[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1044-1048]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have come a long way in 1 year.
  On December 24, 2009--1 day before Christmas--this body passed a 
radical overhaul of our Nation's health care system. That is right. The 
majority passed ObamaCare on Christmas Eve.
  It was not this body's finest moment. It was not the administration's 
finest moment. And I expect that this debate will go down in history 
for its persistent lack of attention to the considered views of 
ordinary Americans--Americans who rejected ObamaCare's giant new 
entitlement expansions and the job-killing taxes haphazardly cobbled 
together to pay for them.
  It did not have to be this way. In the midst of the greatest fiscal 
collapse since the Great Depression, Americans wanted Democrats, who 
controlled all of the levers of power in Washington, to focus on job 
creation. Instead, like teenagers set loose when mom and dad leave 
town, they did what they wanted to, and focused on a government 
takeover of the Nation's health care system.
  Surprising only the most ideologically driven, support for ObamaCare 
cratered during the townhall meetings of August 2009. The message was 
loud and clear. Our health care system, and in particular the 
government policies that contribute to unsustainable inflation in the 
health care sector, might be in need of reform. But the solution to our 
problems is not additional government regulation and control of health 
care delivery by Washington bureaucrats. And the solution is most 
definitely not to be found in the billions of dollars in new taxes, 
most of which will be passed through to American families in the form 
of higher premiums.
  For those who did not deliberately put on blinders, the wishes of 
their constituents were obvious.
  Stop the push for ObamaCare and move onto fixing the economy.
  But the Senate did not listen.
  Instead, prodded ahead by an administration that saw the great 
liberal dream of government-run health care slipping, the long march 
continued.
  First, the Democratic majority cut short the Finance Committee's 
bipartisan negotiations.
  Then, heads down, the majority plowed forward on the floor, allowing 
virtually no meaningful amendments.
  And before going home for Christmas, it passed the most sweeping 
reform of the Nation's economy in over 70 years without a single 
Republican vote.
  Every Democratic senator supported the bill.
  Not one Republican did.
  When ObamaCare passed the Senate, its proponents assumed it was on 
the glidepath to enactment. But the American people had a different 
idea.
  Our national unemployment rate was 10.2 percent--the highest in 26 
years.
  The American people understood that at a moment of historic economic 
challenges, the last thing the country needed was another budget-
busting entitlement and sky-high taxes.
  And just about 1 month later, this message was delivered again. In a 
new shot heard across the world, our colleague, the junior Senator from 
Massachusetts, Scott Brown, was elected in a very clear referendum on 
the Democrats' health care bill.
  The verdict of the American people, if the previous summer's 
townhalls left any doubt, was now crystal clear.
  The push for ObamaCare must end.
  Yet, the administration refused to yield.
  They thought the people would eventually come to embrace the elegance 
of ObamaCare. If only the messaging was better, Americans would 
appreciate all of the good things that Washington politicians and 
bureaucrats had to offer them.
  So after taking time to regroup and weigh their options, Democrats 
decided to defy the American people yet again.
  A little over a year ago, the President hosted a summit at the White 
House and began his final push for his federalizing of American health 
care.
  The resulting display was ugly. Americans, already revolted by the 
deals cut in this Chamber to secure the bare number of votes needed to 
pass the bill, now witnessed historic arm twisting and desperate 
efforts in the House to deny the obvious--that ObamaCare represented an 
unprecedented intrusion of the Federal government into the lives of 
citizens and clearly was a massive burden on taxpayers.
  And so it passed.
  And ObamaCare became law.

[[Page 1045]]

  And the administration set about writing the thousands of pages of 
regulations that would govern how American businesses provide health 
benefits to their employees.
  Fast forward to November of 2010.
  The American people did not forget their snubbing by self-proclaimed 
progressive Democrats who in fact ignored the will of the people at 
every opportunity during the ObamaCare debate.
  At voting booths across the country, they made clear to those 
congressmen and Senators who provided the votes for this job-destroying 
health care bill that such high-handed, illiberal behavior was not 
acceptable in a democratic republic.
  Fast forward one more time.
  Yesterday, barely 13 months after ObamaCare passed the Senate, and 
less than one year since it became law, the entire scheme was struck 
down in Federal court.
  In a triumph for both personal liberty and the American Constitution, 
the individual mandate was found unconstitutional and ObamaCare was 
struck down.
  Not part of ObamaCare.
  All of ObamaCare.
  Not surprisingly, the administration and its special interest allies 
responded with the same derision toward ordinary American citizens that 
has been on display throughout this debate. Instead of acknowledging 
the obvious--that ObamaCare represents a massive departure from any 
traditional understanding of limited government--White House officials 
went on the attack, calling the decision outside of the mainstream and 
ridiculing its reasoning.
  Really?
  Millions and millions of Americans believe that provisions essential 
to the operation of ObamaCare are unconstitutional intrusions on 
personal liberty that vastly expand the power of the Federal 
government.
  They understand that the justification for the individual mandate by 
ObamaCare's proponents essentially removes any limits on the power of 
the Federal government to regulate personal and economic decisions.
  Twenty-six states participated in this challenge to ObamaCare.
  Thirty-two Members of this body, including myself, signed an amicus 
brief challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.
  But, according to the administration's narrative, we are the ones who 
are out of the mainstream.
  This administration came into office buoyed by the good will of the 
American people and carrying banners of bipartisanship.
  Two years later, after the politically disastrous decision to 
overhaul one-seventh of the Nation's economy with virtually no 
Republican support, they are blaming the victim.
  After a Federal judge looked at this tough issue and determined that 
key elements of ObamaCare represented an unprecedented and 
unconstitutional expansion of the national government, the problem 
remains--as it always is for liberals--the people.
  Their views are just not sophisticated enough to grasp ObamaCare's 
consistency with a government of limited and enumerated powers.
  The Democrats continue to think that if only they focus group 
ObamaCare better, they will get the messaging right.
  The American people will learn to love it.
  I don't think so.
  The American people get it. I know my constituents in Utah do.
  In an article yesterday in ``Politico'', Patrick Caddell and Douglas 
Schoen highlighted the reasons for the public's deepening disdain for 
ObamaCare. According to them, it is possible that no major piece of 
legislation ``has created the continued, vehement public opposition 
that health care has provoked since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.''
  In their view, ``[t]here is one big underlying factor that continues 
to cause many Americans to oppose the health care bill: Its passage was 
anti-democratic. If the Republicans' campaign slogan of 1854 was the 
Crime Against Kansas, in 2010 it would be the Crime Against 
Democracy.''
  Americans know that the Senate bill was 2,074 pages long.
  They know it authorized 70 government programs.
  They know it delegated regulatory power to the Obama administration 
1,697 times.
  They know it cut $465 billion from Medicare at a time when it already 
faced a $38 trillion unfunded liability.
  They know the bill took from one already unsustainable entitlement to 
pay for a brand new entitlement.
  They know it raised taxes by over $550 billion, repeatedly violating 
the President's pledge not to raise taxes on middle class families.
  They know ObamaCare will destroy 695,000 American jobs at a time when 
millions of Americans are looking for work.
  They know the Medicaid expansions threaten to bankrupt the States, 
with CBO estimating that the Medicaid expansion will cost American 
taxpayers $435 billion over 10 years.
  They know the total cost of ObamaCare is $2.6 trillion.
  And they know we can not afford it.
  To borrow from Justice Scalia, the American people despise ObamaCare 
because the American people love democracy and the American people are 
not fools. They know that this law was enacted in a totally partisan 
manner, and over the loud opposition of a majority of Americans.
  And they know that the partisans promoting ObamaCare were not, and 
are not, forthright when they say it is budget neutral.
  ObamaCare cuts $155 billion from hospitals.
  It cuts $202 billion from 11 million seniors on Medicare Advantage.
  It cuts nearly $15 billion from nursing homes.
  It cuts nearly $40 billion from home health agencies.
  It cuts nearly $7 billion from hospices.
  But these cuts don't go toward strengthening Medicare, a program with 
catastrophic unfunded liabilities. Rather, Democrats poured the savings 
from these cuts back into a brand new entitlement program.
  Furthermore, so-called comprehensive health care reform managed to 
neglect the pressing need for a permanent doc fix. Yet, CBO's most 
recent estimate is that a long-term doc fix freezing Medicare payment 
rates at 2011 levels would raise the deficit by $249 billion, not 
counting an additional $53 billion in debt service obligations.
  Not surprisingly, an Associated Press fact check of the President's 
State of the Union address concluded: ``the idea that Obama's health 
care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable 
assumptions.''
  That might qualify for the understatement of the year so far.
  The likelihood that ObamaCare will not, as its advocates claimed, 
save the government money was confirmed again at a hearing last week by 
the CMS Chief Actuary Richard Foster. He testified that the law will 
not likely hold costs down, and that contrary to the President's 
mantra, everyone will not be able to keep their insurance coverage if 
they like it.
  In response, the White House political operation attacked the 
Administration's own nonpartisan professional expert, stating in a blog 
post: ``Once again, we disagree . . . History shows that it is possible 
to implement measures that will save money for Medicare and the Federal 
government.''
  Who are you going to believe?
  The chief actuary at CMS or a White House political operative?
  The average American citizen might not have a Ph.D. in economics. But 
Americans do understand that massive new entitlement programs do not 
save money. In their guts, they know that former CBO director Doug 
Holtz-Eakin is right when he concludes that repeal of this flawed law 
would actually reduce the deficit by $300 billion.
  Ultimately, all we want is a vote on repeal.
  Last week, some of my Democratic colleagues came to the floor to 
advocate for rules changes that would have substantially limited the 
rights of the minority to debate.
  The filibuster, they insisted, is an affront to democracy and 
majority rule.

[[Page 1046]]

  Well, let them put their money where their mouths are.
  All we are asking for is an up or down vote on repeal of ObamaCare.
  This is what the people want.
  Ultimately, you have to ask why the Democratic majority would deny us 
this vote.
  I think I know the answer. It has a great deal to do with members of 
the caucus who know their constituents hate this law. Yet, these 
Members are torn between two masters. On the one hand are their 
conservative constituents. And on the other are the liberal interest 
groups who supported the government takeover of the Nation's health 
care system.
  Unfortunately, the people again stand to lose in this calculus.
  I understand that the conventional wisdom is that my colleagues and I 
are pursuing a symbolic act.
  The guardians of the conventional wisdom opine that attempts to 
repeal ObamaCare might make for good theatre, but are senseless 
exercises.
  In my view, this attitude demonstrates a profound lack of respect for 
the citizens of a democratic republic.
  Over time, given the power of ideas and an engaged citizenry, 
initially symbolic acts have a way of becoming law. It might not happen 
overnight, but citizens--exercising their constitutional rights of 
petition and redress--have a way of reminding even the most hardened of 
partisan politicians that their job is to represent their constituents.
  I have no doubt that some scoff at our efforts to repeal this bill.
  But I rest easy knowing that I am standing with my fellow Utahans and 
the people of this country whose distrust of ObamaCare grows as they 
learn more about it.
  I look forward to the day when ObamaCare is finally repealed. It may 
not be next month. It may not be next year, but it will be repealed. If 
we are smart, we will make it next month or in the very near future. 
When it is, it will be a triumph for our Constitution, a triumph for 
personal liberty and, most importantly, it will be a triumph for the 
American people to persevere in their resistance to this law.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is interesting that we face one of 
the toughest economic recessions in modern history and a world in 
turmoil, as many countries are challenging their leadership and 
assessing the future, and the focal point of the Republican legislative 
effort appears to be the repeal of health care reform.
  If you look at what the American people think about this, they don't 
agree. They think that if there are ways to improve the bill, we should 
do it; that if there are changes we can make in the bill to make it 
more effective, we should. But the notion that we would repeal this law 
and walk away from the basic provisions in it is not acceptable by the 
majority of the people.
  The House Republicans, new to the majority this year, decided they 
needed to keep faith with their followers and repeal health care reform 
as their highest priority. As the whip in the Senate who counts votes 
on this side of the aisle, I sense that we are not going to repeal this 
law, nor do I think we should.
  It appears Republicans want us to spend some time debating whether 
health care reform is good for America. I welcome that debate because, 
as you know, when we reflect on what we have achieved so far, in a 
little over 1 year, with this health care reform and what is to follow, 
it strikes me as unusual that there are people who want to walk away 
from all that. The important starting point in this debate is 
government-administered health care. If you listen to the other side--
the Republicans--the issue they object to the most is the fact that the 
government has some hand in this health insurance industry. They call 
it government-run health care. Those who would take the time to read 
the bill--and I have--will realize that at the end of the day, the only 
entities offering health insurance in America are private companies, 
aside from Medicare and Medicaid. So what the Republicans are objecting 
to is a government effort to extend the availability of private health 
insurance to more and more Americans.
  I know every single Republican and Democratic Senator is protecting 
their own families with government-administered private health 
insurance. The very thing they are condemning in the health care reform 
bill is the source of their own personal health insurance for their 
families. You see, Members of Congress are part of the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program, a program that covers 8 million 
Federal employees and their families. My wife and I, each year, have an 
open enrollment where we can choose from nine different private health 
insurance companies in Illinois. We pick the plan we like the best. At 
our point in life, we have more coverage than younger people might, and 
more money is taken out of my paycheck because of that decision, but it 
is our decision to pick this private insurance company in a plan 
administered by the Federal Government.
  As the Republicans stand and criticize the notion of extending this 
availability of options to more Americans, they are criticizing the 
same insurance plan they are using to protect their own families. If it 
is good enough for a Member of the Senate, should it not be good enough 
for most Americans? The insurance exchanges we are creating will offer 
the option for people to choose from private health insurance plans in 
the future. That, to me, is a good thing. It has certainly been good 
for my family, in terms of the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program.
  There are other parts of the health care reform bill the Republicans 
want to repeal, which I know the American people think are very 
valuable. Right now, young adults up to the age of 26 would lose their 
insurance coverage through their parents' health plans if the 
Republicans prevail. This would affect 47,200 people in Illinois and 
1.2 million nationally. Who are these young people, age 25? They are 
graduates of college looking for jobs. They are finished with their 
education and maybe had student health insurance and they are looking 
for a job and maybe the first one they find doesn't offer benefits. So 
mom and dad say: Don't worry. We still have you under the family health 
insurance plan.
  That is part of the health care reform bill these people--the 
Republican side of the aisle--want to repeal. I remember going through 
this with our kids, as I am sure others do. You called them after 
college and said: Jennifer, how are you doing?
  I am fine.
  Do you have health insurance?
  Dad, I don't need that yet; I will get it later. At which point you 
say: Girl, you have to have it, even if we have to pay for it. We know 
we are just one diagnosis or accident away from needing health 
insurance. That worry is relieved for those through the age of 25 under 
health care reform and would be repealed by the Republicans.
  How about lifetime limits? People with private insurance coverage, if 
the Republicans have their way and repeal this measure, would find 
themselves suddenly vulnerable again to having lifetime limits placed 
on how much insurance companies will spend on their health care. This 
affects 7\1/2\ million people in Illinois and 165 million nationally.
  I talked to a retired firefighter in Chicago. He happened to be a man 
who volunteered and went to New York on 9/11. He came down with 
leukemia. I said: How are you doing?
  He said: I'm feeling good. I'm getting a lot of treatment, and it's 
working, but I'm worried. I'm not old enough to qualify for Medicare 
yet, and I have a $1 million limit. I had no idea I would come down 
with cancer, and I have already spent $150,000. If I need additional 
medical care, it will be taken out of my savings if I go past this 
limit.

[[Page 1047]]

  We eliminate the limits on health insurance policies. Repeal of the 
law will reestablish those limits.
  How about rescissions? Insurance companies, if the Republicans have 
their way and repeal our Affordable Health Care Act, would once again 
be allowed to cut off someone's coverage unexpectedly when they are in 
an accident or become sick because of a simple mistake on their 
application. That would leave 612,000 people in Illinois and 15.9 
million nationally at the risk of losing their insurance at the moment 
they need it the most. One of the worst abuses of the insurance 
industry would become legal again if the Republicans have their way and 
repeal affordable health care.
  How does this work? Well, I can tell you what happens. We have seen 
it. People have contacted our office. The most notorious example was a 
woman who said when she needed coverage for a surgery, the health 
insurance company went through her application and said: You failed to 
disclose a preexisting condition. We rescind the policy.
  She asked: What preexisting condition?
  You had acne as a teenager.
  Think about it. Would you ever put that down as a preexisting 
condition when you are applying for health insurance? It was enough for 
the health insurance company to turn her loose and refuse to cover her.
  Also, nearly 7.5 million residents in Illinois and 165 million 
nationally would not know if they are receiving value for their health 
insurance premium dollars because the Republican repeal of health care 
would remove the requirement that insurers spend at least 80 to 85 
percent of premium dollars on actual health care--not on bonuses, not 
on salaries, not on advertising, and not on administrative expenses but 
actually on health care. It is an effort to have the States monitor 
these health insurance companies and make sure when the rates go up the 
money being collected is actually going to health care. That would be 
eliminated if the Republicans have their way in repealing the 
Affordable Health Care Act.
  How about preventive care? Nearly 1.8 million seniors in Illinois who 
have Medicare coverage and 44 million nationally would be forced to pay 
a copay to receive important preventive services such as mammograms and 
colonoscopies, and they wouldn't receive a free annual wellness visit. 
We know what happens when a person doesn't have a lot of money and is 
in their senior status and they are faced with the possibility of 
getting a test. They put it off. The longer you put it off, 
unfortunately, it is more likely something bad will occur. The 
Republican repeal of health care would mean that this preventive care 
currently offered under the bill for Medicare recipients would be 
eliminated.
  Then there is the doughnut hole, or the gap in coverage, for Medicare 
prescription drugs for which 109,421 seniors in Illinois and 2.7 
million nationally would see significantly higher prescription drug 
costs if the Republicans are successful in repealing health care. Last 
year, these beneficiaries received a one-time, tax-free $250 rebate to 
help fill the gap for prescription drugs in the doughnut hole coverage 
gap.
  Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the doughnut hole in 2011 will 
be eligible for 50 percent discounts on covered brand-name prescription 
drugs. Without this law, the burden of high prescription drug costs 
will hurt millions of Medicare beneficiaries across the country. That 
is the reality.
  What the Republicans would do with the repeal of health care is to 
say to seniors on fixed incomes: Turn to your savings; pull more out of 
your savings for the prescription drugs your doctor tells you that you 
need to stay well. We are filling that gap, that hole. They want to go 
back to the old days when seniors were on their own.
  There is the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, where 279 employers 
in my State and 4,748 nationally wouldn't receive help from this 
program. It is a program that provides businesses, schools, unions, 
State and local governments and nonprofits much needed financial relief 
to help early retirees and their families continue to have quality 
affordable health care coverage.
  Who are these people? One was in my family. My brother retired from 
working for a major corporation before he reached the age of 65. He had 
a heart attack and needed surgery and couldn't get insured. He had to 
wait until he was qualified for Medicare. This plan allows early 
retirees to find insurance before they qualify for Medicare and 
provides an incentive for that to happen. The repeal of this law by the 
Republicans would basically eliminate that program.
  So when they stand before us and tell us they are just doing the 
right thing--what Americans really want--I am afraid that isn't the 
case. Most Americans want us to keep health care reform--change it, 
modify it, if necessary, but not repeal it--because when we repeal it, 
these basic things I have described will be in trouble.
  What about this court case yesterday in Florida? It is getting a lot 
of attention today. A judge in Florida issued a decision in a case 
filed by 25 Republican attorneys general and Governors striking down 
the Affordable Health Care Act. This ruling is out of the mainstream of 
judicial reasoning in its treatment of precedent and in the type of 
analysis employed. I don't think it is likely to be upheld.
  Twelve Federal judges have already dismissed challenges to the 
constitutionality of the health reform bill, and two judges in the 
Eastern District of Michigan and Western District of Virginia have 
upheld the law. In one other case, a Federal judge in the Eastern 
District of Virginia issued a very narrow ruling on the 
constitutionality of the health reform law's individual responsibility 
provision and upheld the rest of the law.
  The ruling yesterday in Florida issued by Judge Vinson in the 
Northern District is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge 
declared the entire law was null and void, even though the only 
provision he found unconstitutional related to the individual 
responsibility provision. This decision is at odds with decades of 
established Supreme Court law which has consistently found that courts 
have a constitutional obligation to preserve as much of a statute as 
can be preserved.
  Under this view of the law, the estimated 4 million seniors who fall 
into the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap I mentioned earlier 
will pay higher prices for prescription drugs. If the judge from 
Florida has his way, 44 million seniors on Medicare will be denied 
access to preventive care, up to 4 million small businesses will not be 
eligible for tax credits to make health care more affordable, and new 
provisions that prevent insurance companies from denying coverage and 
the like will not become part of the law.
  History is on our side when it comes to this measure, Madam 
President. Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee, at my request, is 
going to hold a hearing on the constitutionality of the Health Care 
Reform Act. It is the first congressional hearing on this issue. As a 
person who is aspiring to be the chairman of the Constitution 
Subcommittee, I asked this be the first subject we take up. The reason 
I am still aspiring is we haven't closed all of the negotiations about 
funding of committees, so nothing has become formal yet, but it is 
likely to occur.
  What we will look at tomorrow is article I, section 8 of the 
Constitution. That is the article that specifically cites the powers 
that Congress--the Senate and the House--have. It is spelled out. In 
the course of spelling it out, it cites, among other things, that we 
have the power to tax, and we have the power related to provisions 
relating to commerce. It came to be viewed in the courts as interstate 
commerce--commerce between the States or between the United States and 
other nations.
  Those who are arguing that the health care reform bill is 
unconstitutional first argue that the health care insurance industry is 
not commerce. If the health care insurance industry--which offers 
industry across State lines to millions of Americans--is not commerce, 
and it affects 18 percent of our

[[Page 1048]]

economy, then I don't know what commerce might be. I think that 
position is particularly weak.
  When it comes to the individual responsibility, or individual mandate 
system that is in the bill, the question is being asked of the court: 
Why is this necessary? Well, here is why it is necessary. If we say to 
insurance companies they don't have to insure anyone with a preexisting 
condition, then of course they are going to exclude people. But if we 
tell them they have to insure everybody, even those with preexisting 
conditions, then the obvious question is, when will a person buy 
insurance?
  If we don't have a responsibility on individuals to buy insurance, 
two things will occur: They will wait until they are sick to buy 
insurance, which completely destroys the risk model that insurance 
companies use, or they will present themselves, as they do today, to 
many hospitals for coverage and care, the cost of which is passed on to 
other people. So the individual responsibility section says: If you 
don't have insurance coverage, then you have to pay a tax penalty. And 
that is what many are objecting to. You cannot eliminate exclusions for 
preexisting conditions and not move more and more people into the risk 
pool at an earlier stage. If people can wait until the last minute to 
get into the risk pool, then the insurance model is destroyed. That is 
why it is in there.
  I think we will find, ultimately--and I hope we do--from the Supreme 
Court that what we have passed is entirely consistent with the 
regulations or powers given to Congress under article I, section 8 of 
the Constitution to deal with issues of commerce. Secondly, I think we 
will find that the imposition of a tax in this health care reform bill 
is clearly enumerated in the powers given to Congress to levy taxes, 
and what we have done is necessary and proper to reach the goal where 
we eliminate discrimination because of preexisting conditions in health 
insurance plans.
  That debate is ahead of us, but it is a debate we need to take up. I 
am happy to talk about the health care reform bill because I think it 
is moving in the right direction. It is not perfect--it can be 
improved--but if the Republicans want to repeal it, they are in for a 
fight because the important provisions we have to protect families and 
businesses need to be protected.
  What we want to bring up as soon as we can--when we get beyond this 
debate on health care repeal--is the reauthorization of the Federal 
Aviation Administration. We have been struggling with this issue for a 
long time, and we believe this bill, which our majority leader Harry 
Reid has asked to bring to the floor, creates and protects more than 
280,000 jobs by modernizing the air travel infrastructure and reducing 
costly delays. I think this is an important step forward not just to 
create jobs--and we need them very badly--but also to make certain our 
airplanes and airliners and all those who are serving us at the 
airports have a safer environment, establishing new standards for 
safety when it comes to the operation of our airlines.
  I think this is a critical issue, and I hope we can move to it soon. 
I am sorry we are going to be diverted into a debate on health care 
reform. But as I said, I think it is a welcome debate. It is time we 
brought some of these facts before the American people so they 
understand health care reform has real value to families and businesses 
across the United States, making health care insurance more affordable 
and more accessible.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________