tv U.S. Senate CSPAN September 15, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
5:00 pm
sending a strong vote from the senate today will help us negotiate with the house. they have a different idea. i happen not to agree with their idea, they are entitled to their own idea. we're entitled to our own idea. and our own idea is with democrats and republicans voting yes on this burma sanctions bill we can send reliable long-term funding and in closing let me tell you what the alternative is if you vote no. if you vote no on this and think you can go home and tell your people your helped them you'll be faced next week with a vote to give your people six weeks of disaster funding. that's howlong the continuing rn lasts. believe me, having to rebuild a good part of our state, you can't do it six weeks as time. you strongly suggest you give a strong vote for disaster victims, long-term funding that they can rely on, and we'll negotiator requesnegotiatewith .
5:01 pm
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
the clerk will read the joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 154, s.j. res. 66 approving renewal of the burmese freedom and democracy act 2003. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the joint resolution as amended is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to 2887. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 167, h.r. 2887, an act to provide an extension of surface and air transportation programs and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask that the three votes that will be coming soon be limited to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without
5:21 pm
objection. under the previous order, there will be ten minutes of debate equally divided between the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, and the senator from nevada, mr. reid, or their designees. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc my amendments 621 and 622. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report the amendments by number. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes en bloc amendments numbered 621 and 622. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: mr. president, we are considering today the highway bill and the f.a.a. bill. the highway bill is a trust fund.
5:22 pm
you would think trust fund, you should have trust that that money is only spent on highways. unfortunately, that money's been spent through the years on other items. the same with your social security trust fund. the same with your medicare trust fund. it's all spent to the general treasury and it's not protected. what i'm asking today with this amendment to the highway bill is that we keep the trust fund separate and that the trust fund spend only money that comes in with the -- the presiding officer: order, please. sorry. mr. paul: if we continue to spend money that is not coming in to the gas tax, this will be money borrowed from china or simply printed up, and there are ramifications to borrowing $40,000 a second sofplt my amendment to the -- so my amendment to the highway bill would say we only spend what comes in through taxes. i consider this to be responsible budgeting and what we should be doing and likely what we were probably obligated under the original trust
5:23 pm
agreement to do. so i urge passage of this amendment which would limit the highway trust funds to that amount of funds coming in through taxes. my second amendment is to the f.a.a. bill. this amendment says that the spending to the f.a.a. bill go to 2008 levels. since 2008, spending in our government has gone up 25%. we are mounting a debt of $1.5 trillion. our nation's debt is $14 trillion. there are significant ramifications to incurring so much debt. the debt does have a face. it's the face of unemployment. economists have said that our debt burden is leading to a million jobs a year that we are losing. a million people out of work because of the debt that we carry. economists have also said that this debt burden, when it's paid for through the printing of money, leads to higher prices in the store. your gas prices have doubled not
5:24 pm
because gas is more precious. because your dollar is less precious. your dollar is less precious because we are paying for a debt by inflating the currency. what this asks is that we go back to 2008 levels, which believe it or not, if you did this to the entire government still will not balance the budget. this is a modest proposal. it is the very least that you can do if you believe in a responsible budget and that we must balance our budget. the second amendment would take spending to 2008 levels, and i encourage the senate to pass these amendments. i yield back and reserve the remainder of my time if i have any time left. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: on the majority leader's time, the majority leader has asked that senator rockefeller have the two and a half minutes that remains on our side which he would divide with
5:25 pm
senator hutchison. and i would have the two and a half minutes to speak about the highway amendment, and i would share that, if he wants to, with senator inhofe. so i would ask that that be what we do. i'd ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: senator reid has five minutes total under his control. mrs. boxer: that's what i said. two and a half minutes and two and a half minutes. that adds up to five. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: the last i checked. the presiding officer: you know what -- hang on. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, if i could just clarify. i think the senator from california is saying that the highway bill will get two and a half minutes. the f.a.a. bill will get two and a half minutes. and we will agree to spend our time with the ranking members. mrs. boxer: that is correct. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i rise in opposition, very strong opposition to the paul
5:26 pm
amendment. the senate voted on this earlier this year and turned it down very extensively. the the federal aviation commission, the f.a.a. is taken for granted by some. they just assume there's always going to be money. everything can go on constantly. the senate has rejected this. the f.a.a. has raised very substantial concerns publicly, but more importantly, from my point of view, privately at all levels that they will have to begin compromising safety, although they will not intend to. eventually you put f.a.a. at risk. it's a very, very bad and dangerous amendment, a mischievous amendment and sthub defeated. -- and should be defeated. mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i would just say i would urge my colleagues not to support the paul amendment on f.a.a. although i understand what he is trying to do to bring it down, this is a clean extension that has been passed by the house. the house has gone out for the
5:27 pm
weekend, and it, the f.a.a. authorization lapses tomorrow. so we have had a shutdown of the f.a.a. in the last six weeks. it disrupts the airport expansions. it disrupts the f.a.a. itself. we will work with senator paul to make sure that we are doing everything we can to cut the f.a.a. budget. but this is a clean 2011 extension with no additions, and i urge my colleagues to support the bill without the amendment. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: can you tell me when i've finished with one and a half minutes, please? the presiding officer: yes. mr. inhofe: mr. president, point of inquiry. at some point -- figure out how i can do that, will you? mrs. boxer: i will reserve the rest of the time four. tell me when i've gone that one and a half, and you'll have a
5:28 pm
minute left. well, today, mr. president, was a very rough day for us to get to this moment. and i want to thank everyone who came together. i want to thank everyone who came together to finally get this moving. let me tell you why we're at a critical moment. the f.a.a. clearly, we have to keep it going, and we are. i think we're going to win that amendment. and on transportation, senator paul has offered an amendment that technically really doesn't do anything, but it is his intent, as he said, to cut the funding by one-third. that means if that amendment were to pass and if his intent was carried out, we would lose 608,000 jobs right away. 608,000 jobs right away. we can't afford to do that. the funding is in this bill. there is no need to cut this bill. it is paid for. we are ready to go. republicans and democrats on the
5:29 pm
environment and public works committee are in agreement on a clean extension. i want to thank my ranking member. we, as everyone knows, we do not see eye to eye on the environment. that's an understatement. the presiding officer: the senator has used her allotted time. mrs. boxer: on infrastructure, we are together. we want a clean extension. we fight for these jobs and these businesses. thank you very much. i yield the balance to my ranking member. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, we have two amendments we're talking about now in a very short period of time. first of all, i will support the f.a.a. amendment. i think senator paul has a good idea there. i would only say this, i want my republican conservatives to listen carefully. this is totally different than any other bill because what this is, there is adequate money right now in the highway trust fund to carry out existing spending until 2013. and so i would only say that money's dedicated for that purpose. it's going to be spent for that
5:30 pm
purpose. and anything that came from a source other than gas tax was merely pay back for money that was borrowed out of the trust fund. from a moral standpoint, this should be spent on infrastructure on the highway bill, on the extension. then we'll be able to talk about something more important. that is the bill that is coming up that will be the permanent one. continuing's not going to make any difference -- i think it's not going to make any difference. i would oppose it on concept because it is paid for by people who believe we're going to improve our highways. the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. the senator from kentucky has two minutes. mr. paul: mr. president, i'm satisfied and i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on amendment
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. under the previous order, the question is on amendment number 622 offered by the senator from kentucky, mr. paul. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
6:07 pm
6:08 pm
are 36, the nays are 61. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. under the previous order, the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 167, h.r. 2887, an act to provide an extension of service in air transportation programs and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the passage of h.r. 2887. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
6:23 pm
the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to cast a vote? if not, on h.r. 2887, the ayes are 92. the nays are 6. the bill is passed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with an exception for myself and the other senator from wyoming, doing a tribute to malcolm wallop who passed away yesterday, that we might have such time as is needed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you,
6:24 pm
mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of s. res 268 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res 268 relative to the death of the honorable malcolm wallop, former senator for the state of wyoming. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. enzi: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. it was with a mixture of sadness for his loss and gratitude for having known him that i received the news that malcolm wallop had passed away yesterday. he was a man of strong
6:25 pm
principles, who served over the years with some truly remarkable people like dick cheney and al simpson, to make up some of the most influential and strongly united state delegations i've ever seen. those of you who served with him will remember him with a great deal of fondness as one of the greatest warriors for wyoming and the west that has ever served in the senate. whether you agreed with him or not, he earned the respect of those he served with because it was clear that he spoke from the heart with words that reflected his commitment to his home state of wyoming and our western way of life. malcolm was born in new york and later attended and graduateed from yale university. he immediately felt the call to serve his country and he joined the army. then when he his in the military were over, he returned to his life as a rancher in wyoming. it was a vocation he took up with great passion as it reflected his love of the land and his enjoyment of the great
6:26 pm
outdoors. i think those long hours spent on his ranch gave him the time he needed to think about the things that really mattered to him and to plan his future. it must have been there that he began to get his thoughts together and speak his mind about a long list of issues that mattered to him and to all those who shared his political philosophy. it led him on a path over the years that would see him writing a long list of prestigious and popular publications that got him noticed and quoted throughout his long and productive career. malcolm found his home on his ranch, but he really found his true calling when he ran for and won a seat in the state legislature, first in the house and later on in the senate. it was in the state legislature that he developed a well-earned reputation for being a thoughtful legislator who became the voice of his constituents as he worked to ensure their concerns were heard and heard clearly on a number of issues that affected them and their daily lives.
6:27 pm
encouraged by what he had been able to do, malcolm ran for governor, but god needed a legislator so he lost the primary. malcolm then set his sights on serving in the united states senate. he ran against a three-term incumbent. he knew running for the senate would not be easy but he was always one who was willing to do whatever was needed to ensure he achieved his objectives. the senate race proved to be no exception. osha, occupational safety and health, had come into being and drafted its first regulations. malcolm noted the requirements for extensive port-a-potties and built an ad that made the point. we can't show videos on the floor but i have to describe this ad because it is considered one of the classics of running for office. the camera first shows a cowboy in a blue work shirt and tattered straw hat mounting his
6:28 pm
horse when the announcer says everywhere you look the federal government is there telling you what they think, telling you what they think you ought to think, setting up rules you can't following. i think the federal government's going too far. now they say if you don't take that portable facility on with you on a roundup, you can't go, at which point you see the cowboy shake his head in disgust, then cut back to a donkey tied behind the cowboy's horse, strapped on the donkey's back is a portable toilet. the cowboy rides o. that ad got him noticed. that ad got him elected along with the great ability to explain things. after a spirited campaign, malcolm proudly took his oath of office and prepared for the challenges that would lie ahead as wyoming's newest senator. some may have thought it wise to start up slowly and eventually gain moment up, but not malcolm. he got right to work and started in on what heed come here to
6:29 pm
do -- he had come here to do. over the years he served on a long list of committees and had an impact on the work that was done by each and every one of them. they included the energy and natural resources committee, the finance committee, the small business committee, the armed services committee, and the select committee on intelligence. he would also be remembered as the first nonlawyer to serve on the judiciary committee. malcolm served for 18 years in the senate, and the record reflects that he used his time wisely and well. although it would be impossible to list everything he was able to accomplish during his service, quite a few milestones stand out that had a great impact not only on his constituents but on people across the whole country. his legislation to cut inheritance and gift taxes was passed by congress, an achievement that was hailed as one of the may majority leader legislative accomplishments -- major legislative accomplishments it at that time on tax reform. he fought to stop the federal government's government effort
6:30 pm
to control wyoming's water resources and the taking of private property. although malcolm's career began in his own back yard it wasn't long above he expanded his sights and began to work on energy and foreign trade issues which took him to conferences and meetings all over the world. he had a great deal of success in those efforts as he worked to straighten our relationships with our foreign trade partners. because of his concern about our national defense, malcolm was heavily involved in the work that was being done internationally on arms control. he was an active participant in a number of those talks, ultimately the human rights issues and western pressure on them helped to bring about the lib brakes of the baltics and eastern europe. still, no matter where he was or what he was doing he never lost his focus on his constituents back home and how they were affected by what the federal government was doing or proposing. that's why so many in wyoming will always remember him as a warrior who fought with all his
6:31 pm
might to put an end to the battle that was going on back then to increase federal regulations and reduce state and local control over many fafts of life in wyoming and -- facets of life in wyoming and the west. he knew it had to be stopped and he didn't rest until he made it happen. malcolm was a true conservative and the principles and values that meant so much to him helped to set his inner compas and guide and direct him in everything he did. his commitment to conservative values was so strong it led him to create the republican steering committee which now includes just about all the republicans in the senate. he now how important it was to create a working group that would serve as a sounding board that would provide guidance and direction for the ideas and proposals that he and other conservatives wanted to offer to control spending, to limit the growth of government, and to ensure freedoms we've all come to cherish as americans to see that they would forever be protected and preserved. his love of the outdoor sports led him to champion attacks on
6:32 pm
hunting and fishing equipment that could only be used for habitat and facilities. supported by the sportsmen, that provision is still in place and we protect its use -- to be used for what it was intended. they're just a small handful of items that you could find on a list of malcolm's -- those are just a few of the items you could find on a list of malcolm's accomplishments in the senate. there are many, many more that would be part of the legacy of service but there's one more at the top of the list that i know is closest to his heart and that i have to mention before i close. throughout his life malcolm was a strong believer in the importance of the volunteer spirit. that's why he proposed the congressional awards program. first of all it didn't cost anything. bihe appreciated as a fiscal conservative. secondly, it was best described as a challenge issued to young people all across the nation to get up, get active and get involved, down the street, down the block or across town.
6:33 pm
it helped young people to realize that no matter the problem, there was something they could do to help solve it. malcolm proposed the idea and congress soon passed it. no other award program is quite like it and no other award like it is issued by congress. it's not an easy award to earn, and i'm certain that's how malcolm intended for it to be. any young american who has a dream they wish to pursue can earn one of these important awards, whether it's a bronze, silver, or gold award, each participant sets his own goal and works with an adviser to get there, step by step. they set their own standards in four program areas -- volunteer public service, personal development, physical fitness, and ex expedition exploration. how well they do in each of these categories determines which award they will earn. it may be because of malcolm's status as the founder of the program but it always seems to
6:34 pm
me when the gold award winners come to washington, d.c. for the presentation ceremony, they're more -- there are more wyoming winners than from any other state. just like malcolm, i'm very proud of the spirit of my state's young people and the way they answer this and every challenge with enthusiasm and determination to do whatever it takes to succeed. in the years to come, the congressional awards will continue to be one of the best parts of malcolm wallop's legacy of his service to the nation and it will inspire and encourage countless more young people to do whatever they can to change the world around them, beginning like malcolm did, right in their own back yard. it already has a great record of successes and i can't think of a better way to remember malcolm wallop. in fact, it's probably how he would most want to be remembered. after malcolm observed three terms in the state senate and given more 18 years of his life to the people. wyoming malcolm took another long walk on his ranch and gave
6:35 pm
it some thought and decided it was time for him not to retire, for someone like malcolm never slowed down, he just felt it was time for him to change direction. so he announced he was stepping down from the senate to give someone else a chance to continue the work that must be done to make wyoming and our nation a better place to live for us all. it wasn't long after leaving the senate that malcolm founded an organization called the frontiers of freedom to enable him to continue his work to address the issues of personal freedom and the need to keep our government from going too large and too powerful. i always felt like will rogers said so many years before him that he opened up his office just a short distance from washington so he'd be better able to keep an eye on us. in the years he served at the helm of frontiers of freedom it was clear it reflected the true north of malcolm wallace's inner compass. like he had done for years it was focused on many of the
6:36 pm
issues he had worked on in the senate and like him, it was much valued and important presence in the ongoing conversation and debate about the direction in which our country was headed and whether or not that needed to change. now malcolm is taken from us all too soon. he'll be greatly missed and he'll never be forgotten. when i learned of his passing, my thoughts turned to those wyoming senators we've lost over the last few years, craig thomas, cliff hanson and now malcolm wallop. they may be gone but their memory will live on and serve to remind us that each and every one of us, americans all across this country of ours have something to offer to make a difference in the world. if we don't do what god has sent us here to do, no one else will be able to do it for us. diane and i join in sending our heartfelt sympathy to malcolm's family and to everyone who knew him personally and politically or who followed his public life. he was a remarkable individual who fulfilled life's dream by
6:37 pm
working hard, always giving the best he had to offer and constantly looking ahead to the problems looming on the horizon so sew they could be addressed before they became too difficult to handle. at moments like these i i've always believed there is no greater gift we can give to someone who is grieving the loss of a loved one than to hold them gently in our prayers. i found that god has a way of hearing and healing us in our darkest ourshouse. may his presence be a source of peace and comfort to all those who mourn malcolm's loss. the knowledge there are so many who will never forget him in time helped to soften the pain of his passing leaves behind for all who knew him, loved him, and called him their friend. who heal the empty spot in our hearts i encourage all who knew malcolm to write down their memories and to share them. i know with full confidence this will not be the last time that malcolm wallop's name will be heard on the senate floor. in the years to come, we will often think of him and the
6:38 pm
example he provided on so many things. but for now, let us say goodbye to our friend. he'll be missed, but he'll never be forgotten. i yield the floor to the other senator from wyoming. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, thank you. i come to the floor today to honor one of our former colleagues and a dear friend. u.s. senator malcolm wallop died yesterday, september 14, 2011, at his wyoming home overlooking the majestic big horn mountains. senator wallop will be remembered as a unique and enduring figure in the history of wyoming and in the history of the united states. malcolm was a stalwart defender of freedom and democracy around the world, and a determined advocate for limited government and opportunity for every person. like that iconic range in northern wyoming that he loved,
6:39 pm
malcolm stood very tall. as a citizen, as a state and federal legislator, and as a loyal guardian for wyoming people and our way of life. i want to send my deepest condolences to malcolm's family back in wyoming and around the country. to i isabel, his wife, to his beloved children, malcolm, matthew, amy, and paul. to his dear sisters, jenin and carolyn. i also want to offer my condolences to all of those folks who worked for senator wallop during his years of extraordinary public service. i have met most and known many over the years. my wife bobbi, my wife bobbi served on his very first staff in washington. and plast last night she shared with me again what we've all come to know. malcolm was a kind, a caring,
6:40 pm
and an extraordinary gentleman. malcolm's staff served him ably and honorably. i know there are always some in this body today who served alongside malcolm wallop. you no doubt remember him well. he was -- it was just four years ago that senator wallop returned to this chamber and attended my own swearing-in on june 25, 2007. on that day, as is tradition, senator wallop walked with me up to the president's desk to take the oath. he stood with me during the ceremony and offered private words of encouragement and advice. i was honored that day to have him there next to me, and it saddens me greatly to join senator enzi to announce his death. malcolm wallop was someone i followed throughout his career. i admired him greatly. he was a man that many of us looked up to as he grew into one of the most influential legislators of his time.
6:41 pm
hello, my friend, that was his classic western rancher's drawl and it was what you heard if malcolm wallop was on the other end of the phone line or came through the door. malcolm was a real-live version of anyone's version of a western gentleman. today i remember him as a brilliant servant leader. he possessed a special western wisdom which often found those around him racing just to catch up. he found great continent in all of the many facets of his life. even during recent years when numerous medical challenges conquered his physical body, his spirit and his intellect were never diminished. public service was his heritage and his calling. his grandfather, oliver henry noel wallop founded the canyon ranch in the big horn mountains of wyoming in 1888. that's before wyoming even
6:42 pm
became a state. he had the distinction of serving first in the wyoming state legislature an thin later in life in the house of lords in great britain. noel was the youngest son of lord isaac newton wallop, the fifth earl of ports moth. when earl's older brothers died, he reluctantly returned to england to fulfill the family duty. however his own son, oliver, malcolm's father, he had grown up and remained in wyoming. malcolm was born in 1933 and big hoanch was always his home. his children and grandchildren are fourth and fifth generations of his family to make their lives in the beautiful big horn mountain area of north central wyoming. they ramp, they own businesses, they teach, they serve their community, all those things that we do to make this nation strong.
6:43 pm
malcolm was a pilot. he served as a first lieutenant in the u.s. army. he was a cattle rancher, elected to the wyoming state legislature serving both in the house as well as in the senate from 1969 through 1976. in 1974, wallop ran unsuccessfully for governor of wyoming but it was during that summer campaign that malcolm began to distinguish himself as a principled and energetic future force in republican politics. he didn't shy away from the tough issues. instead, he seemed to gather freng strength from the challenges. only two years later he unseated incumbent senator gale mcgee and became wyoming's 19th senator serving from 1977 to 1995. when malcolm was elected to this body in 1976, it was really something. you heard about the commercials from senator enzi.
6:44 pm
well, a group of young people had gathered around to support his very unlikely bid to serve wyoming in the united states senate. the national press called it the children's crusade. many of those young people came to washington with him, and my wife bobbi brown was among those who began her own public service career as part of his first-term staff. it is an indication of the affection and the loyalty felt by those who were part of his team that more than 60 people gathered together with malcolm in wyoming in 2006 for a 30-year reunion. he served three terms this the senate and his work here was very broad in scope. his presence was lasting, and it touched on the mercurial issues of the late 70's and 80's from energy policy to the environment, from national security to tax reform. one of our own colleagues,
6:45 pm
senator carl levin said of malcolm, quote, "while we disagreed again probably as often as we agreed, that didn't stand in the way of my admiration for the quality, the characteristic that he had of letting you know precisely where he stood, and why." he went on to say "and his patriotism is second to none in this body." malcolm wallop was the first elected official to propose a space-based missile system, which eventually became pennsylvania part of our strategic defense initiative. he was highly regarded for his knowledge and understanding of defense issues and surely helped bring the berlin wall down. later in his senate service he was a member of the helsinki commission and traveled in eastern europe and the former soviet union as an arms control negotiator. speaking of their strategic partnership, president reagan
6:46 pm
said, "leadership, hard work, experience, loyalty to wyoming -- that's what malcolm wallop is all about." malcolm was fiercely protective of property rights and the rights to privacy and a champion of the rights to the individual. he is remembered for the wallop amendment to the surface mining act which forced the government to compensate property owners. he worked to protect others in the clean water act. avenues key force behind the passage of the far inform reaching 1992 energy policy afnlgt senator wallop on more than one occasion commented that he "was not burdened with a law degree." and yet he was selected in his very first term to serve on the
6:47 pm
judiciary committee. the first nonlawyer ever so chosen. perhaps his greatest contribution was his landmark contribution to address the hard- breaking issue of parental kidnapping. he was one of a long and distinguished line of wyoming senators who served with distinction on the senate finance committee. his 1981 bill to cut inheritance and gift taxes is remembered as one of the most substantive changes to tax policy that decade. he appreciated opportunities which allowed for private-public sector partnerships. early in his senate career there was talk of establishing a national service requirement for young people. but malcolm felt that if we were going to require young people to serve the nation, the nation should recognize them for the service, so many were already providing through their daily lives this. this resulted in his leadership to establish the congressional award. he joined with colleagues in both houses of congress in a
6:48 pm
bipartisan effort and the unique program available to all interested young people in the country was created. it is a program of congress which operates with private-sector funds. it is an earned honor and is the highest honor which we bestow on our nation's young people. the many young people in my state who participate in the close-up program do so because malcolm thought it was an important opportunity for his young constituents it. at the time, close-up only offered their program in the cities. well, malcolm worked to convince the close-up foundation that a statewide program would work and i believe that close-up today counts their wyoming program as one of its most successful. malcolm wallop reached across capitol hill. he reached across party lines in the creation of the aquatic resources trust fund, commonly neons the wallop-breaux trust fund. which has resulted in billions of dollars generated by users for supported fisheries and wetlands around the country.
6:49 pm
but it wasn't all serious. he was an enthusiastic supporters of his staff's efforts to deal with their home sickness in july. and in july of 1977, they held the first frontier east, an east coast celebration of cheyenne's frontier days, which is known simply as "cow pie." cow pie stands for the committee of wyoming nem in the east. it is still today one of the washington area's most celebrated summer events. autograph my wife reminds -- my wife reminds me how joyful malcolm was each year on his birthday. his birthday was february 27. as bobbie remiewndzs me, that's when his staff organized the wallie awards, making great fun of them seafntiondz their boss. the best was their impersonation of him by their chief of staff,
6:50 pm
who went on to serve as the chief justice of the wyoming supreme court. malcolm remained forever steadfast against the growth and power of centralized government. and he warned, as we remain the sheep, the government happily remains our shepherd. he talked often as a senator of our shrinking freedom and the battle to lay claim to our fragile liberty. that was malcolm wallop. when he announced his retirement in 1993 after 18 years in the united states senate, senator wallop told the casper star tribune simply, "i don't think the only place to fight for freedom is in the halls of congress." his life after the senate was filled with his continuing work on issues focusing on constitutionally limited government, a strong national defense, and the rights of the individual. to address these issues he founded the frontiers of freedom. he spoke with power and
6:51 pm
eloquence about the issues which he found to be the core of our great country. in a 2003 interview with peter evans, he said, "you'll find in the american people an enormous sense of pride and self-assurance that only comes from people living free." it's unbelievably -- it's unbelievably invigorating and very reassuring to know the great experiment," he said, scwtion in the handles of the people who don't even know it and isn't in the hands of the people who think they hold it." malcolm wallop was so many things, but what malcolm wallop was not was sentimental. the new phase of his life was the full phase of his life. he did not dwell on past things. his energy was always spent looking forward. i want to conclude today by repeating senator wallop's own word. speaking in 2005 before the ronald reagan gala sponsored by
6:52 pm
the frontiers of freedom, senator wallop spoke about his own beliefs. and i quote: "government was not meant to possess us, rule us, encompass us, judge for us, substitute for us. it was meant to serve us. we were founded as a noble self-governing tribe of free people, respecting each other as americans under god, not under washington. americans know this even if their government does not. the biggest difference between the principle of government in america and anywhere else is that here the rulers must stick to clearly defined tasks while ordinary people may do whatever they wish." he goes ton say, "we must make up our minds to put this principle into practice again, lest we lose the spirit that
6:53 pm
made us the envy of the world." most important, he said, "the american model is based on a certain kind of people dephoned not by race but by virginia tuned by the willing misto take responsibility for our own lives. people fit to be americans to be blessings only from god because being americans is not a matter of birth; we must practice it every day. lest we become something else." he says, "the size of our continent, its fabulous wealth, its indescribable biewrkts the ships, tanks, and airplanes in our arsenal are no treasure compared to the moral character of the american people. i pray to god, "quetion said, "that he will graciously help us preserve and protect that splendid moral base." and that ends his quote. to isabel and his beloved
6:54 pm
children -- malcolm, matthew, amy and paul -- to his sisters jeaniment. ne, we thank you for letting us share so much his life. there iwe can cherish our memord stories of malcolm knowing that he would cast a wry glance and wonder why we weren't spend our thoughts and our energy on a challenge that needed our attention. it is what he would expect of all of us. it is the example that he left for us. it is his legacy. and so today, godspeed, malcolm. mr. president, the u.s. senate, wyoming, the united states of america has lost one of its most
6:55 pm
steadfast defenders. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. bennet: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. officer without objection. mr. bennet: i went back to the office and saw that my senior senator was sitting here at this
6:56 pm
latest hour and i wanted to come down heards and keep him company. i'm glad to be here with you tonight, proud to be from the west tonight. the two great senators from wyoming remembering malcolm wallop's service in this body, and it was wonderful to hear their remembrances of him, and i'm glad we were here to share that, being from the west. like the presiding officer, i spent most of august in our beautiful state, the most beautiful state in the united states, if i do say so myself, in town hall meet, mostly in red parts of the state, but in red and blue parts of the state. they don't actually think of themselves that way, but that's how washington would talk about it. and in the town halls i always start the same way. i say, ask any question that you have, bring any criticism that you have, tell them that i was an urban school sciewpt for years. it is impossible to hurt my
6:57 pm
feelings. it's been beaten out of me a long time ago. then they have a conversation. every single meeting started with somebody saying, what's wrong with you guys? why can't you work this out in washington, d.c.? we are struggling in the worst economy that we've had since the great depression, and what we see are a lot of political games being played back there. it is a version of a conversation i've heard now for two and a half years in our state, and then one of the things we get into at the very beginning is the fact that this is the first -- this is not a garden variety recession that we're just coming out of. this is the first time, this last decade -- not just this recession -- this is the last time, this last decade, when median family income declined instead of going up. generation after generation after generation of americans saw their income rise. median family income is shor sof
6:58 pm
short-hand for middle-income. it has fallen for the first time in this decade. as the cost of health insurance has doubled, the cost of education went up by 60% and people are saying, michael, i have been at my job for this whole decade and i'm earning less at the end of the decade than i was at the beginning of the decade. and my costs much my, you know, critical things, to move my family ahead, to create stability for me and my small business, like health care, their higher education, have done nothing but skyrocket. and i'm going to show you some numbers that are pretty scary that came out this week from the census bureau that reflect in numbers what i'm talking about. and reflect how profound the structural issues are that we really face in our economy, structural issues that don't fit on the back of a bumper sticker
6:59 pm
or a political slogan or during a debate at night on the television. this week's "wall street journal" on monday had an article on the front page with the headline that reads as follows. "as middle class shrinks, p & g aims high and low." p & g is procter and gamble. there's not a more iconic brand in our country's history when it comes to the middle class than procter and gamble. mr. president, here are some of the things that they make: crest tooth paste, head and shoulders shampoo, tide detergent, pampers diapers -- i'm glad to be out of those in my house -- downey fabric softener, bounce fabric softener, bounty paper towels.
7:00 pm
mr. clean, pep tow business mall, sprinkles, swifter brooms and dusters. we had that in our closet. old spice deodorant, puffs tissues, ivory soap, cover girl makeup. that's what procter and gamble makes. that's what they sold to the great middle class in this country for decades. and here's this article that says procter & gamble aims high and low. i'd like to ask that the whole article be made part of the record. thank you, mr. president. i wanted to read a few experts from it. p&g's profits boomed with the increasing affluence of middle-class households in the postworld war ii economy as masses of housewives set up new suburban homes, p&g marketers pledged tide detergent delivered cleaner clothes, crest toothpaste fought off more
7:01 pm
cavities. in the decades since, new features like fragrances or ingredient and packaging enhancements kept p&g's growth robust. what's happening now? for generations, procter & gamble's growth strategy was focused on developing household staples for the vast american middle class, said the "wall street journal." now they say many marketers are trading down at the expense of the middle. that forced p&g which estimates it has at least one product -- you heard the list of products so this won't be surprising -- at least one product in 98% of american households to fundamentally change the way it develops and sells its goods. for the first time in 38 years,
7:02 pm
for example, the company launch add new dish shoep in the u.s. -- new dish soap at a bargain price. this says a lot about the health of the middle class, the world's largest maker of consumer products is now betting that the squeeze on middle america will be long lasting. so if you needed any example of what our families are struggling with in colorado every single day, here is a business plan that's modeled on a perpetually shrinking middle class by a company whose whole business model in their whole history was based on a rising middle class. i'm going to skip the next one in the interest of time, mr. president, and go right to the end because i want to show some numbers.
7:03 pm
this was the conclusion of article. quote -- "to monitor the evolving american consumer market, p&g executives study the genie index, a widely accepted measure of income inequality that ranges from zero when everyone earns the same amount to one when only one goes to the same person. in 2009, the most recent calculation available, the genie coefficient totaled .468, a 20% rise, a 20% rise in income disparity over the past 40 years according to the u.s. census bureau. quote -- "we now have a genie index similar to the philippines and mexico. you'd never have imagined that says phyllis jackson, p&g's vice president of consumer market knowledge for north america. i don't think we've typically
7:04 pm
thought, she said, about america as a country with big income gaps to this extent. i don't think we've typically thought about america that way either. it's fundamentally not who we purport to be and it's not who we are going to be. but in order to put us on a path that's actually going to produce a rising middle class again instead of a division among the very wealthy at the top and the poorest of our citizens at the bottom, we're going to have to come together on some pretty serious choices. i know there's been some that argue that this is all a problem that's caused by too many regulations. and i'm the first to say that we should only have the regulation that we need. or some that say that the threat of any revenue, even at a time when we are collecting less revenue as a percent of our
7:05 pm
economy than we have over the last 30 years are saying that any revenue is choking off this recovery. let me show you something very surprising, mr. president. this is high-tech senate stuff. here are some lines, and i know that people probably can't see the detail at home. you can get it on the web site. but let me walk you through them. this blue line, mr. president, from 1992 to 2010, about 20 years, this blue line represents what's called the productivey index. it is the productivity index. it shows that we have become far more productive as an economy over the last 20 years. and it's not surprising that we have. we have because we have had a
7:06 pm
technological revolution that has made us more productive. but you see at the very end here, this is where the recession is. look at what happened to the productivity index during our recession, because every single month that went by that we were losing jobs, american business was doing what they had to do, which was figure out how to get through this recession and get to the other end. how to wring out every efficiency they could, how to make thefpls as productive as -- themselves as productive as they could. and they did. we are much more productive than we are here. the green line is our gross domestic product, our nation's economy, per capita. the amount of money per person that our economy is generating. here is an amazing fact. this is where we were before the
7:07 pm
recession. this is where we are today. our economy is the same size today as it was before we went into the recession. we're producing about the same economic output as a nation that we were producing before we went into this downturn. i was shocked when i learned those numbers. but look at this. here is our employment level. here's our employment level today. we have 14 million people unemployed, but we're producing about the same as we were before we went into this horrible recession. that's a structural unemployment problem. that's not a problem that's going to be solved by slogans
7:08 pm
and it's not going to be a problem that's solved by companies that have become much more efficient at what they do. it's going to be solved by companies that are going to be started tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, small businesses, venture-backed firms, people that are inventing the technology, the 21st century, the products and services of the 21st century, not the products and services of the 20th century. that is the only way that we are going to put these people back to work. invest in our infrastructure, too; that would help. this line is median family income, which is what i started this conversation with. th-ts a terrible store -- this is a terrible story. it's not just a sad story, it is a terrible story.
7:09 pm
that's that line again, median family income. it was over $53,000 in 1999. it's $49,000 today, almost $4,000 less in real dollars in a decade. and i could have brought another slide -- next week i will -- which shows this trend has actually been going on a little longer. but think about it. it means that half of the families in 1999 were earning less than $53,000 and half were earning more than $53,000. today half are earning less than $49,000 and half are earning more than that. these are folks that have done absolutely everything that anybody ever asked them to do. but i don't care whether you're a family or a business, it makes
7:10 pm
it very hard for you to make ends meet if that's the slope that you're on. and i would argue, mr. president, that we cannot consume one more decade of this new century with economic policies that are leading us here and expect to have a vibrant middle class. i want to be in an economy where procter & gamble has to change their business model to catch up with the rising middle class, not be in a position that they're in today where they feel like they have to bet on a falling middle class. mr. schumer: would my colleague yield for a question? mr. bennet: sure. mr. schumer: i want to compliment him on this outstanding speech. i hope he'll send -- many of our colleagues are on the way home. the hour is late.
7:11 pm
i hope he'll send it to them. it's been a joy for me to stay and listen. we talked about this last night when we had dinner. here is another interesting fact amidst so many my colleague has brought up. it's such a great speech. if you look at that chart, from 1999 to 2007, before the recession hit, median income didn't go up. and that is a question we're going to have to pworpbd, and we -- ponder, and we need great minds like his to figure out the answer. if you just blame the recession and think it will come back up, it won't. the kind of structural changes my colleague talks about are so, so needed if we're not going to have a continually declining middle class, even in a period of growth. am i right about that? mr. bennet: i thank the senator from new york. you are right about that. and what you will see on another -- not tonight, but another slide is that we were already on this decline. and you know what? this is not news to people living in our states. it's not news to the people that
7:12 pm
are trying to figure out how to make ends meet week by week. this is not news to them. it's not news to the people that came to my town halls and said, "we cannot afford to send our kid to the best school they got into." or we sent our first kid to the fancy school but we can't send our second kid there. they know what's happening to them which is why they're so upset we're not getting done what we ought to be getting done. what you see on this other chart is that this decline was happening already because the economy wasn't lifting all boats and it was widening in equality terribly. i've got some things here tonight to talk about that. what the recession did is it accelerated that decline. they lost 2.3% of median family income in the recession, which is more than any of the previous recessions going back to the
7:13 pm
great depression. that's how tough this is. and you're right, if we keep doing what we've done for the decade that led us into this recession, if we go back to those policies, if we readopt those policies, if that's where we end up, we're just going to continue to see this slide. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague. mr. bennet: thank you. i thank the senator from new york. this gives you a sense of the widening in equality that's happened. -- widening inequality that's happened. this is average income, different from median income. while middle-class income has been falling, fell throughout this ten years, average income actually went up, because a few people at the very, very top of the economy did incredibly well over this period of time, have done incredibly well. in fact, this is the very top,
7:14 pm
.1% of our earners, they went from here to up here. and then the top 1% saw an incline. but here's everybody else. this red line down here, this is 90% of the people in america. their average income was flat. from 1967 to 2006. that's 90% of the people that live in the united states. it's hard to see how people can get ahead under circumstances like that, and it's no wonder that we got these alarming numbers this week from the census bureau that shows that there are 46.2 million americans now living in poverty. that's a 46% increase since
7:15 pm
2000. i had to look to make sure i was reading that right. since 2000. 31 million people in poverty in 2000, 46 million today. 22% of the children in the united states of america tonight are living in poverty. over a fifth of the children living in the united states tonight are living in poverty. and by the way, as a former superintendent of schools, the denver public schools, i can tell you we're not doing ourselves any favors when the chances of a child living in poverty in this country graduating from college are roughly nine in 100 which is
7:16 pm
what their chances are today. 91 out of 100 poor kids in the country can't expect to get a college degree, can't expect to be anywhere but on the margin of our democracy or our economy. i wonder what effect that's going to have on our median family income going forward. the last slide, mr. president, because i know the hour is late, is one that was in "the washington post" and i'm not going to bother to describe the details of this but you can find it on the web site and it's worth looking at. it is worth looking at. but this red line shows -- it's the only thing i'm going to talk about on this slide. this red line shows what the bottom 90% -- it seems ridiculous to talk about the bottom 90%. what the 90% of earners in the country earned as a percentage of the income that everybody
7:17 pm
earned in the united states from before the 1920's to today. essentially. for the vast majority of time or some majority of time, in the period from world war ii, the end of world war ii until the present, the bottom 90% of the earners earned roughly 70% of the income in the united states. a majority of the income, 70% of the income. for a long time. now they're earning roughly 50%. the bottom 90% is earning roughly 50% of the income. that means by the way, that the other 10% are earning roughly
7:18 pm
50% of the income. that's how it's distributed. it's a unique moment in the country's history, actually. uniquely unbalanced. in fact, mr. president, you have to go back to 1928, the year before the market crashed, the year before black friday, the year before our financial markets collapsed, and put us into the great depression, to find income disparity that looks like the income disparity that we face today. you know, in my view, the 20th century represented a period in this country's history of limitless opportunity, limitless economic growth, limitless educational attainment our democracy succeeded in
7:19 pm
generating an economy that gave everybody a fighting chance. and, you know, maybe a definition of whether we're giving people a fighting chance or not is whether or not middle-class income is rising or whether it's falling. and now we're in a period where it's falling. and we find ourselves in the position of having -- producing the same gross domestic product we were producing before this recession with 14 million more people unemployed. the economists tell us that we're in -- that we've recovered, we're in a recovery. and the technical definition is that we are in a recovery because the technical definition is based on whether g.d.p. is growing or not. that's a very cruel definition of recovery for the 14 million people that are unemployed.
7:20 pm
it's a very cruel definition of recovery for a middle class that's getting wiped out because median family income is falling. look, the people that live in colorado, notwithstanding all of this, are optimistic. they're optimistic about their communities, they're optimistic about their families, it gets tougher and tougher, but they rise to the occasion. and you know what? that's what they're asking us to do. they're asking us to knock off the political games that seem to be only about washington and seem to have nothing to do with the challenges that they face. i was pleased today -- today was a good day here. it's been a long time. i was pleased to join my senior senator and about 30 other democrats and republicans at an event to say that, you know, it's time for us to think big about solving this country's fiscal challenges and that we're
7:21 pm
anxious to work together to do it. we're anxious to create a comprehensive plan to deal with it. and we should be taking exactly the same approach on jobs. getting our fiscal house in order is aned incredibly important thing to do to to inspire confidence in our markets and confidence in our businesses, confidence in our local economies. but our work won't stop there. we need to reinvent our tax code so it's driving innovation and driving a rising middle class. we need to re-imagine our regulatory code so it's doing the same thing. we need to educate the children in this country so they can take on the jobs of the 21st century, because the jobs of the 20th century are not coming back. we will be waiting in vain for those jobs to come back. the people in my meetings back in colorado are demanding --
7:22 pm
that's the right way to say it -- they're demanding that we work together. our state is a third republican, a third independent and a third democratic but they're coloradans before any of that and they're americans maybe even before that. and it's time for us to meet their standard. so tonight we had votes on the reauthorization of fema, our emergency agency to respond to the incredible tragedies that have happened around the country. it got 62 votes, we were able to pass it. we had a vote on the transportation extension, the f.a.a. reauthorization, and i think the vote was 92-6. democrats and republicans moving this country forward. that's what we've got to do in order to get this economy going
7:23 pm
again. and people in colorado today are saying we want more of that, and less of the bickering. more problem solving and less finger pointing. and my hope is that on an occasion like today when we actually have made some progress, no matter how limited, that it may give us the chance to move forward together. mr. president, i appreciate your endurance. thank you for allowing me to come to the floor to speak tonight and with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
7:26 pm
the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. bennett: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennett: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, calendar number 358, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any related statements are printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennett: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 269 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.
7:27 pm
the clerk: senate resolution 269, designating the week beginning september 19, 2011 as national historically black colleges and universities week. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. bennett: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennett: thank you, mr. president. i understand, mr. president, there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 2587, an act to prohibit the national labor relations board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance. mr. bennett: i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will have its second reading on the next legislative
7:28 pm
day. mr. bennett: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on friday, september september 16, following the prayer and pledge the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hours deemed expired and the time for the two leader reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennett: the next roll call vote will be on monday, september 19 at 5:30 p.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it adjourn following the remarks of senator white house. the presiding officer: without objection.
7:29 pm
the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. we all traveled over to the house chamber a few days ago to hear president obama present his jobs plan, a jobs plan that i intend to support and fight for, but during the course of that speech we also heard the president indicate that he was going to come and make some recommendses to the senate and to the house regarding our debt and deficit strategy. and i come to the floor today to urge the white house in dealing with our debt and our deficit issues to pursue a strategy for
7:30 pm
cost reduction in our health care system that does not rely on harmful cuts to our seniors' medicare benefits. i cannot tell you how important this is in rhode island, where we have a significant senior population, many of our seniors are low income, the average social security benefit is around $13,000 to $14,000. so some of the ideas that have been floated in this body -- more than just floated; they've actually passed the united states congress, the house of representatives -- would be devastating to rhode island seniors. anan end to medicare in ten yea, $6,000 in increased costs to each senior, on average, per year, hidden in what the
7:31 pm
republicans like to call their cut, cap, and balance plan was an even worse attack on medicare and on medicare beneficiaries than was in the house budget that passed, which was a bad enough attack on its own. that simply is more than senior in rhode island can manage. it is not fair. it is not right. and most importantly, it is not necessary. i do concede that rising health care spending has place add lost stress on our national budget. in the joint session of congress in september 2009, president obama himself said, "put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem." nothing else even comes close. if you go to the other side of the political spectrum and to the other chamber of congress, congressman ryan said, "our debt
7:32 pm
and deficit problem is, at its core, a health care problem." and i agree with that. we need to address it. the question is, how? and the fundamental fact that so many of our colleagues overlook in their urgency to attack medicare, a program that republicans have been against from its very founding and that the renewed tea party assault on medicare has revived, it's misled the debate because the cost problem in medicare is not a problem that is unique to medicare. where ever you look in the american health care system, costs are exploding. they're going up in medicare, probably at a lower rate than other quadrants of the health care sector, but they're goingment.
7:33 pm
they're going up in medicaid, and states are having trouble dealing with that burden. they're going up in tricare and veterans' care. indeed, secretary gates has said, "health care costs are 'eating the defense department alive'." eating the defense department alive, health care costs are. and if you're in private insurance, whether it is kaiser or united or blue cross, pick your insurer, the costs are going up dramatically. our own hospitals in rhode island, which provide health care, are watching their health care costs accelerate at significant rates, far above a multiple of our rate of inflation. this problem of rising health care costs is creating real strain. it is not just creating strain on the federal budget. granted, it is created strain on the federal budget. but it's also creating incredible stress on seniors, on
7:34 pm
small business owners who can't afford health insurance for themselves or have to whittle away at the health insurance that their employees have in order to keep it affordable, or have to give it up entirely as they face the stresses of this economic downturn. as the presiding officer officer knows, the senior senator from colorado know, because his is a small business state, when you are a small business owner, your employees are pretty close to family. and when you got to whittle away at their health care benefits and whittle away at what they got, you've got to raise their costs, that's a hard decision for that small business owner/manager to make. it is tough on american families, it is tough on big businesses, it is tough on american big export companies, our automobile industry, the tractor manufacturers, the road-building equipment
7:35 pm
manufacturers, the folks that build big american products that we export overseas. we build enormous amounts of health care costs into those products. it is estimated that nearly $2,000 in health care costs goes into an american car. the foreign car that competes in the international market with that american car comes out of a national health care system, so that health care cost isn't in the cost structure of the company that makes the car, and because they collect most of their taxes through a value-added tax it doesn't even come in through the tax system because the export products get out of those countries and into the international market without a tax burden. so there are our products trying to compete oversways this weight of our health care -- overseas with this weight of our health care system costs on them. so it's not just medicare; it is everywhere in the american health care system. it is systemwide.
7:36 pm
a couple years back when we were first discussing this issue and the white house held a couple of health care conferences, i was fortunate to be invited to those conferences, and the president used a mettle a forein discuss -- a metaphor in discussing where we were in health care in those discussions. he used the discussion of us being headed for a cliff. if we didn't do something about our health care costs as a country, we were headed for a cliff. well, nothing has changed. we're still headed for that clivment ancliff. and the solution we need to find is -- is to take the bus we're on and turn it before we get to the cliff. it is not an adequate solution to simply throw seniors off the bus in order to lighten the medicare costload without doing what we need to do to change the direction of the american health care system to alleviate this cross system, this economywide
7:37 pm
burden. now, fortunately, we gave president obama tools to do this in the affordable care act. we thought about all sorts of elements in the affordable care act. we fought about the public option. we fought about universal coverage. there were imaginary claims made that there were death panels in the health care bill. it was considered to be socialized medicine, the same phrase that was trotted out years ago to oppose medicare. they brought that old stalwart phrase back out again; again, totally faxes the only socialized medicine we have in this country is the kind we give our veterans, which is the very best quality care, what they're entitled to, what bob dole has said, the place we should look towards for health care reform -- but that's a separate argument to have. but my point is that there is there was a whole lot of phony controversy about that health care. what was completely not
7:38 pm
discussed is a huge chunk was dedicated to the delivery system of the health care system, to turning the bus before we hit the cliff. and there is a lot in there for the president to work w there are literally dozens of programs and pilots to turn us in this new direction. and i urge very strongly that, as we address the government health care cost problem that we face, we look at it as a systemic problem and we address it as a health care cost deliver plob rather than pick out seniors and keep the bus careening toward the cliff without changing its underlying direction. that would be, in medical parlance, a misdiagnosis of the illness and a mistreatment of it as a result and fundamentally malpractice. but that's the direction that we're being led, and i'm here to urge us that we go a different
7:39 pm
drefntle there's a lot to be gained here. america's health care system is provably, wildly inofficiate. we burn more than 18% of america's gross domestic product on our health care system every year. 18%. to put that into context, the next most inofficiate industrialized competitor that we deal with internationally runs at around 12% of gross domestic product. so here we are, the united states of america, the most innovative, the most technologically developed country in the world, a country that prides itself on efficiency rs on common sense, on making smart decisions and what are we doing? we are 50% more inefficient than the most inefficient other industrialized country in the world. you'd think that we wouldn't be
7:40 pm
the most inefficient. you'd certainly think we wouldn't be the most inefficient by a margin of 50% over the most -- second-most inefficient country in the world. it just doesn't make any sense. but that's how bad it is. that is a pretty strong measure of how laden with excess costs our national health care costs -- health care system is. and for all of that we don't get better outcomes. i wouldn't mind spending 50% more than switzerland or france or any other country if we got 50% better outcomes, if we lived 50% longer, if we were 50% healthier, if we had 50% better care, if we had 50% better maternal mortality in childbirth. but we don't. when you look at the measures of how we do for our people in the american health care system, we compare with countries like
7:41 pm
greece and croatia. we're down in the 30's in the rank, if you look at most of the quality measures. so incredibly overbloated expenditure and, at best, moderate performance are the two prevailing characteristics of our health care system, which means that there is a lot of ground to be gained. it has been quantified by president obama's own council of economic advisors, who estimated $700 billion every year -- $700 billion every year could be saved if we cleaned up the health care system and made it moderately efficient. we could save those $700 billion without harming the quality of care for americans. that seems like a big number, but actually the new england health care institute says that the number is $800 billion a year -- is $850 billion a year. and george bush's treasury
7:42 pm
secretary, secretary o'neill, who knows a lot about this from his time as c.e.o. as alcoa and as the person leading the pittsburgh regional health care initiative, combined with the leloulewingroup, they both agree number is $1 trillion a year that we could save without harming the experience or quality of care for the american consumer. we tried to throw pretty much everything we could at this problem in the affordable care afnlgt a consultant to the administration, m.i.t. professor jonathan gruber said about thate fordable care act and its delivery system reform component, "everything is in here. i can't think of anything i'd do that they are not doing in that bill." so we gave the administration literally everything that they
7:43 pm
could want, everything they could ask for. i had a group that met with me as we were designing the affordable care act, people from unions, people from n.g.o.'s that work on health care issues, people from the business sector, people who are experts in this area, to say, what are we missing? what more could we put in to help get at this problem of excessive cost for moderate results? and by the time the bill cam to- by the time the bill came to the floor, my group said, nothing. it's all in there. so i gray with professor gruber's assessment. wheys what is the no nature of what we did? it boils down what i would contend are five basic strategies. one is quality improvement. the quality of american medicine is not anywhere near as good it is a should be. anybody who is listening to me talk, who has had a loved one in their family seriously ill, ill for any length of time, or who's been seriously ill themselves, they know that from their own
7:44 pm
experience. they know of the lost records, they know of the confusion between multiple doctors who are treating them and not talking to them, maybe both prescribing medications that are contra indicated with each other but they don't know that the other one is doing t they know the experience of having to be your own native garrett through this complex system. guatemala they know what a nightmare that is. it is not a debatable proposition. but it also works out in some pretty identifiable data. nearly one in every 20 hospitalized patients in the united states gets a hospital-acquired infection. a hospital-acquired infection should be a never event. and if you apply the principles and do things that have been started in michigan and done around the country now, you can knock that number down by about 90%. but still it's endemic. everybody knows somebody who is gone to the hospital for a
7:45 pm
proper and come out -- for a procedure scom out with a hospital-acquired infection, often a life-threatening one. just treating those infections costs about $2.5 billion a year. $2.5 billion a year. they're completely avoidable. that's just one element of the health care system. if we got after the quality gaps in the health care system, the savings would be far, far greater. so there's a lot to be gained in quality. that's one of the five. the second is prevention. we do not analyze and evaluate and implement prevention strategies very well as a country. we don't even evaluate effectively what prevention methods save enough money in the long run that we should just pay for them for everybody because it saves money to have people do this. we don't differentiate between
7:46 pm
what's probably a good idea for an individual to pay for and what is such a good idea and save so much money that it should be part of the baseline of medical treatment that every american gets, doesn't matter how sick you are, doesn't matter how old you are, how wealthy you are, where you live. you should be getting this prevention treatment because it saves all of us money. we should be analyzing those things, proving them and putting that prevention strategy to work because the cheapest way to treat an illness is to prevent it in the first instance. the third is payment reform. we pay doctors more the more they prescribe. the more tests they order, more medications they order, more procedures they direct, the more they get paid. it could come as no surprise when you send that incentive out there into that particular marketplace. which has been quantified by study after study. the affordable care act has
7:47 pm
pilots to start directing the payment for medical procedures. based on the outcomes so that its value, it's how well you get that dictate payments, not how much the doctor tkor for you. you've got to get it right but it's sraoeulgtly important. -- vitally important. that's part three. the fourth is administrative simplification. and in particular, administrative simplification in the area of the warfare that currently exists between health insurance companies and hospitals and doctors. ask any hospital, ask any doctor what it's like dealing with the insurance companies trying to get paid for the services that they deliver. they will tell you that it is
7:48 pm
torture. the last time i was at the cranston community health center in rhode island, they told me that half of their personnel are dedicated to try to get paid. the other half do the health care work. half of their personnel are dedicated to trying to get paid. and they have a $200,000-a year-year -- year contract to help those who are dedicated to try to get paid to learn what the tricks are from the insurance industry so they can keep ahead of the game because it's an arms race. well, my guess is that about 10% of the health care dollar that goes through the insurance companies goes to delay and denial of payment. so there's ten cents right off
7:49 pm
the top leaving 90 cents for the health care equation. now the doctors and the hospitals have to fight back. they've got to hire their own consultants and their own experts and their own billing companies, and they're not as efficient. there are more of them, they are more spread out. it's not what they're expert at. so it's harder for them to fight back. i think they probably pay more than ten cents out of every dollar. you put the two together, that's 20 cents out of the health care dollar on the private insurance side that doesn't go to health care at all. it only goes to fund the arms race between insurers and doctors over getting paid. this year health affairs, a journal of health care policy, published a study that compared the administrative costs of physician practices in ontario, canada, and physician practices in the united states. and it found that if doctors in the united states could lower their administrative cost to match those of the ontario
7:50 pm
physicians, the total savings would be approximately $27.6 billion a year. now, the ontario doctors have administrative costs, but they've got a single-payer system, it's pretty easy to deal with. the other $27.6 billion is primarily fighting with the different insurance companies who all have different claims systems about claims and billing. so there are big savings to be had by eliminating that unnecessary and expensive warfare that produces zero health care benefit to anybody. and the last piece, which is really the structure for most of the rest of it is, a really strong, solid health care technology infrastructure for this country. i can go to a bank anywhere in this country and i can take out my a.t.m. card and i can access
7:51 pm
my checking account, i can find out what's in my savings account, i can do transactions, i can make deposits. but if i step out of that a.t.m. booth and get whacked by a taxi cab and rushed to an emergency room, they have no idea what my health history is, what my health records are. we do not have a modern electronic health record in this country. we do not have a modern electronic health infrastructure in this country. when i started arguing about this a couple of years ago, i can remember the economist magazine publishing an article that said the health care industry in america was the worst industry for the deployment of information technology of all the american industries except one. the only industry that was behind the health care industry in the deployment of information technology was the mining
7:52 pm
industry. we've improved, thanks to president obama, this administration putting a big investment in this area. but we have a long way to go because we were way behind the curve. so five things: quality improvement, serious investment and prevention where it saves money, payment reform so that the system is incented to provide value rather than volume, knocking down the administrative overhead that drapes over the system and weights it down, and a robust health information technology infrastructure. those are the five keys. and almost every single one of the programs i referred to that are in the affordable care act fit one of those principles. so why are we not doing this? why is this not a bigger part of the debate? if it's $700 billion to $1 trillion a year, if the result is better care for americans, fewer medical errors, more prevented illness, less nonsense
7:53 pm
and unnecessary care from their doctors chasing the payment model of volume, less fighting with the insurance company over trying to get paid and a health information record that the yours, that is private, that is secure, that goes with you wherever you are -- i had a fellow in rhode island whose daughter was taken ill. she had a pretty serious condition. she was taken to the emergency room in rhode island and they realized that this was really bad, that they needed specialists, they needed specialty care, they needed specialty machinery and treatment. and they had to rush up to the specialty hospital in massachusetts that could do the work on her that she needed to save her life. so off they went. and when they got there, they discovered that they hadn't brought her paper health records with her. so they had to redo all the tefgs. they had -- do all the testing,
7:54 pm
start from scratch. seconds counted as they fought for this woman's life. thankfully it all turned out fine but it put her life at risk, it cost a fortune to redo all the tests. it made her recovery harder because a lot of time was wasted. a paper health record? are you kidding me? but that's where we are. so all of this stuff is, it's win-win. so where's the pressure to do it? well, there's a problem, and the problem is that it's not the kind of change that c.b.o., the people who guide our budget decisions around here, can score. i asked alan simpson, from the simpson-bowles budget group, during one of our budget committee hearings if he believed that reducing health care costs through delivery system reform is an important part of addressing our debt and deficit problem, and he
7:55 pm
answered, "what you are saying is exactly right. it is not, unfortunately, scorable. and that is why it is not in our report." okay, i get it. it's not scorable. it's not in the report. but we should not overlook this factor as we make these decisions on behalf of the american people, because even if you can't score how you get to that $700 billion in savings or if the new england health care institute is right, that $850 billion, or if bush treasury secretary o'neill is right, that $1 trillion a year in savings using methods that improve both our experience and quality of care, that needs to be a priority even if it's not scorable. tomorrow i will send a letter to the president which the
7:56 pm
presiding officer has been good enough to sign and a broad array of my colleagues have agreed to cosign that reiterates the case that i made here tonight. the letter urges the president's attention to the potential of delivery system reform rather than medicare benefit cuts for seniors. it should be our first priority to fix that overloaded 50% more inefficient than the most inefficient country in the world system, the one with $850 billion or $1 trillion in annual savings that are possible, fix that before you go to a senior who really had no part in this, who can't help, but try to do their best and say to them, we're taking away your benefit. that's just not the way to proceed. that's the wrong way to proceed. it's morally wrong. and it's wrong as a matter of
7:57 pm
policy. where i contend we are -- and i'll say this in closing -- there is a movement and an industry emerging in the area of health care delivery system reform. it is strong in the private sector, whether you look at places like palmetto down in the carolina coast, gisinger in the pennsylvania area, out towards utah in the west, inner mountain, mayo in minnesota and florida, kaiser based in california. these are all major american health delivery companies that have seen the potential delivery reform, that are working hard to make it happen. they are committed to it and they are getting results. we need to have their back. we need to support them as they do this. but it's never going to be
7:58 pm
scorable because this is not a mathematical equation where you say you're now getting this benefit. we're going to take away 20% of what you get. we're going to run it through the same nonsensical system that causes most of our cost problems. and at the end we're going to say it's going to be 20% cheaper. easy to do the math that way, but it's a pretty cruel way and it's lazy because we need to be in the middle fixing that piece. but it's not mathematically easy because where we are is like the early stages, i contend it's like the early stages of the airline industry. i shouldn't say airline industry because even before them. of the flight industry. what did we know when the wright brothers first put their flying machine into the air at kitty hawk? we knew that a curved surface sped through the air, generated
7:59 pm
lift. we knew that a whirling air screw generated propulsion. and we knew that if you twisted the ends of the wings, you could control the direction. those principles haven't changed. i just got back from afghanistan and pakistan. we flew for 14 hours from the arabian peninsula back to dulles airport. that plane had movies on it. it had food on it. everybody was comfortable. it had air conditioning. we landed a plane that was the size of a, probably the average small town in america at the time that the wright brothers were flying, and everybody on it
116 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on