costs associated with these facilities' leases and their operation cost over $5.5 million annually.
Consolidation would improve administrative efficiencies and reduce agency energy, water, and other costs over time. Developing a more precise estimate of total savings would be part of the preliminary planning effort my amendment authorizes.
The people in the offices and labs I think could be consolidated would also greatly benefit from their being able to work more closely together, given their mission and activities. These include the agency's National Exposure Research Laboratory, the Emergency Response Team--when something bad happens with a nuclear device, they are able to move on that--the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory, the Financial Management Center, the Human Resources Office, the National Environmental Research Center, and the Environmental Services Division's various laboratories and Technical Reference Center.
As we know, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the Recovery Act strongly direct the Federal Government to be a leader, not a follower, in adopting green building technologies. EPA should be at the top of the list, given its important role, and I think its labs and facilities in Las Vegas should serve as a shining example of environmental leadership that saves the Federal Government and taxpayers money.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my statement a letter to the Appropriations Committee regarding this request, in compliance with paragraph 9 of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
Mr. President, on the University of Nevada-Las Vegas campus we have EPA buildings. They are so old. We have been talking about doing something about them for decades. They have been so terribly important over the years with what has been going on at the Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain. The leases are about to run out. It is not fair to the Federal Government or the university. It would save the government huge amounts of money and it would be the right thing to do. This would be the beginning of accomplishing what EPA wanted to do for decades. I hope that Senators will look favorably on this amendment.
I would like to thank the chairman for her efforts to clarify this matter Chairman Feinstein is correct, I do intend that the funds recommended by the committee be used by the U.S. Forest Service for improvements to the Tahoe Rim Trail through their partnership with the Tahoe Rim Trail Association. I would also note for the record that my request complies fully with all disclosure requirements relating to congressionally directed spending.
Mr. President, my understanding is that the next vote will be final passage on the Interior appropriations bill. I want to alert all Members and give them kind of a suggestion of what the schedule is going to be.
First of all, people are asking about the Finance Committee. I have spoken to Chairman Baucus. The Finance Committee is going to work late tonight. They are going to come in in the morning and work, and then they will make a decision how long they are going to work tomorrow and whether they go into the weekend.
The next item of business will be the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Tonight will be debate only. There will be no votes on Friday. The Defense appropriations managers will be here for amendments and debate.
This is one of the most important bills we deal with every year. There will be no votes on Monday. It is one of the high holidays, Yom Kippur. The Defense managers will be here to continue consideration of the bill. We are not going to be in session on Monday, not on the holiday. I do not think that would be appropriate. People are traveling that day. I do not think it is fair.
There will be votes on Tuesday. It will be like a regular Monday. There will be no votes before 5:30. I would hope if people have amendments on this Defense bill they will lay them down. We want to move on this as quickly as possible. We know there are lots of important subjects people want to talk about.
Wednesday, September 30, is the end of the fiscal year. We have a number of things we must do before the end of the fiscal year. We are going to have a CR. We have to extend FAA authority and other issues. All of the chairmen and ranking members know what they are and we have discussed them on the Senate floor.
Next week will be an extremely busy week. I am hopeful in the next few days the Finance Committee will complete their work on the Finance health care bill, and I hope we do not have to do anything dealing with reconciliation on that. We have made progress this week.
Members this week working on this bill have been very cooperative. We have two wonderful managers on this Interior appropriations bill. They have worked well together and done a good job.
I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER appointed Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dorgan, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Reed, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Tester, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Collins and Mr. Bond conferees on the part of the Senate.