Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we heard about what is happening in the EU having to do with the question of whether drugs are counterfeit and the serious consequences of having people take medication that is not what it is supposed to be--the consequences of something like that, especially interfaced with other products. There was a news report last week that was printed in Yahoo News. They quote the Industry Commissioner of the European Union--the program in Europe that controls drug safety or at least attempts to. We see that the European Union has expressed concern about the situation they see there. The Commissioner, Mr. Verheugen, said he expected the EU to take action to fight the menace of fake pharmaceuticals. Then he said he thought the EU would agree, in 2010, that a drug's journey from manufacture to sale should be scrutinized carefully and there will be special markings on the packages. There is a lot of concern about this, and we ought not to dash willy- nilly through here without understanding what the consequences of fake medication might be. I wish to see our people pay as little as they can to get the medicines they need. Part of that has to include a safety factor. As I said earlier, we would not suggest anything in the health reform bill that would take a shortcut and disregard safety. I have a letter that was sent from the Department of Health and Human Services, which I quoted a little bit ago. They say the letter is being sent on the amendment filed by Senator Dorgan. The administration supports this program, which I agree to, to buy safe and effective drugs from other countries and included $5 million in our 2010 budget. They go on to say--and this is from the Commissioner of Food and Drugs--that: Importing non-FDA-approved prescription drugs presents four potential risks to patients that must be addressed: (1) the drug may not be safe and effective because it was not subject to a rigorous regulatory review prior to approval; (2) the drug may not be consistently made, high quality product because it was not manufactured in a facility that complies with appropriate good manufacturing practices; (3) the drug may not be substitutable with the FDA-approved product because of differences in composition or manufacturing; and (4) the drug may not be what it purports to be, because it has been contaminated or is a counterfeit due to inadequate safeguards in the supply chain. I ask unanimous consent that this letter, sent to Senator Tom Carper, from the Department of Health and Human Services, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will now suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that it be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. You have considerably more based on--

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, I withdraw the request.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, there was an objection to having the time equally divided expressed by the Senator from Iowa before. How much time is available on our side, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Seven?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I, too, have people who want to speak to the issue. If we can equally divide the quorum call, that is all right with me. I have no objection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I know Senator Dorgan very well. He is a man of great principle and skill, I might say. But I say the list of aberrations, the lack of care about the various products--the toys, wallboards, and food--I have had a great interest in those items. It is interesting that it is being suggested by the Senator from North Dakota that is an acceptable standard and we ought to go ahead and continue it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The question is whether, if you think that casual standard for bringing in food and other products is acceptable--

Mr. LAUTENBERG.--therefore, we ought to do the same with drugs?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think we have some time available. I wish to continue with some remarks. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his remarks and his concern also about the efficacy and the safety of drugs that might reach our citizens. I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague from North Dakota. He said the principal focus of our amendment is to protect the profits of the drug companies. No, I want to protect the health and well-being of American citizens. I look at an industry that has prolonged life expectancy, has made life more productive and pleasant for many whose disabilities may have them imprisoned in their homes. We look at what has happened over the years, where treatment for conditions such as malaria, polio, smallpox were discovered, and antibiotics and chemotherapy have continued to be developed, primarily by American drug companies. Those are the companies that have the reputation for bringing the best products to market, the most carefully scrutinized, and most effective. What I want is for those companies to continue to be developing drugs that will extend wellness and will continue to improve longevity. I want these products to be available more reasonably, more cheaply--more affordably. I had an experience in my life--people have heard me talk about this at times--whereby my father got cancer, was disabled with cancer when he was 42 years old. Our family was virtually bankrupt as a result of the cost for drugs and hospital services and physicians, so I know how costly they are. My father had cancer then, and I have seen what has happened now, with the opportunities for some optimism in situations where cancer develops. We are looking to make these drugs more available, more affordable. The thing that strikes me, as we review where we are in the development of a new health plan or a reform of the existing health programs, and I hear the criticism coming from people who have indicated they do not support more available health products, I think about what happens when votes come about that move the health care bill along. There is absolute obstinacy that prevails with many of our friends on the Republican side. I look at what good, proper products can do and the hope we have for childhood diseases that are so painful to see. We look for improvements in those--whether it is autism or diabetes or other conditions. We want desperately for companies in this country of ours to continue to develop drugs to treat them--or companies anywhere. But when they come to this country we have to know they are safe because there is nothing that can excuse the sacrifice of safety, for whatever discounts you might get on the product, products that, as has been noted, can kill you if they are the wrong formula or contaminated product. Our differences between the Dorgan and Lautenberg amendments boil down to one word: safety. Knowing that when you open the bottle, that when you take the liquid, you are not doing something or your children or your loved ones are not doing something that harms their health. We owe them that feeling of security and comfort as they try to cure themselves from sickness or disease. That is what we are looking at here. I hope my colleagues will stand up and say no, don't let these products come in without the tightest scrutiny that can be developed; without the most secure process of production and shipment that can be exercised. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, this is a simple solution to a complicated problem. My amendment contains the Dorgan amendment. The work done by our friend from North Dakota is significant. But what it did not have is a guarantee, as much as possible, that the product was safe; that there were no counterfeits, that there were no mixtures of things that might not work well with other drugs. My amendment adds a simple requirement that imported drugs be certified as safe by the Health and Human Services Secretary. I hope we will be able to pass this, which will include the Dorgan amendment, to make sure the products that get here are safe, no matter what the price will be. If it is not safe, it is worthless. We want to be sure every product that reaches our shore is safe to take and will be sold at a more reasonable cost.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, throughout my service in the Senate, I have been a strong supporter for health care reform. But we can't allow reform to be used as an excuse to roll back women's rights that they have had for almost half a century. That is why I strongly oppose the amendment offered by my friend, the Senator from Nebraska. I think he is wrong. What this amendment does is remove a woman's right to make her own decision, as a practical matter. It is to prohibit any of the health plans on the exchange from covering abortion. It will ban coverage even for women who don't get a dime in Federal subsidy. Women's reproductive rights are always being challenged here in Congress. What about men's reproductive rights? Let's turn the tables for a moment. What if we were to vote on a Viagra amendment restricting coverage for male reproductive services? The same rules would apply for Viagra as being proposed for abortion. Of course, that means no health plan on the exchange would cover Viagra availability. How popular would that demand be around here? I understand that abortion and drugs such as Viagra present different issues, but there is a fundamental principle that is the same: restricting access to reproductive health services for one gender. This amendment is exclusively directed at a woman's right to decide for herself. It doesn't dare to challenge men's personal decisions. I have the good fortune of being a father of three daughters and grandfather of six granddaughters. I am deeply concerned by the precedent this amendment would set. I don't want politicians making decisions for my daughters or my granddaughters when it comes to their health and well-being, but that is exactly what this amendment does. Nothing made me happier than when any of my daughters announced a pregnancy. I watched them grow and prosper in their health and well- being, as they were carrying that child. I was fully prepared to support a decision she might make for the best health of that new baby and protecting her health to be able to offer her love and care for a new child, as I saw in my years. I don't want to stand here and think that somebody is going to make a decision in this room that affects what my granddaughters or my daughters have to think about. If they want to restrict themselves, let them do it. But how can we stand here and permit this to take place when we are trying to make people healthier and better informed? This amendment wants to take away that right. Right now, the majority of private health insurance plans do offer abortion coverage. This amendment would force private health insurance companies to abandon those policies, eliminate services, and limit a woman's options. The amendment does not, contrary to statements being made here on the floor, simply preserve the Hyde language that has been in place for more than three decades. Make no mistake, this amendment goes well beyond the concept of limiting Federal funds from paying for abortion. This amendment would make it impossible for a woman who pays for her premiums out of her own pocket to purchase a private health plan that offers her the right to choose what is best for her, for her health, and her family's well-being. We have been working hard for a long time to eliminate discrimination against women in our current health care system. Right now, our health care bill takes a balanced approach to abortion coverage. It preserves existing Federal law. Women have fought since this Nation's founding to have full rights under the law, including suffrage, including many other things. Unfortunately, this amendment would force them to take a step backward. I don't want to see it happen. I urge my colleagues, please, use your judgment, make your own choices about your own family. Make your decisions as to what you would recommend to a daughter or a wife. But for God's sake, let the woman choose what is best for her. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time is available?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for up to 10 minutes. It will be less, I promise. I think we had a little miscue in our timing. Is there any objection to that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. All right. If we can be assured that the Senator who speaks will not take more than 5 minutes, I will consent to that. That includes a unanimous-consent agreement for me to have up to 10 minutes. I also see our colleague from Michigan, and I don't know whether that would disturb her.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment proposed by Senator Lincoln from Arkansas. I thank her for an excellent idea. At the outset, before I came to the Senate, I was a founder and CEO of a major New York Stock Exchange company--a company now employing over 40,000 people. I say that because I do understand how business works. I know we have to pay executives to encourage their full capacity. But the money being paid to top health insurance executives is simply outrageous. Most of these companies where these executives work get subsidies from the Federal Government through payments to Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D. Our tax dollars then wind up stuffing the pockets of insurance company executives. Remember, these companies are obliged to provide health care funding when people are ill or need counseling to improve their health and their longevity. The average compensation package for the top five insurance chief executives between 2006 and 2008 was almost $15 million a year. I think their services in these companies more closely resemble a fire department or an emergency response organization than a traditional product producer or a Wall Street firm. These companies are not selling lawnmowers. They have a different obligation, to provide a guarantee to help people maintain better health, which is essential for individuals and should be great for our country. Our country will save money by reducing overhead and improving programs that will fight to help people live better and longer. As their executives make millions of dollars every year, their customers are getting messages such as this: Sorry, this operation or that operation is not covered by your policy, or, we don't pay for that kind of medication. Here is an example that really lays it out perfectly. There is a company called UnitedHealthcare. It is a major health insurance company. After that company engaged in the practice of backdating hundreds of millions of dollars in stock options--and that was done to get an even better price than the shielded gain they get-- after backdating hundreds of millions of dollars of stock options, their CEO, William McGuire, was forced to quit for his questionable performance. Despite this scandal, United gave Mr. McGuire a golden parachute of more than $1 billion. Where did that money come from? It came from the pockets of senior citizens and from the people who had programs that were covered by this company--$1 billion for an outgoing CEO who engaged in misconduct, while hard-working, everyday Americans get turned down for needed and critical medical procedures. There was a disease in that boardroom when they permitted those inexplicable decisions. While health insurance executives have been gouging working families, they are gorging themselves with their outrageous pay, corporate jets, and other perks. A cancer victim may not get critical chemotherapy. A family may not be able to cover the ravages of a child with diabetes. But health insurance company executives draw down millions of dollars. It doesn't add up. This amendment will not tell insurance companies what they can pay their executives. They can pay them whatever they choose to. But only $400,000 annually can be treated as an expense. That is what the President of the United States makes. The rest of it will be taxed, with those funds going to make Medicare more solvent. Again, the Lincoln amendment wisely uses that new tax revenue generated by this measure to further shore up Medicare. An observation I wish to make is that I have listened to the debate over a long period of time--not just in recent weeks but long before that--about getting health care improved for the people across our country, the over 40 million people who cannot go to a doctor but who will go to an emergency room, draw a ticket as if they are waiting for a table in a restaurant, and hope they get seen before some critical disease gets worse. What we hear is objection after objection. They like the status quo. They have their friends in the industry. Look at the advertising budgets we see and the percentage of commercials paid for by those who are opposed as contrasted with those who desperately need the insurance. We are seeing now, for instance, that one element of our reform program is the government plan, the plan that makes the industry more competitive, the public option. We hear all kinds of reasons why that cannot be. What is the ultimate conclusion? It is that this lush field these insurance companies plow day after day, year after year, should be held intact. It is the wrong way to go. I say to them: Stand up, say you don't want 40 million people, or somewhere near that number, to get health care coverage. Say they don't deserve it because they may not be able to afford it. Say you don't deserve it, you don't have the money to pay for it. Who do you think you are, citizens of this country. People who are here, who have worked, in many instances, who have lost jobs in this recession, are being told--they don't use the language but the message is clear--you don't deserve it. But they want the insurance company executives to be treated particularly well. We need clarification of the thinking of the Republicans--and I have a lot of good friends over there, and I know there are a lot of good thinking people. But when the Senator from South Carolina said publicly that if we can bring down this health care plan, we will present a Waterloo for President Obama, what they are seeking is a political victory. They are not seeking to help people who are desperate. More people are worried about the loss of their health insurance than they are about their jobs because a job of some sort often can be available. But if you lose your health care, if you have a condition that the insurance company is not going to cover, you are in deep trouble. I plead with my colleagues and I plead with the people across our country who may hear our voices to protest this assault against logic, this assault against those who need help, those who understand that government can be better. I was a young boy when I enlisted in the Army, 18. My father was sick with cancer. He was 42 years old when he was diagnosed with cancer. He was a healthy man. He used to work out at the Y and take care of himself, but cancer overtook him and after 13 months of illness--a painful illness because they did not have the materials in those days to reduce the pain victims felt--he died, leaving a 37-year-old widow, my mother, who not only was grief-stricken but flat broke, no money. She owed pharmacists. She owed doctors. She owed hospitals. I learned then that if you cannot turn to government in the United States, you are in bad shape. We have the means to do it, and we must do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to talk for a few minutes about health care as we try to understand what brings us to this point with a shred of rage, trying to maintain the dignity of our society. We are on the verge of fixing our health care system once and for all, but there is one major obstacle in our way. The obstacle I talk about is the health insurance companies, their lobbyists, CEOs, and their friends on the other side of the aisle. We can call this group the status quo caucus. They are spending unlimited funds on TV commercials and bogus studies to kill health reform. That is their mission. Think about it. They define their goal, their objective, as articulated by our colleague from South Carolina, as saying: If we can stop this health care reform from continuing, it can be the end of the Obama Presidency, it can be his Waterloo. What kind of an objective is that, that we put politics at the top end as we ignore millions of people, over 40 million people who do not have any insurance, and many of the others who do have insurance do not have a complete picture about what their policies permit or what they might lose by way of restrictions. This is an outrage. The public is manifesting their concern. They are not sure about what they hear, the derogatory material they see--don't do this, don't do that, no public option, and let's take our country back. I don't know whom they are talking about. Whose country? It is our country. It is everybody's country. There is no monopoly here for participation in American society. We hear the worst kinds of assertions about what we are trying to do--turning this country into a Socialist country. What has happened would be almost humorous if it were not so tragic; that is, for people who are on Medicare to be concerned about government interfering with their lives. Medicare is a government program, one of the most successful ever put into the structure of our country. While this group of obstructionists goes about their business, ``don't let it happen'' is their mission. I just told you how it is demonstrated in the words of the Senator from South Carolina. The insurance companies are spending millions on TV commercials and bogus studies to kill health care reform. Quenching their thirst for profits has led to some of the worst predatory practices imaginable. This is an industry that will knowingly strip children of their health care coverage when a parent loses a job. This is an industry that demeans women by treating pregnancy and domestic violence as preexisting conditions--anything to escape their obligations under their insurance policies, for which they charge a lot of money. This is an industry that squeezes small businesses by charging them 18 percent more than they do large firms for the same health insurance policies. The priority of the health industry is not patients, it is profits. In the richest Nation in the world, decent health care should be a basic tenet of life for everyone in our society. But that is not the way it is going and that is not the way the health insurance companies look at it. Their single-minded drive for profits is at the expense of their policyholders--policyholders who depend on them for care when they are sick or injured and when they need medical or health professional assistance. We have a chart that demonstrates the massive profit increases at some of our largest health insurance companies for the years 2000 to 2008. These are the profit increases at health insurance companies. This is 2000 and this is 2008. How can we forget 2008, when our country was coming apart at the seams, deep in recession and terrible expectations in front of us, with people losing their jobs and losing their homes by the millions. Yes, 2008 was that kind of a year. It was a disaster year, except for the guys who were in the health insurance business. In 2000, the profit for WellPoint, one of the best-known companies, was $226 million. Eight years later, their profit was $2.5 billion. Note this: $226 million and $2.5 billion, for a 1000-percent increase. For Aetna, $127 million in 2000; in 2008, $1.4 billion. Think about it--$127 million to $1.4 billion, for a 990-percent increase. Humana, in 2000, had a $90 million profit year, but by 2008 they were up to $647 million, for a 619-percent increase. United Health had $736 million worth of profit in the year 2000, and in 2008 these guys made $3 billion, for a 340-percent increase. That is $736 million compared to $3 billion, for a 304-percent increase. I can assure you working people were not looking at these kinds of increased percentages in their incomes. As a matter of fact, their purchasing power declined. Even though salaries may have stayed the same or have been increased by some factor, their purchasing power decreased. Humana, we recently learned, achieved these profits largely by cheating taxpayers, by taking funds that were supposed to be subsidies for lower rates for their policyholders but, in fact, they went into the company's profits. Just like the industry's profits have risen, so has CEO compensation. Over the last 20 years, compensation for health insurance company CEOs has grown steadily while workers' pay has barely moved. The average compensation package for each of the top five health insurance company executives between 2006 and 2008 was almost $15 million a year. I ran a fairly large company before I came to the Senate, and I think earning a profit is good. I think it is appropriate to keep your books honestly, tell the company to be transparent, tell the country exactly what your profits are, how it was earned, what your expenses were, what your revenues were. The company I ran is a company called ADP. I started it with two other fellows. They, like I, came from poor, working-class families who worked in the mills in Paterson, NJ. We worked very hard. That company today has 46,000 employees in 26 countries across the world. We started in Paterson, NJ, in a dumpy hotel building where we could rent space. So I know something about balance sheets, financial statements, and profitability. I think that profit is a good thing. But it is one thing if you are manufacturing lawnmowers and another thing if you are providing health care and the squeeze on the profit side comes out of people's lives; comes out of creating suffering and fear of loss of coverage. The average salary for these insurance company executives was almost $15 million each year--each CEO--while a year's pay for the average worker during that same time was about $44,000. Imagine, these people are working in the shops, moving things along, doing their clerical work, doing what they have to do, and the top guy is earning $15 million a year, while the average person working there is earning $44,000, and $44,000 today doesn't carry a family very far. A single health insurance CEO earns approximately 335 times the average worker. It is scandalous. But it doesn't end there. At the same time health insurers and CEOs have made out like bandits, the industry has increased its premiums relentlessly. According to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, insurance premiums for families more than doubled since 1999. Ten years ago, premiums averaged less than $6,000 a year. Today, they have grown to an average of more than $13,000 a year--the highest amount on record. These are for middle-class people earning very modest incomes trying to get along and watch their health insurance. I have had people walk up to me, people I see in positions of labor, saying: Mr. Senator, please, my rent is going up, my taxes for real estate are going up, I can't afford more. My health care is the one thing that worries me so much. I can't afford to pay the premium, Mr. Senator. Please, help us. As the following chart shows, over the past 10 years, insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wage increases--in a period of just 10 years. So we see what is happening to a family's ability to afford to cover their needs. If today's CEOs cared as much about the public health as their financial wealth, our system wouldn't look this way. What happens is we are trading the well-being of the needy for unconscionable gains by the greedy. It is so funny, the times we live in. I read there was a boat show that just took place in Miami, FL, and the most active part of the sales of boats was for boats that were 100 feet or longer. We are talking about millions of dollars for these boats. I don't begrudge those people. I don't, really. But look at basic America and see what it is that keeps our country going. The health care field is one of the great abominations. We have to end this poisonous prescription for management of health care companies and change the way these health insurance companies operate. There is one way to do it and that is to make sure there is competition within the industry that is serious. The legislation we are putting forward will reshape health insurance and end the industry's choke hold on ordinary Americans. Under our proposal, it will be against the law for insurance companies to discriminate against women. It will be against the law for them to deny coverage because of a preexisting condition. It will be against the law for them to end insurance coverage just because policyholders become sick. That is what they are supposed to take care of. On top of that, we are going to stop insurance companies from charging immense amounts of out-of-pocket expenses. We will also make it so insurance providers have to cover routine checkups and preventive care, so lifesaving mammograms will no longer be out of reach for millions of women. I know a world-renowned research clinician in New York who says mammograms are the gold standard for dealing with anticipation of breast cancer. These changes will make health insurance companies more honest, more transparent and more accountable and they will still make enough money to take care of the wages and the profits they seek. They may not be as great as they are, but they shouldn't be as great as they are. Our Republican colleagues are chasing a different goal. They are looking for political victories on the backs of the working people of our country. They are fixated on stopping the Congress and President Obama no matter what the consequences are for our country and for the people who work hard to keep their families together. But I want to remind these obstructionists that health insurance companies have shown their utter disregard for the well-being of all Americans from all walks of life. They do not care if the policyholder is a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent. I remind anybody who hears what we are saying or looks at what we are doing that fixing health care is not a choice; it is a necessity. I know this on a personal basis, though I am fortunate. I have a grandson who is 16 years old. He has asthma. When my daughter takes him to play sports--he is a good athlete--she first checks to see where the nearest emergency clinic is in case he starts to wheeze. I have a granddaughter, 11 years old, and she has diabetes. When she was here in Washington on a visit, I looked at her, and I didn't like the way she looked. I said to my daughter--they live in Florida--you have to find out what is wrong with Maddie. There is something there. It worried me. She was pale, she didn't have any energy, and she looked terribly slim. When I went down to Florida 3 days later, after they left Washington, I went to the hospital where she had entered and I saw her. She looked like a new person because the diabetes was treated and she had insulin. She looked like a new person. Those things mean so much. There is nothing more important to any of us--and I say this about my Republican friends as well--nothing more important than our children, our grandchildren. That is what we all live for. They have a right to live and be healthy. For the future of our children and grandchildren, every American--we have to meet our obligations. I plead with my friends on the other side, get out of the way. Don't stand there unless you are willing to come in here and say: I don't want people to have health insurance. I don't care whether a child has health insurance. Say it out loud instead of skulking behind the walls and hiding the truth about what your mission is. It is my hope that history will record a moment of success, success for the people of our country. We have never quite been this close to achieving fundamental health care reform. We may never have this opportunity again. Once more, step forward, colleagues, Senators, sent here by people who trust you, who have confidence in you. Take care of them. Be honest with them. If you don't want to give them health care insurance, say so. Say: I don't want to give you health insurance. Or say: We don't want your condition to determine whether we cover you, we want to decide. This is an opportunity we have to seize. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, another 6 months have passed, and more American troops have lost their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish to honor their service and sacrifice by including their names in the Congressional Record. Since I last included the names of our fallen troops on April 23, 2009, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 310 troops in Iraq and in Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Afghanistan. They will not be forgotten and today I submit their names into the Record: PFC Lukas C. Hopper, of Merced, CA; SPC Adrian L. Avila, of Opelika, AL; Frank R. Walker, of Oklahoma City, OK; PFC Brian R. Bates, of Gretna, LA; SPC Joseph L. Gallegos, of Questa, NM; SPC Robert K. Charlton, of Malden, MO; SSG Keith R. Bishop, of Medford, NY; SFC David E. Metzger, of San Diego, CA; SGT Nikolas A. Mueller, of Little Chute, WI; SGT Josue E. Hernandez Chavez, of Reno, NV; SSG Shawn H. McNabb, of Terrell, TX; CW3 Niall Lyons, of Spokane, WA; CW4 Michael P. Montgomery, of Savannah, GA; PFC Christopher I. Walz, of Vancouver, WA; SPC Jared D. Stanker, of Evergreen Park, IL; SGT Patrick O. Williamson, of Broussard, LA; SGT Issac B. Jackson, of Plattsburg, MO; SGT Dale R. Griffin, of Terre Haute, IN; SGT Fernando Delarosa, of Alamo, TX; SSG Luis M. Gonzalez, of South Ozone Park, NY. LCpl Cody R. Stanley, of Rosanky, TX; SPC Brandon K. Steffey, of Sault Sainte Marie, MI; MAJ David L. Audo, of Saint Joseph, IL; PFC Devin J. Michel, of Stockton, IL; SGT Eduviges G. Wolf, of Hawthorne, CA; Capt Kyle R. Van De Giesen, of North Attleboro, MA; Capt David S. Mitchell, of Loveland, OH; Capt Eric A. Jones, of Westchester, NY; CPL Gregory M.W. Fleury, of Anchorage, AK; PFC Kimble A. Han, of Lehi, UT; SPC Eric N. Lembke, of Tampa, FL; SPC Kyle A. Coumas, of Lockeford, CA; SSG Bradley Espinoza, of Mission, TX; LCpl David R. Baker, of Painesville, OH; SPC Michael A. Dahl Jr., of Moreno Valley, CA; PFC Daniel J. Rivera, of Rochester, NY; PFC Brandon M. Styer, of Lancaster, PA; SPC Daniel C. Lawson, of Deerfield Beach, FL; SPC Jesus O. Flores, Jr., of La Mirada, CA; SSG Glen H. Stivison, Jr., of Blairsville, PA. SPC Anthony G. Green, of Matthews, NC; SSG Chris N. Staats, of Fredericksburg, TX; SGT Christopher M. Rudzinski, of Rantoul, IL; SSgt Aaron J. Taylor, of Bovey, MN; LCpl Alfonso Ochoa Jr., of Armona, CA; SPC George W. Cauley, of Walker, MN; SFC Kenneth W. Westbrook, of Shiprock, NM; SPC Kevin O. Hill, of Brooklyn, NY; PFC Kevin C. Thomson, of Reno, NV; SPC Stephan L. Mace, of Lovettsville, VA; SPC Christopher T. Griffin, of Kincheloe, MI; SGT Michael P. Scusa, of Villas, NJ; SGT Joshua J. Kirk, of South Portland, ME; SGT Joshua M. Hardt, of Applegate, CA; SGT Justin T. Gallegos, of Tucson, AZ; SSG Vernon W. Martin, of Savannah, GA; MAJ Tad T. Hervas, of Coon Rapids, MN; PFC Alan H. Newton Jr., of Asheboro, NC; CPT Benjamin A. Sklaver, of Medford, MA; SPC Paul E. Andersen, of Dowagiac, MI. SSG Thomas D. Rabjohn, of Litchfield Park, AZ; SPC Brandon A. Owens, of Memphis, TN; SGT Aaron M. Smith, of Manhattan, KS; SGT Roberto D. Sanchez, of Satellite Beach, FL; SGT Ryan C. Adams, of Rhinelander, WI; SPC Russell S. Hercules Jr., of Murfreesboro, TN; SSG Jack M. Martin, III, of Bethany, OK; SFC Christopher D. Shaw, of Markham, IL; SSG Alex French, IV, of Milledgeville, GA; SPC Ross E. Vogel, III, of Red Lion, PA; LCpl Jordan L. Chrobot, of Frederick, MD; SPC Kevin J. Graham, of Benton, KY; SPC Joseph V. White, of Bellevue, WA; SGT Edward B. Smith, of Homestead, FL; SGT Titus R. Reynolds, of Columbus, OH; LCpl John J. Malone, of Yonkers, NY; PFC William L. Meredith, of Virginia Beach, VA; TSgt James R Hornbarger, of Castle Rock, WA; SGT David A. Davis, of Dalhart, TX. SPC Damon G. Winkleman, of Lakeville, OH; SPC Corey J. Kowall, of Murfreesboro, TN; SPC Michael S. Cote Jr., of Denham Springs, LA; SrA Matthew R. Courtois, of Lucas, TX; PFC Jeremiah J. Monroe, of Niskayuna, NY; SSG Joshua M. Mills, of El Paso, TX; SFC Shawn P. McCloskey, of Peachtree City, GA; SFC Bradley S. Bohle, of Glen Burnie, MD; SGT Robert D. Gordon, II, of River Falls, AL; 1LT David T. Wright, II, of Moore, OK; SGT Andrew H. McConnell, of Carlisle, PA; SPC Demetrius L. Void, of Orangeburg, SC; SSgt Bryan D. Berky, of Melrose, FL; SPC Daniel L. Cox, of Parsons, KS; SSG Nekl B. Allen, of Rochester, NY; PFC Matthew M. Martinek, of DeKalb, IL; SFC Duane A. Thornsbury, of Bridgeport, WV; SGT Tyler A. Juden, of Winfield, KS; 1LT Tyler E. Parten, of AR; LCpl Christopher S. Fowlkes, of Gaffney, SC. PFC Zachary T. Myers, of Delaware, OH; PFC Thomas F. Lyons, of Fernley, NV; SSG Shannon M. Smith, of Marion, OH; SGT Youvert Loney, of Pohnpei, Micronesia; SSgt Aaron M. Kenefick, of Roswell, GA; 1LT Michael E. Johnson, of Virginia Beach, VA; GySgt Edwin W. Johnson Jr., of Columbus, GA; PO3 James R. Layton, of Riverbank, CA; Capt Joshua S. Meadows, of Bastrop, TX; 1st Lt Joseph D. Helton, of Monroe, GA; SSG Michael C. Murphrey, of Snyder, TX; SGT Randy M. Haney, of Orlando, FL; 2LT Darryn D. Andrews, of Dallas, TX; LCpl Christopher S. Baltazar Jr., of San Antonio, TX; PO3 Benjamin P. Castiglione, of Howell, MI; SPC Jordan M. Shay, of Salisbury, MA; SSG Todd W. Selge, of Burnsville, MN; SPC Tyler R. Walshe, of Shasta, CA; PFC Jordan M. Brochu, of Cumberland, ME; SPC Jonathan D. Welch, of Yorba Linda, CA. LCpl David R. Hall, of Elyria, OH; PFC Eric W. Hario of Monroe, MI; SSG Jason S. Dahlke of Orlando, FL; SPC Abraham S. Wheeler, III, of Columbia, SC; PVT Taylor D. Marks, of Monmouth, OR; SGT Earl D. Werner, of Mondovi, WI; SSG Kurt R. Curtiss, of Murray, UT; PFC Matthew E. Wildes, of Hammond, LA; SPC Dennis M. Williams, of Federal Way, WA; SFC Ronald W. Sawyer, of Trenton, MO; CPT Cory J. Jenkins, of AZ; CPT John L. Hallett, III, of Concord, CA; LCpl Donald J. Hogan, of San Clemente, CA; CPL Darby T. Morin, of Victoria, Canada; 2LT Joseph D. Fortin, of St. Johnsbury, VT; SSG Andrew T. Lobosco, of Somerville, NJ; PFC Jonathan C. Yanney, of Litchfield, MN; SPC Troy O. Tom, of Shiprock, NM; SGT Matthew L. Ingram, of Pearl, MS; SPC Justin R. Pellerin, of Boscawen,

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, one thing Senator Inouye has established is that you do not have to be a Democrat to love Danny Inouye. He is not only revered here for his knowledge and for his leadership but for his affection and to all things we care about, and people on the other side of the aisle confirm that in their respect for Danny Inouye. Danny, as we affectionately know him, and I and Senator Akaka are the three remaining veterans of World War II in this place. We treasure every moment we have together. I particularly am in debt to Danny Inouye for his unique capacity to listen, to think quickly on his feet and come up with the right answers. Danny, we congratulate you. We look forward to your ascension to even higher standing with longevity in this body and, quite frankly, I hope to be here with you. Congratulations.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to make some comments about the health care bill we are all anxious to see and discuss. Everyone knows a principal focus of our attention now in the Senate is on the health care reform bill, and we expect a major debate on the precise structure of that bill over the next few weeks. But I want to, in that connection, start my remarks with a quotation from a statement given by the Senator from South Carolina. He said, on June 17, 2009: If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him. That is the Republican dominant view on health care reform. The mission is not to do better for the American people but, rather, to destroy the Presidency of Barack Obama. It is an unpleasant scene to witness. Almost all Americans want to see us fix our health care system. I say ``almost'' because there is a group of people here who love the status quo: health insurance companies and their lobbyists and CEOs. Everyone knows health care costs have skyrocketed, and that means everybody pays more. But when working people are under assault to pay more, it could cause a catastrophic confrontation with funds, with money for food and education and other ordinary but essential expenses for living. America's small businesses are struggling to provide health care for their employees, and more people are less able to afford health care coverage. And while enormous pressure is placed on middle-income families, the largest health insurers are seeing massive profit growth. Wendell Potter, an executive at CIGNA and some other health insurance companies over the last 20 years, has put it this way. He testified before the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this year, and he said the health insurance companies--and I quote him--``confuse their customers and dump the sick--all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.'' That single-minded drive for profits is clear from the numbers. Here is a chart I have in the Chamber showing part of the outrage. This chart demonstrates the massive profit increases at some of our largest health insurance companies. Just look at them. The years for comparison are the year 2000 and 2008. In 2000, the company called WellPoint earned $226 million worth of profit. That $226 million had grown to $2.5 billion at the end of 2008--an increase of 1,000 percent. Aetna, one of the biggest: In 2000, they made $127 million worth of profit. Eight years later, the $127 million grew to $1.4 billion--an increase of 990 percent. Humana: In 2000, they earned $90 million; in 2008, $647 million--a modest gain, only 619 percent. United Health--one of the largest--earned, in 2000, $736 million; in 2008, $3 billion, an increase of 304 percent. Mr. President, we all know who paid the price for those profits: working-class Americans. This condition tells you what we have to be on the lookout for as we develop our plan. Just as the health insurance industry profits have risen, obviously, so has the CEO compensation. If we look at what has taken place over a 3-year period for the five largest health care companies, the CEO pay has grown steadily, while workers' pay has barely moved. The average health care CEO, over the last 3 years, in these five companies, earned $14.8 million. That was his--in this case--all his compensation. And the average worker's salary was $44,200. Look at that comparison: $14.8 million, while the average working person earned $44,000. There is an injustice there that I think is quite obvious. So we look at that and say: Well, what is happening here? A single health insurance CEO earns approximately 335 times that of the average worker in this country. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is scandalous-- scandalous--when we think about the struggle people go through to keep their families healthy and, at the same time, take care of the bare needs for existence. In New Jersey, for example, the largest health care insurer is Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield. Last year, the CEO of that nonprofit, Mr. William Marino, made $5.4 million--a nonprofit company. Although it is a company without profit, it certainly was pretty darn profitable for Mr. Marino. Let me be clear. While health insurers and CEOs have made out like bandits, the industry has been increasing premiums relentlessly. According to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, insurance premiums for American families more than doubled during the last 10 years. We see it: three times faster than wages over the last 10 years. That is what has happened with health care. Premiums, which now average more than $13,000 a year, are the highest cost on record. The chart shows it very clearly, that this expanding premium cost has gone way beyond the average family to be able to afford to pay the rate. If today's CEOs cared as much about the public's health as their own financial wealth, our system would not look this way. We are stuffing the greedy and starving the needy. That is the situation we are in. It is time to reshape health care in this country once and for all. It is time to make the insurance industry accountable so that health insurance works for the people in our country. It is time to lift the curtain of despair so those without insurance can get it, and those who are in dread fear of losing it can stop worrying. It is time to say that in the richest Nation in the world, decent health care belongs to everyone in our country. The reality is, we spend 1\1/2\ times more per person on health care than any other country, and yet even as we pour more and more money into health care, Americans' health has not improved. Just take infant mortality. The infant mortality rate in the United States is a telling marker of how well a society delivers health care. Infant death rates in our country have been going up for the last 40 years. Now the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than 40 other countries in the world, including Cuba, Sweden, Taiwan, and most of Europe. By any metric, we are not delivering health care in our country fairly, fully, or efficiently, and the time for change is upon us. Many in this Chamber have been working for decades to reform our system so children, the working poor, and the sick get the care they deserve. No one worked harder than my former seatmate and dear friend, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Today we are on the verge of a sweeping overhaul. We are proud of Senator Kennedy for all the years he labored so hard. This Senate and the President and the House must do the right thing for the health of America's working families. Surely these families and their children are as critical with their contributions to America's well-being as those profiteering from their sweat and toil. This debate is about our commitment to the millions of Americans who work hard every day, pay taxes, care for their kids, but risk the chance of losing everything because of a single illness. We declare here and now that we will not allow exaggerated profits to breach the primary obligation we have to all of our people to protect them from assault, whether from terror, natural disaster, or from the scourge of disease. In the wealthiest country in the world, no one should be left out and left behind because government won't respond to their cries for help. I close with a reminder to those in this Chamber that our obligation far exceeds the attention it has gotten over the years; far exceeds any stretch of decency that we can muster; that we do something about it, that we show part of the shame we all feel when we look at millions of people who have no health insurance in this country while we see the compensation and the growth of these companies. I am a corporate person. I come from having run a very large corporation, one of the largest and one of the best in the country called ADP. It has over 240,000 employees. A couple of other fellows and I started that company. I took a look at the fellow who is now running that company. The company made over $1.5 billion last year and his salary was $1 million. He does a good job. Some people here, largely on the other side--almost exclusively on the other side, except for one courageous Senator who stood up and said she is not going to let this go by without trying to do something serious about it--want to take the role of doctors and they want to write a prescription to do nothing but obstruct and say no. They want to say no to those looking to government for help and no to those desperately in need of health care. All they say is no, no, no. I summarize the Republican view and their health care mission. Theirs is a missile gone astray. Kill the Obama presidency with this Waterloo, regardless of the number of casualties among the citizenry. Their victory will be won with the political destruction of the Obama mission. I say ``no'' is not the answer. It is time for us to act. I hope our colleagues in this Senate will look in the mirror and see how they would feel if a child suddenly comes up with a condition that is long lasting and that is hard to deal with. I have a granddaughter with diabetes. I have a grandson with asthma. Fortunately, they have good health care. I am able to afford to pay it. But there are lots of people in this country who can't. I would like one of these people on the other side to stand up with them face to face and say, no, I don't think we ought to help you. I don't think we can afford to help you. I don't think my colleagues with whom I have an industry connection would like it if I helped you. Too bad. Too bad, I say. I hope we gain some sense and some visibility in this debate over the next several weeks. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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