Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask the current amendment be set aside and we call up amendment No. 2484.

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

Mr. President, I rise to present amendment No. 2484. Actually, this is an amendment we have acted on in previous appropriations bills. In fact, this is the amendment that deals with no funding for the organization ACORN.

In the previous Interior bill this passed in a very bipartisan way with a 85-to-11 vote; in the Housing and Transportation bill, again a very bipartisan vote, 83 to 7.

This is an amendment that has overwhelming support of this body. My comments relative to this organization are a matter of the record. I do not feel a need to lay those out again, but I want to present this amendment on this appropriations bill and we have reached an understanding that this can be accepted by voice vote. I want to indicate that will be acceptable to me.

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

Mr. President, Steve and Shelley Brune are extraordinary Nebraskans who made a commitment to open their hearts and home to a foster child, which led to a remarkable story of love and compassion.

In September 1999, they welcomed Jonathon into their home as a foster child. In February 2001, Jonathon's biological brother, James, was also removed from the home. The Brune family recognized the importance of keeping siblings together and agreed to unite the brothers by welcoming James into their home as a second foster child.

The Brunes worked closely with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, in efforts to reunite Jonathon and James with their biological parents. When HHS determined that reunification was not in the boys' best interest, Steve and Shelley made a permanent commitment to the boys by adopting them; Jonathon on July 19, 2001 and James on January 17, 2002.

In October 2007, the biological sister of James and Jonathon, Mary Ann, was removed from the home. HHS contacted the Brune family to discuss the possibility of once again becoming foster parents. The Brunes recognized that this child needed a loving home and would benefit from being with her brothers. For a third time, they admirably opened their hearts and home, welcoming Mary Ann on July 15, 2008.

In April 2009, another sibling, Madeline Grace, was born and was also removed from the home. The Brune family showed tremendous compassion and devotion to the children of this family by agreeing to welcome Madeline Grace into their family. Steve and Shelley are currently in the process of adopting both Mary Ann and Madeline Grace.

It is with heartfelt admiration that I nominate Steve and Shelley Brune as Adoption Angels. Their capacity to love and care for these four children is an inspiration and worthy example for others to follow. My hope is that their story inspires others to consider opening their hearts and homes to the many children awaiting adoption, in need of loving families.

May God bless Shelley, Steve, Jonathan, James, Mary Ann, Madeline Grace, and all adoptive parents who give children the gift of a loving family.

Mr. President, I wish to start out this morning by complimenting the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from South Dakota. They have raised some excellent points. As I have listened to them, I have to tell you, I think they have offered a lot to move the debate forward.

I rise today to shine the light on what I consider budgetary gimmicks and omissions in the Finance Committee health care proposal.

Both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree that one of the things we need to do in accomplishing true health care reform is to do it in a fiscally responsible way. We all went back home in August, and I heard the message very loud and clear from Nebraskans. They want honesty and full transparency as we attempt to achieve health care reform.

Americans believed the President when he said he wanted an open and transparent process. We all agree on that. Unfortunately, what we have is not transparent, and I argue that it is based on false assumptions. Honestly, an American family would have to hire a whole team of accountants to understand all that is hidden in the Finance Committee draft.

While the CBO has scored the bill as $774 billion, the real cost of the bill--and that cost is moving up every day--is closer to $1.7 trillion over 10 years, as the previous two Senators have pointed out. What its supporters neglect to tell you is that the main spending provisions in this proposal don't go into effect until 2013. That is right, the American public will have to wait 4 years before most of the new initiatives even get off the ground. So none of us should be surprised when the American people really laugh at an arbitrary deadline of the end of the week or the first of next week for finalizing committee action. They don't understand the need to hurry. The proponents claim it is such a crisis that we should rush through. Yet their fixes don't take effect for 4 years.

You can understand the American public's frustration and skepticism. They must watch the evening news--whatever their flavor of news is--and look at the Capitol dome and ask the question: What is going on? What is happening out there? They have to be scratching their heads in amazement. If they ran their business or household this way, they would be in bankruptcy.

If that weren't enough to fill an entire gymnasium full of townhall participants, there is, unfortunately,

much more. The proposal requires new taxes on everything from medical device manufacturers, health insurance premiums, and pharmaceutical manufacturers, topped off with additional Medicare cuts of about $500 billion and, of course, unfunded mandates on the States in the form of the expansion of Medicaid, which I am all too familiar with as a former Governor.

Let me translate this. Higher taxes will be passed on to the American people. All these taxes, these fees, and these mandates will only increase the cost of health care. They don't decrease it when all this is passed on to the American consumers.

While the promised benefits don't kick in until year 4, the taxes and fees, interestingly enough, start right away, almost on day one.

In effect, the bill is structured to impose 10 years and $848 billion worth of new taxes and fees, and you get in return 6 years of additional benefits under this bill. The creative accounting, unfortunately, only appears to get cheers inside the beltway. Yet the average American thinks we don't have a clue.

Another hidden cost is the new mandate on States through an expansion of Medicaid. I wish to spend a moment on that.

Partial costs to expand the Medicaid Program up to 133 percent of the poverty limit will be put on the States. This unfunded mandate will cost States--and estimates will vary--about $42 billion. Of course, that is not built into the cost estimate, not because the American people don't pay for it, because they will, but because it doesn't fall on the Federal budget. Who gets to pay the costs here? Well, obviously, once again, it will fall on the American people.

I come from a State that is fiscally responsible. We have only two ways to deal with this kind of issue because our constitution prohibits us from borrowing money. What a unique concept; Nebraska doesn't borrow money. We have only two choices: we can cut programs or we can raise taxes. If we cut programs, things such as education, senior initiatives, infrastructure projects, prisons to keep the bad guys out of society, and other very valuable programs could find their budgets destroyed.

In these times of tight budgets, States have already slashed their budgets. They are down to the bone, and they are trying to figure out how they will balance next year's budget. I suggest the Federal Government giving them another layer of spending is not the answer.

The other alternative is to raise taxes, hit the consumer again. But that is not the right way to go either. But it seems that what we are doing with this mother of all unfunded mandates is making this choice inevitable.

Folks in Nebraska and across the country are going to resent seeing their State paying higher taxes because the Federal Government put them in this fiscal straitjacket. In addition, one of the main pay-fors in this legislation is $400 billion, $500 billion in Medicare cuts. Despite the fact that the Medicare trustees report projects that Medicare will be bankrupt by 2017, none of the $400 billion goes toward shoring up our already pending fiscal crisis.

The false promise being made is that we can both fund this new entitlement with Medicare money and keep our commitment to senior citizens. I am not naive enough to buy that bag of goods and neither are our seniors. We are asking them to choose the prize behind the curtain when the prize is a goat.

I am deeply concerned that we are compounding the problem by not reinvesting these dollars back into Medicare. That is why I hope the Finance Committee will see the light today and adopt important amendments by the junior Senators from Kansas and Nevada.

Even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office Director admitted yesterday that these cuts to Medicare will decrease current insurance benefits that our seniors now enjoy.

Finally, this Finance Committee proposal is built on false assumptions when it comes to cost containment. The bill is based on the fantasyland assumption that scheduled sometimes double-digit payment cuts to medical professionals will be allowed to take place. The history is very much the opposite. We do the doctor fix on an annual basis.

Any Senator who votes for this Finance Committee proposal should be required to publicly state their support for a 25-percent cut in physician reimbursement rates beginning in 2 years.

Their proposals credit themselves free money by assuming savings in this area. Yet they know Congress waives the Budget Act, waives pay-go, and suspends these cuts year in and year out with a lot of support, I might add.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office states:

These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and

remained unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is

often not the case for major legislation.

For example, the sustainable growth rate, SGR, mechanism

governing Medicare's payments to physicians has frequently

been modified to avoid reductions in those payments.

Therefore, I am not going to count on Congress acting any differently in the near future, and any cost estimate that assumes otherwise, I say, is not based on reality. We all know what they say about good intentions, but I still believe you do not spend money until you know from where the money is coming.

The American public simply deserves a very transparent discussion about our current and future actions, what they are going to cost, and what they will lead to in terms of our health care system instead of a house of cards. The American people have asked us to be transparent. They know we have to make tough decisions. They just want to understand the ramifications of what we are deciding. That means they want us to read the bill. They want us to do that before we vote. They want us to have a full picture of how this will affect budget deficits and the fiscal outlook. And they want us to communicate that to them.

The American people want to know how this proposal will impact them and what it will do to the current health care system and their costs. Basically, they want us to know all the details before we rush into a vote. That means we need the time to look at this bill. This is going to be a 1,000-page bill, a Senate Finance Committee with no legislative language that is working now, a plan to consider almost 500 amendments, and yet they want to get it done this week. Mr. President, it is time to call a timeout and get this right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the importance of the senior caregiving community cannot be overstated. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in the United States, 35.9 million people are 65 years of age or older, which is 12.4 percent of the population. The U.S. Census Bureau also states that with over 8,000 Americans turning 60 years old every day, the number of people over the age of 65 is expected to more than double in the next 50 years to 86.7 million. Furthermore, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the 85 and older population is projected to reach 9.6 million in 2030 and double again to 20.9 million in 2050.

A report by Evercare, entitled Study of Caregivers in Decline: A Close-up Look at the Health Risk of Caring for a Loved One, explains that in order to address the surging population of seniors who have significant needs for in-home care, the field of senior caregiving will continue to grow. Thus, while senior caregivers are playing an important role now, this profession will be even more important in the future.

The Dilenschneider Group, Inc., estimates that 25 percent of all seniors need some level of assistance to complete their daily activities. Senior companions provide a wide range of services, such as medication reminders, housekeeping, meal preparation, travel assistance, and general companionship. If we can keep seniors in their homes, we accomplish a number of goals. We preserve the independence and dignity of our seniors. That alone is significant. But, it also saves money in a health care system facing skyrocketing costs and soon- to-be insolvent programs. The longer a senior is able to provide for his or her own care at home, the better.

Adequate in-home care has become even more vital with the increase of dementia in our elderly population. The Alzheimer's Association estimates that 4.5 million people in the U.S. have Alzheimer's today and that this number will increase to between 11.3 and 16 million by 2050. The Alzheimer's Association further explains that 70 percent of people with Alzheimer's and other dementias live at home. These individuals can utilize in-home care provided by senior caregivers for assistance with their daily activities.

Senior caregiver services are a much preferred alternative for seniors who desire to maintain their independence.

They also offer families peace of mind, knowing their loved one is being taken care of in a safe and affordable manner.

I am very pleased with the passage of my resolution to honor senior caregivers and the private home care industry. According to The Dilenschneider Group, Inc., an estimated 44 million adults in this country provide care to adult relatives or friends, and an estimated 725,000 non-family, privately paid individuals are senior caregivers. The Department of Labor estimates that in 2006, paid caregivers worked a total of 835 million hours. I salute those who provide quality care for so many Americans. I also salute the cooperative effort of both unpaid family caregivers and paid caregivers to serve the needs of seniors living in their own homes.

We need to examine Federal policy alternatives to make caregiving for seniors more accessible and more affordable for families. This resolution encourages the Secretary of Health and Human Services to continue working to educate aging Americans about the assistance options available for seniors.

I thank the senior caregivers for their service to Americans throughout this Nation, and I am pleased my colleagues agreed to support this resolution.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2394.

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

Madam President, I compliment both Senators who just spoke, the Senator from California and the Senator from Tennessee. You underscore why we are so proud to live in this great country and the importance of these resources.

Also, as a former Secretary of Agriculture, I know the importance of adequate funding for firefighting. Without it, our forests are in serious jeopardy. I wanted to express that.

I rise today to talk about something that is enormously important. Three days ago, I was here on the Senate floor urging my colleagues to vote in favor of an amendment I offered to another appropriations bill, the Transportation and Housing Appropriations bill. The amendment had a very specific purpose. The purpose was to prohibit funds from going to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as

Madam President, this is such an important issue. This is an issue that people all across the country are watching on the Senate floor. Therefore, I feel very strongly that if there were ever an opportunity for Senators to come to the floor and cast a vote in a rollcall fashion, this is one to make a very strong statement again about ACORN not receiving this funding.

I appreciate the offer of the Senator from California, but I must insist, because of the nature of what we are dealing with--the claims of alleged wrongdoing, the history of wrongdoing with employees from this organization, the videotapes, the potential to access the funding--that we need a rollcall vote on this issue.

Madam President, speaking to my colleague from California, let me say that I appreciate the Senator's offer of accepting this by unanimous consent. I appreciate the Senator's claim that she believes there is no way they can access funding. But I will tell you that I have operated a Federal Department myself--a very large department--where we administered millions and billions of dollars of grants and loans, et cetera. Once that appropriations bill is passed, the Senator knows and I know that unless there is some real trouble, we are free at the departmental level to pretty much administer the money. So there cannot be a guarantee that they won't get money out of this program.

The second thing I will offer here is this: This is not one of those issues that just comes along. This involves an organization that has had a history of very serious problems. I could not feel more strongly that the American people want us to come to the floor and cast a vote on this issue.

The final thing I want to say is this: I feel this is an important issue. There is a way to solve this problem so that I don't have to come down on every appropriations bill. We will be introducing a bill today--and we have reached out in a very bipartisan way to Democrats and Republicans, asking for people to join in this bill--that says simply that across the entire Federal Government no money for ACORN. My hope is we can pass that bill expeditiously and we can get that into effect.

I would like nothing more than to avoid having to come down here on each and every appropriations bill. Again, I appreciate the offer, but this is an important vote to constituents all across the United States. I think we owe it to them to show how we are going to vote on this issue.

Madam President, this morning I presented the argument on this amendment to the Senate. The question was raised: We don't think there is money that comes out of this budget relative to this organization, ACORN. I went back to the office and did some research. This is a bill that controls hundreds of grant programs. After studying that, it appears I was right. ACORN gets money out of this appropriations.

Moments ago my staff brought me information that would suggest that

ACORN has, in fact, received funding. The EPA is a part of this bill. If Members go to this bill at page 182, they will see the EPA is there. We went to the EPA Web site. Here is what the Web site says, referencing a grant program, that it is a collaboration of nonprofit organizations led by Ellis Hamilton.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 2394.

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

Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 2355 be called up.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment pertaining to ACORN, otherwise known as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Records will indicate that ACORN has received $53 million in Federal funds--taxpayer money--since 1994. In the current transportation and housing appropriations bill, ACORN is eligible to add to that number, to receive millions more in taxpayer funds from several different accounts and purposes. It could receive money through mortgage counseling, it could receive money through CDBG, community development block grants, and it could receive money from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.

The people of Nebraska sent me to Washington to protect them from waste and fraud and abuse, and they asked me to change the status quo. I take that responsibility very seriously. That is why my amendment would prohibit one more penny--one more penny--of taxpayer money from going to ACORN in the transportation and housing appropriations bill.

The recent news surrounding ACORN is alarming, at a minimum. In fact, it is outrageous. Last week, Miami-Dade prosecutors issued arrest warrants for 11 ACORN employees. The employees are charged with falsifying voter registration cards. A total of 1,400 voter registration cards were turned in, and 888 of those cards were found to be a fake. This means almost three-quarters of the voting cards were fraudulent. Then, damaging news surfaced regarding hidden videotapes at the Baltimore and Washington, DC, ACORN offices. You will not believe this: They feature ACORN employees offering advice on illegal activities, including tax evasion, prostitution, and fraud. Today we find out that a different ACORN office--this time in Brooklyn--also offered advice on the same topics. I

would suggest, obviously, this is a pattern of very rotten behavior. Well, the alarm bells are rightly going off.

The Census Bureau notified ACORN on Friday that it is severing all ties with the group for all work having to do with the 2010 census. Notwithstanding the fact that is long overdue, I applaud them for that action.

The Census letter pulled no punches, and I am quoting:

. . . it is clear that ACORN's affiliation with the 2010

Census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general

public, has indeed become a distraction from our mission, and

may even become a discouragement to public cooperation,

negatively impacting 2010 Census efforts. Unfortunately, we

no longer have confidence--

``We no longer have confidence''--

that our national partnership agreement is being effectively

managed through your many local offices. For the reasons

stated, we therefore have decided to terminate the

partnership.

Some may even say today, as amazing as this would sound, that the recent events are isolated, that they are not a fair and accurate representation of ACORN. How you could say that I am not sure, but to these defenders, I urge them to read the 88-page incriminating report published in July by the minority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It is entitled--and, again, I am quoting, and I have the report here--``Is ACORN Intentionally Structured as a Criminal Enterprise?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Executive Summary of that report be printed in the Record.

According to the report:

Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities,

43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex

structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use

taxpayer and tax exempt dollars for partisan political

purposes, and to distract investigators. Structurally, ACORN

is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from

accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and

compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for

every bad act.

There is a history here, and it is a sad history. In 1998, an ACORN employee was arrested for falsifying voter registration forms. In 1999, Philadelphia authorities found hundreds of fraudulent registration forms by ACORN. In October of 2008, the pattern continues. ACORN's Nevada offices were raided by Federal agents, and in 2009 their Las Vegas field director was charged with voter registration fraud. In May 2009, seven ACORN employees were charged in Pittsburgh for voter registration fraud.

I cite this sad, tragic history because the events of the last week were not isolated, and I do not believe it was accidental that this video caught ACORN employees delivering the same message in different cities. They magnify a troubling, systemic, and criminal pattern. In fact, they serve as a public window into an organization that is besieged by corruption, by fraud, and by illegal activities, all committed--all committed--on the taxpayers' dime. Mr. President, I would suggest to you, if we had the capability to ask every taxpayer in America: Is this how you want your money spent, we would have a nearly unanimous count saying: Absolutely not.

At a time when we are experiencing record deficits and the economy is struggling every day to get back on its feet, how in the world can anyone come to this floor of the Senate and say: I want to cast my vote to continue to fund this organization with taxpayer dollars, hard- earned dollars by American families, when so many questions of legitimacy reign? I think the answer to that is simple. I do not see how anybody could cast that vote. To do so, in my judgment, would ignore the proof, and it would also ignore our responsibility to protect taxpayers from waste and fraud and abuse. I would go so far as to say that I respect that some of my colleagues believe the work done by ACORN in some communities might be valuable. But I would respectfully suggest that the problems riddling this organization, in office after office, cannot and should not be trivialized. This is an opportunity for the Senate to stand up and say: Enough is enough, just as the Census Bureau did.

As Judge Richard Zoller said, after holding an ACORN employee liable for election law violations:

Somebody has to go after ACORN.

Well, I suggest today, on the floor of the Senate, that ``somebody'' is each and every U.S. Senator. That ``somebody'' is each Senator, who now has the ability to come to the floor and say to the taxpayers back home: We will not tolerate this any longer. Until a full investigation is launched into ACORN, no taxpayer money should be used to fund its activities. A vote in favor of my amendment is a vote in favor of the taxpayer and a vote against the status quo.

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

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

Madam President, at 5:30, in a few minutes, we are going to vote on the pending amendment, which is an amendment to bar ACORN from receiving any money from the appropriations bill we are considering. I spoke earlier today, so I will only speak a couple of minutes.

I wanted to come to the floor again to underscore the importance of this vote and to underscore the history that brings us here today to take this action. The history is a sad one.

On September 9, 2009, Miami-Dade prosecutors issued arrest warrants for 11 ACORN employees. The employees are charged with falsifying voter registration cards. A total of 1,400 voter registration cards were turned in, and 888 of those were found to be fake. That means that almost three-quarters of those cards were fraudulent.

Late last week, damaging news surfaced regarding hidden videotapes at the New York, Baltimore, and Washington, DC, ACORN offices. What is the feature on these videotapes? They feature ACORN employees offering advice on a number of illegal activities, including tax evasion, prostitution, and fraud--all with taxpayer dollars.

Finally, the Census Bureau notified ACORN on Friday in a letter that it was severing all ties. The Census Bureau has had a bellyful. They severed all ties with this group having to do with the 2010 census. Here is what they said in the letter:

. . . it is clear that ACORN's affiliation with the 2010

Census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general

public, has indeed become a distraction from our mission, and

may even become a discouragement to public cooperation,

negatively impacting the 2010 Census efforts.

The letter goes on:

Unfortunately, we no longer have confidence that our

national partnership agreement is being effectively managed

through your many local offices. For the reasons stated, we

therefore have decided to terminate the partnership.

According to a report published in July by the minority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, again quoting:

Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities,

43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex

structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use

taxpayer and tax exempt dollars for partisan political

purposes, and to distract investigators. Structurally, ACORN

is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from

accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and

compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for

every bad act.

It doesn't stop there. In 1998, an ACORN employee was arrested for falsifying voter registration forms. In 1999, Philadelphia authorities found hundreds of fraudulent registration forms by ACORN. In October of 2008, ACORN's Nevada offices were raided by Federal agents and in 2009 their Las Vegas field director--their field director: unbelievable--was charged with voter registration fraud.

In May 2009, seven ACORN employees were charged in Pittsburgh for voter registration fraud.

To date, nearly 70 ACORN employees have been convicted in 12 States for voter registration fraud.

The events of the last week are not isolated. We have only caught them. As Judge Richard Zoller said, after holding an ACORN employee liable for election law violations:

Somebody has to go after ACORN.

Madam President, I suggest this afternoon that ``somebody'' is each and every Member of the Senate. Until a full investigation is launched into ACORN, no taxpayer money should be used to fund their activities. A vote in favor of my amendment is a vote in favor of the taxpayer and against the status quo.

I will just wrap up by saying, if somehow we could bring the taxpayers of America to the Senate floor and ask them: Do you want your taxpayer dollars to continue to fund this organization, with this kind of history, with the videos that have been just released, overwhelmingly, taxpayers would say: Absolutely not.

This is our opportunity to stand up against an organization that does not deserve the trust of the American people.

Madam President, 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, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment and I yield back all time.

Mr. President, Senators have an enormous responsibility when it comes to deciding whether to support or oppose a Supreme Court nominee.

We must examine whether the person nominated to the highest court in the land will uphold and defend the principles contained in the Constitution, refrain from judicial activism, respect the rule of law, deliver blind justice to each and every litigant before the Court, and render reasoned decisions that adhere to precedent.

This duty has been characterized by many of my colleagues as one of the most important and far reaching decisions a Senator will ever make. I couldn't agree more.

I entered into the nomination process of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a woman with an impressive life story and resume, with an open mind and a steadfast resolve to evaluate the nominee's qualifications on an unbiased basis.

In fact, having gone through the confirmation process myself before being sworn in as Secretary of Agriculture, I believe that a necessary amount of deference should be given to the President's choices.

However, after carefully reviewing Judge Sotomayor's record and speeches as well as closely monitoring her hearing before the Judiciary Committee, I could not support her nomination.

There are several areas that concern me with regard to Judge Sotomayor.

First, I am concerned that she will not be a neutral umpire. You see, a judge has the duty to preside over a courtroom with no inclination to side with one team over the other.

A judge must be able to put aside his or her personal or political agenda before sitting down on that bench. That is because no matter who you are--Black or White, woman or man, rich or poor--every person in this country is entitled to receive equal justice under the law.

There is a reason that Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

By now, most people are aware of Judge Sotomayor's comments that a ``wise Latina woman'' would ``more often than not reach a better conclusion than a White male.'' However, I think it bears pointing out to those who claim the comment was made in isolation and taken out of context, that Judge Sotomayor has made a series of similar comments over the years.

For example:

In short, I accept the proposition that a difference will

be made by the presence of women on the bench and that my

experiences will affect the facts that I choose to see as a

judge.

Our experiences as women and people of color affect our

decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's

an aspiration.

I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the

differences resulting from experience and heritage but

attempt . . . continuously to judge when those opinions,

sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.

By ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do

a disservice both to the law and society.

Nowhere in the history of our judicial system have judges been told to ``go with their gut'' as implied in the judge's statement. Such a standard would erode the legitimacy of the judicial system and would put every litigant in jeopardy of receiving an unfair trial.

Rather, judges are expected to decide cases based on the rule of law, not on the basis of their feelings. Otherwise empathy towards one person would mean antipathy against another.

A concrete example of my concern that Judge Sotomayor would not be able to set aside her personal preferences and biases is the Ricci v DeStefano case. In this case, Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues dismissed in a summary one paragraph unpublished opinion the claims of 17 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter. They alleged reverse discrimination based on New Haven's decision to discard the result of a promotional exam because not enough minorities would be eligible for promotion. Nearly half of the judges on the Second Circuit criticized the ruling as a ``perfunctory disposition.''

However, on June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court announced it was overturning the Second Circuit's ruling in the Ricci case. And while the final outcome appeared to narrowly overturn the Circuit's decision by a vote of 5-4, a deeper analysis is needed. All nine Justices unanimously rejected the lower court's specific holding and legal standard.

It also bears mentioning Justice Alito's concurring opinion in the case:

The dissent grants that petitioners' situation is

``unfortunate'' and that they ``understandably attract this

Court's sympathy.'' But ``sympathy'' is not what petitioners

have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is

evenhanded enforcement of the law--of Title VII's prohibition

against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until

today's decision, has been denied them.

Many of my colleagues questioned Judge Sotomayor about her decision in Ricci. Judge Sotomayor repeatedly indicated that she relied on precedent, but the Supreme Court disagreed, saying, there were ``few, if any, precedents in the Court of Appeals.''

Because the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and there is no backstop, I cannot support Judge Sotomayor's nomination. She did not convince me, either through her past rulings or during her confirmation hearing, that she would carry out justice in an impartial manner. Impartiality is essential to our justice system.

Beyond my concern that Judge Sotomayor will not be able to set aside personal views and prejudices, is her overall record before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has substantively reviewed 10 of Judge Sotomayor's decisions. Of those cases, eight have been reversed or vacated, one was upheld on a different legal standard and sharply criticized for using a flawed legal theory, and the last one was upheld on a slim 5-4 margin. This is a record that directly questions the nominee's legal reasoning and the ability to sufficiently apply the rule of law. A 10-percent success rate does not exude the confidence and mastery of the law that I feel is necessary of a Supreme Court Justice.

The final point of concern that I would like to highlight is Judge Sotomayor's view of the Second Amendment. In Maloney v. Cuomo, Judge Sotomayor joined a panel opinion that decided in one paragraph that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states. Also, in United States v. Sanchez-Villar, she joined a summary panel opinion that, among other things, used a one-sentence footnote to conclude that ``the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.''

Judge Sotomayor believes that states have the authority to infringe on Second Amendment rights. This is fundamentally at odds with the Constitution.

Although Judge Sotomayor attempted to disavow and reconcile her past comments during the hearing, her record speaks for itself. Even the Washington Post, which endorsed Judge Sotomayor, found her testimony ``less than candid'' and ``uncomfortably close to disingenuous.''

Ultimately, I came to the decision that too many uncertainties exist regarding whether Judge Sotomayor will uphold the rule of law equally for all people and adhere to the Constitution.

While I respect and appreciate her impressive life story and accomplishments, I cannot support her nomination to the highest Court.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the unique health care challenges faced by the 62 million Americans who live in rural America.

If you took a snapshot of rural America, you would see a population that is older, poorer, and has less access to health care than other places in the country. Because many rural residents are elderly, they need more health care services.

However, rural residents have greater transportation difficulties reaching health care providers and often have to travel long distances to reach a doctor or hospital. Very few public transportation systems are available, and so many folks wait until they are very sick before turning to the health care system. This makes the already challenging job of managing chronic conditions even more difficult. Rural areas report higher rates of chronic conditions, including heart disease and cancer. One contributing factor to these chronic conditions is the higher obesity and smoking rates of children and adults who reside in rural areas.

Compounding the problem, rural residents also tend to be poorer and make on average $7,000 less per year than their urban counterparts. Nearly 24 percent of children who live in rural America are in poverty. Poverty affects the types of foods being offered at the dinner table as the price of fruits and vegetables can often bust a tight food budget.

It can also force people to put off medical care. According to a recent study, rural residents are more likely than their urban counterparts to report having deferred care because of cost. It can be a vicious cycle.

While health coverage is vitally important to these rural residents, the greatest crisis is access to care. We could give health insurance to everyone, but if your county has no doctor or hospital, the best insurance will make little difference. This is a simple concept, but an important one.

In rural America, the cornerstone of the health care delivery system is the critical access hospital. These hospitals, made up of 25 beds or less, provide the most basic access to medical services and serve as a rural safety net for emergency services. Of the 90 hospitals in Nebraska, 65 of them are critical access hospitals. Clearly their importance in rural America cannot be overstated.

However, it is difficult for many rural hospitals to keep their doors open. One reason is that there is less patient volume than in many urban settings. In addition, Medicare payments to rural hospitals and physicians are dramatically less than those to their urban counterparts for equivalent services. This correlates closely with the fact that more than 470 rural hospitals have closed in the past 25 years.

Rural areas also struggle to keep other aspects of their health care infrastructure in place. For example, 20 percent of counties in Nebraska do not have a local pharmacist who can fill prescription medications for their residents. I could go on and on with a similar story on home health services, long term care, durable medical equipment, and other critical health care services.

However, one of the biggest challenges facing rural America is difficulty recruiting and retaining health care professionals. Medical professionals sometimes do not want to set up practice where doctors are few and major metropolitan hospitals require hours of travel. Currently, 50 million Americans who live in rural America face challenges in accessing health care. There are too few providers to meet their basic primary care needs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, while a quarter of the population lives in rural areas, only ten percent of physicians practice there. There are over 2,000 health professional shortage areas in rural and frontier areas of all States and U.S. territories compared to 910 in urban areas. Ninety out of 93 Nebraska counties are facing health care profession shortages in one or more areas of practice.

Unless something is done to address this problem, the situation will almost surely become a crisis. This scenario is quickly appearing on the horizon as rural America has a higher percentage of physician generalists who are nearing retirement than urban areas.

Fewer doctors and lack of health care access could decimate rural residents and their rural communities. Young families will not move to a place where they cannot access health care for their children, and older residents will be forced to move to places where they can find care.

This potential rural reality has major implications for the rest of the country and will affect the health and

well being of everyone. For example, rural America produces the food and the fiber that our country needs to survive. Young farmers and their families will not come back to live and work in an area where they cannot receive health services should an accident or sickness occur. The farming profession is already a gamble and not having access to health care is something most people aren't willing to risk. If people are forced to leave rural America due to lack of health care, then a whole new set of challenges will arise that we are not currently prepared to address. Any health care solutions or reforms must account for current rural health care system realities and future challenges.

I have long said that the best solutions originate outside the beltway, the same holds true with health care. Blanket policies crafted from within the DC beltway do not always meet the needs of Nebraskans. In fact, they often add additional burdens onto the current system and compromise the ability to access quality health care.

That is why I encourage my colleagues crafting health care reform legislation to incorporate the solutions offered in the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act. I am a sponsor of this legislation and look forward to a number of its provisions being enacted.

Additionally, I hope any health care reform will offer critical access hospitals flexibility in determining their bed count to account for seasonal and emergency situations which might affect admissions rates. Any comprehensive legislation must address the unique payment issues facing rural hospitals like reimbursing them for lab services provided in nursing homes and rural health clinics, and increasing Medicare payment rates for rural health clinics. Finally, legislation should extend the rural community hospital demonstration project and provide incentives to encourage providers to practice in physician scarcity areas.

The health care delivery system in rural America is already stressed. We cannot afford a big mistake with health care reform, because if we get it wrong, the fragile rural health care delivery system may never recover. Mark my words; if we enact policies that drive providers and facilities out of business, no one is waiting in the wings to take their place. Therefore, I urge caution and thorough debate of all health care reform proposals as unintended consequences must be minimized.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 2241.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment to increase funding for USDA's tuberculosis program by $2 million.

In early June, TB was discovered in a beef cattle herd in Rock County, NE. As many of my colleagues know, this is a disease that can spread very quickly among cattle. It is also transmissible to humans.

This is not just a Nebraska issue or a Midwest issue. As I speak, California, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico are battling the effects of TB. Other States, including Colorado, South Dakota, and Texas have had TB scares as well. Although, thankfully, up to this point they have not seen any change in their TB status. This problem could impact the beef industry nationwide, and it is critical that we do everything we can to eliminate it immediately when it is discovered.

In Nebraska, thankfully, only two animals in the entire herd tested positive for the disease, and they were put down to prevent further spread. Since that time, Nebraska State officials have worked side by side with USDA officials to test the infected herd, as well as several neighboring herds, which is the process. Based on the latest reports from home, 8,900 cattle have been tested to date, and all have, thankfully, tested negative for TB. That is great news.

I commend the efforts of the veterinarians and the government officials on the ground in Nebraska. I thank those officials for their efforts. They have been aggressively dealing with this issue every day since the initial discovery. I wish to thank the USDA specifically for providing significant expertise and personnel to assist with the ongoing testing. The Department's assistance has been sound and it has been steady. We greatly appreciate it, but the work is not yet done. The testing is not quite complete. Hopefully, the results will keep coming back negative, but, regardless, we are going to remain vigilant.

We must make sure the USDA has the resources on hand to respond in the event that further cases of TB are discovered. That could be anywhere in this country. TB can have a crippling impact on a State's beef industry. It can negatively impact the ability of State producers to shift cattle State to State, and, of course, potentially it can have an impact on export markets.

Ranchers cannot afford to have their State lose its TB-free status. Anytime a disease such as TB is discovered in a herd, it is absolutely critical the infected herd be depopulated immediately. I say that from my experience as a former Secretary of Agriculture. Depopulation is oftentimes essential. Doing so significantly decreases the likelihood of the spread of the disease. It also reassures the rest of the beef industry that we will always respond decisively to combat the spread of the animal disease.

We need to send a strong signal to our producers that they will have our support if they come forward when they discover the herd has a problem. If depopulation indemnity funds are not available, a producer literally may hesitate to disclose the information. Then the problem festers and it festers and it spreads. We simply cannot take that kind of risk. Consumer confidence and producer trust are far too important.

It is imperative that we make sure USDA has the funding and the tools on hand to deal with existing TB problems and to take swift action in the event of future TB discoveries. That is why I am offering this amendment--to make sure the resources are there.

At this point I ask unanimous consent that a letter supporting my amendment from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association be printed in the Record.

Finally, I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment to make the resources available to the USDA, and I urge my colleagues, if they have any questions, to get in touch with us. This is a very important issue.

With that, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the importance of the senior caregiving community. In the U.S., over 36 million people are 65 years of age or older, which is approximately 12 percent of the population. That number is expected to double by the year 2025 as the baby-boomers fully enter their golden years.

Thus, while senior caregivers are playing an important role now, this profession will be even more important in the future. The people who provide care to millions of seniors across this country provide a great service not only to these individuals, but also to their families and our communities, as a whole.

It is estimated that 25 percent of all seniors need some level of assistance to complete their daily activities. Senior companions provide a wide-range of services, such as medication reminders, housekeeping, meal preparation, travel assistance, and general companionship. These services enable seniors to stay in their own homes and stay engaged in their communities--which can make all the difference in the world when it comes to their happiness.

I have talked to seniors who are helped by caregivers and they use words like guardian angel and lifesaver to describe them. Senior caregiver services are a much preferred alternative for seniors who desire to maintain their independence. They also offer families peace of mind, knowing their loved one is being taken care of in a safe and affordable manner.

The senior caregiving profession is part of the solution to the challenges our country faces as we continue to age. Currently, an estimated 44 million adults in this country provide care to adult relatives or friends, and an estimated 725,000 non-family, privately- paid individuals are senior caregivers. The caregiving profession will continue to grow in prominence and demand as the senior population rises.

That is why I am happy to introduce a resolution with my colleague, Senator Casey, to honor senior caregivers and the private home care industry. We salute those who provide such quality care for so many Americans. It also encourages individuals to reach out and provide these services to their family, friends, and neighbors.

We need to examine federal policy alternatives to make caregiving for seniors more accessible and more affordable for families. If we can keep seniors in their homes, instead of nursing facilities, we accomplish a number of goals. We preserve the independence and dignity of our seniors. That alone is significant. But, it also saves money in a health care system facing skyrocketing costs and soon-to-be insolvent programs.

This resolution encourages the Secretary of Health and Human Services to continue working to educate aging Americans about the assistance options available for seniors. Senior caregivers are doing a great service to this country and I commend them for it.

It is an indisputable fact that we will all grow old, thus this issue will sooner or later affect every American. Therefore, it is important to have access to quality, affordable caregiving services in every community. Caregiving is a profession that will continue to grow in prominence and need as the senior population rises. Again, I thank the senior caregivers for their service to Americans throughout this nation, and I am pleased to offer this resolution on their behalf.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a leader in American forestry.

In February of 2007, Abigail Kimbell became the 16th Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. She was the first female in this role, a job she held until July 5, 2009. During those 2\1/2\ years, she served with distinction and accomplished much for the forests, grasslands, and people of the United States.

Gail is credited with renewing the emphasis behind the Forest Service's mission of ``Caring for the Land and Serving People'' and reconnecting programs and functions to that mission. She improved firefighter safety and fire suppression cost containment. Gail showed great vision and leadership, pressing the agency to continually strive to meet a standard of excellence in its operations, both internally and in service to the public.

Gail emphasized the importance of quality water to the environment and our communities. She directed the agency's investment in the education of children and youth, particularly those in underrepresented communities, to enhance their connection to the natural world.

Gail's numerous and significant contributions span more than three decades of public service. As a Forest Supervisor, she focused on community collaboration to build understanding and support for an economically and environmentally viable long-term timber sale program in Alaska. She also made bold land management decisions to ensure forests remained healthy by reducing hazardous fuels.

As associate deputy chief for the national forest system, Gail was central to the development of the Healthy Forests Initiative, including the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. She also worked to improve interagency cooperation.

As regional forester in the northern region, she oversaw the development and implementation of community wildfire protection plans in Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota. She also played a leading role in the development of plans to delist the grizzly bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Gail pioneered the implementation of improved forest planning with unprecedented public collaboration and ownership.

On July 31, 2009, Gail Kimbell will be retiring from the Forest Service with 35-plus years of service to that agency and our country. Her dedication to the Forest Service mission ``to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations'' will be forever appreciated by the people of the United States.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss an Agricultural Committee hearing that is scheduled later on this week. It is an important topic. The hearing is titled ``The Role of Agriculture and Forestry in Global Warming Legislation.'' I look forward to participating. This is the committee's first effort this year to tackle the ongoing climate change debate. It is very important. Much of the discussion in both Houses of Congress has centered on potential new legislation and regulations relative to climate change. Any

kind of new climate-related law would have sweeping consequences that touch every corner of American life. Thus, I have made it clear that any climate change legislation should require a robust, open, and extensive debate on the Senate floor.

Numerous studies have now been released about cap and trade and affect on American life. Those studies also include agriculture. During last year's debate over cap and trade, the Fertilizer Institute released a study stating that the legislation would result in a $40 to $80 increase in the cost to produce an acre of corn. That means higher input costs for livestock producers as well. That same study indicated the cost of producing soybeans would increase from $10 to $20 an acre. Wheat would jump $16 to $32 an acre.

According to one recent analysis, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill would also have a significant, if not severe, impact on agriculture. If the bill is enacted, farm income is estimated to decrease as much as $8 billion in the year 2012. By 2024, farmers stand to lose $25 billion. An eye-popping $50 billion would be lost by farmers by 2035. Gasoline and diesel costs are expected to increase by 58 percent. Electric rates would soar maybe as high as 90 percent.

Agriculture is an energy intensive industry. Those kinds of increased costs are certainly going to impact this business. These are not isolated studies. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the largest agricultural organization in the country, has also studied these costs. The Farm Bureau reported that if Waxman-Markey were to become law, input costs for agriculture would rise by $5 billion, compared to a continuation of current law. Other studies have indicated in various ways that the likely impact of cap and trade would include increased electricity and heating costs, construction costs, fertilizer prices, higher gas, and higher diesel prices. Different studies come up with varied numbers, but they all paint the same picture--agriculture loses.

None of this should surprise anyone because the bill is specifically designed to increase the cost of energy.

In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office:

Reducing emissions to the level required would be

accomplished mainly by stemming demand for carbon-based

energy by increasing its price.

We also know farmers in America's heartland get hit worse by these high energy costs, and we know that USDA agrees. Last week, USDA officials indicated in testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that as a result of cap-and-trade legislation:

The agriculture sector will face higher energy and input

costs.

At the very least, all of this tells us that this is an enormously complicated issue with significant economic ramifications, perhaps as complex as any we will deal with this Congress, not to mention very costly. Given the gloomy predictions about cap-and-trade proposals, it seems clear to me that we need to take an approach that is extensive, methodical, and well thought out. We need more specific and clear analysis to make sure we know--and, most importantly, the American people know--exactly what passage of this bill will mean.

As I mentioned, USDA knows that cap and trade will increase energy prices. Here is the kicker: At the same time the Department also has indicated:

USDA believes the opportunities for climate legislation

will likely outweigh the costs.

Let me say that again: USDA says energy prices will increase, but they think the opportunities for climate change legislation will outweigh the costs. This kind of claim must be based on hard data or it is reckless to make the claim. Such a sweeping conclusion should not be drawn unless the impact is studied and analyzed. If USDA has conducted analysis of increases in farm input costs and weighed them against the measured opportunities, then I applaud their efforts. But if that is the case, it is mystifying that the Department has not shared the analysis, despite having testified before the Senate twice in the 2 weeks preceding this week.

Having served as the Secretary of Agriculture, I know that the USDA has an outstanding team of economists with expertise to do this kind of analysis. That is why last week I sent a letter to the current Ag Secretary, Tom Vilsack, who will testify at the Ag Committee hearing this week. The letter requested USDA to provide the following: A State- by-State analysis of the cost of cap and trade on ag industries; a crop-specific analysis; an analysis of how the legislation would impact livestock producers; finally, USDA's assessment of how many acres will be taken out of production as a result of the bill and what impact this will have on food availability, the cost of food, fiber, feed, biofuels, and other ag products.

Without detailed analysis, USDA's assertions about costs and benefits will simply ring hollow. Why wouldn't the USDA provide this information? Isn't this why the department exists? Agriculture is going to be directly impacted by the legislation. Yet we have no analysis from the people's department. If the people who feed the world are going to get hammered by this legislation, we should know about it. We should debate it, and we should vote on it on this floor.

I hope the third time is the charm for the USDA, and they bring more than rhetoric to Wednesday's hearing. Cap and trade will not affect States, crops or regions equally. It will have a different impact on a corn farmer in Nebraska than on a chicken farmer in Arkansas. Similarly, it will impact a dairy farmer in New York differently than the orange grower in California. We need a State-by-State and commodity-by-commodity analysis. One-size-fits-all will not work. A national average would not paint a true picture. When one is camping, they can't put one foot in the cooler and one foot in the campfire and, on average, it is about right. The same goes for loose assessments that are riddled with averages.

We have a responsibility to seek a full understanding of this legislation's impact on our Nation's farmers and related ag industries. The information I requested is critical to help the Senate and America's producers develop a clearer picture of cost increases for farmers, ranchers, and consumers.

We need the impact analysis to tell us which parts of the country will be hit the hardest and which industries within agriculture will incur the greatest losses as a result of this legislation.

I have asked for this analysis prior to the hearing. I believe it is necessary, and I hope we will have it before the hearing.

I am puzzled by the passage of nearly a full week since my request and no analysis has been provided. I trust the administration has nothing to hide. I will remain engaged in the debate. I look forward to Wednesday's hearing.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Recognition Of The Minority Leader

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Medicare and Medicaid Programs are the largest single purchaser of health care in the world. These programs account for over 20 percent of all U.S. Federal Government spending. More than 1 in 5 taxpayer dollars we actually spend will go to the Medicare or Medicaid Program. By the time my children become senior citizens, these two programs are projected to consume every dollar of tax revenue raised per year. Recently, the Medicare trustees reported that the Medicare Program is literally projected to be bankrupt by 2017, just 8 short years away. That is 2 years earlier than projected last year.

Our ability to offer financial predictions provides little consolation to senior citizens who depend on the Medicare Program to receive their medical care. For the millions of baby boomers, my generation, expecting the Medicare Program to be there for them and their future health care needs, these projections basically say that on the current course, we are out of luck.

Unfortunately, the Medicaid Program outlook is not much better, a program I am very familiar with as a prior Governor. Medicaid is the largest source of general revenue spending on health care for both the Federal Government and State governments. In fact, Medicaid represents 40 percent of Federal Government general revenue spending on health care and 41 percent of such spending by the States. That is why, as economic conditions have continued to worsen, State Medicaid budgets are increasingly in crisis. States are struggling to pay Medicaid obligations and still balance their budgets. It is a tough job--I know from personal experience--one that is not for the faint of heart.

The President is proposing, in my judgment, to exacerbate the problem by creating another government-run entitlement program. Of course, in order to pay for this new program, he has identified cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Let's be clear: We have one soon-to-be-bankrupt program that consumes a huge chunk of health care spending today, and the rushed reform would take money from it to pay for a new health care program. Seriously, this is a vicious cycle and something we would only see in Washington. The American people deserve a better effort.

I suggest that in the real world, when budgets get tight, leaders have to make very tough decisions. Programs are scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb to find out where savings can be found. If savings are identified, that money is used to shore up the programming shortfalls and to try to keep the current program viable. Medicare recipients are hoping we do that because the clock is ticking on their program. We don't see new programs created as existing programs fall deeper and deeper into the red. People and programs, they have to work together, rolling up their sleeves, prioritizing, scrutinizing every dollar in every program in order to fulfill current obligations, in order to meet the promise to those who are receiving the benefits today.

I have laid down a resolution. That is why this resolution I am submitting today is necessary, to restore some semblance of sanity to the process. Simply put, this resolution says that if we find savings within the Medicare

Program, we should put those savings back into the Medicare Program to keep the promise to our senior citizens that we will protect their program instead of creating yet another government entitlement program with the savings we have pulled from their program. It also says that if we find savings with the Medicaid Program, we should increase the Federal medical assistance percentage to help out States, to reduce the burden on State budgets; again, to fulfill the promise to those Medicaid recipients that we are serious about keeping their program going.

These are very practical, commonsense views the vast majority of Americans would agree with. Fix the programs in existence, Medicaid and Medicare, keep the promise to those receiving the benefits today, instead of taking the money from those programs to start yet another gigantic program. If we identify true savings within these current entitlement programs, I propose we fulfill that promise to the millions of Americans who are relying upon these important Federal programs. After all, it is not practical to rob Peter to pay Paul, especially when both Peter and Paul are going broke.