Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wonder, before the Senator closes, if he would yield.

Mr. President, I think it is important for us to understand that there are some differences between the bills--the HELP bill, the Finance Committee bill, and the bill that has come out of the House of Representatives--but in each and every case the proposals put forward by the Democrats do have this $\1/2\ trillion cut in Medicare. Indeed, as the Senator pointed out, these involve cuts to hospitals, to Medicare Advantage, Medicare cuts to nursing homes, to home health, and to hospice. There is no question about that. I appreciate the Senator bringing some information to the public and to the Senate about the concerns of his constituents.

In the previous hour, I heard a Senator from the other side of the aisle talk about scare tactics Republicans will be putting forward during the coming weeks of this debate. Of course, you have read letters from your constituents outlining why the people of Arizona are legitimately fearful for the coverage they have enjoyed. I would tell my colleagues that the opposition to these Medicare cuts has come in a bipartisan way. We heard a great deal about that from our friends at the other end of the building when the House of Representatives was talking about this.

The president of the Blue Dog Democrats, Mike Ross, a senior Democrat from Arkansas who has worked to try to make this palatable to people in his constituency, had this to say about these Medicare cuts:

With more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare, it would

force many of our rural hospitals to close, providing less

access to care for our seniors.

Less than 12 days ago, Representative Ross from Arkansas said this. His constituency in Mississippi is very much like mine, and I can assure my colleagues that a great number of our hospitals in Mississippi and throughout the country are rural and no doubt they are in Arizona too. So there is a very real concern. The gentleman from Arkansas flatly says it can force many of these hospitals to close.

Representative Larry Kissell from North Carolina said this:

From the day I announced my candidacy for this office, I

promised to protect Medicare. I gave my word I wouldn't cut

it and I intend to keep that promise.

Representative Kissell from North Carolina concluded that in his judgment, the only way he could keep that promise was to vote no on this legislation.

Representative Michael McMahon of New York said:

Medicare Advantage, which serves approximately 40 percent

of my seniors on Medicare, would be cut dramatically.

This is not a Republican scare tactic; this is a flat statement by an elected Democrat from the State of New York in the Northeastern part of our country, one of the larger States. But he said flatly that Medicare Advantage would be cut for 40 percent of his seniors and he voted no on that basis.

Representative Ike Skelton, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said:

The proposed reductions to Medicare reimbursement could

further squeeze the budgets of rural health care providers.

Chairman Skelton goes on to say:

I also oppose the creation of a new government-run public

option and continue to have serious concerns about its

potential unintended consequences for Missourians who have

private insurance plans they like and, of course, we know

that this Reid bill also has the government-run option.

Finally, to quote Representative Rick Boucher, another senior Democrat from Virginia, he said:

I also intend to oppose the bill because of my concern that

a government-operated health insurance plan could place at

risk the survival of our region's hospitals.

I am concerned, and I am determined to protect the rural health care we have in the State of Mississippi and that we have in these districts that are represented by these comments.

So I wanted to jump in now, before the Senator from Arizona concludes his portion of the initial remarks, and say that the concerns are not only coming from Republicans, they are coming from actuaries, they are coming from people who have analyzed this bill, and they are coming from Democrats who have read the bill, who understand its meaning and who understand that these cuts to Medicare are real and they are hurtful.

I yield back to the Senator.

Will the Senator yield?

I notice that in Florida that reduction, according to the CBO map, would be 81 percent. That is an unthinkable, drastic change in Medicare Advantage. In my area of the country, over in Arkansas, for example, it has a 40-percent reduction. My State, Mississippi, has a 41-percent reduction. Our neighboring State of Louisiana--these are some examples--has an 81-percent reduction, the same as the proposed reduction this legislation would cause for the State of Florida. I think it is important for our constituents to understand the magnitude of these Medicare Advantage reductions.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves that subject matter, I wonder if I could interject. My friend from Idaho also has listed specific cuts under this legislation: hospitals, Medicare Advantage, cuts to nursing homes, cuts to home health, and hospice. But also I think Senators and Americans need to understand that the Reid bill also establishes a permanent board of unelected members appointed by the administration which, in this case, initially at least would be the Obama administration, and they would dictate further savings under Medicare.

This gets to the question of my friend from Arizona about rationing. It would dictate annual Medicare cuts geared toward reducing Medicare spending. These people are not going to be like us--accountable. They will not have to go back to their district every 2 years or their States every 6 years. But they will have the unbelievable power under this legislation to dictate additional cuts that we know not. The Wall Street Journal called this a rationing commission. This ties right in with the concerns that Americans have had over the last 2 or 3 days about these recommendations with regard to mammograms.

I realize I am intruding on the Senator's time, but I have a letter from a physician in Mississippi who is fearful that this sort of rationing board is going to impose the requirement that mammograms not be given until after age 50. He says:

My wife and I have two daughters who had breast cancer in

their 40s. One daughter was age 42 and it was picked up on a

routine yearly mammogram. The other daughter was age 49 and

she found an abnormality by self breast exam and it was

confirmed by a mammogram. . . .

Now we have a group of unelected people coming forth and saying you are not supposed to get a mammogram, you are not entitled to a mammogram, and we learned that some insurance companies have already decided to follow that dictate. This gentleman, a physician, says my two daughters would be dead from breast cancer if that were imposed.

I am afraid that in addition to these very definite cuts, this permanent board of unelected members would impose the very type of requirement that we are fearful might come forward on mammograms.

I appreciate the Senator asking that question. The answer is there is no reason for us to go down that path.

Early in our hour, the Republican whip pointed out that there are many proposals the Republicans have that do not require the huge expenditure, the huge expansion of Federal power and actually are relatively simple and relatively inexpensive. For example, we have a proposal:

To reduce junk lawsuits against doctors, by Senator Ensign, the Medical Care Access Protection Act. It is only 28 pages, compared to these huge pieces of legislation in front of us. That would not cost anything. It certainly would not require any reduction in Medicare.

To combat waste, fraud, and abuse, by my friend from Florida, and I congratulate him for that. It is only 21 pages, something Republicans have been begging for and arguing for for years and have been stymied on.

To allow small businesses to pool resources to purchase health insurance for employees. Small business people in restaurants and realty companies, small motels, ought to be able to pool together and have the same purchasing power the huge corporations have. But that would only take 8 pages, it would not involve a cost to the Federal Government, and certainly not involve these draconian cuts of $\1/2\ trillion to Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

Further, we could purchase health insurance across State lines. We certainly agree there is not enough competition in health care purchasing. I would love to see a commercial someday with someone coming in saying, ``I have great news, I just saved a ton of money on my health insurance by switching to XYZ Company.'' We see that in car insurance and life insurance. There is vibrant competition. But if we opened competition across State lines to the 50 States and if I could buy insurance from Idaho, I might find a company that gives me better service, that provides better care or reduced premiums. Or if I could look at a Florida insurance company, the Senator from Florida might look at a Mississippi company. We would use good old American competition that has worked in our market society for years but has not been allowed to work in the area of health insurance.

Then, of course, health savings accounts--a one-page bill by my friend from Arizona and our colleague Senator DeMint. And then wellness and prevention, again only a simple 14 pages.

None of these would require cuts to Medicare. None of these would involve the $2.5 trillion that this spends per decade, once it is fully implemented. So the answer to the question of why we are doing it is, it is not necessary. I guess the reason people might be doing it is that they believe that big government works well. I have a different view on that.

I see, as the Senator pointed out, all of these Federal programs that are not exactly working as efficiently as they were projected to be. My dad is on Medicare. We are going to protect Medicare. Republican and Democrat, we are going to do that. But as the Senator pointed out, it goes broke in the year 2017. We certainly do not need to be taking from Medicare to pay for a new entitlement.

Medicaid, as has been pointed out--many doctors will not take Medicaid payments anymore because it is broke and it doesn't reimburse at a market rate. So we see in my home State of Mississippi, 60 percent of the doctors will not take Medicaid. Yet there are some people in this building, there are some people in this country within the sound of my voice, who believe that somehow a huge $2.5 trillion takeover of one-sixth of our economy can work and will not be like the Census and Fannie and Freddy, like the post office and the highway trust fund, and will not be broke.

It comes down to a difference in philosophy. But certainly we ought to all agree that savings we find in Medicare ought to be used to shore up Medicare, to make sure it is there for people such as my dad and people who are going to rely on that program for years to come.

I think this constituent of mine, from Brandon, MS, said it very well in a recent e-mail I received. Obviously she is dependent upon home health care.

I support the goal of health care for all. However, that

goal should not come at the expense of frail, elderly and

disabled homebound Medicare beneficiaries receiving care in

their homes and communities. . .

She points out what this legislation would do to home health care.

Truly, this bill before us and the one from the House and the one from the two committees takes money from America's seniors to the tune of $\1/2\ trillion, and instead of shoring up the system that needs to be enhanced and protected, it puts that money in the new government entitlement program we have exhibited here. I certainly believe we can do better.

Will my colleague yield? This Reid substitute that will be substituted for the shell bill contains taxpayer funding of abortions and it contains a government-run company to compete with the private sector. So Senators who vote to proceed on that bill, in my opinion, are playing with fire and very much risking that type of legislation might come out of the closed room that will be the House- Senate conference.

Mr. President, I understand I am recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, in 10 minutes Senator LeMieux will make his maiden speech to the Senate, and I know Members are anxious to hear that speech, but in the meantime I would like to talk further about health care reform.

Earlier this month, the Senate Finance Committee voted to approve a deeply flawed bill that would raise taxes, cut Medicare, increase government spending, increase health care premiums, and actually drive the cost of health care up, not down. We know the Finance Committee's bill will not be the final product voted on by the Senate.

Three or four Members of one party, and one party only, without the press there, without the public looking in, without other Members of the Senate there, are meeting now behind closed doors to merge the Finance Committee bill with the HELP Committee's version. The secret nature of these meetings is all the more reason for the final version of the bill to be made available to the public prior to a final vote.

We have all heard the outcry from our constituents asking us to read the bills before we vote on them. I think we should go one step further than reading this health care bill ourselves: we should allow the public to read the bill themselves.

Just recently, eight of my friends on the other side of the aisle sent a letter to the majority leader demanding--rightly--that this health care legislation be made available for 72 hours before the Senate proceeds with this bill. The letter from these eight conscientious Democrats says, among other things:

Without a doubt, reforming health care in America is one of

the most monumental and far-reaching undertakings considered

by this body in decades.

The letter goes on to ask four things of the majority leader: that the legislative text and complete budget scores from CBO on health care legislation to be considered on the Senate floor be made available 72 hours in advance; secondly, the letter asks that the legislative text and complete CBO score on health care legislation as amended be made available; and they make the same request as far as amendments to be filed and offered on the floor and the final conference report which might come from the House and Senate.

I congratulate these Members of the other party for making this request. I think the question on the minds of people around Washington, DC, and around the country watching this issue is, Will this request be ignored? Will these eight Members of the Democratic caucus be steamrolled by their leadership? Will this conscientious request be cast aside by the majority leader?

The people deserve to see the final product of the majority party. And we know the American people want to see it because as more Americans learn about the product, the less they like it. A survey released Monday found that a majority of Americans opposed the plans backed by the President and Democrats in Congress. This skepticism persists despite the best public relations ever of my Democratic colleagues and our President.

The bill approved by the Finance Committee essentially is still a partisan one. Numerous studies and estimates have highlighted how the bill's new mandates would actually raise insurance premiums for Americans, not lower them. A recent Pricewaterhouse- Coopers analysis of the bill found that by 2019, the average cost of a family's insurance policy would increase by $4,000, more than it would if Congress simply does nothing at all. Of course, no one is suggesting Congress do nothing at all. The status quo is clearly inadequate, and there are many things we can do on a step-by-step basis to improve the health of Americans.

But back to this $4,000 in extra costs for insurance, the driving factor behind that is the staggering tax hikes necessary to pay for this $1 trillion new entitlement program. The Finance Committee's proposal raises taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars--on insurance plans, on medical device producers, on pharmaceuticals. We all know taxes will not lower the cost of these services. In fact, we can expect the opposite--these taxes will be paid by average Americans.

Former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently said: ``These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums or by fueling higher health care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.''

He went on to say the plan ``would not only fail to reduce the cost burden on middle-class families, it would make that burden significantly worse.''

In addition to failing to reduce the price of health care, the Finance plan carries a number of other serious flaws, particularly as it relates to Medicare and health care options for our seniors. The bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion. Let me repeat that. The bill cuts $500 billion from Medicare, despite the fact that the Medicare program is already insolvent and on the path to bankruptcy in the year 2017, unless we take action.

Billions of Medicare dollars would be cut from hospitals, from nursing homes, from hospice care under this Finance Committee proposal. It would also slash $120 billion from Medicare Advantage, denying 11 million seniors the health care choices and options regular Medicare does not offer.

If these provisions were not bad enough, the bill's negative impact on State budgets is even more disturbing. Medicaid would be expanded to a level that threatens funding of essential State services such as education, such as law enforcement. In my State of Mississippi, Medicaid payments already make up 12 percent of our State's overall budget, and Governor Barbour has joined a growing chorus of Governors, both Republican and Democratic, in warning of the consequences of Congress forcing States to shoulder more of the Medicaid burden. In fact, if the finance bill is enacted, Medicaid's expansion would result in fully 25 percent of Americans being on this government-run health care system. We know it is now run so poorly that many physicians will not accept Medicaid patients. The bill proposes we put one-quarter of Americans on this very poorly run program.

After weeks of talk, we get a bill that is worse than the status quo. I fear this bill is only going to get worse when the majority leader emerges from his secret negotiations and tries to pass his version of a Federal health care takeover. I think we can do better. Raising taxes, increasing costs, and eliminating choice is hardly the type of health care reform the American people want, particularly during a time when unemployment levels are at a 25-year high. There are many commonsense reforms that could pass Congress quickly and with bipartisan support. This is not a choice between a Federal takeover and the status quo. A step-by-step approach can inject competition, increase choices, and use market principles to bring down prices. By allowing people to purchase health insurance across State lines, by implementing medical malpractice reform and allowing small businesses to join in association health plans, we can lower the cost of health care and increase choice without raising taxes or

increasing government spending or increasing the size and scope of government.

That is the kind of health care reform the American people deserve, and it is the direction the health care debate should take.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, do you know how long I have at this moment to speak to health care?

Mr. President, very simply, this amendment would allow law-abiding Amtrak passengers to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage. Under current practices, all the American domestic airlines permit firearms in their checked luggage. Other American passenger railroads also allow checked firearms.

Only the federally subsidized Amtrak prohibits law-abiding American citizens from exercising their second amendment right in checked baggage. On April 2 of this year, the Senate passed a similar amendment to the budget with 63 votes in favor of the Wicker Amendment and only 35 against.

During the time since then, Amtrak has made no efforts to respond to this overwhelming bipartisan vote. It is my hope that we get a similar overwhelming bipartisan vote today which results in Amtrak ending this unfair practice. I urge a vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2366, as modified.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendment No. 2366, as modified, which I have offered on behalf of millions of law- abiding gun owners across the country.

Earlier this year, I offered an amendment to the budget that would have limited certain budget opportunities to Amtrak, unless this federally subsidized agency enacted policies to accommodate passengers' second amendment rights. The amendment I offered passed by a bipartisan vote of 63 to 35, but it was not included in the final version of the legislation when it returned from conference.

Therefore, I am here on the floor to try again. In our country today, airline passengers may transport firearms and ammunition in secure checked baggage when declared during the check-in process. But, on the other hand, Amtrak passengers are not permitted to do likewise. This means that sportsmen who wish to use an Amtrak train for hunting trips cannot do so because they are not allowed to bring a firearm in checked luggage--something that is done every day at airports across our country.

I want to emphasize that this amendment only deals with secured and checked luggage, as checked baggage on Amtrak trains. Law-abiding gun owners should not be penalized for seeking alternative means of travel. At one time, Amtrak accepted firearms in secure checked baggage, but this policy was changed in 2001.

The commonsense amendment before us today is straightforward. It simply says that if Amtrak continues to deny the right of gun owners to securely transport firearms in checked luggage, the rail line will no longer receive a Federal subsidy of $1.55 billion. At the request of the leadership of the committee, I have modified my amendment to make it effective only after March 31, 2010, in order to give the agency adequate time in which to comply with this amendment.

I want my colleagues to know that the amendment before us today mirrors current TSA requirements to check a firearm for air travel. I must say these requirements are detailed and strict. For example, should my amendment pass, the following requirements must be met:

No. 1, a passenger who wishes to transport a firearm must be travelling on a route that accepts checked luggage.

No. 2, the passenger must declare the firearm before boarding the train.

No. 3, the firearm must be unloaded and stored in a hard-side container that is locked, as is required on the airlines.

No. 4, only the passenger can have the key or combination for the container.

This was done successfully by Amtrak prior to 2001, without incident. Regional rail lines, such as Alaska Railroad Corporation, allow firearms, as I am trying to do in this amendment, and that is done currently in Alaska Railroad Corporation, again, without incident.

It is sometimes much more convenient for sportsmen to travel by rail, particularly in rural and remote parts of the country. The Alaska Railroad Corporation knows there is no need to show prejudice to lawful American sportsmen. That is why their travellers may transport firearms in checked luggage, and that is why we are asking nothing more than that and nothing less than that of the government-controlled Amtrak system.

I might also add that spending is certainly out of control in Washington, and it is hard for me to imagine Congress considering providing over $1.5 billion to Amtrak, while the rail line intentionally limits its revenue and chooses not to receive passenger miles from this specific and law-abiding segment of travelers.

Americans should not have their second amendment rights restricted for any reason, particularly if they choose to travel on America's federally subsidized rail line.

A vote in support of this amendment is a vote in support of the second amendment and for the right of gun owners across America. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking the members of the Judiciary Committee for conducting a thorough, fair, and respectful confirmation hearing. Judge Sotomayor herself stated that the hearing was as gracious and fair as she could have hoped. I consider that statement to be a tribute to Senators Leahy, Sessions and the committee members and their staffs and I commend them.

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution states that the President shall nominate--by and with the advice and consent of the Senate-- Judges of the Supreme Court. The constitutional duty of ``advice and consent'' given to the Senate is of profound importance, particularly when considering a lifetime appointment to the Nation's highest Court. In reviewing Judge Sotomayor's nomination, I have taken this obligation very seriously.

Following Judge Sotomayor's nomination by the President, I, as did nearly all my colleagues in this Chamber, had a private, one-on-one meeting with her. We had a very cordial conversation, one in which I found Judge Sotomayor to be likeable and gracious. I appreciated learning more about her background. Make no mistake, Judge Sotomayor has a great personal and professional story to tell. She is proud of it, and she certainly should be. But in the instance of a Supreme Court nominee, the constitutional duty of advice and consent given to the Senate is not about personalities, likeability or life stories. It is about judicial philosophy and adherence to impartiality and fidelity to the law.

After careful consideration of her record, I was left with a number of irreconcilable concerns. I am deeply troubled by what I see as Judge Sotomayor's aversion to impartiality. The judicial oath requires judges to:

Administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal

right to the poor and to the rich, and . . . faithfully and

impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent

upon [them] under the Constitution and laws of the United

States.

To be clear, the oath requires judges to be impartial with respect to their social, moral and political views and to apply the law to the facts before them. In other words, provide equal justice under the law.

Yet Judge Sotomayor appears to believe in a legal system where decisions are based upon personal experiences and group preferences, not the letter of the law. Judge Sotomayor has said on repeated occasions that she:

Willingly accept[s] that judge[s] must not deny the

differences resulting from experience and heritage but

attempt . . . continuously to judge when those opinions,

sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.

These are her own words. She has stated many times, during more than a decade, that her background and personal experiences will affect the facts she chooses to see as a judge. In our brief meeting in June, Judge Sotomayor stated this notion a slightly different way, by saying her Latina heritage caused her to ``listen a different way.'' I find these to be disconcerting statements which seem to conflict with the impartiality that I and an overwhelming majority of Americans believe is essential to our judicial system and even the very bedrock principles our Nation was founded upon.

In looking at her rulings, I noted that the Supreme Court has disagreed with Judge Sotomayor in 9 out of 10 cases it has reviewed and affirmed her in the remaining case by a narrow 5-to-4 margin. This record was demonstrated most recently in the Ricci case, where a majority of Justices of the Supreme Court rejected Judge Sotomayor's panel decision. This is a case in which a group of firefighters who had studied for months and passed a test were denied promotion because not enough minority firefighters had done as well. In a one-paragraph, unsigned, and unpublished cursory opinion, Judge Sotomayor summarily-- almost casually--dismissed the claims of these firefighters who had worked hard for a promotion.

When discussing the qualifications he would look for in replacing Justice Souter, President Obama said:

I view the quality of empathy, of understanding and

identifying with people's homes and struggles as an essential

ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.

Empathy is a great personal virtue, but there is a difference between empathy as a person and empathy as a judge. Judges should use the law and the law only, not their personal experiences or personal view or empathy. Personal biases and empathy have no place in reaching a just conclusion under the law. Ricci is an example of where Judge Sotomayor clearly failed this important test.

In addition, I am deeply concerned about Judge Sotomayor's decision in Maloney v. Cuomo, a second amendment case that could very easily be decided by the Supreme Court in the next year. In last year's Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, in Maloney, Judge Sotomayor relied on 19th century cases, arguably superseded after Heller, to summarily hold that the second amendment does not apply to the States. If Judge Sotomayor's decision is allowed to stand, the States will be able to place strict prohibitions on the ownership of guns and other arms. In refusing to confirm that the second amendment-- a right clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights--is a fundamental right that applies to all 50 States and, thus, to all Americans, Judge Sotomayor shows an alarming hostility to law-abiding gun owners across the country. That is a view that is certainly out of the mainstream in this Nation.

What is perhaps even more troubling is that Maloney is another example where Judge Sotomayor joined an unsigned, cursory panel decision. If she is confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor will routinely hear cases raising fundamental constitutional issues such as Maloney. Those are the types of cases the Supreme Court hears. That is why issues of this nature make it to the Supreme Court. Yet Judge Sotomayor has a record of routinely dismissing such cases with difficult constitutional questions of exceptional importance to Americans with little or no analysis.

As an appeals court judge, Judge Sotomayor and her rulings are subject to a safety net: Her cases can be reviewed by the Supreme Court. In Ricci, the firefighters whose promotions were denied could appeal the decision and receive impartial justice. There is no backstop to the Supreme Court. Therefore, Judge Sotomayor's elevation to our Nation's highest Court takes on much more significance than her previous selection to the appeals court.

So let me be clear: I have tremendous respect for Judge Sotomayor's life story and professional accomplishments. I commend her for her achievements, and I wish her well in the future. However, I am not convinced she understands the proper role of the courts in our legal system. Her record and her pronouncements are those of someone who sees the court as a place to legislate and make policy. I am not convinced Judge Sotomayor truly believes in the bedrock of our judicial system, which is impartiality under the law. Therefore, I must withhold my consent and vote no on her confirmation.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, in the ongoing debate on health care reform, it has become clearer and clearer that this is a competition of two very different philosophies of government. On the one hand, there are those who think government ought to be the primary sponsor of almost everything, including our American health care system. These persons basically hope and fervently believe things would be better in this country if only the Federal Government took control of more aspects of our society.

The other approach is one that I have advocated. It is the philosophy held by those of us who look at history and realize that government doesn't run things very well. We believe government can and should set standards, establish goals, and create incentives for the right behavior, but we do not believe the Federal Government should run health care or, for that matter, is capable of running the American health care system.

The debate so far this year has been very instructive for this Congress and for the taxpayers. Here are some things we have already learned as a result of the very thorough process we have gone through.

First, we know instead of saving money for our economy, as we were promised during the 2008 campaign, health care spending will actually go up under the Democrats' proposal. This is true both short term and in the long run.

Second, we have been informed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that both the House and Senate bills would add to the Federal deficit.

Third, according to a CBO letter, dated July 17, ``millions of Americans would lose their private health care coverage if these plans are enacted, and millions more would be forced into a government plan.'' That is not me talking, it is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Fourth, small businesses and other job creators will pay higher taxes, including specifically $163 billion in penalties and $543 billion in other taxes if the Democrats' plans are enacted.

Fifth, the provisions of these risky schemes could reduce job creation. Again quoting the nonpartisan CBO:

The play or pay provision could reduce the hiring of low-

wage workers.

One has to wonder, if you are a job applicant out there in our economy looking to earn a living, applying for a job, would you rather see a Federal takeover of the health care system or would you rather have a job? I think most American job seekers, given that choice, would say: I want a job. Don't reduce my chances of getting that job.

Then we learned just a few days ago that the Medicaid provisions of these proposals could amount to a massive cost shift to the States. The outcry against this has been loud and it has been bipartisan.

Here is what two-term Democratic Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen had to say recently. He called the proposal ``the mother of all unfunded mandates.'' Governor Bredesen went on to say:

Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage. It is a

45-year-old system originally designed for women and

children. It's not health care reform to dump more money into

Medicaid.

The words of Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee.

And Governor Bredesen is not an isolated example. At the National Governors Association meeting in Biloxi, Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, said the legislation currently making its way through Congress would unfairly burden States. Here is some good advice from Governor Schweitzer:

What we need Congress to do is cost control.

Cost control is something that would actually help in health care reform. I appreciate Governor Schweitzer calling for it. I am grateful to Governor Schweitzer for his honest assessment.

In fact, the American people owe a debt of gratitude to Democratic and Republican Governors for speaking the truth. These Governors may have saved us from a catastrophe by speaking out and telling us what the consequences are, as States struggle to meet their current obligations. Indeed, there is a great deal of bipartisanship emerging on the issue of health care reform, and that bipartisanship is coming in the form of alarm--alarm about what the bill proposes to do to State budgets, to small businesses, to job creation, and to choice in health care.

We are also learning that when it comes to the discussion of the so- called public plan or public option, there is a great amount of bait and switch lurking about. Bait and switch is basically a form of fraud or trickery that, unfortunately, goes on in our economy. It is such a problem that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has issued guidelines warning the public about this practice.

Here is a direct quote from 16 CFR part 238 entitled ``Guides Against Bait Advertising.'' The FTC says this:

Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell

a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not

intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers

from buying the advertised merchandise in order to sell

something else. . . .

One thing is advertised and the other is attempted to be sold. I think this is exactly what is going on in the debate over the public option. We are being offered the promise of genuine competition between the public plan and private insurance plans when, in fact, the purpose is to switch Americans to a European-style, single-payer plan down the road.

By now, it is abundantly clear that citizens of the United States do not want to risk putting our country on a path toward a single-payer plan such as the ones in Canada or Great Britain.

Americans do not want a single-payer system. The leadership of both parties, House and Senate, understands this fact. The American public does not want a wholesale government takeover of one-sixth of our economy. We do not want waiting lists such as in Canada. We do not want rationing such as in the United Kingdom.

Realizing where public opinion is on this pivotal issue, the advocates of these congressional Democratic plans have gone to great lengths to assure people they do not want a single-payer option either. These reassurances have come from as high as the White House itself. Just last week in North Carolina, President Obama said:

Nobody is talking about some government takeover of health

care. . . .These folks need to stop scaring everybody.

I wish that were true. But with due respect to our Chief Executive, there is a reason people are frightened. They are paying attention, and they see that sponsors of this legislation are, in fact, advocating a government takeover.

I found it interesting that just 1 day after the President's remarks, I turned on the news to see one of the most senior Democratic chairmen in the House of Representatives seem to contradict the President. Here is the exact quote from this leading Member of the House on the consequences of a public option. He said:

I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to a

single payer and that is the best way to reach single payer.

I wonder what the Federal Trade Commission would say about that type of advertisement. To me, it says: Let's lure people into going along with a public plan when we know it will eventually lead to a single payer down the road. I don't want to take that risk.

Another leading House advocate of the public option had this to say about a path to a single-payer system:

This is a fight about strategy about getting there----

Meaning the single-payer option----

and I believe we will.

I think most folks would call this a classic legislative bait and switch.

I recently ran across a blog from Dr. Michael Swickard of New Mexico, cautioning about this very tactic. Here is what Dr. Swickard said:

Given the track record of our government in bait and

switch, all of the promises of national health care are just

that--promises to be broken. Maybe there will be a few years

before the full impact of the bait and switch is felt by

citizens. But given the past actions of our government when

implementing programs, our future is clear.

I hope we can avoid that future for our country, but the writer's point is this: It may take a while, but the pattern is there. The future he fears includes a single-payer takeover that very few Americans would vote for today.

I say to my colleagues, there is much to be said about the ill effects of the health care proposals being put forward by the House and Senate committees. But among the most troublesome aspects of this so- called reform is the enactment of a public plan which will inevitably lead to a single-payer system Americans don't want and don't need.

Don't take my word for it on the cost, on the loss of choice, and on the effect on small business job creators. Just read the words of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. On the issue of massive, unsustainable cost shifting to State governments, don't take my word for it. Listen to the experienced Democratic Governors pleading with us not to go down this road. And when it comes to whether the goal of this whole exercise is to move us to a European single-payer plan, it is no longer necessary to heed the warnings of the political conservatives. When you listen closely, the leading advocates of the House and Senate legislation, in their unguarded moments, are willing to admit that a single-payer government takeover is their ultimate dream. I hope we do not go down that road.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator from Kansas for his remarks. I think it is interesting and perhaps symbolic that his cell phone was ringing off the wall or off of his belt when he was beginning to make his remarks. I think perhaps that is symbolic of what we are beginning to hear in the Senate as well as in the House of Representatives from the public. It is not just from the rightwing; it is from Main Street media. It is from the Washington Post last Friday. It is from liberal commentators such as Michael Kensley last Friday who say: Let's slow down on this.

I think what the American people might be saying is that they have gone through this hierarchy of decisionmaking and that this is not the kind of health care they were promised last year. We were told health care would save money for Americans. Now we are hearing it is going to cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion, perhaps even $3 trillion. We were told that if Americans were satisfied with their insurance, they would be able to keep it. Now we are told they would be moved into a public plan. We didn't hear about cuts to Medicare when this was being debated last year in the Presidential campaign, and we certainly didn't hear about higher taxes on middle-income Americans.

So I was glad to help the Senator from Kansas avoid taking those phone calls while he was speaking.

Well, I would not have presumed to answer the Senator's phone call. I simply put it back in the cloakroom. But I am hoping it is symbolic of the American people--

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, as more and more Americans become familiar with the details of the Democrats' proposal for a Washington takeover of the health care system, the wheels are beginning to fall off, and for good reason. It is no longer just the Republicans who are sounding the alarm. It is Independents and centrist Democrats who are showing genuine concern. We still do not have a good answer about the cost of the two major Senate proposals--one from the Finance Committee and the other from the HELP Committee--but we do know they will be enormously expensive once they are finally scored. There is also the House proposal from Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Waxman which is believed to cost $1 trillion over a 10-year period.

One great aspect of a representative democracy is elected officials still listen to the people who sent them here. Even Senators with 6- year terms go back to their respective States often and have their fingers on the pulse of public opinion. What they heard over the recent Independence Day break was alarm over the amount of money the Federal Government is spending in such a short period and over the monstrous debt we are incurring. We also heard from the voters. We heard from taxpayers that they are concerned over the direction health care legislation is heading.

A recent CNN poll found that a broad majority of Americans have concluded that their health care costs would go up, not down, under the Democrats' plan. The poll found that 54 percent say their medical insurance costs will increase if the Democratic plan is adopted, while only 17 percent of Americans believe their costs will decrease. Only one out of five said their family would be better off if the Democrats' reforms are enacted.

This lack of enthusiasm for the Democrats' plan is not just driven by partisan opposition. A recent Rasmussen survey found skepticism high among independent voters, with a plurality, some 39 percent of those not affiliated with either party, strongly opposed to the Democrats' plan.

I want health care reform enacted this year. As a matter of fact, I wanted health care reform enacted in the last Congress. But I want a plan that is closer to President Obama's campaign promise of last year, one that allows Americans to keep their insurance plans, if they are satisfied with them, and one that actually saves money for the American economy.

Last year candidate Obama stated that the United States is spending too much money on medical care. He vowed to put forth a plan to save money. I want to see that proposal. I want to see a proposal that would save money, not one that would spend another $1, $2, or $3 trillion we don't have and for which we will have to borrow from our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not characterize these legitimate concerns as scare tactics. The figures that have the Americans frightened were ones published from the Congressional Budget Office, not from some right-of-center think tank in Washington. In addition, suggestions about how to pay for this gigantic scheme for a Federal takeover are just as troubling.

The Kennedy bill, for example, includes a $58 billion tax on workers that would be imposed to create a government insurance program for long-term care. The bill also includes an additional $36 billion in penalties on individuals for not purchasing a government-approved health coverage policy. Another $52 billion would come from new taxes on employers. The House is considering a $540 billion proposal to put a 1- to 3-percent surtax on small businesses. There are also plans to tax beverages that contain sugar and proposals to place payroll taxes on capital gains earnings.

All of these tax increases would come during a recession and would still not be enough. There would have to be hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to the Medicare Program. In essence, to finance this scheme we will have to agree to tax workers and job creators and to cut benefits for senior citizens.

Two opinion pieces from the Washington Post last Friday provide clear evidence of honest concerns over the way the Democratic legislation is heading. In its own editorial, the Washington Post, hardly a rightwing publication, noted discouraging developments on Capitol Hill. Among other things, the Washington Post expressed disagreement over the Democrats' continued insistence on a public option. The editorial went on to say:

Restructuring the health care system is risky enough that

the Democrats would be wise not to try to accomplish it

entirely on their own.

This is sound advice from a leading newspaper that endorsed Senator Obama when he was running for President last year.

In another op-ed on the same topic, columnist Michael Kinsley points out:

People, even liberals, are starting to get unnerved by the

cost of all this.

He cites two risks for health care reform. One is that it would not pass and an opportunity will be lost. The second is that if it passes, it would not work. I ask my colleagues: If we pass a $1 trillion or $3 trillion plan that does not work, how will we ever reverse that mistake? How will we ever get the genie back in the bottle?

Mr. Kinsley rightly urges the President to slow things down on health care reform in order to get it right. Then Mr. Kinsley goes on to suggest that the President not try for a total overhaul of health care but, instead, seek smaller successes or low-hanging fruit. He advocates medical malpractice reform, outcomes research, and eliminating paperwork and waste as a starting position. I believe such an approach is sound and could be on the President's desk by the end of September.

When Michael Kinsley and the Washington Post editorial board begin asking advocates of an enormous Washington takeover to pause and reflect, it is time for all Americans--from the left, from the right, and from the political center--to sit up and take notice.

The good news from these developments is this: We now have a better opportunity for health care reform that does not break the bank. I hope the congressional leadership will go back to the drawing board and write a targeted bill that addresses the real problems, such as coverage for the uninsured.

Congress should listen to Michael Kinsley. Congress should listen to the Washington Post editorial board and the growing chorus of concerns and develop a plan that makes health care more portable, more affordable, and more accessible.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we need serious, substantive health care reform. The reasons for reform are well known, and they have led to overwhelming consensus in Congress that something needs to be done to make health care more affordable and more accessible.

The desire for action extends beyond the walls of this great building. The American people also want us to act. But this desire for action should not

give way to legislative haste. Americans do not want us to rush at the expense of getting it right. They have questions, and they deserve answers.

There are two very basic and important questions with regard to health care reform. No. 1, how much is it going to cost? And No. 2, how will we pay for it? First let's look at the question of cost.

The American public is alarmed about the massive debt we are accumulating. They realize that in the past year, on top of the almost $1 trillion stimulus bill, the Federal Government has also purchased banks, an insurance company, and an auto company, all using borrowed money that we, as taxpayers, will need to pay back. All this massive borrowing and spending was done quickly and with little debate. This was done, the public was told, in order to save the economy. How has that turned out?

At the beginning of the year, the Obama administration told the American people massive stimulus spending, if done quickly, would create 3 to 4 million jobs and would keep the country's unemployment rate at 8 percent. Today, sadly, unemployment is at 9.5 percent, the highest level since 1983. The jobs that were promised have not materialized. In fact, 467,000 additional jobs were lost last month alone.

The administration now says they misread the economy. Our government rushed to borrow and spend $1 trillion, but now we are basically being told they were wrong. Vice President Biden said as much only a few days ago.

Unfortunately, the American taxpayers are not going to get a do-over on this spending. They are still on the hook for the almost $1 trillion we borrowed, plus interest. Now there is talk of yet another expensive stimulus package to make up for the one that did not work.

So considering this, it is no surprise the American public is skeptical about the rush to spend yet another $1 trillion or more to create a Washington-run health care scheme.

We have a number of proposals in Congress that attempt to fix health care. There are workable reform proposals that go at the problem in a way that does not incur such prohibitive costs for taxpayers. Unfortunately, however, our Democratic colleagues have plans accompanied by astronomical costs to taxpayers. The Finance Committee is struggling to keep its bill at $1 trillion over 10 years. We are told that just a portion of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee bill will cost over $1 trillion. That is just a portion of their bill. Some have estimated the total cost for that bill will be over $3 trillion. These are not scare tactics. These are Congressional Budget Office estimates.

On the other side of the Capitol, the House Democrats' bill is expected to cost closer to $2 trillion. Over and above these Federal costs, there are frightening costs to the States. If the HELP Committee proposal to expand Medicaid is enacted, we can expect a wholesale collapse of State budgets and, of course, we are already seeing the collapse of some State budgets. They are already struggling under the unsustainable costs of the current program.

These spending figures are startling by themselves and even more troubling taken on top of the massive amount of debt we have already acquired.

Even more troubling is the expectation that costs of the Democratic proposals will continue to rise year after year, well beyond the 10- year budget window used to figure the pricetag of these proposals.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the annual cost of the insurance subsidy program contained in an earlier version of the HELP bill would rise 6.7 percent per year until it is fully phased in. This potential spending explosion should not come as a surprise. Medicare and Medicaid, two programs we need to strengthen, help, and sustain, are both already on unsustainable paths with enormous unfunded liabilities.

This daunting amount of spending has taxpayers worried, and they are beginning to speak up. One of my Democratic colleagues acknowledged this recently saying: ``The big challenge--and I actually heard this at home during the recess--is the sticker shock.''

Other supporters of the President are also warning him and his Democratic colleagues in Congress to slow down and be more careful with taxpayer dollars.

On Sunday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, an Obama supporter last year, warned the President about the ongoing spending spree, saying:

You can't have so many things on the table that you can't

absorb it all.

To quote Secretary Powell:

And we can't pay for it all.

In addition to the massive costs associated with these proposals, no one can yet tell us where the money will come from to pay for it. All the proposals we have seen are creative in the way they spend tax dollars but very short on specifics on how to fund them.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have vaguely outlined some ways they may pay for their plan, including a series of cuts to Medicare and Medicaid--I repeat, cuts to Medicare and Medicaid--along with new taxes. But they have not been as forthcoming and specific as they need to be with the American taxpayers.

There is a reason why more details have yet to be released. Since we do not have the money to pay for a government takeover of health care, there will need to be massive tax increases or more borrowing or a combination of the two. In fact, one leading Senate Democrat was quoted in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal as saying they were ``broadening the search for revenue''--broadening the search for revenue--to pay for this massive plan. What that means, of course, is they are intensifying their search for ways to raise taxes on the American people, whether it be taxes on small business, which we have been hearing about lately, or on health insurance plans or surtaxes on soft drinks or anything else they can think of--massive tax increases for the American people for plans which admittedly will only cover one-third of the uninsured persons in the United States of America. All the while, this is being done quickly and without time needed to provide the scrutiny the American public expects and deserves.

All Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--want health care reform, but they do not want a government-run health care plan. They do not want to pay for it with Medicare and Medicaid cuts. They do not want to drive up the debt. Getting it right is more important than getting it done quickly.

Let's learn from the mistakes that were made in hastily passing the stimulus bill. Massive new amounts of borrowing, spending, and taxes are not the way to successful health care reform.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I introduce an important piece of legislation that will help protect and preserve the health and productivity of one of our Nation's most important bodies of water--the Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf of Mexico Restoration and Protection Act will serve as a national and international model for the collaborative management of large marine ecosystems. Specific provisions of this Act will be administered by the Gulf of Mexico Program, formed in 1988 by the Environmental Protection Agency as a non-regulatory, inclusive partnership that collaborates with federal offices, state, and local governments and the private sector in each of 5 Gulf States--all committed to helping preserve and protect the Gulf.

Collectively, the fertile waters and seabed of the Gulf of Mexico represent the 6th largest economy in the world with a total economic trade value of almost $6 trillion. These waters are now threatened by excessive nutrient loads and invasive species as well as the significant deterioration of many coastal wetlands as a result of hurricane and tropical storm damage.

The future of the Gulf's environmental stability is vital to America's economy and security. This legislation authorizes much needed additional funds to the Gulf of Mexico Program and finally puts it on a path toward more equal footing with other national great water body programs. Members of the Gulf of Mexico program are working together to secure the Gulf's future. It is time for this critical region to be recognized for its strategic importance. This legislation is an important step toward ensuring the Gulf receives the kind of support it deserves.

Mr. President, today I introduce an important piece of legislation that will help protect and preserve the health and productivity of one of our Nation's most important bodies of water--the Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf of Mexico Restoration and Protection Act will serve as a national and international model for the collaborative management of large marine ecosystems. Specific provisions of this Act will be administered by the Gulf of Mexico Program, formed in 1988 by the Environmental Protection Agency as a non-regulatory, inclusive partnership that collaborates with federal offices, state, and local governments and the private sector in each of 5 Gulf States--all committed to helping preserve and protect the Gulf.

Collectively, the fertile waters and seabed of the Gulf of Mexico represent the 6th largest economy in the world with a total economic trade value of almost $6 trillion. These waters are now threatened by excessive nutrient loads and invasive species as well as the significant deterioration of many coastal wetlands as a result of hurricane and tropical storm damage.

The future of the Gulf's environmental stability is vital to America's economy and security. This legislation authorizes much needed additional funds to the Gulf of Mexico Program and finally puts it on a path toward more equal footing with other national great water body programs. Members of the Gulf of Mexico program are working together to secure the Gulf's future. It is time for this critical region to be recognized for its strategic importance. This legislation is an important step toward ensuring the Gulf receives the kind of support it deserves.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, of all the complex issues the United States will deal with in this Congress, none will be more important than health care reform. Of all the momentous decisions we will make over the next few months, none will be more consequential or long- lasting than the votes we may take regarding the one-sixth of the American economy which comprises our health care system. If we get it right, we could devise a program that makes health care more accessible and affordable, provides health coverage to millions of Americans who are currently without health insurance, relieves Americans from worry about the effect changing jobs will have on their health care, saves lives through an increased focus on prevention and wellness, saves money by curbing the out-of-control growth in government health care programs, keeps patients and families in control of their health care choices, and makes doctors the decisionmakers on treatment options.

We have a great opportunity before us to improve the American health care system, but we run a perilous risk if we do not act wisely and carefully. We can fix our broken health care system by making it more accessible and affordable for Americans, and we can do so without jeopardizing quality, individual choice, and personalized care.

The American people need us to act on this issue, but they do not need or

want us to act rashly. We do not need to enact a Washington takeover or a scheme that would inevitably lead to a government takeover of one- sixth of our gross domestic product.

I recently spoke with a resident of a country that is a major U.S. ally. He espoused the benefits of his country's government health care program, explaining in particular detail how the program works there. But then I posed a question: What happens in your country if you get cancer? He smiled and said: If I get cancer, I am going to the United States. He is going to the United States. It was a very telling answer that points up a profound truth: There are many things we need to fix about American health care, but there are a number of things we do right. There are a number of things right about our system, and we don't need to risk losing those things that today give Americans the highest quality health care system in the world.

Nine out of ten middle-aged American women have had a mammogram--90 percent of American women--compared to less than three-fourths of Canadian women. More than half of American men have had a prostate test compared to less than one in six Canadians. Nearly one-third of Americans have had a colonoscopy compared to less than 5 percent of Canadians. These are statistics we need to be proud of as compared to our Western allies.

In addition to this focus in America on prevention, we also spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long-- sometimes more than a year--to see a specialist. We don't need health care reform that moves us in that direction. Mr. President, 827,429 people today, at this very moment, are waiting for some sort of procedure in Canada, and 1.8 million people in England are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment. They are having to wait for that in England.

We Americans also have better access to new technologies such as medical imaging than patients in Canada or the United Kingdom. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals--only five top U.S. hospitals--conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country. Only the top five outrank any other country in the world in clinical trials. We ought to be proud of that. We ought not to enact any program that would jeopardize that type of innovation.

Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. We get results based on our innovation and our research in the United States of America.

All these numbers translate into one very important fact: Americans have a better 5-year survival rate than Europeans for common cancers. For example, in the area of colon cancer, we have a 65-percent, 5-year survival rate in America, compared to only 50 percent in the United Kingdom. For prostate cancer, we have a 93-percent survival rate for 5 years in the United States; only 77 percent in the United Kingdom. In breast cancer, 90 percent of Americans who suffer from breast cancer have a 5-year survival rate; only 82 percent in the United Kingdom. For thyroid cancer that figure is a 94-percent, 5-year survival rate and only 75 percent in the United Kingdom.

Put another way, breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany with their government-run system than in the United States, and breast cancer mortality is 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom with their government-run health care system. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. Is there a genetic predisposition for the people of Norway to die of prostate cancer or of German women to have breast cancer? I don't think so. I think these numbers, these stubborn facts reflect that our American system of innovation and detection and treatment is a good thing, and as we improve and fix our system, we need to be careful to maintain that type of quality.

There are broken parts of our system, to be sure, but my point today is to urge this body to consider the consequences of all the options we will consider. There is no question we need to make health care more affordable and we need to expand access. Republicans support providing affordable access to coverage for every American, and we can do that without a Washington, DC, takeover of health care. What we cannot afford the risk of doing is eroding the quality of care in pursuit of our goals this year. The surest way to destroy quality is to hand the reins of health care over to the Federal Government.

I recently had the opportunity to discuss health care with a member of the British House of Commons. That member of Parliament said: Whatever you do, do not do what we did in the United Kingdom.

A Washington takeover of health care would result in a stifling of innovation. I am convinced it would result in long waits. As we consider a so-called public option, a public plan, we need to ask ourselves: Will it lead, as I believe it will, to a one-size-fits-all Washington takeover of health care and inevitably mean that our citizens will be denied and delayed the health care we need? We need to be careful as we answer that question. I regret to say the plan I see taking shape on the other side of the aisle would result in either a politician or a bureaucrat making your health care decisions instead of you and your doctor. I urge my colleagues to protect innovation and to protect quality.

I am convinced we can protect the doctor-patient relationship and make health care more affordable and accessible for all without jeopardizing the quality I have spoken about this afternoon. I believe all of us in this body want a solution that works for Americans. There is common ground to be found that would continue the opportunity for the United States to be that world leader in quality. Congress and the American people need to pay close attention as we proceed this summer and this fall on one of the most important debates in our time.

Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 4 minutes.

Madam President, this past weekend, at the Northrop- Grumman shipbuilding facility in Pascagoula, MS, the USS Gravely, the 57th Arleigh Burke class Aegis Guided Missile Destroyer, was christened in honor of the late VADM Samuel L. Gravely, Jr.

Vice Admiral Gravely was born in 1922, in Richmond, VA. In 1942, Gravely interrupted his education at Virginia Union University and enlisted in the U.S. Naval Reserve. He attended officer training camp at the University of California in Los Angeles after boot camp at the Great Lakes Naval Training Station in Illinois, and then midshipman school at Columbia University. When he boarded his first ship in May of 1945, he became its first African-American officer.

Gravely was the first African-American to command a fighting ship, the USS Falgout, and to command a major warship, the USS Jouett. As a full commander, he made naval history in 1966 as the first African- American commander to lead a ship, the USS Taussig, into direct offensive action. He was the first African-American to achieve flag rank and eventually vice admiral. In 1976, Gravely became the commander of the entire Third Fleet, commanding over 100 ships, 60,000 sailors, and overseeing more than 50 million square miles of ocean.

Gravely's tenure in the naval service was challenged with the difficulties of racial discrimination. As a new recruit, he was trained in a segregated unit; as an officer, he was barred from living in the bachelor's officers' quarters. In 1945, when his first ship reached its berth in Key West, FL, he was specifically forbidden entry into the officers club on the base. Gravely survived the indignities of racial prejudice and displayed unquestionable competence as a naval officer.

Gravely exemplified the highest standards and demanded very high standards from his crew. Throughout his career, he stressed the rudiments of professionalism--intelligence, appearance, seamanship and, most importantly, pride.

Vice Admiral Gravely was a trailblazer for African-Americans in the military arena. He fought for equal rights quietly but effectively, letting his actions and his military record speak for him. Gravely died on October 22, 2004, at the naval hospital in Bethesda, MD. In a fitting tribute, the obituary on the U.S. Department of Defense Web site quoted Gravely's formula for success: ``My formula is simply education plus motivation plus perseverance.''

Samuel L. Gravely, Jr.'s performance and leadership as an African- American naval officer demonstrated to America the value and strength of diversity. He was a true professional with superb skills as a seaman and admirable leadership attributes.

The USS Gravely, christened in Pascagoula, will reflect his character, his forthrightness, and his steadfastness and will stand for and deliver his legacy wherever it serves. His spirit aboard the USS Gravely will be an inspiration to its crew, the U.S. Navy, and Americans for generations to come.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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