Floor Statements

Mr. President, with the passing of Senator Teddy Kennedy, Americans lost a champion, the Senate lost a living legend, and those of us who were fortunate to know him personally lost a friend and mentor.

My memories of Teddy Kennedy reach beyond our short time together in the Senate all the way back to my days as a kid when his brother Jack was running for President of the United States. My father was an early supporter of Jack's campaign and Teddy stayed at our house in Arizona while he was campaigning for his brother in the west. In those days, the west was not considered a plum campaign assignment so, naturally, as the youngest of his clan it fell to him. We had a full house at the time, with all of my brothers and sisters at home, so there wasn't even a bed for him to sleep on. So he slept on the floor and never uttered a word of complaint. My memories of him from that time reflect the same Teddy Kennedy everyone describes today. He was a kind man, dedicated to his brother and his family, and always patient with all of us kids and our questions.

In later years, Teddy continued to be a frequent visitor to New Mexico. When our family was in the midst of a campaign and needed that extra bit of star power, Teddy was there the one person who could ignite a crowd like no other. As Democrats, we loved having him in our State because he could always get a turnout. He had rallies with 10,000-12,000 people--huge crowds for New Mexico.

Teddy Kennedy loved New Mexico and New Mexicans. And New Mexicans loved Teddy right back. In most family living rooms, you can find two prominently displayed photographs. They include at least one of the Kennedys be it Jack, Bobby, or Teddy and at least one of the Pope. New Mexicans just have a very deep affection for the entire Kennedy family.

My father eventually served in Jack Kennedy's Cabinet as Interior Secretary. These days, he talks a lot about his time in JFK's administration. He says he is now the last of the generation. The last leaf on the tree from the Kennedy Cabinet. My father was greatly saddened by Senator Kennedy's passing.

Just about every piece of monumental legislation that has come out of this Senate over the past 50 years has had Teddy Kennedy's stamp on it somehow. Whether it was voting rights or education improvements or health care reform--the cause of Teddy's life--America owes a debt of gratitude to the senior senator from Massachusetts for his leadership and unwavering dedication to making our country a better place for all who call it home.

But the last chapter in Teddy's legacy remains incomplete. That chapter is health care reform, and it is our job as Teddy's colleagues and friends to pick up where he left off and pass legislation that helps all Americans obtain affordable, quality health coverage. Teddy Kennedy dreamed of a day when decent, quality health care is a fundamental right and not just a privilege. We are once again at the edge of transformative change in our country. We have Teddy Kennedy to thank for getting us to this point. I look forward to joining my colleagues as we make Teddy's final dream a reality.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for those of us on the floor to be able to carry on a colloquy about a public option.

Mr. President, I say to Senator Brown that the number in New Mexico--the Senator from Ohio has a range on his chart, but the number in New Mexico is actually 2 companies controlling 65 percent of the market. So we are talking about a situation that isn't very competitive. I think that is the bottom line of what we have been hearing.

We have had our colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, and we have had Debbie Stabenow from Michigan, and other colleagues are here on the floor, speaking to that situation in their States, and why we should proceed with a public option.

Let me first say to the Senator from Ohio, I appreciate his leadership. I know he was on the HELP Committee, which is the one that wrote the public option we have the opportunity to put in the final legislation. He was on the committee. Some of us are getting into writing the legislation now. But one of the best public options out there is the one that came out of Senator Kennedy's committee. It has been passed for a couple of months. It is sitting right there ready to go, if we just put it in.

When we talk about a public option, what exactly are we talking about? I think people have a right to know a little bit about what we are talking about when we say public option. I think if I outline that a little bit, people will see

why it is so important to have a public option, so let me give a little bit of an outline.

First, it would be voluntary. We are not forcing anybody to get into it. We are talking about a voluntary system. So you would have a choice to get into it, based on whether it would fit your particular circumstances.

The public option would not be subsidized by the government. It would be fully financed by premiums. So this would be something where people would be paying premiums, the premiums would come in, and we wouldn't be adding to the deficit. We would be creating a good, solid insurance situation and insuring people.

We have heard, as Senator Brown has talked about here--he put up a chart about these incredible salaries. One of the things a public option would do is you won't make profit for the shareholders. You have the opportunity to take those premiums and put them all back into health care. So that, once again, is something that is very important.

Let's look here at this chart Senator Brown has loaned me. Look at the total compensation for CEOs of major health insurance companies in 2008: Aetna, $24.3 million; Cigna; WellPoint; Coventry--look at these salaries. There is a total, for these 8 or 10 companies, of $85 million in salaries.

What we are talking about is money being spent on health care for people through a public option. One of the other things that I think would be a hallmark of a public option would be having low administrative costs, since it operates on a nonprofit basis. One of the things you should know about these insurance companies where you have these CEOs working is that they have administrative costs in the range we have heard about, 30 percent administrative costs. So what happens here is that the money comes in on the premiums, but they spend an incredible amount of time going back and forth denying claims, telling doctors they should not put that in, they are not going to cover it, and it builds up into a big administrative cost.

The great thing about a public option is you don't have high administrative costs. One of the comparisons there, as Senator Brown and Senator Sanders know, is that I think Medicare has 3 percent administrative costs. Here you have a comparison of 30 percent to 3 percent.

One of the other parts of a public option I think makes a difference is exerting bargaining power to obtain discounts from providers. That could make a big difference with the public option operating out there. We would offer savings to subscribers with lower premiums. We should follow the same insurance requirements as private plans. What we would offer, through a public option, would be low cost and high value.

Basically, what we are talking about here is keeping insurance companies honest, driving the costs down, and having a competitive market.

Senator Sanders well knows that the situation right now isn't serving the American people. I know he wants to comment on his situation in Vermont and what's going on there.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont.

I want to also yield to a Senator here and give him the floor--with Senator Brown's permission. Sheldon Whitehouse, from the great State of Rhode Island, I believe was also on the committee and was intimately working through the bill. It is wonderful to have him here with our colleagues talking about the idea that we have to have a public option.

Senator Bennet, one of the things that is happening--and your chart there really explains it, and I wanted to get you to talk about this a little bit--your chart says: Rising health care costs are hitting small businesses the hardest and forcing all Colorado businesses to make tough choices.

That is exactly what is happening in New Mexico, exactly what is happening in Ohio. And really what we have going on here is very hard- working, good small businesspeople who want to give their employees insurance. I hear that. I know the Senator from Ohio said that a number of times when he read letters. They want to give that insurance, but they can't. They search around, they can't find policies they can afford, and so they are really stuck. And I can give you a list of examples in New Mexico.

One of the things you pointed out on your chart is that even before the recession--even before the recession--fewer Colorado small businesses could offer coverage. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the small business situation because most of these people are working without insurance.

One of those charts you put up over there emphasized the point of competition in the marketplace and how much we need competition. We joined together with the majority of our colleagues in the caucus to sign a letter to our leadership. I think one of the paragraphs in this letter is particularly persuasive. The Senator's signature is the No. 1 signature on this letter, but we wrote:

Opponents of health care reform argue that a public option

presents unfair competition to the private insurance

companies. However, it is possible to create a public health

insurance option that is modeled after private insurance.

Rates are negotiated and providers are not required to

participate in the plan. As you know, this is the Senate HELP

Committee's approach.

This is the public option we are talking about that was passed out of the Kennedy committee and is available to be inserted in the bill on which we are going to vote.

The major differences between the public option and for-

profit plans are that the public plan would report to

taxpayers, not to shareholders, and the public plan would be

available continuously in all parts of the country.

So small business people in New Mexico would have an opportunity to get into this public option insurance plan.

The number one goal of health reform must be to look out

for the best interests of the American people--patients and

taxpayers alike--not the profit margins of insurance

companies.

We have to get competition into the market. We know that health insurance markets are effective monopolies or in some cases duopolies. In New Mexico we have two companies that hold 65 percent of the market. There is no incentive for competition. There is no incentive for lower cost. In fact, what we do under the law is, we allow these insurance companies to be exempted from antitrust laws. For most of the other businesses in America, we have those antitrust laws out there, and the Justice Department and various State attorneys general can move in to bring competition when there gets to be too much consolidation of power. We don't have that when it comes to insurance companies. As a result, we see premiums skyrocket; in my home State of New Mexico, 120 percent skyrocketing premiums.

As I wrap up, I want to talk about a New Mexican, a woman from Raton. I met her at a townhall in August. She received a renewal notice. Her premium had gone up 24 percent alone this year. She can't afford an increase, but she doesn't have any other option. A public option would bring that woman the ability to get into a health care plan and take care of herself. That is what you and I are fighting for. We are going to keep doing this. We are going to keep doing this because we have a lot of days to keep pushing forward. We will make this happen.

With that, I know the Senator has a couple more things to say. You should show the Presiding Officer Alaska on that map. What does it say?

Madam President, if we want to do something about runaway health care costs, the way to control them is to institute prevention and make prevention a major part of this bill. We are in danger of systematically neglecting prevention. I believe if we focus on prevention, we can get control of the cost curve. Prevention can mean clinical services such as mammograms and colonoscopies and cholesterol screens. The good news is that most of the bills being considered would make these services much more accessible and affordable. But successful reform also means addressing another aspect of prevention. I am talking about primary prevention, the kind that keeps people from getting sick in the first place.

Evidence suggests that primary prevention should focus on three behaviors: physical activity, nutrition, and smoking. But the reality is, whether through personal choice or lack of options, too many Americans are struggling. Today two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese and often more than 20 percent smoke. Things are even worse for minorities who often suffer the most from the lack of preventive care.

In my State, we have a diabetes epidemic among Native Americans and Hispanics. We are in this crisis today because we have neglected prevention for years. Of the more than 2 trillion we spend on health care each year, only 4 cents of every dollar is invested in prevention. It doesn't make sense. Studies have shown that primary prevention will not only save lives, it will also save money. In New Mexico, a $10-per- person investment in community-based prevention programs would save $88 million annually. Nationally that translates to more than $16 billion annually. That is a return of $5.60 for every $1 invested.

We have solid evidence that we can spend less on health care while saving more lives. So what should we do? Experts say effective prevention must address three levels: the individual, the institutional, and the environmental. Individual prevention is about Americans making the right choices for themselves. This means choosing nutritious foods, maintaining an active lifestyle, avoiding excess weight, avoiding smoking, drug abuse, and excessive drinking. Institutional and environmental prevention helps individuals stay on the path to a healthy lifestyle. This could mean incentives for physical activity, disincentives for smoking, and nutritional labeling on menus.

It could also mean more bike paths and more school gardens.

Legislation approved by the HELP Committee would establish a new fund to support these activities. This kind of dedicated, stable funding stream is critical to effectively address America's legacy of neglect regarding prevention. There is an often-quoted parable that tells of a nurse fishing downstream. As she fishes, she sees a person coming down the river struggling for life. The nurse pulls him out. Then, another comes and again must be rescued. This happens all afternoon and the nurse tires from constantly pulling people out of the river. Eventually, she realizes she has to get upstream, to see what is pushing them in the river in the first place.

It is time for America to look upstream, to see where the real problems lie. It is time to honestly address these preventable health problems.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Murkowski amendment. The Murkowski amendment would prohibit the EPA from using funds under the Clean Air Act to deal with climate change.

I listened earlier today, and I heard the Senator from California, the chairman of the Appropriations Interior, Environment Subcommittee, speaking about the issue, and she spoke eloquently. I heard Senator Boxer, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, speaking about this issue. She also made the very strong point that this amendment would be ill-advised and irresponsible. And I rise today to speak to this amendment and to oppose it.

America and the world are face-to-face with a perfect storm--an energy crisis and a climate crisis that require a do-it-all energy policy. These two crises are closely linked, and today I would like to raise one facet of the solution: clean energy incentives.

I strongly believe we should resist efforts to block the Obama administration actions on clean energy on the fiscal year 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act or other legislation, for that matter. If that were to happen, American families and the men and women in our Armed Forces would be stuck with the bill.

Concerns about the cost of the administration's actions to address our energy and climate crisis have it exactly backward. The biggest cost is the cost of inaction--costs families pay at the pump in energy bills every day; money from their hard-earned paychecks that end up in the treasuries of foreign countries or foreign oil companies, some of which are hostile to the United States. In the end, the only people who will benefit from efforts to block clean energy solutions are members of OPEC and other special interests in the fossil fuel industry.

To put it simply, our dependence on fossil fuels is a huge drag on families' pocketbooks and a clear and present danger to our national security. In 2008, American families and businesses sent $475 billion overseas to pay for foreign oil. That works out to over $4,000 per household in America--a massive transfer of wealth from hard-working families in New Mexico and the other 49 States to the treasuries of foreign nations. The largest consumer of foreign oil is the U.S. military, which is engaged in two major conflicts in the Middle East-- an area of strategic importance largely due to its massive oil reserves.

Making matters worse, this same reliance on fossil fuels pollutes our atmosphere with toxic compounds such as sulfur dioxide, soot, and mercury, alongside greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The global climate crisis is real. Strong scientific evidence shows unless we transition to clean energy sources, our home States will pay a heavy price.

In New Mexico, scientific evidence indicates more devastating forest fires, droughts, and invasive species caused by climate change.

Luckily, we have numerous cost-effective solutions at hand to address the energy and climate crisis. My home State of New Mexico and many other States across the Nation are rich in much cleaner domestic sources of energy, sources such as wind and solar, geothermal and natural gas. Several years ago, wind energy was unusual but today these projects are quite common. Wind projects create thousands of U.S. jobs in the steel, manufacturing, and construction sectors.

The United States is now installing over a gigawatt of solar power each year and there are six other gigawatts of concentrated solar power projects planned nationally, particularly in the Southwest.

U.S. natural gas reserves have also increased by 35 percent in 1 year, an increase that gives our Nation a century's worth of supply. While natural gas is a fossil fuel, it is significantly cleaner than either coal or oil, and much more abundant.

Despite these improvements, we continue to waste tremendous amounts of energy. Government and industry studies have found that the right investments could save energy and more than $1 trillion at the same time. Energy efficiency does not mean turning down the heater in the winter. Rather, efficiency means investments in building technologies such as advanced windows, insulation, and smart electric grids that do not waste energy or money. Improving our efficiency on a major scale would also save more than 1 billion tons of greenhouse gases, proving we can address the global climate crisis without increasing costs on families.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration was required by the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution that is causing our climate crisis, but the Bush administration failed to act. Congress should not put the Obama administration in handcuffs when the President is trying to change course and follow the law. To those who worry that the administration action could short circuit debate on these issues in Congress, nothing could be further from the truth. I agree that Congress should act and set a comprehensive clean energy incentive policy. Numerous Cabinet Secretaries from the administration have testified that they welcome congressional action to create a path forward on clean energy. For Congress to block the administration and to fail to act itself would be the height of irresponsibility.

Our energy and climate crisis have the same root cause. The Senate should address both challenges with the same cost-effective solutions-- incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. That is why efforts to block the Obama administration from acting on climate change are so dangerous. Such efforts continue our reliance on fossil fuels that hurt family budgets, threaten our national security, and pollute our atmosphere.

The bottom line is America needs a ``do it all'' energy policy, one that includes all the tools in our energy toolbox--more alternative energies and a commitment to conservation; increased domestic oil production, including offshore; investments in clean coal research and technology; and nuclear power has to be part of the mix. Energy and climate change are one of the defining challenges of our time--our perfect storm. We have the tools to fix the problem. Now we need the will to act, not to obstruct.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to correct the record regarding some recent remarks of Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma regarding offshore drilling. Senator Coburn stated in today's debate that I ``voted against an opportunity to expand offshore exploration yesterday.''

First, the Senator's comments are somewhat confusing because there were no votes yesterday that would have opened up even one acre of our offshore public lands to oil exploration. Instead, I believe that Senator Coburn may have been referring to yesterday's motion to recommit by Senator Vitter of Louisiana.

I opposed the Vitter motion yesterday because it was counter- productive. By using political interference in offshore permitting, it would have actually created serious delays. Supporters of the Vitter motion talked about their desire to expand offshore oil drilling, but the motion set up major legal obstacles to developing our natural resources.

The motion was vaguely drafted, but it could have blocked funding from being used to review the over 300,000 public comments received. The motion also could have blocked the Secretary from considering facts and scientific evidence regarding the decision he needs to make.

I opposed the Vitter motion because the only way that we can legally access our public lands for natural resources is by due process. If we block the Department of Interior from following due process, that only serves to delay the process with litigation.

Mr. President, I am proud to join our class today to talk about the cost of inaction.

Mr. President, health insurance reform is one of the defining challenges of our time. Every person in our country has a stake in what we do at this moment, in this place. And while there are a lot of proposals out there, there is one thing we know for sure: Maintaining the status quo is not an option.

It is what has been done for years. It has been the easy choice. Kick the can down the road a couple yards . . . a couple of years . . . but never get at the root of the problem. Maintaining the status quo is the one coward's way out. And one doesn't need an economics degree to see where that approach has gotten us.

Part of meeting the challenge of reforming health insurance is being honest about the consequences we face if we don't. So I rise today to talk about the high price of doing nothing.

It is a price we will all pay--a human price, an economic price, a societal price. All equally devastating if we don't muster the courage, if we don't have the political will to stand up and say: Not anymore. Not on our watch.

The human price is the price we feel most personally when we see our family, our friends, our neighbors struggling to obtain health care, to afford health care, or to hold on to the health care they already have.

If we do nothing--if we maintain the status quo--more Americans will be uninsured or underinsured. More Americans will become sick. More will die because of lack of care, and more families will experience financial ruin.

A new report that came out last week found that family premiums have already increased by about 5 percent this year. Over the past 10 years, premiums have gone up 131 percent. It is a vicious cycle. America's families, America's workers and businesses--especially small businesses--can't keep up.

In New Mexico, we have been paying the human price of the status quo for years. In my State, nearly one in four residents lacks health insurance. That makes us the second-highest uninsured State in the Nation. And three-quarters of uninsured New Mexicans work or are from working families. Added to that, 80 more New Mexicans lose their health care coverage every day.

People like a woman I met in Raton, NM, last month. She and her husband just got a renewal notice from their health care insurer. Their premium rose 24 percent this year alone. It is an increase they can't afford, and they don't know what to do. They are paying the human price for the status quo.

Along with the human price, there is the economic price.

By now it is a familiar refrain. The health care system as we know it is unsustainable. It is unsustainable for taxpayers, who are picking up the costs for those who can't afford or can't obtain insurance on their own. It is unsustainable for businesses which aren't able to afford skyrocketing costs to cover their employees. And it is unsustainable for our government. As President Obama said recently:

Our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing

else even comes close.

Without health care reform, if we do nothing but maintain the status quo, the problems that seem insurmountable today will look like child's play compared with the catastrophic news of tomorrow.

If we fail to act, the number of uninsured Americans will increase from more than 46 million last year to more than 53 million in 2019. And that is a best case scenario. The actual number could be as high as almost 58 million. For New Mexico, failure to act would mean that insured New Mexicans continue paying $2,300 in hidden subsidies for the uninsured.

If we fail to act, U.S. spending on health care will climb from almost $2.4 trillion last year to almost $4.3 trillion in 2017. And insurance companies will continue to profit at the expense of America's health and America's pocketbooks.

If we fail to act, businesses will continue to flounder under the crushing costs of health care coverage. Fewer businesses will open their doors. More will call it quits for good. And, most chillingly, the entrepreneurial spirit that is so uniquely American could be badly damaged.

If we fail to act, government at all levels will suffer. Budgets will continue to shrink. Priorities like education, energy innovation and job creation will continue to be underfunded. Americans will continue to pay the economic price.

Finally, along with the human and economic costs, there is one more price to consider if we don't step up to our responsibilities and deliver on health care. That price is more figurative, but no less painful.

I am talking about the price we pay as a country for not living up to the ideals on which America was founded.

America is heralded as the land of opportunity. But realizing that opportunity should not be dependent on whether you have enough money in your bank account to afford health care.

America is a place where ``all men are created equal.'' But how can that be true if access to something as fundamental as health care is divided between the haves and have nots?

Harry Truman--who was the first President to attempt to provide every American with health care--put it simply:

We are a rich nation and can afford many things. But ill-

health which can be prevented or cured is one thing we cannot

afford.

More than 60 years later, his words ring true:

We cannot afford ill-health which can be prevented or

cured.

We cannot afford to maintain the status quo.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman in introducing Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. The bill celebrates and preserves a portion of the unique and delicate landscape of southern New Mexico. Wilderness and conservation areas in Dona Ana and Luna Counties will protect a vast number of archeological sites and riparian areas, maintain habitat and migration corridors for wildlife, and preserve some of the only Chihuahuan Desert in the United States.

Set in the heart of Dona Ana County, Las Cruces is New Mexico's second largest city, and growing. The citizens of Las Cruces and the surrounding communities want to ensure that the area will continue to develop in a way that preserves the surrounding pristine landscapes including the iconic Organ Mountains. The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act is consistent with the city and County's long-term growth plan, and will act to maintain growth patterns in a way that will allow all citizens to enjoy the impressive views and landscapes surrounding Las Cruces.

The Organ Mountains Wilderness and NCA, just one portion of this comprehensive legislation, will keep these impressive peaks available for the enjoyment of southern New Mexicans, and all who visit the area. This mountain range is strikingly unique and gives great character and identity to other surrounding landscape and to the city of Las Cruces itself. A vast range of individual and public and private organizations came together to work on the protection of the Organ Mountains and the seven other wilderness areas included in the bill. Hunters, anglers and conservationists worked with ranchers and city and county officials to determine what areas were in greatest need of protection. Nearby military facilities worked with the Bureau of Land Management on land exchanges that are reflected in the bill and will benefit the public and military entities. Recommendations from the Border Patrol on how to ensure that the new wilderness fit into their homeland security efforts were incorporated into the bill. Years of negotiation and cooperation have resulted in the legislation being introduced today.

In total, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act will protect 421,344 acres of desert landscape including 162,270 acres of National Conservation Area, and 259,071 acres of Wilderness Area. This area of rare and beautiful landscapes will be valued for generations. From the jagged basalt lava flows of the Cinder Cone Wilderness to the roaming hawks and scrambling javelinas of the Robledo Mountains, this unique piece of southern New Mexico has abundant natural value for its citizens.

With this legislation, we build upon the work of conservation greats like Aldo Leopold, a man who saw the beauty of New Mexico's untamed wilderness lands and sought to preserve them for future generations. It was Mr. Leopold who said, ``Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land.'' With the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, we move a step closer to achieving that state of perfect harmony. I thank Senator Bingaman for his work to preserve this landscape and urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman in introducing Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. The bill celebrates and preserves a portion of the unique and delicate landscape of southern New Mexico. Wilderness and conservation areas in Dona Ana and Luna Counties will protect a vast number of archeological sites and riparian areas, maintain habitat and migration corridors for wildlife, and preserve some of the only Chihuahuan Desert in the United States.

Set in the heart of Dona Ana County, Las Cruces is New Mexico's second largest city, and growing. The citizens of Las Cruces and the surrounding communities want to ensure that the area will continue to develop in a way that preserves the surrounding pristine landscapes including the iconic Organ Mountains. The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act is consistent with the city and County's long-term growth plan, and will act to maintain growth patterns in a way that will allow all citizens to enjoy the impressive views and landscapes surrounding Las Cruces.

The Organ Mountains Wilderness and NCA, just one portion of this comprehensive legislation, will keep these impressive peaks available for the enjoyment of southern New Mexicans, and all who visit the area. This mountain range is strikingly unique and gives great character and identity to other surrounding landscape and to the city of Las Cruces itself. A vast range of individual and public and private organizations came together to work on the protection of the Organ Mountains and the seven other wilderness areas included in the bill. Hunters, anglers and conservationists worked with ranchers and city and county officials to determine what areas were in greatest need of protection. Nearby military facilities worked with the Bureau of Land Management on land exchanges that are reflected in the bill and will benefit the public and military entities. Recommendations from the Border Patrol on how to ensure that the new wilderness fit into their homeland security efforts were incorporated into the bill. Years of negotiation and cooperation have resulted in the legislation being introduced today.

In total, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act will protect 421,344 acres of desert landscape including 162,270 acres of National Conservation Area, and 259,071 acres of Wilderness Area. This area of rare and beautiful landscapes will be valued for generations. From the jagged basalt lava flows of the Cinder Cone Wilderness to the roaming hawks and scrambling javelinas of the Robledo Mountains, this unique piece of southern New Mexico has abundant natural value for its citizens.

With this legislation, we build upon the work of conservation greats like Aldo Leopold, a man who saw the beauty of New Mexico's untamed wilderness lands and sought to preserve them for future generations. It was Mr. Leopold who said, ``Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land.'' With the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, we move a step closer to achieving that state of perfect harmony. I thank Senator Bingaman for his work to preserve this landscape and urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 12 minutes.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about Judge Sotomayor's experience, and I also want to talk about empathy.

In the period since President Obama nominated Sotomayor, some of her opponents have done their best to give empathy a bad name. I think that is a shame. It would be sad for us to confirm Sonia Sotomayor but allow her empathy to be discredited as a human emotion and a judicial asset.

During his confirmation hearings, Clarence Thomas said:

What I bring to this Court, I believe, is an understanding

and the ability to stand in the shoes of other people across

a broad spectrum of this country.

Justice Thomas's description of empathy captures one thing Sotomayor would bring to this Court: a diversity of experience and the ability to stand in the shoes of other people.

During her opening statement before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor talked about her experience as a prosecutor in New York for legendary district attorney Bob Morgenthau. She said:

I saw children exploited and abused. I felt the pain and

suffering of families torn apart by the needless deaths of

loved ones. I saw and learned the tough job law enforcement

has in protecting the public.

According to those who knew and worked with her, Judge Sotomayor was an excellent prosecutor. She knew the law, she studied the facts, and she did the hard work to keep people safe from crime. In this difficult job, she benefited from her empathy. Judge Sotomayor felt the pain and suffering of families destroyed by crime. She felt the difficulties law enforcement officers face, and she understood that her job was not just about enforcing the law, it was about ending the suffering crime brings.

During her testimony, Judge Sotomayor talked about the ``Tarzan'' case, a famous burglary and murder case she prosecuted. A quarter century later, she still feels deeply the impact of that crime. I was struck by her description of how the murder of a son devastated the lives of his mother and grandmother, how one act of violence produced ripples that destroyed a family and weakened a community, and how the family and the community demanded justice.

When I served as a Federal prosecutor, I learned that empathy is every bit as important as legal knowledge and good judgment. A prosecutor who reads the facts of a crime and cannot empathize with those involved is not just a strange person, he or she is likely to be an ineffective lawyer. A proper respect for the law demands a recognition that individuals involved in a legal dispute are not abstractions; they are sons, daughters, sisters, and brothers, men and women who deserve justice. Empathy allows us to recognize that, and that is essential to the practice of law. It is also an essential quality for judges.

Some Members of this body have suggested that empathy is inconsistent with impartial judgment. I disagree. Judges must, first and foremost, apply law to facts. But this process is not a mechanical calculation; it requires attention to the human impact of legal decisions. Legal reasoning that ignores

the human dimension risks inhuman outcomes to human problems. Law without empathy produces decisions such as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. It gives you reasoned arguments and unreasonable results.

When the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott, its members were applying the law to the facts as they saw them. One fact they took for granted was that Dred Scott was so different as to be unworthy of legal protections. The Taney Court could not put themselves in Scott's shoes, and the result was such a rebuke to the values of this Nation that it helped drive us to civil war.

When the Court wrote in Plessy that ``the enforced separation of the two races [does not stamp] the colored race with a badge of inferiority,'' they were not misinterpreting the law. They just could not feel the sting of segregation. Or to put it another way, they failed to show empathy, and generations of Black citizens paid the price.

Of course, a judge with empathy must also determine with whom to empathize. One of my colleagues has argued that empathy for somebody is always discrimination against somebody else. Again, I disagree. I believe that justice is not a zero-sum game. Equal justice for minorities does not mean less justice for others. A judge who feels compassion for those who face the legacy of codified bigotry is not less able to sympathize with a White firefighter who has been denied a promotion. The law respects the humanity of every individual. Judges can and should do the same.

Judge Sotomayor has explained that her experience has helped her to ``understand, respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me.'' All litigants.

As a prosecutor, Judge Sotomayor sympathized with the victims of crime. But she could also look at a defendant and see a fellow human being--somebody who deserves fairness, if not freedom. As a judge, she has ruled for civil rights claimants, and she has ruled against them. She has ruled for prosecutors and for defendants. Her compassion has not led her to come down on one side or the other. It has helped her to be both wise and fair--to treat every individual with the respect he or she deserves.

President Obama has nominated a Supreme Court Justice with a wealth of both personal and professional experience. Her experience has given her the intelligence to understand the law and the wisdom to apply it.

But it has also given her something more. Judge Sotomayor has seen housing projects and Ivy League dorms. She has defended those whom society ignores and prosecuted those who ignore society's rules. At the trial and appellate level, she has seen the human drama of American law play out in countless ways.

This experience has given her compassion for the diverse experiences that make up the American experiment. She understands in a deep and personal way that we all deserve equal justice under law. I can think of no more important qualification for a Supreme Court Justice.

She has earned her right to serve on the Nation's highest Court. I look forward to supporting her confirmation.

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

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

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

Madam President, as I rise today, the world is engaged in a high-stakes competition. The country that wins this competition will not only produce jobs today, it will dominate the industries of the future. The competition is the race to create clean energy jobs. I want America to win, and the Congress will play a key role in deciding whether we do.

But before I talk about the decision we have to make, I want to be clear about a decision that America does not have to make. We don't have to decide whether clean energy will be the industry of the future. It will. The clean energy industry is primed to produce millions of jobs in the coming years. The question is whether these jobs will be in America. We have to answer this question now.

If we put our minds to it, Americans can produce the clean energy technologies that will power the future. The country that invented the light bulb, the automobile, and the Internet is not going to finish last when it comes to developing new ideas. But we need policies that promote innovation. Right now, we are falling behind.

Progressive policies have given other countries a lead. With a population roughly one-quarter as large as America's, Germany has more than twice as many workers developing wind energy and solar photovoltaic technologies. By 2020, more Germans will be producing clean energy than are producing German cars. Spain has almost five times as many workers in the solar thermal industry as the United States. China has more than 300 times as many. Do we want to lose this race to Germany, to Spain, to China?

Some have argued that America cannot lead on climate change; that we need to wait for countries such as China and India to act first. This would be incredibly shortsighted. If America solves its energy problems first, every country on Earth will be begging for the technologies we develop. If we don't, we will be begging for technologies developed elsewhere.

Americans always prosper by being one step ahead. We mass produced the car, and American manufacturing built the middle class. We sparked the IT revolution, and our high-tech industry still gives us high- paying jobs. Today, being one step ahead means developing

the clean energy technologies of the future before anybody else does. Waiting for China to address its emissions problems before we address ours is like waiting for an opponent to finish the race before we start to lace up our shoes.

China is not waiting for America to act. It has already implemented strong policies to promote clean energy. Chinese fuel efficiency economy standards are higher today than ours will be in 2020. They have already set a 15-percent renewable energy standard for 2020, and their government recently said they could reach 20 percent. In 2009, China became the world's largest clean energy investor. It plans to spend nearly half a trillion dollars over 10 years to ensure clean energy jobs come to China.

China's policies have already begun to pay off. It is now the leading manufacturer of wind turbines and it has 65 percent of the world's solar thermal water heating market. China even beats us in industries we created. America invented solar photovoltaics, but China now dominates that market, while America comes in tenth.

I am not content to let other countries keep beating us at our own game. It is time to act. The clean energy bill currently being developed in Congress is the kind of action we need. It is a distinctly American solution to this global problem because it relies on private markets and private businesses, and that is why it provides real change with minimal cost.

Of course, some people will claim this plan breaks the bank. Defenders of the status quo never run out of excuses to do nothing. They have made huge profits polluting our air, and clean energy is a threat to them. The same people who denied the science of global warming will tell you that a clean energy solution is too expensive. They were wrong about the science then, and they are wrong about the economics now.

In 1990, polluters told America we could not afford the Clean Air Act, a bipartisan bill signed by a Republican President. History has shown that the act actually cost one-fortieth of what they said it would. The best independent estimate about this bill comes from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and they say it will cost Americans less than 50 cents per day, and the CBO numbers likely overestimate costs. To keep their analysis simple, they ignore the impact of increased efficiency. When you factor in efficiency, New Mexicans will probably end up ahead about $4 per month on their energy bills, and low-income New Mexicans will save even more. The most expensive energy policy America can pursue is the status quo.

In 2006, I introduced a clean energy bill similar to the bill we are considering now. The month I introduced it, gas prices were at about $2.25 per gallon. Critics claimed clean energy would drive up prices and Congress never acted. By 2008, the price of gas had nearly doubled to a high of $4.11.

Much of the money America spends on gas flows right out of this country. Today, the United States is importing nearly 70 percent of its oil. We sent roughly $4,280 per U.S. family out of the country in 2008 to pay for oil, and too much of that money goes to individuals who finance terrorism and regimes that don't like Americans.

Some will say the solution is increased oil production, and I support increased production. My home State of New Mexico is one of 10 that produces more oil than it consumes, and I am proud that we help meet America's energy needs. But increased production alone is not enough. America has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. More than 66 percent of those reserves--those that are left--are in Russia, Iran, and six other countries in the Middle East. The more we depend only on fossil fuels, the more American money will flow to these countries.

When it comes to energy, we have to do it all and we have to do it now. Since comprehensive clean energy legislation was first introduced in 2003, we have sent trillions of dollars abroad every year to pay for oil--in fact, $700 billion a year. We cannot afford 6 more years of delay.

But the status quo doesn't just threaten our economy and our security; it threatens the basis of our way of life. Scientists predict that global warming could give my home State of New Mexico the same climate as the Sonoran Desert in Chihuahua, Mexico. If that happens, farmers who have worked the land for generations will be forced out of business. Forest fires will become more common and more dangerous. Our communities will face a bleak economic future. For the children of my State and our country, we cannot afford to stay on this path.

Fortunately, America has what it takes to change course. Even without progressive policies on the national level, New Mexico has begun to create massive numbers of clean energy jobs. Between 1998 and 2007, clean energy jobs grew 25 times faster than other jobs. We call these the jobs of the future. Increasingly, they are also the jobs of today.

There are too many success stories to tell, but I want to mention one. Three weeks ago, a company called Schott Solar opened its second renewable technologies plant in Albuquerque, NM. The plant currently employs 300 people, and it comes 2 months after the company opened a plant that will eventually employ 1,500. Schott decided to locate these plants in New Mexico after our State passed a series of clean energy incentives.

What I like most about this story is that Schott is a German company. It looked at New Mexico's policies and decided to invest German money in creating American jobs. For years, while American policymakers failed to act, American investors sent our capital to Germany. New Mexico's forward-looking policies are helping to reverse the flow. What that tells me is that with the right policies, America can lead the world in this crucial industry. We can stop creating jobs in Saudi Arabia and start creating them in Socorro, NM. We can stop letting China develop our technologies and sell them back to us.

We can win the clean energy revolution the same way we won the high- tech revolution--by getting there first--or we can wait and watch the world pass us by. I think the choice is clear. I hope my colleagues do as well, and I hope they will join me in supporting the Senate's clean energy legislation when it comes to the floor.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Madam President, as to the bill that is before the Congress, I heard Chairman Dorgan mention Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Roadrunner computer. I thank him for his attention to the two national laboratories in my State, Los Alamos and Sandia. This computer, the Roadrunner computer, is a very important computer in dealing with issues such as climate change, national security, and other scientific research. I applaud his efforts in moving us forward, and also Ranking Member Bennett. I applaud them both for their leadership.

Health Care

Madam President, if you follow the debate in Washington about health reform, it is easy to get the wrong idea. The press likes to cover what we are doing out here as if it is a game of chess--one side wins by passing health care reform; the other side wins by blocking it.

I understand that somebody will disagree with whatever plan we produce to reform health care. That is democracy. Some Members of this body might decide they have to vote no on health reform. But let's be clear on one thing: If we fail to pass a health reform

plan, nobody wins. If we keep the status quo, all of our constituents will be worse off.

The health care debate can get complicated. Both sides have a list of numbers a mile long that are supposed to explain the problem and the possible solutions. But these numbers do not tell the whole story. For example, we know that 22,000 Americans die each year because they do not have health insurance. But that is only part of the story because every one of those 22,000 is a unique and irreplaceable individual-- somebody's mother, somebody's son. Numbers cannot convey the injustice of it all, the needless pain for families and friends. Every year, this country produces 22,000 unnecessary stories of loss and suffering-- 22,000 stories that could go unwritten if we act now. These stories are everywhere we look, if we look.

Last week, I got a short note from a man in Pena Blanca, NM. The man wrote:

My wife and I have been self employed craftsmen for 25

years. We never made enough money for health insurance. My

wife now has terminal colon cancer. If she could have had a

colonoscopy at 50 [years old] she would not be dying at 54.

My heart is broken.

All this woman needed was the simple preventive care that should be available to every American--care that costs little and saves lives. But our system did not provide that, and now she is dying. If we do not get health care legislation passed, thousands of women like my constituent in Pena Blanca will not get their colonoscopies and thousands more hearts will be broken like her husband's. I do not care where you stand in this body, that is not a victory for anybody.

Another thing we talk about in Washington is ``preexisting conditions'' reform. It sounds as if it should be something complicated, something most Americans do not quite understand. But my constituents know exactly what a preexisting condition is. It is the heart attack from 10 years ago that prevents dad from getting insurance through his job. It is mom's age. It is the fact that Sarah from down the street might get pregnant--a fact that forces her to pay more for insurance than her male coworkers.

I have held a number of townhalls on health care reform in New Mexico, and everywhere I go I hear stories.

A couple of weeks ago, I heard a story about a constituent who had come to my office for some casework a few years ago. This is one of those people whom you would expect to do great things. He works an incredibly technical job at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Until recently, he thought his knowledge and hard work would get him through any crisis. Then John began suffering from a host of unexplained neurological problems. The problems got so bad that he was actually relieved when a doctor told him about a tumor in his brain. He chuckles when he remembers that day. He was so relieved to know what was wrong with him, and his doctor said something could be done.

But John's insurance company had other ideas. Months went by, and John was not approved for the operation his doctor recommended. Only just recently was he approved for the procedure he needs. But now he has other problems. His medical leave is about to run out, and he does not know what to do. If he loses his job, he loses his insurance. And if he loses that, he could lose everything. He will become just another American whose preexisting condition prevents him from getting health care.

John was supposed to be one of the lucky ones. Before he began having problems, he assumed he was one of the 55 percent of New Mexicans who have adequate health insurance. But John was just one illness away from the edge. And he is not alone. If we do not act, millions of Americans will fall off the edge in the coming years. I do not care how you feel about the President's health care plan, that is not a victory.

Because John cannot work, he could lose his health insurance. But you do not have to lose your insurance to lose everything.

When I was back in New Mexico over the Fourth of July recess, I stopped at a local TV station for an interview. I went to the front desk to check in and introduced myself to the woman sitting there. It was like I had touched a nerve.

``Senator Udall,'' she said, ``I need your help.''

This woman works full time and she has health insurance through her work. Not too long ago, her doctor told her she needs cataract surgery or she will lose her sight. On Monday, before I met her, she was scheduled to get that surgery. Then, days before her appointment, she was informed that the deductible would be more than $2,200, not including the cost of any followup care. Like many Americans, she has been struggling to make ends meet in this economy. She cannot spare $2,200 from her paycheck, so she canceled her operation. Now she is afraid she will lose her sight and she doesn't know what to do. So when a Senator walked through the door, she asked me for help.

We can help this woman. She shouldn't have to choose between paying her rent and keeping her sight. Nobody should. And we can make it so. We can create a system where people can find and afford to pay for quality health insurance that provides the care they need. We can create a system where people do not have to worry that they are one layoff away from losing their insurance or one medical emergency away from losing everything. We can guarantee quality affordable health insurance to every American. If we don't--if we miss this opportunity-- this is not a victory of one political party over another; it is a massive loss for all of us and for everybody we represent. It would be a national disgrace.

We are better than this. We can pass something that helps every American. We can declare victory not over the other political party but over the status quo. I hope we do so.

Thank you, Madam President.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Unsafe Meat and Poultry Recall Act, to grant the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to order the recall of meat and poultry that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe.

Sadly, and in some cases tragically, in recent years recalls of unsafe food products has seemingly become a regular occurrence in our Nation. Last week, a Denver-based grocery chain recalled 466,236 pounds of ground beef products that were distributed to stores in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, and my State of New Mexico. The tainted meat is blamed for fourteen cases of salmonella and 6 hospitalizations.

Last year, the USDA requested a recall of 143 million pounds of beef from a slaughterhouse that was being investigated for unsafe practices. In this instance, like most, the recalled beef had been distributed throughout the country, including to my state of New Mexico where the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Commodity Foods Program had sent 3,000 cases of the questionable beef to the state's Human Services Department to be distributed to school lunch programs. Luckily, most of the beef was found before it was served, but putting New Mexico's children at such a risk is clearly unacceptable.

The number of people affected annually from ingesting tainted meat and poultry products illuminates this proposition: 5,000 people die from food-borne illnesses each year; nearly 76 million people get sick annually from eating tainted food, of these individuals, 325,000 require hospitalization.

Shockingly, the USDA does not have the authority to issue mandatory recalls of tainted meat and poultry products. Complying with agency recalls, therefore, is at the industry's discretion. The meat industry says that it has never failed to cooperate with a recall request from the USDA, rendering mandatory recalls of tainted meat unnecessary. However, when the USDA asks for a recall, a negotiation process ensues between the agency and the industry. Meanwhile, thousands of people are at risk of eating the potentially harmful meat in the marketplace during the ongoing negotiations.

It is the responsibility of the USDA to see that the poultry and meatpacking industry produces only safe meat products. It is the right of American consumers to feel safe purchasing the meat sold in their grocery stores. And it is the right of our cattle producers to know that the beef they produce is being handled properly and sent into the market safely.

My bill would finally give the Secretary of Agriculture the power to ensure that the meat in our Nation's markets is clean and safe.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Unsafe Meat and Poultry Recall Act, to grant the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to order the recall of meat and poultry that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe.

Sadly, and in some cases tragically, in recent years recalls of unsafe food products has seemingly become a regular occurrence in our Nation. Last week, a Denver-based grocery chain recalled 466,236 pounds of ground beef products that were distributed to stores in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, and my State of New Mexico. The tainted meat is blamed for fourteen cases of salmonella and 6 hospitalizations.

Last year, the USDA requested a recall of 143 million pounds of beef from a slaughterhouse that was being investigated for unsafe practices. In this instance, like most, the recalled beef had been distributed throughout the country, including to my state of New Mexico where the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Commodity Foods Program had sent 3,000 cases of the questionable beef to the state's Human Services Department to be distributed to school lunch programs. Luckily, most of the beef was found before it was served, but putting New Mexico's children at such a risk is clearly unacceptable.

The number of people affected annually from ingesting tainted meat and poultry products illuminates this proposition: 5,000 people die from food-borne illnesses each year; nearly 76 million people get sick annually from eating tainted food, of these individuals, 325,000 require hospitalization.

Shockingly, the USDA does not have the authority to issue mandatory recalls of tainted meat and poultry products. Complying with agency recalls, therefore, is at the industry's discretion. The meat industry says that it has never failed to cooperate with a recall request from the USDA, rendering mandatory recalls of tainted meat unnecessary. However, when the USDA asks for a recall, a negotiation process ensues between the agency and the industry. Meanwhile, thousands of people are at risk of eating the potentially harmful meat in the marketplace during the ongoing negotiations.

It is the responsibility of the USDA to see that the poultry and meatpacking industry produces only safe meat products. It is the right of American consumers to feel safe purchasing the meat sold in their grocery stores. And it is the right of our cattle producers to know that the beef they produce is being handled properly and sent into the market safely.

My bill would finally give the Secretary of Agriculture the power to ensure that the meat in our Nation's markets is clean and safe.

Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and join my senior Senator in submitting a resolution commemorating the 400th anniversary of the founding of the city of Santa Fe, NM.

The Villa de Santa Fe was founded in 1609 by Don Pedro de Peralta as the capital of the Spanish province of New Mexico, making it the oldest capital city in the U.S.

The city of Santa Fe is blessed with a diversity of cultures, rooted in its remarkable history. At the time Spanish colonists arrived in New Mexico, they found many thriving Pueblo communities, including in the area around what was to become Santa Fe. Although there were conflicts between the two people, they learned from each other, shared knowledge, traditions, and skills, while preserving their own unique cultures that persist to this day. Descendents of the original Spanish colonists can still be found in Santa Fe, and the nearby Pueblos continue to enrich the city and the region today. The city continued to evolve and grow through history with influences from the Mexican Revolution and characters from the western American frontier such as Billy the Kid.

With the breathtaking landscape of the high desert, snow-capped Sangre de Cristo Mountains as a backdrop, and well-preserved historical landmarks including the Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi and the Palace of the Governors, Santa Fe has become a major tourist destination and an inspiration to many artists, including Georgia O'Keeffe and D.H. Lawrence.

Today, Santa Fe is a modern American city, steeped in its rich history, arts, culture, and traditions. It is a treasure for the state of New Mexico and the Nation. I hope my colleagues will join us in honoring its past and celebrating the future of the ``City Different.''

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

Madam President, watching the Senate floor during the debate over health care reform, I cannot help but feel that some of my colleagues are a little confused. It is almost as if they have forgotten that this discussion is going on in America, not Canada. They don't want to talk about the 22,000 Americans who died in 2006 because they do not have insurance. They don't want to talk about the more than half a million Americans who file for bankruptcy after incurring unpayable medical bills. They don't want to talk about the millions of other Americans who worry that they are one layoff away from losing coverage and one heart attack away from losing everything.

No, they want to talk about Canada. I am not saying we should not sympathize with our neighbors to the north, but I wish to talk about how we can fix the health care system for the American people, for the people of New Mexico, since none of the plans we are considering would set up a Canadian system.

Let's look at how we can pass an American solution to the problems faced by Americans. If you like the coverage you have, you should be able to keep it, and none of the plans we are considering would take away the options Americans already have. But the status quo is not enough. We need to give consumers another option. We need to give them the freedom to choose a quality, affordable, public health option. After all, what is more American than competition and choice? Even if our private market functioned perfectly, it would make sense to give consumers another choice. But our health care system doesn't function perfectly. Our system provides too little choice and too little quality at too high a price. Too many of America's health care markets are effectively monopolies, or at best duopolies. According to a recent study by the American Medical Association, most American metropolitan areas are dominated by one private insurer, and others are largely dominated by just two. In New Mexico, the top two companies have 65 percent of the market. To put that in perspective, Dell, Compaq, Gateway, HP, and IBM combine for less than 54 percent of the U.S. personal computer market. I have to believe we can offer our consumers more than two choices of health plans.

My State is a rural State, and in rural areas such as ours consumers often have less choice. They get to pay whatever the local health care plan wants or go without insurance. Insurance companies have used this monopoly power to offer less and to charge more. As consolidation has increased since 2000, insurers have raised deductibles and copayments without increasing coverage, and they have continued to make healthy profits while their customers struggle to keep up with rising costs. Premiums for employer-sponsored health care have almost doubled since 1999, but rising costs have not hurt health care company CEOs. The top 10 CEOs managed to pull down $85.4 million in 2008.

Even worse, what competition we have doesn't keep companies honest. Instead, they compete to avoid the poor and the sick. In New Mexico, an insurance company can charge a customer more because of a health problem from 5 years ago or because he happens to be 45 years old and not 44. They can even charge a woman more because she might get pregnant. They have every incentive to do so.

When a private insurance company turns down somebody who needs help, its profits go up. When it denies needed care, it has more money for its shareholders. That is a broken system.

In New Mexico, we have seen the impact of unaffordable health care. Almost one in four New Mexicans is uninsured and nearly half our citizens have inadequate coverage. The vast majority of these people are employed, but they and their employers simply cannot afford coverage.

A constituent of mine from Cedar Crest, NM, wrote me the other day to

explain she and her husband cannot afford to offer their employees health care at a small manufacturing company they own. The rates for small businesses such as theirs are unaffordable.

Our high numbers of uninsured citizens cost the rest of us money. The average New Mexico family with insurance pays an additional $2,300 just to cover the price of the uninsured--$2,300. You see, if a New Mexican with diabetes has insurance, his insurance company can pay a small amount to have him receive routine tests and treatments from a podiatrist. But if a New Mexican is uninsured, he is less likely to receive checkups. As a result, he is more likely to miss the telltale signs of a circulatory problem and twice as likely to need an amputation.

Diabetes amputations cost almost $39,000, and New Mexico did 366 of these procedures in 2003 for a total of $4.2 million. When a diabetic has a limb amputated, the operation is only the beginning of the medical services he will need. For the uninsured, those costs fall on every family with insurance.

Some of my colleagues admit that the status quo does not work, but they claim a government regulator can keep the private HMOs in line; we will not need more regulation if open competition can be more effective. Others just claim that a public health care option will not work, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Experts have developed a number of viable plans to give Americans the choice of a quality, affordable public option. More than 30 State governments offer their employees a choice between private insurance and a State-backed public option, including my State of New Mexico. These States have not found this strategy unworkable. They have not seen either public or private coverage dominate the market. Their employees just have another choice. What would be wrong with that?

The truth is, this Congress has a very simple decision to make. We can stick with our current system or we can give Americans another option that guarantees quality, affordable care. Opponents of reform do not want to talk about that decision so they talk about Canada. But the decision before us has nothing to do with Canada. It is about the American people. They have been stuck in a broken system too long, and it is time to give them another choice.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to honor a proud son of Alamogordo, NM. Army SPC Chris Kurth died on Thursday, June 4, after his vehicle was struck by an antitank grenade. He was 23 years old.

In Iraq, Chris was responsible for escorting convoys. But this job description conveys none of the risk or the courage involved in the job. The military can secure a town or a base, but somebody must still travel the roads that cannot be secured. Christopher Kurth was responsible for undertaking this act of courage.

Chris knew how dangerous his job could be when he began his last mission. He was on his second tour of duty, and he had just recovered from a neck wound that won him a Purple Heart. But for Chris, success was defined by keeping his fellow soldiers safe. And that is what he died fighting to do.

The values reflected in this duty are as important in peace as they are in war. His job was to protect his fellow soldiers--to be a good friend in the most difficult of times. By serving them, he served his country.

The characteristics that made Chris Kurth a good soldier also made him a good friend when he was back in Alamogordo. They made him a good teacher when he volunteered to tell students at his former high school about his life as a soldier. They made him a loving--and loved--son, brother, and husband.

Chris Kurth lost his life keeping American soldiers safe. He was a proud soldier and a good man.

My thoughts are with Chris's parents, with his wife, and with all those who knew and loved him. I ask you to join me today in remembering his service.