Net Operating Loss (NOL) Carryback Act

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1910 which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I intend to have three amendments considered. I discussed with the majority leader and the Republican leader how we would proceed. So at this time, after I make a brief remark about amendment No. 1910, I will be calling up amendment No. 1912 and amendment No. 2030, both of which are at the desk.

Amendment No. 1910 eliminates, as suggested and recommended strongly by the President of the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's High Energy Cost Grant Program. This is a $17.5 million subsidy designed to pay for energy generation systems in rural areas. This program was proposed for termination by the administration because it is duplicative of existing programs, including USDA's own Rural Utilities Service Loan Program.

Under the fiscal year 2010 budget, the Rural Utilities Service Program would provide $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the taxpayers. In comparison, providing $17.5 million in grants, as opposed to a loan, actually costs the taxpayer $17.5 million. Moreover, Senators should know there is $20 million in unobligated high energy cost grants still available from the previous year.

This is the submission to Congress, the budget of the U.S. Government for fiscal year 2010, by the Office of Management and Budget. Guess what. In there is a page that is titled ``Termination: High Energy Cost Grant, Department of Agriculture.'' It goes on to say:

The administration proposes to eliminate the High Energy

Cost Grants program because it is duplicative of and less

effective than the Rural Utilities Service's electric loan

program.

Those are not my words, those are the words of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who, at the direction of the President of the United States, prepared this document of certain programs that should be eliminated.

It goes on to say:

The 2010 budget proposes elimination of the duplicative

High Energy Cost Grants program in favor of electric loans,

which are more cost effective from the standpoint of the

taxpayer. Using loans to provide support is less expensive

than using grants because loans provide more support . . .

with fewer appropriated dollars. For example, the 2010 budget

provides for $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the

taxpayer. In comparison, providing $18 million in grants

costs the taxpayers $18 million. In addition, the funds for

High Energy Cost Grants have not been obligated in a timely

manner and $20 million in balances from previous year funding

are still available.

In other words, this amendment eliminates a duplicative, unnecessary program, according to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and at the President's request, he has sent over one of the programs they want eliminated. So somehow it ends up back in the appropriations bill.

It seems to me it is a pretty clear-cut case again that at some point we have to try to make some kinds of cost savings. I admit, as we are throwing around billions and trillions of dollars, as we do here lately, $17.5 million is probably not much money given the kind of behavior the Congress and the administration have been up to lately. I would still argue, though, to millions of Americans, including those in my home State of Arizona, $17.5 million--in the view of the administration and a clear argument, it is not a complicated issue-- should be eliminated.

I hope we will be able to vote on this amendment.

Amendment No. 1912 to Amendment No. 1908

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1912 which is at the desk.

This amendment eliminates the U.S. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, also known as the Small Watersheds Program.

This program is a textbook example of how reckless earmarks can devastate a government program. Like the previous four Presidents' budgets, the administration proposes to terminate this account because Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on any merit- based criteria such as cost effectiveness.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Small Watersheds Program was 97 percent earmarked in fiscal year 2009, which severely marginalized the USDA's ability to evaluate and prioritize projects. Earmarks may partly be to blame for the findings of a 2003 Office of Management and Budget study that showed this program has a lower economic return than any other Federal flood prevention program, including those in the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The onslaught of earmarks over the years has almost certainly contributed to the current backlog of about 300 unfunded authorized small watershed projects totaling $1.2 billion. As it was originally intended, the Small Watersheds Program may be a worthwhile program. I am sure we will hear a vigorous defense of this program. But by inundating it with so-called congressionally designated projects, the program is challenged to function properly to the point where the administration would rather see it gone.

Note this. Our friends on the Appropriations Committee have not given up on plundering it yet. This bill provides $24.3 million for this program, including $16.5 million in earmarks for projects such as $2 million for the Pocasset River in Rhode Island, which is not authorized; $1.5 million for Dunloup Creek in West Virginia, which is not authorized; and $1 million for the DuPage County Watershed in Illinois, which is not authorized, to name a few.

I refer back again to the Office of Management and Budget publication entitled ``Terminations, Reductions and Savings,'' where the administration proposes to terminate watershed and flood prevention operation programs. Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that agencies are unable to prioritize projects on any merit-based criteria such as cost effectiveness.

So, again, these first two amendments, the President of the United States, the Office of Management and Budget, most any casual observer would argue need to be eliminated.

Amendment No. 2030 to Amendment No. 1908

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2030, which is at the desk.

This amendment is very simple. It prohibits funding of the $250,0000 earmark for the Iowa Vitality Center at Iowa State University.

This earmark is a textbook example of how difficult it is to stop funding for

an earmark once it starts. According to the Web site of the earmark sponsor, since fiscal year 2001, the Iowa Vitality Center has received $2,579,000. For what? What is so vital about the Iowa Vitality Center that it has required over $2.5 million of scarce taxpayer funds?

Well, according to their own Web site, the purpose of the Iowa Community Vitality Center is to serve as a catalyst in fostering collaborative public-private partnerships among nonmetro community interests to stimulate vitality and address barriers to growth.

I am not making that up. I am not making it up. That is what the Web site says. Let me repeat. We spent $2.5 million. The purpose of the Iowa Community Vitality Center is to serve as a catalyst in fostering collaborative public-private partnerships among nonmetro community interests to stimulate vitality and address barriers to growth.

Is there anyone who has a clue as to what that means? I wanted to be clear. I am not questioning the merits of this program, but I am questioning the process. Why was this funding earmarked? If the Vitality Center is such a critical national priority at this time, why wasn't the funding authorized since 2001 or requested by the President in his budget submission?

The funding for the Vitality Center is often justified as helping communities ``plan strategically'' and as ``representing diverse interest across the state.'' However, the sponsors of the earmark neglect to explain why 10 years of strategic planning have been insufficient to accomplish this center's stated purpose.

Our current economic situation and our vital national security interest concerns require, now more than ever, that we prioritize our Federal spending. We need to prove to the American people that we are serious about changing the way we do business and we should start with ending the practice of earmarking. We need to put our national priorities first and eliminate unnecessary wasteful earmarks such as the Iowa Vitality Center.

The Agriculture appropriations bill for the year 2010 spends about $123 billion in direct and mandatory spending, an amount that is approximately $234 million above the administration's budget request. We debate this legislation in the shadow of the fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill, the omnibus bill which doled out $108 billion for U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, as well as the infamous economic stimulus package which provided another $26.5 billion in agricultural spending. So 2009 is certainly a good year to be a U.S. Department of Agriculture program office.

I acknowledge that many of the programs funded by this are valid for providing important services to the agricultural community at large. I commend the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for reporting this bill in a timely manner. I agree we should ensure that our farmers stay out of the red and that some Federal involvement is necessary to assist low-income families under the nutrition programs.

Unfortunately, Congress once again has conformed to the practice of diverting precious taxpayer dollars into an array of special interest projects which have not been authorized or requested, and in the case of two of these, they have been requested to be terminated by the administration.

The committee report accompanying this bill contains 296 congressionally directed spending items, a fancy new term for ``earmarks,'' totaling over $220 million. None of these projects was requested by the administration. Many of them were not authorized or competitively bid in any way. No hearings were held to judge whether these were national priorities worthy of scarce taxpayer dollars. They are in this bill for one reason and one reason only--because of the prerogatives of a select few Members of the Senate to serve their own interests over those of the American taxpayer.

Let's take a look at some of the earmarks. Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this bill and its accompanying reports. There is $250,000 for gypsy moth research in New Jersey. Don't gypsy moths travel all over the country? Why just New Jersey? Over the past 10 years, the taxpayer has funded $42.8 million worth of gypsy moth research.

There is $500,000 for the hemlock woolly adelgid at the University of Tennessee. This is an aphid-like insect. That is a lot of money for that bug.

There is $235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada. I think a better term for this one is obnoxious. Over the past 10 years, over $15.4 million has been earmarked for Nevada noxious weed management.

There is $200,000 for cotton research at Texas Tech University. Congress subsidizes the industry, the cotton industry, to the tune of $3 billion a year.

There is $300,000 for floriculture at the University of Hawaii. Nearly $3.5 million has been earmarked for floriculture in the past 10 years.

There is $165,000 for the Maple Research Center at the University of Vermont. According to the center's director, Tim Perkins, Maple syrup science is a nose-and-mouth science. The technical term is organoleptic, which means you put it in your mouth and taste it, says Perkins. We get people who know the flavor of maple syrup, and off- flavors, and they try each one. Laboratory tests using gas chromatography provide a breakdown of the many compounds in the syrup, which supplements the tastebud approach. Since 1998, the University of Vermont Proctor Maple Research Center has received over $2.1 million in earmarks.

There is $75,000 for farm safety education for children in Iowa. Who better than a bureaucrat in Washington to teach a farmer's children to be safe. The 10-year total for earmarks for Iowa farm safety education--over $4.2 million.

There is $300,000 for shrimp aquaculture research at the University of Southern Mississippi Thad Cochran Marine Agricultural Center. Over the past 10 years, we have earmarked over $30.4 million on shrimp aquaculture research.

There is $1 million for potato research at Oregon State University. We have earmarked, over the past 10 years, $7.1 million for potato research.

There is $600,000 which is gobbled down by the National Wild Turkey Federation for projects in Nebraska, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Since fiscal year 2004, the National Wild Turkey Federation has received over $1.7 million in earmarks.

There is $265,000 for minimizing blackbird damage to sunflowers in North and South Dakota. This is an earmark ``regular'' for the Agriculture appropriations bill. Evidently the South Dakota sunflowers have a rather serious Alfred Hitchcock ``Birds'' problem. According to the USDA, blackbird management in North and South Dakota has received over $1.2 million over the past 5 years.

There is $200,000 for Washington State University to study goatgrass. Since 2003, $767,000 has been earmarked for goatgrass research.

There is $372,000 for the University of Pennsylvania to study dairy farm profitability. If you are relying on a federally mandated study to make your dairy farm profitable, you might want to find a new business plan, because nearly $3.8 million has been earmarked for dairy farm profitability over the last 10 years.

There is $288,000 for the Iowa Soybean Association. Since 2002, over $3.3 million has been earmarked for the Iowa Soybean Association. There is $1 million for Mormon cricket control in Nevada; the 10-year total for Mormon cricket control, nearly $13.7 million. There is $260,000 for wine grape research at Washington State University. According to Washington State University's own Web site, the wine industry generates $3 billion in their State, so we are going to pour another $260,000 into it. There is $350,000 for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture to support the ``specialty meats industry.'' Specialty meats industry? Since 2004, the Wisconsin specialty meats industry has received over $12.7 million in earmarks. There is $340,000 for the Center for Beef Excellence in Pennsylvania. According to their own press release, the center was established by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture just last year. At least we can agree that a $340,000 handout from Congress is quite a good start. Over $1 million has been earmarked to the Center for Beef Excellence since 2005. There is $450,000 for the University of Northern

Iowa to study agriculture-based lubricants. They have received over $3 million in the last 10 years.

It is not surprising that the largest earmark in this bill goes to Hawaii. The Aloha State bags $5 million to continue construction of an Agricultural Research Service center to study agricultural practices in the Pacific. As my colleagues might know, ARS construction is one of the most heavily earmarked accounts in government, so much so that the President's budget actually proposed zeroing out Agricultural Research Service center construction for fiscal year 2010 because ``Congress routinely earmarks small amounts of funding for [these projects] located throughout the nation. The result of scattering funding in this manner is that . . . few, if any, of the projects are able to reach the critical threshold of funding that would allow construction to begin. Funding construction over such a long time significantly increases the amount of money needed to fully complete these projects as well as postponing their completion for many years.''

So here we have a program that is earmarked so severely that it delays and drives up the cost of approved construction projects. Not only are we defiantly funding this Hawaiian facility, the bill provides a total of $47 million for a list of 15 of these facilities ranging from $4 million for a fruit lab in West Virginia to $2 million for an animal waste research facility in Kentucky.

Another amendment I have filed proposes striking the $50.7 million contained in this bill for USDA's Resource Conservation and Development Program, known as RC&D. The RC&D Program was created in 1962 to promote resource conservation through community-based conservation leadership councils. The RC&D councils have helped to leverage local funding for efforts such as soil mapping or erosion control for rural areas. The administration supports terminating this program because, in their own words:

After 47 years, the goal of the RC&D program has been

accomplished. These councils have developed sufficiently

strong state and local ties . . . and are now able to secure

funding for their continued operation without Federal

assistance. The program has been in operation for decades and

these councils have a proven track record of success, showing

that they have outlived the need for Federal funding.

A half-century-old program proposed for termination by this administration, yet retained by appropriators for its spoils.

I could go on for a long time.

This bill funds several other government programs that were proposed for termination in the President's budget. I filed amendments to strike these programs as well as zero out the ARS construction account. If successfully adopted, these amendments would save taxpayers over $144.5 million. As I have said throughout my comments, some of these programs may have merit and may be helpful to the designated communities. But considering our current budgetary crisis, it is inappropriate to include them in this year's agricultural spending bill, especially when they have been identified for termination or reduction.

I hope my colleagues will agree that we have higher spending priorities that are directly related to the purposes of this Agriculture bill. This bill is intended to address farmers, women, children, and rural communities with the greatest need and should not be used as a vehicle for piggybacking pet projects to get the support of special interest constituents.

It is no surprise that many of these earmarks are not included for practical purposes. I know many of my colleagues have spoken about the economic struggles of America's hard-working farmers and low-income families. The farmers and struggling families I know are tired of watching their hard-earned money go down the drain. I intend to fight every single unnecessary, unrequested, unauthorized earmark in this and every other appropriations bill.

I filed 313 amendments to this bill. The bulk of those amendments seek to strike the 296 earmarks, now humorously called ``congressionally directed spending items,'' in the committee report on this bill. I have now offered only three of these amendments. Let me assure my colleagues I have no problem with offering, debating, and voting on each and every one of the amendments I have filed. The time has come to end this practice.

This first amendment, which we may vote on today, I want to emphasize, eliminates, as recommended by the President and the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's High Energy Cost Grants Program, a $17.5 million subsidy designed to pay for energy generation systems in rural areas. It was proposed for termination by the administration because it is duplicative of existing programs. Under the fiscal year 2010 budget, the rural utility service program would provide $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the taxpayers. Senators should know there is $20 million in unobligated high energy cost grants still available from last year.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this amendment eliminates the U.S. Department of Agriculture's High Energy Cost Grant Program which is a $17.5 million subsidy that is designed to pay for energy generation systems in rural areas.

The 2010 budget from the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget have recommended a number of programs be eliminated. Concerning this High Energy Cost Grant Program, it says:

The administration proposes to eliminate the High Energy

Cost Grant Program because it is duplicative of and less

effective than the Rural Utility Services Electric Loan

Program.

This recommendation by the administration to eliminate this program is because it is both duplicative and unnecessary and there is a $6.6 billion program in electric loans at no cost to the taxpayer.

I recommend we agree with the President of the United States and eliminate this unnecessary $17.5 million subsidy.

I yield.

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

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

Madam President, I rise today to talk about Judge Sotomayor's experience, and I also want to talk about empathy.

In the period since President Obama nominated Sotomayor, some of her opponents have done their best to give empathy a bad name. I think that is a shame. It would be sad for us to confirm Sonia Sotomayor but allow her empathy to be discredited as a human emotion and a judicial asset.

During his confirmation hearings, Clarence Thomas said:

What I bring to this Court, I believe, is an understanding

and the ability to stand in the shoes of other people across

a broad spectrum of this country.

Justice Thomas's description of empathy captures one thing Sotomayor would bring to this Court: a diversity of experience and the ability to stand in the shoes of other people.

During her opening statement before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor talked about her experience as a prosecutor in New York for legendary district attorney Bob Morgenthau. She said:

I saw children exploited and abused. I felt the pain and

suffering of families torn apart by the needless deaths of

loved ones. I saw and learned the tough job law enforcement

has in protecting the public.

According to those who knew and worked with her, Judge Sotomayor was an excellent prosecutor. She knew the law, she studied the facts, and she did the hard work to keep people safe from crime. In this difficult job, she benefited from her empathy. Judge Sotomayor felt the pain and suffering of families destroyed by crime. She felt the difficulties law enforcement officers face, and she understood that her job was not just about enforcing the law, it was about ending the suffering crime brings.

During her testimony, Judge Sotomayor talked about the ``Tarzan'' case, a famous burglary and murder case she prosecuted. A quarter century later, she still feels deeply the impact of that crime. I was struck by her description of how the murder of a son devastated the lives of his mother and grandmother, how one act of violence produced ripples that destroyed a family and weakened a community, and how the family and the community demanded justice.

When I served as a Federal prosecutor, I learned that empathy is every bit as important as legal knowledge and good judgment. A prosecutor who reads the facts of a crime and cannot empathize with those involved is not just a strange person, he or she is likely to be an ineffective lawyer. A proper respect for the law demands a recognition that individuals involved in a legal dispute are not abstractions; they are sons, daughters, sisters, and brothers, men and women who deserve justice. Empathy allows us to recognize that, and that is essential to the practice of law. It is also an essential quality for judges.

Some Members of this body have suggested that empathy is inconsistent with impartial judgment. I disagree. Judges must, first and foremost, apply law to facts. But this process is not a mechanical calculation; it requires attention to the human impact of legal decisions. Legal reasoning that ignores

the human dimension risks inhuman outcomes to human problems. Law without empathy produces decisions such as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. It gives you reasoned arguments and unreasonable results.

When the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott, its members were applying the law to the facts as they saw them. One fact they took for granted was that Dred Scott was so different as to be unworthy of legal protections. The Taney Court could not put themselves in Scott's shoes, and the result was such a rebuke to the values of this Nation that it helped drive us to civil war.

When the Court wrote in Plessy that ``the enforced separation of the two races [does not stamp] the colored race with a badge of inferiority,'' they were not misinterpreting the law. They just could not feel the sting of segregation. Or to put it another way, they failed to show empathy, and generations of Black citizens paid the price.

Of course, a judge with empathy must also determine with whom to empathize. One of my colleagues has argued that empathy for somebody is always discrimination against somebody else. Again, I disagree. I believe that justice is not a zero-sum game. Equal justice for minorities does not mean less justice for others. A judge who feels compassion for those who face the legacy of codified bigotry is not less able to sympathize with a White firefighter who has been denied a promotion. The law respects the humanity of every individual. Judges can and should do the same.

Judge Sotomayor has explained that her experience has helped her to ``understand, respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me.'' All litigants.

As a prosecutor, Judge Sotomayor sympathized with the victims of crime. But she could also look at a defendant and see a fellow human being--somebody who deserves fairness, if not freedom. As a judge, she has ruled for civil rights claimants, and she has ruled against them. She has ruled for prosecutors and for defendants. Her compassion has not led her to come down on one side or the other. It has helped her to be both wise and fair--to treat every individual with the respect he or she deserves.

President Obama has nominated a Supreme Court Justice with a wealth of both personal and professional experience. Her experience has given her the intelligence to understand the law and the wisdom to apply it.

But it has also given her something more. Judge Sotomayor has seen housing projects and Ivy League dorms. She has defended those whom society ignores and prosecuted those who ignore society's rules. At the trial and appellate level, she has seen the human drama of American law play out in countless ways.

This experience has given her compassion for the diverse experiences that make up the American experiment. She understands in a deep and personal way that we all deserve equal justice under law. I can think of no more important qualification for a Supreme Court Justice.

She has earned her right to serve on the Nation's highest Court. I look forward to supporting her confirmation.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Madam President, as I rise today, the world is engaged in a high-stakes competition. The country that wins this competition will not only produce jobs today, it will dominate the industries of the future. The competition is the race to create clean energy jobs. I want America to win, and the Congress will play a key role in deciding whether we do.

But before I talk about the decision we have to make, I want to be clear about a decision that America does not have to make. We don't have to decide whether clean energy will be the industry of the future. It will. The clean energy industry is primed to produce millions of jobs in the coming years. The question is whether these jobs will be in America. We have to answer this question now.

If we put our minds to it, Americans can produce the clean energy technologies that will power the future. The country that invented the light bulb, the automobile, and the Internet is not going to finish last when it comes to developing new ideas. But we need policies that promote innovation. Right now, we are falling behind.

Progressive policies have given other countries a lead. With a population roughly one-quarter as large as America's, Germany has more than twice as many workers developing wind energy and solar photovoltaic technologies. By 2020, more Germans will be producing clean energy than are producing German cars. Spain has almost five times as many workers in the solar thermal industry as the United States. China has more than 300 times as many. Do we want to lose this race to Germany, to Spain, to China?

Some have argued that America cannot lead on climate change; that we need to wait for countries such as China and India to act first. This would be incredibly shortsighted. If America solves its energy problems first, every country on Earth will be begging for the technologies we develop. If we don't, we will be begging for technologies developed elsewhere.

Americans always prosper by being one step ahead. We mass produced the car, and American manufacturing built the middle class. We sparked the IT revolution, and our high-tech industry still gives us high- paying jobs. Today, being one step ahead means developing

the clean energy technologies of the future before anybody else does. Waiting for China to address its emissions problems before we address ours is like waiting for an opponent to finish the race before we start to lace up our shoes.

China is not waiting for America to act. It has already implemented strong policies to promote clean energy. Chinese fuel efficiency economy standards are higher today than ours will be in 2020. They have already set a 15-percent renewable energy standard for 2020, and their government recently said they could reach 20 percent. In 2009, China became the world's largest clean energy investor. It plans to spend nearly half a trillion dollars over 10 years to ensure clean energy jobs come to China.

China's policies have already begun to pay off. It is now the leading manufacturer of wind turbines and it has 65 percent of the world's solar thermal water heating market. China even beats us in industries we created. America invented solar photovoltaics, but China now dominates that market, while America comes in tenth.

I am not content to let other countries keep beating us at our own game. It is time to act. The clean energy bill currently being developed in Congress is the kind of action we need. It is a distinctly American solution to this global problem because it relies on private markets and private businesses, and that is why it provides real change with minimal cost.

Of course, some people will claim this plan breaks the bank. Defenders of the status quo never run out of excuses to do nothing. They have made huge profits polluting our air, and clean energy is a threat to them. The same people who denied the science of global warming will tell you that a clean energy solution is too expensive. They were wrong about the science then, and they are wrong about the economics now.

In 1990, polluters told America we could not afford the Clean Air Act, a bipartisan bill signed by a Republican President. History has shown that the act actually cost one-fortieth of what they said it would. The best independent estimate about this bill comes from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and they say it will cost Americans less than 50 cents per day, and the CBO numbers likely overestimate costs. To keep their analysis simple, they ignore the impact of increased efficiency. When you factor in efficiency, New Mexicans will probably end up ahead about $4 per month on their energy bills, and low-income New Mexicans will save even more. The most expensive energy policy America can pursue is the status quo.

In 2006, I introduced a clean energy bill similar to the bill we are considering now. The month I introduced it, gas prices were at about $2.25 per gallon. Critics claimed clean energy would drive up prices and Congress never acted. By 2008, the price of gas had nearly doubled to a high of $4.11.

Much of the money America spends on gas flows right out of this country. Today, the United States is importing nearly 70 percent of its oil. We sent roughly $4,280 per U.S. family out of the country in 2008 to pay for oil, and too much of that money goes to individuals who finance terrorism and regimes that don't like Americans.

Some will say the solution is increased oil production, and I support increased production. My home State of New Mexico is one of 10 that produces more oil than it consumes, and I am proud that we help meet America's energy needs. But increased production alone is not enough. America has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. More than 66 percent of those reserves--those that are left--are in Russia, Iran, and six other countries in the Middle East. The more we depend only on fossil fuels, the more American money will flow to these countries.

When it comes to energy, we have to do it all and we have to do it now. Since comprehensive clean energy legislation was first introduced in 2003, we have sent trillions of dollars abroad every year to pay for oil--in fact, $700 billion a year. We cannot afford 6 more years of delay.

But the status quo doesn't just threaten our economy and our security; it threatens the basis of our way of life. Scientists predict that global warming could give my home State of New Mexico the same climate as the Sonoran Desert in Chihuahua, Mexico. If that happens, farmers who have worked the land for generations will be forced out of business. Forest fires will become more common and more dangerous. Our communities will face a bleak economic future. For the children of my State and our country, we cannot afford to stay on this path.

Fortunately, America has what it takes to change course. Even without progressive policies on the national level, New Mexico has begun to create massive numbers of clean energy jobs. Between 1998 and 2007, clean energy jobs grew 25 times faster than other jobs. We call these the jobs of the future. Increasingly, they are also the jobs of today.

There are too many success stories to tell, but I want to mention one. Three weeks ago, a company called Schott Solar opened its second renewable technologies plant in Albuquerque, NM. The plant currently employs 300 people, and it comes 2 months after the company opened a plant that will eventually employ 1,500. Schott decided to locate these plants in New Mexico after our State passed a series of clean energy incentives.

What I like most about this story is that Schott is a German company. It looked at New Mexico's policies and decided to invest German money in creating American jobs. For years, while American policymakers failed to act, American investors sent our capital to Germany. New Mexico's forward-looking policies are helping to reverse the flow. What that tells me is that with the right policies, America can lead the world in this crucial industry. We can stop creating jobs in Saudi Arabia and start creating them in Socorro, NM. We can stop letting China develop our technologies and sell them back to us.

We can win the clean energy revolution the same way we won the high- tech revolution--by getting there first--or we can wait and watch the world pass us by. I think the choice is clear. I hope my colleagues do as well, and I hope they will join me in supporting the Senate's clean energy legislation when it comes to the floor.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, if people have amendments, that they come down to the floor now and start working on these. It would be my hope we can move through this bill as fast as possible so that we can get to the debate on Judge Sotomayor and have as much time as possible to deal with that. I urge colleagues to start working with us on these issues. By unanimous consent, the cloture vote has been scheduled for 5:30 today. There are things we need to get resolved; they should be taken care of now.

Amendment No. 2229, as Modified

This is an amendment that has been cleared by both sides. It is on neglected and rare diseases. Senator Brown has asked to be a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that this be considered the pending amendment and that it be passed.

What we are trying to do is to work through the amendments to the degree we can. We certainly want to. I ask our colleagues to bring those to the floor as soon as they possibly can.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Madam President, the reason I ask that on this bill-- and I do urge my colleagues to come forward to speak on the Agriculture appropriations bill. We have already cleared some amendments, and we need to move forward.

Something happened yesterday that affected my State directly, and that was the statement by the administration--or leak from the administration--that they are considering moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to my State, associated with Fort Leavenworth. This has riled up everybody. I was just there this morning, and we had 100 people who came out after very short notice. It is virtually unanimous in their opinions--not everybody but close to everybody is opposed to this idea for a multiple set of reasons.

Moving the Guantanamo Bay detainees to Fort Leavenworth and the Fort Leavenworth area would not work, to start off with, and will significantly hurt the core educational and international mission of the fort. On top of that it is totally unnecessary. I hope the administration will start to rethink this idea of moving the Guantanamo Bay detainees. I think it is a bad idea that we replicate the facility we already have at Guantanamo Bay somewhere in the United States because we already have a facility to hold the detainees. We already have a facility to try the detainees. It is all set up. I was there. I led a congressional delegation a couple of months ago. They are being humanely treated, and if they are not, and if there are credible reports that they are not, then let's work on fixing Guantanamo Bay rather than moving the detainees to the United States.

If there are problems, let's fix them rather than just say we are going to change the name of the place and we are going to move the detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Leavenworth. We are not going to change the opinion of the world of the United States one iota by substituting the name ``Leavenworth'' for the name ``Guantanamo Bay,'' creating a replica of what we already have at Guantanamo Bay, only somewhere else. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have when we already have an $11 trillion debt, and it is growing at a rate of nearly $2 trillion a year. So why would we spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing something that is not going to change world opinion, replicating a facility that we already have, that slows the process? This doesn't make any sense.

On top of that, what is being considered at Leavenworth would not work. The fort at Leavenworth--if I could just talk to my colleagues about this, and I hope they will look at the factual setting. Fort Leavenworth is one of the smallest Army bases we have around the world. It is 8 square miles. It butts up in and is a part of an urban area of Kansas City. It has on its border a river and a train that goes through about every 25 minutes. It is not the secure facility one would need to have for these detainees. We don't have any setbacks like we have in a number of other facilities, and it has one of the highest population densities per square mile or square foot of any of our military bases because it houses the Command and General Staff College of the military.

If I could just point out that facility to my colleagues--and I hope some of them come and attend and address the Command and General Staff College. We get students from around the world on a regular basis at that facility. Generally, some 90 countries at any one point in time have students at the Command and General Staff College. Of these 90 countries that send students for their Army training for their military, half of those students will become general flag officers before their career is done. A number of them will become civilian leaders in their own country as well. So you get the cream of the crop from around the world. They come here. They also meet with our future military leaders, and this is the training center they have. It is the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth.

The primary mission of Fort Leavenworth is that training as well as that relationship and integration between our U.S. Army forces and forces of militaries, Army forces from around the world, which is critically important when you go into places such as Pakistan or Afghanistan or you are working with the Jordanians or the Egyptians, just to name a few. They send leaders from all of those countries, future flag officers to Fort Leavenworth to be trained. We have already heard in canvassing students from Jordan, Egypt, and Pakistan that they will pull their students from Fort Leavenworth if the detainees are moved there. They don't want to have their military leaders, their future military leaders at the same place that the detainees are being held in the United States, and they have already stated that to us.

So we are going to hurt the core mission of Fort Leavenworth in a facility that doesn't have setbacks to safely handle this for no gain. I would point out that I spoke with the commanding general at Fort Leavenworth yesterday. I called him after I heard about this report on MS-NBC. That was how I got the news of it. My wife was on the Internet, and she was on MSNBC's Web site and she sees that they are thinking about moving the Gitmo detainees to either Leavenworth or Michigan. That didn't set very well with me, that that is how I learned about this to start off with.

As I started calling around, I called the commanding general, and he said he learned about it pretty late as well and has difficulties, although he is a military man. He will salute and take orders and do what he is directed to do, but he is not--he needs to be asked and brought in to testify about what his opinion would be about this issue. I talked to the Governor in Kansas last night. The Governor, a Democratic Governor, has issued a statement previously opposed to this move taking place to Fort Leavenworth. The Congresswoman from the area was there this morning opposed to this move. The mayor of Leavenworth was there opposed to this move.

We have voted in this body virtually unanimously--close to a unanimous vote--that you have to work with local officials before the Gitmo detainees can be moved anywhere into the United States. Well, the local officials are uniformly opposed to this at Leavenworth, and we wake up and it is in the morning paper and nobody has been consulted about it.

I wish to say the detainees in my estimation deserve appropriate humane treatment. They deserve to be treated under our international obligations. If they are not getting that, then that needs to be changed, and it needs to be changed at Guantanamo Bay. I hope we would have international investigations to tell us what is not being met that we are required to do, that is not being done. I have not seen any credible international reports that say there are things we are not doing that we should do at Guantanamo Bay. There is a gray category that is involved where you have enemy combatants who don't represent a foreign country, and that is a big part of our problem. There is also a very tough area, and that is--I saw this when I was at Guantanamo Bay-- a number of the detainees are continuing the fight

today. While in prison, at Gitmo, they continue the fight. So whoever gets these or takes these detainees is going to have to be prepared to have the continuation of the war on terrorism happening near them and happening in the prison facility. That is not everybody, but some of them continue to fight in prison. That is going to be a difficult situation for whoever is to handle it.

On top of that, our folks at Leavenworth--we have prisoners in there, and the town is proud of their ability to handle various prisoners. Their concern is not keeping the detainees in, because you can staff up for that, but it is keeping out people who seek to get in or make a statement in that area. Plus, they would have to scale up their facilities.

We have a medium-security Bureau of Prisons facility. It is not maximum security. We have a dominated medium-security disciplinary barracks there, and we have space for 25 maximum-security prisoners-- only 25. You would have to move out all of the current military personnel convicted in military courts who are held in the disciplinary barracks. We are not situated to handle this. It would cost a huge amount of money, and it would not be safe to do it at Leavenworth. It is a bad idea for us to do that there.

I ask the President to come to Leavenworth. He was invited by the mayor this morning. He can look at the facility and examine it himself. The Attorney General can come and examine the facility, look at it, and see what estimation they come up with after examining and looking at the facility. I understand they are looking at some sort of hybrid facility. We don't have the situation to be able to house it in Kansas.

On top of that, I ask the President to really listen to the American people. The American people don't want these detainees moved to the United States. They don't want to hurry up artificial timelines set for moving the detainees to the United States, and they feel the President should be listening to them and not to European leaders or somebody around the world who doesn't like the Guantanamo Bay facility and thinks it has a bad name. Listen to the American people on this issue.

I ask that the President come and talk to the Members of Congress who may be impacted by this and ask our opinions and look at what is taking place. This is being rushed. It is on an artificial time deadline. It doesn't need to happen. It is replicating a facility we have, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, and it will slow the process down. It is a bad idea chasing a bad idea with an artificial time limit. I ask that the President not do that.

My colleague and I from Kansas will fight every step of the way to keep this facility from being moved to Kansas. We are representing our constituents, who don't want these detainees moved to Kansas. We are going to fight it every step of the way.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, we are attempting to work through some amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 2253 on behalf of Senator Chambliss, and the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

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

Madam President, it is my understanding this amendment has been cleared on both sides, so I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I have been asked by Senator Barrasso to ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 2240 on behalf of Senator Barrasso.

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

I wanted to get this for Senator Barrasso. We will be handling that at a later point in time.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2243 to Amendment No. 1908

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2254 and 2255 to Amendment No. 1908

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2254 on behalf of Senator Chambliss and 2255 on behalf of Senator Vitter en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

I understand these amendments have been cleared on both sides. I offer them for Senators Chambliss and Vitter. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to en bloc.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Cloture Motion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wage workers.

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

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

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

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

45-year-old system originally designed for women and

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

Medicaid.

The words of Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee.

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

What we need Congress to do is cost control.

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

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

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

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

Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell

a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not

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

from buying the advertised merchandise in order to sell

something else. . . .

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

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

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

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

Nobody is talking about some government takeover of health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meaning the single-payer option----

and I believe we will.

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

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

Given the track record of our government in bait and

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

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

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

citizens. But given the past actions of our government when

implementing programs, our future is clear.

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

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

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

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to rise in support of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Sotomayor's background demonstrates that she is an extremely well-qualified, mainstream judge who has the utmost respect for precedent and believes in fidelity to the law.

I have always said I do not believe in a litmus test for judicial nominees, and I will look at the nominee's record as a whole. Judge Sotomayor's record, in its entirety, is nothing short of impressive. With 17 years on the Federal bench, she has more Federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 100 years.

Judge Sotomayor has a compelling, ``pull yourself up by your bootstraps'' personal story. She was raised by a single mom who emphasized education as she struggled to support her family while working as a nurse. With her mother's strong work ethic and focus on education deeply ingrained in her, Judge Sotomayor went on to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University, and she received her law degree from Yale Law School, where she was editor of the Yale Law Journal.

She then became a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where she was tough on criminals and gained valuable perspective for her later career as a judge. She also became active in many areas of her community, showing her desire to serve others and promote justice in society. Having served as a volunteer for many efforts in my hometown of Greensboro, North Carolina, I know how serving others can enhance one's understanding and appreciation of the world.

After her time as a prosecutor, Judge Sotomayor went into practice as a commercial litigator, where she dealt with business and finance law-- an area of importance to my State of North Carolina. In 1991, upon the recommendation of then-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, she was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to serve as a Federal judge for the Southern District Court of New York, and in 1992 she was unanimously confirmed for that position by the Senate.

While serving as a district court judge, she was known for her toughness, fairness, and dedication to the law--characteristics of a strong judge. Because of her outstanding record on the district court level, Judge Sotomayor was nominated, in 1997, by President William Jefferson Clinton, to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In 1998, the Senate confirmed her by a wide margin.

Among the Senators voting for her confirmation was former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms. I would like to think that Senator Helms saw in Judge Sotomayor the same qualities President Obama saw: fairness of mind, supreme intellect, and an unsurpassed devotion to the law and to our system of government.

Some opponents have repeatedly brought up a few select comments made by Judge Sotomayor to suggest that she will not be impartial. However, Judge Sotomayor has made it clear she does not let her background influence her interpretation of the law. Her statements to the Judiciary Committee and her 17-year record on the bench confirm this.

As Judge Sotomayor has said:

My record shows that at no point or time have I ever

permitted my personal views or sympathies to influence an

outcome of a case. In every case where I have identified a

sympathy, I have articulated it and explained to the litigant

why the law requires a different result.

Judge Sotomayor has also said that as much as her experiences influence her perspective, they have also taught

her to be aware of other people's perspectives. In 2001, she said:

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect

people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete

vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and

perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited

abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them

and change as circumstances and cases before me require.

As Judge Sotomayor said in her confirmation hearing, her underlying judicial philosophy is ``fidelity to the law.'' In an independent study, Supreme Court expert Tom Goldstein looked at 97 race-related cases in which Judge Sotomayor participated while on the Second Circuit. He found that she and the rest of her panel ``rejected discrimination claims roughly 80 times and agreed with them 10 times.'' The circuit rejected discrimination claims by a margin of 8 to 1. Goldstein wrote: ``Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous'' and ``of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge.''

``Given that record,'' Goldstein concluded, ``it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.''

Judge Sotomayor has also demonstrated she does not legislate from the bench, and she gives deference to Congress in clarifying the intent of laws. In her dissent to the majority's opinion in Hayden v. Pataki, Judge Sotomayor wrote:

The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question

its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to

disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent

exceptions to the statutes it has created.

She also said:

I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed

changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.

Additionally, a comprehensive study of Judge Sotomayor's criminal appellate decisions by the majority staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee found, as an appellate judge, Sotomayor sat with Republican- appointed judges on more than 400 criminal cases. In those cases, she agreed with all Republican-appointed judges 97 percent of the time; and she agreed with at least one Republican-appointed judge 99 percent of the time.

Judge Sotomayor's sensible attitude toward following the law and her ability to objectively evaluate all angles of her cases has resulted in high ratings and endorsements by numerous organizations.

The American Bar Association unanimously found Sotomayor to be ``well qualified,'' which is the highest rating the ABA gives to judicial nominees. The Congressional Research Service conducted an analysis of her opinions and concluded:

As a group, the opinions belie easy categorization along

any ideological spectrum. . . . Perhaps the most consistent

characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate

judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis,

i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents.

Judge Sotomayor has an impressive list of law enforcement endorsements and supporters, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the National Association of Police Organizations; the National District Attorneys Association; the Fraternal Order of Police; the National Latino Peace Officers Association; the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; the Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association; the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; and the National Sheriffs' Association.

Judge Sotomayor has also been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which stated:

The Chamber evaluated Judge Sotomayor's record from the

standpoint of legal scholarship, judicial temperament, and an

understanding of business and economic issues. Based on the

Chamber's evaluation of her judicial record, Judge Sotomayor

is well-qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the

U.S. Supreme Court.

The nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice reviewed all of Judge Sotomayor's constitutional law decisions and said:

Based on this exhaustive review, the conclusion is

unmistakable: in constitutional cases, Judge Sotomayor is

solidly in the mainstream of the Second Circuit.

Judge Sotomayor's former law clerks wrote a letter endorsing her nomination, in which they said:

As former law clerks to Judge Sotomayor, each of us can

attest to her intellectual prowess, extraordinary work ethic,

and commitment to the rule of law. Working for Judge

Sotomayor is an awe-inspiring experience. We each had the

privilege of working closely with her as she confronted, and

resolved, incredibly complex and intellectually demanding

legal challenges. Judge Sotomayor approaches each case with

an open mind and arrives at her decision only after carefully

considering all of the pertinent facts and applicable rules

of law.

The law clerks said they agree with many of Judge Sotomayor's other colleagues, who ``respect her intellectual dynamism, collegiality, and balanced, fair jurisprudence.''

I would like to thank and congratulate the members of the Judiciary Committee for holding an extraordinarily civil and open Supreme Court nomination process. I commend President Obama for selecting a woman, a Hispanic, and, above all, an extremely well-qualified nominee. I am thrilled to have the opportunity to be a part of this historic moment, and if she is confirmed, I believe she will serve our country well.

Based on my conversations with the nominee, her statements in her confirmation hearings, and my review of her record, I intend to support her confirmation when it is voted upon later this week, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.