but they want reform that allows them to keep their current insurance while preserving the freedoms, choices, and quality of care they now enjoy. that's y republicans proposed a series of reforms to lower cost and improve access without -- without -- destroying what people like about our current health care system. president obama has said that he's open to some of the ideas republicans have put forward. such as the need to reform our medical liability laws to discourage junk lawsuits and the need to encourage wellness and prevention programs that have proven to be effective in cutting costs and improving care. in fact, during a speech last week to the american medical association the president discussed one particular wellness and prevention program at the safe way and market chain which dramatically cut that company's health care costs and employee premiums. the president said he would be open to helping businesses

across the nation adopt wellness and prevention programs like the safeway plan yet the bill the democrats are trying to rush through the senate would actually ban this program from being copied and implemented by other companies. that makes absolutely no sense, madam president. all last week we heard eye popping cost estimates for health care proposals coming out of capitol hill, proposals that wouldn't even solve the entire problem but would bury us deeper and deeper in debt. if the goal is to decrease costs, why wouldn't democrats and congress support a plan that we know has been effective in doing so, especially if the president himself supports it? one would think this would be an easy bipartisan feature of any democratic plan. according to safeway c.e.o.'s their per capital health care costcosts have remained flat as those of most americans have risen by 40% since safeway

implemented the wellness and prevention plan in 2005. the plan is reduced the health care costs for employees and their families by offering incentives to worker whose adopt healthier lifestyles. and the employee whose choose to participate in the plan are tested for tobacco usage, for healthy weight, and for their blood pressure and cholesterol levels. employees who pass the tests are given discounts. for example, if employees pass all four tests, the annual premiums are reduced by $780 for individual xs and $1,560 for employees and there are incentives for those who make progress. this helps to improve the health and quality of life of safeway workers. the company's obesity and smoking rates are sphnts% of the

national -- are snent% of the national average and 76% want more incentives rewarding the healthy behavior. it is estimated if the united states adopted the approach in 2005, four years ago, the country's direct health care bell would be $550 billion less than it is new. if we had simply adopted the safeway approach four years ago. the safeway program has proven so successful the company wants to increase incentives for rewarding healthy behavior. unfortunately, country laws are restricting it from doing so. instead of offering legislation that corrects the problem, the so-called reform bill being pushed through the help committee does the opposite, prohibiting companies from implementing this safeway program. let me repeat this: the bill that's currently being pushed through the help committee doesn't let companies consider employees' health status when providing insurance. meaning employers would be banned from rewarding healthy

behavior like safeway does and offering lower premiums to those who manage their chronic diseases and eliminate high-risk behaviors like smoking or lose weight. in other words it prohibited companies from implementing programs that have proven to cut health care costs. i thought that was the point of health reform. when it comes to making health care more affordable we should support ideas that work. americans want health care ideas that cut costs and improve care. the safeway model is an excellence place to start. the president supports it. republicans support it. and safeways experience has shown that it works. if democrats in congress are serious about making health care more affordable they should support it, too. instead of the rush and spend, rush and spend approach that has low tide a chaotic process and hugely expensive health care proposals that don't address the whole problem. democrats should slow down and consider ideas that have been

shown not only to be effective in delivering care but also effective in reducing costs. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mammogram. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: madam president, in about an hour, we'll be asked to vote on whether the united states senate can continue to do what the united states senate is supposed to do, and that is to amend and debate, amend and debate. when i ran for the united states senate, the people of tennessee sent me up here to represent them. snected that when i got here, i'd have a chance to say what i had to say on their behalf. what i think may not be so important.

what they think is really important. and they know that the history of the senate, as senator byrd has so often said, is distinguished really by only a couple things. one is virtually unlimited right to amend and virtually unlimited right to debate. and so what is going to happen at 5:30 is, we're going to be asked to vote to cut off amendments and to cut off debate. a vote "yes" will be a vote to obstruct, to obstruct our right to amend, to obstruct our right to debate, and to make it impossible really for me to represent the people of tennessee, who voted for me with the idea that i might be able to do that. let me explain what little -- a little bit more what i mean by that. there are a great many people who write books about america, but unquestionablely i think the best -- best-record such book is alexis de tocqueville's book about democracy in america, when the young frenchman came to this

country and wandered across this running into davie rocket, all sorts of people. when he wrote about what he thought might be long-term the greatest danger to the american democracy, he said he thought it might be the tyranny of the majority. he was afraid that in our type of system, what might happen was the majority would get control and run over the minority. so the united states senate was one of the institutions creelted to avoid that. stow when we get a situation where we have only 40 or 41 senators or 57 or 56 or more democratic senators and it's been the other way -- and it will be again -- when i first came to the senate, we had 55 republicans -- the minority always has a right to make sure that there's no tyranny of the majority so a vote "yes" at 5:30 is a vote to obstruct the right of senators to represent the people who hired them to come up here and offer an amendment and speak for them. and ironically, madam president,

it's a vote to give the majority the right to suppress a majority view, because what is the issue that is attempting to be suppressed? the issue is whether we ought to get the government in washington out of the automobile business. i think most people in the country are thinking, we're having too many washington takeovers. that's not the american way. we know we've had some trouble in this country economically, but taking over banks, taking over insurance companies, taking over student loans, taking over car companies, now maybe taking over health care? people don't like that. and so we have a series of amendments which are offered -- not all of them republican; some have bipartisan support -- and which would say, let's get the government out of the automobile business and put it back in the hands of the american people and the free enterprise system of america much that's a majority view in this country. according to the auto pacific

survie in nashville tennessee, 81% of americans say we agree the faster the government gets out of the automobile birks the better -- unquote. 95% disagree that the government is a good overseer of corporations such as general motors and chrysler. 93% disagreed that having the government in charge of general motors and chrysler will result in cars and trucks that americans want to buy. i mean, most americans don't want a car that a united states senator engineered, designed, and sold. that's not what we're here for. they know better than that. according to a ross musen poll, 80% believe the government should sell the government's stake in the aut automobiles. and 73% believe that the governors should sell their shares as soon as possible. according to "the wall street

journal," nearly 70% of those surveyed said they had concerns about federal interventions into the economy -- read "washington takeover" -- whug including the president's decision to take over general motors, limits on executive compensation, the prospect of more government involvement in health care. we have the situation where the president is calling up the mayor of detroit to get into the question of where the headquarters of general motors is going to be there or warren shall michigan. we have the chairman of the house bailout committee calling up the president of general motors saying don't close the warehouse in my district. we have all of us in congress saying, please build a car in my district. we have some congressmen saying, don't buy a battery from south korea. buy it from one made in my district. we have executives from car companies driving to washington in their cars to testify before driving home. the american people know