Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, last week, over the Fourth of July break, I spent much of the week traveling in my State of South Dakota. Many of my colleagues were in their individual States and probably heard a lot from their constituents about what they perceive to be the challenges facing our country's economy. First and foremost is jobs and the economy.

I think there is a real concern--and rightly so--about in which direction the economy is headed and what are the things Congress ought to properly be focused on, and I think that discussion is always informed by the American people by commonsense realizations. One realization is that you cannot spend money you don't have. That is something I think the American people get very clearly, largely because that is their reality. They cannot spend money they don't have. They have to live within a budget. The same is true with many small businesses. The second realization is that when you borrow money, someday you have to pay it back. You cannot continue to borrow endlessly and rack up more and more debt. At some point, there is an end to that. Certainly, that is true for family budgets and small business budgets. The only place it is evidently not true is in Washington, DC, where we continue to borrow and spend and put massive amounts of borrowing and debt upon future generations. Even most State governments--mine included--have balanced budget amendments that require them in any given year to make sure the revenues they take in match up with expenses. If they don't do that in South Dakota, the legislature has to stay until the budget is balanced. So most Americans, as they observe what is happening in Washington these days, are increasingly concerned by the massive amounts of spending and borrowing and, frankly, the taxes they perceive to be in their future as well.

One of the things that is clear to me in doing parades and public events over the Fourth of July break is how much people picked up on the debate about the cap-and-trade bill, which is a national energy tax on the American people. It passed in the House a little over a week ago--before the break--by a seven-vote margin. There was big pressure to move it very quickly and jam it through the process. It was over 1,200 pages long. One amendment was 300 pages long. There weren't many Members of the House--before the bill passed--who had an opportunity to review it and study it closely to determine what the ramifications will be on their constituents if the bill passed. Yet it did. It was a very close vote. At some point, it will be considered by the Senate.

The one thing we know, at a minimum, is that we can debate about how much or how big the cost of that bill will be, but we do know it is going to impose significant increases in costs on the American public for power, whether it is electricity, fuel, natural gas, or home heating oil--the things the American people depend upon every single day for their very existence. They are going to see the cost of those things go up if this cap-and-trade bill passes. We have seen different estimates by different organizations. The most recent one was done by the CBO, which concluded that it will have a $700 billion impact. I think that if you reduced it to a per-family cost, it ends up being several hundred dollars a year in increased rates that they are going to pay. I argue that it will be much higher for people in the Midwest, where I come from, because of the way we derive our power. Most of it comes from coal-fired power. It is true that we get a good amount in South Dakota and other States around us get even more from those sources. There will be additional costs imposed upon the people in the Midwest, where the people on the west or east coasts may not see their costs go up as much. This will disproportionately impact people in the heartland, but everybody's electricity costs and fuel costs are going up if this passes.

The American people are asking: OK, if you are going to put a massive new tax on us with a new energy tax, what kinds of benefits do we derive? I think there is increasing concern and questions being raised about whether the environmental benefit that would be derived as a result of this massive new tax on energy in this country would be in any way close to the cost that would be associated with it. I think most Americans have concluded that it will not. Most of the data bears that out. Other countries in the world are not going to participate in this system, and America will be unilaterally implementing this regime, if passed, and the Americans will pay the costs for little benefit.

There are many ways you can get reduction in carbon emissions, and we are all looking for ways to reduce pollutants in the atmosphere. You can give incentives and drive investment in certain directions, and we could make more use of nuclear power, which is clean, green energy-- something we do very little of relative to our counterparts in other parts of the world.

France gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear energy. There is no reason why the United States could not turn to that clean, green energy source, as well as renewable energy sources that we have an abundance of in my part of the country, such as wind energy. If you put in incentives and drive investment in that direction, you can achieve the same ends without putting the big cap, top-down government mandate on the American economy at an enormous cost to the American consumers.

Health Care

That is the issue, I would say, probably as much as anything else I have heard people talk about, but not far behind it was this notion that the government is now going to take over one-sixth of our economy because of the legislation that is moving through the Congress right now that would ``reform'' our health care system.

It is, I guess, no surprise to most Americans that we spend a lot on health care. Most of us would like to see us spend less on health care. Many of us think we can do that, that we can get costs under control, that we can do it through reforms that preserve what is good about the American health care system, that doesn't copy what is happening in other places around the world, Europe being an example, where care is rationed, where people don't have access to the types of therapies and treatments because the government decides what procedures are going to be covered, which procedures are cost-effective.

Those are decisions made by government. In this country, those are decisions made by patients and doctors, by physicians, by health care providers and those they serve. We believe that is a basic relationship we ought to preserve when we talk about reforming our health care system.

But most Americans are very concerned that the government may take over one-sixth of the American economy and run it, imposing the government in the place of, as I said before, what has typically been a relationship between physicians and patients.

What I would argue is that whether it is the issue of new energy taxes on the American consumer, whether it is the issue of the government taking over the health care system in this country at a minimum cost of $1 trillion--there was a CBO Congressional Budget Office report that came out recently that said the new plan the Democrats are unveiling may only be $600 billion, but it also doesn't include many of the most costly parts of the plan that we expect the Democrats to put on the floor of the Senate at some point in the not too distant future.

I will simply say again that based on the feedback I got from people across this country and people across South Dakota in particular over the break, the government takeover of health care in this country is something with which they are very uncomfortable, and they don't want to pay trillions of dollars in new taxes to make that possible.

If you talk about the amount of spending that is going on, the amount of borrowing we are doing from future generations, I think most Americans come back to those two basic principles I mentioned earlier, what I call our sort of commonsense conclusions that the American people come to. One is, you cannot spend money you do not have, and they see Washington doing that every single day; that when you borrow money, at some point you have to pay it back. And there is borrowing going on here right now like there is no tomorrow.

The health care entitlement program, if passed, would be a minimum of $1 trillion in new spending and would either have to be financed by tax increases, by revenue raisers the economy is going to pay for at a time we can least afford it, or by borrowing at a time when we are running over the next decade at least on average $1 trillion a year in deficits.

We cannot continue on this path. It is unsustainable. I believe the American people are coming to that realization. I hope the Senate will put the brakes on this energy tax, will put the brakes on this massive rush to take over one-sixth of our economy by taking over the health care system in this country.

I believe as the American people start to weigh in to this debate those of us in Washington who are in positions to make some of these policies and shape some of these policies will be getting an earful, and I hope so because we need to put the brakes on this massive takeover of the health care system, and we need to put the brakes on this cap and trade, this energy tax imposed on the American people, if it is passed in the Senate as it was a week ago in the House of Representatives.

I hope we can stop those things. I hope at least we can bring some sense to the debate about health care that does reform our system, that does get costs under control, that does not allow the government to get in the way of making decisions that rightfully ought to be made by patients and their doctors.

I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise today to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleagues who had come to the floor to talk about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Any confirmation the Senate considers is important but none more so than a lifetime appointment to the most distinguished judicial office in our Nation.

Now that the President has nominated Judge Sotomayor, it is the Senate's job to give advice and consent. As Alexander Hamilton told the Constitutional Convention:

Senators cannot themselves choose--they can only ratify or

reject the choice of the President.

I take this role very seriously, as do all of my Senate colleagues. In fact, just 3\1/2\ years ago, on this very floor, one of our colleagues in the Senate at the time rose and gave the following views on a then-pending Supreme Court nomination. I will quote for you what he said:

There are some who believe that the President, having won

the election, should have complete authority to appoint his

nominee and the Senate should only examine whether the

Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good

person; that once you get beyond intellect and personal

character, there should be no further question as to whether

the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I

believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to

advise and consent. I believe it calls for meaningful advice

and consent and that includes an examination of the judge's

philosophy, ideology, and record.

The Senator who made those remarks was then-Senator Obama. He spoke those words in January 2006 on this floor when the Senate was debating the confirmation of now-Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

I, like the President, believe it is the Senate's constitutional duty to thoroughly review all nominees to the Federal bench, especially those who will have a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in our Nation. This review should be thorough and fair and cover a nominee's background, judicial record, and adherence to the Constitution. This is especially true with the voluminous judicial record Judge Sotomayor has compiled, with over 3,600 Federal district and appellate level decisions. The Senate must also work to ensure that the nominee will decide cases based upon the bedrock rule of law as opposed to their own personal feelings and political views.

As part of this confirmation process, I had the opportunity this morning to meet with Judge Sotomayor. Like many in this body, I agree that she has an impressive background, as well as a compelling personal story. But what we have to do is examine and look at her record when it comes to her understanding of the Constitution, especially as it relates to the second amendment right to bear arms, and that is an area where I have significant concerns.

While sitting on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sotomayor consistently advanced a narrow view of the second amendment and did so with little explanation or reasoning. For example, twice, Judge Sotomayor has ruled that the second amendment is not a ``fundamental right.'' The first time she did so with a one-sentence footnote, and most recently it was simply stated as fact without any explanation or reasoning being provided. Judge Sotomayor's views on whether the second amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right are so important because the Supreme Court has made this determination a key element in deciding whether to apply parts of the Bill of Rights, such as the second amendment, to State and local governments.

This question, also known as incorporation, is likely to be the next second amendment issue the Supreme Court will consider because the circuit courts of appeal are split, and the Supreme Court specifically noted that they were not deciding this issue in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which was decided last year.

What is most troubling to me, though, is that these second amendment cases point out a disturbing trend that legal experts have expressed about Judge Sotomayor: That she has a record of avoiding or casually dismissing difficult and important constitutional issues. It doesn't take an attorney to notice that Judge Sotomayor's discussion of incorporation, a challenging and constitutionally significant issue, consists of just a few paragraphs. In contrast, the opinions for both the Ninth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit discuss the issue at length and, in doing so, give this important issue the attention and analysis it deserves. While I understand that writing styles can and do vary, even in the writing of judicial opinions, I am still concerned about the apparent lack of thoughtfulness and thorough reasoning in her decisions.

Another example of a Judge Sotomayor opinion that appears to be unnecessarily short and inadequately reasoned is the Ricci v. DeStefano case, or more popularly known as the New Haven firefighter promotion case. In this case, a three-judge panel, which included Judge Sotomayor, published an unusually short and unsigned opinion that simply adopted the lower district court's ruling without adding any original analysis. Even one of Judge Sotomayor's own mentors, Judge Jose Cabranes, commented that the Ricci opinion ``contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case'' and that the ``perfunctory disposition [of the case] rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.'' Without careful reasoning being provided, critics and supporters alike have been left to wonder on what basis these decisions have been made. I am left with concerns about these rulings and whether they are based upon personal views and feelings rather than the rule of law.

My short meeting with Judge Sotomayor this morning did not provide either of us with enough time to address these issues and these concerns at length, and that is why, like many colleagues, I will be monitoring closely the confirmation hearings that are set to occur next month. During those hearings, it is my hope that the members of the Judiciary Committee will take the necessary time to explore and thoroughly examine her positions and legal reasoning, especially on the second amendment, in greater detail.

I, like many of my colleagues, am anxious to see this process move forward. We also understand the weight that is attached to the constitutional role of the Senate when it comes to advice and consent. When you consider a

lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land, you better make sure that you do your homework and that you thoroughly and completely and fairly examine the record.

I hope the Judiciary Committee--and I know they will--will conduct this in a way which is consistent with the tone that ought to be a part of this. It ought to be a civil discussion. It also needs to be thorough because we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Whoever ends up on that Court will be faced with a great many issues, all of which have lasting consequences for this great Republic.

In my view, it is important that we have judges who are put on the Supreme Court who understand that the role of the judiciary in our democracy is not to play or take sides; it is to be the referee, the umpire, to be someone who applies the Constitution, the laws of the land, fairly to the facts in front of them in the cases they will hear. I certainly hope that, as we have an opportunity to more thoroughly review the record of this nominee, the members of the Judiciary Committee and all of the Members of the Senate will take that responsibility very seriously. That will be the criteria and the filter by which I look at this nominee--whether or not, in my view, she exercises an appropriate level of judicial restraint and doesn't view the role of a judge in our judiciary system in this country to be that of an activist, someone who expresses personal feelings or tries to advance a particular political agenda, but someone who, in terms of philosophy and temperament, is committed to that fundamental principle of judicial restraint, which is a hallmark of our democracy and has been for well over 200 years.

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

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

Mr. President, I didn't have an opportunity to address the Koh nomination this morning. We had a cloture vote on the nomination of Harold Koh to be the next State Department Legal Adviser. I wish to express some of the views and concerns I have. Obviously, cloture was invoked this morning, and my guess is that he will ultimately be confirmed. We have an opportunity in a postcloture period to talk a little bit about this nominee.

I have to say this is an important position. If confirmed, Mr. Koh would be the top lawyer at the State Department and would be involved in the negotiation, the drafting, and the interpretation of treaties and U.N. Security Council resolutions. He would also represent the United States in other international negotiations, at international organizations, and before the International Court of Justice. To put it simply, he would be viewed as the top legal authority for the United States by the international community.

Similar to Judge Sotomayor, Mr. Koh highlights an alarming trend which I think we see in some of President Obama's nominees. They have impressive backgrounds, but when their records are examined in detail, there are substantive questions about their understanding of the Constitution. For example, Mr. Koh has said repeatedly, including at his confirmation hearing, that he believes the congressionally authorized 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq ``violated international law'' because the United States had not received ``explicit United Nations authorization'' beforehand. He also said that the U.S. Supreme Court should ``tip more decisively toward a transnationalist jurisprudence'' as opposed to basing decisions on the U.S. Constitution and laws made pursuant to it.

His views on the second amendment are also extremely worrisome. In a speech called ``A World Drowning in Guns,'' which was given at Fordham University Law School in 2002 and later published in the Law Review, he explains why he believed there should be a global gun control regime and admits that ``we are a long way from persuading government to accept a flat ban on the trade of legal arms.''

He concludes his speech with this statement:

When I left the government several years ago, my major

feeling was of too much work left undone. I wrote for myself

a list of issues on which I needed to do more. One of those

issues was the global regulation of small arms.

Given, again, that Mr. Koh will be the top legal adviser at the State Department on both domestic and international issues, I have concerns, because of statements such as these, that he could place his own personal agenda ahead of the needs of our country and the Constitution.

So we will have an opportunity probably--we have had the cloture vote on the nomination, but I wanted to express for the record my concerns about this nominee and the types of statements he has made in the past, the type of agenda he has expressed support for, and how, in my view, it contradicts many of the basic constitutional freedoms and rights-- the second amendment being one--that I would raise as a major concern but also this notion that transnational jurisprudence--that the Supreme Court ought to tip more decisively in that direction. That is a cause for great concern.

I hope that on final disposition of this nominee, the Senate will vote to reject this nomination. It is, in my view, dangerous to the national security interests of the United States and some of our basic constitutional freedoms when he rules in the way he has in the past and continues to issue statements that, in my view, are very troublesome. I will be opposing this nomination, and I hope my colleagues will as well.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Sarah Anderson, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Sarah is a graduate of Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently she is attending the Dakota State University, where she is majoring in elementary and K-12 education. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sarah for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Brady Behrens, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Brady is a graduate of Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently he is attending the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where he is majoring in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Brady for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Katherine Douglas, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Katherine is a graduate of T.F. Riggs High School in Pierre, SD. Currently she is attending the University of South Dakota, where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Katherine

for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Haley Vellinga, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Haley is a graduate of Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently she is attending the Biola University, where she is majoring in communication. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Haley for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Beresford, SD. Founded in 1884, the town of Beresford will celebrate its 125th anniversary this year.

Located in Lincoln and Union County, Beresford possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. Named after Lord Charles Beresford, an admiral in the British Navy and railroad enthusiast, Beresford has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions throughout its rich history. The city of Beresford has much to be proud of and I am confident that Beresford's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Beresford will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on July 2 through July 5. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Beresford on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Blunt, SD. Founded in 1884, the town of Blunt will celebrate its 125th anniversary this year.

Located in the plains region of Hughes County, Blunt possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. Named after railroad engineer John E. Blunt, the town began as a railroad town, benefiting from the rapidly westward- expanding Chicago Northwestern Railroad. A shipping and transportation hotspot, Blunt became the home of numerous pioneers and homesteaders in the late 1800s who relocated to the Dakota Territory. Throughout its rich history, Blunt has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The city of Blunt has much to be proud of and I am confident that Blunt's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Blunt will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on June 27 through June 28. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Blunt on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Britton, SD. Founded in 1884, the town of Britton will celebrate its 125th anniversary this year.

Serving as the county seat of Marshall County, Britton possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. As the ``Gateway to the Glacial Lakes,'' Britton has grown from a small railroad town where the first claims were laid in 1884 into a town where businesses and families thrive. Throughout its rich history, Britton has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest

values and traditions. The city of Britton has much to be proud of and I am confident that Britton's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Britton will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on July 3 through July 5. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Britton on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Emery, SD. Founded in 1884, the town of Emery will celebrate its 125th anniversary this year.

Located in Hanson County, Emery possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. Throughout its rich history, Emery has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The city of Emery has much to be proud of and I am confident that Emery's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Emery will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on July 3 through July 5. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Emery on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Leola, SD. Founded in 1884, the town of Leola will celebrate its 125th anniversary this year.

Serving as the county seat of McPherson County, Leola possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. Named after the daughter of founder CPT E.D. Haynes, Leola began as a town for homesteaders looking for a new future in the West. Throughout, its rich history, Leola has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The city of Leola has much to be proud of and I am confident that Leola's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Leola will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on July 3 through July 5. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Leola on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Seneca, SD. Founded in 1884, the town of Seneca will celebrate its 125th anniversary this year.

Located in Faulk County, Seneca possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. Seneca began 125 years ago as a very prosperous railroad town; and throughout its rich history, Seneca has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The city of Seneca has much to be proud of and I am confident that Seneca's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Seneca will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on June 26 through June 28. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Seneca on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Toronto, SD. Founded in 1884, the town of Toronto will celebrate its 125th anniversary this year.

Located in Deuel County, Toronto possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. Throughout its rich history, Toronto has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The city of Toronto has much to be proud of and I am confident that Toronto's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Toronto will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on July 2 through July 5. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Toronto on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize McLaughlin, SD. Founded in 1909, the city of McLaughlin will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year.

Named after MAJ James McLaughlin, the city of McLaughlin is located in Corson County. McLaughlin possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota a great place to work and live. Throughout its

rich history, McLaughlin has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The city of McLaughlin has much to be proud of and I am confident that McLaughlin's success will continue well into the future.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of McLaughlin on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Revillo, SD. Founded in 1884, the town of Revillo will celebrate its 125th anniversary this year.

Located in Grant County, Revillo possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota such an outstanding place to live and work. Throughout its rich history, Revillo has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The city of Revillo has much to be proud of and I am confident that Revillo's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Revillo will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on June 19 thru June 21. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Revillo on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.