National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we meet here today we are discussing the Defense authorization bill. We debate it each year. It is basically an authorization for the expenditure of funds in defense of America. It is a significant bill with a lot of different parts. I commend the Senators who have brought this to the floor, Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and his Republican counterpart, Senator John McCain.

I know this bill is important and I know we will be returning to substantive amendments on this bill very shortly. But while we have this break in the action, I want to address another issue which is being debated in almost every corridor on Capitol Hill, and that is the issue of health care reform. It is an interesting issue and an amazing challenge to this Congress, to try to grapple with the health care system in the most prosperous Nation on Earth.

Despite our prosperity, we know there is something fundamentally flawed with our health care system. We spend more than twice as much per person in America on health care as any other country, and the results do not show that money is being well spent. Many other countries, spending a fraction of what the United States spends, end up with very different and much better results in terms of survival from certain diseases and illness, and mortality rates. There is something to be learned here about how we can be more effective in providing health care for our citizens and not break the bank.

Most Americans know what I am talking about when I talk about cost, because they are facing cost issues every day. They know health insurance premiums in America in the last several years have gone up three times faster than the incomes and wages of Americans. We have learned it is not unusual for one-fourth of Americans to spend 1 out of every $10 in income for health insurance. Some, a smaller group but a significant group, spend up to $1 out of every $4 in income on health insurance. The number keeps going through the roof with no end in sight. It worries us, not just as individuals and members of families, but businesses that are trying to do the right thing for their employees and be competitive.

It worries units of government because, whether it is your State government providing assistance for Medicaid or whether it is the Federal Government concerned about Medicare and Medicaid, the costs of health care are growing so quickly that they could easily put us into a perpetual debt situation, something we do not want to see, something we cannot leave to our children.

Now we are debating in the House and in the Senate, in a variety of different committees, how to change this health care system. Needless to say, it is a contentious debate. There are a lot of different points of view. There are some people and companies in America that want no change in our health care system. Most people do. Some don't. Many of those who are resisting change, who are unwilling to support the President's efforts to move us in this direction, are the very same companies and people who are profiting from the current system.

Make no mistake, when you spend billions of dollars on a system, much more than any other country, you are going to end up in a situation where many people are profiting handsomely from the current system. When you talk about reform--reducing the cost, reducing the payments, being more cost effective--these people see money going out the window, and they are going to fight it.

That is what the battle is all about. We have been through it before, and now we have returned to it. But in addition to cost, there is also the issue of the availability of health insurance. This morning's Chicago Tribune, on the front page, told the story of a man who sadly is one of the victims of this situation. He lives in a suburb of Chicago, and he works as a doorman at one of the buildings. He had a bad back. He finally was told--he tried a lot of conservative treatment; it just did not work--you are going to have to have back surgery.

So he did what he was supposed to do. He went to his insurance company and said: The doctor is recommending a surgery, and I want to know if it will be covered by my health insurance. Well, the health insurance company sent back to him written confirmation that the costs of the surgery would be covered by his health insurance. So he went through with the surgery and ended up incurring $148,000 in medical bills.

I think you know how this story ends. They turned in the bills to the insurance company, and they denied them. They said: We did not really approve this surgery. You should have taken a more conservative approach to it.

Well, he thought he had done everything he was supposed to. What followed was a battle with this insurance company, day after day, month after month, while people were saying: Send us the $148,000. This man of limited means was fighting to finally get this health insurance company to pay what they promised to pay. It took him months.

When it was all over, Mr. Napientek, Michael Napientek, ended up with coverage. Had he failed to get the coverage for that surgery, it would have wiped out his entire life's savings. That is the reality of health care. That is the situation too many people find themselves in, so vulnerable in a situation where one medical bill denied by an insurance company bureaucrat can literally wipe out their life's savings.

We can do better. We have to do better. That is what this debate is all about. First, we have to reduce the cost of health care for families and businesses and governments across America. There are ways to do that. We can lower costs to make sure every American has access to insurance. We can make it clear that no one can be turned down for insurance coverage because of a preexisting condition. We can make certain there is no discrimination in the premiums that are charged individual Americans because one is a male and another female; one is a certain age and another not. We can make certain there is more fairness in the way people are treated by these health insurance companies.

This idea of denying coverage for preexisting conditions, imagine how frustrating that must be to realize that if you turned in a claim this year on your health insurance because you had a bad back, and you went to the doctor next year, when it came time for surgery they would not cover it.

This happened to a friend of mine, a fellow I grew up with in East St. Louis, IL, in the trucking business. He not only owned the business, he drove the trucks. When he reached 60 years of age, his back was killing him. Well, at that point his company had lost its health insurance. Why? Because the wife of one of the employees had a sick baby. Her sick baby incurred a lot of medical bills, and the cost of health insurance went through the roof. They
had to cancel the company's health insurance, give the employees some money, and say: Fend for yourself.

He was in the same boat. He went out to get private health insurance, complained about a bad back. The following year when the doctor said he needed back surgery, he turned in a claim to his health insurance company, and they said: No, it is a preexisting condition. We will not cover your back surgery.

Do you know what he had to do? He ended up filing a worker's compensation claim claiming that his back injuries had to do with bouncing around in a truck for 30 or 40 years, not an unreasonable conclusion. Do you know who he sued? He sued himself. He sued as an employee of the company. He sued himself as owner of the company.

Is that crazy to reach that point? And he won, incidentally. They said it is subject to worker's compensation. We will pay for the surgery.

He had done everything right, providing health insurance for his employees until he could not afford it, trying to get private insurance for himself at the age of 60, then turning in a claim and being turned down. He could have been wiped out by that surgery, just as the man on the front page of the Chicago Tribune.

We are all in this vulnerable situation because the health insurance companies have so much power over our lives. I listen to those on the other side of the aisle who come--not all of them but many--every single day and say we do not need to change this system. Who are they talking to? Who are they listening to? They are not listening to people like these who find out every day that they do not have coverage, that the cost of insurance is too high, that their doctor is in a debate with a clerk at an insurance company over whether they are going to get the necessary and proper treatment for a medical condition. That is the reality.

There are many ways to address this, and we should. We have to address it by making sure everyone has access to health insurance regardless of preexisting conditions, health status for a medical condition. We have to get rid of the so-called lifetime caps.

Imagine that a diagnosis tomorrow that you or someone you love in your family has a chronic condition that is going to call for medical treatment for a long period of time, and then you realize there will come a moment when that health insurance company would say: We are out of here. You just broke the bank. You hit the cap on your policy.

We have to put an end to that. We also have to limit the out-of-pocket expenses individuals have to pay. There comes a point where people cannot afford this expense. We have to require equal treatment for men and women--Black, White, and brown, young and old, whether they live in a rural area or in a city.

We have to make sure if a health insurance policy in America is offered, it is a good policy that covers the basic needs. There are policies that do not. They sell health insurance you can afford, and guess what. It is worthless. That is not good for America and it is not good for our families.

There are ways to lower costs. We ought to be pushing for prevention. We ought to be trying to find ways to keep people well, incentives for the right conduct and healthy outcomes. Right now there is not much of a reward or an incentive for wellness. We also have to give support to small businesses. When we look at the insured in America, most of them are small business employees and their children. The poorest people in America are covered by Medicaid, the government health insurance, as they should be.

Folks are fortunate, like myself, under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and most others who have health insurance policies, to have coverage. But the folks in the middle who get up and go to work every day for the small businesses of America--and their kids--are the ones who do not have coverage. We can do better.

One of the proposals before us in Congress is to make sure small businesses can start getting into pools where they can use that pooling power to reach out and have health insurance coverage that is affordable. That is within our reach.

Senator Reed is on the Senate floor today. He and I were fortunate enough to be at lunch today when our colleague from Connecticut, CHRIS DODD, got up and spoke about what had happened in the HELP Committee, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, in preparing a bill on health care reform. There were 800 amendments filed. They met for 61 days. Some 400 amendments were considered and voted on. Over 100 of those were from the Republican side of the aisle. They were trying their best to create a bipartisan compromise to get through the bill.

But Senator Dodd came up and talked about this, not in terms of a specific bill and its provisions; he talked about the historic opportunity we have. He said for many of us, for most of us now serving in the Senate, this may be the only time in our political careers when we can change the health care system for the better; when we can make sure that people in America have a better chance to be able to afford the cost of health care.

He certainly inspired us when he pulled out this magazine and showed us a picture of our colleague, Senator Teddy Kennedy, on the cover of Newsweek, and the quote from Ted Kennedy that says: ``We're almost there.''

There is a long essay in here about Ted Kennedy's terrific public career and how much of it has been spent on this issue of health care; what it meant to him personally when his son was diagnosed with bone cancer and had to have his leg amputated; what he went through in a plane crash; when he has seen others and what they have gone through.

Teddy Kennedy reminds us that these opportunities do not come around very often. There is lots we can debate and argue about, but at the end of the day the American people want to see the debate end. They want to see us acting together responsibly for health care that is centered on patients; to make sure they have a health insurance policy they like, that they can keep; to make certain they have a good strong confidential relationship with their doctors for themselves and their families; to make sure, as well, they are not excluded from coverage for preexisting conditions; to make sure that health insurance is going to be affordable; and to make sure it covers all Americans.

We can do it. We are a great and prosperous nation. We have a President who is committed to it. And working with him on a bipartisan basis we can get this done. We can work with the health care professionals--the doctors, the nurses, those leading hospitals--who can show us the way to reduce the cost of care without reducing its quality.

This is our chance. For those who are saying no, that they want the status quo, they do not want to change it, only a small percentage of Americans agree with them. Most Americans agree what I have talked about today needs to be done. We have to overcome those voices of negativity and doubt who continue to come to the Senate floor, those who create fear of change.

Let me tell you, this is a great, strong country that tackles big problems. We have never been assigned a bigger assignment than this one, health care for America. It touches all 300 million of us. We have to make sure it is done fairly, done effectively, and done quickly. If we let this drag out for months beyond this year, it is going to be harder and harder for us to reach our goal.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work toward that goal, make certain that President Obama's leadership is rewarded with health care reform that does make a difference.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 authorizes almost $680 billion for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.

The bill provides pay and health care to servicemembers and their families; funds troops with the equipment and resources they need to fight and provide security; strengthens our ability to train foreign militaries and protect against IEDs and rogue nuclear threats; and terminates questionable weapons programs.

It also includes legislation to complete the James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in Illinois.

It gives the VA and the Navy the authority they need to finalize a model partnership between the North Chicago VA Medical Center and the Naval Health Clinic Great Lakes.

This is a model that the Departments hope can be replicated around the country.

Combining separate Federal hospitals will provide better care for our servicemembers and veterans while saving valuable taxpayer dollars.

Given the conflicts we face abroad, this bill provides the right amount to spend in support of our troops. Today, the United States is the world's leader in defense spending. Last year, U.S. military spending accounted for almost half of the world's total military spending. We spend more than the next 46 countries combined. U.S. military spending, combined with that of our close allies, makes up 72 percent of all military spending in the world. Our defense budget is six times larger than China's and 100 times larger than Iran's.

These funds make good on a promise to our men and women in our military. Our troops continue to do everything we ask of them in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These conflicts have taken an extraordinary toll on servicemembers and their families that we cannot forget.

The Armed Forces, particularly the Army and the Marine Corps, will continue to be heavily stressed, even as we start to redeploy our forces from Iraq. Servicemembers still do not have enough dwell time between deployments and the Army has seen a troubling rise in the number of suicides. These are indications of the strain that multiple and continued deployments are taking on the force. The President requested increasing the size of the Army to 547,400 soldiers and increasing the Marine Corps to 202,100 Marines, while preventing cuts in Navy and Air Force personnel. This bill supports the President's request. It also authorizes an additional 30,000 soldiers in 2011 and 2012, should the Secretary of Defense believe such troops are necessary. Additional soldiers and marines will help ease the burdens caused by multiple deployments.

More personnel will give each service more breathing room to care for its wounded warriors. Others can continue the fight while injured and ill servicemembers can recover in wounded transition units.

This legislation creates a task force to assess the policies and programs that support the care and transition of recovering wounded and seriously ill members of the Armed Forces. The task force will consider whether servicemembers have sufficient access to care for posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, the signature injury of the wars. It will look at how well we help injured warriors transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The task force will also review the support available to family caregivers as they care for recovering injured and seriously ill members of the Armed Forces. For every servicemember successfully recovering from a serious injury or illness, there is often a family member who has put the brakes on his or her life to care for that person.

Last week, my office received a call from the family of Jordan Hoyt, a soldier from Barry, IL. He was seriously injured in Afghanistan and is receiving care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center here in Washington. His wife Haley has moved to Washington to be near Jordan while he goes through months of surgery and rehabilitation. She has brought with her their infant child, who was born while Jordan was away serving his country. Haley is from Quincy. She has left her family behind to help Jordan recover from his injury. She has also delayed her educational plans to study criminal justice. Haley is 19 years old. After Jordan leaves Walter Reed, the couple will return to Quincy to live with her mother, who has already provided them with incredible support. While taking care of wounded servicemembers is our basic responsibility, we also need to support the families whose lives have been up-ended by the wars. I commend the committee for including this task force to look at the needs of family caregivers.

This President inherited many challenges at home and abroad, including two wars and a challenging situation in Pakistan. This bill supports President Obama's new direction in addressing these priorities. In June, our military redeployed from Iraq's cities under the Status of Forces Agreement concluded by the government of Iraq and the previous administration. The Iraqis must continue to take responsibility for their own future.

I commend the President's increased focus on defense and development in Afghanistan; preventing the reemergence of the Taliban and al-Qaida; and strengthening economic, agricultural, educational, and democratic development. These goals are important to development in Afghanistan, but they are essential to our military's strategy. I support the National Defense Authorization Act and commend Chairman Levin and Senator McCain for their leadership.

Almost 3,000 soldiers from the Illinois Army National Guard are currently deployed to Afghanistan. Members of the Illinois Guard's 33rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team are helping train the Afghan National Police and providing force protection at military bases. It has been a difficult deployment, with many casualties. Gen William Enyart, the Adjutant General of Illinois, has had to attend the funerals of too many of his soldiers. He sent me an article he had written this spring. Why do the young soldiers serve, he asked? This is what he wrote. They serve because:

They are our kids, they are our protectors. They are what stand between us and chaos. They don't have to be asked to serve. They don't have to be asked to go into danger. They do it, not out of hate, not out of vengeance, but out of love. Love of family, love of community, love of fellow soldier.

I think he is right. Members of the Armed Forces and their families make these sacrifices to keep our country safe. We owe them much in return. This bill takes one step by providing them the resources they need. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and to send it to the President for his signature.

Source