Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia and the rest of my colleagues.

I have a few slides I wish to go through. But the basic point is, no matter what one thinks about the various health care bills that are out there and the various prescriptions that have been suggested, the status quo is not an option.

For me, this starts with fiscal responsibility. We have seen an unbelievable explosion in debt in our country, from $5 trillion, from the beginning of the previous administration, to $12 trillion today. If you look at what is causing it: As you can see from this slide, this is our revenue line. The biggest drivers of our deficit are the interest payments we have on this debt--that we are managing to pass on to our kids and our grandkids because we are unwilling to make the tough choices that need to be made--and rising Medicare and Medicaid costs, which is the red line right here. So one cost of inaction is we will continue to drive these insane deficits we are facing as a country.

In my State of Colorado--and the senior Senator from Colorado is in the Chamber as well--our working families and small businesses are suffering mightily because the economy is not working for them. Over the last decade, median family income in the State of Colorado has actually declined by $800 in real dollars, and that has happened all across the United States of America, where we see median family income down by $300.

At the same time, health care premiums have risen by 97 percent. The cost of higher education, by the way, has gone up 50 percent. Our working families are being asked to do more with less just for the basic necessities that are required to move your family ahead. These are not ``nice to haves.'' These are essential, if working families and the middle class are going to be able to move ahead.

The second reason we need reform is, as the Senator from Virginia said at the beginning of his comments, we are spending almost a fifth of our GDP on health care. That is more than twice a much as what any other industrialized country in the word is spending on their health care system.

As I have said in townhall meetings all across our State, this is no different than if you have two small businesses across the street from one another, with one spending a fifth of their revenue on their light bill and the other spending less than half that on their light bill. You do not need an MBA to know which of those two companies is going to be able to invest in their business plan and grow their business.

We have a lot to do to make sure this economy can compete in the 21st century. I would say one of the things we ought to do is not to devote a fifth of our economy to health care if we expect to compete.

This slide shows the rate of insurance premium increase in our State versus the rate of the increase in wages. These are absolutely related to each other. If

you talk to small businesses in any State--I am sure this is true in Virginia, as well as it is true in Colorado--small business owners are desperately trying to keep their employees insured, but the choice they are making is to pay them less in wages. This wage compression is related directly to the rate of the insurance premium.

The other chart of this slide simply shows if we change nothing there are going to be families all across this country who, by 2016, are going to be spending 40 percent of their income on health care--that is before you get to higher ed; that is before you get to rent or food--40 percent of every dollar on health care. It is absurd.

We see that health care is bankrupting middle-class Americans all over this country. We know 62 percent of bankruptcies are health care related. What is staggering to me is, 78 percent of those bankruptcies are happening to people who had insurance. The entire reason people buy insurance is so they have stability when their child gets sick or their spouse gets sick or they get sick. Seventy-eight percent of these bankruptcies have happened to people who had insurance.

Then, finally, no one is burdened more by the current system than small business and the employees who work for small businesses. In our State, small business pays 18 percent more for health insurance just because they are small. When I say that, sometimes people say: Well, Michael, don't you understand that is because the pool is smaller and it is harder to spread the risk. I say: I understand that. But from a business point of view--and the Senator from Virginia and I both have spent a lot of time in our careers working in the private sector--from a business point of view, that is absurd because these small businesses, if they are investing 18 percent more, ought to be expecting to be 18 percent more productive or, at a minimum, ought to have 18 percent better health care, and that is absolutely not the case.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

My final point, Mr. President, is we have been having a healthy debate about how we should do this reform, and there are a lot of people who are concerned about things such as a public option, things such as government control over health care. I would argue that the status quo is what is producing that because fewer and fewer of our working families are covered at work--which is what this slide shows-- and for every one of those people who then goes on uncompensated care, it is paid for by the American people.

So I join my colleagues today in saying, we absolutely cannot maintain this status quo. It is absolutely unsustainable. I look forward to a thoughtful, commonsense reform that works for working families and small businesses in my State.

Mr. President, 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 Sergeant Youvert Loney. Sergeant Loney, a member of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, CO, died on September 5, 2009. Sergeant Loney was serving in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Abad, Afghanistan, and sustained injuries when insurgents attacked his vehicle using small arms and rifles. He was 28 years old.

A native of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, Sergeant Loney moved to Fort Carson in 2006 when he was assigned to the 4th Infantry Division. Sergeant Loney joined the Army in October 2005. He served in Operation Iraqi Freedom from October 2006 until December 2007, contributing to renewed efforts to successfully secure Baghdad. He had served in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan with Fort Carson's Fourth Brigade Combat Team since June. Last month, his battalion worked to ensure security for Afghanistan's recent presidential elections.

During his nearly 4 years of service, Sergeant Loney 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 Loney more than 12 awards and medals, including two Purple Heart Medals, the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal.

Sergeant Loney 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, his children, 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 Loney'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, Sergeant Loney will forever be remembered as one of our country's bravest.

To Sergeant Loney's father Loakim, his wife Flora, his children, 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 Youvert'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, on this day, the day after the President's speech to the joint session, and on a day when so many of our colleagues have given so many moving tributes to Senator Kennedy, I come to the floor tonight to talk a little bit about health care. What I want to do is share a presentation I have given in every corner of my State--all across Colorado, in rural Colorado, urban Colorado.

I am extremely proud that over the course of the entire recess-- though we had townhall meetings all across our State, and though there were lots of different feelings about whether the reform we have been pursuing is a good idea--every one of the conversations we had was a substantive conversation, a serious conversation, about what our working families and small businesses are facing as a consequence of the status quo and also the fiscal problems we are facing as a country and how health care reform, done right, is an important part to fixing our financial health.

So tonight what I want to do is go through some of those slides. I will try to be pretty brief because the hour is late. But I want to give a context of the kinds of conversations we had in our State. I think the overarching feeling people had when we were done was that we do need to change the status quo. The status quo is absolutely intolerable for our working families and small businesses. But there is a deep concern that we have the capacity to make it even worse. I left every meeting saying I think that is too low a standard for the Congress. We need to do much better than that. We need to get this health care reform done. But we need to get it done right, and we need to take the time that is required to get it right.

The first thought I always started with was just to explain to people what the difference was between our deficit and our debt. Our deficit, as this slide shows, is the annual gap between our revenues and our expenses. And debt, which we have far too much of in this country, is what adds up year after year after year if we continue to have our deficits.

The second slide shows that over the years we have actually done a pretty good job of managing our deficit. Anything over 3 percent of GDP is a problem because it is not sustainable. Our borrowing costs will outstrip our ability to catch up to our deficits if we are above 3 percent GDP. This slide shows, over the years, except for in wartime, except in World War II--and more recently during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--we have not gone far above the 3 percent of GDP.

This slide just shows us how we have stacked up debt so quickly over the last decade or so. We had about $5 trillion of debt on the country, on the Nation when the last President assumed the Presidency. We are now at $12 trillion. As we can see, there has been an enormous spike between 2000 and today.

This is just a slide that shows how much debt this really is. Our entire economy, our entire GDP, gross domestic product, is $14 trillion. Our debt is $12 trillion today. We can see that these other countries all have a much smaller GDP than we do. That is good news.

Unfortunately, some of these folks, particularly China, own an awful lot of our debt.

We also took the time to say to people: How did this happen? How did we let this happen to the American people and to our kids and our grandkids? How is it possible that in virtually the blink of an eye we went from having $5 trillion of debt on the country to having $12 trillion of national debt?

As we can see here, both parties bear responsibility for where we are. The tax cuts in the early 2000s are responsible for $1.4 trillion of the debt passed on to our kids and our grandkids; $900 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which we did not pay for--we did not make the choices we needed to pay for it; we put it on our kids and our grandkids--the Recovery Act funding, which is roughly $780 billion--40 percent or so in tax cuts, the rest in spending--the bank bailout, half in the last administration, half in this administration, $600 billion, and Medicare Part D, the drug program for seniors, which, again, may be a very legitimate program. It may be a program people would like to have. We did not pay for it. We said to our kids and our grandkids: You pay for it.

These are just CBO numbers that show our steady state. If we do not do anything to change course, the amount of debt will just continue to grow.

Then, finally--and this is going to take us into the health care discussion we had in Colorado over the recess--if we look at the biggest drivers of our future deficits, what we see on this slide is that here is our tax revenue line, and we can see it is pretty flat over time, from 2008 to 2039. But the biggest drivers are our interest on the debt that we are putting on the backs of our kids and our grandkids, and the spiraling cost--or maybe a better word is the skyrocketing cost, given the direction of this line--of Medicare and Medicaid.

The President talked about this last night. The biggest driver, other than interest, is rising Medicare and Medicaid costs. Obviously, the biggest driver of rising Medicare and Medicaid costs is rising health care costs.

So, in my judgment, no matter what one thinks about the health care reform discussion, if you are somebody who takes seriously the idea that we have to get hold of our deficit, we have to get hold of this national debt before it so constrains the choices of our kids and our grandkids that we are not providing them with the kind of choices or opportunities they ought to have, we need to do something about the trajectory of those Medicare and Medicaid lines, and that means health care reform.

This slide shows there is no way we can cut ourselves out of the problem with just discretionary spending cuts. This slide shows if we do not do anything differently now, we are all going to be talking about tax cuts in the future that none of us would ever reasonably support.

So my view is we do face a very significant fiscal challenge in this country and that health care reform is not sufficient to solve that problem, but it is an important step, and, in fact, the problem cannot be solved without addressing health care.

As this slide says, we need to urgently address health care reform to

help solve our Nation's fiscal crisis and also provide greater access to quality, affordable health coverage.

There are a lot of questions in my State about whether we are up to making the tough choices that need to be made to be able to create a piece of legislation that can produce meaningful reform and can do it in a way that changes the cost curve for Medicare and Medicaid. I, frankly, do not think we have a choice. I do not think we have a choice because our working families and small businesses cannot endure another decade like the last one.

These numbers apply to my State but are very similar in States all across the United States. In Colorado, if we look over the last 10 years, our median family income has actually gone down by about $800. By the way, that was before we entered the worst recession since the Great Depression. So that number is probably even worse today. Most certainly it is worse.

This, by the way, is an important issue for our working families, our families in our State, because it implies something about how well our economy is working or not working for middle-class families. It is very worrisome to see that our income is down $800. The national number, I believe, over the same period is that it is down $300.

But at the same time our families' revenues were flat, the health care cost premiums in Colorado went up by 97 percent--almost double. Mr. President, I can tell you, I have now visited every one of the 64 counties in Colorado and had conversations in every place. I can find people who disagree on everything. But I can also tell you there is not a single person in a single one of those counties who has said to me: My health care insurance is 97 percent better today than it was at the beginning of the decade or my health care coverage is 97 percent better than it was at the beginning of the decade. Thank you, Michael Bennet, for making sure my costs went up by 97 percent. Nobody is saying that. In fact, the reverse is true. The quality of the coverage is actually going down.

In my State, also, over the same period of time, the cost of higher education has gone up by 50 percent. So here is what we are saying to our working families: You are going to have to make due with less. Your income in real dollars is going to be lower at the end of the decade than it was at the beginning of the decade. And, at the same time, you are going to have to assume dramatically increased health care premium costs and a dramatically increased cost for sending your child to one of our institutions of higher education.

It is no wonder that given the circumstances where household revenue is flat, the costs of things that are not nice to have--they are essential for the stability of our working families and our small businesses--that as our revenues have been flat, these costs have skyrocketed absolutely out of control. It is no wonder why, in my State and in States all across the United States, that the last decade saw a time when families were saving not what they usually saved--which is 7 percent of their net income--but zero, and going into debt with credit cards and home equity loans in order to try to bridge this extraordinary gap between their revenues and their costs.

This is the second slide I showed on this subject in my State. This just makes the point that today in the United States, we are spending roughly 18 percent of our gross domestic product on health care. That is going to 20 percent in the blink of an eye if we don't do something different. What I believe and what I said out there is that we can't hope to compete in this global economy if we are spending a fifth of our economy on health care and every other industrialized country in the world is spending less than half that, or at least if we can find a way to spend less than that on health care, we should so that we can compete.

It is no different than if you had two small businesses--and the Presiding Officer is a small business owner--two small businesses across the street from each other that did the exact same thing and one was spending a fifth of its revenue on its light bill and the small business across the street was spending less than half that. You don't need an MBA to know which of those two companies is going to be able to invest in its business plan and grow for the future. So if we are going to compete in the way I know this country can compete, we have to do better than spending more than twice what all of our competition is spending on health care.

This is another slide that shows just how tough this has become for our middle-class families in Colorado. What we see here is that this is between 2000 and 2007. Again, this is before we entered the worst recession since the Great Depression. The numbers would be worse today. But what this shows is the rate of increase of insurance premiums--that is the red line--and the rate of increase in wages, which is the blue line.

When I was in these meetings, I would ask: Are there any small business people here?

And they would say: Yes, we are here.

I would say: Is this related? Are these two curves related to each other?

And they said: Of course, they are related to each other, because we are doing everything we can to try to continue to offer health insurance to our employees, but one of the effects that is having is we can't pay people the salary increases to which they are entitled.

So there is a direct relationship between the cost of insurance and the wage compression that is happening in our State.

By the way, I would hazard a guess that one of the reasons median family income is down is that small businesses are struggling mightily to keep insuring their workforce.

This is just a slide that shows that if we don't change anything, if we hang on to the status quo, by 2016 a lot of our families are going to be spending 40 cents of every one of their household dollars on health insurance.

The current system is bankrupting a lot of our families. Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies are health care related. But the amazing thing to me on this slide is that of those health care-related bankruptcies, nearly 80 percent of them were folks who had coverage. These are people who bought coverage, they paid into the system to create security, to create stability, and when they needed that protection, it wasn't there. As a result, their families went bankrupt.

By the way, this could happen to anybody. As the President said last night, you could be anybody. Nobody can predict when they are going to get sick or when a child of theirs is going to get sick. That is an important point too.

All of these slides, everything up here is not about the folks in our country who aren't insured or the folks in our country who are insured; this is about 300 million Americans. Everything we have talked about should be of concern to everybody in our country.

This slide just shows what the current system means for small businesses, which, again, have struggled mightily--family-owned businesses, small businesses--to keep insuring their workforce. The slide on the left tells us that our small businesses pay 18 percent more to cover their employees than large businesses do.

While I was on the road, somebody said to me: Well, Michael, don't you know the reason for that is they are small and their pool is smaller and it is harder to spread the insurance risks across a small group of people?

Of course, that is true. But from a business perspective, it is absolutely ridiculous because no small business owner I know would invest 18 percent more for something unless they were making their business 18 percent more productive. Of course, the reverse is true here because they are buying the same thing the large company is-- except they are not even buying the same thing. It is not as though they are getting 18 percent better coverage for their employees than the larger employers. The deductibles are higher. The lack of predictability is greater. It is a huge problem for small businesses.

It is no surprise that in my State, between 2002 and 2007, you can see the drop in the percentage of folks who are insured at work. Most of our folks, like the folks in the State of the Presiding Officer, are employed by small businesses, and we can see the effect these cost increases are having. They are just not able to keep up with those increases. The proof is in the pudding. Here we see that over 50 percent of

small businesses in 2000 were insuring their workforce, and now we are at about 40 percent, and that number is dropping.

So in my view, no matter where you are on questions such as a public option--which I support and have supported--or not a public option, the thing that should find us all together is driving costs down in our system.

I won't bother to go through all of these tonight, but I will say that, in my judgment, a lot of this is pretty commonsense reform that we all ought to be able to support: Changing our incentive structure so we reimburse people based on quality of care, not the quantity of care.

Coordinating patient care. We have an incredible example of this in Colorado with the Rocky Mountain Health Plans on our Western Slope and Grand Junction, Mesa County, also at the University of Colorado at Denver, also at Denver Health, the public hospital in Denver. But there are examples all over this country, such as the Mayo Clinic, a place any one of us would be proud to send our kids or send our parents for care, which is delivering a higher quality of care at a lower price. It is something we should all be able to support.

More focus on money on preventive care.

Increased competition so that our families and small businesses have a broader pool from which to choose. Fifty-three percent of people in my State, the State of Colorado, are insured by just two insurers.

This is an important point we haven't talked about enough; that is, the investment in health care IT. When I traveled through the 64 counties, there was not a county that I went to where there wasn't a convenience store. Apart from the loose beef jerky that sits on the counter, everything in that store had a bar code on it. That is 1970s technology that people have used to manage the inventory of their local convenience store, the business owner has used to manage their inventory. Only 3 percent of hospitals in this country use that sort of technology. One out of 25 doctors in this country uses that technology.

I am a parent of three little girls. They are 10, 8, and 5. I can't tell you the number of times I have had to take them to the doctor or take them to an emergency room and have to explain again the whole story of why we were there and what the last doctor told us or what the last nurse told us. That is not the fault of the doctors or nurses, but it is the fault of having a system of insurance and a medical system that has not invested in technology.

I have spent roughly half my career in the private sector. When I look at the complete lack of investment in technology when it comes to health care and when it comes to electronic medical records, I find it breathtaking, staggering that we could have that kind of inefficiency. So this is an important investment as well.

Then, bundling payments to encourage medical professionals to work together for the benefit of patients.

The final slide I wanted to share is just a reminder that there is a lot of insurance reform that is part of the proposals that are floating around the Congress. This is the whole issue about having people no longer denied insurance because they have a preexisting condition or are losing their insurance because they face a lifetime cap of some kind that many people don't even know they have in their policy or because their child gets sick and nobody predicted that and they get thrown off their policy or because they lose their job. I think all of us can agree that is a good idea.

So as we leave this week and we go home again this weekend, as I get to go back to Colorado and continue to have conversations with people in my State, what I am going to be focused on are the areas of agreement that working families, small businesses, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, can all agree upon. I think if we could focus our energy there, focus our attention there, what we are going to find is that the areas of disagreement are actually smaller than we imagined them to be.

Finally, in my view, we have waited far too long to do these commonsense reforms. I know there is a lot of concern about our rushing into something, and I don't think we should rush. But I think we need to get this done, and I think we need to get it done right. The American people need us to because they cannot endure another 10 years of graphs that look like the ones I showed you.

I don't want to have to go back to Colorado and explain why only 25 percent of people are covered at work or why there has been another 97 percent increase in premiums or why, when people buy insurance, there is no predictability to that insurance. I have great hope and optimism that, working together, we are going to get that kind of health care reform done in a smart, wise, measured way, and in a way that will require implementation over a period of time. There is no doubt in my mind we are going to get this done.

With that, I thank the Chair for listening to my remarks.

I ask unanimous consent that, under the previous order, the Senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. President, I cannot tell you how much I appreciated your remarks--I was sitting in the chair--and those of Chairman Dodd as well. The hour is late. The idea that you would be here at that hour to talk about something as important as health care is appreciated, I know, by the people in your State, but also by the people in my State as well. So I say thank you for that.

I also want to talk about health care. I want to talk about health care in the context of fiscal discipline in this country. As you know, our Nation's annual deficits are staggering, and our

national debt is absolutely unsustainable. For the future of our country and for our children's sake, as we recover from this devastating blow to our economy, we have to stand together and begin to start the difficult, but essential, work of putting our fiscal house in order.

Health care reform must help solve this Nation's fiscal problems, not make them worse. To accomplish this, effective reform must bend the cost curve in health care spending both in the private and public sectors.

In part because of years of neglect and inaction, this Congress has reached a defining moment of reckoning. Rising health care costs, especially Medicare costs, are now the largest driver of our deficits. Our Nation's health care spending, as you were just saying, is 17 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product and is expected to grow to over 20 percent of GDP in 10 years, on its way, as you said, to 35 percent.

Health care alone--just health care--will soon account for one-fifth of our economy. This represents a greater share of the GDP than our manufacturing, agricultural, forestry, mining, and construction industries combined.

As we emerge from this terrible recession, the worst since the Great Depression, we cannot commit one-fifth of our economy to health care and expect to compete effectively in the global marketplace.

Adding to the urgency of the problem, this recession has made rocketing health care costs even more painful for families and businesses in the last 15 months. Both large businesses and small businesses have cut some 5.1 million jobs, and 2.4 million of these newly unemployed workers have lost the health coverage their jobs once provided. Now the same people must try to find insurance in the individual market where they can be rejected by private insurance companies for preexisting conditions such as asthma, diabetes, or even cancer.

Health care costs are strangling opportunities for working families and small businesses all over my State and the country. As health care costs rise, families are forced to make choices no one should have to make between insuring their families or their employees and sending their kids to college, taking lower paying jobs with less responsibility just for the medical benefits and defaulting on their mortgage payments to pay for their medical bills.

Every one of these examples springs from the experiences of people in my State. And it is no mystery why people are having to make these terrible choices. Middle-class wages are not even close to keeping up with these rising insurance costs. While median family income in this country fell by $300 during the last decade--staggering, by the way; over a decade in real dollars, median family income in the United States actually declined by $300--health care costs increased over the same period by 80 percent.

The cost of health insurance is eating into family budgets faster and faster. Over the past decades, premiums for Colorado families, as this chart shows us, have more than doubled, growing four times faster than wage increases. The cost of premiums for a Colorado family is over $13,000 today. If we do nothing, by 2016, Colorado families will be spending over $25,000 on their premiums, a 90-percent increase. We have come out of a period with an 85-percent increase, and if we do nothing, we are going to end up in a period with a 90-percent increase, with no real increase in wages.

Left unaddressed, this imbalance, which is the creation of our catastrophically inefficient health care system, will destroy the middle class in this country. If we do nothing, if we continue on with the status quo, by 2016, just 7 years from now--and I believe these numbers are very similar to the ones you quoted for Rhode Island--by 2016, 40 cents of every dollar a typical Colorado family earns will be eaten up by health care costs, leaving just 60 cents for everything else.

Think about it. That is almost half an average family's income. Money spent not to educate their children, not to feed them or house them, but just to cover the cost of the family health care plan. And that is just paying for coverage. Never mind if you actually get sick.

In 2007, 62 percent of the personal bankruptcies in this country were due to medical costs. Traditionally, most people's employers help pay for cost increases. That has been the case for over many years. But I heard from employers all over Colorado having to make tough choices-- cutting back on benefits and laying off more costs to their employees.

In the coming years, copays for Coloradans will go up double digits. More Coloradans are being forced into health plans with higher deductibles, and more employers are getting out of the business of providing health insurance for their employees altogether.

Mr. President, we won't be able to completely flatten the health care cost curve in the short run, and we should be careful not to overpromise, but we have to make the rising cost of health care something our economy can plausibly absorb.

Part of the solution is reducing waste and curbing overpayments to insurance companies, and part of the answer is encouraging patients to seek preventive care. Small businesses may not see health costs go down immediately, but we sure can slow their rise. And we have to work hard to make sure they do not rise this quickly. Reforming our health care system could save over 100,000 small business jobs in the coming years that would otherwise be lost if we do nothing.

I agree with bipartisan voices saying that our first health care goal has to be to drive down costs, and we must start with Medicare. As I travel throughout Colorado, I have met countless physicians, nurses, and hospital workers who tell me about the perverse incentives in Medicare. Instead of being paid to spend time with patients and produce better quality care, doctors and nurses are paid for the number of patients they see in the shortest amount of time and the number of procedures they perform. This is no way to produce patient-centered care, and it is no way to reduce cost.

Medicare doesn't just influence, as you know, the care of the elderly and disabled. As the largest health care program in the United States, Medicare influences every level of health care. Private insurance and employer-based health care look to Medicare as they make decisions on what to pay doctors, nurses, and hospitals. Owing to the perverse incentives in Medicare, however, since 1970--since 1970--every year for almost 40 years, year-in and year-out, Medicare spending per person has risen by over 8 percent each year, and private insurance spending per person has risen by over 9 percent each year.

If we expect reform to begin to gain any traction, we must drive cost down at the Federal level first. We can start by paying doctors and nurses to actually do what they are supposed to do and what they want to do--be focused on patients. We have to reform the system so that we are paying for quality and not volume. We must improve care, produce savings, and slow down cost growth by bundling payments, paying for performance and outcomes, and providing better coordinated care for patients and providers.

The burden is on us to meet the public expectation that we will drive down costs in the health care system and make it more efficient, that we will make the health care marketplace more competitive, and that we will provide affordable, stable health care coverage to the American people that can't be taken away because they lose a job, have a preexisting condition, or have reached some arbitrary cap.

Controlling health care costs would help our fiscal situation a great deal, and that is one of the fundamental reasons health care reform is needed. But this alone will not be enough to fill the deepening hole of national debt that threatens America's prosperity. The fiscal decisions we make today matter so much because they will dictate the well-being and range of choices of the generations that follow us.

Sometimes, with the daily hail of press clippings, these issues may seem overly complex, but I like to use a pretty simple analogy. The way we run our government is not different than if you or I were to buy a house--probably a bigger one than we reasonably could afford--and then we tell the bank to please send the mortgage documents to our kids. Imagine how that burden--paying for mom and dad's house--would constrain our children's choices. What dreams would they have to defer

because their first obligation was a debt they didn't even incur.

My three daughters, ages 9, 8 and 5, have never had an economics class, but I can tell you that as much as they love their mom and dad, if asked, they would never do that deal--especially my 5-year-old, Anne. Whether we are taking her blanket away or telling her to stop sucking her thumb or putting a mountain of debt on her, she knows a raw deal when she sees one.

We in Congress owe the next generation much more than this, as the chairman, Senator Dodd, was saying. We ought to be able to build on our roles as parents and community leaders to respect our children, come together, and plan America's way back to fiscal health. The longer we wait, the more difficult the choices become. If we wait 10 years, we will face a massive gap between our spending and the revenue the government collects. If we wait 10 years to take action, we would have to increase individual income taxes by almost 90 percent to keep pace. That is an unacceptable outcome for Colorado's families. If you don't like tax increases, fine, then we would have to slash Federal spending by almost one-half. That would mean massive cuts to Medicare, our Nation's defense, and other critical initiatives that keep our country strong. No one wants to be put in a position to make those kinds of choices either. These outcomes are unacceptable, yet we can see them coming. That is why inaction is so unacceptable on health care and also on returning to policies of fiscal discipline. It is long past time to put in place the policies that will reverse this condition. And as with any deep hole, the first order of business is to stop digging.

The good news is that we have a tried-and-true way to stop making matters worse. In the 1990s, we had Pay-Go, which effectively forced the shovel from Congress's hands and made Congress stop digging. Pay-Go means that before Congress can create new spending on permanent programs, it needs to figure out how to pay for that new spending, just as every family in the States we represent.

Pay-Go helped turn 1980s deficits into 1990s surpluses, and we actually began to pay down our debt. Pay-Go is commonsense budgeting. It is not any different, as I just said, than what a family does when its spending gets out of hand. When that bad credit card statements comes in the mail, a parent knows it is time to sit down at the kitchen table and plan how to stop the spending. Pay-Go is what Congress and President Clinton did to respond to Washington's bad credit card bill.

Pay-Go was smart lawmaking because it imposed a culture of fiscal responsibility--and I would say discipline--on the Congress. Yet, for some reason, early in this decade a new administration let Pay-Go expire. That played a part in how these surpluses all of a sudden turned back into big annual deficits. This is how America incurred years of new debt.

The frustrating reality is that we are not getting enough out of borrowing all this money in the end--fighting an expensive war with tremendous unseen long-term costs to follow, ignoring the staggering costs of our health care system and entitlements, paying huge interest costs on our debt, in large part to foreign countries. These are hardly worthy uses of deficit spending.

In 2003, the Bush administration and Congress passed a new entitlement program called Medicare Part D. It is very popular, but we never paid a dime for it. They also chose two tax cuts for people who needed them least over fiscal discipline. They ignored skyrocketing mandatory spending. They created a brandnew bureaucracy and just saddled all of this heavy new weight on America's national debt.

In short, Washington was unwilling to ask the American people to pay for any of its investments--they put it on our children's shoulders instead.

And the tragedy of this incredible mismanagement is, it didn't work. Our economy plunged into its deepest hole since the Great Depression.

Fortunately, earlier this year, the House rightly passed new statutory Pay-Go. The Senate should pass Pay-Go too. That's why today, Senator McCaskill and I introduced Pay-Go. We believe that Pay-Go is one important way to make sure that our fiscal situation doesn't get any worse. Pay-Go is not a magic bullet, but it is part of the answer to our fiscal woes.

Once Pay-Go is in place though, we cannot stop there. Pay-Go will help us stop digging. But we also need to budget for the future, stop running large deficits and fill this fiscal hole completely. I am optimistic that this can be done, and it will take bipartisan commitment and discipline.

One place to start is with the growth of our yearly spending. Like Pay-Go, the yearly spending of Congress has also been done before, and it has worked.

That is why today I am introducing separate legislation, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2009, that would create yearly limits on discretionary spending. By pairing these discretionary spending limits with Pay-Go, we can start to make a substantial change in how Washington does business.

But it is not enough just to limit new spending across the board. Much of the reason that we are running such large deficits, is that we have made long-term spending commitments, called mandatory spending. To truly reverse the totality of our disastrous fiscal course, we must be willing to address rapidly expanding mandatory commitments too.

The best way--you know, it is funny, when you use the word ``mandatory.'' It is the word that should be used to express what this debt burden is we are putting on our kids. It will be mandatory that they pay that back before they make decisions about how to educate their own children; before they make decisions about how to provide individual health care in this country or make other kinds of investments all across the United States, in transportation or in new economies. What will be mandatory as we fall farther and farther behind in this global economy--what will be mandatory for them is to pay the bill left behind by their mothers and fathers.

The best way to get Congress to take a hard look at mandatory spending, is to place a flexible cap on our annual deficits. That's the other main component of what my new legislation would do. The cap in the Deficit Reduction Act is realistic--it would impose limits that are consistent with what economists believe we can sustain. This deficit limit is flexible--providing an exception when we are in a recession.

Here is how the deficit limit would work. Whatever the gross domestic product is in a given year, Congress must limit the deficit to 3 percent of the GDP or less. Economists tell us that this 3 percent number is sustainable over time, and that is a reasonably healthy ceiling. Now of course we should push to do better than running a deficit that is 3 percent of GDP. But this is a good starting point at setting and adhering to a budget. We would all clap if the deficits of today--12 or 13 percent of GDP--were 3 percent, and no one would clap louder than our children.

Under my legislation, if Congress failed to meet these deficit control requirements, the government would have to impose an across the board cut called a sequestration. Certain programs such as Social Security and veterans programs would not be subject to cuts. Yet most of the government's functions would be. The goal, of course, is to avoid this drastic measure by forcing Congress to plan ahead, and forcing Congress to pay attention to the deficit when it makes its spending choices.

Deficit limits make perfect sense during most years. But, as we have learned during this recession, an infusion of public funds can jolt a frozen economy and help turn that economy around. Running temporary deficits can kickstart a stagnant economy. But this only works if during healthy economic times, you also reduce government spending. The deficit limits I am proposing in this legislation would put Congress on a gradual track back to solid fiscal footing.

We should immediately enact budget reform proposals like Pay-Go discretionary spending limits and deficit limits. The CBO has concluded that after 2019, the rate at which we accumulate debt will continue to accelerate due to the aging of the population and increased health care costs. As angry as we all are with the excessive leverage in the private marketplace over the past decade that contributed to the market crashing, it is also obvious that Washington set a very bad example.

Let's put an end to these unsound fiscal practices. Let's not put our kids in the kind of situation we have inherited. Let's not make matters even worse, and the policy decisions regarding the national debt even harder for our kids.

What we need now is leadership and cooperation; not more shifting costs to our kids. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we remain on our current course, the total debt owed by the public will stand at over $17 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2019--only 10 years from today.

The point is that linked with our growing debt are the dreams and the plans of millions of American families. There is nothing fun about tightening our belt and cutting popular programs. I don't like it any more than anyone else who is here. Yet there are plenty of encouraging signs that this Congress and this President can stand together and do exactly that. Recently, just a couple of weeks ago, the Senate stood with the President for fiscal discipline and slashed nearly $2 billion from an outdated weapons system. That is a good start that I gladly supported. But so much more is left to do.

Coloradans already know we are in a bad way. People in my State are well aware that the excesses in recent years are catching up to us, and they know that Congress and the President have to make hard fiscal choices, reform health care before it eats up our entire budget, and pay for our reform efforts.

This challenging outlook may be just what it takes to bring both political parties to the negotiating table. Paired with Pay-Go, it is my hope that this new legislation can be a real starting point for meaningful fiscal negotiations. It is time we come up with an intelligent framework of fiscal management, that keeps Congress thinking ahead each time it makes a decision, and each time it puts together an annual budget, and each time it is faced with America's long-term fiscal trajectory.

Washington's fiscal mess was created over many years, and we won't solve the problem overnight. But this bill would give Congress and the President a guidepost to make the decisions necessary to get our budget under control. It would set a strong and binding standard for us to act responsibly.

We must start with what unites us. When I worry about what type of country we will leave my daughters and all of our young people, I know that others who vote differently than I do have the same worries. We owe more to our kids than to leave them a huge national debt and no plan to get out of it.

If we don't start making difficult decisions soon, we will be limiting our children's ability to make our country a better place, before they even get started. We will be limiting their ability to invest in education, life-saving scientific research, or new technologies that form the foundation of economic growth. We will be limiting their ability to defend the Nation during future times of war that we can't even think of today. And we will be limiting their chances of having a quality of life even better than what our parents and grandparents left to us.

If we fail to confront the tough issues so we can control the cost of health care, we will have squandered this narrow window of opportunity. If we fail to step up to the plate and pass a fiscally sound health care reform bill, this Congress will be remembered for years to come as having let down the country. If we fail--not just to stop digging this deep fiscal hole, but to put a process in place for climbing back up to solid fiscal footing--we will have failed to perform as the stewards of our children's dreams.

Let's stand together, with our President and with American families. Let's get health care reform done responsibly, let's take action to reduce the deficit and debt, and let's put this economy back on track.

Mr. President, I cannot tell you how much I appreciated your remarks--I was sitting in the chair--and those of Chairman Dodd as well. The hour is late. The idea that you would be here at that hour to talk about something as important as health care is appreciated, I know, by the people in your State, but also by the people in my State as well. So I say thank you for that.

I also want to talk about health care. I want to talk about health care in the context of fiscal discipline in this country. As you know, our Nation's annual deficits are staggering, and our

national debt is absolutely unsustainable. For the future of our country and for our children's sake, as we recover from this devastating blow to our economy, we have to stand together and begin to start the difficult, but essential, work of putting our fiscal house in order.

Health care reform must help solve this Nation's fiscal problems, not make them worse. To accomplish this, effective reform must bend the cost curve in health care spending both in the private and public sectors.

In part because of years of neglect and inaction, this Congress has reached a defining moment of reckoning. Rising health care costs, especially Medicare costs, are now the largest driver of our deficits. Our Nation's health care spending, as you were just saying, is 17 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product and is expected to grow to over 20 percent of GDP in 10 years, on its way, as you said, to 35 percent.

Health care alone--just health care--will soon account for one-fifth of our economy. This represents a greater share of the GDP than our manufacturing, agricultural, forestry, mining, and construction industries combined.

As we emerge from this terrible recession, the worst since the Great Depression, we cannot commit one-fifth of our economy to health care and expect to compete effectively in the global marketplace.

Adding to the urgency of the problem, this recession has made rocketing health care costs even more painful for families and businesses in the last 15 months. Both large businesses and small businesses have cut some 5.1 million jobs, and 2.4 million of these newly unemployed workers have lost the health coverage their jobs once provided. Now the same people must try to find insurance in the individual market where they can be rejected by private insurance companies for preexisting conditions such as asthma, diabetes, or even cancer.

Health care costs are strangling opportunities for working families and small businesses all over my State and the country. As health care costs rise, families are forced to make choices no one should have to make between insuring their families or their employees and sending their kids to college, taking lower paying jobs with less responsibility just for the medical benefits and defaulting on their mortgage payments to pay for their medical bills.

Every one of these examples springs from the experiences of people in my State. And it is no mystery why people are having to make these terrible choices. Middle-class wages are not even close to keeping up with these rising insurance costs. While median family income in this country fell by $300 during the last decade--staggering, by the way; over a decade in real dollars, median family income in the United States actually declined by $300--health care costs increased over the same period by 80 percent.

The cost of health insurance is eating into family budgets faster and faster. Over the past decades, premiums for Colorado families, as this chart shows us, have more than doubled, growing four times faster than wage increases. The cost of premiums for a Colorado family is over $13,000 today. If we do nothing, by 2016, Colorado families will be spending over $25,000 on their premiums, a 90-percent increase. We have come out of a period with an 85-percent increase, and if we do nothing, we are going to end up in a period with a 90-percent increase, with no real increase in wages.

Left unaddressed, this imbalance, which is the creation of our catastrophically inefficient health care system, will destroy the middle class in this country. If we do nothing, if we continue on with the status quo, by 2016, just 7 years from now--and I believe these numbers are very similar to the ones you quoted for Rhode Island--by 2016, 40 cents of every dollar a typical Colorado family earns will be eaten up by health care costs, leaving just 60 cents for everything else.

Think about it. That is almost half an average family's income. Money spent not to educate their children, not to feed them or house them, but just to cover the cost of the family health care plan. And that is just paying for coverage. Never mind if you actually get sick.

In 2007, 62 percent of the personal bankruptcies in this country were due to medical costs. Traditionally, most people's employers help pay for cost increases. That has been the case for over many years. But I heard from employers all over Colorado having to make tough choices-- cutting back on benefits and laying off more costs to their employees.

In the coming years, copays for Coloradans will go up double digits. More Coloradans are being forced into health plans with higher deductibles, and more employers are getting out of the business of providing health insurance for their employees altogether.

Mr. President, we won't be able to completely flatten the health care cost curve in the short run, and we should be careful not to overpromise, but we have to make the rising cost of health care something our economy can plausibly absorb.

Part of the solution is reducing waste and curbing overpayments to insurance companies, and part of the answer is encouraging patients to seek preventive care. Small businesses may not see health costs go down immediately, but we sure can slow their rise. And we have to work hard to make sure they do not rise this quickly. Reforming our health care system could save over 100,000 small business jobs in the coming years that would otherwise be lost if we do nothing.

I agree with bipartisan voices saying that our first health care goal has to be to drive down costs, and we must start with Medicare. As I travel throughout Colorado, I have met countless physicians, nurses, and hospital workers who tell me about the perverse incentives in Medicare. Instead of being paid to spend time with patients and produce better quality care, doctors and nurses are paid for the number of patients they see in the shortest amount of time and the number of procedures they perform. This is no way to produce patient-centered care, and it is no way to reduce cost.

Medicare doesn't just influence, as you know, the care of the elderly and disabled. As the largest health care program in the United States, Medicare influences every level of health care. Private insurance and employer-based health care look to Medicare as they make decisions on what to pay doctors, nurses, and hospitals. Owing to the perverse incentives in Medicare, however, since 1970--since 1970--every year for almost 40 years, year-in and year-out, Medicare spending per person has risen by over 8 percent each year, and private insurance spending per person has risen by over 9 percent each year.

If we expect reform to begin to gain any traction, we must drive cost down at the Federal level first. We can start by paying doctors and nurses to actually do what they are supposed to do and what they want to do--be focused on patients. We have to reform the system so that we are paying for quality and not volume. We must improve care, produce savings, and slow down cost growth by bundling payments, paying for performance and outcomes, and providing better coordinated care for patients and providers.

The burden is on us to meet the public expectation that we will drive down costs in the health care system and make it more efficient, that we will make the health care marketplace more competitive, and that we will provide affordable, stable health care coverage to the American people that can't be taken away because they lose a job, have a preexisting condition, or have reached some arbitrary cap.

Controlling health care costs would help our fiscal situation a great deal, and that is one of the fundamental reasons health care reform is needed. But this alone will not be enough to fill the deepening hole of national debt that threatens America's prosperity. The fiscal decisions we make today matter so much because they will dictate the well-being and range of choices of the generations that follow us.

Sometimes, with the daily hail of press clippings, these issues may seem overly complex, but I like to use a pretty simple analogy. The way we run our government is not different than if you or I were to buy a house--probably a bigger one than we reasonably could afford--and then we tell the bank to please send the mortgage documents to our kids. Imagine how that burden--paying for mom and dad's house--would constrain our children's choices. What dreams would they have to defer

because their first obligation was a debt they didn't even incur.

My three daughters, ages 9, 8 and 5, have never had an economics class, but I can tell you that as much as they love their mom and dad, if asked, they would never do that deal--especially my 5-year-old, Anne. Whether we are taking her blanket away or telling her to stop sucking her thumb or putting a mountain of debt on her, she knows a raw deal when she sees one.

We in Congress owe the next generation much more than this, as the chairman, Senator Dodd, was saying. We ought to be able to build on our roles as parents and community leaders to respect our children, come together, and plan America's way back to fiscal health. The longer we wait, the more difficult the choices become. If we wait 10 years, we will face a massive gap between our spending and the revenue the government collects. If we wait 10 years to take action, we would have to increase individual income taxes by almost 90 percent to keep pace. That is an unacceptable outcome for Colorado's families. If you don't like tax increases, fine, then we would have to slash Federal spending by almost one-half. That would mean massive cuts to Medicare, our Nation's defense, and other critical initiatives that keep our country strong. No one wants to be put in a position to make those kinds of choices either. These outcomes are unacceptable, yet we can see them coming. That is why inaction is so unacceptable on health care and also on returning to policies of fiscal discipline. It is long past time to put in place the policies that will reverse this condition. And as with any deep hole, the first order of business is to stop digging.

The good news is that we have a tried-and-true way to stop making matters worse. In the 1990s, we had Pay-Go, which effectively forced the shovel from Congress's hands and made Congress stop digging. Pay-Go means that before Congress can create new spending on permanent programs, it needs to figure out how to pay for that new spending, just as every family in the States we represent.

Pay-Go helped turn 1980s deficits into 1990s surpluses, and we actually began to pay down our debt. Pay-Go is commonsense budgeting. It is not any different, as I just said, than what a family does when its spending gets out of hand. When that bad credit card statements comes in the mail, a parent knows it is time to sit down at the kitchen table and plan how to stop the spending. Pay-Go is what Congress and President Clinton did to respond to Washington's bad credit card bill.

Pay-Go was smart lawmaking because it imposed a culture of fiscal responsibility--and I would say discipline--on the Congress. Yet, for some reason, early in this decade a new administration let Pay-Go expire. That played a part in how these surpluses all of a sudden turned back into big annual deficits. This is how America incurred years of new debt.

The frustrating reality is that we are not getting enough out of borrowing all this money in the end--fighting an expensive war with tremendous unseen long-term costs to follow, ignoring the staggering costs of our health care system and entitlements, paying huge interest costs on our debt, in large part to foreign countries. These are hardly worthy uses of deficit spending.

In 2003, the Bush administration and Congress passed a new entitlement program called Medicare Part D. It is very popular, but we never paid a dime for it. They also chose two tax cuts for people who needed them least over fiscal discipline. They ignored skyrocketing mandatory spending. They created a brandnew bureaucracy and just saddled all of this heavy new weight on America's national debt.

In short, Washington was unwilling to ask the American people to pay for any of its investments--they put it on our children's shoulders instead.

And the tragedy of this incredible mismanagement is, it didn't work. Our economy plunged into its deepest hole since the Great Depression.

Fortunately, earlier this year, the House rightly passed new statutory Pay-Go. The Senate should pass Pay-Go too. That's why today, Senator McCaskill and I introduced Pay-Go. We believe that Pay-Go is one important way to make sure that our fiscal situation doesn't get any worse. Pay-Go is not a magic bullet, but it is part of the answer to our fiscal woes.

Once Pay-Go is in place though, we cannot stop there. Pay-Go will help us stop digging. But we also need to budget for the future, stop running large deficits and fill this fiscal hole completely. I am optimistic that this can be done, and it will take bipartisan commitment and discipline.

One place to start is with the growth of our yearly spending. Like Pay-Go, the yearly spending of Congress has also been done before, and it has worked.

That is why today I am introducing separate legislation, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2009, that would create yearly limits on discretionary spending. By pairing these discretionary spending limits with Pay-Go, we can start to make a substantial change in how Washington does business.

But it is not enough just to limit new spending across the board. Much of the reason that we are running such large deficits, is that we have made long-term spending commitments, called mandatory spending. To truly reverse the totality of our disastrous fiscal course, we must be willing to address rapidly expanding mandatory commitments too.

The best way--you know, it is funny, when you use the word ``mandatory.'' It is the word that should be used to express what this debt burden is we are putting on our kids. It will be mandatory that they pay that back before they make decisions about how to educate their own children; before they make decisions about how to provide individual health care in this country or make other kinds of investments all across the United States, in transportation or in new economies. What will be mandatory as we fall farther and farther behind in this global economy--what will be mandatory for them is to pay the bill left behind by their mothers and fathers.

The best way to get Congress to take a hard look at mandatory spending, is to place a flexible cap on our annual deficits. That's the other main component of what my new legislation would do. The cap in the Deficit Reduction Act is realistic--it would impose limits that are consistent with what economists believe we can sustain. This deficit limit is flexible--providing an exception when we are in a recession.

Here is how the deficit limit would work. Whatever the gross domestic product is in a given year, Congress must limit the deficit to 3 percent of the GDP or less. Economists tell us that this 3 percent number is sustainable over time, and that is a reasonably healthy ceiling. Now of course we should push to do better than running a deficit that is 3 percent of GDP. But this is a good starting point at setting and adhering to a budget. We would all clap if the deficits of today--12 or 13 percent of GDP--were 3 percent, and no one would clap louder than our children.

Under my legislation, if Congress failed to meet these deficit control requirements, the government would have to impose an across the board cut called a sequestration. Certain programs such as Social Security and veterans programs would not be subject to cuts. Yet most of the government's functions would be. The goal, of course, is to avoid this drastic measure by forcing Congress to plan ahead, and forcing Congress to pay attention to the deficit when it makes its spending choices.

Deficit limits make perfect sense during most years. But, as we have learned during this recession, an infusion of public funds can jolt a frozen economy and help turn that economy around. Running temporary deficits can kickstart a stagnant economy. But this only works if during healthy economic times, you also reduce government spending. The deficit limits I am proposing in this legislation would put Congress on a gradual track back to solid fiscal footing.

We should immediately enact budget reform proposals like Pay-Go discretionary spending limits and deficit limits. The CBO has concluded that after 2019, the rate at which we accumulate debt will continue to accelerate due to the aging of the population and increased health care costs. As angry as we all are with the excessive leverage in the private marketplace over the past decade that contributed to the market crashing, it is also obvious that Washington set a very bad example.

Let's put an end to these unsound fiscal practices. Let's not put our kids in the kind of situation we have inherited. Let's not make matters even worse, and the policy decisions regarding the national debt even harder for our kids.

What we need now is leadership and cooperation; not more shifting costs to our kids. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we remain on our current course, the total debt owed by the public will stand at over $17 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2019--only 10 years from today.

The point is that linked with our growing debt are the dreams and the plans of millions of American families. There is nothing fun about tightening our belt and cutting popular programs. I don't like it any more than anyone else who is here. Yet there are plenty of encouraging signs that this Congress and this President can stand together and do exactly that. Recently, just a couple of weeks ago, the Senate stood with the President for fiscal discipline and slashed nearly $2 billion from an outdated weapons system. That is a good start that I gladly supported. But so much more is left to do.

Coloradans already know we are in a bad way. People in my State are well aware that the excesses in recent years are catching up to us, and they know that Congress and the President have to make hard fiscal choices, reform health care before it eats up our entire budget, and pay for our reform efforts.

This challenging outlook may be just what it takes to bring both political parties to the negotiating table. Paired with Pay-Go, it is my hope that this new legislation can be a real starting point for meaningful fiscal negotiations. It is time we come up with an intelligent framework of fiscal management, that keeps Congress thinking ahead each time it makes a decision, and each time it puts together an annual budget, and each time it is faced with America's long-term fiscal trajectory.

Washington's fiscal mess was created over many years, and we won't solve the problem overnight. But this bill would give Congress and the President a guidepost to make the decisions necessary to get our budget under control. It would set a strong and binding standard for us to act responsibly.

We must start with what unites us. When I worry about what type of country we will leave my daughters and all of our young people, I know that others who vote differently than I do have the same worries. We owe more to our kids than to leave them a huge national debt and no plan to get out of it.

If we don't start making difficult decisions soon, we will be limiting our children's ability to make our country a better place, before they even get started. We will be limiting their ability to invest in education, life-saving scientific research, or new technologies that form the foundation of economic growth. We will be limiting their ability to defend the Nation during future times of war that we can't even think of today. And we will be limiting their chances of having a quality of life even better than what our parents and grandparents left to us.

If we fail to confront the tough issues so we can control the cost of health care, we will have squandered this narrow window of opportunity. If we fail to step up to the plate and pass a fiscally sound health care reform bill, this Congress will be remembered for years to come as having let down the country. If we fail--not just to stop digging this deep fiscal hole, but to put a process in place for climbing back up to solid fiscal footing--we will have failed to perform as the stewards of our children's dreams.

Let's stand together, with our President and with American families. Let's get health care reform done responsibly, let's take action to reduce the deficit and debt, and let's put this economy back on track.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Bennet pertaining to the introduction of S. 1613 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, August 7; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, there will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session of the Senate. The next vote will occur at approximately 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 8.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I, too, rise in strong support of the President's historic nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Senate has no more important responsibility than to advise and consent on nominations to our Nation's highest Court. It will be an honor, on behalf of the people of my State, to cast my vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor.

Judge Sotomayor is a distinguished lawyer with a lifetime of experience in and out of the courtroom, as a litigator, a prosecutor, a trial judge, and an appellate judge on one of the most prestigious courts in the Nation.

At an early point in her career, she showed a dedication to public service, serving 5 years as an assistant district attorney in New York City. As a prosecutor, she focused on murder and robbery cases at a time when violence was high in New York and law and order was essential. And she has chosen in recent years to share her knowledge and experience with young legal scholars as an adjunct professor at local law schools.

Three Presidents from both parties have also agreed she merits a prestigious lifetime judicial appointment. That is impressive bipartisan support at our Nation's highest levels.

The question before the Senate is whether the nominee meets the high standards we rightfully expect of our Supreme Court Justices. It is our role to advise and consent on whether a President's nominee seeks to apply the law and not to make or remake it. On both of these fronts, Judge Sotomayor meets and far exceeds the mark. She is clearly a judicial moderate and has demonstrated this through a Federal judicial record longer than any nominee in the last 100 years.

As Federal district court judge in the Southern District of New York, Judge Sotomayor presided over roughly 450 cases. As a member of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sotomayor has participated in over 3,000 panel decisions and authored over 400 published opinions.

Seldom does the Senate have a record as long as Judge Sotomayor's. There is no mystery here about what kind of Justice she will be.

Since joining the second circuit, she has participated in 434 published panel decisions where the panel included at least one judge appointed by a Republican President. In these cases, Judge Sotomayor agreed with the result favored by the Republican appointee 95 percent of the time. She has ruled for the government in 83 percent of immigration cases, and 92 percent of criminal cases. She has hewed closely to second circuit precedent. On employment cases, she has split her decisions evenly. By all accounts, she is a mainstream moderate nominee.

The American Bar Association unanimously found her well qualified. She is someone with a long record of moderation and humility toward the law. Her work is driven by a thorough application of the law to the facts of each case. Our focus and the basis for support or opposition should be on her qualifications and record. And on this point, she clearly should be confirmed.

This week, we have a historic opportunity to add a mainstream, moderate judge to our Nation's highest Court. President George H. W. Bush saw this kind of potential in her when he nominated her to the Federal district court, and she has fully realized his faith in her, so much so that she stands on the brink of history after being nominated by President Obama.

Judge Sotomayor has all the professional ingredients to make a great Supreme Court Justice. It is on that basis she should be confirmed by this body by an overwhelming vote.

But there is more to Judge Sotomayor than this impressive legal career. Judge Sotomayor has also lived a truly American story. The daughter of Puerto Rican parents, Judge Sotomayor lost her father at the age of 9 and was raised in a housing project in the Bronx. Through strong-willed parenting by her mother, she rose from difficult circumstances to receive the very highest honor that Princeton awards to an undergrad. She also went to Yale Law School where she had a much more distinguished career than my own.

When she is confirmed as the first Hispanic and third woman ever to be nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor will be an inspirational example to all children all across the country, telling us that regardless of where you come from, regardless of your economic circumstances, nothing is beyond your reach in America.

Judge Sotomayor will be a role model for young Coloradans in all of our schools, and with her on the high Court, I fully expect that school-age girls, such as my three daughters, will have an important role model of success to follow in their own lives.

These intangible factors make her nomination an important statement for millions of young Americans setting out on their own paths.

I have the utmost faith in Sonia Sotomayor. The President made an excellent nomination. Through sheer persistence, hard work, intelligence, and integrity, she has become an inspiration to the American people, and she is a compelling reminder that in this Nation, everything is possible.

I am proud to commit my vote in favor of this nominee.

Mr. President, I wish to offer congratulations and gratitude to Clarence ``Cal'' W. Marsella on the occasion of his retirement as general manager of the Denver Regional Transportation District, RTD.

Under Cal's leadership, the Denver region has become a national model of how effective public transit service can improve the quality of life, environment, and energy efficiency of a region. Cal was able to bring local, State, and Federal officials together behind a shared vision for our region, build a transit system matched to our region's growth patterns, and help us all remain committed to preserving one of the Nation's most unique and precious environments. At the same time, he has been a national champion for the idea that mass transit is the key to our energy independence.

Cal Marsella was hired as RTD's general manager in August 1995. During his service, he oversaw the completion of three new light rail lines on time and on budget, including the T-REX light rail project that opened November 17, 2006. Reflecting his performance and the strong public trust in RTD, metro area voters in 2004 overwhelmingly approved the FasTracks transit expansion program for the entire eight- county metro area. This represents the largest transit-only voter approved program in the entire country. With Cal's skill, determination, and effort, progress on the FasTracks program has moved ahead swiftly, and construction is currently underway on the new West Corridor.

Mr. Marsella began his transportation career in the highway engineering division of the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation in 1974, armed with a masters' degree in public affairs and a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Connecticut. He now serves on the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board and regularly guest lectures at the University of Denver and the University of Colorado master's degree programs in transportation and public administration. In recent years, Cal has received national honors commensurate with his leadership and achievements. He was selected by the American Public Transportation Association as the Outstanding Public Transportation Manager in 2006 and, under his management RTD, was selected as the Outstanding Transportation Agency in North America in both 2003 and 2008.

I congratulate and extend my sincere gratitude to Cal Marsella for his service to the Denver region and the State of Colorado. I wish him continued success and all good fortune in his work ahead.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Levin- McCain amendment to strike excessive funding in this bill for the F-22. I want to briefly outline why this amendment is in the best interests of our national defense and our fiscal future.

This amendment represents the best of leadership that our Nation has to offer. Senator McCain and President Obama have put political parties aside and have acted to protect taxpayers at a time when our fiscal circumstances require us to make difficult choices. And Chairman Levin has supported their efforts. They are willing to make hard choices. Congress must follow their wise leadership.

The media has reported that our budget deficit now exceeds $1 trillion. We have provided middle class tax cuts, first-time homebuyer tax credits and invested resources in order to turn this economy around. But we have to reexamine our other spending choices and say no to excessive spending. The F-22 embodies spending to an excess, and it borrows from key operations and maintenance and personnel accounts to do so.

The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and our Commander-in-Chief have said we do not need any more F-22s. In fact, they say that the costs of acquiring and maintaining these aircraft, which have ballooned far beyond the Pentagon's original estimates, are hindering our ability to make much-needed investments in other necessary programs.

It is not only the Obama administration. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld also agreed that this is an area where we can show restraint and help strained taxpayers. The Levin-McCain amendment is the right policy for the country--armed services leadership and Presidents from both parties agree.

We should be listening when the Air Force tells us that the 187 F-22s that we have are enough. Our President has shown the wisdom to listen to our uniformed leaders. Now only Congress stands in the way of saving taxpayers $1.75 billion.

The F-22 has never supported a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is time to reassert the actual military priorities of today. It is true that the F-22 supports jobs, sprinkled around our nation. But we need to focus on weapons programs that create jobs an also serve a modern military purpose. As the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee have said, the F-35 represents the future of our fighter fleet. As we look to the future, I simply cannot lend my support to this effort to allow unnecessary expansion of a program at the expense of the American and Coloradan taxpayer.

There are far more useful ways to create and maintain jobs that actually enhance our military readiness. Phasing out expansion of the F-22 fleet will

allow needed funding to be reallocated to more important, pressing needs of our military. Let's pass a Defense authorization bill actually contains the requests that our military has made. Madam President, $1.75 billion for the F-22 has not been requested, and I agree with Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, Presidents Obama and Bush.

I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to show fiscal restraint. Support the Levin-McCain amendment. The best way to defend our country is to listen to our military when it tells us to change the way we invest. Our fiscal health and our national security both depend on it.

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

Mr. President, on Wednesday, May 6, 2009, Johanna Justin-Jinich, a resident of Timnath, CO, was senselessly murdered in Middletown, CT. Johanna was a member of the Class of 2010 at Wesleyan University--my alma mater. Faculty and students alike describe a vibrant, intelligent, creative, and compassionate young woman. A young woman whose short life was full of exuberance and study--and public service. Johanna's friends note that her warmth, passion, and dedication to those she loved that defined her life to the very end. And these qualities are what they will miss the most.

Johanna's family and her friends have suffered an unspeakable loss and will no doubt continue to grieve for the loss of someone so compassionate, so dedicated, and so giving. Wesleyan University and the town of Timnath have witnessed the passing of one too young and with so much potential to serve the public good. She was particularly committed to helping women gain access to proper health care and resources, regardless of their means. Johanna's concern for public health can be traced back to her family. Her maternal grandmother, a Holocaust survivor, was a doctor, as are both of her parents.

As Wesleyan's president, Michael Roth, said ``We return to the rhythms of our campus lives with the memory of our loss still very fresh. We turn again, and we remember. May Johanna's memory be a blessing to us all.''