Michael Bennet

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, it was a great privilege to be here on the floor to hear the remarks of the senior Senator from West Virginia. I congratulate him on his remarks and thank him for giving us the privilege of hearing his views on Afghanistan. One of the most import duties we have as Members of this Chamber is to ensure that our troops have the tools and equipment they need to succeed. It is an obligation we all take very seriously. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senators Levin and McCain, for producing such a balanced and bipartisan bill that invests in our Nation's defense and provides, as President Obama has said, ``for the few who have borne the overwhelming burden of our security.'' Making sure our troops have the very best America can offer is absolutely essential to our defense and keeps our military second to none. I rise today to discuss a provision in this conference report that reflects a different source of pride, a source of pride that projects another characteristic of America and defines us as a model of freedom and equality under the law. These values form a foundation of America's strength that is our most enduring asset, both in times of war and peace. I rise today in strong support of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. With the bipartisan passage of the Defense authorization conference report, we will have taken another substantial step forward for our values as Americans. It has been 10 years since the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act was first introduced in the Senate. During this period we have seen a marked increase in hate crimes. In my home State of Colorado there were 156 hate crime incidents reported to the FBI in 2007; 75 of those were on account of the victims' race and 32 on account of his or her sexual orientation. One of these victims was 18-year-old Angie Zapata, of Greeley, who was beaten to death in her home in July of 2008. Press accounts indicated Angie's attacker said he went after her because he hates transgender and gay people. A jury found that the attacker was motivated by prejudice based on sexual orientation. The jury's verdict marked Colorado's first ever conviction for a hate crime against a transgendered person. The crime was heinous and the attacker will rightly serve his time because of the laws in my State. Our experience in Colorado, which already has strong hate crimes laws on the books, serves as an example of how to protect the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of where they live. Our laws must reflect our values. Communities are threatened anytime there is a violent crime motivated by racial animus or by bigotry against one's gender or sexual orientation. Hate crimes are serious challenges for our law enforcement personnel. They can lead to additional crimes, and they can raise the level of animosity among communities. These unique challenges have rightly caused Congress to become involved. As we learned in the civil rights era, sometimes communities need assistance and resources from the Federal Government when they have to confront the most emotional and dangerous kinds of crimes. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is designed to help local law enforcement manage these situations and deter hate crimes from ever happening in the first place. This important law strengthens the current Federal hate crimes statute by protecting would-be targets of violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It closes a significant loophole under current law that prevents hate crime prosecution when a victim is not engaged in a federally protected activity. All victims should be protected, and these crimes should be deterred regardless of where or when an attacker may be planning to commit a violent crime. This legislation also authorizes the Department of Justice to provide grants to State, local, and tribal authorities to investigate or prosecute hate crimes more effectively. Grants are also made available for programs that combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including training by local law enforcement to effectively identify, prosecute, and prevent those hate crimes. I thank all of those who worked so hard over the past 10 years to update our hate crimes laws, particularly the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who long championed this cause. In a speech he gave back in 2007 on this very subject, Senator Kennedy asked how long those living in fear of attack or reprisal would have to wait until Congress did the right thing. How long, he asked, would it take for Washington to show that violence on account of gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity is absolutely inconsistent with our values and as such will not be tolerated in the United States of America. Today, is Senator Kennedy's answer. Today we send a bill to the President that ensures America's enduring principles apply to all Americans. Today we approve a bill that, as Senator Kennedy predicted, ``sends a message about freedom and equality that will resonate around the world.'' It is a proud amendment. I urge my colleagues to set the right example and pass this important legislation.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for yielding, as well as the Senator from New Mexico for his excellent comments. I am a father of three little girls who are 10, 8, and 5. One of the things I miss most in being here and not being in Colorado is being able to read to them at night or be with them. Over the years, we have moved from one story to another. Harry Potter is now being read. But I heard a story from Colorado this morning that I couldn't believe that reminded me so much of ``Goldilocks and the Three Bears.'' So that is what I wish to talk about today. In Colorado, we have a young boy named Alex Lange who is 4 months old. He is 17 pounds. Several weeks ago he was denied insurance because of his ``preexisting condition'' which, in his case, is obesity. Bernie and Kelli Lange, his parents, tried to get insurance and were told by an insurance broker that their baby was too fat to be covered. As his father said: [I] could understand if we could control what he is eating, but he is 4 months old. He is breastfeeding. We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill. So that was one story of a child who is too fat to be covered. Today we have the story of Aislin Bates. By the way, in the Lange case--and I want the record to reflect this--the insurance company did the right thing, which is to say: We made a mistake, and we need to cover this young man. Today comes the story of Aislin Bates who is 2 years old, 22 pounds, denied insurance because of her ``preexisting condition,'' which is that she is underweight. Rob and Rachel, her family, tried to get insurance and they received a letter saying: We are unable to provide coverage for Aislin because her height and weight do not meet our company's standards. Her pediatrician wrote a letter in support of the family's request to appeal the insurance company's decision, but the company stuck by its decision. The Bates family has said it costs as much to cover Aislin under COBRA as it costs to cover the remaining three family members. So in Colorado we have children who are too big to be insured; we have children who are too little to be insured. The reason this reminded me of Goldilocks was that it looks as though you have to be ``just right'' to get insurance, even if you are an infant. We can do better than that as a country, and we are proposing to do better than that as a country. One of the most important parts of this insurance reform is to get rid of denials of coverage based on preexisting conditions. I have spoken to many people who work for insurance companies that are tired of having to deny claims for this or for that or relying on the fine print when they know the right thing to do is to provide coverage. I am tired of living in a country where 62 percent of bankruptcies are health care-related and 78 percent of those health care-related bankruptcies are happening to people who have insurance, working families who have insurance. I am tired of the fact that we have public hospitals in Denver that 2 or 3 years ago spent $180 million of taxpayer money on uncompensated care for people employed by small businesses. So I think what we are talking about at the end of the day is trying to create some stability for our working families, trying to create some stability and some fairness for our small businesses that, after all, are paying 18 percent more to cover their employees just because they are small. Politics has gotten in the way of reform of our health care system for more than 20 years. It has been longer than that. In the last 10 years alone, the costs of health insurance premiums have gone up 97 percent in my State, while median family income has declined by $800 over this same period. This is unsustainable for our working families. It is unsustainable for us as an economy, for us to spend more than twice what any other industrialized country in the world is spending on health care. We can't hope to compete in this global economy when we are devoting more than twice what anyone else is spending on health care. We can do better. The commonsense reforms that are in front of us and that I am sure are going to be improved upon in the coming weeks are a big step forward for working families and small businesses. It is going to be a big step forward for these young children in Denver, CO, and in the rest of our State who can't be denied coverage because they are not ``just right,'' because they are too big or they are too small or there is one other issue that nobody anticipated. Our families need help. They need stability in order to get ahead. That is why I support this health care reform effort. I wish to thank, again, the Senator from New Hampshire for her leadership this morning and throughout the months as we have been talking about this issue. I look forward to working with her in the coming weeks as we finally bring this matter into its safe harbor. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico, and I am reminded of the trips I made around my State during recess when everybody settled down and we could actually get into a conversation about how well the status quo was working for people. It took about 40 minutes into the meeting before people would stand up and start to say: Let me tell you my story about how I was laid off from a company or lost my insurance, had a preexisting condition, couldn't get new insurance and, therefore, can't get the health care I need. That is the kind of conversation we need to have about what we are facing. I was left with the impression from people in Colorado that while they don't like the status quo, they are worried that we are going to make it worse. We can't blame people for thinking that, as they watch what is on TV every night or on the Internet. Our obligation is to make sure as we go through this legislative process, we deliver something that builds on our strengths, as the Senator said, but also fills in gaps that are clearly present and disrupting the lives of working families. I turn now to the Senator from Illinois to talk about the public option and choice. It is apparent to me, as people have begun to see there might be a requirement that they have insurance, what I am hearing from people is they want more choices, not fewer. They don't want to necessarily be forced into a private insurance plan. They want their family to have choices. Today the Senator from Illinois will talk about the public option.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today, as we were last week and the week before that, with other freshman colleagues to talk about the need for health care reform in this Congress. Today, what we want to focus on is the effect of health care reform on small business. When I am in Colorado, what we always start with is a conversation about what problem is it we are trying to solve. When it comes to small businesses, they are the biggest losers in the current health care system we have today and, by extension, the people who work for small businesses. Today in my State, small business pays 18 percent more to cover their employees than large business does. Some people say to me: Michael, that is obviously because they have a smaller pool of people; it is harder to spread the risk. And that is true, but from a business perspective, that is ridiculous. From a small business perspective, if you are going to spend 18 percent more on something, you ought to expect to get 18 percent more productivity out of your company or you ought to at least expect to get 18 percent better coverage for your employees. Of course, every small business owner in this country knows the reverse is true--coverage is worse, deductibles are higher. It is just an illustration of how challenging the status quo is for small businesses that, after all, employ most of the people in our economy and are going to be responsible for carrying us out of this recession. One can see on this chart the extraordinary effect this has had on my State. Even before this current recession, we saw a huge drop in the number of people who were getting coverage at work and many fewer small businesses. Now we are almost at 40 percent--I guarantee that number is well below 40 percent today after this recession has occurred. Even fewer smaller businesses are able to offer their employees coverage, which is heartbreaking for small business owners all over my State and all over the other States represented here today. Many of these businesses are family-owned businesses. The businesses feel like a family. People feel responsibility and care for one another and take responsibility for, among other things, health care. But they are not able to do it anymore. They are making very tough choices as a result. By the way, one of the choices they are making is to not raise wages. Median family income in Colorado went down by $800 over the last 10 years, and in the country it went down over $300 in the same period, while in my State health insurance premiums went up by 90 percent. Small businesspeople say to me that those things are directly related to each other. In other words, people have to make a choice between covering their employees and paying them a living wage, and more often than not they are having to choose to compress wages just because of the skyrocketing costs of health insurance. Health care reform done right is going to make an enormous difference for small businesses and for the people employed by small businesses. It will lower premiums and the cost of health insurance coverage; provide tax credits for small businesses that provide health insurance--that do the right thing; exempt most small businesses from employer responsibility requirements; subsidize health insurance for employees in small businesses that do not provide health insurance; increase entrepreneurship to expand the pool of workers available to small businesses; and eliminate job lock. Job lock means having to stay in a job because you are so scared of losing your insurance. The estimate is that the administrative costs for small businesses, when it comes to health care insurance, will drop by over 50 percent. Most small businesspeople I know, who are skeptical sometimes of the reform we are talking about, will tell me this administrative burden is extraordinary for them today. Today, it is a paper-and-pencil system of trying to root out and sort out the health insurance market for their employees. Tomorrow, what we are going to have is an exchange where people can easily compare prices, compare coverage, and get the best deal for their employees, not to mention the fact they are going to be able to pool their purchasing power and drive down cost as a result. The estimates are, small business will save billions of dollars over the course of this reform--$432 billion by 2013, $855 billion just 9 years from now. That is money that can be put into wages. In fact, the estimates are that of those savings, what we will see is small businesses being able to increase wages for their employees by almost $300 billion by the end of this period of time. So today we are here to talk about why reform is important for small business. We are at a very perilous moment in our economy for small businesses that do not have access to the credit they need to help get us where we need to be. They are facing an incredible credit crunch out there, which is making it hard for them to hire again, which is driving up our unemployment rate. Over the medium and long term, what is critical to the success of our small businesses is that we reform our health care system, we make it more transparent, we make it more efficient, we make coverage more available to small businesses and to the millions of Americans who are employed by small businesses in their communities. We are going to go through a series of colleagues today from the freshman class, as we did last week and the week before, and I will now yield the floor for the Senator from Alaska to give his perspective on why, as a former small businessperson himself, health care reform is so critical to keeping our small businesses competitive.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska, and I think he raises such an important point because so much of the debate has been about dividing one set of Americans from another set of Americans. Health care reform is something that needs to be of concern to 300 million Americans--if you are concerned about the double-digit increases every year of your premiums; if you are concerned about spending almost 20 percent of our GDP on health care, when every other industrialized country in the world is spending less than half that; concerned, as the other side is and this side is, with the fiscal condition of our government, when we know the biggest drivers of our medium-term deficits are rising Medicare and Medicaid costs, and the biggest drivers of those are health care costs. We are all in this together. It is a great pleasure for me to turn now to the Senator from Oregon, who will talk about the fact that this isn't just about trying to cover one small group of Americans, it is about all 300 million Americans in this country.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Oregon for pointing out the incredible lack of stability that exists in the system today. The bankruptcy numbers are unbelievable. In my State, I think roughly 62 percent of all bankruptcies are caused by health care issues. Of those health-care-related bankruptcies, 78 percent, nearly 80 percent of them, are bankruptcies involving people who actually were covered by insurance. We are not getting done the job that needs to get done. That is why we are here today to talk about these issues. I am going to call on the Senator from Virginia to talk a little bit about how, under the current system, we pay for the uninsured in our country today, but we do it in the most inefficient way possible. Just one fact from my State: We have a public hospital in Denver called Denver Health. It is an incredibly well-run hospital, run by a person named Dr. Patty Gabow. She told me they did a study a couple of years ago that showed they spent, in 1 year, $180 million for uncompensated care for people employed by small businesses who could not get insurance at work. I will yield for the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BENNET. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I particularly, on behalf of all the colleagues here today, thank him for his leadership over the last couple of months on the question of personal responsibility: how do we incentivize people to make sure they are doing a better job to take care of themselves; how do we work with some of the corporations in this country that have done an extraordinary job of lowering health care costs by incentivizing folks to take personal responsibility for their health care. I have enjoyed working on those issues with him and look forward to continuing to work on it. Next, we have the Senator from New Mexico who is here to talk about another myth, which is the idea that our health care system always works well for everybody. We have great things in our health care system. We have some of the best health care technology in the world. We have some of the greatest treatments in the world. If you are going to get sick, a place you want to get sick, depending on what you have, is the United States. But we are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and the Senator from New Mexico is going to comment on that.

Mr. BENNET. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his eloquent discussion about trying to provide more choice rather than less to our working families. A lot of what we are trying to do with health care reform--and I hope the bills will improve over the coming weeks--is give people more control over choices with respect to their doctors and their medical care, to make sure that it is doctors and patients making decisions about treatment and not insurance company bureaucrats or a government bureaucrat. Next I will yield for the Senator from Delaware to talk about why this is such an urgent problem and why we need to address it now and not wait, as we have over the last 20 years. As the President said, the first President to call for health care reform was Teddy Roosevelt. Here we sit in 2009, confronted by the same sorts of arguments about why today is the wrong time to do this and why we ought to kick the can down the road for another generation of Americans. I turn the floor over to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. BENNET. I thank the Senator from Delaware for pointing out that maintaining the status quo, being unwilling to act, in fact, is making a choice. It is making a choice about having another decade of double-digit cost increases every year. It is making a choice about devoting a fifth of our economy to health care when every other industrialized country in the world is devoting less than half of that. It is making a choice about having increasing and mounting and rising deficits in the outyears. I thank the Senator from Delaware for pointing out that we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity right now to try to address a number of these issues at the same time. Mr. President, our closer today is the Senator from New Hampshire, who is here to talk about what this reform is about versus what some have claimed it is about. I welcome her here this morning. Let me turn the floor over to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for closing in such a perfect way today. I agree with her that for far too long Washington special interest politics has gotten in the way of fixing this system, and the result has been enormously unfortunate for working families all across the United States of America. When your median family income is going down by $300 over a decade, and the cost of health insurance is doubling over the same period of time--by the way, in my State, it has gone down by $800--and the cost of insurance has gone up 97 percent, the cost of higher education has gone up by 50 percent over the same period of time, essentially what we are saying to working families is: You are going to take home less, but you have to pay more for, not ``nice to haves'' but things that are critical to move your family ahead to have the kind of stability that is essential for everybody to have a shot at the American dream, and for some reason we in Washington cannot figure out how to make some changes that would help working families and small businesses all across the United States. That moment has come now, and we are here. We have the next few weeks to figure this out. I believe we will. I am enormously optimistic we can pass a bill in this Senate and in the Congress that the President can sign that will make a material impact, an improvement in the lives of working families and those employed by small businesses all over this country. In fact, anything less than that should be unacceptable to all of us. I hope we can do that in a bipartisan way. I hope we can have cooperation across the aisle and the best ideas from both parties as we design it. But, to me, the most important thing is to make sure people who live in my State do not need to endure another decade of double- digit cost increases every single year, do not need to endure another decade where they lose their health insurance because they lose a job or because they have a preexisting condition or because, as happened in my State last week, a baby was born who was deemed to be too heavy to insure--fortunately, the insurance company did the right thing in the end--to not have another decade where people are wrestling with their insurers to get paid, so that doctors and people providing health care do not have to spend 30 percent of their overhead or more trying to get reimbursed for services they provided to their patients. I am optimistic in part because of all my wonderful colleagues who were here this morning. I thank them for joining me today. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr BENNET

Mr BENNET. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a development folks in the southeastern corner of my State have been waiting on for the better part of 47 years. This week, maybe even today, thanks in large part to the advocacy of our partners at both the local and Federal levels, the vision of the Arkansas Valley Conduit--long a priority of rural communities in my State--moves one significant step closer to reality. Today, we will send a bill to the President that finally funds this important water project that represents the best of regional government, with multiple communities cooperating for the greater good. Our success today owes to the support of many who took it upon themselves at one time or another to move this project forward. In particular I would like to thank Congressman John Salazar, a good friend and tremendous leader who has championed this project since his first days in office. The effort to build the conduit has been a journey that has its origins in post-World War II America, a time when members of ``the Greatest Generation'' were coming home to raise a family, plan their lives and build a new America with the same energy that they used to save it on the battlefield. In the Arkansas River Valley, enthusiasm for the future was also high, but their enthusiasm was soon tempered by one significant limitation: the water needed to build and sustain that future was in short supply. Yet geographic limitations were no match for the resilience and determination of the valley's residents. They came together and crafted a plan to satisfy the water needs of the valley's ranchers, farmers and rural communities. The project came to be known by proponents and detractors alike as the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. After a long and sometimes bitter battle, the project was authorized and signed into law by President John F. Kennedy in August of 1962. The Arkansas Valley Conduit was a key piece of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. The vision was simple: deliver clean drinking water to 40 ranching and farming communities of the lower Arkansas Valley. As the years went by, that vision developed. Civic leaders and citizens came together to call for a water delivery system to bring the West's scarcest natural resource to over 40 communities, across a 140- mile stretch of southeastern Colorado. Unfortunately, the resources necessary to put that plan into place did not advance with the larger plan. While other parts of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project moved forward, the Arkansas Valley Conduit languished and doubts began to grow about whether the Federal Government would ever live up to its part of the bargain. Earlier this year, my predecessor, Senator Salazar and Colorado's now senior Senator, Mark Udall, gave the conduit the jumpstart it needed by introducing legislation authorizing a Federal cost-share for the project. After visiting southeast Colorado upon my appointment to the Senate, I immediately lent my strong support to the project and cosponsor this important legislation. I believe you would be hard pressed to find many bills that have the support of three Senators from the same State during one session of Congress. With that support, as well as the strong support and leadership of Representatives John Salazar and Betsy Markey, Congress authorized the Arkansas Valley Conduit in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, which was signed by the President in March of this year. Unfortunately, this authorization did not happen in time for funding to be included in the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2010. Our team advocated as strongly as we knew how for the conduit. And I can tell you, that after communicating how important this project is to the people of my State on many, many occasions, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, soon emerged as a committed partner in the effort. Let me say that the people of Colorado have a good friend in the Senator of North Dakota, and that the people of his State have a tremendously capable person representing their needs. I am pleased that Senator Dorgan and his partners on the subcommittee considered the conduit along with many, many worthy requests nationwide and determined that $5 million of Federal resources was what could get this project off to a promising start. This first round of funding will be used for environmental analysis, planning, and design. The final project will enable these communities-- all of which have average incomes well below the national average--to comply with Federal drinking water standards. I hope that it is just a matter of years--not decades--before the people of the lower Arkansas Valley have a conduit to call their own. When President Kennedy traveled to Pueblo to sign the bill authorizing the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, he proclaimed it ``an investment in the future of this country, an investment that will repay large dividends.'' ``It is an investment in the growth of the West,'' he continued, ``in the new cities and industries which this project helps make possible.'' Today, for the first time in 47 years, we recommit to making that investment in earnest. Today, we begin the difficult, but long overdue task of building a brighter, stronger future for generations of Arkansas River Valley residents to come. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. I appreciate the Senator from New Mexico raising that. I remember a florist I talked to, a family-owned business since 1972 in my State, and he is now down to no employees, just his wife and himself. They are running the shop. They had health insurance for many years, and they took it, as so many small businesses do, as an article of faith that part of their job was to offer insurance to their employees, to make sure their employees had the benefit of insurance. Now they are the only two employees. There is no one working for them. They do not have health insurance themselves. Their daughter has been admitted to the University of Colorado. He said to me last week: Michael, what was she supposed to do when she got to the box that said check the box if you have health insurance? If you don't, you have to pay this terrible fee. So, first of all, people are having to make choices they should not have to make and they would not have to make in a rational private market that was working well. That is one of the issues. The second thing is, as you know--I am sure it is true in New Mexico, and it is certainly true in Ohio--most of our jobs are created by small businesses. Depending on the numbers you look at, roughly 70 percent of our jobs are created by small businesses. And a higher percentage of those jobs are going to be responsible for the recovery that hopefully we are about to have in this country. It is harder and harder to do that if you are carrying the freight of double-digit cost increases in insurance every single year. The last point I want to make--every small business owner understands this--as small business owners try to hang on to insurance for their employees and the price of that goes up and up, what that leads to is a choice between holding on to the insurance and compressing the wages of the employees because you can't do both. You can't give people the increases they deserve in their compensation and at the same time hold on to health insurance. So that is a reason we have seen all across this country, actually, a decline in median family income. It has gone down by $300 over the last decade in the country, $800 in my State, while the cost of insurance has gone up by 97 percent. That wage compression is directly linked to the problems people have holding on to insurance. I appreciate the question. I yield.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for letting me have the last 5 minutes. (The remarks of Mr. Bennet are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, as you could hear from the remarks of the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Oklahoma, there is agreement on some issues. We know the status quo is not going to work when it comes to health care. We know our families cannot endure another decade of double-digit cost increases every single year in their health insurance premiums. We know we can do better than devoting a fifth of our GDP to health care, when every other industrialized country in the world devotes less than half that to health care. We know the biggest drivers of our outyear budget and debt--which we do need to be enormously concerned about--are rising Medicare and Medicaid costs, and the biggest drivers of those are rising health care costs. I would say, again, as I have said before, I hope we can start on where the areas of agreement are and try to work from there. Because our small businesses and working families all across this country, including in my State of Colorado, cannot endure another 10 years like the 10 years they have endured. We will not be able to compete effectively in this global economy, where we are devoting more than twice what any other industrialized country in the world is devoting to just one sector of our economy--health care--and we are not going to keep the kind of commitment the Senator from Oklahoma was talking about to the young girl in the photograph or, for that matter, to my three daughters at home, who are 10, 8, and 5. I am deeply concerned about where we are with respect to our deficits and our debt. So while we are disagreeing about the outcomes, I think there is a growing understanding that the current system just will not do. Afghanistan Mr. President, I am here to talk a little bit about Afghanistan, and just for a few minutes because yesterday we reached the 8-year anniversary of the war in Afghanistan. On this occasion, we should remember how unified our entire country was over our mission there when it began. The Nation came together after 9/11 to support our military as it bravely took the fight to the Taliban and the terrorists in Afghanistan. We had one ultimate goal: Removing al-Qaida's safe haven. Our military succeeded in toppling the Taliban government, which had allowed al-Qaida to use Afghanistan as a staging ground and a hiding place. Once the Taliban was removed from power, an international coalition, led by U.S. forces, went about the long and difficult task of defeating al-Qaida for good. Yet now, 8 years later and with a new administration trying to determine America's best way forward, many Americans are understandably concerned and frustrated. Afghanistan is not where any of us want it to be, and our ultimate goal has not yet been met. Al-Qaida is still there and in Pakistan as well. Afghanistan's Government has not been able to take centralized control of the country. Elections there have not added to the legitimacy of the Karzai government. We have been left to reassess our position, and we must do this reassessment together. Policymakers are asking the important and right question: What are the proper goals for our military effort in Afghanistan? How best can we accomplish them? Are these goals purely military goals? Can they be better solved with more troops or fewer? Do we need a more complex new mission in our future, which the military aspect is only one small part? Unless we are sure, unless all of us are sure that more troops can help us meet our goals, we should not send them. Our soldiers already have sacrificed much. This time, in particular, is a difficult one for servicemembers and their families, and it is also proving to be a difficult one for those of us making policy. As we decide what our direction will be in Afghanistan, the fallen brave soldiers we lost from Fort Carson this week are solemn reminders of how consequential our decisions have been and will be. Those of us who opposed going to war in Iraq, including President Obama, believed then it was the wrong war at the wrong time. We believed that Washington's focus on Iraq was diverting precious resources from our efforts in Afghanistan. We are still dealing with the consequences of the decision to focus on Iraq, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Recalling recent history is so important because now we have to find new wisdom on Afghanistan. At the same time, all 100 Members of this body know we must take great care as we make decisions that will affect the lives of our men and women in uniform and their families. For every soldier who answers our Nation's call to serve in combat, a new deployment is akin to a new decision to go to war. That is why our national purpose and their mission must be absolutely clear. That is also why, as Members of this body, we must be willing to ask hard questions. The country will be counting on the Senate to scrutinize and understand the purpose of any decision to deploy additional troops. As we, together, debate a new approach to Afghanistan, I will be motivated by the memory of the Fort Carson soldiers who died this past week, as well as all those who have fallen in rank and Afghanistan. I know all of us feel the same way. They served honorably. So must we. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I actually am here to talk about something else, but I was so inspired by what the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Ohio and the others have said, I want to spend a few minutes on this issue. Part of it is I just don't understand what Washington doesn't understand about what our working families and small businesses are going through. In my State over the last 10 years, median family income has actually gone down by $800 in real dollars. The cost of health insurance premiums have gone up 97 percent during the same period of time. There are people who want to leave the system just the way it is, but the result of having flat income for our working families and small businesses, and for those costs going up 97 percent--by the way, in my State the cost of higher education has gone up 50 percent at the same time. The cost of health insurance, up 97 percent; the cost of higher education up by 50 percent--this is tough on the middle class. It is tough on small business owners in my State. The result is, if we keep the status quo--there is a great irony of the arguments to keep the status quo--by default, we are putting more and more people off private insurance and more and more people either on public insurance or having the benefit of uncompensated care. We have seen in my State, you can see it on this chart--probably not all that well--small business spends 18 percent more for insurance than large business just because they are small, and fewer and fewer people in Colorado are able to get coverage at work. Before this recession started it had already dropped roughly 10 percentage points; the percentage of folks who were getting insurance from their employer, from our employer-based system. You can see, the Senator from Ohio certainly can see, the percentage of small businesses in my State able to offer health insurance has declined dramatically. Where do these people go? They either end up on Medicaid or they end up showing up in the emergency room where they are treated with uncompensated care, the most expensive way we can deliver health care in the United States of America. We have a wonderful public hospital in Denver called Denver Health, where they do an amazing job at a much lower cost than a lot of other hospitals. I was told by the woman who runs the hospital--her name is Patty Gabow, a gifted administrator--that they had done a study and they discovered they had spent $180 million in 1 year on uncompensated care for people who were employed by small businesses. These were not unemployed people, these were not people who could have had access to Medicaid, but people employed by small businesses who could not afford health insurance. So I think one of the ironic things about the debate we are having is the failure to recognize that the status quo is creating a situation where fewer and fewer people have private insurance and more and more people are moving into public insurance. But it is not being done in a thoughtful way. It has not been constructed that way. So I think that is one of the reasons it is very important that we are having this debate. I tell the Senator from Ohio, I am sure he had this reaction when he was on recess. I certainly did. I had townhalls all over the State. What I kept hearing from people is this, and this is the reason I support a public option. They would say to me: Michael, we paid every single year, year after year after year, into private insurance. Every year, we did what we were supposed to do, and then when we needed it, it was not there for whatever reason. Because somebody on the other end of the telephone told them: You are not covered, or the fine print did not cover you for that problem or your child for that problem. They deeply resented the fact, as I would, that someone earned a profit off that commercial transaction. That is the thing about insurance. It is not like going to the store and buying a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk where you know what you are getting in return. Many people who buy private insurance year after year don't know what they have until they need it and they don't know what they have lost until they lose it. Having a choice, just another option that is out there, not a government takeover of health care but a choice that empowers working families in my State to make the decisions that are in the best interests of their family or their children--as a father of three little girls under the age of 10, I can understand why people would want that choice. I am not scared by the choice. We have to design it properly, and the HELP Committee did a very good job designing it, in answering a number of the charges that have been made against it. We may be able to do a better job in the final legislation. The final thing I am hearing from people in Colorado is: If you are going to mandate that we have insurance, if you are going to require that we have insurance, you better make it affordable. You better not tell me I have to have insurance and make it unaffordable. You better not tell me I have to have insurance and I have to change the plans I have for my family. The public option provides one more choice for people, an affordable choice for people. We have to do a lot more to drive down costs, as I and others have talked about on this floor. But we need to do this right. I understand, I come from a State where we have a lot of diversity of opinion on a lot of things, and there is a lot of concern about the way the system works today, and there is a lot of concern that we are going to make it even worse. I think we need to elevate the standard of the discussion we are having to the standard that we had, that the people of Colorado had in townhall after townhall, which, by the way, no one would ever have any interest in putting on TV, I am proud to say. We need to elevate the standard of the discussion in Washington so that we can produce a result that has something other than double-digit cost increases year after year for working families.

Mr. BENNET. I appreciate the question. I will say that I used to make my living buying bankrupt companies. So these were companies that were actually fairly well managed but capitalized really poorly, and our opportunity was to buy them, capitalize them properly, produce a business plan, as you are describing, and make sure the people who worked for them, the people who benefited from them continued to be able to do that. You know, as a capitalist, I look at the state of our health insurance industry and our health delivery system and I can almost not believe what I see. We have 44 counties in Colorado. Every one of those counties has a convenience store, at least one, some many more than one but at least one. With the exception of the loose beef jerky that is on the counter, there isn't anything in there that doesn't have a barcode on it. It is 1970s technology that our small business owners in Colorado know is critical to managing their inventory, critical to allowing them to be competitive and giving their customers what they need. Only 3 percent of hospitals in this country have that technology. One out of every 25 doctors has that technology, which is a really simple thing. And it is the reason why--as a parent of three little girls or if you are caring for a parent of your own, it is so frustrating when you go in and you have to explain over and over again what the last person just told you simply because we don't have a system of electronic medical records. Then, on top of that is a business model where, unlike everything else in our society, every year the cost goes up and the quality to the customer goes down, which is what we see with insurance. We don't see that in other parts of our private marketplace. We don't see that in other parts of our private marketplace where people are incentivized to compete on price, on quality, on customer service. And it is why it is not just enough to have a public option. We need a public option, but we also need commonsense regulation of insurance so that we start driving a marketplace that actually makes sense.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to recognize the tragic loss of nine soldiers stationed at Fort Carson, CO, who were killed this past weekend in Afghanistan. Last Saturday, eight soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division's 4th Brigade Combat Team at Fort Carson were killed in a firefight by insurgents in a remote area of Afghanistan. From what we know, as many as 200 insurgents attacked two of our mountain outposts, and U.S. and Afghan soldiers responded together. The fighting lasted most of the day. When it was over, Fort Carson had seen our most costly day since Vietnam. These eight young men made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. All Coloradans and all Americans honor their bravery and their service. We owe them and their families a great debt. I wish to read the names of these courageous soldiers into the Record, and recognize that a ninth tragedy has also apparently now occurred, and say a few words about each: SGT Vernon Martin was 25 years old. He leaves behind a wife and three children. After joining the Army 5 years ago, Vernon had already served bravely in Iraq. His wife has told people that he hoped to work with kids in the future. She also said he was the best thing that ever happened to her and their children. SGT Justin Gallegos was 27 years old. A native of Tucson, AZ, his friends described him as a man of excitement, courage, leadership, and kindness. He is remembered for his constant smile and his generosity. Justin leaves behind a 5-year-old son. His family and friends will miss him dearly. SGT Michael Scusa was 22 years old. After graduating from high school in New Jersey, he joined the Army to serve his country. Michael was serving his second tour in the region. Before he died, he had told his wife that if he was killed, he wanted to be buried in Colorado Springs to be close to his son. This son had been named after a friend of Michael's who was lost in Iraq. SGT Joshua Kirk was 30 years old. He grew up in Idaho where his family still lives. He had followed his childhood dream of entering the Army and was serving his second tour in Afghanistan. He is survived by his wife and 2-year-old daughter. SPC Stephan Mace was 21 years old. Born in Virginia, he grew up loving sports, wildlife, and the outdoors. His mother said that he always had a smile on his face. His grandfather, who had served in the CIA, taught Stephan what it means to serve your country. Stephan recently returned home for a 15-day leave trip, and his mother said that he returned to his post without fear. PFC Kevin C. Thomson was 22 years old. He joined the Army just last year. Originally from Reno, his friends described him as the type of person who could make anyone laugh. He cared little for material things and put more emphasis on the people around him. His photograph hangs in the Reno grocery store where he worked after high school. He will be missed by his family and friends in Nevada and California. SGT Joshua Hardt was 24 years old. He was described by family and friends as an extrovert and athlete. He was so talented on the field, actually, that his high school football helmet was retired. Seeing the successes of his older brother in the military, he followed his brother into the Army. He is survived by his wife, his hometown sweetheart, who moved with him to Colorado after he was stationed at Fort Carson. SPC Christopher Griffin was 24 years old. Coming from a small town in Michigan, friends say they knew he would end up serving his country. Serving in the Army was his longtime goal. He played football and wrestled in high school, and made his friends laugh. Christopher's family in Michigan is proud of his service, and his hometown has made plans to name a street after him. In addition, we recently have learned that a ninth Fort Carson soldier was killed in Afghanistan this weekend in a separate attack. SPC Kevin O. Hill, of New York, died on Sunday. He was 23 years old. At great personal risk, these nine men braved a war in a faraway land. They pushed forward into great danger to protect us here at home. When asked, they answered the call of duty and performed their missions with distinction. Coloradans are immensely grateful for their selfless dedication, and our thoughts and prayers are with their families and loved ones today. I hope their pain is eased by the knowledge that these soldiers will always be remembered and honored. Let us all remember the incredible sacrifices made by nine young people for America's freedom and our safety here at home. I know I speak for all 100 Members of the Senate in offering America's condolences and gratitude to all nine of these mourning families on this day. Pennsylvania's 56th Stryker Brigade

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. I ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered, that an Akaka amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be read a third time.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 155, S. 728.

Mr. BENNET. I now ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1037 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 728, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that upon passage of H.R. 1037, S. 728 be returned to the calendar, all with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 458, the nomination of Paul Fishman to be U.S. attorney for New Jersey; that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order and any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. BENNET

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

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, October 8; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2847, the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.