could lose his health insurance. but you don't have to lose your insurance to lose everything. when i was back in new mexico over the fourth of july recess, i stopped at a local tv station for an interview. i went to the front desk to check in and introduced myself to the woman sitting there it was like i touched a

c-span radio. >> government? c-span gets its funding through taxes? >> maybe, i don't no. >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public

service. a private business initiative. no government mandate. no government money. >> just before approving supreme court nominee >> good morning. we have a quorum. i want to thank all members of the committee for their cooperation for two weeks ago during our hearing, on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the supreme court.

we are not perfect and no hearing is. the hearing provided us a chance to ask questions and raise concerns. gave the nominee and opportunity to respond to relentless critics and having had to remain silent for the two months prior to the hearing. finally, it was her chance to have a public voice. it allowed the american people, most important, to see and hear judge sonia sotomayor for themselves. it is interesting, during those four days, almost 2000 people attended the hearing in person in this room. village and more -- millions more solid, read about it, newspapers, blogs, television, cable. and in the judiciary committee we have webcasting. i think that president obama was right when he told the american people last may that judge sonia

sotomayor would bring not only the experience acquired over the course of a brilliant career but the wisdom accumulated over the course of an extraordinary journey. a journey to find by hard work. fierce intelligence. and enduring faith in america. america, all things are possible. so i thank judge sotomayor and her family for participating in our hearing with such intelligence and grace. and i might say with inpatients. now comes the moment where this committee essays with a choice of whether to recommend his nomination favorably to the senate. each of us as senators has responsibility to vote yes or no. i look forward to a bipartisan vote. judge sotomayor is well-qualified. she has the highest rating the american buyers association. and one need look no further

than her experience, her ability, her temperament or judgment. the president nominated a person with more federal judiciary experience than anyone nominated to the u.s. supreme court nearly 100 years. he nominated somebody with federal trial judge experience, who will incidentally be the only member of the supreme court, the federal trial judge experience. and of course, he had tremendous experience in the probably the most active prosecutors office in this country. it is a record, she is a restraint, fair, and approximate judge who applies the law to the facts to decide cases. ironically, the few decisions for which she has been criticized in cases which she did not, did not reach out to change the law or defy judicial precedents, in other words,

cases which she refused to be an activist judge and make law from the bench. and her 17 years on the bench, there is not one example, let alone a pattern of her growing based on bias or prejudice or sympathy. she has been true to her word that she has been faithfully and impartially perform her duties as set forth by the constitution. as a prosecutor, as a judge, she is administer justice without favoring one group of persons over another. she testified directly to saying i am now serve as an appellate judge over a decade. deciding a wide range of constitutional statutory and other legal questions. throughout my 17 years in on the bench i have witnessed the consequences of my decisions. those decisions did not been made to serve the interests of

anyone litigant, but always to serve the interests, the larger interests of impartial justice. i agree with her. during my time in the senate, i have often spoken to the standards i use for judicial nominees. i ask myself whether the nominee be the kind of independent judge and be fair and impartial. as one of us tried an awful lot of cases, i look at a judge and i say, whether any american could expect fair consideration of this judge regardless of race, whether they are rich or poor, whether they are a person, a corporation, a defendant or the government, whether they are republican or democratic or independent. when i come into a courtroom i can look at a judge and say this judge will make up his or her mind based on the law, not on who the litigants are. and having reviewed the record, i know that judge sonia

sotomayor has been that kind of judge. i am very confident she will be that kind of justice in the united states supreme court. and so it is with enthusiasm and hope that i'm going to vote in favor of this historic nomination. i will recognize senator sessions and then we will go back and forth. is that okay with you? >> yes. very gracious and you conducted a fair hearing. i don't know if that is on or not, but you conducted a fair hearing. and for that we are appreciative. i think, people like little seven on our side against 12 on your side. had a duty and responsibility to ask the questions that are pertinent to this nomination. i believe they were done so effectively and thoroughly and fairly. i really appreciated the grace that judge sotomayor showed. she was patient, as you said,

and she took care to participate in the process. and anyway that i think reflected well on her personal personally. i would just say, mr. chairman, as i explain on the floor yesterday, based on her record as a judge and her statement, i am not able to support this nomination. i don't believe anyone should be on any court of the united states that does not deeply committed to the ideal of american justice. and that is that they should set aside their personal opinions and biases when they rule from the court. but in speech after speech, year after year, judge sotomayor set forth a fully formed i believe judicial philosophy that conflicts with the great american tradition of blind justice and fidelity to the law as written. her words and speeches are not being taken out of context, as some have suggested.

she has repeatedly said, among other things, that judges must judge when quote opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate closed quote. she accepts that who she is will quote a fact the facts i choose to see as a judge. it is her belief that quote a wise latino woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male closed quote. and there is quote no neutrality in judging, just a quote series of perspectives. well, those are phrases and words that have meaning. i will agree that her testimony did -- was not consistent with those repeated phrases and statements, but i have to say her testimony to me did not have

the clarity and the compelling nature that would overcome those speeches. but, for example, on the questions she testified when i first asked her and she was agreeing with justice o'connor, but in fact, and when judge o'connor said a wise old woman and a wise old man should reach the same conclusion, which is i think the ideal of american justice in her speech, she said no, i am not sure i agree with that statement. and went onto a plane why she didn't. and what her reservations were. so we were urged to look at the judicial record that she has established, and i have done that. most cases before the courts of appeals are fact-based, do not raise serious constitutional issues that other kind of the supreme court deals with on a regular basis. judge sotomayor decided three

cases in the recent months, in particular that are of the type that the u.s. supreme court hears on a regular basis. the decisions are extremely short. oddly short, frankly. and lack careful analysis. each reached i think an erroneous conclusion. each ignored the plain words of the constitution. in richie versus the steffen on oh, which came to our three-judge panel for the second circuit, it was an appeal by 18 firefighters. the task that nato to pass for promotion had been thrown out by the city, not because it was an unfair test. indeed, it was never found to be unfair but because the city did not like the racial results. her opinion violated the constitutional command, i believe, that no one should be

denied the equal protection of the laws because of their race. judge sotomayor did not deal with this important constitutional issue and a thorough, open and honest way. without justification, in my view, in violation of the rules of the second circuit, they initially dismissed the case by summary order without even adopting the lower court opinion, with no explanation whatsoever. the effect was to deal with it in a way that would not require the opinion to be published or even circulated among the other judges on the circuit. the circuit rule states that when summary orders are appropriate only where quote a decision is unanimous and each judge on the panel believes that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion closed quote. so it was only after another judge on the circuit requested that the case be referred that the panel issued a per curiam

opinion and the briefest nature only, a few sentences, adopting the lower court opinion. so i didn't feel good about that. that was a big case. a huge case of great importance. if not, the supreme court would not have taken and they were trying to dispose of it by summary order. judge sotomayor's treatment of a critically important second amendment issues that have come before her arm equally troubling. again, i think she got the text of the constitution wrong, and did so in a cursory way that seem designed to hide the significance of the case and her ruling. in maloney, even after the watershed decision by the supreme court in color, she held that it was settled law. that the second amendment did not apply to the states, and in the right to keep and bear arms is not quote a fundamental right. when asked about the maloney

case at the hearing, she claimed to have relied on precedent. but the precedent on which she relied considered the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. the supreme court is not really look at that clause for over 100 years. instead, it's look at the due process clause under the bill of rights. and a lot has changed how we do incorporation since the 1800s. and i think for her to fail to acknowledge that and to feel good knowledge that very clear suggestion in the heller case in that famous footnote, that this matter is now open for consideration. again, it is not settled law. in fact, the ninth circuit reviewed the supreme court decision in heller reached a different conclusion altogether. that's the second amendment does apply to the states based on the supreme court opinion, and i think that was a big error.

and would know that if her decision is not overruled by the supreme court, which she as buyers based on which she aspires to sit, then any city in any state in america could completely deny the right provided in the constitution to keep and bear arms. they could deny the right of people in their cities and their states to keep and bear arms. and a third case, handled in a similar cursory manner, the maloney case was, what, two pages, maybe less than two pages. was the important property rights case. three years ago, the supreme court in kilo decided three years ago after kilo, after the supreme court decided the kilo case, judge sotomayor's court ordered an opinion in which a private property owner found his

property on which he planned to build a cvs pharmacy taken by condemnation by the city so that another private developer could build a walgreens pharmacy on it. a developer who was pursuing a redevelopment supported by the city told the landowner he could keep the land and build that cvs as long as he forked over $800,000 to him and have ownership of his business. so another two page opinion, sure, without much discussion she rejected those claims. and the constitution says private property can only be taken for public use, and that was not followed in that case. so each of these three cases deserve to be treated with great thoughtfulness and care, yet in each instance or decisions were unacceptably short. and they are only consistency was that the result favored a liberal pro-government ideology

against the individuals asserting their constitutional right. so, mr. chairman, i appreciate you and i know people will disagree on this, and can disagree on its way. but after all that is said and done my evaluation of the testimony at the hearing and a study of the cases i mentioned, i have concluded that this nomination should not be confirmed and will cast a no vote. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to congratulate chairman leahy and senator session as well as your staff on judge sotomayor's confirmation hearings. the proceedings are fair to all members and most importantly to the nominee. today, i am pleased to cast my vote for judge sotomayor, an individual whose life stories and inspiration to millions of americans. a child of immigrants with modest means. judge sotomayor has risen by

exemplary academic accomplishment and hard work. now to the cost of confirmation to our nation's highest court. but judge sotomayor is much more than only a story of a college but. she has shown herself to be a judge truly worthy of elevation to the supreme court. both on the bench and before this committee, judge sotomayor has proved that she has the necessary character competence and integrity to serve on the supreme court. judge sotomayor is distinguished 17 year judicial record demonstrates her commitment to fair and impartial application of the law, and respect for the values which make up our constitution. at her hearing, judge sotomayor assured us that she will listen with an open mind to all sides of an argument, and that she will be mindful of the very real impact her decisions will have on each and every american. she pledged fidelity to the constitution and to the court's

precedent. as well as the responsibility to cautiously review president when justice requires. as we conclude our committee's action on judge sotomayor's nomination, i believe we need to reflect upon the role that confirmation hearings play in that senate's duty to advise and consent. while i have no reservations about my support for judge sotomayor, i share the concerns expressed by many americans, legal commentators, and others about our committee's ability to have candid and substantive conversation with nominees about the issues americans care about. we all know that the confirmation process is crucial. it is the public's only opportunity to learn about a nominee before he or she serves for life on the highest court in the land. but for many years, we have seen a familiar pattern for nominees. democrats and republicans alike. who would have learned that the path of least resistance is to

limit their responses and cautiously quote them in generalities. understandably, nominees don't want to risk their confirmation by saying anything that might provoke potential opponents. and we cannot ask nominees to disclose how they would vote on cases that might come before them. but it is reasonable for us to ask them to speak more openly about past supreme court decisions and how they would decide cases that are close calls. when reasoning, they would use date what reasoning they would use and what factors they would consider. the concerns i raised in not reflect any personal criticism about judge sotomayor. i think she responded to our questions with great an elective sincerity, and that she has rightly earned bipartisan praise. however, going forward, mr. chairman, i hope that together our committee can explore ways in which to achieve the greater candor that the confirmation process demands and that the american people deserve.

for example, we could convene a bipartisan group of committed members, members of the bar constitutional scholars, and perhaps members of the media with experience -- who have experienced following the court and our hearings to help us determine what specific questions we can't and should expect substantive answers about. if we can do this than the committee's unique opportunity to engage in nominees and the great legal questions facing our nation will more effectively fulfill the senate's constitutional duty. in the meantime, i commend president obama for nominating judge sotomayor, a woman of great ability to have demonstrated and injuring commitment to public service and to the law. i look forward to her tenure on the court. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator kohl. senator hatch. >> that you, mr. chairman. i want to commend you and the distinguished ranking member,

senator sessions, for conducting a fair and thorough hearings on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to replace justice david souter. i was especially pleased when judge sotomayor at the hearing was as gracious and fair as she could have asked for. i came to the confirmation process wanting to vote for a president's nominee and the prospect of a woman of the puerto rican heritage serving on the supreme court says a lot about our country, america. i like judge sotomayor and respect her to the committee and the nation. and as i expect her to be confirmed i know that her service will continue for years to come. i spent a great deal of time reading judge sotomayor's speeches, articles and cases, and i participated in all three rounds of questions at the hearing. i genuinely wrestled with this decision. i did not use a political standard taken by senator barack obama in 2005 when he voted against chief justice john roberts. he voted no even though admitting that the nominee was

qualified, humble, decent and had the temperament to be a good judge. senator obama voted against chief justice roberts because he thought the nominee's personal values, perspectives and empathy would lead him to results that senator obama would not like. i cannot accept that standard. i believe the proper judicial role in our system government focuses on the process of interpreting and complying law that leads to results, not on results themselves. and i believe that in the judicial process, judges must self-consciously anti-liberally set aside personal views, sympathies and prejudices so that the law, not the judge, determined the result. i have a statement, mr. chairman, which it played in more detail the decision i reached in this case and i ask consent that he be placed in the record. >> without objection it will be placed in the record, and of course the record will be open for any member who wishes to extend whatever they say. >> thank you. let me just say here that i

examined judge sotomayor his entire record with the more exacting scrutiny appropriate for supreme court nominations. her speeches and articles evidenced in describing troubling approach to judging that her hearing testimony did not result, as far as i was concerned. and some of her most important cases she gave short thrift of fundamental constitutional rights. and in my judgment use an appropriate legal standards and did not properly apply president. in the end, judge sotomayor is record regarding her approach to judging simply left too many unresolved controversies and too many conflicts with fundamental principles without judiciary which i deeply believe. as a result, i regret i cannot support her appointment to the supreme court, and my extended statement will go into this and much more detail. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> that you very much, senator. senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you for conducting these hearings in the way in which they were held. it is very much appreciated.

mr. chairman, it is interesting to me to hear the comments of those who clearly will not vote for this judge. for me, i look at her very differently. i see her as a most impressive person on a number of different levels. first, in terms of personal history. it is truly impressive. it is everything that our country is all about. secondly, in terms of qualifications, there are more qualifications for this job than virtually any other prior three nominees that i have heard as a member of this committee. 29 and a half years in the law, prosecutor, private practitioner, appointed to the federal court first by a republican president, secondly by a democratic president. and the analysis of her record by the congressional research

service says a very interesting thing. the most consistent characteristic of her approach as an appellate judge has been an adherent to the doctrine of decisive president. i think this woman has done a splendid job. she has shown a dedication to the law. this has been tested and tested. she has shown before us judicial temperament. this has been probed, and picked at. i find no example of infidelity to the law. at this point, mr. chairman, if i might, i would like to place in the record a sixth circuit court decision on eight ricci case like matter where the sixth circuit found exactly as she did, if i might. >> without objection. so ordered. >> thank you. i found no example of her not following resident.

precedent. to me as a woman to see this woman overcome the barriers that she has overcome, to have the education that she has had, to do with it what she has done, and to bring the kind of dedication and personality to the stable was truly impressive. i believe she has been an impressive judge. i believe she's been an impressive lawyer, and i believe she will be an impressive member of the highest court of this land. i will vote for her with enormous pride. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, very much senator feinstein. and senator grassley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. after much deliberation, i have concluded that i cannot support the nomination of judge sotomayor to the associate justice. the senate must confirm to the supreme court individuals who possess a superior intellect,

distinguished legal experience, unquestioned integrity, and even judicial demeanor and temperament. more important, the senate has a tremendous responsibility to confirm individuals who truly understands the proper role of justice as envisioned in the constitution. this is the most critical qualification of a supreme court justice. the capacity to faithfully interpret the law, and constitution without personal bias or prejudice. our system of checks and balances demands that judges not take on the role of policymakers. that's because our great american tradition of checks and balances envisioned that political and social battles be thought in the legislature, not the judicial branch of government. further, our american legal system requires that judges check their biases, personal preferences and politics at the

corners are just as lady justice dance before the supreme court blindfolded. judges and justices must wear a blindfold when they interpret the constitution and administer justice. i have been a member of the senate judiciary committee since 1981. and have voted to confirm both republican and democrat presidents picks for the supreme court using the standard. unfortunately, i believe that judge sotomayor performance at her judiciary committee confirmation hearing left me with more questions than answers. it is imperative that the nominee persuade us, that he or she will be able to set aside one's own feelings so he or she can dispassionately administer equal justice. yet, i am not convinced that judge sotomayor has the ability to wear the judicial blindfold and resist having personal biases and preferences dictate her judicial method on the supreme court.

president obama clearly believes judge sotomayor measured up to his empathy standard, which encourages judges to make use of personal politics, feelings and preferences. this radical, empathy standard stands in stark opposition to what most of us understand to be the role of the judiciary. to her credit, at the hearing, judge sotomayor read pba president obama's empathy standard, but sotomayor's record, both in and out of the courtroom revealed to me a judicial philosophy that bestows a pivotal role to personal preference and believes in her judicial method. in speeches she gave in law review articles she wrote, over the years george sotomayor doubted that a judge could ever truly impartial. she argued that it would be quote a disservice both to the law and to society unquote for

judges to disregard personal views shaped by one's quote differences as women of asian women or men of color and quote. she proclaimed that the court of appeals is where quote unquote policy is made. she said that a wise quote wise latino would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male in the quote. and disagreed with a statement by justice o'connor where justice o'connor said quote a wise old woman or wise old man would eventually reached the same conclusion in a case in the quote. she said that judges should look to foreign law so that they can get quote unquote creative juices flowing. at her confirmation hearing, judge sotomayor attempted to explain these statements away. however, i have problems harmonizing her answers with the

statements that she repeated over and over again throughout the years. the statements made at the hearing and those made in speeches and long review articles outside the hearing are, in my mind, polar opposites of each other. they are not compatible and cannot be reconciled. i also question the reliability of statements made at a formal hearing where the nominee is clearly prepared to answer questions as compared to statements that were made over the years in any onguard manner without any restrictions and without a set goal in mind, that being confirmation to the judicial branch. in addition, judge sotomayor's record on the bench raises serious concerns. hard questions -- her hard cases say the most about a judge, and we all know the supreme court takes on only hard cases.

well, those are the cases that raise the most concerned with this nominee and what she would do if she is confirmed. first, her record before the supreme court is not a particularly impressive one. she was reversed eight out of 10 times and was criticized another one of those 10 cases. so the supreme court disagreed with her nine out of 10 times. in addition, some of her cases raise questions about whether she will adequately protect the second amendment right to bear arms. and up-to-the-minute property rights. statements she made at the hearing raise concerns that she will inappropriately create or expand rights under the constitution. further, some of her statements raised ushant about whether she will impose her personal policy decisions instead of those of the legislative branch or executive branch. at her confirmation hearing, judge sotomayor was questioned at length about her understanding of rights under the constitution, including the

second and fifth amendments and the right to privacy, and the rationale for decisions in it ricci, maloney and other cases. she was also asked about how she views president, and how she applies it in cases before her. unfortunately, i wasn't satisfied judge sotomayor's responses about her cases or her general understanding of rights under the u.s. constitution. moreover, i wasn't assured of judges dish sotomayor would disregard her strong personal sympathies and prejudices when ruling on hard cases dealing with the important constitutional issues. for example, i wasn't persuaded by judge sotomayor is claimed that she followed president in ricci, nor her explanation as to why she could dismiss such a significant case without -- with

absolutely no legal analysis. i was concerned with judge sotomayor's explanation of her decision and maloney, holding that the second amendment is not fundamental and her refusal at the hearing to affirm the americans have a right of self-defense. if maloney is upheld by the supreme court, the second amendment will not apply it against state and local government. thus, permitting unrestricted limitations on this important constitutional right. i was troubled with judge sotomayor's failure to understand that her decision didn't dramatically and inappropriately expands the ability of state and local -- state and local government to seize private property, and she mischaracterized the supreme court holding in kilo. judge sotomayor's discussion of landmark supreme court cases and her own decision on the second circuit did not convince me that

she understands the rights given to americans under the constitution, or will refrain from expanding or restricting those rights based upon personal preferences. or was i persuaded that the judge will not allow those personal beliefs or preferences to steer her judicial method. and outcomes of cases. at her confirmation hearing, almost two years -- two decades ago, then judge souter -- or at his confirmation hearing, i want to refer to judge souter. speaking about filling vacuums in the law. this is something i brought up with her. that concept greatly worries me because courts should never fill voids in the law left by congress. judge souter's decision on the supreme court, i believe, demonstrates that he does believe courts do indeed feel vacuums in the law, and in the only case of voting for a supreme court judge either by a republican or democrat, i

regretted my vote to confirm him ever since. so i've asked several supreme court nominees about chords filling vacuums at their hearings. judge sotomayor's lukewarm answer left me with the same pit in my stomach that i have had with justice souter's rulings that i had hoped to have cured with his retirement. and it reinforces my concerned with her hearing testimony cases and speeches. in conclusion, all judges must have a healthy respect for constitutional separation of powers and judicial restraint. all judges must be bound by the words of the constitution and legal precedent. however, supreme court judges are in a very special position with respect to their decision-making process. the supreme court has the final say on the law. justices on the supreme court have fewer constraints on their judging then judge it on the

district or appellate court. so it's critical that we ensure nominees to the supreme court will resist the temptation to mold the constitutions of personal beliefs as one witness testified at the hearing, the judicial restraint of the supreme court, justice is self-restraint. she is a remarkable woman. she is talented individual. woman of substance and personality. a trail brazier. there is no doubt of her intelligence. integrity, or distinguished legal background. we are proud of those accomplishments. however, i don't believe that the judges assesses our critical ingredient of supreme court justices. unfortunately, i am not convinced that judge sotomayor will be able to set aside her personal biases and prejudices and decide cases in an impartial manner based upon the constitution. i am not convinced that judge sotomayor were protecting important constitutional rights,

nor am i convinced that she will refrain from creating new rights under the constitution. i am not convinced that judge sotomayor understands the proper role of a judge in our system of checks and balances. only time will tell, whether judge sotomayor will sit on the supreme court. is that the judge who proclaims that the court of appeals is where policy is made? is it the judge or is it a nominee who pledged fidelity to the law? is that the judge who disagreed with justice o'connor's statement that a wise woman and a wise man will ultimately reach the same decision? or is it the nominee who rejected president obama's empathy standard? only time will tell. and i hope that i am wrong on this vote, but i think based upon what i saw judge souter do and where she is coming from, i think i'm right by voting no. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i will be brief but i do want to say a few words about judge sotomayor and about the hearing process we have just been through. first, i want to commend you and your staff for a remarkably well-run proceeding. i think that anyone who saw the four days of hearings would agree that the process was scrupulously fair. everyone got a chance to ask all the questions they want to ask if they had the time they needed for follow-up questions and four follow-ups to those follow-ups. and no stone was left unturned even if he answers the judge gave weren't always what the questioner hoped to hear. what the public doesn't see as the work is done done behind the seat to get us to that point, not just the setup of the room and all the complex preparation that goes into the smooth running of the hearing itself. but also the enormous effort to make all the background information that gave the committee on line virtually. all of judge sotomayor is speeches and articles over 100 letters and reports from people who know her, or organizations that wish to express their views on her nomination.

as well as all the mergers received from the organization response to the committee's request. mr. chairman, i think you set a new standard for transparency and public access to supreme court nomination proceedings. and i truly want to commend you for that. thank you for all you and your staff have done. it's been tremendous work. the scrutiny to be applied to a president's nominee to the supreme court is the highest of any nomination. the supreme court alone among our court has the power to revisit and reverse its president on and so i believe in the one who sits on that court must not have a preset agenda to reverse agendas with which he or she disagrees and much recognize and appreciate the awesome power and responsibility of the court to do justice when other branches of justice infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of our citizens. and that is the same standard i applied to the nomination of both chief justice roberts and justice alito. what we saw over four days of hearings in the nomination of

judge sotomayor was a thoughtful, intelligent and careful judge or a person committed to her craft and to the law, someone who is remarkable life story, and buried extremes will add diversity and perspective which the court sorely needs. not only will judge sotomayor become the first latino justice and only the first woman to serve on the court but she will be the only justice who assert as a trial court judge and she will have more judicial experience at the outset of her service on the court at any of her colleagues did. there is no doubt she is heilig will fight. and i think we saw during those four days of hearings that she hasn't -- as an admiral tepperman and demeanor that will serve her well on the court. judge sotomayor's record and testimony satisfied me that she understands the important role of the court in protecting civil liberties, even at a time of war. she sat on a second circuit panel that struck on portions of the national security letter statute that was so dramatically

expanded by the patriot act when i asked her how september 11 changed her view of the law, she gave the following answer. the constitution is a timeless document. it was intended to guide us through decades, generation after generation, to everything that would develop in our country. it has protected us as a nation. it has inspired our survival. that doesn't change. and later when we discussed the case, she said a judge should ever rule from here on a judge should rule from the law and the constitution. those words give me hope that she will have the courage to defend the liberties of the american people from an overreaching executive or legislative branch. at the same time, she appreciates the deference the judiciary must get to the legislature that seeks to solve the problems facing the american people. i don't see in her record or in her public statements a burning desire to overturn precedent or to remake constitutional law in the image of her own personal preference. a nicer but don't see any bias of any kind. i was also impressed with her record and statements during a hearing on judicial ethics.

judge sotomayor seems to understand that the extraordinary power shoe will wield as a justice must be accompanied by extraordinary care to guard against any apparent conflict of interest. mr. chairman, all that being said, i do want to express a note of dissatisfaction. not with you, surly or with my college and not with judge sotomayor. but with the nominations process that i think they'll to educate the senate or the public about abuse of potential justices on the supreme court. in this regard i completely associate myself with by remarks from senator kohl. i said before that i do not understand why the only person who cannot express an opinion in it virtually anything that the supreme court has done in recent years is the person who the person dinner can public needs to most you. it makes no sense in a. they can hear future cases, not withstanding the fact that we know their views on the legal issue because they wrote or joined an opinion a previous case that raise a similar issue. but nominees with a court can't refuse to tell what they think about that previous case under

the theory that doing so would compromise their independence or the ability to keep an open mind in a future case. i remained unconvinced that the dodger that all nominees now use i can answer that question because the issue might come before me on the court is justified. these hearings have become little more than theater where senators try to ask leverage questions and nominees try to come up with clever ways to respond without answering. this problem survey did not start with these hearings or this nominee, but perhaps it is inevitable. chances of the senate rejecting a nominee who adopted the strategy are very remote based on the recent history of nominations. nonetheless i do not think it makes for meaningful advice and consent. so i cannot say that i learned everything about judge sonia sotomayor that i would have liked to have learned, but i did learn about her makes me believe she will serve with dissension on the court and i should vote in favor of her confirmation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. thank you others with the

personal comments. senator kyl, later told me that he has to be elsewhere has consented that he had a statement he once placed in the record which of course we will. senator sessions has his proxy and will be able to vote when the times comes. so next is senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to add my compliment to you and senator sessions for conducting the hearings or whatever shortcomings they may have in terms of finding out about the nominee. i think you did a good job of giving us a chance to ask and senator sessions the very good job i think of being the loyal opposition. i can get is a little bit early, and you can tell it in my vote. i am going to vote for the nominee. and i cannot disassociate myself being a second term senator from what almost happened three or four years ago. i really enjoy politics. it's been a great honor to represent people of south carolina and to be able to have

a say about things that matter in the country in a political form. i enjoy traveling all around the country trying to help senator mccain. i failed in that endeavor. everybody has, you know, they don't feel about this or that i didn't feel good about the election. but we lost. i feel good about the country. i feel real good about the american people. and quite frankly, i feel good about judge sotomayor. what i am trying to do with my vote is to recognize that we became -- we came perilously close to damaging an instituti institution, the judiciary, that has held this country together in difficult times. the courts have been all over the place like the american people have been all over the place. sometimes, they have led our ideals down and some of their decisions. but more times than not the courts were a little bit ahead of the public or politicians on some very important concepts as to who we are.

and the filibuster that were going on a few years ago were historic in nature, and i think if carried out and keeps repeating themselves will overtime drive good men and women away from wanting to become judges. we ask for the scrutiny that we have as politicians with the ads that would run against each other and all the things we said about each other. we have a chance to respond, but to be a judge is different. you know, the theory senator sessions ex-spouses is true. the law should be a quiet place where even the most unpopular can have a shot. no way could you win in the election, but you might win in court because there is something a little bit different going on in that courtroom than 50 plus one. so this quiet place we call the law really concerns me that we are about to change it and make

it just an extension of politics in another form. so that's why i'm happy with his hearing. there were no filibusters. into my colleagues who voted no, i understand. i completely understand. to my colleagues who voted for justice robert, i have a better understanding what you went through. lahey, feingold, kohl, you decided to vote for a man you would not have chosen. i am deciding to vote for a woman who i would not have chosen, and as the hearings went on it got easier, not harder for me. because all of us seem to have abandoned the senator obama just which would be good for the senate and the country. i can no more understand her heart than she can understand my. in this and the idea makes us all kind of doctor phil's. i feel uncomfortable doing that. i really do.

so i base my vote on qualifications, and i came away after the hearing be leaving that she was well-qualified. that the american bar association gave her the highest rating anyone could receive, and that meant a lot to me and it means a lot to me now. that she was confident, not just qualified. and it's not me saying that. is what everybody who has worked with her has said. and she is a good character. so when i rejected the empathy hard standard and went back to what we used to do around here, i found that she was extremely well-qualified, 17 years on the bench, 12 years as a circuit court of appeals judge, left of center but certainly within the mainstream. and as to my good friend, senator grassley, she can be no worse from suitor from my point of view. so there is not going to be a major shift in the balance of power here. but what she will do as a judge, i think, will be based on what

she thinks is right, and that is not the same that are hoping that. that is based on a 12 year record where i haven't seen this activism that we all dread and should reject. and there's another story here. the speeches. the speeches did bug the hell out of me. not because i disagree with what she was saying. she was a judge at the time she was giving the speeches. and she embraced some concepts that just really were unnerving, but you know what? how many of my speeches would unnerved people on the other side wacs probably almost all of them. the speeches had to be put in context of her judicial record. and i do not want to set a standard here, mr. chairman, where people are aspiring to be a judge will never have a thought, never take on an unpopular cause. the client she represented i

would have represented as i. i would've been on the other side. but that is okay. and i hope our democratic colleagues will remember that if a conservative republican gets back in the white house that it is okay to advocate a position that is different than we would advocate ourselves because it could lawyering is required for a good country. and you want to reward good lawyers when you find them, whether you agree with him or not. so i took the speeches and/or advocacy role and i put it up against her record and ties leave believing that she is well-qualified, of good character, and her record over a longer time is within the mainstream. and the last thing i would like to talk about is not the reason to vote for her or against her, but it is something to acknowledge. we are 200 something years old as a nation. this is the first latino woman in the history of the united

states to be selected for the supreme court. now, that is a big deal. i would not have chosen her, but i understand why president obama did. i gladly give her my vote because i think she meets the qualification test that was used in scalia and ginsburg. and if she, by being on the court, will inspire young women, particularly latino women, to seek a career in the law, that would be a good thing. and i believe she will. i wish her well. america has changed for the better with her selection. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator graham. and senator schumer. >> thank you, and i want to add my compliments to you, mr. chairman, for the judicious way

you have conducted these hearings and i want to say to senator sessions, i thought his questions were sharp but fair, and to all of my colleagues that way. i also want to thank senator graham for that moving and important speech that he just gave in favor of her nomination. mr. chairman, and one final thing, i am sorry to be coming and going here. we have democratic meeting in the finance committee to try and tie things down, so i apologize to my colleagues for that. mr. chairman, i am enormously proud to be able to cast my vote today in favor of the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor. this is a historic day for america. americans are familiar with the inspiring story that brought judge sotomayor from a bronx housing projects through a prestigious legal education, and now to a nomination to the highest court in the land. it is a great american story. it will inspire americans,

everywhere. americans of all races and creeds and colors. to reach further and aim higher. and four that the country is already better off. but judge sotomayor is a gifted jurist and dedicated public service, not just an inspiring story. she is a judge with a 17 year record on the bench, more than 380 opinions on the appellate court alone. and yet the word that she was asked about most often during the hearings were these three. quote, why's latino woman. to take a 17 year judicial career and sum it up in three years is unfair. it is unfair to judge sotomayor. it is unfair to the supreme court. it's unfair to the american people. my colleagues did ask about a handful of cases, the new haven firefighters case, the second amendment case. but they were unable to prove anything other than what we knew

before the hearings. she follows precedence. in her courtroom, rule of law comes first. judge sotomayor's opinions speak much more clearly and loudly than snippets of speeches. her speeches as she said were to inspire and motivate her opinions are to instruct and guide. as chief justice marshall said, quote, to say what obama is unquote. and when we have so many opinions to reveal it is troubling that colleagues seem to be looking for reasons outside of her record to try and posit that she is outside of the mainstream. of course, even with such a large trove of opinions to examine, hearings do matter. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were entitled to ask their questions. i was pleased to see that even the most difficult questions were asked and answered, respectfully. that judge sotomayor's answers

only emphasize what is abundantly clear from her lengthy record on the bench. she comes to the bench without arrogance and without an agenda. i have three tests for evaluating judicial nominees. excellence, moderation, and diversity. judge sotomayor passes all three with flying colors. no one can seriously doubt her legal excellence, and i don't think anyone here does. on moderation, i have a hard time understanding how anyone can conclude that she is anything but moderate. in cases ranging from business to criminal law to immigration, she is squarely within the mainstream. in her 17 years on the bench, she has not produced even a stray thought that could be viewed as a way outside the mainstream. finally, the diversity she will bring to the bench is not just cosmetic. it arises not only from her race

and gender, but also in her working-class upbringing and her unique experiences, just as it did for other supreme court nominees such as justices alito and thomas who spoke movingly of their own backgrounds. . .

i am so proud to vote for her today. >> thank you very much, senator schumer. thank you for introducing her for the committee. go senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues and as others have think the chairman and the ranking member for the manner in which an these hearings were conducted, judge sotomayor herself with knowledge that she could not have received a pair treatment before the committee and it is my hope that will set the town's for hearings in the future that perhaps somehow we have established a new standard of fairness held by both democrats and republicans as we consider future nominees from the bench. last week i made in my clear

intention to vote no on the confirmation of it judge sotomayor to the united states supreme court and i will do so for several reasons. the person call judge sotomayor's record as a judge on the district court and court of appeals is generally in the mainstream, some of her decisions demonstrated the kind of results oriented decision making one that suggests perhaps eight liberal judicial activism that is too often steered the court in the wrong direction of the last year's. this decisions relates to the second amendment, and provision of the bill of rights, not a trivial matter. i think we would all agree. the takings clause of the fifth amendment, the right to private property rights and the right to just compensation and their assurance that private property will not be taken for anything by the governments of of them for public use and then, of

course, there is the troubling new haven firefighters case that others have spoken about it and it's not just the decision that judge made without substantial evidence of disparate impact liability, it's also the manner in which almost dismissively the judge refused to give what i believe a fair consideration of the firefighters claims in a way that i would hope every judge, every federal judge would. second, many of spain and public statements about judging conclude very radical ideas on the role of the judge in our society, some have said that we can consider those but to consider only her judicial record and not consider other statements she has made about how judges should perform an office i think is an incomplete picture. she has said there is no neutrality in the law. she has said that legal uncertainty is a good thing

because it allows judges to change the law and to make policy. she has said that form what can get the creative juices flowing, as judges interpret the united states constitution. and that ethnicity and gender can and even should have an impact on a judge's decision making. now i would concede that those are hard to square with her statement that her soul standards as a judge is fidelity to the law. but that i think demonstrates that conundrum with which many of us are left. this committee gave a judge sotomayor and the opportunity to explain the reasoning behind some of her most controversial decisions as well as some of her public statements about judging and to allow her to put that into an a appropriate context, but i don't believe she cleared up the confusion over what kind of justice and she would be.

because i have no confidence which a judge -- judge sonia sotomayor we will see on the supreme court i will say, i will vote against the nomination. the stakes are too high to votes and confirm someone who could redefine the law of the land from the bench. i know many senators say the position that judge sotomayor will not address legal questions from a liberal activist perspective. and i hope they're right. i also hope for testimony before this committee represents a teaching moment, in the one that defines our consensus on what the proper role of a judge should be. in the past have seen to have had a very heated disagreements about judicial philosophy and judicial activism. we debated the original understanding versus involving constitution yet i think a remarkable for an happen to in the course of a judge sotomayor's confirmation hearings. we seem to have agreed that

judges should interpret the law, not make the law. we seem to agree that judges should rely upon the original intent of the framers when interpreting the constitution, not on foreign law or international law. we seem to agree that judges should apply the law of italy and not move the law in one direction or another based on their own policy preferences and, yes, we agree that judges should be impartial and not pick winners and losers based on some of subjective empathy standard or what ever is in the judge's part. mr. chairman, i think we have come remarkably close to embracing the hamiltonian standard in federalist 78, where he called the judiciary the least dangerous branch having either force nor will merely judgment. if that is a bath the case that i think we will have accomplished much in the course of this confirmation process.

i for one would find that consensus encouraging we have defined with the judicial mainstream is and we have made clear that radical views on judging have no place on the federal bench. and we have set expectations i believe for future nominees. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cornyn, and senator durbin can i thank you very much, mr. chairman. a few weeks ago my colleague and friend, senator al franken came to my office the day after he was sworn in, we talked about his new role in the united states senate and some of the challenges he already face and he talked about the first three votes that he cast as united states senator. i tried to remember the first three rows cycas as a u.s. senator, i couldn't, have to have served in the house and senate for a time you come to realize that you have to be reminded of some of these votes but there are some votes that you will remember for a

lifetime. one of them is a vote on whether our nation should go to war. that is a type of boat that you will always remember. is one of the most import decisions we make. and so is this decision. because we are asked to judge whether a man or woman should be appointed alive to serve on the united states supreme court. to the court that defines our personal rights to privacy, decides that the restrictions of that can be placed on the most personal aspects of our lives and our freedom, the supreme court decides the rights of workers, consumers, immigrants and discrimination victims. the nine justices decide whether congress has the authority to pass laws, to protect our civil-rights and environment, then decide what checks will cover the executive branch in war and peace. and because these are so important we obviously need justices with intelligence, knowledge of the law, proper judicial temperament, and the commitments to impartial

justice. in the 220 year history of the united states 110 supreme court justices have served under our constitution. 106 of them have been white males. we have had to women justices, and to african-americans. that is why this is such an historic moment. because president obama's nomination of a sonia sotomayor is, indeed, ground-breaking. in life and in our nation if you want to be the first of you have to be the best. sonia sotomayor will resonate -- resumed a i think means that standard which take a look at her life, her splendid life story. you may not be able to see it as some of us have seen from this side of the table, we said there during the course of this hearing as judge sotomayor told her life story and i spend more time watching her mother than watching her. the her mom who knotted the as

judge sotomayor told that story. growing up in public housing and losing her father when she was nine years old, struggling to succeed against adversity and illness, of reaching the pinnacle of success and academic achievement at princeton and the same talos school, serving as a prosecutor and going on to be selected by president george herbert walker bush to serve in the federal judiciary and then promoted by president bill clinton a rare occurrence of that someone receives a bipartisan support for their judicial service which she had. and each time as those facts are recounted i watched her mother nodding. recalling what her daughter had achieved. what a great story is for america. when a great star is that president obama would give us a chance to consider judge sotomayor to serve as the first hispanic woman on that u.s. supreme court. for many who opposed judge

sotomayor her life and achievements of her judicial record are just not good enough. after poring over 3,000 court decisions and hundreds of for speeches judge sotomayor's critics focused their opposition primarily not exclusively but primarily on one case, the ricci case, and on one senses from one speech. i hope some of us is keeping track of how many times those three words whys latino woman were quoted during the course of this hearing senator after senator asked her what did you really, really, really mean with those three words? over and over and over again. we are senators who live in a world of decision and those everyday and we understand when our decisions and those are questions unchallenged often in an unfair fashion. if we vote in a way that is controversial we ask that people be fair, judges saw a life's

work, not on a single votes. it's a standard we asked for ourselves but obviously for some it's not a standard that would give it judge sotomayor when it comes to her decisions. we also live in a row of senators of revised and extended remarks, jokes that flopped, and verbal gaffes, many want to condemn the sonia sotomayor for her twice led to the remarks. that she conceded was rhetorical flourish that fell flat but i listened carefully to what she had to say and i noted that they end of the day that she had received the highest possible rating from the american bar association which interviewed 500 judges and practitioners in order to assess her integrity, competence and temperament the highest possible rating. in my state of illinois the conservatorship of "chicago tribune" said this of the testimony: in four days of

testimony under often intense questioning judge sotomayor handles herself with a brace and patience. she displayed a thorough knowledge of case law and appreciation of her critics concern. the result was two reinforce a strong case that she will make a good supreme court justice and deserve senate approval of a lot has been said about the issue of empathy. and this question of the wise latino woman. i pointed out when i asked judge sotomayor that the wise latinas piece contains a line that her critics didn't often quote and that line judge sotomayor noted in the same speech that it was nine white male justices of the supreme court who unanimously handed down the brown vs. board of education. in other cases upholding sex and race discrimination judge sotomayor made it clear iteration that no single race or gender has a monopoly on good

judgment. for some of my colleagues judge sotomayor's statements on the road are not good enough. i would hope that senators would be wise enough themselves to look at judge sotomayor's long record on the bench and not all one line in one speech taken out of context. let's be honest, a great deal of this debate is about diversity why do we seek diversity when it comes to appointments and the federal bench? first, we are a diverse nation. second, we want every american to believe that having equal opportunity to succeed and lead, but we also want every american that black, white and brown, male and female to know that our system of government is fair. we want all americans to look at our congress and our courts and feel there are leaders who can identify with and diversity of life experience in this great diverse nation. does anyone really believe that there is a clear objective

answer in every case that comes before the supreme court? the press -- the president is clear and the what is so clear? if they do try to explain why one-third of all the rulings of backcourts in the past term for decided by a 524 vote? does anyone really believe the supreme court's recent strip search case would have come out the same way it just isn't -- justice ginsburg, the only woman on the court at this moment had been held or a male colleagues and as i was like for a 13 year-old girl to be treated in such a humiliating fashion? does anyone really believe that women judges have an helped them understand the realities of sex discrimination and sex harassment in the workplace? study after study has shown that men and women on the bench sometimes will differently in discrimination cases. this doesn't mean their rulings are based on personal bias, it's simply a knowledge is that americans see the world through a prism of varied experiences and perspectives.

our supreme court justices should possess an equally rich and a wide field of vision as they interpreted the facts and the law. criticizing judge for recognizing this reality is somewhere. mr. chairman, something has happened since we concluded the hearings which is unusual in a major lobbying group in washington d.c., the national rifle association, has for the first time notified that their members and colleagues that this is going to be on the scorecard. the gun lobby the national rifle association has come out in opposition to judge sotomayor, i believe it's the first time they've ever taken a position on a supreme court justice. i listened to her testimony on the milan case. most of the criticism of her is focused on the case. but in that case she came to the exact same conclusion as prejudge panel of the seventh circuit base and the homestead and illinois which featured two of our most conservative icons on the federal bench. frank easterbrook and richard

posner, they concluded that only the supreme court not appellate courts can overrule century old a supreme court precedents on whether the second amendment right to bear arms supplies to the states. i realize in the national rifle association of arson and allies alike that ruling, they have wanted judge sotomayor to do the ninth circuit did an overrule supreme court precedents. but in the milan case judge sotomayor did but an appellate court should do is to follow the law. this nomination is the third supreme court nomination and voted on in 12 and half years i've served in the senate. because the stakes are so high i believe supreme court nominees carry the burden of proof and then come before the senate. they must prove they are worthy of a lifetime of women to the highest court in the land. judge sotomayor has met and exceeded this burden. america will be well served when judge sotomayor becomes justice sonia sotomayor and i enthusiastically support her nomination.

>> thank you, senator durbin. senator carmen. >> thank you mr. chairman peer in not i am trying to figure out how to catch -- catch my words as i have just been condemned that because i am on the basis of my vote might not be on something that senator durbin would think to be appropriate, i would imagine that's the ninth circuit ruled the opposite of your circuit, senator durbin on the second amendment. and i would also known for the record that the very person on our side the question when judge sotomayor on her wise latina comment was the remember that is going to be voting for her. he had more questions of her than anyone on our side on that regard. so i think it's somewhat of care to characterize us with a broad brush. i am proud that president obama has nominated such a distinguished woman. i identify with senator coal and senator feingold.

and the great disturbance that we have and that we can get real answers in these hearings. i believe what we say as judges truly does come from our hearts. most of her speeches were before teaching moments there either students or legal societies or others. and i believe she believes in which u.s. and. and i also believe she has great credit that she a lot of times is not allowed her personal beliefs to influence her judgments in. but the dissidents that i came away with is what you believe you ought to stand up for and defend and then did venture record to say i can still be a great judge but on the two questions, the two questions when she was asked what about former law and her outside a

very critical and very negative statements about justice thomas and then to walk away from that and saying that she did not say that is just flat not accurate. and then also to finally come to a point recognizing the supreme court justices job is not to who think about what the rest of the world thinks about us, their job is to interpret the constitution and to use of the statues and our constitution and the facts. i think she is one impressive individual. and i thoroughly enjoyed her head, i liked her a lot, but that's not good enough and doesn't have anything to do with other the whether i believed of confidence, with confidence that she has an understanding of the second amendment, that if the moment, the 14th amendment and the fourth amendment.

and although i will have a complete written statement for the record, she is going to be on the court for life, they get a change. they get to change and all know how the major instances and shifts in this country that have taken out when they have done so. so i go back to what senator coal said when we started out, we need to change the rules for the hearings. we need to let judges really know, let us know what they think that also sell us on the fact that they, in fact, are impartial dividers of the truth, regardless of what they think. that is the characteristic of a great judge. is it their personal thoughts don't enter, that they take fax all of the facts and decide what the ruling will be on the basis of a that and that only. two have something other than that on the supreme court which

i agree from both sides of the aisle has happened. it hurts us in the long run so i align myself with, a senator's feingold and coal and hoping that future hearings although i think it was a remarkable hearing, the chairman did a great job and i think the american people back to see a a great deal of this very fine woman. i regret that i cannot vote for her. and i can't love for her now because she is a latino woman and i can't vote for her because she has said all those things, i can vote for her because she would defend what she said and stand up and said i really believe this but i can still be a great judge anyway. because i will never let that interfere with my judgment. and that's what i was looking for and it was in there and without high-yield.

>> senator carden. >> mr. chairman, first let me observe this is my first opportunity to participate in the confirmation process of a supreme court justice and i just wanted thank you mr. chairman, chairman leahy, for the manner in which he has conducted this hearing, how to thank senator sessions for the areas in which two work with our chairman so that each one of us would have the opposite to ask as many questions as we want to get all the information. i might point out i've been told by staff that there are 17 questions asked on a wise latina so we not only complement the judge sotomayor for her patients but i also want to compliment to the chairman and ranking member for their patience. and allowing each of us to pursue the information they thought was relevant to evaluating judge sotomayor's qualifications to serve and on the supreme court of the united states. i believe is judge sotomayor, her background and professional accomplishments will and strength, balance and leadership

to the supreme court. for personal sorry that we have heard about being part of an immigrant family from puerto rico, the fact as to receive a scholarship to be able to attend college, it is an inspirational story. in about success in our country. we know who her professional background as a prosecutor, a trial judge and appellate judge having more judicial experience than any nominee for supreme court in a hundred years. her command of legal precedents and her ability to challenge attorneys and their legal arguments will bode well to read to the right decisions in the supreme court of the united states. her leadership ability in forging consensus among the judges in the second circuit will be in a talent that i think will be very helpful in the supreme court of the united states. she is mainstream and in her judicial decisions and opinions

here, with a direct sense of the role of a judge to decide a case based on sound legal precedents man and a the backs of the case giving due deference to the congress of the united states. she has a record of understanding the constitution and that the bill of rights. as a timeless document able to protect individual rights against the abuses of power applied these protections to contemporary challenges. to follow precedents and to enhance individual rights. that i get to confidence that she will reach to the right decisions for the right reasons, not only based upon her response to our questions and she answered every one of our questions, but in reviewing her decisions and opinions. that's where and that we should spend most of our attention. so let me just mention a few. i have confidence she will follow the protections that congress has passed in

protecting our environment. the river keeper case gives me that confidence. i have confidence that she understands the importance of freedom of speech in the decision that she reached in giuliani, the speech was repugnant and all of us find repugnant and she understands the importance of the constitutional protections. i have confidence she will pursue freedom of religion, the ford vs. mcginnis case where she protected the rights of religious freedom for a minority. that whose religious practice is not as well-known by the majority in our population. two protected the civil rights of americans and the equal opportunity and racial justice, we had the chance case or she did that in our schools protected the rights of an african-american. the boy can case or she protected the rights and housing matters which are very important today, we know of predatory practices against minorities in

our community. i have confidence that she understands those concerns. i was particularly impressed by her commitment on voting rights in response to my question ignores a this is a fundamental right, she showed in the hague in case a difference for following congress and protecting voting rights. you'll be particularly burma as a look at the voting rights act. and she has shown understanding of privacy rights. here we don't have a court case is that we can look at but her response to our questions and your back and giving confidence as you will respect legal precedents in the man's privacy in the 21st century. as i said in the beginning mr. chairman this is my first opportunity to participate in the confirmation process of a supreme court nominee three years ago who told the people of maryland how i would judge judicial nominations. by their experience, their temperament and understanding of the constitution of the united states. of all these reasons i will vote

for the confirmation of judge sotomayor to be justice sonia sotomayor. >> thank you very much, senator, i appreciate that. senator white house. >> thank you chairman and thank you for your wise and fair leadership of the use confirmation proceedings. i also think the ranking member. for his fairness and courtesy brought the proceedings. i will be proud to go in support of judge sotomayor's confirmation to the supreme court. i appreciate as another sharon and others do her background as a prosecutor. and i believe her noncontroversial 17 year record as a federal judge makes clear that she is dedicated the rule of law, as a proper judicial temperament and gives every party before her a fair hearing. i also believe the unequivocal pledge that judge sotomayor gave me that she will respect the role of congress as

representative of american people, will decide cases based on a lot and the fax, the issue will not prejudge any case a listen to everybody that comes before her, and as she will respect president and limit herself to the issues that the court must decide. in short as to use the broad discretion of a supreme court justice wisely. to promise that, and i take her at her word. mr. chairman, i think we are witness here to an effort tibet to define justice in america in alignment with a particular point of view. my colleagues are entitled to their point of view. and they are entitled to the point to do about guns, they're entitled to the point to be about property rights, they are entitled to appoint to be about other issues. what i resists is any effort to define that point of view as a judicial norma against which any

other point of view is to be seen as an aberration as biases and prejudices to a use one quotation. in this case i further believe that their definition of justice in america, their definition is just plain wrong both at history and as justice. in particular i do not wish to force as the new judicial norm this sort of judges who to paraphrase a recent article on the supreme court of be in every major case but for the corporation and against the individual, for the government against the criminal defendant and for the executive branch against the legislature. i do not wish judges without empathy who will ignore the long and proud history of the court room as a last stand for many beleaguered american. where they can get peerless

justice even when all of the forces of politics, proper opinion and of corporate power may be arrayed against them. but the judges willing to provide that peerless justice even if it completely upsets the status quo. i would ask that i find no fault in judges who want as the price of entry to the court committed to expanding our newly minted individual right to own guns, a ride that no supreme court for 220 years had previously noticed and that was created in a 524 decision by a divided and court. so i will with pride support judge sotomayor nomination and is an honor to serve on this committee and to love for such a talented an exceptional person. we all realize that judge sotomayor will be in a sort justice but i think we can also expect that most important issue will be an excellent justice.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator white house, i appreciate the comments. senator hoffman. >> senator klobuchar, i apologize, former prosecutor before she came here as was senator white house, please go ahead can i thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i wanted to thank you and the ranking member for holding such a civil and dignified hearing. i had a few people say it got boring at times in a bid that is suggested to the prior two that was a sewell and dignified hearing. like many of my colleagues i have been so impressed by judge sotomayor. like senator durbin i most remember her mother sitting behind her, the mother who when her father died in at age nine judge sotomayor was raised by the mother who has hardly any money coming years as a chairman to buy the family encyclopedia britannica as. and when you watched that family

and her brother it reminded you that judge sotomayor knows a lot and she knows the constitution but she also knows america. one a series of paris in particular resonance with me and that is immediately after graduating from law school that she became a prosecutor. and i believe that experience and my discussions with her will forever shape how she views the law. as a prosecutor at you interacted with victims of crime, at to see the damage that crime does to individual families into communities, you know that the law is not just an absurd subject, is not just a booking you're baseman's. you see how the law has a real impact on the lives of real people judge sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor tells me that scene is one of my criteria for supreme court justice. i'm looking for someone who deeply appreciates the power and impact of that loss in the criminal justice system have on real people live.

and then addition. >> as a prosecutor relearned a lot about judge sotomayor's long record as a judge. she came into this as a nominee with more federal trial judge federal court experience than any nominee in a hundred years. now i believe that my colleagues on this committee are entitled to oppose judge sotomayor's nomination if they wish, but i do get concerned when people returned again and again and again to a quote in some speeches. and i was so pleased that senator gramm, my colleague from south carolina, but the speeches in some context. you have to look at her whole experience, you have to look at her 17 years as a judge, you have to look at the fairness that she brings to this job. in the riss of senator moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. and in this case the facts are her judicial record. the nominee was repeatedly questioned about whether she

would lead to bias or prejudice inspector judging. she was question for hours, question for days but again if the tax still support this kind of bias. in race discrimination cases for example judge sotomayor voted against plaintiffs 81 percent of the time. for decisions are supported by precedents where she served on panels with republican appointed judges, she agreed with them 95 percent of the time. i appreciated senator evans discussion of the maloney cases, i agree with howard case but that other kids specifically left open that question that judge sotomayor was confronted with in the milan case and, in fact, the decision that she and her colleagues came to was the same decision that that three judge panel on the seventh circuit came to which included judge easterbrook and judge postman who repressers the university of chicago law school and i was there and i can tell you they're not exactly rabid liberals.

and i just wonder if people would be using that same case against them if they would before us today as with use against judge sotomayor. judge sotomayor also handed out what virgil sentences than her colleagues as a district court judge thomas to sentence white-collar criminals to six months in prison, 40 percent of the time nor as others did so 34 percent of the time. and in drug cases 85.5% a convicted drug offenders received a prison sentence of at least six months from judge sotomayor compared with only 79 percent in her colleagues cases. now the nominee was questioned repeatedly about issues ranging from the death penalty to use some form of. even though she rejected a defense challenge to the death penalty in the ones that counts in case she considers as a district court judge and even though she has never cited for a lot to help interpret the provision of the u.s. constitution. again, the facts are in her

judicial record appear to receive a nanas positive writing from the aba because she is a thorough judge to basis for decisions on the? she was supported by prosecutors across the country and by police across the country, why? because they looked at her record and i trusted her decision making. i think just about everything in the nominee's professional record is a fair game to consider and that's why i believe this was a civil and dignified hearing. but that said when people focus on a few items in a few speeches, you have to wonder to a few statements that someone made an entire career trump 17 years of a modest reason, careful judicial decision making? there is one other point i wanted to address that has been appointed and that's because it irritated me and that was the issues that are raised about the stories and thomas mostly anonymous that question number judge sotomayor's judicial

temperament. according to one news story about this topic judge sotomayor developed a reputation for asking tough questions at oral arguments and for being sometimes brisk and courage which lawyers are not prepared to answer them. well, or i come from asking tough questions and having very little patience for and repair of lawyers is in the very definition of being a judge. as a lawyer to the bench and to your clients to be as well-prepared as you possibly can. when justice ginsburg was asked about this anonymous comments regarding the judge sotomayor's tavern and recently she rhetorically asked, has anyone watched justice scalia or justice breyer on the bench? surely we've come to a point in this country where we can confirm as many runs to the point female judges as we have confirmed rock to the appointment of judges. in charge mr. chairman i am proud to support judge nomination. and i believe you make an excellent supreme court justice.

she knows the law and she knows the constitution. but she knows america to, they carry much care and thank you very much, senator klobuchar and next senator collins. >> mr. chairman, i was like to begin by others thinking you, im in a fair hearing and everyone had a chance to speak, everyone had a chance to ask questions and it was a very well-run. >> thank you. >> judge sotomayor is an outstanding nominee. number she has a superior intellect, broad experience, superb judgment, and unquestioned integrity. two would be a terrific choice and any time. but given our current economic crisis and the like the role of the court in reviewing legislative response to the crisis, i submit that she is the ideal nominee at this time one thing we have learned over the last two years is that we must reform our financial markets.

judge sotomayor's expense -- extensive experience as a commercial litigator, a business lawyer, judge and business cases, and of the passion for the long as she has demonstrated throughout her career suggests she will be a leader on the court of business and regulatory issues at a time when such leadership is essential. as the sensual been excellent nominee and especially at this time piven mr. chairman, i like to make my seven on july 24th on the four injured in the record to this meeting. >> without objection so ordered king and thank you. >> nexus is senator specter of burchell chairman of this committee and certainly one of the most knowledgeable lawyers in the senate, senator specter can i thank you mr. chairman. i will vote to confirm who judge -- judge sotomayor. she brought to her confirmation proceedings and assure their record. none better than on the 11i

participated in and none other than i have reviewed. pretty tough to be summa cum laude in princeton, pretty tough to make the yale law school admission. even tougher to become a member of a the yale law review. then an outstanding prosecutor poppins and the dean of american prosecutors, the mark and all came to testify about how good she was, extraordinary record, professionally and private practice. a distinguished record on the bench and of those qualifications and up to about an a-plus. the criticisms made ever on the wise latino woman i thought were not only ill founded, but i appreciated on into when you

consider that women were not given the right to vote until 1920 and when you consider me the record show is now from senator feinstein, when you consider that there is still a tremendous glass ceiling when you consider lily ledbetter that go on and on about the appropriateness of a woman standing up for women. the woman didn't stand up for women i would not think much of her. and senator durbin had a poetic sequence of questions about women's insights that are different from men's insights and believe me, from a senate to came here with one woman senator, senator kassebaum, and

the second was added senator paula hawkins, is a very different place. today with 70 women and a bit much better place. there was a book out, nine women and growing, and now it is 17 and will grow even more to the benefits of this institution. and when she refers to being a latina, that is a little of ethnic pride. i think that is a pretty healthy thing. two have a little of ethnic pride. so i not only found, i did not find fault with the wise latino woman, i thought that was commendable. and then the business of empathy. there is no doubt about the history of the constitution and our country responding to empathy. the life of the laws experience, not logic, cardoza, shifting

values, plus a versus ferguson, 1896, a separate but equal, the border reeducation, shifting values all the time and that is what makes this country so great. the one great concern, the one regret i have about -- connected and watch this event in its entirety on our website including the 13 to six committee vote approving judge sotomayor's nomination. now we leave the last two minutes of this record a program for live coverage as of the u.s. senate returns to continue work on energy department and water infrastructure spending. i have letters today from a woman in clarmont county, east of cincinnati, a gentleman from lake county and a lady from lake

county. and a gentleman from columbus. i want to read these letters because this is really what the health insurance debate is all about. it's not about -- it's partly about preexisting condition and exclusivity and gateway and exchange and public option. all of those terms that we all throw around. but what this debate is really about is people who are hurting because of the insurance -- health insurance situation in this country. we know it's broken we know we need to fix it. these are real people. people i have talked to, my office have talked to people, for instance, lee parks, whom i sat next to at medworks as she was helping people without insurance. there were some 1,500 people led by -- some 1,500 people that came by without insurance.

they needed eye care, medical care, dental care. there were several thousand like leigh parks and her husband. let me share some of these letters. this is wes from columbus. i'm a 42-year-old single male. i have been able to make sure that i had health insurance up to march 2007. it was then that antheh raised my premium. i had to decide whether to pay for the insurance or continue to put money into my business. i chose the business since without it i wouldn't have had access to insurance anyway. i tried get coverage, but because of my three spinal surgeries two signus surgeries and a prescription, no one will cover me. he capitalizes no one. ohio has something called open enrollment. each month the insurance company has to legally accept anyone

with preexisting conditions. the way they keep people away is to keep the rates high. 2002008 aetna quoted me a rate f of $2,006. he said that it is clearly never get coverage. margaret writes, i'm a 06-year-old whom has cancer. i worked in a law firm in cincinnati for 27 years as the records manager. i've had four recurrences of cancer, so far been very lucky, but the doctor said it will be back and get progressively worse. i'm worried about the pain, disfigurement and death. she has oral cancer. she is worried that she will not be able to work following treatments and not have a job and health insurance. four years i'll be on medicare, but the cancer is coming back within months now. my husband is several years

older, will probably be retired before i could get medicare. she writes, if you want -- do you really want a truck driver on the road in his late 06's. i worry that we'll lose the house and everything that we worked for. mr. president, this is a letter from a woman in lake county. i'm 80 years old, i have several health problems making it necessary to take prescription drugs. last year i fell into the doughnut hole. this is the bush provider of health care. it is prescription drug benefit, sort of. it was a bill written by the drug companies an written by the insurance companies and betrayal of the middle class in this country. she writes, i fell into the doughnut hole in july and only made through the rest of the year due to the doctor giving me examples. my son was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, he was treated with recommend remicais

costs tens of thousands of dollars a year, for which there is no generic substitute for which there is no way to get the price down. my son changed jobs as the new insurance wouldn't allow remicaid, and would allow humira if he paid $1,000 a month in copay. that's the reason we need biologic, generic biologic reform. it's the reason we need a health insurance reform plan. the last letter i'll share today, mr. president is thomas from lake county. my name's tom zedak, i work for the united steel workers union, i received information from one of the companies i represent that kaiser is requesting a 30% increase in premiums. this company received another quote from anthem and anthem's increase will be 15%. he goes on and tells me about his son who has down's syndrome

and three open-heart surgeries, his wife has cancer and the medication she takes costs approximately $5,000 to $6,000 a month. he said that i and my wife have good health care, but as i said we might lose our jobs. he worked for 36 years in the steel industry. along with other workers, he tells us middle-class families played by the rules and this is what happened. mr. president, these letters -- these letters are four of hundreds that we get -- many of us every single day. i've had more calls and letters an e-mails this week about health care than any other week in my entire -- in my whole senate career, my whole house career for the last 18 years. more letters on health care on this subject than total letters i've gotten any other week since i've been in the congress much mr. president, this is so --

congress. mr. president, this is so serious. this is absolutely a necessity that we work on this. people say -- people that say go slow, need to understand there are 14,000 americans every single month losing their health insurance. many of them live in my state. we need action. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: i ask consent that the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i'm chairman of the executive congressional committee on china and i wanted to make very brief statement while we are awaiting members of the senate to come an offer amendments. senator bennet and i -- senator

bennett and i have been really patient here. we have a good number of amendments fiesmed so we're waiting -- filed. so we are waiting for the amendments on the underlying appropriation bill. as the chairman of the executive congressional commission on china, i wanted to talk for a minute about human rights and the rule of law and some developments in china that concern me a great deal. i want to say a few words about the increasing harrassment of human rights lawyers in china. some have been disbarred. their law firms have been closed. others have been physically harassed or beaten. one thing they have in common is they have the courage to take on politically sensitive cases. i want to say a few words about china's most famous rights lawyer. it is 174 days now since ghu was

last seen taken from his bed by more than 10 police an thugs. his captors, the national defense unit of china's public security agency threatened to kill the young lawyer during previous detentions that were marked by horrific torture. what was his transgression? why is he in trouble? he agreed to take politically sensitive cases as a lawyer and represented some of the most vulnerable people in china. he sought to use the law in china to battle corruption, to overturn illegal property seizures that were happening substantially to expose police abuses and defend religious freedom in china. in october of 2005, ghu wrote an open letter to the president of china detailing the torture by authorities. a month later the authorities

shut down his law firm and revoked his right to practice law and in 2006 he was convicted of inciting subversion of state power and placed under house arrest. in 2007, security officers abducted him again. he was brutally tortured for 50 days. his abduction was prompted by an open letter he wrote to us in the u.s. congress. think of that a lawyer in china wrote a letter to us, members of the united states congress. in it, he alleged widespread human rights abuses in china and described the government's treatment of him and his family, treatment including torture. his captors called him a traitor, they warned him he would be killed if he told anyone about having been abducted and tortured. once released, he was placed again under home surveillance. his family faced constant police surveillance and intimidation.

his daughter barred from attending school, lost hope as a young girl. the treatment became so brutal that the family finally decided that their survival depended on their escaping from china. but gao was too closely monitored and couldn't think of leaving without placing his family at great risk, so because of the monitoring 24 hours a d day, he just didn't want to be in a situation where he would leave his family at risk. and so in january of this year, gao's wife, six-year-old son and teenage daughter were smuggled out of china and then into the united states. thithis is a photo of gao, his wife, his son and his daughter. this photograph describes a family in china, a family with mr. gao, a lawyer with a law firm that practiced law in support of the most vulnerable in china. and he ran afoul of the chinese

government. mr. gao disappeared 174 days a ago, has not been seen or hasn't been heard from since. so as i indicated, last january, gao's wife, six-year-old son and teenage daughter were smuggled out of china and into the united states. and after his family fled china, then gao was abducted once again from his home and no one has seen him alive. now, we know that his situation is extremely grave. i have met with his wife. i've spoken about this on the floor of the senate previously. his wife came to washington, d.c., and was on the balcony when i and others spoke about the plight of mr. gao. his wife, of course, fears he may have been killed. the chinese government has not let anyone know his whereabouts or see him despite repeated appeals by united nations agencies, by our government, by foreign governments, the

n.g.o.'s and the media. the chinese government has signed and ratified many international agreements, human rights agreements, that would require it to come clean about mr. gao. i have written to the chinese ambassador to the united states, got a letter back that was a nonanswer. i call on the ambassador again to answer the questions: where is mr. gao being held? is mr. gao alive? what is the chinese government doing to this poor soul who has previously been tortured simply because he speaks out and practices law in support of those who are vulnerable in china? we call on the chinese government to give us information about mr. gao, to allow him access to a lawyer and to his family and to publicly state and justify the grounds for his continued abuse. the right to speak freely and to challenge the government, all of

these are enshrined in the constitution in china, and yet it appears the chinese government and the communist party seem intent on upholding the violation of these rights in the case of mr. gao. what has the chinese government done to mr. gao? how do they justify it? when will they allow his family to see him? the government's continued refusal to produce mr. gao makes this case resemble those of the -- quote -- "disappeared" in latin american dictatorships. american law has the practice of habeas corpus. it's the legal action through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of himself or another. nothing similar to america's habeas corpus exists in chinese legislation or in practice. but the u.n. conventions against torture, which china ratified now 20 years ago, obligate it to come clean about gao. i urge the government of china to disclose his whereabouts and justify the grounds for his

continued detention. once again, this is a photograph of a very courageous man, a very courageous chinese lawyer who has been incarcerated and tortured and now has been apparently abducted and perhaps incarcerated, perhaps killed, we don't know. i call on the chinese ambassador to the united nations and i call on the chinese government to tell us what has happened to mr. gao. mr. president, mr. gao's family and mr. gao's wife continually await word now 174 days later after this courageous lawyer in china was abducted. having been abducted before and having been tortured before, they worry very much about the safety of their husband and their father. my hope is that this government, our government and other governments, can expect some word from the chinese government

about the whereabouts and the well-being of mr. gao. mr. president, i yield the floor and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dorgan: mr. president? mr. president, might the senator yield? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, let me ask consent that on morning business statements during the course of this bill, they be limited to ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: mr. president, i'd ask that i be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to speak of an issue that has dominated a lot of the time and attention, and appropriately so,

of this senate and of the congress overall and the american people and, of course, that is health care. we've heard so far a vigorous debate but, in my judgment, a debate that has not had nearly enough facts on the table, and some of those facts, of course, are the facts as they relate to what's in our -- what's in the legislation. right now what's before the senate is just one bill, the health, education, labor, pensions bill, which came out of our committee -- i'm a member of that committee -- came out just a few weeks ago, 13 democrats voting for it, 10 republican senators voting against it. we await anxiously the deliberation -- further deliberation and the markup and the amendments which will lead to a vote in the finance committee. we do await that with a lot of

anticipation. that will cause further debate, and appropriately so. but i rise today to speak of a -- two or three topics as it relates to where we are now. one is the question of the cost of doing nothing, the cost of staying on the road that we're on, the status quo, because that's one -- one choice for the american people. and the other path is the path of change and reform, staing with and working with president obama to create the kind of stability that the american people should have a right to expect from their health care system. and that stability should be -- relate to, i should say, and framed by a number of important considerations. certainly stable costs. too many americans, even those who have coverage, see the costs going up all the time, they can't afford to pay them often, whether they're in a family or whether they're running a small business. we need to give them through

this legislation the kind of stable costs going forward into the future. we also need to make sure that we have stability as it relates to quality. plenty of -- millions -- tens of millions of americans covered by a health care plan from a health insurance company but are not getting the kind of quality that they deserve, and that's a real indictment i think of our -- of our system, as strong as it is in some other areas, it's pretty weak in some of our quality indicators. and thirdly, i think we want to make sure that we ensure stable choices. the american people have a right to expect that at the end of the road of this legislation when a bill is sent to the president -- and i sure hope that we can get there, and i think we can -- that the president will be able to sign a bill that has a -- a sense of stability as it relates to choices. why is it that the american people should not be given choices, not only from a menu of private options but also be

given the opportunity for a public option? not a public option that is vague and -- and overreaching but a public option that has the same rules that every insurance company has to develop a plan. in other words that it's -- that the plan will be solvent, that the plan will be self-sustaining. awful those features would be part of the public plan. but the threshold question still is: do you want change or not? do you want to stay on the road we have been on, the status quo, or not? and huers where the - here's whi speak about the people of pennsylvania but i also know that these numbers that i'll cite have a national implication as well. if we do nothing, if we stay on the path that we are on -- now it is 2009 -- by 2016, according to one report by the new america

foundation, here's what happens in pennsylvania if we do nothing, if we stay on the road that is called the status quo. the do-nothing, let's-not-change road. here's the result -- and i quote from page 86 of the report -- quote -- "by 2016, pennsylvania residents will have to spend nearly $27,000, or close to 52% of median household income to buy health insurance for themselves and their families. this represents a 93% increase over 2008 levels and the sixth highest premium cost in the country." i have not found yet -- and i don't think i ever will find -- a family in pennsylvania, rich, middle income or poor, who will walk up to me and say, "do you know what? you shouldn't do anything about

health care, everything is just fine. we should just stay on the road we're o. and when it comes to 2016, my family and committee afforand i can affordto spend 5n health care." i don't think we're ever going to find anyone in pennsylvania or america who will be able to make that statement, because no one can afford that. but, make no mistake about it, that is the path we are on right now as it relates to the cost to families across the country. here's another segment of this report on the same page. gej, aagain, as it relates to pennsylvania. "people seeking family health insurance through their employer in pennsylvania will have to contribute" -- will have to contribute, meaning by 2016 -- "more towards premiums than residents of all but one state." "the people of pennsylvania," the report goes on to say, "will

also experience the greatest percent change by contributions nationwide. by 2016, people in pen seeking family coverage through their employer will contribute almost $9,000 to the cost of the premium. to be exact about it, you're talking about a premium increase from $ 3,510 in 2008 to $8,830, almost $9,000 for health care. again, i don't think i can run into anybody in pennsylvania or america who says, let's just stay where we are. everything is great. everything is wonderful doovment do anything. don't pass any bill. don't worry about getting it done. we can afford to stay on the path we're on. in a word, in a word, that leads to, if anything, instability for a family, instability -- the inability to make ends meet for a small business. that's the road we're on right now, and at some point in this

debate -- and we're going to have more and more debate -- there are going to be people in the senate, senators and house members across the way, who are going to have to decide which team are you on? in my judgment, there are two teams: irk the reform and change team that president obama has developed and the set of policies behind that, or the "let's not change; everything is okay; let's stay on the road we we're on and let's stay with the status quo." in my judgment, in my judgment -- and i know the people of pennsylvania pretty well. i've run statewide a number of times. i believe that people are going to support change because the road we're on right now is the trod ruin when it comes to our -- is the road to ruin bh it comes to our economy, when it comes to the bottom line of families and small businesses. every week we know: right now, another indicator of the cost of doing nothing --

every week right now 44,230 people lose their health insurance. that's unsustainable. you can do all kinds of positive things in our economy. you can talk about creating jobs and doing all of the things we hope to do to build a strong economy. but when you're a country where 44,230 people every week are losing their health insurance coverage, we're all in trouble. for pennsylvania, between january of 2008 and december 2010, a rather short period of time, just a little less than three years, 178,520 people in pennsylvania are projected to lose their health care coverage. again, i don't think we can stay on the road that we're on right now. mr. president, let me conclude with just some thoughts about the other debate on cost. what i've just outlined is the cost of doing nothing. the cost of doing nothing is very, very high. in fact, i i think it's

unsustainable if we're going to have any kind of economic growth and family and small business stability. just for -- two or three quick examples of ways that the senate health, education, labor, and pensions bill -- the health choices act, helps bend the curve, to help bring costs in line over time. in 2000, the institute of medicine conducted a comprehensive study of the economic cost to society of the uninsured arising from poor health and shorter life spans. poor health and shorter life spans. an updated study again by the foundation, estimates that the economic sloes now up to $207 billion a year. by contrast, the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, recently when they were analyzing the house bill, said that it would cost some $202

billion by 2019. not today, 2019. less than the savings to the economy from the -- from covering the uninsured. so the bottom line right is now we're spending currently right now per year $207 billion in terms of the costs resulting from poor health and shorter life spans. you don't have to be a math major to cost that out over ten years. just add the zero. so it's entirely possible from this formulation that if we're spending $207 billion -- or losing, should i say, $207 billion to poor health and shorter life spans as a result of the uninsured, you're talking over ten years $2 trillion by that estimate. so, we can choose to stay on the road that we're on, which means we lose more than $200 billion

every year because of what's happening in people's lives who don't have health insurance -- it is not free. by one estimate, every person in this country pays about $1,000 a year because others are uninsured. so the idea that if we cover more people somehow that's going to cost people money, it's already costing people money today. so i would argue that we should abandon the idea of doing nothing. we should abandon and not even discuss the idea of staying on the road that we've been on, because the road that we're on right now means people in my home state of pennsylvania will pay more than half their income to health care, will continue to be part of the spending -- or the loss of revenue of over $2 -- $200 billion each and every year, and finally, small businesses won't be able to make ends meet with those kinds of numbers. so, we'll continue to talk about

costs and how we can reduce costs -- and that's an essential item, an essential priority in this debate -- but we also have to talk about what's happening to people right now and what's the cost of doing nothing. and the cost of doing nothing, in my judgment, is far too high for any american and candidly for any country to sustain. we cannot stay where we are now. we have to bring about change. i believe we're going to do that this year, if we choose to be on the right team in this debate. mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. dorgan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: while we are waiting for our colleagues -- the presiding officer: we are ein a quorum call. mr. dorgan: i ask that the quorum call being vacated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dorgan: mr. president, while we are waiting for our colleagues, some of whom will be offering amendments, we hope, iped to describe very briefly an amendment that -- i wanted to describe very briefly an amendment that i'm going to offer later, and i just talked to senator bennett about it. let me describe, if i might, if i can have a page put this up on the tripod, let me describe, if i might, an executive order that was established by president clinton in 1993. that executive order, "presidential documents, the

deficit and productivity improvement in the administration and federal government." slings what the president did in 1993 was require federal agencies to delineate between their pram program costs and their overhead costs or general administrative costs. and the reason he did that is he wanted to begin cutting overhead or administrative costs. the first thing a business will cut by and large to deal with a downturn in business is to begin tightening your costs on general overhead expenditures. you can't do that with federal agencies because there's no distinction between overhead costs. the minute you propose any cut, they say, you're trying to cut programs that are so important. so president clinton proposed an executive order, initiated an executive order in 1993, and the result is, nothing happened. so you had an executive order of the president requiring the federal agencies to do the following: separate and report their

administrative and general administrative overhead expenditures versus program costs and almost none of them complied. so i began discussing with my colleague, senator coburn, a piece of legislation that we have since introduced -- dorgan and coburn -- maybe an odd couple; they have different records on some issues, not all -but we decided to introduce a piece of legislation that had the same requirement as existed in 1993 but in this circumstance make it stick and then ultimately begin a reduction in overhead expenditures, but the first step of that is to get the information, to gather the information with each of the major federal agencies on what is general administrative overhead expense and what is their program expenditures. when the transportation security agency was first created some years ago, a few years ago, for example, they decided to hire program screeners.

that was, they began some overhead costs and trying to recruit. and they held a hearing -- i held a hearing on this in fact. they had 20 recruiters begin a seven-week stay at the wyndham resort in tellure ride telluridn colorado. a total of 50 people. some days only one or two applicants showed up. but they hung in there. as i began to investigate that they had recruiters show up at the waldorf his storyia in hawaii, the hawks kay resort in the florida keys. so they were recruiting peeled and spending a lot of administrative expense doing so and apparently sparing no expense. a couple of years later in the same agency, they spent $1 million hon a an awards banquet. they hired a party planner for

$85,000. three balloon arches, seven cakes for $1,800, $1,500 for three cheese platte he is theassments some cheese they had. i don't mean to pick on the t.s.a., but the fact is, the bureau of indian affairs spent $28,000 to send 14 of its most senior staffers to a four-dayt four-daytony robbins motivational seminar. overhead? it seems to me it's not overhead anybody ought to be supportive of. the participants, by the way, in that seminar, training in how to shed excess weight quickly and enjoyably, how to reignite the passion in your physical relationship. they were asked to walk on hot coals with minimal training. so the 28,000 -- the $28,000 from the bureau of indian affairs could have paid the annual salary of a fifth-grade school teacher at an indian school, on an indian reservation.

last month -- or,us could me, just a week or two ago, the bureau of the federal debt said it was going to hire a consultant to teach employers house to be funny in the workplace. they were going to teach staff by the use of cartoons. i pointed out that this is a bureau of public debt. there's very little funny to the taxpayers about the public debt and they scrapped that. in fact i got a fairly upset letter from the cartoonist who had bid on the project. but my point is simple: there is fat in government agencies, especially the big agencies that have grown and have never had to trim overhead and general administrative expenses. that brings me back to the clinton order of 1993 that has never been complied with by the federal agencies. a presidential order that directed certain things for which there's been no action. and senator coburn and i introduced s. 948 with the objective of reviving that executive order and having the information by which to begin trimming back some or

belt-tightening some with the federal agencies on overhead expanexpenditures. i'm not offering our amendment in entirety to this legislation. but i am going to offer to this legislation the first step of that amendment, which would mirror the executive order and say that we expect, tholes of us who are appropriators, that the federal agencies will distinguish between overhead and general administrative expenses versus the program expenses. we need to know and should know. my hope is when we know that information we will be able to at least initiate some belt tightening because with the kind of federal budget deficit we have, the deficits are growing, i think they are unsustainable and very dangerous for our country. we need to tighten our belt in a wide range of areas. the legislation we have introduced would begin to accomplish that but in order to accomplish that the first step must be to get the understanding of what the separate expenditures are of general

administrative expenses and overhead expenses so i will be offering that amendment as we go along. we will be here, apparently, for a longer period of time and at some appropriate moment i will offer that amendment and hope for its inclusion in this legislation. mr. president, i yield the floor. i make the point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request? mr. dorgan: i am happy to withhold my request. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: mr. president, i would like to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. thank you, mr. president. as the nation debate over health care reform wages on some complaints about the inherent

inefficiencies of the government program, some are frightened by the prospect of washington bureaucrats deciding what treatment people receive. but these skeptics always fail to mention the massive inefficiencies of widespread denial of coverage that has already -- is already present in the private market. private insurance companies are accountable to two groups: their customers and their share heelders. the competing interest make for a dangerous tight rope to walk for insurers. paying off too many claims, keeping insurance premiums too low may lower profits and anger investors. paying off too few claims or raising premiums too high could cause consumers to choose a different plan if one is available. the problem is, mr. president, that the consumers do not have

options. the past decade we have seen unprecedented consolidation in the insurance industry. we have seen over 400 corporate mergers involving health insurers over the past 13 years and 94% of the nation's insurance marks are now considered -- and i quote -- "highly concentrated" meaning they are post antitrust concerns. these localized monopolies stack the deck against consumers because there is no longer real competition or choice. the result? the beginning of this decade, the five largest insurers increased their profit margins by at least 50% and two of these companies increased margins over 100%. it is not surprising, mr. president, that the cost of medicare skyrocketed over the past decade and the price of health care insurance has

increased at a faster rate while companies raise premiums, they also work on devious new ways to deny claims. many insurers have created barriers to delay and limit care. preauthorization requirements and burdensome unnecessary paperwork mean the health care providers spend more time dealing with insurance industry red tape and less time treating their patients. whole industries have sprung up around finding ways to deny insurance claims. one insurance company boasted they are "managing the spiraling cost of health care." the company claimed their efforts can reduce paid claim costs by up to 10% while changing benefits or making claims systems upgrades. this means taking advantage of consumers by denying claims

based on mere technicalities. many of my -- if any of my colleagues believe insurance companies have not gone through the pain of a coverage denial. all of the extra paperwork, administrative requirements, actually cost a good bit of money and that cost is passed directly, mr. president, passed trillion on to the consumers. what some don't want to tell sufficient that government programs are actually much more efficient, not less. administrative costs for programs include medicare, medicaid and tri-car ar tricared private costs are 23n% in the small group market and 12.5% in

the large group mark. mr. president, these numbers speak for themselves and the insurance industry has become distracted by the desire to maximize profit at the expense of those who need care. we cannot stand by and watch as american people are taken advantage of especially in a time of need when someone's health is on the line. that is why i'm proud to support the public plan that will compete with private insurers. this option would provide a low-cost alternative to the private market, bringing back competition and choice. it would press insurers to end their abusive practices and high profit margins and would help eliminate the red tape at the same time. no one should be forced to change insurance plans. no one would face higher premiums. no one would need to fear their coverage would be denied by a

corporate giant on a few extra dollars' worth of profit. robust public option would help make insurance available to those who don't have it, increase efficiencies, and reduce costs for every american. the time to act is now, mr. president. we must not let another year go by without meaningful reform. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a strong public option. the time is now, mr. president,-and-as it has been 50, 60, almost 70 years we have been working on this program for health insurance for all americans. it's time we get it done. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. dodd: mr. president i will take a few minutes in morning

business -- are we in morning business, mr. president? the presiding officer: we are on the bill. mr. dodd: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. dodd: i thank the presiding officer. let me just take a few minutes, if i may, on the subject that i know is the preoccupation of many of us if you are not even on a committee, the discussion of health care is the dominant debate that's occurring and our nation certainly -- i know our colleague from the state of montana, senator baucus, along with senator grassley are working in the finance committee and as many of my colleagues are aware, i was asked to fill in for senator kennedy who is struggling with his own battles on brain cancer. and as the acting chair of the health, education, labor and pensions committee. we completed as most of my colleagues are aware, our efforts about three weeks ago on our portion of the "help"

committee debate dealing with workforce issues, fraud and abuse, allegations in the medicare-medicaid questions and coverage questions. the rest is left to the finance committee and at the end of that process the goal is to marry these two pieces of legislation together in one bill so we have made that effort and we spent about five weeks, over 33 sessions and considered some 300 amendments in that process. in fact, we agreed to about 160 of my fellow colleagues' amendments from the republican side. good amendments, i might add. some were technical but many were substantive adding to the value of the bill. and while it didn't turn out to be a bipartisan bill in terms of the votes that were cast, if you can define at least one definition of bipartisan that the bill itself reflected the contribution and ideas of many people, to that extent it is bipartisan. we are waiting until the finance

committee completes its process. despite our efforts, people want us to have a deliberate process, one that we can say at the conclusion of which we did our very best, evaluated the situation, as well as we could and came up with the best requests we could to move forward. it has been 70 years, as most people know, since we adopted the health care system we have in our country and every president, both political parties and every congress since the 1940's has grappled with this issue, unsuccessfully. obviously, we passed medicare and medicaid and the schip program and other ideas that have contributed to a large extent to the health care system we have today, but, certainly, the overall reforms of the system to move from a sick care system to a truly health care system have defied resolution. so we're at it again to see if we cannot defy the odds and do that which no other congress and no other government has been able to do for more than 65

years and that is to come up with an answer that will give people primarily a sense of confidence, a sense of stability, to take away the uncertainty that many people feel about the present health care system. most of us, of course, in this country have health care insurance. a lot of those who are insured are underinsured. they have to pay a lot of out-of-pocket expenses with high deductibles so a lot of what they may face with health care crisis is paid for out of their pockets. the insurance coverage does not cover. others have no insurance at all and the numbers various but i think most agree that the number hovers somewhere around 45 million of those uninsured and about 25 million or 30 million who are underinsured but most people have a plan they think is pretty good and they don't want the government or nip e else fooling around with it so the first principle, mr. president, is to say, leave well enough alone, that which is working well. you like your dock, your

hospital, your coverage, leave that alone. we are not out to change nor should we part of the health care system that works. what we're trying to do is fix that which scoant work, that --k which is costing us $2.5 trillion a year. how do we increase access and improve the quality of health care? and how do we make this affordable so people don't end up paying more and more cost in premiums? of course, how do we provide that sense of confidence, that sense of stability, that sense of certainty that the plan will be there, lord forbid, you may need it. my spouse, my child, i may need that kind of health care coverage to pay for that unexpected accident or unexpected illness that can aflect every family. at that critical moment you want to make sure what you have will not put you into economic ruin because all of a sudden the fine print excludes the very kinds of

coverage that you would anticipate based on the policy you have had for years. or that you are going to find yourself in a situation where even if it does, it limits the amount you can receive to pay for that hospitalization or that care. and those stories go on every single day. and so people want that notion that if you are going do change this, you are going to reform this, the thing i'm looking for more than anything else is i'll is the confidence of knowing that policy i have is not bankrupting me and will be there when i need it. and that, more than anything else, is what we're talking about. the problem; while we're waiting to do this -- again, i emphasize the importance of doing the right is certainly very important -- i would like to think in our committee we did not get unanimous support but we listened to every one of our 23 members in that community, over five weeks. it was extensive debate and discussion over all of the issues. so we have gone a long way, i think, in that process.

but while we're waiting, mr. president, there is a cost to all of this. let me point out what has happened in terms of the numbers: 14,000 people every day in our nation lose their coverage. now, again, that's due to job loss that may be because all of a sudden the plan they have is not covering the circumstances they're in. since we parked our bill three weeks ago, 182,000 fellow citizens have lost their health insurance and 14,000 do every day through no fault of their own -- job loss or the policy did not cover events they thought would be covered. we are talking about doing this slowly and waiting to get it done it is important to those who have great hk h health care coverage, if you are a member of the united states senate, we have a cadillac health care plan for each and every one of us as

do federal employees. i welcome that. it certainly is reassuring. it gives you that sense as a member of congress that you have a stable, certain plan in place if you are unfortunate enough to be hit with a health care crisis. i make that point because as i say a lot of our fellow citizens do not have that same sense of certainty. that same sense of confidence about their health care. of course, if they are faced with a health care crisis, we also know what can happen. 62% of the bankruptcies we now know in our country that have been occurring over the last several years are health care crisis-related. i might point out, which may surprise some people, that 75% of that 62% are people with health insurance. it wasn't the person without health insurance who the who* got caught with a tremendous health care cost and had no means to pay for it and, thus, went into bankruptcy. 75% of those people actually had health care coverage. 64% of the foreclosures in our nation are related to a health

care crisis as well. 10,000 homes today will receive a foreclosure notice. so, while we're waiting here and trying to get this right -- and we should -- it's important to be mindful that while we're comfortable about being assured that we have the coverage, millions of our fellow citizens do not have that same sense of certainty and confidence that they would like to have as well. the cert and confidence they're not going to -- the certty and confidence they're not going to get wiped out by rising health care costs. despite the fact that families right a check for about $1,100 a year for health insurance to cover the uninsured who show up in emergency rooms, uncompensated costs. that's $1,100 a year for a family, a check they write because in our country if you show up in an emergency room and you need help and care, i think virtually every medical facility in our country takes you in and

they will treat you and care for you in that moment of emergency. but it doesn't come free of charge. the cost of that is borne by those who pay the premiums for their own coverage. the price per health insurance policy on average is $1,100 per year. that is a tax we pay today as a result of not having a more comprehensive health care system in our nation. so that 182,000 people who have now lost their health care in the last three weeks, the 14,000 who lose it today, some, i presume, will show up in an emergency room because of a condition or a tragedy that befalls them. they will get health care under the status quo that we're in today. they'll get health care. but the rest of the country will pay for it one way or the other. we have to change that. you cannot bankrupt the country by having a system that fails to provide for the coverage as well as the cost of these matters on the present system we're living under. it will not sustain them -- it

will not be sustainable, in my view. so these numbers are real, and they happen every day. and the longer we delay in getting these done, these numbers will mount. it is important not to do so recklessly, not to do it at such a speed that we don't know what we're doing. we need to keep in mind, mr. president, we need to keep in mind that as we move along in this process, it does not come without a cost to those out there who find themselves in that free fall, that terrible, terrible feeling, that terrible feeling that if something happens, i can't take care of my family -- the presiding officer: the senator's reached his ten-minute mark. mr. dodd: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to proceed for one additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: mr. president, there are stories of people in my state, as i know there are all across this country, that are losing this. i was going to tell the story of

mrs. casco in connecticut. she now skips her prevention examinations for colonoscopies and others because they are not paid for under her policy. several months ago she had an infection but didn't go to the doctor. the problems can get worse. a woman in connecticut again by the name of theresa has a cluster of autoimmune disorders including rheumatoid arthritis and connective tissue diseases. she doesn't have health insurance. she doesn't see the doctor. those problems are going to get worse, the costs go up. stabt, in terms of what -- stability, in terms of what we have making sure the cost of these premiums don't outstrip the stability of working families to meet them. lastly, i would just say i spent a good part of saturday this last weekend at the manchester memorial hospital in manchester, connecticut, looking at their

new i.c.u. unit as well as meeting with the hospital personnel. it is remarkable what small hospitals do all across our country and how well they serve the people in keeping down costs, increasing quality in many of our hospitals. and our providers are truly good samaritans in case after case after case. the nurse practitioners, the doctors, and others who support the health care profession do a remarkable job every single day. but we need more primary care physicians, we need more nurses if we're going to meet the demands of a growing population that has coverage. we truly need to reform this system. leave in place that which works, fix that which isn't. that is the goal the president has laid out for us. that's our collective responsibility here. i am confident we can do it if we sit down with each other, work through this process, we can achieve that result to bring that level of stability and certainty to people when it comes to their health care needs. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, thank you for recognizing me. mr. president, i want to return to the underlying bill. senator voinovich and i have offered an amendment, i think it is 1841. i'm not going to call up the amendment now, but i would like to talk just a little bit about it. as the chairman and our colleagues know, we spend -- we receive in this country probably 20% of the electricity we consume from nuclear power plants. all those nuclear power plants were built several decades ago. we have about 104 in all. a number of them are 40 years old, and they were licensed for 40 years, and the utilities that own those power plants have to come back to the nuclear regulatory commission and ask that the -- for an extension, if you will, on the life of a license. they're asking for 20-year extensions. the nuclear regulatory commission has many jobs. one of those is to make sure that the 104 nuclear power

plants that are in operation operate safely day. if it isn't perfect, to make it better, to create a culture of safety and make sure we don't have mistakes and errors that can cause great havoc. in addition, the nuclear regulatory commission is charged with -- these nuclear power plants are approaching the end of their 40-year license, they apply for extension, the nuclear regulatory commission has to go through with utilities that own the department to re -- the relicense sure process. add on to that, the nuclear regulatory commission has, i think, 18 applications to build 28 new nuclear power plants in this country. in the decades to come. and add to that, there are a number of new designs for nuclear power plants that the nuclear regulatory commission has to say grace over, to evaluate, to put their -- wrap their brains around and to understand how they would work and whether they would work safely for 40, 60 years. in short, the nuclear regulatory

commission has a lot on its plate, which is a good thing. the nuclear power provides, among other things, electricity for 20% of our nation's households and businesses and so forth. but it also provides electricity that is carbon-free. the emissions from co2 plants -- rather, from nuclear power plants do not include carbon dioxide, do not include sulfur dioxide, do not include nitrogen tkpaoeu i don't care side, does not include mercury which leads to brain damage. nuclear power plants don't put any of that out into the air. and they don't contribute to the problems of global warming. in order to make sure that they're doing their job and folks at nuclear plants are doing what they need to do to provide safe nuclear power, the n.r.c. has had to hire extra people. they've hired in the last year or two or three, 5,000 extra people. they have had them spret out in

different locations. the nuclear regulatory commission is interested in trying to consolidate as many of those people as they can for management purposes. i think it makes much sense. senator voinovich from ohio who has helped me, i've helped him to lead the subcommittee, believes it makes sense for the nuclear regulatory commission to be able to colocate many of their employees going forth. we just want to make sure -- and we seek to do that with language in amendment 1841, that the n.r.c. can use the language within the bill and for employee costs for other expenses to be able to get this colocation process underway and provide additional spaces if they're needed for an additional 1,000 employees. so my hope is that our colleagues will adopt this amendment. i'd also say the nuclear regulatory commission sort of does a competition with, i think, every other federal agency t.'s a competition we

don't hear a lot about, but the competition is for the recognition of best federal agency to work for, best for the employees, best for their families. and for the last two or three years the nuclear regulatory commission has been selected as the very best place for federal employees to work. they do important work. they work hard. but they also work in an environment in which the employees feel it's good for their lives, their families, their professional lives, but also for their families too. they have asked for this help from us, and nor voinovich and i are pleased to offer support and we hope our colleagues will join us in supporting 1841. and with that having been said, mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. thank you. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. dorgan: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dorgan: mr. president, we're waiting to try to see if we can have a vote on an amendment that has been offered. we again would ask colleagues to come and offer their amendments. we've been patiently waiting, senator bennett and i, to see if we can get amendments debated and voted upon. mr. president, i have a photograph i wanted to show on another matter. i want to do this in morning business for five minutes. mr. president, at 8:30 p.m. on january 2 in 2008, fellow special forces soldiers found staff sergeant ryan massaff on the floor in the bathroom at security forces building in baghdad, iraq. his mother, cheryl harris -- and this is a photograph of sergeant

massaff and his mother cheryl harris -- was originally told when she was informed her son had died that perhaps he had been in the shower with a radio and had been electrocuted. he clearly was electrocuted when he was found unresponsive in january of last year. to cheryl's credit she has not let this drop. i've held two hearings on this subject. this is the start of what was happening much we have an inspector general's report issued yesterday showed that 230 electrical shocks of american soldiers in facilities in iraq because they weren't wired correctly. kellogg, brown, and root were the contractor. they were awarded $300 million in awards fees and bonuses for excellent work. we know that the work was

improper. they hired third country nationals who couldn't speak english and in many cases didn't do basic grounding of the wiring much we know that sergeant massaf was electrocuted. we know there was a young manpower washing a humvee who was electrocuted. we know that the u.s. army criminal investigation is now investigating a number of these circumstances. but when i held the hearings, there was denial all around by kellogg, brown, and root. no, we did great work, they said. by the pentagon, defense department? no, things were just fine, they said. turns out that wasn't the case. we had to get an inspector general to give us the facts. and it's not just on this case. the same thing happened on contaminated water to the military bases in iraq. i held two hearings. the pentagon denied it existed. kellogg, brown, and root,

halliburton, rather, in that case denied. it i asked the inspector general to investigate and they confirmed it. there was more contaminated than raw water was sent to the soldiers at the bases in iraq. now, mr. president, these are two inspector general reports. inspector general of the united states, department of defense, there are two of them. and they tell us what has been the result of improper wiring of facilities in iraq. in the remaining nine cases, they say, i'm talking about electrocutions now. i'm not talking about the 230 electrical shocks. i'm talking about the nine who died and the remaining nine cases we determined that individuals were killed by improper grounding or faulty equipment. the equipment malfunctions could

have been related to whether equipment maintenance complied with proper electrical standards or whether the chain of command acted responsibly. five of the nine cases remain under criminal investigation. but until i did the hearings these were largely unknown and even when i did the hearings, we were told that this had not happened. and so, mr. president, in the case of staff sergeant ryan massaf, specifically, let me read from the inspector general's report. an engineering evaluation of the failed pump. this is a pump that serviced the building. an engineering evaluation of the failed pump determined insulation on the internal wires melted causing the short to the pump housing. failure to ground the pump, improper grounding allowed the

metal distribution pipes energize. what this says is this brave soldier was electrocuted while taking a shower because contractors didn't do their job. and it's not me saying that. i had hearings in which people working for that contractor in iraq showed up at the witness table and said -- we worked next to people who didn't know what they were doing and subjected these soldiers to great risk. and as i indicated previously in the department of defense for this work, which we now know was shoddy work, an improper work that put soldiers' lives at risk. for this work the contractor g got $83 million in bonus awards. it is unbelievable to me that this sort of thing goes on. and i think there are some in pentagon, some in the chain of command, and there are certainly contractors that have a lot to answer for, and this congress awd awt to insist -- this congress ought to insist upon it. this mother, cheryl harris,

wasn't going to let this drop. good for her. that's why i held these hearings to determine what is the truth. because we didn't get the truth from the people that talked to the mother of the soldier that died. and we didn't get the truth in the hearings except for the witness who's came who previously worked in iraq side by side and told us that wiring was improper. now we get the truth from the inspector general's report. and we shouldn't have to do that. i would think that the united states defense department would search more aggressively for the truth than anyone because it is their soldiers that were put at risk. regrettably it has not been the case that that same kind of energy exists at pentagon. it doesn't matter whether it is a sodium dichoide case where soldiers were at risk of cancer. it doesn't matter what the case is. there are four or five of them. in each case the contractor said

it didn't happen and in each case the pentagon said it didn't happen and then the inspector general said that wasn't the truth in either circumstance. it did happen and here's how it happened and why it happened and who's responsible. this congress deserves better than that. certainly from the defense department and also from the contractors. and the american taxpayers deserve better. an mothers like cheryl massaf -- excuse me, cheryl harris. mothers like cheryl harris shouldn't have to wonder whether their soldier who is not in hostile -- hostile fire at that point, but who is it taking a shower in an army base would have their lives at risk. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i want to take just a few minutes this afternoon to discuss the recent developments on the health care issue and particularly with senator bennett on the floor, my

friend and colleague and the efforts to make sure that health reform is bipartisan. i would also note that senator baucus and senator grassley on the finance committee on which i serve are just putting in killer hours now in an effort to come up with a bipartisan approach in the health care area. and i wanted to take just a few minutes and talk about a particularly important part of the health care debate, and that is what the middle class is looking for in terms of health reform. i think when you talk about middle-class folks, most of whom have coverage -- health care coverage -- they are looking for a way to be wealthier. they are looking for a way to be healthier. they want to make sure that if they leave their health care coverage or their coverage

leaves them, they can get portable coverage. and perhaps as much as anything, mr. president and colleagues, middle-class folks want choice. they understand -- and this is a matter that senator bennett and i have talked about often -- that if you're going to come up with a health care reform effort that's going to save money, create incentives for people to stay healthy and services to offer prevention and coverage that's portable, you've got to give everybody the chance to choose those kinds of health care plans and those services. now, the president, to his credit, has made the matter of guaranteeing choice.

what i have put up here, mr. president, president obama has said is one of his bedrock principles for health reform. the president has said every american must have the freedom to choose their plan and their doctor and he clearly is on target when he talks about choice being one of the best ways to hold health care costs down, reward people for staying healthy, and getting coverage that's portable. for example, every member of congress has the capacity to choose a plan that's more affordable for them. when the signup period comes at the beginning of each year, you get a menu of various health services. you want to choose the one that is the most economical for you,

the one that rewards you for staying healthy, all members of congress have the opportunity to do it. so the president is absolutely right in saying that choice ought to be a bedrock principle of health reform. and, clearly, that's what middle-class folks in colorado and utah and oregon are looking for. they want to make sure they have choices and, frankly, they'd like to have as many choices as we have here in the united states congress. so americans want these kinds of choices, but for too many of our citizens under the health reform bills that are now being considered here in the congress, lots of people won't have the kinds of choices that members of congress have or any choice at all. there are proposals in the

senate to create what is known as fire walls to keep people from being able to go to what's really a farmer's market. they're called insurance exchanges where people could get these kinds of choices and these exchanges are to be created in the reform legislation. now as odd as it sounds, congress is going to be creating these insurance exchanges designed to help people shop around for their insurance, but then limit who can shop at these exchanges. if you have coverage, for example, that somebody in the government says you ought to consider affordable, you ought to like it, you aren't going to be able to go to this farmers market, this exchange, and shop for a plan that's better for you and your family. you aren't going to be able to

enjoy more choices. you aren't going to be in a position to get more for your health care dollar. you aren't going to be able to get a portable package because only some people will be allowed at these exchanges. now, mr. president and clear, i think everybody -- and colleagues, i think everybody ought to be able to shop for their health insurance like members of congress do today and like our esteemed colleague, senator kennedy, called for in a very fine essay just last week. and i've been able, working with colleagues, to come up with a way to do that. and i call it the free choice proposal. our free choice proposal let's workers who like what they have keep it. but it also let's workers who don't like what they have go choose other plans. now, half of those fortunate enough to have

employer-sponsored insurance today don't have any choice of health plans at all. just think about that. most of americans don't have the capacity to choose like we can here in the united states congress. and, unfortunately, under the health reform plans that are being considered in the congress, we're still going to leave millions and millions of americans without a choice of health services and health plans. now, under our proposal, our free-choice proposal, everybody who has employer coverage is going to have choices -- new choices. they can certainly keep what they have, but if they choose to, they can take what their employer now pays for their insurance, go to the farmers market and buy a plan that's a

better fit for them and for their family. it also gives employers more options if the insurer isn't going to sell them an affordable plan, the employer could then take the whole group to the exchange and get a discount. and so what i and the distinguished senator from utah have been talking about lo these many months is something that would give more clout to workers an would give more clout to employers on day one. would give employers and workers the ability to save money at the get-go. largely through an old-fashioned concept, just about as american as we have, which is choice and freedom and the ability when you shop wisely to benefit financially.

and, particularly, our employer approach where the employer could take the workers to the exchange on day one and get a discount. the employer could get a discount is one that in my view is going to give employers bargaining power in negotiating insurers that they don't have today. mr. president, this is a proposal that we can do without making any adjustments to the tax code. a independent analysis that senator bennett and i got a few days ago indicates that we could save consumers $360 billion over the next decade. those are savings to our people. those are savings in the health care system. and it's an approach that is very much in line with what the president has identified as a

bedrock principle for health reform. i've talked about the value of choice and particularly this august in colorado and north dakota and around the country being able to tell all middle-class people that they're going to have more choices. but what i think is particularly useful about this free choice proposal, it is one of the pathways to getting more affordable coverage. because once you have these choices, just like members of congress, if at the beginning of the year the senator from colorado doesn't like one particular plan, he can go to one of the other plans that is a better fit for him and his family. we're talking about using the same principles that have worked for members of congress for many years. i believe that middle-class

folks, as they try to sort through this debate, are going to be looking at a handful of fairly straightforward principles. they're going to want to be wealthier, they're going to want to be healthier, they're going to want coverage that they can take with them from job to job. mr. president, we've had 7 million people laid off since this recession. 3 million of them don't have health care. what happens to them is they go into a program called cobra. cobra is the only federal program named after a poisonous snake. and i think given how hard it is for people to afford that, you know, coverage and all the bureaucracy for employees and employers, we can do better by both workers and employers. let's make coverage seamlessly portable. and senator bennett and i have included that in our free choice proposal. on day one, more choices for the middle class.

on day one, the opportunity to save money. if you don't like the first plan, choose one of the other plans. on day one, coverage that's portable. that's what i think middle-class folks are looking for. that kind of market competition is what the congressional budget office has scored as actually producing savings in the private sector. not in ten years, not in 15 years but in a matter of two or three years. it actually bends the cost curve downward without exploding the debt and the deficit. i hope my colleagues on the finance committee and here in the senate and on the "help" committee -- i had a very constructive conversation about the fair choice proposal with chairman dodd recently. i hope colleagues will see that this is an approach that can win bipartisan support.

the guarantee of choice is a bed rom principle in -- a bedrock principle in president obama's agenda. and for the middle class that is asking now how this is going to work, this is a path that's going to let middle-class people be wealthier, healthier, protected when they lose their job or if they want to get another opportunity, and i'm very hopeful that this bedrock principle of president obama's agenda for fixing health care can win the support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle because i think that is the pathway to responding to the question middle-class people are asking all over this country today: how we're going to make this work for them. and i hope that colleagues who have additional questions about it will see my friend from utah or me because we would be happy

to discuss it with them further. mr. president, with that, i would yield the floor. mr. bennett: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. bennett: mr. president, i know we're on the bill, and as the manager on the republican side, i want to stay on the bill. but my colleague from oregon, having raised the issue with respect to the consumer choice and our proposal, i ask unanimous consent that i could proceed as if in morning business in order to respond. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennett: mr. president, i'm grateful to senator wyden for the leadership he showed here and the tenacity with which he has pursued all of these issues. and as i have sat here and listened to the various interventions on morning business about health care, i found a common theme that i want to comment on with respect to it. and i think senator wyden's comments help me frame this theme. the theme that i have heard over and over again from speakers has

been, "we can't stay where we are." and then the argument has been framed: "we either have to move ahead with the president's program or stay where we are." as senator wyden has indicated, there are other alternatives besides moving ahead with the president's program and staying where we are. and i would like to draw this analogy that i hope will help us understand at least this republican's position. i won't try to speak for all members of my party, although i think many of them would be sympathetic with what i'm about to say. let's assume, mr. president, that your neighbor's house is on fire. and this is a serious problem. and your neighbor comes to you and says, "my house is on fire. lend me your garden hose so that i can put the fire out."

and you say: "my garden hose isn't long enough to reach the fire." "you don't understand," your neighbor says, "my house is on fire. there are children in the house. there are women in the house. they will die if you don't put out the fire. lend me your garden hose." and i respond -- or you respond -- "i understand that there are children in the house. i understand that allowing the house to burn down is a tremendous mistake. but my garden hose won't reach. we need a different garden hose if we're going to put out the fire." "no, no, no. the firing is reaching now, it's down, it's destroyed the top stories, it's getting down towards the bottom stories, people are fleeing. give me your garden hose or you're a terrible person!" and you respond: "i'll be happy to give you a garden hose that

will work but the garden hose i've got right now will not solve your problem." i think we need that kind of an understanding here. i am not a republican who says i defend the present system. i listen to the speeches that are being made about how terrible the present system may be and i say, i agree with you, absolutely. i listen to the letters being read from home states that say, "i was denied coverage by a insurance company bureaucrat." "i lost my job and i lost my coverage." and these are tragic, and i agree that they are tragic and i agree that something ought to be done about it. it's just in my opinion, the president's garden hose won't reach. in my opinion, the president's garden hose will not only not put out the fire, but to stretch at nailing beyond -- the analogy beyond all credulity, we'll make

it worse. we've heard about people who are being denied coverage under the present system. mr. president, people will be denied coverage under the president's system. if we look at other countries that have adopted similar public plans of the kind we're talking about, we're going to see people whose coverage is denied again and again. indeed, comment was made here about senator kennedy and the brave battle he is putting on against his problem. if he lived under the single-payer coverage of other countries, he would be denied coverage because of his age. we don't want that in america. we don't want people like that to be denied the opportunities. and senator wyden and i have worked as hard as we can -- back to the analogy -- to create a garden hose that will reach. to create a garden hose that will, in fact, put out the fire,

solve the problems, and change the present system. so i thank the senator from oregon for making it clear that there are alternatives to the present system that are not necessarily the bills that are coming out of the two committees. you now, i'm not going to embarrass my friend from oregon by insisting that he takes the same position that i take with respect to the bills that are coming out of the two committe committees. but together, we have formed a solution that we think will solve the problem, we think will put out the fire, we think will turn down the cost curve. and we have now a growing voice of -- chorus of voices of people who are saying, you know, wyden-bennett looks like it will work. why don't we try it? and that's the only question

that i am asking here is: why don't we try it? so far, neither committee has been willing to look at the details of what we're talking about, and all we're asking is that they do so because we are convinced when they do, they will come to the conclusion that our garden hose will, in fact, put out the fire and it will do it more cheaply and more efficiently than the proposals that are before us. so again, mr. president, i thank my colleague from oregon for his leadership and his tenacity in going forward with thisment i'm honored to be associated with him in this effort, and i agree with all of the speeches that have been made that the present system is not acceptable. i hope we can get together and solve the problem in a truly effective and bipartisan fashion. with that, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon.

mr. wyden: mr. president, i just want to take an additional, you know, minute and thank my friend from utah. what is striking about this debate is the opportunity to bring both sides together. as i outlined the free choice approach and the pathwayly to savings for middle-class folks, portable coverage, incentives for prevention, it could work its way into a have a of -- into a variety of different bills that are being considered. obviously, senator bennett and i feel very strongly about our legislation, "the healthy americans act." but i was very pleased with the discussion that i had the other night over dinner with the distinguished senator from connecticut, the chairman of the "help" committee, who has some good ideas as well. what i hope we'll do, what

senator bennett and i have sought to do lo these many months, is focus on some bedrock principles. i cited the three that have been important to president obama, the question of holding down costs, ensuring choice, maintaining quality. i believe -- senator bennett and i have worked together on this -- that our approach with free choice, and particularly making sure that you don't have all these fire walls that could resist choice for millions of americans. and it's one of the concerns i brought up to chairman dodd. we would have real free choice and all americans would be in a position to participate as members of congress do in a system that rewards them for shopping wisely. so i was very glad that both chairman baucus, who said he

would look at our free choice proposal, chairman dodd, same openness to looking at our proposal, captured that this would be a way to carry out the president's agenda fo agenda for addressing the questions middle-class people are talking about all over the country. obviously, senator bennett and i and we're very pleased that the distinguished senator from delaware has -- has joined us, certainly a veteran of the senate and what it takes to come up with bipartisan coalitions. i'm very pleased to be on the floor with two good friends who know a lot about health care and what it takes to build bipartisan coalitions. what i wanted to do was to say that in addition to our legislation, which we obviously feel strongly about, this concept of free choice and making sure that you reward

individuals, as we do in so many areas of american life, could really pay off quickly. for middle-class people in terms of savings and access to quality health care. and i'm very hopeful that as we go into these last couple of weeks before the recess -- and we've offered this proposal to chairman baucus, the chairman of the committee on which i serv serve -- democrats and republicans can come together so that before the august, you know, recess, we will have at a minimum identified some ideas and our free choice proposal is just one that will allow us through the month of august to show middle-class people that we are serious about their concerns. right now they're trying to sort this debate out. suffice it to say they see a lot of arguing in washington, d.c.

they hear a lot of the discussion about health care which almost sounds like jibber ish and if we can come back and say, middle-class people can be part of a system that is very similar to what my family enjoys. and it has paid or for my family at the beginning of the year when i choose a plan that is more economical to me or rewards prevention then we get behind proposals that bring democrats and republicans together. mr. president, and colleagues, i would point out this is one area that the budget office has indicated will actually score substantial savings not in 10, 12, 14 years from now, but, really, in the second year after it is fully implemented. mr. president, again, i thank my colleague from utah for all his

support and counsel. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. bennett: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: i ask the quorum call be vaishted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: senator bennett and i have been here like the maytag repairman in the old commercials. no one has apparently come to the floor to offer amendments. i would not be surprised if at some point down the road someone will say, well, we didn't get enough chance -- or an opportunity to offer amendments. of course, in these intervening hours there's been plenty of opportunity for someone to show up to offer amendments. we had intended and hoped to offer -- to have a vote at 4:30 on a relatively noncontroversial amendment, but for the last hour or so we've been waiting on a noncontroversial amendment for a staff person to contact the senator who parntsly is not able to be contacted to tell us whether or not the united states senate can vote on a

noncontroversial amendment. such is the life of the united states senate, a place where no one has ever been accused of speeding. we only ask if having been here yesterday and today -- senator bennett and i only ask, having put together in bill at that fund all of our energy and water issues, if there are senators who wish to offer amendments -- and many have been filed -- they would come here and decide to offer them, because we will not have floor time for an entire week this week. i mean, we're not going to be able to be on the floor. the time doesn't exist to allow us to be here all week. those senators who wish to offer amendments are, it seems to me, going to find very little sympathy from me -- and i hope from other members of the senate -- if they at some point down the road say, well, we didn't have an opportunity. you had plenty of opportunity. its real estate jusit's just tho come to the floor. it may be the amendments don't have merit.

but if they do have mairkts i would hope they come soon and give us the opportunity to entertain amendments and discuss them, debate them, and have votes on them so we can move this appropriations bill along. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: and i would let the distinguished floor manager and the distinguished senator from utah know that if somebody does come to the floor and wishes to do their thing with an amendment, please feel free to give me the "high" sign and i will conclude my remarks and allow the business of the floor proceed. i don't want to keep anybody from offering an amendment, if they have one. but i did want to take this time today to talk for a minute about our health care system, because i think people across the

country are right now finding our dialogue in the senate a bit confusing about health care and they're starting to wonder what is going on, and in particular -- particularly for hose have -- particularly for those who have insurance, what does this mean for me? why is this important for me that the senate be doing this work? i already have insurance. what do i stand to gain from all of this? and there are a great number of things that americans stand to gain from all of us. but the thing that i want to focus on today is improvement in our delivery system. and it's important, i think, for americans who are listening to realize that the personal experiences that so many of them have had are not unique. if you have had a loved one in the hospital and you have felt

constrained to stay with that loved one through their illness in the hospital, if you have not felt that you could leave them alone in that hospital for fear that something might go wrong, some drug might be misadministered, some call might go unanswered, if you feel that way, if you've had that speerntion you are not alone. that is an extraordinarily common experience. if you have felt that you missed an opportunity for the prevention of illness, somebody -- nobody told you that you should have had this test, nobody told you that this was a health consequence of something you were doing, that is an experience that americans have across this country. if you've had to ferry by hand your health records from place to place, or, if like many rhode island,you've been rushed up for specialty emergency care in boston and your paper records didn't come with you, and you have been in real peril in a boston emergency room, as they

tried to redo the tests that they didn't have access to because you did not have a comprehensive electronic health record, you are like many, many, many americans, and the consequences of that -- of those problems -- are renown throughout the health care system, and the problems that they cause are real ones. there are 100,000 americans who die, who lose their lives every single year because of completely avoidable medical errors. most of them, hospital acquired infections. those intolerable. that's intolerable. that's a plane crash a day. and yet it's the status quo in the existing health care system. we have the worst health care outcomes of a essentially -- of

essentially any civilized country we compete with. the worst. even though we pay twice as much for health care than most of them, we have worse outcomes. that is the status quo of our health care system. the "economist" magazine has reported that the health information technology infrastructure that supports our health care sector is the worst of any american industry, except one: the mining industry. that's not very reassuring, not in an industry where the possibilities for technology are so great and where at the detection end and where at the treatment end we are at the technological cutting edge of the world, but you get back to that back office and there you are with that paper record and no way to cr cross-reference for drug interactions. we are at a primitive age with our health information infrastructure and that is the status quo's of our health care system. everybody, i suspect, has had

the experience themselves or of a loved one who becomes sick unexpectedly, who turns to their insurance company, the insurance company they've been writing those big comeks to year after year, only -- those big checks to year after year toll find out that when you turn to that insurance company in your hour of need, they turn against, they turn against you. and they try to figure out a way to get you off coverage. they tried to talk you out of the coverage and the treatment that your doctor has indicated. they fought with your doctor about whether or not they would pay them or not. and for many people the experience isn't just of being the patient; the experience of being the spouse or the family member or the loved one of the patient who has to cope, who has to become the person who answers the deluges of mail, who has to make the call, who waits through the voice messages to try to get to somebody to approve procedures that the doctor has said you need, that is the

status quo of our health care system. millions of americans told by their own insurance companies, forget it. we're not going to pay for the treatment that your doctor says you need. the major reason american families go into bankruptcy right now is because of health care expense, and it's not just the uninsured. these are insured families who find that their coverage limits have been reached, who find that the insurance company has found a loophole, who find that they've exceeded in terms of all the peripheral costs of durable medical equipment, other thankss that might not be covered that they're struggling to get by and they're dropped into bankruptcy. that is the status quo. that is the status quo of our health care system. those can all be better. we can revolutionize awful those areas. we can revolutionize the quality of care and the safety of americans when they're in the hospital.

we can improve our health care outcome so we are eight pride of developing nations and not the lag ar. we can improve so that we don't have the worst health information technology of any industrial sector. we can eliminate denials of care because of preexisting conditions and we can provide adequate support to americans so that bankruptcy is not a common symptom of illness in this country. the problem is, if we don't do anything about those existing problems, they're all on an accelerator. they're all getting worse. what do we have to look forward to? well, we have to look to ads 35 trillion medicare liability and we don't have $35 trillion to spend. that's a future liability. it is coming towards us, but the people who will cause it are alive right now. they're not going anywhere. they're getting older every day.

time is not going to stop. and they're getting sicker every day because it's never going to happen that older people are healthier than younger people. there is a tsunami of health care costs bearing down on us, and just the medicare slice of it is a $35 trillion liability for our country, and we are don't have the $35 trillion. so it's either going to wreck us or we're going to have to take some very smart, very aggressive measures now to reduce those costs. if we do nothing, a family in rhode island in the year 2016 -- that's not too far from now, that's seven years from now -- a family in rhode island making $52,000 -- which is a pretty good income -- a family making $52,000 will spend more than half of their income on health care.

by as soon as 2016, a rhode island family making $52,000 will spend more than half of their income on health care. we are headed -- we use the word "unsustainable" around here. we are headed to where it is impossible for regular families to get health care. it's bad enough now. it's getting worse. and we have to act to stop it from getting worse. we have just pretty close to lost our car industry. g.m. -- people used to say if it's good for g.m., it's good for america. it was the emblematic american company. it is gone. it was into bankruptcy and it is gone. it is now coming back. the catastrophic effect on our country on the loss of those jobs in the midwest and then through the secondary providers across our country is a very real problem, and it is being

felt. and it's in large part because those cars were so burdened with health care costs. if you go to starbuck's, there is more health care money in your coffee than there is coffee bean money. and in those cars, there was more health care money than steel. the cost of health care per car was greater than the cost of steel per car. pretty hard to compete with volvos and lexuses and cars from places where they have a national health care system, and the price of that health care isn't buried in the cost of the car. it put our workers at a terrible disadvantage that's only getting worse. our manufacturing sector has enough problems without continuing to load health care costs on to it. if we can't get the message from the collapse of the auto industry, we are missing some very, very loud, indeed deafening signals.

our last comptroller general just warned that this health care mess will sink our ship of state. will sink our ship of state. he phrases it as a national security issue, to get this right. and he left the job to go and spread the word around the country, warning us of what is coming. so, not only is it bad now, it stands to get a lot worse. and here is the opportunity and the tragedy of this, is that so much of this is waste. one recent voice on this subject is a former cabinet member from the last administration. paul o'neill was the secretary of the treasury of the united states. he is no fool. he is a sensible and thoughtful man. he ran for years alcoa, one of

america's biggest corporations. he has extreme business experience. and he also ran something called the pittsburgh regional health initiative, which looked at improving the care of -- the quality of care around hospitals in the pittsburgh area. and he was a leader in all of this. he knows his health care issues well. and here's what he wrote recently. he wrote that there is $1 trillion of annual waste in the health care system that is associated with process failures $1 trillion a year. even by washington standards, that's a big number, and that is a target that is worth shooting for. and that is a target that we shoot for hard in the legislation that we are putting forward. if you take a look at the president's own council of

economic advisors' recent report, on july 9 -- just a few weeks ago -- they put out the report on the economic case for health care reform, and they looked at the health care system from two measures. one, if you compare it to foreign countries and look at their gross domestic product share and ours and extrapolate from that and what we could get it down to if we were careful. and the second, look at the variation among the states, from state to state, from region to region, even from a recent article, within a state, the difference between mcallen, texas and el paso, texas. that gives you another means of calculating what you could get the cost down to if you could get the waste out of the system. efficiency, improvements in the u.s. health care system, the president's council of economic advisors reports, potentially could free up resources equal to

5% of u.s. g.d.p. that's over $700 billion a year. so maybe it's $1 trillion, maybe it's $700 billion. per year, that is a big, big number. looking at the internal discrepancies, they note it should be possible to cut total health expenditures by by 30% without worsening outcomes which suggests saving on the order of 5% of g.d.p. could be feasible. looking two different ways at the same number, $700 billion a year. the problem is it's going to take some executive administration to get there. it's not easy. you don't just make your decision, flip up or down the light switch. it goes on and you don't have to worry about it. this isn't like the sniper who lines up his shot, pulls the trigger and the projectile goes. this is a problem where you're

like the pilot landing in rough weather. you've got to continue to steer through it. you've got to continue to seek the savings. as the market adapts, you've got to adapt with it. it takes executive leadership and administration to make this happen. and that means that the congressional budget office can't score it. all they can say is that it promises a -- quote -- "large reduction" in american health care costs. but they can't score it. and so the american public, with a lot of misinformation out there, has been betkpwaoeuld into -- beguiled into believing that what we're doing won't save money. we are determined to save money doing it. the medicare system and the american health care system and the american economy will fail if we don't save money doing this. and the target is as big as $700 billion to $1 trillion a year. our health care system has been described memorably as a carnival of waste. and it's time to bring the

carnival to an end and give americans the health care that they deserve. there are a couple of pretty sensible ways to do this, and the administration has focused on all of them. the first is, as i said earlier, health information infrastructure. why should every american not have electronic health record? why should, when you go to mcdonald's, should the checkout person have a more robust health information infrastructure backing them up and connecting to inventory and connecting to sales than your doctor does? it makes no sense. you could save enormous sums if we had a national health information infrastructure. secure, confidential, reliable,

interoperable. so if you went to get a lab test, with went into your record. if you went to the emergency room, it went into your record. if you stayed over at the hospital, it went into your record. if you saw a specialist, it went into your record. and all of your practitioners would know what was going on in your care, and the more complex and chronic your conditions, the more valuable that would be. well, as i said, we don't have that now. it's the worst of any american industry except the mining industry. quality improvement. in michigan, there was a fascinating project called the keystone project, where they went into the intensive care units in michigan -- not all of them. a great number of them, but not even all of them -- with process reforms in the intensive care units to reduce respiratory problems from not being elevated, to reduce line infections from catheters and

from bloodlines. and the effect of that was in 15 months to save 1,500 lives and $150 million. just in one state and not even in all the intensive care units. it proves the proposition that quality improvement can save money and lives. and prevention is obviously the same, where on the floor shortly to be debating justice sotomayor's nomination. she has lived with diabetes since she was a child. she has taken good care of herself and so she has not created a lot of cost for the health care system. but many people who don't manage their diabetes well, who don't get the prevention that they need end up with amputations, end up with blindness, end up with long and unnecessary hospital stays. there are areas whereby investing in prevention you can save fortunes. why don't we do this then? why don't we have electronic health records on every doctor's desk for all americans? why don't we have every intensive care unit participating in the

keystone-type quality initiative? why doesn't every community health center have a robust diabetes prevention program? well, it has to do with the bizarre economics of our health care system. because the same thing is true for all three entities. if you're a doctor and you want to put electronic health record system in for your patients, if you're a hospital and you want to improve the quality of care in your intensive care unit and put in a program that will do that, if you're a community health center that wants to invest in prevention to help your diabetic population stay healthy, you face the exact same predicament in all three cases. and that the investment you have to make is 100% out of your pocket. the risk of the investment is 100% on your neck. the hassle of the entire thing, the administrative burden of it is 100% -- the presiding officer: the senator is over 15 minutes.

mr. whitehouse: may i continue for two minutes? the hassle of it is 100%. all of the costs are on the desk of the doctor, on the desk of the hospital administrator, on the desk of the community health center. but the benefits from the electronic health record, the benefits and the savings from the quality improvement, the savings and the benefits from the prevention don't find their way back to that same desk. they go off to medicare. they go off to the insurance industry. they connect to the patient and better care, but the person who has to make that decision and make that investment doesn't get the reward. the basic principle of american capitalism, which is the connection between risk and reward, has been broken in the american health care system. and that is one of the things we get after in this bill. we can have electronic health records for every american. we can have our hospitals and doctors highly motivated to

pursue all the quality initiatives that will improve the quality of our care while it lowers the cost and avoids unnecessary hospitalizations and delays and infections and so forth. and we could have the best prevention program in the country. but we have to make it work for people. and that is part of what we are about in this health care system. i'm going to continue to come to the floor to explain why it is important that we reform our health care system and what the average american will gain from it. today i focused on these elements of why the delivery system reform can be improved. but every american will see that in their lives, in their parents' lives, in their children's lives, and when you look back to where we are today from where we can be and where, with president obama's leadership we will be, we will look back and we will say, my god, how could we have been living in that medieval setup? look how good it is now. that is our goal. that is our purpose. that is the promise of health care reform.

i thank the presiding officer, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, i ask that since there's no further debate on amendment 1841, that i ask for its adoption. the presiding officer: all in favor say aye. process opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. voinovich: thank you, mr.

president. i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: i ask consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: this is an important bill, the energy and water appropriation bill. it is one of the important bills that we have during the course of the year to prepare for spending in our new fiscal year which begins october 1. senator dorgan and senator bennett are sheparding this bill on the floor. meanwhile in another room six senators or more are meeting, trying to work out the details of a piece of legislation that could literally affect every person living in america. it is the question of health care reform. it is an interesting issue because it has been tried before. previous presidents, theodore roosevelt and bill clinton have tried to change the health care system in america to make the system stable, secure, so that

people will know what it will cost, what it will cover and they know ultimately that they can have quality care available when they need it for themselves an members of their family. -- and members of their family. the simple fact of matter is that health care in america has become extremely sensitive. we spend more per person in america for health care, twice as much per person, as the nearest nation on earth in terms of spending. so we're spending a lot of money. and people see it because the cost of health insurance premiums are going up much faster than their income and they worry about it. many of the folks that i talked to back in illinois worry next year if there will be an increase in their hourly wage that will be completely consumed by increases in health insurance premiums. and they add, incidentally, senator, that a new health insurance plan is not an add on. it usually covers less than the one before. a situation where preexisting conditions will eliminate coverage for things that are critically important for individuals.

where folks find when they reach a certain age, the cost of the health insurance premiums go up so high, battles that go on between doctors and hospitals and insurance companies about whether they will cover something much cases we've seen in illinois and around the country where folks thought they had some assurance an guarantee that health insurance covered their medical procedure only to find out it didn't. many people out of work today are realizing for the first time in their lives they don't have the protection of health insurance. some of them with limited savings battered by the recent stock market, wonder if tomorrow's accident or diagnoses will wipe out everything they saved in their lives. that is the reality of the uncertainty and instability of our health care system today. people are looking for stable coverage they can count on if they get sick today that they'll be covered tomorrow. they can look as well for the kind of stable costs that they can afford even when they lost a job to make sure that there is

health insurance to protect their families and they want to preserve their right to choose their doctor and hospital to give them the best care in this country. the obvious question is -- can we reach that goal? and the obvious answer is only with the political will of this senate with republicans working with democrats. i hope that we can do this. i hope that we can find a bipartisan way to this solution. president obama's made it clear that it's his highest priority in terms of trying to improve the health care for america and its citizens and its highest priority when it comes to the deficit. a lot of people say, well, if you're going to spend $1 trillion on health care reform, think twice. well, we should think twice because we're facing deficits and a national debt that's grown dramatically over the last seven or eight years. but the fact is that untouched our health care system over the next 10 years will cost us more than $30 trillion. and if spending $500 billion

over that period of time can change the system for the better, start bringing in practice that's bring down overall cost, it is money well invested and well spent. first we have to wring out of the system the fraud that goes on. all of us know what's happening here. there are some health care providers in america who are capitalizing on a system that rewards doctors and hospitals for piling on the procedures, for piling on the expensive pharmaceuticals an medical devices. there is little or no reward for good health outcomes. the reward for a physician and someone who is using our system today is to do more, spend more. well, that shouldn't be our goal. our goal should be quality health care for everyone. it should be a system -- it shouldn't be a system of fee-for-service that rewards and incentivizes in spending. there are a lot of people who have come to the senate in committee and otherwise to

express their opinions about what will work and what won't. the congressional budget office has been called on from time to time to ask whether or not these health care reform bills will actually save men. testimony -- save money. the testimony about the status quo is obvious. if we continue the way we're going, it's going to be a bad outcome. we know that if we don't change this current system, it will become so expensive, the average family can't afford to pay the premiums. if we don't change the abuses in health insurance, we're all vulnerable to preexistings conditions and new costs and discrimination against people based on their gender or where they live. that has to change. we know that there are ways to save money within our system. one of them relates to preventive care, wellness strategies. there's not enough of that today. a man by the name of steve byrd is the c.e.o. of dominik's and safeway, and he he has a program -- and he has a program for his

management employees where he has a management program for them to get healthy. it is voluntary for those who want to participate. they get examined. if they find they're overweight, they set a goal to reduce the weight. if they find the cross roll is too -- cholesterol is too high, they find a way to lower the cholesterol. if they meet the goals, quit smoking, getting healthier, they get a financial reward. for the business the reward is lower health care preups. we need wellness strategies in america. some of the things that we're facing will cost us dramatically in years to come. the incident of diabetes among our children today is alarming. if it doesn't stop, if we don't deal with the issue of obesity and diabetes and other related issues, believe me, we can't enact enough laws and put enough money into a health care system that doesn't deal with this. we have to realize that the

health care records and medical records have to be put on computers so they can be exchanged between health care providers and these electronic records can reduce the number of mistakes that are made, improve the care that is given to individuals and really save us money. we also need to take a look at chronic diseases, and i mentioned diabetes, and make certain there's an incentive there for wellness and for preventive care before people reach terrible stages in that disease and cost the -- that cost dearly and can be compromising to their health an maybe even their life. if we can come together with a system of health care in this country that provides stable coverage that you can count on, stable costs that you can afford, and quality that strives for excellence, and the kind of choice that every american family wants, then the outcome in this meeting, not far from here of those senators, will be one that america can cheer. fortunately, the president has invested his political capital

in this effort. he told all of us this is the single most important thing that he is working on and plans to achieve. he is prepared to spend his time and political capital to achieve it. it is our jobs as elected officials to spon to this national need. for many of us this may be once in a political lifetime opportunity to change health care in america for the better. it's the job of those in government to consider its budgetary impact, but some of them aren't charged with coming up with a solution. we have to look beyond the budget in some respects to the long-term benefit. the president has said we're going to pay for everything we do. but the long-term benefit of preventive care may be difficult to measure today. we know it will be an ultimate benefit to our country. most of the savings in health care may not be reflected in the health in the federal budget, the savings will accrue to the people of this nation, though, to give them the peace of mind that they have health care that they can count on, that will be

there when their family desperately needs it. we've got it make -- to make certain this is part of our charge here and this is the time to do it. i hope the senate finance committee, before we leave, in about 10 days or 11 days can produce a bill, and i hope the house of representatives can pass one. and when we return, it will come to the floor of senate and work together in a bipartisan fashion to pass it. i'm sure that it will require compromise for all of us. i have my idea of what health care reform should look like and i'm sure others do as well. in the spirit of good faith we can come together and make a difference and provide the kind of health care reform and changes that will give people across the country peace a mind, a stable health care system that continues to make this nation a family of healthy individuals and families. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii.

a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 225 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 225, recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the entry of hawaii into the union as the 50th state. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate will proceed. mr. inouye.way -- mr. inouye: i ask unanimous consent that the the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record in the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. way way mrmr. inouye: mr. presi0 years ago next month, the 85th

congress of the united states voted to allow a tiny island made up of people of every race, creed, and situated in the middle of the pacific ocean entry into the union. august 21st, 2009, marks the 50th anniversary of the proclamation 3309 signed by president dwight david eisenhower, which admitted hawaii to the union as the 50th state. mr. president, on a personal note 50 years ago today i was elected by the people of hawaii to serve as the first member of the united states house of representatives from the state of hawaii. it is a moment i shall never forget. and on august 25th, mr.