Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me say to my good friend Senator Dorgan, first of all, we all know he has served his State for 40 years. Many of us will be talking about that service and applauding him. It has been a real pleasure to have him chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee while I have served on that committee. There will be many more things I will say about him and his fine public service. I thank him because I think what he has said about the Fed and transparency is something that needs to be said. I look forward to debating that with him. I thank Senator Dorgan.

(The remarks of Mr. UDALL of New Mexico pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 396 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with great humility and respect for the institution of the Senate, reverence for the many great men and women who have served here, and affection for my colleagues that I rise today to discuss what I believe is an issue of great importance.

Reflecting on my first year as a Member of this body, I have come to believe that we are failing to represent the best interests of the American people. We as elected representatives have a duty to our constituents. But partisan rancor and the Senate's own incapacitating rules often prevent us from fulfilling that duty.

While I am convinced that our inability to function is our own fault, we have the authority within the Constitution to act. Article I, section 5, of our Constitution states in clear language that ``Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. . . .''

Yet at the beginning of the 111th Congress, we implicitly acquiesced to the rules adopted decades and sometimes more than a century ago, rules that most Members of this Senate have never voted to adopt.

Today these rules put in place generations ago make effective legislating nearly impossible. Specifically, under rule XXII, it is not possible to limit debate, end a filibuster, invoke cloture without 60 votes. Such cloture votes used to occur perhaps seven or eight times during a congressional session. But in the 110th Congress alone, there were 112 cloture votes, and most of these were occasioned simply by the threat of a filibuster.

The American people spoke loudly in the 2008 election. They clearly desired a President and a Congress that would set a new direction. It was not necessarily an endorsement of one ideology over another but instead a call for us to put partisanship aside and to take care of the country's business.

Although this Chamber was able to pass historic health care legislation last year, we are far from finished. More than anything, what the health care debate has demonstrated is how difficult the rules have made our legislative process. And it is not just health care. Other important pieces of legislation still languish, Federal judicial vacancies remain unfilled, and many of the President's appointees to key positions are still not confirmed. The American people deserve better.

I applaud Leader Reid for what he has been able to accomplish, given the way this Chamber's rules have been used to impede progress. Senate rules are designed to allow for substantive debate and to protect the views of the minority, as our Founders intended. But they have been used instead to prevent the Senate from beginning to even debate critical legislation.

Protecting the views of the minority makes sense, but not at the expense of the will of the majority. Indeed, as the rules are being used today, a single Senator can hold a bill hostage until his or her demands are met. This is not the spirit of compromise and collegiality our Founders envisioned for this body.

Even worse, the rules as they exist today make any effort to change them a daunting process. Under the current Standing Rules of the Senate, rule V states:

The Rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to

the next unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

As adopted in 1975, rule XXII requires two-thirds of Senators present and voting to agree to end debate on a change to the Senate rules, in most cases 67 votes. Taken together, these two rules effectively deny the Senate the opportunity to exercise its constitutional right to determine the rules of its proceedings and serve to bind this body to rules adopted by its predecessors.

Many of my colleagues will argue that the Senate is not designed to be efficient, that the use of filibusters and delay tactics was what the Founders intended. They will quote George Washington's comment to Thomas Jefferson that the Framers created the Senate to cool House legislation, just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. While I understand their argument, I do not believe that the Framers envisioned the Senate as the graveyard for good ideas. We can have lengthy debate about the merits of legislation, but there should come a time when we actually vote on the bill. We can discuss the qualifications of a judicial nominee, but each nominee deserves an up-or-down vote. To quote one of this body's most esteemed Members, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge:

To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and

never vote is imbecile.

This is a bipartisan issue. I express my opinions today as a member of the majority. But they will not change if I become a member of the minority party.

We are all too aware of the power of rule XXII, the filibuster rule, adopted in 1975. Yet except for the distinguished Senators Byrd, Inouye, and Leahy, none of us--Republicans or Democrats alike--has ever voted to adopt this rule.

Opponents of rules reform argue that the Senate is a continuing body and, therefore, the rules must remain in effect from one Congress to the next. I disagree with this assertion. Even if the Senate is deemed to have continued because two-thirds of its Members remain in office, there is no reason that the rules must remain in effect.

Many things change with a new Congress. It is given a new number. All of the pending bills and nominations from the previous Congress are dead, and each party may choose its leadership. If the party in the majority changes, the new Senate becomes substantially different from the last.

Senators of both parties have argued that the rules may change with a new Congress, as my esteemed colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, stated in a National Review article in 2005:

The Senate has been called a ``continuing body.'' Yet

language reflecting this observation was included in Senate

rules only in 1959. The more important, and much older, sense

in which the Senate is a continuing body is its ongoing

constitutional authority to determine its rules. Rulings by

vice presidents of both parties, sitting as the President of

the Senate, confirm that each Senate may make that decision

for itself, either implicitly by acquiescence or explicitly

by amendment. Both conservative and liberal legal scholars,

including those who see no constitutional problems with the

current filibuster campaign, agree that a simple majority can

change Senate rules at the beginning of a new Congress.

I agree with Senator Hatch. And I agree with our good friend Senator Ted Kennedy who said:

The notion that a filibuster can be used to defeat an

attempt to change the filibuster rule cannot withstand

analysis. It would impose an unconstitutional prior restraint

on the parliamentary procedure in the Senate. It would turn

rule XXII into a Catch-XXII.

The early history of this body suggests that the use of unlimited debate as a tool of obstruction was not an issue.

The original Senate rules adopted under article I, section 5, of the Constitution included a provision allowing a Senator to make a motion ``for the previous question.'' If passed, the motion allowed a simple majority of Senators to halt debate on a pending issue. This simple rule for limiting debate was inadvertently dropped in 1806--perhaps for lack of need--and the Senate entered a period with no means to limit debate. It was not until the 1830s that the Senate saw the first filibusters, as Members recognized that the lack of any rule to limit debate could be used to effectively block legislation opposed by even a minority of the minority. It was not, however, until 1917 that the Senate adopted a formal cloture rule.

Woodrow Wilson's armed ships bill had just been filibustered by 11 Senators. The President was furious, demanding a change in Senate procedural rules. In response, Montana Senator Thomas Walsh, citing article I, section 5, of the Constitution introduced the constitutional option.

Walsh argued that a newly convened Senate was not bound by the rules of the previous Senate and could adopt its own rules, including a rule to limit debate. He reasoned that every new Senate had the right to adopt rules, saying that ``it is preposterous to assume that [the Senate] may deny future majorities the right to change'' the rules. In response to Walsh's proposal, the Senate reached a compromise and amended rule XXII. The compromise permitted cloture on any pending measure at the will of two-thirds of all Senators present and voting.

Back then, the toxic partisanship we face today had not yet poisoned the system, but the manipulative use of the filibuster had already taken hold. It was used to block some of the most important legislation of that time--anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938, and anti- race discrimination bills were blocked almost a dozen times starting in 1946.

By the 1950s, a bipartisan group of Senators had had enough. On behalf of himself and 18 other Senators, New Mexico's Clinton Anderson, my predecessor, attempted to limit debate and control the use of a filibuster by adopting the 1917 strategy of Thomas Walsh. Just as Senator Walsh did almost four decades earlier, Senator Anderson argued that each new Congress brings with it a new Senate entitled to consider and adopt its own rules. On January 3, 1953, Anderson moved that the Senate immediately consider the adoption of rules for the Senate of the 83rd Congress.

Anderson's motion was tabled, but he introduced it again at the beginning of the 85th Congress. In the course of that debate, Senator Hubert Humphrey presented a parliamentary inquiry to Vice President Nixon, who was presiding over the Senate. Nixon understood the inquiry to address the basic question, ``Do the rules of the Senate continue from one Congress to another?'' Noting that there had never been a direct ruling on this question from the Chair, Nixon stated that:

While the rules of the Senate have been continued from one

Congress to another, the right of a current majority of the

Senate at the beginning of a new Congress to adopt its own

rules, stemming as it does from the constitution itself,

cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a

majority of a previous Congress. Any provision of Senate

rules adopted in a previous Congress which has the expressed

or practical effect of denying the majority of the Senate in

a new Congress the right to adopt the rules under which it

desires to proceed is, in the opinion of the Chair,

unconstitutional.

Nixon's opinion was consistent with the longstanding common law principle, upheld in Supreme Court decisions, that one legislature cannot bind subsequent legislatures.

Nixon went on to explain that under the Constitution, a new Senate had three options to deal with the rules at the beginning of a new Congress: No. 1, proceed under the rules of the previous Congress and ``thereby indicate by acquiescence that those rules continue in effect''; No. 2, vote down a motion to adopt new rules and thereby ``indicate approval of the previous rules''; and No. 3, ``vote affirmatively to proceed with the adoption of new rules.''

Despite Nixon's opinion from the chair, Anderson's motion was tabled. In 1959, Anderson raised the constitutional option again at the start of the 86th Congress, with the support of some 30 other Senators. This time, he raised the ire of then-Majority Leader Johnson, who realized that a majority of Senators might join Anderson's cause. To prevent Anderson's motion from receiving a vote, Johnson came forward

with his own compromise--changing rule XXII to reduce the required vote for cloture to ``two-thirds of Senators present and voting.'' And to appease a small group of Senators, Johnson also included new language that stated that the rules continued from one Congress to the next unless they were changed under the rules. It was a move that would effectively bind all future Senates.

Throughout his career, Clinton Anderson relied on the constitutional option as the basis to ease or at least reconsider the cloture requirements laid out in rule XXII. As he said in 1959:

My motion does not prejudge the nature of the rules which the Senate in its wisdom may adopt, but it does declare in effect that the Senate of the 85th Congress is responsible for and must bear the responsibility for the rules under which the Senate will operate. That responsibility cannot be shifted back upon the Senate of past Congresses.

In 1975, 2 years after Anderson left office, the Senate adopted the rule we operate under today: It takes the vote of ``three-fifths of all Senators duly chosen and sworn'' to cut off debate or the threat of unlimited debate.

As the junior Senator from New Mexico, I have the honor of serving in Senator Clinton Anderson's former seat, and I have the desire to take up his commitment to the Senate and his dedication to the principle that in each new Congress, the Senate should exercise its constitutional power to determine its own rules. Let me be very clear. I am not arguing for or against any specific changes to the rules, but I do believe each Senate has the right, according to the Constitution, to determine all of its rules by a simple majority vote.

As my distinguished colleague Senator Byrd, the longest serving Member in the history of Congress, once said:

The Constitution in article 1, section 5, says that each

House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we

are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not

obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past.

It is time for reform. There are many great traditions in this body that should be kept and respected, but stubbornly clinging to ineffective and unproductive procedures should not be one of them. There is another way.

The resolution I am introducing today is simple. It would enable the 112th Congress to carry out its responsibility to determine the rules of its proceedings in accordance with the Constitution. This is not to say that between now and the beginning of the 112th Congress we cannot use our political will to find a way to avoid the gridlock of 2009. It is to say that at the beginning of the 112th Congress, the Senate can exercise its constitutional right to adopt its rules of procedure by a simple majority vote. The Senate may choose to adopt new rules or it may choose to continue with some or all of the rules of the previous Congress. The point is, it is our choice. It is our responsibility.

As Clinton Anderson said:

It is a responsibility that cannot be shifted back upon the

Senate of past Congresses.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, this effort to reform our Nation's health care system is finding ways to make quality health coverage affordable and accessible to all Americans. I believe the bill we are considering in this Chamber as it currently stands goes a long way toward making that vision a reality. But even with this solid legislation, there is still a large group of Americans who continue to be left behind. I am talking about our country's first Americans, the 1.9 million American Indian and Alaska Natives who are suffering because the Federal Government isn't living up to its propositions.

The law that provides the framework under which the health care programs for Native Americans are delivered hasn't been reauthorized for more than 10 years.

This means that the Indian Health Services' delivery system is chronically underfunded and, given the rapid advance of health care technology, outdated. As a result, too many Native Americans are struggling to receive quality, timely health care.

This agency is supposed to be the principal health care provider and health advocate for Indian people. Yet every day, because we fail to act, the health care situation in Indian Country grows more urgent. Native Americans are diagnosed with diabetes at almost three times the rate of any other ethnic group. They often don't have access to preventive care. And Native American youth are attempting and committing suicide at devastating and alarming rates. Just 2 months ago, in New Mexico, a 14-year-old girl from the Mescalero Apache Reservation became the fourth young person from that tribe to take her own life--in a little more than 1 month. That is four young people in 1 month on one reservation. Tell me this doesn't cry out for action.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee has reported the reauthorization bill. The House has put in its health care package the same kind of reauthorization bill. Both of these bills would bring us much-needed reform to the Indian health care system.

This legislation, the Senate must act upon it. We can no longer delay. For the past several years, Congress has failed to get this legislation across the finish line. It has passed both bodies in the last several years--the House at one point and the Senate at one point--but it is still not law. Now is the time to put this in the health care bill and get the job done.

I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are in agreement that our Nation's health care system needs reform. We know health care reform is needed now. We know the status quo is unacceptable. But what is missing is the same sense of urgency for our Native American community, this despite the alarming statistics from the Civil Rights Commission several years ago that the United States spent more than twice the amount on a Federal prisoner's health care than that of a Native American man, woman, or child; that is, $3,800 per year per Federal inmate, versus $1,900 per year per Native American. That is right, our inmates have better health care than the population with whom we signed treaties and made a promise to provide health services. American Indian and Alaskan Natives are three times as likely as Whites to be uninsured, and almost half of our low-income American Indians and Alaskan Natives lack health coverage.

The longer we wait, the more Native Americans suffer needlessly. The longer way wait, the more Native Americans go without treatment for chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. The longer we wait, the more Native American teens who may take their own lives because they are not getting the help they need.

America has an obligation to provide quality, accessible health care for our country's first Americans. So I say again, it is time to act on this important piece of legislation. It is time to reform the Indian health care system and permanently reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I seek recognition.

Madam President, this package today is a result of collaboration that began months ago when the Senate's freshman class united as advocates for comprehensive health reform, when we united in the belief that the status quo is not an option.

The health care status quo does not work for Americans and it does not work for America either. If we fail to act, every person, every institution, every small business in this country will pay the price.

Achieving true reform means making insurance available and affordable to all Americans. It also means reining in out-of-control spending. For some, those two goals seem diametrically opposed. They ask: How can you contain costs when you are expanding access to millions of additional people?

One of our country's great economic thinkers, Paul Krugman, recently challenged this hypothesis. First, he said a majority of Americans uninsured are young and healthy. Covering them would not increase costs very much. Second, he noted that this reform links coverage expansion to ``serious cost-control measures.''

These goals are two sides of the same coin. Without one, we cannot have the other. As Mr. Krugman said:

The path to cost control runs through universality. We can

only tackle out-of-control costs as part of a deal that also

provides Americans with the security of guaranteed health

care.

With these amendments, we take additional steps to transform our delivery system, to contain costs, and to curb abuses and excess spending. With these amendments, we encourage a faster transition to a 21st-century system that is more efficient, costs less, and holds providers and insurers accountable.

I am proud to sign on to all of the amendments in this package. But there is one proposal that is particularly important to the people of New Mexico. In my State, 30 of 33 counties are classified as medically underserved. Residents of these highly rural counties are more likely to be uninsured. They are more likely to have higher rates of disease. And because of a shortage in health care providers, they are often forced to travel long distances for care.

This amendment would help us take the first steps toward alleviating the growing shortage of primary care physicians in New Mexico and across the country. By 2025, there will be a shortage of at least 35,000 primary care physicians in the United States. As this shortage grows, our rural areas will be hardest hit.

In this amendment, we call for expert recommendations on how to encourage providers to choose primary care and to establish their practices in medically underserved areas. These experts would analyze things such as compensation and work environment. They would recommend ways to increase interest in primary care as a career.

We are closer than ever to providing all Americans with access to quality, affordable health care. I am proud to be a part of a group of freshmen who refuse to sit on the back bench and watch this reform develop from the sidelines. I am proud to be part of a group that from the beginning refused to accept the status quo as an option.

I thank the staff of all these fine Senators and thank personally my staff members, Fern Goodheart and Ben Nathanson.

I look forward to continuing the work with this outstanding group as we debate a bill that will improve our health care system for generations to come.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a brave son of Anthony, NM.

Army CPL Anthony Carrasco Jr. was killed November 4 after being hit by sniper fire while serving his country in Iraq. He was 25 years old.

Corporal Carrasco--or ``Tony'' as he was called by family and friends--was a husband and father and son. He and his wife Johana are expecting a child. And he had two small step-children who adored him.

Tony served as truck commander for armored vehicles. It was his job to direct his vehicle down streets infested with roadside bombs and targeted by insurgents attacking from the shadows of buildings. Tony understood the danger. He accepted the risk. And he died doing what he loved, serving a country he loved.

His fellow soldiers described Tony as an optimist. His platoon sergeant, Timothy Brown, put it best: Tony ``saw the good in everything. He was a soldier who never, ever complained.'' Sergeant Brown called Tony ``the best soldier I ever had.''

As Senators or as citizens, we cannot fully experience the sadness that Tony's family and friends are feeling. But when a soldier dies, the Nation as a whole feels the loss. We are linked to Corporal Carrasco by the ties that bind a grateful Nation to its faithful servant. His loss is ours.

Please join me in honoring Anthony Carrasco, and extending our sympathies to his wife Johana, his father Antonio, his mother Juana, and the rest of the Carrasco family.

specialist joseph gallegos

Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the recent passing of brave New Mexican. Joseph Gallegos, a specialist with the New Mexico Army National Guard, died of a heart attack while serving in Iraq.

While his death was not due to injuries suffered in combat, that fact does not lessen the pain of his loss.

Specialist Gallegos was 39 years old. He served with the Guard as a light wheel vehicle mechanic. When not serving his country, he worked for the Forest Service on the Carson back home in Questa, NM. Throughout his life, he also worked as a firefighter, an ambulance driver and a policeman.

Specialist Gallegos gravitated toward work that allowed him to help his fellow citizens. While working for the Forest Service, he even saved a life--spotting a burning truck one day, he saw a man inside and pulled him to safety.

As Specialist Gallegos' brother, Donald, said: ``He was always taking different jobs, but they always put him in the service of others.''

Today, I ask you to join me in thanking Specialist Gallegos' family for his service, and for his sacrifice.

Madam President, I appreciate very much listening to Senator Wyden and his comments on health care reform. He has been one of the leaders when it comes to working in the Finance Committee and looking for significant reforms on health care. I look forward to working with him in that capacity.

The health care reform we are debating today will impact every person in this country. Whether you are searching for affordable insurance for yourself or watching helplessly as a loved one is denied coverage, every American stands to gain something through this historic legislation.

In my home State of New Mexico, the people I represent don't just have a lot to gain from this reform, they also have a lot to lose if this reform is not enacted. For New Mexicans, the status quo isn't an option. That is because without this health care reform our State is expected to experience the largest increase in insurance premiums of any State in the Union. In 2016, without this reform, a family of four in New Mexico can expect to pay an astounding $28,000 a year in health care premiums. That will consume more

than 56 percent of that family's projected income for the year. Affordability is already one of the key barriers to obtaining coverage in my State. Since 2000, premiums for residents have risen 110 percent. As a result, almost one in four people doesn't have insurance, giving us the second highest uninsured rate in the Nation.

Enactment of this reform legislation would make as many as 249,000 middle-class New Mexico residents eligible for premium credits to ease the burden of these high costs. In addition, almost 238,000 New Mexicans would be eligible for new private coverage through the exchange or through their employer and another 124,000 would be eligible for the new expanded Medicaid coverage. For the families who already have insurance, they win too. They will likely see lower premiums, thanks to the increased competition in the market. The bottom line is that with this reform the vast majority of New Mexicans would have access to quality, affordable health care for themselves and their families.

Reform will also benefit New Mexico's small businesses. In 2006, less than 35 percent of small businesses in my State offered coverage for their employees. That figure means our State ranks dead last in employer-sponsored insurance in the Nation--a dubious distinction, to say the least. I have talked to a lot of these small business owners over the past month. They all tell me pretty much the same thing: I would love to offer coverage to my employees, but it is just too expensive. They say they are having a hard time affording insurance for their own families. To those small business owners, I say that help is on the way. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will help you provide insurance to your employees by providing Federal tax credits of up to 50 percent of premiums should you choose to offer coverage.

In addition to lowering costs for individuals and families and helping small businesses, this reform would also give our rural communities additional tools to provide quality, affordable health care for all of their residents.

Of the 2 million people who call New Mexico home, about 700,000 live in rural areas. They are more likely to be uninsured and often must travel hundreds of miles for preventive or emergency care--if they are able to find any care at all.

In this bill, we have included pay incentives to recruit more physicians to serve in these underserved rural areas. We will improve dental services in rural areas, we will extend Medicare payments for ambulances in rural areas, and we will expand the Telehealth Program so that rural residents may receive specialized treatment not available in their local areas.

Finally, we make sure this legislation won't result in an unfunded mandate for our State government, which is already experiencing the pain of budget cuts, thanks to the economic downturn. This legislation would require the Federal Government to cover 100 percent of the cost of the Medicaid expansion from 2014 to 2016 and 95 percent of that cost after that.

When it comes to health care today, too many New Mexicans are living on a cliff, teetering on the edge of financial ruin. All it would take is an illness or job loss, and they could fall into the abyss of medical invoices, bill collectors, and bankruptcies. For these New Mexicans, the status quo isn't an option. This bill offers a life rope to these New Mexicans to pull them back from the precipice. Passing it would provide stability and security to those who have insurance, affordable coverage to those who don't, and lower costs for families, businesses, and government.

This is a historic moment. I urge my colleagues to join me in seizing it. Let's begin the debate on this long-overdue legislation to reform our broken health care system.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow for that very good statement on what I think is a very important issue. As we speak, and as I have watched the floor, I hear my Republican friends talking, as Senator Stabenow said, about rationing. They are seeming to imply this legislation somehow would do that. They also look at this administration and see that a prevention task force report of some of the key experts in the country, trying to give us the very best science, the very best medicine--that somehow that could be rationing.

My advice to women, listening to this debate, is that they should be consulting their doctors when it comes to things such as this. They should be listening to their doctors. Their doctors are up on the best research, they are up on the best science, they are up on the best medicine and get on top of it.

I would say to the women of America: Listen to your doctors, not to Rush Limbaugh.

Senator Begich from Alaska is on the floor. I am happy to join with him and Senator Merkley and Debbie Stabenow--with all these great Senators down here--to talk about this bill. But there is something that--I look on the other side and I see these huge stacks of paper. We should be a little bit truthful and talk to people in a truthful way about these stacks of paper. First of all, they are one-sided, so you only have print on one side, which is not even the way we print them up around here. I have had mine printed up on both sides so I use both sides of the paper. They have made an attempt here to make it look a lot higher than it is, as Senator Begich pointed out here earlier today, and if you take the type and reduce it to the regular type of a book, you come out with an average size book.

We are doing a piece of health care legislation that is very important to this Nation, a significant part of our economy, and we want it to be something that will rein in these insurance companies, bring in competition, bring in more choices, so we have to be careful about what we put in it. I think we should focus on the substance rather than focus on the gimmicks. We are getting a lot of gimmicks from our friends on the Republican side with these big stacks of paper. Let's talk about the substance.

I hope we are going to see someday in this debate an actual Republican bill and proposal so we can debate it back and forth. We have not seen that yet. We have just heard an awful lot of rhetoric.

One of the things I want to talk about today is what is a very important part of this bill and that is the public option section. A public option would bring to the Nation more competition. What we want more than anything is to have more choices when it comes to insurance. We want to see as many choices out there in the marketplace.

Sometimes I don't understand, when my Republican friends talk about this, because we are talking on their terms--about competition, about choice in the marketplace, giving people more choices. I don't understand why they are opposed to those kinds of solid principles that are the backing of this particular bill.

The other thing a public option would do is keep insurance companies honest. That is tremendously important. We have these insurance companies out there, we know they are doing very well in terms of their profit making. I am going to be talking about that in a little bit. We know they have very high administrative costs. If you have a public option that is actually dedicated to providing health care rather than to making a profit, then you are going to have something going on in the marketplace that will keep everybody honest.

As you can see here, keeping the insurance companies honest, inserting competition into the market, and giving the uninsured access to affordable coverage--that is what we are talking about here. When we say a ``public option,'' we are not talking about subsidized by the government. This is going to be fully financed by premiums. The public option is not going to make a profit for its shareholders, it is going to focus on health care. It would have low administrative costs since it operates as a nonprofit. It would exert bargaining power to obtain discounts from providers. It would offer savings to its subscribers with lower premiums, greater benefits, or lower out-of-pocket expenses. It should follow the same insurance requirements as private plans. What you are going to see is the public option offering low cost and high value.

I think at this point what I wish to talk a little bit about is what has happened with some of our major health care insurance companies in the last couple of months. We have reached the end of a quarter. You see Wall Street has completed its third quarter earnings. Two of the big health care companies, Humana and Cigna, released their reports a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say that both companies did very well last quarter.

How well, you ask. Humana reported a 65-percent jump in profits over the same period. That is a big number. But, ironically, Humana's earnings seem positively restrained compared to Cigna's report. That is because Cigna reported a 92-percent increase in third quarter profits-- 92 percent.

Many companies right now are just getting back on their feet after the worst recession since the Great Depression. Although the economy is improving, times are still tough. When you take that into consideration, an earnings report with a 65-percent jump or a 92- percent jump in profits makes you wonder how Humana and Cigna are doing so well in such tough economic times.

I will tell you how they do it. They do it by putting profits above people. While Humana and Cigna touted earnings that are incomprehensible to the average person, or the average business for that matter--the average businesses, the business people I talk to say, are making 10 percent, 15 percent profit if they are doing well. Yet here these folks are making these huge profits.

While these health insurance companies are doing that, 47 million Americans continue to struggle without health insurance. While Humana's total revenue jumped 8 percent to almost $8 billion, and Cigna predicted profits of more than $1 billion this year, small businesses began reporting that their premiums are expected to jump more than 15 percent next year.

Unfortunately, Humana and Cigna are not alone in their ``profits above people'' business model. Over the past 7

years, publicly traded health insurance companies, companies that include Humana and Cigna, saw a 428-percent increase in profits--428 percent increase in profits. While the companies were raking in the cash, so were their CEOs, who in 2007 alone made $118 million between 10 of them. That is why health insurance premiums more than doubled over 9 years. Health insurance premiums doubling over 9 years, three times faster than wages increased.

Giant insurance companies are happy with the status quo. For them it means little competition, skyrocketing profits and the ability to do just about whatever they want to do to boost their bottom lines. A public option would change all of this. It would keep insurance companies honest by putting much needed competition back into the market. It would provide real choice for Americans by giving them another option that best meets their needs. And it would help small businesses and the self-employed by making health insurance for their employees more affordable.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pay close attention to these earnings reports. I urge them to take a hard look at the skyrocketing profits these health insurance companies have reported and ask themselves: Whose side am I on? The insurance companies that continue to put profits above people, or the people I was sent to Washington to represent?

I know which side I am on. I know a public option is the right thing for Americans and the right thing for this country.

One of the things we hear in this debate--all of us, as Senators, stay in constant contact with our constituents. We get mail, we get telephone calls, we get e-mails. My constituents in New Mexico have talked to me a lot about their health care problems. They have talked to me about their rising premiums. They have talked to me about losing their insurance. And they send me some very powerful stories I want to share.

Here is a story from a woman in Placitas, NM. Here is what she wrote me in an e-mail.

Dear Senator Udall: I own a small business--just me and my

secretary. I just got my notice from my insurer about the

rate increase for next year, which is between 9 and 10

percent. For two people I will now be asked to pay $2,300 per

month in premiums.

We can't afford it. I am now faced with the likelihood of

having to drop insurance, which for two cancer survivors is

not the right answer.

I know you support the public option and that you are a

reliable vote for reform. But if anyone on the Hill is

keeping a record of how the inanity of this debate is

actually affecting real people, please include this e-mail in

the log.

How would a public option help in that circumstance the woman just wrote in about? A public option would provide another, more affordable choice for small businesspeople such as this lady from Placitas, people who own their own businesses, who are doing the right thing, pursuing their own American dream. These folks cannot achieve that dream when they are paying outrageous costs for health coverage for themselves and their employees. A public option would help small businesses succeed by giving them another, more affordable choice in the insurance market.

This is something we need to focus on. As we flip through the bill, as the American people look at this bill, ask themselves: Are you for the status quo, are you for keeping these premiums going up, are you for the insurance companies dominating the market or are you for competition? When it finally comes down and we look at the overall package, it is going to be clear.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, during the time we control for the next half hour, that we be able to engage in a colloquy with other Senators.

Mr. President, for months we have gathered in this Chamber to talk about why we need a public option as part of health care reform. Almost every week the insurance companies provide another example of why a public option is critical to ensuring all Americans have access to quality, affordable health insurance. Our most recent examples come courtesy of two of America's largest insurance companies--Humana and CIGNA. Wall Street just completed its third quarter earnings season, and Humana and CIGNA released their reports a couple weeks ago. Let's just say that both companies did very well last quarter. Humana profits in the third quarter were up 65 percent over the same time last year. CIGNA profits in the third quarter were up 92 percent.

Senator Brown has focused on the insurance company issue and has seen what is happening to the American people. This is happening at a time when 47 million Americans are without access to affordable health care. I will ask him to speak a little bit about the insurance company issue and what is happening.

Before doing so, the Republican leader was here on the floor, and he was talking about the numbers that were given by CBO. These are number crunchers. They are by nonpartisan folks. These are people who work very hard late at night. They have been

working to get out their numbers on the bill that we will have on the floor in a short while. I can't believe we are now hearing they don't like the CBO numbers. Both sides live by CBO numbers. That is the important thing for people to understand.

I yield to Senator Brown.

I yield to Senator Reed. I want to get him involved in this discussion.

I don't think the American people realize we have exempted the insurance companies from the antitrust laws. Those are laws you can move in, when there is a lack of competition in the market, when there are too few players in the market, to try to inject additional competition in the market. With the public option, the first thing we are trying to accomplish is to inject competition into the market, to have insurance companies be competing. This public option is going to help drive that cost down in a dramatic way.

Senator Merkley, who has worked on this legislation in his committees, joins us today. I hope he can talk a little bit about this issue also.

That is an absolutely accurate rendition.

Absolutely. No doubt about that.

I wish to ask the Senator about those circumstances because he knows more of the details, but when you have insurance companies, these for-profit insurance companies we have been talking about that are making incredible profits, when you have insurance companies denying these claims, which is what you alluded to, what people need to realize is, what they have done is they have created an entire administrative bureaucracy within the insurance industry. It has flowed over into our medical providers, where doctors now tell me what they have to do is have people calling the insurance company to push to reverse these denials. So they have created a whole system which tamps down the ability of people to get care. What we are talking about in the public option is, you create a nonprofit. They are not in the business of making a profit. They are going to be in the business of providing health care, of doing the very best they can to provide health care. Why it will make the market competitive is they will not have all this administrative runaround. They will not have this going on.

Is that the Senator's understanding? They will look at the situation you have right there that you have described and they are going to say: It is clear this gentleman needs an MRI because we need to find out what is going on. So they will do the MRI, and then they will move quickly to the care. To me, that is the difference between what the Senator described, where insurance companies are trying to find a way to not pay out, to meet their bottom line, and to raise profits; whereas, a public option would be doing the opposite, focusing on the health care, focusing on future needs, focusing on providing what people need in the health care arena.

I say to Senator Merkley, the thing the American people should know about the health care plan Senator Reid was down here talking about earlier--that we have unveiled here in the Senate--is it has a public option in it. So the public option will be there to provide competition. It will be there to provide the very best care. And it will be there to make sure we keep these insurance companies honest. That is what we are trying to do here: to make sure there is competition in the market, to make sure the insurance companies are honest.

I say to Senator Merkley, I think that is a great example of how we all work here together to find a compromise that works for everyone. I realize there are Democratic Senators and Republican Senators--and the same for Governors--who may want to do things differently in their State. So what we have done here is give them the option of opting out in this public option we are providing.

I personally--looking at the facts, and looking at the situation--do not know why a State would want to opt out. But there is going to be the check and balance there of the legislature having to pass a law, the Governor having to sign it, and say: We do not want to have anything to do with the public option.

But we realize with a public option you bring competition to the market, you expose these high administrative costs you talked about. One of the things people do not realize, on administrative costs, is, the Federal Government runs the Medicare Program. Here you have a program that when I go to town hall meetings, I say: Raise your hand if you are on Medicare. They will put their hand up. And I will say: Keep your hand up if you like Medicare. So they will raise their hand, and they will keep it up.

Ninety-five percent of the people like Medicare. Well, Medicare has a 3-percent--3-percent--administrative cost. As the Senator said earlier, the insurance companies we are dealing with have anywhere from 25 to 30 percent administrative costs. So if you put a public option out there, you are going to make there be competition.

Senator Merkley.

Yes. I say to the Senator, you hit it on the head. I have been here on the floor with Senator Whitehouse--I know Senator Reid was just here--participating in a colloquy.

The point that both of them, I think, make is when you inject a public option into the insurance market--

whether it is health insurance, whether it is workers compensation--you inject competition. And by injecting that competition, you make the marketplace work a lot better. That is what we are striving for here today.

Senator Merkley.

I say to Senator Merkley, you are exactly right. Senator Reid has put a merged proposal on the floor, and do you know what the response is we have seen? I like your comments on this. The response we have seen I find amazing, I find absolutely amazing, because here is what we are facing.

The American people want health care reform, so we have announced we are going to put a bill on the floor to reform health care. We have been working on it for months. It is out of two committees. We have brought it together. So what do we have to do in the Senate to move forward? We file a motion to proceed. OK. That is just to proceed. You are not even on the bill.

Do you know what is going to happen? The Republicans are going to step forward, their leadership is going to step forward, and they are going to say: No, no, we are not going to agree to that. We are not going to agree to even proceed to the bill.

So we are going to have to file cloture. When we file a cloture motion today, it is going to take 2 days before that cloture motion ripens. Then we are going to have a cloture vote. Then 30 more hours are going to expire. They are going to require us to use all that time. Even though we may be in a quorum call and not doing any debate, they are going to require that. Then, believe it or not, they are going to require us--these wonderful clerks who work up here--they are going to require them to stand up for 50 hours and read that bill on the floor-- 50 hours. The normal thing we do to get to something is we waive the reading. But they are going to require it.

What does the Senator think of that approach? I cannot understand that.

That is exactly what I am saying. We have worked hard. The majority has worked hard. We put together a bill. We have had hearings--Democrats and Republicans--in those committees. When we file a motion to proceed, we are not even on the bill, we cannot amend the bill. When we file that motion to proceed, they are going to require we take 2 full days, and then another 30 hours, and then demand we read the bill on the Senate floor.

I see Senator Alexander in the Chamber. I know there are good friends of ours on the other side who do not want to see that kind of thing proceed. But a couple of Senators can muck up the whole works here and slow this thing down.

I think the American people want us to move forward with health care. I think they want us to get something done that provides health care for people, that provides choices, that keeps people's doctors, that puts competition in the market--all of those kinds of things.

Senator Merkley.

I say to Senator Merkley, thank you. Thank you for joining me in this colloquy today.

I thank the Acting President pro tempore and yield back any time at this point.

Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the life and mourn the passing of one of New Mexico's great public servants. This past Friday Bruce King, the three-time Governor of New Mexico and a constant advocate for regular folks, for the average person, left this world after 85 years of devotion to his family, to his community, and to his State.

Bruce King was a self-made man who came from modest roots. Back in 1918, his parents traveled to New Mexico from Texas and traded their Model T for a homestead tract where they raised Bruce and his siblings. Along the way the elder Kings instilled in their children an appreciation for a hard day's work, a compassion for people, and a love of public service.

Bruce carried those lessons into adulthood and into a life defined by public service. He served in the Army in World War II, as a Santa Fe County commissioner, as a member of the New Mexico House of Representatives and later speaker of that same House of Representatives and, finally, as a three-term Governor elected in 1970, 1978, and then, once more, in 1990.

Bruce's legacy as Governor will be felt for generations. Due in no small part to the advocacy of his devoted wife Alice, Governor King created a new cabinet level department focused on the welfare of New Mexico's children. We called it the Children, Youth and Families Department. Thanks to Bruce and Alice's vision, more New Mexico children are safe and secure. More are healthy and ready to learn, and more have the support they need to follow their dreams. Governor King's contributions didn't end there. His leadership was instrumental to the creation of New Mexico's large and enduring rainy day funds which to this day continue to provide substantial support for education. He reformed New Mexico's school funding formula so that money is equally distributed across the State. Thanks to Governor King, State education funding now follows the student, regardless of income or geography. He also was an advocate for aggressive economic development, recruiting a new Intel plant to Rio Rancho, for the creation of a better, safer Statewide road system, and for the establishment of a new border crossing with Mexico.

But despite all of these achievements, what New Mexicans will most remember Bruce for is something more simple and much harder to come by in politicians these days. Bruce was not in politics for the power, for the prestige. He was in politics because of the people. He loved the people of New Mexico and the people of New Mexico--from Lordsburg to Clayton to Shiprock and Carlsbad and everywhere in between--loved him right back. Bruce enjoyed nothing more than talking to New Mexicans. Almost every morning you would find him doing just that at El Comedor Restaurant in Moriarty, NM. He had a booming voice and was famous for greeting friends and strangers alike with a handshake and a down home ``How y'all doing? Fine. Fine.''

I will always remember Bruce as a true cowboy from Stanley who had the most generous spirit. He always saw the best in people. He always did the right thing for New Mexico. My family was fortunate to call Bruce and Alice our friends. Our daughter Amanda even went to work for Alice in her first job out of college. She stayed close with both of them, ever since.

New Mexico will miss the Kings. We all know our State is a better place for their service and dedication to its people. As Governor King is laid to rest this week, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this remarkable public servant.

Madam President, following on the heels of my colleague Senator Inouye, I congratulate Senator Byrd on his many years of public service. Today Senator Byrd passed a landmark in the Senate. He is the longest serving Senator. He came to the Congress in my father's class of representatives in 1954. My father Stewart Udall and the entire Udall clan

congratulate him on his record-setting years of public service.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked with Senator Hatch, and my other colleagues in the Senate to unanimously pass the Feed America Day resolution.

Over the past several years, States, cities, and communities throughout the country have declared the Thursday before Thanksgiving as Feed America Day. In observance of this day, citizens are encouraged to sacrifice two meals and donate the money they would have spent on food to a local religious or charitable organization for the purpose of feeding the hungry.

As the economic downturn has struck our nation, employment rates have dropped and more and more families have had to turn to food banks and other emergency food services to meet their day-to-day needs. Our emergency food providers are being stretched to their limits to try to meet the current demand for assistance. Vicki Metheny, a constituent of mine who has run the food bank in San Juan County, NM for the last 18 years, told my office earlier this week that this is the first time in her years of service that she has been really worried about whether the food bank will be able to keep up with the unprecedented need in local communities. A similar message is coming from food pantries and emergency food providers across the country.

As we approach the Thanksgiving festivities, it is my hope that individuals will take the time to think of those in their community who may be struggling to keep food on the table. To miss a few meals and make a modest donation to a local food pantry is a small thing, but if many of us join together in this effort, we can have a large impact. And a large impact is what we must have if we are to keep our families and food pantries afloat this year.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, last year more than 49 million Americans, including almost 17 million children, live in households with either ``low'' or ``very low'' food security, meaning that these households cannot keep healthy food on the table without the assistance of Federal programs or local emergency food providers. In my home State of New Mexico, food insecurity impacts over 14 percent of the population.

There are many efforts underway at the Federal level and at the local level to build up the economy and create opportunities for families to become more financially stable. This resolution is just one reminder that there is a need for assistance in each of our communities, and that each of us can and should take steps to confront hunger locally.

Mr. President, tomorrow we will observe Veterans Day, a day to honor the millions of men and women who put on the uniform to defend our Nation. In communities across the Nation, we will gather to thank all veterans for their service, for their having risked their lives so that the rest of us could enjoy freedom.

I rise to offer legislation that is meant to honor veterans who are too often forgotten. Tonight, on the eve of the day meant to highlight their heroism, more than 130,000 veterans will be homeless, left without a home and without a warm meal. For many, they are on the streets with their families--husbands and wives and children left without any safety net. Perhaps they recently lost their job. Perhaps they recently lost their home to foreclosure. Why they are on the streets matters less than why we have left them on their own.

When coming into office, President Obama set a goal of ending homelessness among veterans within 5 years. This is a goal that I strongly support. VA Secretary Shinseki, himself a decorated veteran, has aggressively taken on this challenge, focusing efforts and funding toward eradicating homelessness.

Last Friday, I rose on this floor to increase funding for the homelessness and grant per diem program to the fully authorized amount of $150 million. This vital program has produced real results, offering transitional housing to veterans and their families and allowing organizations to construct and renovate facilities that can provide a multitude of services. I am hopeful that we will see this amendment pass and this level of funding included in the final bill.

However, if we are going to reach the President's goal of ending veterans' homelessness in five years, more will be needed. For that reason, I am joined today by Senator Bond in introducing S. 2760, legislation to increase the authorization of the grant and per diem program to $200 million. This increased funding can provide hundreds, perhaps thousands, of new beds and facilities for veterans in all 50 States.

Congressman Harry Teague introduced similar legislation earlier this year in the House where it has been marked up in subcommittee and is awaiting further action. I am hopeful that we will see Congress stand up to this moral obligation and provide the full resources needed for the thousands of veterans who have no home, who have no hope.

Last week, as I offered my amendment, I read a letter from a 15-year- old Boy Scout from Albuquerque. His father and grandfather are veterans and he is planning to follow in their footsteps and join the military himself when he is old enough. This young man wrote to say how angry he is that we are not doing enough to help our homeless veterans. ``These men and women are doing what they were called to do by our government,'' he wrote, ``but then they come back and are treated so poorly by everyone. We, as a Nation, need to do more to help our veterans.''

To the smart young man who wrote me that letter and to all of America's veterans, this bill builds on efforts to meet our country's moral obligations to the men and women who so bravely served our country. I thank Senator Bond for his support and I urge fast action to move this legislation forward.