Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life and heroic service of SSG John A. Reiners. Sergeant Reiners, a member of the 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, CO, died on February 13, 2010. Sergeant Reiners was serving in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Kandahar, Afghanistan, when he was killed by an improvised explosive device that detonated while he was on patrol. He was 24 years old.

A native of Lakeland, FL, Sergeant Reiners and his family moved to Fort Carson in 2009 when he was assigned to the 4th Infantry Division. Sergeant Reiners joined the Army in July 2004. He served bravely during two tours in Iraq, before being deployed to Afghanistan in November of last year.

During 5\1/2\ years of service, Sergeant Reiners distinguished himself through his courage, dedication to duty, and willingness to take on any challenge--no matter how dangerous. Commanders recognized his extraordinary bravery and talent, bestowing on Sergeant Reiners numerous awards and medals, including the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal, two Army Achievement Medals, the Army Good Conduct Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal. He also attended Ranger School in 2007, where he earned the prestigious Ranger Tab.

Sergeant Reiners worked on the front lines of battle, patrolling the most dangerous areas of Zhari district in Kandahar. He is remembered by those who knew him as a consummate professional with an unending commitment to excellence. His friends recall Sergeant Reiners saying that Army boot camp was too easy. Most of all, they remember his devotion to his wife, his son, and his country.

Mark Twain once said, ``The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.'' Sergeant Reiners' service was in keeping with this sentiment--by selflessly putting country first, he lived life to the fullest. He lived without fear.

At substantial personal risk, he braved the chaos of combat zones throughout Afghanistan. And though his fate on the battlefield was uncertain, he pushed forward, protecting America's citizens, her safety, and the freedoms we hold dear. For his service and the lives he touched, Sergeant Reiners will forever be remembered as one of our country's bravest.

To Sergeant Reiners' mother Ronna, his father Gregory, his wife Casey, his son Lex, and all his friends and family--I cannot imagine the sorrow you must be feeling. I hope that, in time, the pain of your loss will be eased by your pride in John's service and by your knowledge that his country will never forget him. We are humbled by his service and his sacrifice.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I would like to take a couple of minutes this morning to talk about something that not only affects the legislation currently on the floor but everything we are currently working on in the Senate.

Before coming to the Senate a little over a year ago, I spent my life in the real world--the world of business, of local government, of public schools and, most importantly of all, of family. But since coming to Washington, I have discovered that many people learn to live in an entirely different world, an echo chamber, shut off from the reality of life in America that defies common sense at every turn and uses anonymous holds to defy the rule of reason.

I used to tell my little girls that ``Alice in Wonderland'' was just a fairy tale. But now I am not so sure. If you come from the real world, when you get to Washington, to Wonderland, the logic can seem upside down or inside out or just plain wrong. Here, it turns out that folks attack you when you do not cut backroom deals at the taxpayers' expense. Here, a lot of people seem to think that saying they are for doing something, such as extending unemployment benefits or passing a jobs bill, is exactly the same thing as actually rolling up their sleeves and getting it done. They think that blaming failure on their opponent is the same thing as fighting for real change.

Coloradans and Americans are reading their papers and watching their televisions, and what they see drives them nuts. It should because all they find are talking heads yelling at each other on cable news and cynical, reckless partisanship paralyzing their government. This phony political conversation will not do when we need real change.

But Washington cannot seem to get out of its own way. That is why I will introduce legislation to end lobbyist abuses, reform the ways of the Senate, stop the outside influences of special interests, and put Washington to work for the people of Colorado.

First, we need to hold Congress accountable. We should freeze the pay and office budgets of every Member of Congress until we have four quarters of job growth. Our salaries and office budgets should not go up when the rest of the country is struggling. Members of Congress should lose their taxpayer-funded health insurance until we pass health insurance reform. If Congress cannot get its act together on health care, then the American people should not subsidize health care for Congress. That goes for Democrats and Republicans. It turns out the dysfunction in Washington is just another kind of preexisting condition that allows the insurance companies to get their way.

Second, we need real lobbying reform that restores power to the voters. We need to ban Members of Congress from becoming lobbyists when they leave office. We need to do something about the revolving door between Congress and K Street. We need stronger rules and tighter standards for lobbyist registration and real penalties for those who break the rules. We need to end the corporate subsidy for Members of Congress who fly on corporate jets. Every Member of Congress should pay their fair share and disclose every person who is on the plane with them.

Third, real reform will not be complete without earmark reform. The people of Colorado pay taxes, and they deserve a government that works for them. I have no issue with Members of Congress fighting for projects they think are valuable for their States or for their districts. I am proud, for example, of the funding we secured for projects, such as the Arkansas Valley Conduit, which languished in the Senate since President Kennedy first promised it to the people of Colorado. But this funding should be done in the light of day, completely transparent and accountable, not behind closed doors, hidden from the American people.

Under my legislation, Members of Congress will be required to post every earmark request they receive and every request they make for funding. But we should not wait for the law to change. There is no reason to wait for the law to change. We can start doing this now.

Second, every earmark should be listed in earmarks.gov. The Web site should be easily searchable and user friendly.

Third, Members of Congress should be held accountable for their requests. Larger earmark requests should go before the Appropriations Committee, and we should end airdrops of earmarks in conference committee.

Finally, earmark recipients should be held accountable. This means randomly auditing earmarks every year and publishing the results for our constituents to see.

Next, we need to deal with the challenge of passing real campaign finance reform that reduces the outside influence of special interests. I intend to support the bill that Senator Schumer and Congressman Van Hollen have put together, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Finally, we need to reform the institution of the Senate itself. The filibuster has been used in the Senate for quite some time. It has been used by the minority to slow down debate, have their voices heard, and, in some cases, stall legislation.

I would remind members of my own party that just the threat of a filibuster stopped the privatization of Social Security. However, during this session of Congress, the right to filibuster has been abused. It has become a normal part of business, a way to stall every piece of legislation and simply slow the Senate to a crawl.

Three months ago, we spent weeks debating the extension of unemployment benefits. The bill passed 98 to 0. The Senate has spent days, weeks, and sometimes months holding up nominees who passed with more than 90 votes. To add insult to injury, one Senator held up the entire Senate, preventing us from extending unemployment benefits and COBRA. The country deserves much better than that.

I will introduce legislation that reforms Senate procedure to encourage the two parties to work together to get things done. It will eliminate anonymous holds. If Senators want to single-handedly stop a nominee from being

approved, then they should have the courage to do so publicly.

It will introduce a new procedure to allow us to reduce the time of debate so we can move on legislation that has broad bipartisan support.

Third, it will eliminate the filibuster on the motion to proceed. It is one thing to try to block a piece of legislation; it is another thing to prevent it from even being debated in the first place.

Finally, my legislation would change the rules of the filibuster to force the two parties to actually talk to each other and not past each other. The President reminded us during the State of the Union that our job is not to get elected. I have heard the same thing from thousands of Coloradans in hundreds of living rooms and townhalls. It is easy to throw our hands up in the air and wait for someone else to make the big changes we need. But we all know the American people deserve better. I know the people of Colorado expect much more. They know the Senate needs a big dose of Colorado common sense.

I know this is not easy. I know there are 100 different reasons, maybe 1,000 different reasons. Some will say: We cannot get this done. But I also know our country needs a government that works for them. I hope my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will work with me and others to make sure we get it done.

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

Madam President. I would like to express my strong support for the Conrad-Gregg fiscal task force amendment. I thank Chairman Conrad and Senator Gregg for crafting a proposal that rises above petty Washington partisan bickering.

When my oldest daughter Caroline was born in 1999, our Nation's debt stood at about $5.6 trillion. Our country welcomed her with an unpaid bill totaling $20,000--the amount every American would have to pay up in order to balance the budget.

But there was reason for hope. A President was working with Congress, using pay-go and discretionary spending limits--and reducing our annual deficit down to virtually zero, even running a surplus in a much stronger economy than today's.

Two years later, we welcomed Caroline's younger sister Halina into our family. Our debt had jumped to about $5.8 trillion. She also owed about $20,000. We had a new administration with new priorities--tax cuts that were not paid for, a prescription drug plan that was piled on the deficit, and unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind, and the war in Iraq.

In 2004, we welcomed our youngest daughter Anne. The debt had skyrocketed to over $7.3 trillion. Anne's share of the national debt stood at $25,000.

By Caroline's 10th birthday last year, the national debt stood at about $11 trillion--double what it was when she was born. She owed about $36,000 at this point. I would have to say that is a lousy birthday present for any 10-year-old.

Now we have had to deal with the worst recession since the Great Depression, and the necessary steps we have taken to provide middle class and small business tax cuts and preserve jobs for police officers and teachers have contributed to the red ink.

Today, our debt stands at just over $12 trillion. Each person owes about $40,000. By 2019, the White House projects that it will double yet again. If we do not come to our senses soon, we may pass the point of no return with this unfair and vast mortgage on our children's future.

The other day I was at a house party in Denver and I was talking about how we were passing this debt on to our kids and they were going to have to pay it back. Caroline was with me. We walked outside the party and she said: Daddy? I said: What? She said: Just to be clear, I am not paying that back. Which I think is the right attitude we should have. We need to take care of it now.

No Member of this body wants my three daughters or any child to inherit the fiscal mess we have caused. Yet partisan stalemate prevents reform from even getting off the ground.

For my part, I introduced the Deficit Reduction Act, which would reinstitute discretionary spending limits and cap our deficit to 3 percent of the GDP, and I cosponsored pay-go. Yet even ideas as basic as these have faced stiff opposition.

We need the Conrad-Gregg amendment. Their commission would enable Congress to reduce the deficit without the usual backroom deals, appeasing of special interest groups, and engaging in partisan blamesmanship.

It is a shame that a commission is necessary. But it is. We have to take the partisanship out of reducing the deficit or nothing will get done. The commission can do this. Sadly, Congress, left to its own devices, has proven that it will not.

Conrad-Gregg is a chance to make Congress live by fiscal rules. I commend the President for expressing his strong support for this amendment.

And to my Republican and Democratic colleagues, now is our chance to show that you are serious about real reform--serious about reducing our deficit.

I urge my colleagues to follow Judd Gregg's lead, and to follow Kent Conrad's lead. They designed this commission to allow for everyone's point of view.

When I think about extending the debt limit, I cannot help but return to my daughters and all the children across this country. They have their entire lives in front of them.

Most of us in this body are parents or grandparents or aunts or uncles. One way or another, we are in public service to help our kids. Let's view the Conrad-Gregg proposal through their eyes. They are depending on us to plan for their future--to pay for our tax cuts and to restrain our spending impulses to only the most important priorities.

I urge support for the deficit commission proposal. We need 60 Senators to stand for fiscal responsibility. Let's not allow this chance for bipartisan breakthrough to pass us by. Vote yes on Conrad- Gregg. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life and heroic service of Army Specialist Brian R. Bowman. Specialist Bowman, a member of the 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, CO, died on January 3, 2010. Specialist Bowman was serving in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Ashoque, Afghanistan, and sustained injuries when insurgents attacked his patrol using improvised explosive devices and small weapons. He was 24 years old.

A native of Crawfordsville, IN, Specialist Bowman moved to Fort Carson in 2007 when he was assigned to the 2nd Infantry Regiment. Specialist Bowman joined the Army in August 2006. He was deployed to Afghanistan in May 2009, where he worked as a health care specialist, or combat medic.

During over 3 years of service, Specialist Bowman distinguished himself through his courage, dedication to duty, and willingness to take on any challenge--no matter how dangerous. Commanders recognized his extraordinary bravery and talent, bestowing on Specialist Bowman numerous awards and medals, including the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star.

As a combat medic, Specialist Bowman worked on the front lines of battle, providing emergency first aid and care to his fellow servicemembers. He is remembered by those who knew him as a consummate professional and friend who they could turn to in times of need. Most of all, they remember his devotion to his wife and his country.

Mark Twain once said, ``The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.'' Specialist Bowman's service was in keeping with this sentiment--by selflessly putting country first, he lived life to the fullest. He lived without fear.

At substantial personal risk, he braved the chaos of combat zones throughout Afghanistan. And though his fate on the battlefield was uncertain, he pushed forward, protecting America's citizens, her safety, and the freedoms we hold dear. For his service and the lives he touched, Specialist Bowman will forever be remembered as one of our country's bravest.

To Specialist Bowman's mother Paula, his father Robert, his wife Casie, and all his friends and family I cannot imagine the sorrow you must be feeling. I hope that, in time, the pain of your loss will be eased by your pride in Brian's service and by your knowledge that his country will never forget him. We are humbled by his service and his sacrifice.

Mr. President, I would like to first thank the Senator from Iowa for his leadership over many years, especially on prevention and wellness, and to see so much of this bill devoted to that is a real testament to his efforts. So I thank the Senator for that.

Mr. President, a number of years ago, I left a rewarding job in business because I had a chance to lend a hand to my community during a very difficult time in Denver. The economy was slow and the city was facing a record budget deficit. Our great mayor, John Hickenlooper, asked me to come be his chief of staff. It was not a glamorous job, but it was rewarding because we got results--not by seeking out what divided the people of Denver, who were going through a very rough time, but by reaching out time and time again to what the mayor called ``our alignment of self-interest.''

We fixed the city's budget, and then I had the chance of a lifetime to become the superintendent of public schools and serve our children and the people who work so hard every day to support them. I came away from that experience believing that much of the Republican and Democratic ortho-

doxies relating to public education are essentially useless to our children--and maybe worse--and that Washington as a whole has absolutely no clue about what is going on in America's classrooms.

So it is fair to say I did not come to Washington with a partisan ax to grind. As is probably obvious to everyone around here--for good or for ill--I am not a career politician. I did not come here to win political points so that someone else could lose. I am not interested in that. I am here as the father of three little girls with an abiding concern we are at risk of being the first generation of Americans to leave less opportunity to our kids and our grandkids than our parents and grandparents left us. That prospect is shameful.

We are not the only Americans who have been working weekends and late into the night recently. There are people in small towns and big cities all across America doing jobs much harder than ours, who are taking an extra shift before Christmas so they can afford that extra gift beneath the tree--Americans who are unemployed in this savage economy and still trying to make sure the kids know Santa remembered them.

These same people are reading their papers and watching their televisions wondering what in the world we are doing here in Washington. All they see are talking heads yelling at each other on cable news, needless partisanship paralyzing their government, and even people praying that Senators will not be able to make votes.

I am not naive about politics, but I expected more. I will vote for health care reform because it is a step in the right direction. But I will not go home and defend the actions of a Washington that is out of touch, a Washington that is more interested in scoring political points, more interested in the 278 health care lobbyists who used to work for Members of Congress than it is in what our constituents have to say, a Washington that is more concerned with the millions being spent by big insurance companies than the thousands of dollars being lost by working families who are struggling to pay for coverage.

Columnists opposed to reform have criticized me for saying that I am willing to lose my seat to enact meaningful health care reform. Now I am being asked why I did not negotiate a special deal with leadership. In fact, there was a report this morning criticizing me because the National Republican Senatorial Committee was rejoicing that I did not ask for special favors. Only in Washington would someone be attacked for not negotiating a backroom deal. Just because others choose to engage in the same tired Washington rituals does not mean I have to.

So I have a message for the columnists, the political professionals, and those back home: I am not happy about the backroom deals. I am not happy that the public option was held hostage by people in our own party. I do not support rewarding delay with special deals. I will let others justify their vote and their tactics.

As for me, I am voting to provide coverage to 840,000 uninsured Coloradans, voting to extend Medicare for our seniors and provide free preventive care for everyone, voting to close the prescription drug loophole and provide tax cuts to small business, voting to make health care more affordable and eliminate exclusions based on preexisting conditions, voting for health care reform that is fully paid for.

The people in my State and in our country deserve better than a politics that cares more about lobbyists and talk show hosts than the people we represent. I am committed to delivering on that despite what the political experts have to say. And, in the end, when the dust settles and the stories focus more on substance and process, I am confident Coloradans will see it the same way.

I also commit to the people of Colorado and the people of this Chamber that I will do everything I can to make sure this bill is fully paid for. That is why I submitted an amendment that will ensure that health care will help pay down the deficit by forcing Congress to make adjustments if reform does not meet the cost estimates we have projected.

I urge my colleagues and the leadership in the Senate to see to it that this amendment is included in the conference report. If not, I will fight to get it passed on its own. I believe so strongly in this because everyone here knows that keeping things the way they are is no longer acceptable.

When I first started in the Senate, 800,000 Coloradans were without health insurance. That number has grown by 40,000 in the months we have debated this bill. On average, 111 Coloradans have lost their health insurance every single day. This number will only get worse if we do nothing. Our State has spent $600 million in the last year alone on uncompensated care.

Colorado's working families suffered double-digit health insurance cost increases year after year for the last decade. Many families have made terrible sacrifices--no longer investing in their children's futures, saving for a home, or carrying crushing credit card balances-- all to pay for health care.

Small businesses pay 20 percent more for health insurance than large businesses do just because they are small.

I think back to the Coloradans who shared their stories with me during this debate.

I remember Bob and Deb Montoya of Pueblo. They were torn between providing health care for their small business employees and keeping their business afloat. Last year, their business paid out $36,000 to cover two families and one employee. They could not afford to give their other 12 employees health care or they would be literally forced out of business. So they dropped coverage for the 12 employees to keep their doors open.

Hollis Berendt owns a small business in Greeley and told me about her daughter Abby who graduated from Colorado State University in 2004 and found a job in New York with a large company. Her daughter's company made her wait a year before she was eligible for health insurance, and during that time Abby was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Hollis took out a second mortgage to pay for her daughter's bills and told me:

This experience brought to light, all too clearly, how

close we all are to losing everything due to a health issue.

I have spoken here before about a young boy named Alex Lange. Alex's parents' insurance company refused to cover Alex because he was 4 months old and 17 pounds. They said he had a preexisting condition, at 4 months, of obesity.

Then there was 2-year-old Aislin Bates, whose parents' insurance company denied her coverage because she was underweight. One child too big, the other too small. Today in America, you have to be just right to get insurance.

There was Peggy Robertson of Golden, CO, who was told she could not receive coverage unless she was sterilized, Mr. President. She came and bravely testified in Washington about the need for reform. There was Matthew Temme of Castle Rock, who could not receive coverage because his wife was pregnant, even though she had her own health insurance.

The sad thing is, there is nothing unusual about these stories. None of these people were trying to cheat or game the system. They were trying to gain some peace of mind, some stability in their lives and, instead, they wasted weeks of their lives fighting against insurance company bureaucracy and mounting bills.

We have debated health care reform for over a year. Some have been working on these issues for decades. Killing health care reform under the disguise of starting over is not an option. We cannot wait until after the next election. We cannot wait until our economy recovers or until we have come home from Afghanistan to deal with our broken health care system.

Now standing so close to the finish line, it is completely understandable that some Americans doubt whether this bill will improve their situation. They understand we cannot live with the current system. But they are also deeply concerned about our capacity to make it worse.

The special interests are using tried-and-true tactics that have been employed over and over across the decades to prevent reform: phone calls to scare seniors, direct mail to scare those already covered, television ads to scare just about everyone else, and opponents of this reform in this body are trying every delay tactic permitted by the Senate rules.

Amidst all this, there is still a reason to hope. After almost a century of trying, the Senate is very close to finally passing a meaningful health care reform bill, a piece of legislation that while not perfect, represents a substantial step forward from business as usual. We have a bill that does three important things: It saves money, it saves lives, and it gives families a fighting chance in their relentless struggle with health insurance companies.

This bill will save money. It reduces the deficit by $130 billion over the first 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and is projected to reduce the deficit by 10 times that--up to $1.3 trillion--in the second decade. We will save $\1/2\ trillion by improving the way we deliver services to our seniors. These savings will prevent Medicare from going broke in 7 years by extending the life of the Medicare trust fund.

This bill will save lives. It will extend health insurance coverage to 31 million Americans who don't have it today. Over 90 percent of Americans will have health insurance coverage, the highest percentage in the history of the United States. For Colorado, that means over 840,000 people who don't have insurance will now have access and another 300,000 people who have insurance in the unstable individual market will be able to get affordable coverage through the new health insurance exchange.

The Senate bill makes preventive services, such as breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening, available without copayments. Now mammograms and colonoscopies, which can cost between $150 and $200, on average, will be free as well for seniors--half a million seniors in my home State alone. This means catching diseases earlier, promoting wellness, and saving millions of lives.

For our Nation's working families, this bill will also rein in the worst practices of private insurance companies. They will have to commit to covering patients instead of gouging them for excessive profits and overhead. Starting in 2011, if an insurance company doesn't give you value for your dollar, they will have to refund you back the difference. They will not be able to impose arbitrary lifetime limits on consumers and punish you just for getting sick or deny you insurance because of a preexisting condition. The newest Senate bill does more to contain costs, more to demand accountability and transparency from insurance companies, and more to give consumers a better choice.

For my home State, in particular, I am glad the bill addresses other critical areas. This reform does more for small business and small business workers than ever before. Small business tax credits will begin next year, giving eligible businesses a tax credit for 6 years to purchase health insurance for their employees. We have extended tax credits for small businesses, allowing more than 68,000 small businesses in Colorado to buy health insurance.

This bill makes a significant investment in Medicare payments to rural areas. When I first joined the Senate, my first piece of legislation called for a deficit-neutral reserve to address the differences in Medicare payments between urban and rural areas. This Senate bill recognizes the geographic differences between rural and urban areas and makes sure providers in rural Colorado that provide higher quality at lower cost receive higher Medicare payments.

This bill also delivers on its promise to seniors. It doesn't use a dime of the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform and does not cut guaranteed benefits. That is why, on the first day of the health care reform debate, I introduced an amendment that would make sure seniors will still see their guaranteed benefits, such as hospital stays and prescription drug coverage, no matter what changes we make in health reform. It was the most bipartisan piece of legislation we have had this year, with 100 Senators agreeing health reform would not take away guaranteed Medicare benefits for seniors. For Colorado, that means half a million Medicare beneficiaries will continue to have their guaranteed benefits protected and preventive services free of charge through health reform.

I am very pleased Majority Leader Reid included a version of a piece of legislation I wrote based on the work in Mesa County, home of Grand Junction, CO. Currently, one out of every five Medicare patients who is released from the hospital in this country winds up back in the hospital in the same month they were released but not in Mesa County. They have reduced the readmission rates at the hospital to about 2 percent, compared to the national average of 20 percent. That is 12 million patients who aren't receiving the care they need. In Mesa County, they have lowered readmissions by creating a transitional model that makes sure that when patients leave the hospital, they do so with a coach. That coach helps them go from the emergency room to their primary care physician, their mental health provider, making sure they get the care they need over a period of time, making sure they don't forget their prescriptions, and making sure they have the guidance they need to take responsibility for their own care. I am pleased the Senate bill compensates and reimburses hospitals and providers that set up models such as the one in Mesa County that actually saves money.

On another note, I wish to thank the Presiding Officer and my fellow freshmen. Together, we worked hard to introduce a package of amendments to further contain costs and make our system more efficient. As I traveled throughout Colorado on the August break, I heard from doctors and nurses who told me repeatedly all they wanted to do was work with patients, while all the government was doing was making them fill out one form after another. When I came back, I was determined to do something to help cut the red tape and bureaucracy for these people so they could spend more time with their patients. That is why, as part of the freshman package, I introduced an amendment to put an end to multiple forms, confusing codes, and unnecessary paperwork that burden providers. If health plans don't follow the rules, they will suffer financial penalties. Our health care workers deserve better, and this amendment gives them back time to spend with their patients.

Our freshman package rewards and emphasizes efficiency: one form to fill out, not 10; less red tape; fewer bureaucrats; a system that makes sense. Thanks to the leadership of the Presiding Officer, that package was endorsed by the Business Roundtable, the AFL-CIO, and the Consumers Union--proof that at least off this floor, there are still people from all different points of view who are willing to work together.

This bill also makes progress in the area of tort reform. It includes language I worked on with Senators Baucus, Carper, and Lincoln to create a State grant program for States to develop, implement, and evaluate alternatives to tort litigation for medical malpractice claims. The purpose of these grants is to limit litigation while preserving access to courts for patients and promoting strategies to reduce medical errors.

I know many in this Chamber take issue with one particular part of this bill or another. I have my own issues with the bill. I am one of many who have expressed their strong preference for a public option. But I urge my colleagues to consider how much good this bill can do for the American people--those with skyrocketing health care costs, small businesses forced with the impossible choice of helping workers keep their coverage or even just maintaining their business. To have the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office validate that in the second decade we will have cut health care costs by up to $1.3 trillion and that we will reduce the rise in costs of Medicare from 8 percent in the next two decades to 6 percent in the next two decades, while covering 31 million insured Americans, is truly groundbreaking.

We know what more time elapsing without fixing this system means for Colorado's working families and small businesses. It means more double- digit premium increases, less time to fix Medicare before it goes bankrupt in 2017, and more names added to the rolls of the uninsured. It means another big win for the special interests, more people denied coverage for preexisting conditions, and more small business employers will have to make impossible decisions about covering their workers or keeping their doors open.

So let's reject business as usual. Let's look at the promise of this Senate bill as a whole. Let's put the pettiness, scare tactics, and obstruction aside. Reform is what is needed to control costs, give people more choice, and provide support for our small businesses. This package will reduce our deficit, and it does so by reforming the way we provide health care.

We have much to do. Even before we were in the worst recession since the Great Depression, during the last period of economic recovery, working families' incomes in this country actually declined, the first time in the history of the United States, the first time our economy grew and left the middle class behind. At the same time, in my State of Colorado and in all States across the country, the cost of health insurance rose by 97 percent and the cost of higher education in my State went up by 50 percent. Finally, because of the short-term politics practiced around here, we now have an annual deficit and long- term debt that is cheating our children and constraining our choices.

We still have a lot to do to live up to the legacy that our parents and grandparents left us. It has taken me less than a year to understand that Washington still doesn't get it. I know we can do better, and despite so much evidence to the contrary, I believe we will.

I believe we will because, in the end, the national creed that each generation of Americans has fought for and fulfilled--the idea expressed in our Constitution that our responsibility lies not just with ourselves but to our posterity--is so much more powerful than the trivial politics that animate so many of the charges and countercharges that ricochet around this building.

It is for this reason I urge my colleagues to come together and support this meaningful improvement in our health care system.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided equally and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I will.

Arbitration Process

Mr. President, I wish to thank our colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, for his extraordinary leadership throughout this process of the freshmen coming together to see what we can do to move this legislation forward to improve it. I think a lot has been said about how the bill that was drafted by the HELP Committee, by the Finance Committee, and now by the majority leader is directionally correct in its efforts to get a handle on these skyrocketing costs. I think this amendment package will move us much further in the right direction of trying to hold down costs for our working families and small businesses across the country.

Throughout this entire debate and going back to the very beginning, what I have said is, no matter where you are on many of the issues, there can't be any disagreement that the current system, with respect to costs, is completely insane. Our families in Colorado faced double- digit cost increases every year over the last decade. Their median family income has actually gone down by $300, and the cost of health care has gone up by 97 percent over that period of time. Our small businesses are paying 18 percent more for health insurance than large businesses just because they are small. As the Senator from Virginia was mentioning, we are spending, as a country, more than twice what almost any other industrialized country in the world is spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product on health care. We are spending roughly 18 percent, going to 20 percent in the blink of an eye. We can't hope to compete in this global economy if we are devoting a fifth of our economy to health care and everyone else in the world is devoting less than half that. Finally, as the Senator from Virginia also said, if you have any concern about these deficits we are facing in Washington becoming completely untenable, what you need to know is, the biggest driver of those is rising Medicare and Medicaid costs and the biggest driver of those is, of course, health care costs.

So my view has been, from the start, no matter what your entry point was into this debate, cost was the central question for our working families and for our small businesses. We have stressed the need over and over for health care reform to contain the rising costs that are plaguing our current system. That is why I think the Senate needs to adopt the freshman amendment package, which would cut costs, save taxpayers money, and in this bill it can make our health care system function more efficiently.

This package of amendments will help strengthen the reform proposal's ability to deliver affordable, quality health care to all Americans, whether they are in private plans or whether they are in public plans. These provisions will remove much of the redtape that, for so long, has slowed the delivery of care. Doctors from all over Colorado have told me, time and time again, their medical practices are mired in paperwork and their staffs spend far too much time and money jumping through administrative hoop after hoop. The time our doctors and nurses spend on unnecessary paperwork is time they can't spend becoming better professionals and, most importantly, providing quality care to their patients. This amendment will require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to adopt and regularly update a single national standard for some of the most basic electronic transactions that occur between insurers and providers, and meeting these standards will be enforceable by penalties if insurance providers don't take steps to comply. My provision will make sure that as we implement health care reform, we are consistently identifying and implementing new standards.

There are also terrible inefficiencies in the way we pay health care providers and allow them to deliver care to patients. This package helps eliminate bottlenecks so patients are cared for in a reasonable amount of time.

This package of amendments also expands the Senate bills reforms being made to Medicare and Medicaid. There is a provision that will allow accountable care organizations to work with private insurance companies to better craft strategies for Medicare and Medicaid and private sector plans to improve care. In the current system, doctors are forced into requesting a multitude of tests to confirm a diagnosis they have already made. This creates

unnecessary work for doctors, their administrative staffs, lab technicians, and so on. It is time we create a system that empowers doctors to practice medicine and do their jobs efficiently.

Under the current broken system, doctors have to endure needless hurdles to even set up a practice. It is no wonder the number of primary care doctors has been steadily declining for some time now.

This package of amendments would create an environment that attracts doctors back to the field rather than make it more difficult for them to provide care. Along with the savings this bill already creates, these amendments will help doctors remove the redtape that has limited their ability to help patients in a timely manner.

We cannot go on allowing the middle class to absorb the rising costs of our Nation's health care system. We need health care reform that will control costs and put us back on a path toward fiscal responsibility. This package of amendments will help us do that.

I wish to, again, say thank you to my colleagues from the freshman class for their work. This sometimes has seemed tedious and sometimes hard to describe, but these amendments are very critical if we are going to get hold of costs as we go forward. That is the relief working families in this country need more than anything. In order to have stability in their lives, we have to get hold of our rising health care costs.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have an amendment No. 2826 at the desk. I would like to call it up at this time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I was paying very close attention to the floor debate over the last few days, and at times I am beginning to wonder what bill it is we are debating. Only in Washington could an effort to extend the life of the Medicare trust fund be viewed or distorted somehow as being unfair or bad for seniors.

We know--and it is in print in the CBO report--this bill doesn't take away any senior's guaranteed Medicare benefits. We know the bill extends Medicare solvency for 5 additional years. How does it do that? It does it in a way that is different from the way government usually does business, which is either adding or cutting from a program. It changes the way we deliver medicine in this country, and it does it in a way that protects senior benefits, and it extends the life of Medicare.

The attacks on this bill and my amendment have nothing to do with those facts. The sad part is that there are ideas on every side of this debate that are worth considering. We should be debating those ideas rather than claiming something that is just not true about the bill.

These Washington tactics of trying to shift health care reform back to some committee to languish is exactly why nothing ever gets done around here. The almost unbelievable part of this is that the opponents of my amendment say the health care bill hurts seniors. Yet the bill and our amendment is being supported by the AARP, the Alliance for Retired Americans, Center for Medicare Rights, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

What are the opponents of my amendment actually saying--that AARP and other senior advocates don't know what they are doing? They know what they are doing, and they also know what is in the bill. The AARP has seniors' best interests in mind, and they want what is best for Medicare in the long run. This bill makes tremendous strides to a more solvent, more stable Medicare Program for years to come.

Unfortunately, in the hopes of eventually trying to kill the bill, there are people who are making claims that are frightening our seniors--meant to frighten them--here and also in Colorado, where people have been calling on their phones convinced that somehow I want to cut their benefits. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe strongly in the sacred trust we have created with our seniors. That is why I introduced this amendment. Seniors are looking for simple clarity, and health care reform can help their lives.

This amendment says, in the clearest and most unambiguous of terms, as directly as we can say it, that nothing in this bill will cut guaranteed Medicare benefits. All guaranteed Medicare benefits stay intact for every senior in Colorado and all across the country. Seniors will still have access to hospital stays, to doctors, home health care, nursing homes, and prescription drugs.

The second part of the amendment goes further and says clearly and directly to seniors that we will use this bill to further protect and strengthen Medicare. We will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund. We will lower premiums or cost share, increase Medicare benefits, and improve access to providers. You don't need to believe me. Look at the CBO. These improvements will be paid for with money saved in Medicare under this bill.

What is so regrettable about the debate, and so tragic, is, if we don't actually get this done, Medicare would be bankrupt in just 7 years--in 2017. In the Senate bill we are now considering, we extend the trust fund's solvency by 5 years. We lower premiums for seniors by $30 billion over 10 years. That is real money back in the pockets of our seniors. We eliminate copays that seniors now have to pay for preventive care. That means when seniors go to the doctor for a colonoscopy, they would not have to make the copay like they have to under current law. When they go to get a mammogram, the same is true. We know preventive care like that saves lives and also money.

Most seniors live on a fixed income. Free preventive care is the best way to encourage seniors to seek important medical precautions. More preventive care is proven to save lives and lower health care costs.

Mr. President, health care reform will cut the cost of brand-name prescription drugs in half for those who are stuck in the gap of coverage between initial and catastrophic coverage. We eliminate the 20-percent cut physicians would otherwise see next year, making sure seniors can continue to see their own doctor.

Opponents of health care reform don't have a plan to protect seniors and strengthen the Medicare Program. I have heard more criticism about the number of pages in the bill than I have heard about a responsible alternative that would extend the life of Medicare and make the other benefits that are in this bill.

I wanted to come to the floor with a simple and straightforward message to seniors: We will protect Medicare. This bill does. We will make sure nobody touches your guaranteed benefits. This bill does. We will make sure Medicare is around for future generations. This bill gets us started in that direction. That is why I have introduced this amendment and why I support health care reform.

Everything I have said today is entirely consistent with the findings of the CBO, the nonpartisan organization that advises this Chamber. This legislation makes explicit the commitment that all of us share to the seniors across the United States of America. It is my hope that once this amendment passes, we can get beyond the debate we have had over the last 72 hours and get on to the substantive aspects of the bill.

I urge support for my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to sum up the debate over Medicare in the Senate health bill and on the motion and amendment before us.

Only in Washington, DC, could an effort to extend the life of Medicare somehow be distorted as being bad for seniors. We know from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan organization that supports both sides of the aisle, that this Senate bill does not take away any seniors' guaranteed Medicare benefits. It extends Medicare solvency for 5 additional years. My amendment simply confirms these two facts.

I am the first person who would insist we have an open process for this debate. I think there are ideas on each side of this debate on this bill that are worth considering and should be considered. But it is why I find it so confounding that opponents of my amendment want to send the entire bill back to committee so debate stops. How can we return home to the people of our States and admit to them we just gave up and sent health care back to the committee for another round?

The people who do not want change are the people who are content to leave it the same and do not have a theory about how to extend Medicare. They would have seniors believe the bill is bad for seniors. Yet AARP, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the Center

for Medicare Rights, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare beg to differ. They disagree. They agree with this amendment and with the underlying bill. Senior advocacy organizations, grassroots organizations with their ears to the ground hearing the voices and concerns of seniors, support health care reform, and they agree that with my amendment, this bill strengthens Medicare and preserves seniors' benefits.

With the Senate bill finally reaching the floor, seniors are looking for simple clarity on how health care reform can help their lives. Nothing in this bill will cut guaranteed Medicare benefits, and this bill will extend Medicare solvency for 5 additional years. It actually makes the system work better instead of cutting or adding to a program. It actually changes the way Medicare works so it will be stronger and more stable.

People may disagree with the prescription, but as a general matter everybody knows the status quo is unsustainable, and this bill helps seniors. It eliminates the copay seniors have to pay for preventive care. We know preventive care saves lives and it saves money.

As we close debate on my amendment and the alternative motion to commit the bill to committee, I urge all the Members of this body to consider the consequences of inaction. My amendment affirms what the current Senate bill does to help seniors and strengthen Medicare. We all know even more can be done, so let's continue this debate and reject the motion to commit the bill back to the Senate committee.

I urge every Member of this body to support my amendment. Please vote yes on the Bennet amendment and protect our seniors.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to first thank the Senator from Vermont for his excellent remarks in support of what is, after all, just a vote to get us started on the debate on health care, a procedural vote to allow us to be able to amend and improve the bill in the coming weeks.

Madam President, virtually every single Member of this body in the Senate is a Member of the baby boom generation. In my view, it is a generation of Americans--I was born in the last year of that generation--given more opportunity than any generation of people in the history of this planet because our grandparents and our parents were willing to make hard choices, understanding that part of our national creed, part of our legacy is assuring that we are expanding opportunity for those who come after us.

We are having this health care debate at a moment in our country's history beset by incredible economic difficulties. This is the worst recession since the Great Depression. But we now know even during the period of economic growth before our economy fell into this terrible recession that working families were struggling.

During the last period of economic growth, median family income in the United States actually declined. As far as I know, it was the first period of recovery in the history of the United States when median family income actually went down. It was at the same time the cost of health insurance was soaring--in my State by 97 percent--with the cost of higher education in my State going up by 50 percent.

We were saying to working families: You are living in an economy with incredible weakness, where the growth is surging ahead of a mountain of debt, but you are not getting ahead.

Just this week, we learned that in the great State of California they are increasing the tuition for their universities by 30 percent. The University of California, the California system has been the envy of the world for decades, and now it is being put out of the reach of working families.

So we have much to do--much to do--to make sure we honor the legacy of our parents and our grandparents. We honor the legacy of the ``greatest

generation'' and this generation, the baby boom generation, to ensure that we leave behind us not diminished opportunity but more opportunity for our kids and our grandkids.

There is much we need to do to make sure we have a health care system that works not just for a few people but for everyone, an education system that works not just for a few kids but for everyone, and that we have an economy in the United States that values the contribution that everybody can make.

My sense in this health care debate is that the people of my State-- and I know people around the country--are deeply dissatisfied with business as usual. They hate the current system. They know it is not working for them and their families. They know they are not able to make the choices they need to make to have stability for their families so they can get ahead economically.

But, on the other hand, they are deeply worried about our capacity to make it worse. It is hard to blame people when you hear the special interests' rhetoric coming out of Washington, DC, or when you turn on your cable television set at night and watch what people have to say. You can understand why people are concerned that we have the capacity to make it worse.

But that is why I am so pleased about the piece of legislation the majority leader has brought before us. We have never been closer to reforming our health care system, so we can address runaway health care costs, enact insurance reform, construct stability and predictability in health care for families and small businesses.

The Senate legislation before us is that promising new way forward. Coloradans, as I said, have not been shy at all about letting me know about their views of the current system and what their concerns are about what we might do.

Like people across the country, they know the current system does not work for them. But they are worried, as I said a minute ago, that we are going to make it even worse.

This bill represents a substantial improvement over business as usual. I congratulate the majority leader for listening to not just a small group of people but to people across the aisle, to people all across the country in crafting this piece of legislation.

First of all, the most important principle of the bill is that it is paid for. We already had about $5 trillion of debt when the last President became President. We are now at $12 trillion. There has been an unbelievable spike between 2000 and today. We have put an enormous burden--as the father of three young girls, I feel this very personally and very keenly--an enormous burden on our kids and our grandkids.

Our debt is now $12 trillion. Our entire gross domestic product--our entire economy--is $14 trillion. Our deficit is $1.4 trillion, 12 percent of our gross domestic product. That is utterly unsustainable. We know the biggest driver of our medium-term deficits is rising Medicare and Medicaid costs, and the biggest driver of those is rising health care costs.

This bill, unlike Medicare Part D--a very worthy program passed during the last administration--this bill is paid for. That drug program for seniors was not paid for. Instead of paying for it, instead of making hard choices, what we said to our kids and our grandkids was: You pay the bill. By the way, that is what we have said about tax cuts. That is what we have said about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have to put an end to this. This bill at least starts to head us in the right direction. It does not fix our fiscal crisis, but it is an important step forward.

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, for working families, the current system has been a complete disaster, as their income has remained flat or gone down, as their health care premiums have gone up by 97 percent. Even though there is a lot of conflict out there about what the way forward should be, about a specific policy choice here versus a specific policy choice there, I can tell you, one thing everyone in my State agrees with is that their health care has not improved by 97 percent over the last 10 years. They are paying more and getting less. Coverage is getting weaker, as it gets more expensive.

Small businesses are getting crippled by the system we have today. They pay 18 percent more than large businesses to cover their employees, just because they are small. Sometimes people say to me: Well, Michael, don't you know that is because the pool of employees is smaller? It is harder to spread the risk. I say: I understand that. But as a businessperson, from a business perspective, that is ridiculous-- the idea that a small businessperson, trying to execute their business plan, trying to execute their vision to grow their business, is going to spend 18 percent more for something and not get 18 percent more productivity out of it, or not get 18 percent, in this case, better health care coverage out of it. In fact, the reverse is true. It is ridiculous.

By the way, one of the things that is interesting to me about this debate over a public option is that people do not seem to understand what is actually happening before our eyes. As the costs of insurance are going up every year, few and fewer people are able to get insurance through their employer, fewer and fewer employers are able to offer insurance to their employees, which is heartbreaking for many of our small business owners because these are family businesses that for years have provided health insurance to their employees. They view it as part of their pact with their employees to help them get ahead. But they cannot do it. So they are dropping them from the rolls.

Where are these folks ending up, those who are now uninsured? Well, two places: Medicaid, if they are poor enough, or in the emergency room, getting covered with uncompensated care that we, the taxpayers, are paying for.

We have a public option. It is the least intentional and most expensive public option you can imagine. When we are talking about the changes we are making here, we need to understand what is going on in the daily lives of people all across our country.

The figures we have from the Congressional Budget Office show that this bill will reduce the deficit, not add to it, will cut our deficits over the first 10 years by $130 billion, over the next 10 years by $650 billion. That is $780 billion.

One thing we know about those numbers is they are not going to turn out to be exactly accurate. But here is the goods news: The CBO is unable to score the benefit of prevention. They are unable to score the benefit of wellness. They are unable to score or focus on primary care instead of emergency room care. There is good reason for that because that comes down to execution--how well is the program implemented. Those of us who are proponents of reform carry a very heavy burden to make sure the execution is good and that we carry this through. But the good news is, if we do a good job, we will save money.

I want to say a word about Medicare because there has been a lot of discussion from people who are opposed to reform who are saying we are cutting Medicare. They are saying we are hurting seniors. But what they will not tell you is that the worst possible scenario is not taking action now on critical Medicare reform. As I said earlier, and said in many speeches, our Medicare Program, on its current path, is headed for fiscal crisis.

Policy experts on both sides of the aisle have said we need to reform our Medicare delivery system. We need to stop basing payments on every procedure and every test. Instead, we should look at successful models such as our own Denver Health, the Rocky Mountain Health System, and the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. We know they have better quality and better outcomes, not just for seniors but for everyone.

This bill builds on what works locally. That means protecting the guaranteed Medicare benefits for every senior, and for years to come. It improves Medicare solvency. We make sure doctors will not see a 20- percent cut in their payments. It makes the entire Medicare system more affordable and will save taxpayer dollars.

Critics say no to reform. They are content with a system that pays by the test, test after test, instead of outcomes and patient-centered care. That approach will assure that Medicare is bankrupt by 2017. We need to do better than that for seniors. We need to protect Medicare.

Included in this health care reform bill is a version of a bill I introduced

based on great work being done in Colorado. It is called the Medicare Care Transitions Act. We looked at the $17 billion Medicare was spending on hospital readmissions. Currently, one out of every five patients leaves the hospital and returns within the same month. We looked at places in Denver and Grand Junction where the readmission rates are 2 percent compared to the national rate at 20 percent. What we saw was that they coordinate care. As people go from place to place, these health care systems track where they go with a system of electronic medical records, what medications they use, what doctors they see. They focus on patients--on patients--when making decisions. So when we talk about these delivery systems being unnecessary, tell that to the 12 million Medicare seniors who got readmitted to the hospital within the very first month they were let out of the hospital. We owe so much more to these seniors, and we owe a lot more to the American people.

Health care reform must stop the rising costs that are bankrupting working families, small businesses, and our economy. If you like your coverage, you should be able to keep it. We need to put an end to denials based on preexisting conditions. We need to give people more affordable options, including a public option. One thing is clear. Business as usual cannot be an option. The debate is bigger than politically charged issues. We have to keep our eye on the ball and not get distracted by the same old, tired, special interest politics that have kept us from reforming our health care system since Harry Truman was President.

Health care reform should not be about changing our laws on abortion. I think the House went astray when it adopted new language with unintended consequences for women. The Senate bill already makes sure we do not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. That is why I opposed the House Stupak language.

I want to end this morning on what I am for. I am for insurance reform. I am for making our small businesses more competitive by reining in skyrocketing health care costs. I am for reducing premiums for working families. I am for more consumer choice, including the ability to voluntarily choose a public option. By the way, one thing I have noticed is that as people start to understand they are going to be required to have health insurance as part of this plan, what they are saying is, I want all the options. I want a private option, a public option, a nonprofit option. I want to be in a position to make the best decision for my family.

I am for reform that squeezes our wasteful spending so we can reduce our deficits in the long term. Throughout this entire debate, my focus has been on our working families and small businesses. There is plenty in this bill for you.

The time for talking is over. We should pass this bill. But tonight what we should do is make sure we allow the Senate to debate the bill, to improve the bill. There are things in this bill I want to change and things I want to make better in the coming weeks. But I believe that if we pass this reform, we will have taken a very important step forward to saying we are here to honor the legacy of our parents and our grandparents. We are here to say as one generation to the next that we are going to carry that legacy forward and make sure we are making the hard decisions to provide more opportunity for you, not less. This is only one step of that.

I mentioned education earlier. I mentioned our economy earlier. My hope is that in this debate, what we can do is begin to learn how to set the special interests aside for the benefit of the American people. If we can do that, there is not a doubt in my mind that we will honor our grandparents' legacy.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased to be here today with my colleague from New Hampshire to talk about fiscal accountability in the context of the health care reform discussion we have been having.

Back in Colorado, people are not talking about far-left or far-right or Democratic or Republican. That is not what concerns them. What concerns them is that for the last 10 years they have seen double-digit increases in the cost of their health insurance, year-in and year-out, at a time, by the way, when their incomes actually declined.

Even before we were in the worst recession since the Great Depression--which we are in today--during the last recovery, the Bush recovery, it was the first recovery in the history of the United States when median family income actually declined. It was, in effect, for a working family a recession, and they are now having to recover not just from the greatest recession since the Great Depression but from a 10- year period when they actually fell behind in terms of their income. What was happening at the same time their income was going down? The cost of health insurance was going up, by 97 percent in my State. By the way, higher education was going up by 50 percent during this same period.

What we have said to working families before this recession and now in the depths of this recession is that they are expected to do more with less. They are threatened by politics in Washington that for decades has allowed special interests to get in the way of our passing meaningful health care reform for working families and small businesses. At the same time, we have tripled our Federal budget deficits and added to the national debt, as we have been unable to deliver for families all across the United States.

Well, today we are closer than ever to meaningful health care reform that lowers costs, reduces the Nation's long-term deficits, and improves access to quality, affordable care for Colorado's families. With the release of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we have taken a major step forward. This bill will help put our Nation back on a track to fiscal responsibility.

There is much more we need to do to get us where we need to be. I am the father of three little girls who are 10, 8, and 5, and I am desperate about the amount of debt we have loaded up on our Federal Government, about the size of our Federal budget deficit. While reforming health care is not sufficient to fix that problem, it is a very important step forward. Our Nation's annual deficits are enormous and our debt is staggering. Health care reform, as I said, must help solve that problem, not make it worse.

I, for one, have said from the very beginning of this debate that I would not support a health care reform bill that added a dollar to our deficit. I am very pleased to see that the bill the leader has produced does not do that.

We must pass effective reform that will rein in skyrocketing costs in both the public and private sectors and help to solve the fiscal problems that threaten our economy and our kids' futures. Without reform, if we just hold on to the status quo, if we listen to the siren call of special interests, out-of-control health care costs will place an ever higher burden on government expenditures and create structural deficits that could persist for decades as a drag on economic recovery and growth, with deficits and debt for as far as our eyes can see.

Rising health care costs--especially Medicare costs--are the largest driver of our deficits. Our Nation's health care spending today is 17 percent of our gross domestic product. It is slated to grow to over 20 percent in the blink of an eye. Health care will soon account for one- fifth of our economy. That might not be such a big deal if every other industrialized country in the world was not devoting less than half of that as a percentage of their GDP to

health care. It is like having two small businesses, one across the street from the other, and one is spending a fifth of their revenue on their light bill and the one across the street is spending less than half that. You do not need an MBA to know which of those small businesses is going to be able to invest in their business plan and grow. If we expect to be able to compete in the global economy, we need to devote a smaller percentage of our GDP to health care.

Since 1970, every year for almost 40 years--year-in and year-out-- Medicare spending per person has risen by over 8 percent a year and private insurance spending per person has risen by over 9 percent a year. We cannot expect reform to begin at the private or employer-based level. We must drive these costs down at the Federal level by reorienting our Medicare incentive structure.

The Congressional Budget Office Director, Doug Elmendorf, has said that the ``rising costs for health care represent the single greatest challenge to balancing the federal budget.'' If you are embracing the status quo, you are embracing skyrocketing deficits.

The White House Budget Director, Peter Orszag, agrees, saying:

The single most important thing--

``The single most important thing''--

we can do to put the nation on a sounder long-term fiscal

footing is to reduce the rate of growth of health care costs.

Period.

Meanwhile, the cost of health insurance is eating into family budgets faster and faster. About 20 years ago, the cost of an average family health care policy was $4,700 in Colorado, representing 12 percent of the average family's income. Today, an average family's health care policy costs roughly $12,000, amounting to 20 percent of the family's income, going, by 2016, if we do nothing, to 40 percent of their income.

Middle-class wages are not even close to keeping up with these rising insurance costs. In fact, median family income in this country fell by $300 as health care costs increased by 80 percent just while the last administration was in office.

Looking outside the confines of the budget context, health care reform will contribute significantly to economic growth. Health care reform will rein in skyrocketing health care costs and achieve close to $2 trillion of savings through the entire health care system--savings that will result in real economic gains to families and businesses. The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that slowing health care costs will increase gross domestic product by 2 percent in 2020 and by 8 percent in 2030.

After 8 years of irresponsible deficit spending, this legislation will be budget neutral and will put us on course to reduce the deficit over the long term. It is no wonder that people doubt this is actually happening because it has been so long since this body was actually able to do something that was deficit neutral. In this case, we are actually going to improve our deficit situation.

The Congressional Budget Office report confirms that the Senate bill is fiscally responsible and will reduce the deficit. Specifically, the report says the bill cuts the budget deficit by $130 billion over 10 years; cuts the budget deficit by $650 billion in the second decade; extends coverage to over 94 percent of Americans, including a 31 million-person reduction in the uninsured; costs $849 billion; and achieves almost $1 trillion in cost savings.

Just this week, a bipartisan group of more than 20 leading economists released a letter urging passage of meaningful health reform. The economists said our provisions to improve delivery system reform and slow the growth of health care costs ``will reduce long-term deficits, improve the quality of care, and put the nation on a firm fiscal footing.''

The challenges facing our health care system are not new. They are old. But if we fail to act, they will surely get worse, meaning higher premiums, skyrocketing costs, and deeper instability for those Americans who have coverage.

Today, thanks to a lot of hard work from a lot of people, we are closer than ever to enacting solutions to these problems and getting a finished bill to President Obama's desk as soon as possible.

Now is the time for us to set aside the childish politics that put us here. Now is the time to ignore the siren song of special interests. Now is the time for us to create a meaningful health care reform for working families and small businesses all across the United States.

Madam President, I yield the floor and look forward to hearing the remarks of my colleague from New Hampshire.

Madam President, I am very pleased to rise today to join the Senator from New Jersey to discuss the injustices committed against Hispanic farmers over the course of many years. I also thank Senator Menendez, the congressional Hispanic caucus, and my colleagues who have come to the floor to demonstrate their leadership on this issue.

For the reasons Senator Menendez laid out, it is long past time to call attention to this indefensible injustice and to lend our voices to a better way forward. As is well known, for years--decades--minority farmers were systematically discriminated against when they visited local USDA farm service agency offices all across this country. They were denied loans and farm program assistance because of their skin color, ethnicity, or gender. Senator Menendez did a good job describing the case.

I want to give some examples from my State, because in many cases, because of this discrimination, these farmers lost their livelihoods and their way of life. If we choose to let some of them make their case, and deny that chance to others, then we repeat these historic civil rights wrongs all over again.

Among the many letters I have received is a declaration from Mr. Gomez of Alamosa, CO, a former USDA employee who served his country for 30 years. In seven pages of excruciating detail, Mr. Gomez explains how he, as a loan officer, witnessed discrimination in granting of FSA loans. Reasons loans were denied were recorded as ``insufficient experience,'' or other subjective terms. As Mr. Gomez gained more responsibility, he was eventually in a position to review loan applications from around the region he supervised, and he became increasingly aware of a pattern of discrimination.

In another letter, Mr. Sandoval of Antonito, CO, tells of repeatedly being turned away from local loan offices and denied FSA loans on grounds that he did not have the ``character'' necessary. Mr. Sandoval explains how his inability to access credit through the USDA limited his ability to grow his farming operation and become a more successful farmer.

Another Mr. Sandoval of Commerce City, CO, writes:

This has been going on for so long that some farmers have

lost their lives waiting for justice to prevail.

Mr. DeHerrera, also of Antonito, CO, writes:

In desperation, I approached [someone] at the . . . FSA to

request a loan of approximately $80,000 so I could at least

keep the farm from being foreclosed. . . . He told me very

hatefully that they refused to approve either my loan or the

loan of the Sandoval brothers.

He continues:

I am convinced [FSA] refused to approve the Sandoval's loan

because both the buyer and the seller of the farmland to be

purchased were Hispanic American farmers.

Reading through the many letters I have received from Hispanic farmers in Colorado and the meetings I have had all across my State and the letters from people all over the country, a pattern emerges--one of thinly veiled discrimination that starts by discouraging Hispanic farmers from applying for FSA loans in the first place. All too frequently, this discrimination resulted in the loss of a farm and the loss of a way of life.

I have had farmer after farmer say they had to get out of the business of farming, that they could not leave their farms to their children, which is the only dream they have in their life, because of the discrimination they suffered at the hands of our Federal Government.

President Obama's new Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, has repeatedly, much to his credit, emphasized his commitment to addressing the longstanding civil rights problems that have plagued the Department and to charting a new era. I commend the Secretary's commitment and the dedication the Obama administration has made to chart a new future for the USDA.

Yet that does not fix the wrongs of yesterday. Congress has taken some positive steps, and the administration has created a process for resolving the claims of some minority farmers, even dedicating significant funds toward this end. But a path to justice has not yet been charted for Hispanic farmers.

The best way America can send a message that our government will not discourage minorities from participating in public programs, will not discriminate against them, is proactively to pursue justice.

It is time the administration and Congress come together and do more than just acknowledge past wrong doing at the USDA. It is time to address that wrongdoing.

I will say that my predecessor in this job, Ken Salazar, our great Senator from Colorado, now our Interior Secretary, comes from a part of my State called the San Luis Valley. Ken Salazar's family settled that land long before Colorado was even a State. If you drive down there and visit San Luis, what you will see is an irrigation ditch that was dug before our State was even a State. Among the names of the people, the names of the farmers and the ranchers who were entitled to take water from that ditch because

they had been there, and had been there to dig that ditch, is the name Salazar, the proud name Salazar. It is wrong, after generations of people have committed their lives and their families to agriculture in places such as Colorado and all across the country, that we have discriminated against them for decades and, when that discrimination is discovered because of some legal technicality or because they got the wrong judge, they find themselves unable to redress that discrimination.

I am very pleased to have the chance to be here today with Senator Menendez and other colleagues to call this to the attention of the administration and to say that we need to do more than just acknowledge this problem. It is time for us to help address the problem.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank our colleague from North Carolina for organizing this discussion this morning and for the other freshmen here yet again, week after week, to talk about the urgent need for health care reform in this country.

My colleague, Senator Udall from Colorado, did a wonderful job talking about the models we have of transitional care in Colorado, where we see some providers able to have merely a 3-percent readmission rate just because of the way they manage patients, patient-centered care, unlike the way we

do it all across the country, which is the reason we are at a 20- percent readmission hospital rate in the United States.

If we would put in some of these commonsense practices and worry about outcomes more and worry less about how many tests were given, in this case we could reduce the expenditure by $18 billion annually and provide better quality care. It is just one of the many ideas that is bubbling up from States all across the country.

I wish to spend a couple minutes today talking about the absurd waste of time that is caused by our current system of insurance in the United States. We have two examples in Colorado that have recently been covered by the newspapers out there. The first is a story about gender discrimination when it comes to insurance. It is about a woman in my state, Peggy Robertson of Golden, CO, who was denied coverage because she had what was called a preexisting condition, which was the C- section that she had when she gave birth to her son. The insurance company said they would not cover her unless she became sterilized.

Peggy came and testified about this in the committee, and her story has been repeated by many people across the State of Colorado. But it got the attention of another person in our State named Matt Temme of Castle Rock, CO, who wrote a letter to the editor that I almost could not believe when I read it.

We followed up with Matt, and it turned out that it was true. Matt was denied coverage because his wife, who is insured--she has her own insurance--was pregnant. Matt is a 40-year-old commercial pilot from Castle Rock. He was furloughed from his job at the end of June. His wife Wendy is a paralegal, and she is covered through her employer. They have a 6-year-old son.

As I mentioned a minute ago, Wendy is pregnant. It was too expensive for Matt and his son to join his wife's plan. Because he was furloughed, he went out shopping for a new plan on the individual market, which he thought would be easy. He first checked with his previous company's health insurance. He filled out all the paperwork for himself and his son. He is healthy, he is 40 years old, and he is not eligible for coverage because his wife found out she was pregnant. He told the insurance companies: My wife is already covered by another insurer.

They said to him: That is true, but if she suffers a fatality while giving birth to her child, that child is going to become a dependent of yours and therefore will be on the insurance you buy and therefore we are not going to sell it to you.

So now Matt had to go out to the market again. They have three plans. They have the plan his wife is on, already covered; they have another plan for his 6-year-old son; and now Matt is on a version of a public option that we have in Colorado called Cover Colorado.

When I read this letter, when we heard this story, when we talked with Matt, it reminded me again of all the stories that I have heard-- that all of us have heard--over these many months when we have been discussing health care about all the wasted evenings and conversations and fights that people have over their telephone just to get basic insurance for their families so they can have the kind of stability all of us want to have for our kids, for our grandkids, and for our families.

That is what this insurance reform is about. It is time for us to set aside the usual politics, the special interests that always have prevented us from getting something done, and deliver reform that creates stability for working families all across our country, deliver reform that allows us to consume a smaller portion of our gross domestic product than we are today, deliver reform that allows us to begin to put this Federal Government back on a path of fiscal stability. It is high time to put this politics aside.

I know in this country we can do better than that. In the end, we will do better. Our working families and small businesses will be real beneficiaries of the reform that we pass.

I thank the Senator from North Carolina for giving me the opportunity to be here this morning. I appreciate her very important leadership on this critical issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I congratulate the senior Senators from Maryland and Alabama for their excellent work putting together a Commerce, Justice, Science--CJS--appropriations bill that invests in critical national priorities. At this moment, I would like to invite Chairwoman Mikulski to enter into a colloquy about how important that the Community-Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Hiring Program is for our local law enforcement personnel. Given the budget shortfalls faced by states and local governments, federal resources through the COPS program are absolutely essential to ensure that work we are doing locally to prevent domestic violence and drug trafficking, for example, do not go neglected during this recession. I know Senator Mikulski has championed the COPS program, and. I would love to hear more of her thoughts.

I agree with the Senator that we need to ensure that our law enforcement ranks remain stable. In February, this body took significant steps to ensure that our law enforcement maintained its ranks through investments made in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The stimulus provided $1 billion for the COPS Hiring Recovery Program, CHRP, which was intended to help communities hire and rehire police officers during the recession. Nearly 7,300 CHRP applications requesting over 39,000 officers and $8.3 billion in funds were submitted to the COPS Office. Because of limited funds available, COPS was able to fund only 1,046--14 percent of the 7,272 CHRP requests received during the 2009 solicitation.

Some local law enforcement in my state are in need of assistance, though, and have not been able to get it. In July, the Montrose Police Department tragically lost Sgt. David Kinterknecht in a shooting. His sacrifice in the line of fire is a testament to the commitment of law enforcement in Colorado. Unfortunately, Montrose and some other departments in my state were rejected when they applied for the COPS Hiring Recovery Program. After the loss of Sergeant Kinterknecht, they were not only unable to add to their force, but also could not refill their ranks after this tragic death. The Montrose Police Department remains an officer short.

The story of the Montrose Police Department is just one of the many challenges faced by law enforcement as they try to protect our communities. Denver had to forego pay increases for 2010 and 2011 due to shortfalls in the city budget, for example. The city faced layoffs and our law enforcement made hard concessions in order to protect crucial jobs. Now in addition to making sacrifices in the line of duty, law enforcement is making financial sacrifices as our communities struggle to stay above water.

An increase in funding for the COPS Hiring Program would go a long way toward helping communities brace with the challenges of the current economic crisis.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for organizing this presentation this morning. It is a pleasure to be here with my freshman colleagues to talk about health care reform in this country, something that is long overdue if we are going to end the double-digit cost increases our working families face every year and if we are to see small businesses continue to grow and thrive in this country and lead us out of the recession we are in.

As the Presiding Officer knows, in our State we have suffered a lot from a health care system that doesn't work.

We see more and more of our families losing their insurance and fewer and fewer of our employers able to offer insurance, which is something they want to do for their employees. So it is high time for us to get these costs under control, and that will take innovation. In our State, we haven't waited on Washington. There are great examples of Coloradans who have pulled together to deliver high-quality health care at a lower cost.

A great example of what I am talking about is in Mesa County where Grand Junction is located. They have instituted what they call transitional care, where they have reduced the readmission rates at the hospital to about 2 percent. The national average is roughly 20 percent. One out of every five Medicare patients who is released from the hospital winds up in the hospital in the same month they were released. There are a lot of reasons for that. Those of us who have small children or are caring for parents know how many times we have to tell the same story over and over as we make our way from one doctor's office to the next. Many people forget to fill out their prescriptions or they do not have the kind of instructions they need to be able to take responsibility for their own care. In Mesa County they have solved that problem by creating a transitional model that makes sure when patients leave the hospital they do so with a coach--a coach who helps them go from the emergency room to their primary care physician and their mental health provider to get the care they need over a period of time.

I was very pleased that Chairman Baucus included in the Finance Committee version of this health care reform legislation the piece I wrote based on the work in Grand Junction that will compensate-- reimburse--providers who set up a model such as the one in Mesa County that actually saves money. That is truly what this is all about--this tortuous path we have been on to try to get health care reform done--to have a very excellent end point which makes sure we are reducing the cost to our working families and, at the same time, increasing quality; that we are making sure we are not devoting a fifth of our gross domestic product to health care when every other industrialized country in the world, with whom we are competing, is devoting less than half that to health care.

There are probably a lot of details in this legislation that still need to be worked out, and I am sure there is room for improvement-- there is always room for improvement--but the American people cannot go through one more decade like the last decade of having poorer and poorer coverage at a higher and higher cost. That is not the way our system should work. We can do better than that as Americans. We have shown we can do better than that in Colorado, in our State, and I am so pleased there are going to be communities all over the country that will have the opportunity to learn from each other and provide better transitional care for patients and more patient-centered care as we move through this health care debate.

I thank the Senator from Alaska for organizing this, and I yield the floor to him.

I have been listening to the debate, and I wanted to join in and respond to Senator Durbin's question about people leaving their insurance carrier and going on Medicare and Medicaid today, if they are eligible; and if they are not eligible, they are just out of luck. I think it is important, as we think about what this reform will bring, to remind people about what is happening with the status quo as it exists right now.

We are having all this debate about whether a public option is a good idea, whether the other insurance reforms are a good idea, accusations that this is just a government takeover of health care. What people are ignoring is what is happening right before our eyes.

In my State, median family income has actually declined by over $800 over the last 10 years. That is before this recession we are in right now. In the country it has gone down $300. In my State, the cost of health premiums over that same period of time went up 97 percent--it doubled. We are saying to working families, you are going to earn less but the cost of health insurance is going to go up by twice. Not only that, but the cost of higher education is going to go up 50 percent. Working families are getting squeezed.

What is happening is--because they are having double-digit cost increases every year, because small businesses are spending 18 percent more than large businesses to cover their employees--we are seeing already fewer and fewer people getting insurance from their employer. The number of people who are insured by employers in my State is dropping like a stone. The number of small businesses that are able to offer insurance anymore to their employees is dropping like a stone, which is heartbreaking to a lot of people because a lot of these businesses are family businesses where they pride themselves on having offered insurance for many years.

Where do these people end up in this debate we are having right now about a public option versus not? If they are poor enough, they end up on Medicaid, a government program. If they are not, they end up going to the emergency room where they get uncompensated care that we all pay for as taxpayers.

In the case of my city, in Denver, we have an excellent public hospital. They did a study 3 years ago that showed that in 1 year they spent $180 million treating people who were uncompensated, who were employed by small businesses. These are people working for a living every day but who do not have insurance. Who pays that bill? We, the taxpayers.

What I would say to people on the other side, or even on our side who are saying this is a bad idea, to give people more choice, more option, is that the system we have right now is landing people in public government options or landing them in the emergency room where the taxpayers are having to cover them with uncompensated care. We are just doing it in the least intentional way possible. We are doing it in the least thoughtful way possible and in many respects doing it in the most expensive way possible. People are not getting the kind of preventive care they ought to be getting, the screenings they ought to be getting on the front end so they don't show up in the hospital emergency room when they are dreadfully sick.

When I hear the objections to this and I realize how painful the status quo is right now for working families and small businesses--in the State of Colorado, but I also know in other States as well--I wonder sometimes what people are fighting against. What we are fighting for is a much more intentional approach to coverage, a much more intentional approach to quality, a much more intentional and rational approach to how we finance all of this.

It has been a pleasure to hear you tonight. I wanted to come and be part of the discussion.

If the Senator will yield, there is one other important component to this that people in my State have been talking to me about a

lot over the last 6 weeks or so. It has become clear that as part of this reform, because this is the way insurance needs to work if you are going to cover everything, as part of this reform there is a requirement that everybody have insurance.

People are saying to me: Michael, I want you to make sure you give me as many options as possible. If you are going to make a requirement as part of this, I want to maximize my choice. I want to be able to look at everything, whatever you call it--whether it is private insurance or public option, nonprofit plans--I want to be able, they say, to make the best decision that is in the interest of my family or make the best decisions in the interests of my business.

I don't know why we would want to say on the one hand we are going to require you to have insurance and on the other hand say we are going to constrain the range of choices that you can make on behalf of your family. We should not be making those choices here in Washington. Those are choices our families should be making for themselves.