Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Senate grieves the loss of one of its giants and one of our great friends. All of us were, of course, moved by the many tributes that have poured in since Senator Kennedy's passing. We will make time later in the week for Senators, including myself, to deliver tributes of our own on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I previously had an opportunity to welcome my friend, the majority leader, back and welcome all our other colleagues from an active month in August. I know we always enjoy spending this time with our constituents and hearing their particular concerns. This year, most of us got an earful, and I hope the experience has an effect on our work as we move forward.

Health care reform is clearly a critical issue for many Americans, and I think we have an obligation to show them we have been listening closely to their concerns.

At this point, there should be no doubt about where the American people stand: The status quo is not acceptable but neither are any of the proposals we have seen from the White House or the Democrats in Congress so far.

The White House has attempted to retool its message on health care many times. It should be clear by now that the problem is not the sales pitch. The problem is what they are selling.

Over the past several weeks, I have visited with a lot of doctors, nurses, seniors, hospital workers, small business men and women and a whole lot of other citizens across Kentucky and, for that matter, throughout the country. None of them would call our current health care system perfect. But all of them are worried about so-called reforms that would undermine the things they like about the American health care system.

The American people are asking us to start over. They want reforms, but they want the right reforms, not some grand scheme that increases the national debt, expands the Federal Government, raises taxes, cuts seniors' benefits, and forces Americans off the plans they currently have and like. They want reforms that work within the system we have.

We have a lot of work to do in the weeks ahead, but these past few weeks have given us all something valuable. They have given us real clarity about the direction Americans want us to take and, as importantly, the direction they do not want us to take. Now it is our turn to show them we have been listening and to act.

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

Mr. President, once again I wish to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions, and their staffs, for conducting a dignified and respectful hearing. From the beginning of the process, I assured Judge Sotomayor that Republicans would treat her fairly. At the end of the process, I can say with pride that we kept that commitment.

This particular nominee comes before us with an impressive resume and a compelling life story. Yet the question we must ask ourselves today is whether we believe Judge Sotomayor will fulfill the requirements of the oath that is taken by all Federal judges to administer justice without respect to persons; that is, to administer justice evenhandedly.

President Obama asked himself a different question when he was looking for a nominee. The question he asked is whether that person has the ability to empathize with certain groups. And as I have said, empathy is a fine quality. But in the courtroom, it is only good if a judge has it for you. What if you are the other guy? When he walks out of the courthouse, he can say he received his day in court. He can say he received a hearing. But he can't say he received justice.

At her hearings Judge Sotomayor was quick and even eager to repudiate the so-called empathy standard. But her writings reflect strong sympathy for it. Indeed, they reflect a belief not just that impartiality is not possible, but that it is not even worth the effort.

Judge Sotomayor's record of complex constitutional cases concerns me even more. Because in Judge Sotomayor's court, groups that didn't make the cut of preferred groups often found they ended up on the short end of the empathy standard, and the consequences were real.

One group that didn't make the cut in Judge Sotomayor's court were those who needed the courts to enforce their first amendment rights to support candidates for political office free from government interference. She is free to express her personal opinions on this issue, as she did when she wrote that merely donating money to a candidate is akin to bribery.

But as a judge she was obligated to follow clear Supreme Court precedent. And when it came to this issue, she followed her political beliefs instead, voting not to correct her circuit's clear failure to follow the Supreme Court precedent in this area of the law.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court, in a 6-to-3 opinion authored by Justice Breyer, corrected this error by her circuit on the grounds that it had failed to follow ``well-established precedent.''

Another group that didn't make the cut were those who need the courts to protect them from unfair employment preferences. As a lawyer, she advocated for--and, in fact, helped plan--lawsuits that challenged civil service exams for public safety officers. And as a judge, she kicked out of court--with just six sentences of explanation and without any citation of precedent--the claims of a group of firefighters who had been unfairly denied promotions they had earned. This past June, the Supreme Court reversed her ruling, making her 0 for 3 this term, with all nine Justices finding that she had misapplied the law.

Gun owners didn't make the cut, and they haven't fared well before Judge Sotomayor either. She has twice ruled the second amendment isn't a fundamental right and thus doesn't protect Americans when States prevent them from bearing arms. And here too, she didn't even give the losing party's claims the dignity of a full treatment. In one case, she disposed of the party's second amendment claim in a one-sentence footnote. In the other, she did it with a single paragraph.

Property owners weren't on the list either, and they too haven't fared well in Judge Sotomayor's court. In an important fifth amendment case--the amendment that protects against the government taking private property--Judge Sotomayor broadened even further the government's power, a ruling which one property law expert called ``one of the worst property rights decisions in recent years.''

And her ruling in this case fit an all-too-familiar pattern: she kicked the aggrieved party's serious constitutional claims out of court in an unsigned, unpublished, summary order, with only a brief explanation as to why.

These important cases illustrate the real-world consequences of the empathy standard, in which judges choose to see certain facts but not others, and in which it's appropriate for judges to bring their personal or political views to bear in deciding cases. Lieutenant Ben Vargas, one of the firefighters who did not fare well under the empathy standard, may have put it best. Speaking of himself and the other plaintiffs in that case, he said,

We did not ask for sympathy or empathy. We asked only for

evenhanded enforcement of the law, and . . . we were denied

that.

Lieutenant Vargas understands what most other Americans understand and what all of them expect when they walk into a courtroom: that in America, everyone should receive equal justice under the law. This is the most fundamental test for any judge, and all the more so for those who would sit on our Nation's highest court, where a judge's impulses and preferences are not subject to review. Because I am not convinced that Judge Sotomayor would

keep this commitment, I cannot support her nomination.

Mr. President, does our side have time left, I would ask?

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish everybody well during August while visiting your constituents, and I look forward to being back here after Labor Day.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon begin debate on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Before that debate begins, I wish to make a few observations.

First, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, along with their respective staffs, for conducting what can only be described as a dignified and respectful hearing. I know it was gratifying to them, as it was to me, to hear Judge Sotomayor say that every single Senator who had promised to give her the opportunity to explain her views had kept that promise. It was equally gratifying to hear Senators Durbin and Schumer describe the hearings as respectful and fair.

As I have often said, our goal in the Senate should be to disagree without being disagreeable. I think we hit the mark during the hearings on Judge Sotomayor, and the Judiciary Committee should be commended for it. As we begin final consideration, our goal should be the same: Those who support the nomination will make their case, those who oppose it will make theirs, and then we will vote, fulfilling our constitutional responsibility with the seriousness and the deliberation the American people expect.

Over several weeks, I have outlined my concerns about the nominee in some detail. Once the hearing was over, I said that those concerns had only multiplied. But the primary reason I will not support this nomination, as I have already said, is because I cannot support the so- called empathy standard upon which Judge Sotomayor was selected and to which she, herself, has subscribed in her writings and rulings.

As I have said, the empathy standard is a very fine quality. And I have no doubt that Senator Obama, now President Obama, had very good intentions when he made the case for a so-called empathy standard as a Senator, a candidate, and now as President. But when it comes to judging--when it comes to judging--empathy is only good if you are lucky enough to be the person or group for whom the judge in question has empathy. In those cases, it is the judge, not the law, which determines the outcome. That is a dangerous road to go down if you believe, as I do, in a nation not of men but of laws.

Judge Sotomayor has impressed all of us with her life story, but if empathy is the new standard, then the burden is on nominees such as she who are chosen on that basis to demonstrate a firm commitment to equal justice under the law. On the contrary, Judge Sotomayor has openly doubted the ability of judges to adhere to this core principle, and she has even doubted the wisdom of them doing so.

In her writings and in her speeches, Judge Sotomayor has repeatedly stated that there is no objectivity or neutrality in judging. Let me say that again. Judge Sotomayor has repeatedly stated that there is no objectivity or neutrality in judging. She has said her experiences will affect the facts she chooses to see as a judge. Her experiences will affect the facts she chooses to see as a judge. She has argued that in deciding cases judges should bring their sympathies and prejudices to bear. She has dismissed judicial impartiality as an ``aspiration'' that cannot be met even in most cases. She has even questioned whether a judge trying to be as fair as possible in applying the law does a disservice both to the law and to society. These statements suggest not just a sense that impartiality is not possible but that it is not even worth the effort.

Nothing could be more important in evaluating a judicial nominee than where they stand on the question of equal justice. As I have said, Americans expect one thing when they walk into a courtroom--whether it is traffic court or the Supreme Court--and that is equal treatment under the law.

Americans have accepted serious ideological differences in Supreme Court nominees over the years. But one thing they will never, ever tolerate is a belief that some groups are more deserving of a fair shake than others. Nothing could be more offensive to the American sensibility than that.

Judge Sotomayor is certainly a fine person with an impressive story and a distinguished background. But a judge must be able to check his or her personal or political agenda at the courtroom door and do justice evenhandedly, as the judicial oath requires. This is the most fundamental test. It is a test that Judge Sotomayor does not pass.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not be objecting, I just want to make a point for all of our colleagues. The very important debate on the Supreme Court nominee will commence in a while. It is important for people not to wait until the end. We need to get people on over to make their speeches. I know there are a number of Members on the Republican side of the aisle who do intend to speak to the nomination. I encourage them to begin that sometime soon.

Mr. President, I wish to make a few short observations about a severe storm that hit my hometown and dumped 6 inches of rain in 75 minutes in Louisville just today, causing major flooding and trapping people in their cars and in their neighborhoods. The Louisville Police and Fire and Rescue have been working nonstop since early this morning to assist those in need. I wish to commend them for the courageous and outstanding work they have been performing throughout the day.

Not surprisingly, I have heard from a number of my constituents. I appreciate very much their calls to keep me informed on the latest developments. We are going to continue to monitor the situation back home. In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers go out to everyone in Louisville today.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the accomplishments of the Simpson County Historical Society, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary in September, making it one of the oldest continuously operating historical societies in Kentucky.

The society's half century of promoting research and knowledge of history makes it one of south-central Kentucky's treasures. At the society's very first meeting in 1959, 37 individuals met in a private home to discuss the creation of the organization.

For many years the society maintained a small collection at the Goodnight Library until members convinced the county to let them use the old county jail and jailer's house as a headquarters. The facility now serves as the Simpson County Archives and Museum. Their collection contains thousands of items, including books, manuscripts, original documents and papers, pictures, county records, tapes, CDs, microfilm, microfiche, computers, and more.

The research materials, librarians and volunteers at the archives have helped thousands of visitors connect to their past and learn about their genealogy.

The dedicated staff and volunteers at the society have made it very successful. In 2006, Mary Garrett, Nancy Neely, Sarah Richardson, Sarah Smith, Beatrice Snider, Margaret Snider, and Dorothy Steers received the Lifetime Presidential Volunteer Service Awards for over 4,000 hours of volunteer service.

The group not only preserves history, but gives much to the community, for instance by supporting several historical markers in Simpson County and providing grants for schools and groups interested in preserving history. They also offer scholarships for students who want to study history.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring, as listed below, the society and their officers for their hard work and dedication to the preservation and research of Kentucky's and Simpson County's history over the past 50 years and for many more years to come:

Simpson County Historical Society Officers--2009

President Dr. James Henry Snider, Vice-President Jean

Almand, Secretary Jason Herring, Assistant Secretary Bonnye

Moody, Treasurer Commie Jo Hall, Librarian Kenny Lynn Scott,

Directors Katherine McCutchen, Emily Mayes, Sarah Jernigan,

Past President and Business Manager Sarah Jo Cardwell. Gayla

Coates, Nancy Thomas, Commie Jo Hall, Morris Hester, Betty

Nolan, Elizabeth Wakefield, Allison Cummings, Helen Cardwell,

and Stacie Goosetree

Simpson County Historical Society Volunteers

Myrtle Alexander, Kathy Allen (Dinning), David Forrest

Almand, Jean Almand, Margaret Beach, Roxanne Boyer, Lucille

Brown, Jean Burton, Barry Byrd, Bill Byrd, Helen Cardwell,

Ruth Cardwell, Sarah Jo Cardwell, Pattye Caudill, Billy Jeff

Cherry, Ruth Cherry, Liz Chisholm, Jim Clark, Gayla Coates,

Sue Cooper, Irene Harding Cornett, Joe Craft, Nettie Craft,

Mary Crow, Allison Cummings, Elizabeth Dinning, Elizabeth

Dunn, Ruth Forshee, Jackie Forshee, Kathy Forshee, Larry

Forshee, Mary Garrett, Paul Garrett, Addie Gillespie, Nora

Belle Gillespie, Cheryl Goodlad, Stacie Goosetree, Kay

Gregath, John Gregory, Commie Jo Hall, Janet Head, Jason

Herring, Jimmy Jennett, Tracy Jennett, Dorothy Jent, Earl

Jent, Amy Kepley, Ricky Kepley, Donna Laser, Mary Malone,

Emily Martin, Emily Mayes, Charles McCutchen, Katherine

McCutchen, Hallie McFarland, Mary Rose Meador, Lowrie

Mervine, Peggy Mervine, Betty Milliken, Edna Milliken, Thomas

N. Moody, Anne Mullikin, Nancy Neely, Tom Scott Neely,

Dorothy Newbold, Mary Ogles, Olaine Owen, Mildred Perry, Jo

Ann Phillips, Marian Phillips, Ruth Richards, Mozelle

Richardson, Sarah Richardson, Wendell Richardson, Mattie Lou

Riggins, Janet Roark, Betty Rogers, Lou Ella Rutherford, Edna

Earl Scott, Kenny Lynn Scott, Ellen Smith, Henry Price Smith,

Sarah Smith, Billy Briggs Snider, Beatrice Snider, James D.

Snider, Margaret Snider, Lori Snider, James Henry Snider, D.

B. Snider, Pearl Snider, Dorothy Steers, Geraldine ``Jerri''

Stewart, Rowena Sullivan, Robert E. Taylor, Nancy Thomas,

Jane Truelove, L. L. Valentine, Dan Ware, Bessie Watwood,

Alisha Westmoreland, Michelle Willis, Christine Wilburn,

Geraldine Wright, Joan Yorgason.

Mr. President, before I address the matter I came to the Senate floor to address today, I congratulate the Senator from Arizona for his thoughtful description of the process by which he has made a decision on the extraordinarily important issue we will have before the Senate later this week; that is, the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, over the past 2 months, I have come to the floor time and again to talk about one of the most important issues we face as a Nation: and that is the need for commonsense health care reforms which address the serious problems that all Americans see in the system as it is. I have done this in the context of a larger debate about a proposed reform that, in my view, could actually make our current problems worse. And I have had solid support for that view from a number of well-respected sources.

First and foremost is the independent Congressional Budget Office, which has refuted several estimates by the administration about the effect its health care proposals would have on the economy in general and health care costs in particular.

The Director of the CBO has said the Democrat proposals we have seen would not reverse the upward trend of health care costs and would significantly increase the government's share of those costs. The CBO says these proposals would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt. It says that one section of one of the proposals would cause 10 million people to lose their current health plans. And it says a so-called Independent Medicare Advisory Council designed to cut costs probably wouldn't.

These findings have helped clarify the debate over health care--and they have added to a growing perception that, though the administration is trying very hard, economic estimates are not the administration's strong suit.

First there was the stimulus. In trying to account for rising unemployment after a stimulus bill that was meant to arrest it, the administration said it misread the economy. It also said the stimulus would ``create or save'' between 3 and 4 million jobs, though now it says it can't measure how many jobs are created or saved. Meanwhile we have lost 2 million of them since the stimulus was passed.

Last week we saw the administration's tendency to miss the mark on economic estimates again with the so-called cash for clunkers program.

We were told this program would last for several months. As it turned out, it ran out of money in a week, prompting the House to rush a $2 billion dollar extension before anybody even had time to figure out what happened with the first billion.

There is a pattern here, a pattern that amounts to an argument--and a very strong argument at that: when the administration comes bearing estimates, it is not a bad idea to look for a second opinion. All the more so if they say they are in a hurry.

Americans are telling us that health care is too important to rush. They are saying it is too important to base our decisions on this issue solely on the estimates that we are getting from the same people who brought us the stimulus and cash for clunkers.

The American people want to know what they are getting into when it comes to changing health care in this country. And while I have no doubt the administration is trying, Americans need some assurance that the estimates they are getting are accurate. And if recent experience is any guide, they have reason to be as skeptical as the car dealer who said this to a reporter last week:

If they can't administer a program like this, I'd be a

little concerned about my health insurance.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, the American people are making their voices heard in the debate over health care. One of the things they are demanding is that we do something to lower costs. This is why the proponents of a government takeover never fail to mention lowering costs as one of their primary goals. Yet, more and more, Americans are beginning to ask themselves a very simple question: How can more government lead to lower costs?

They look at Medicare, a government-run health care program that's nearly bankrupt, and they don't understand how an even bigger, more complicated government-run health plan won't end up in the same condition--and they certainly don't understand why the administration would propose cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare to help pay for this massive new government-run plan.

Yet, this is precisely what some are proposing: that we use Medicare as a

piggy bank to pay a significant portion of the administration's plan for health care reform. Well, in my view, it's a terrible idea, and on the 44th anniversary of this vital program that roughly 40 million Americans rely on each day, I think it is important to explain why.

Here is how one of the proposed cuts would work. Right now, if a senior citizen on Medicare needs surgery, his or her hospital stay will likely be covered by Medicare. And because health care costs go up each year, Medicare provides for annual increases that ensure that hospitals and other providers are able to keep pace with inflation.

What the administration and some Democrats in Congress are now proposing is that we reduce or even eliminate this annual increase-- thus, cutting the amount of money we spend on Medicare, a drastic measure that could have a serious impact on our hospitals and the communities and patients they serve.

It would be one thing if these cuts were being proposed as a way of strengthening Medicare. The simple fact is that Medicare faces significant challenges that must be addressed. When Medicare Part A-- the program that pays for hospital stays--was enacted, 44 years ago today, it was projected that in 1990 this program would spend $9.1 billion on hospital services and related administration. As it turned out, spending in 1990 totaled almost $67 billion--or more than seven times the original prediction. These exploding costs have taken a toll on the program's bottom line. Today, Medicare is already spending more than it is taking in, and it is expected to be insolvent in just 8 years. Unfortunately, the administration plans to use Medicare cuts in order to fund yet another new government program.

America's seniors don't want politicians in Washington tampering with Medicare to pay for health care reform. They want us to fix it. I get letters almost every day from some of the nearly 700,000 Kentuckians who have Medicare. They are counting on it in the years ahead, and they are worried about its future. In my view, we have a serious obligation to make sure it's there for them. Unfortunately, the administration's proposal takes the wrong approach.

Just yesterday, the Joint Economic Committee completed a study on the administration's proposed cuts to Medicare. It found that if these cuts were used to restore Medicare rather than to fund a government takeover of health care, the Medicare trust fund's 75-year unfunded liability would be reduced by 15 percent, or more than $2 trillion, and that it would delay the trust fund's bankruptcy by 2 years. In short, while any savings from a reformed Medicare would strengthen it for a longer period of time were they put back into the current program, this just highlights how important overall reform is to ensuring that Medicare continues to serve our seniors.

This is why I have argued for weeks that any savings from Medicare should be put back into the program. And this is why I have also repeatedly urged the administration and my colleagues in the Senate to move forward on the bipartisan Conrad-Gregg proposal, which would provide a clear pathway for fixing the problems in Medicare and other important entitlement programs. Conrad-Gregg would force us to get debt and spending under control. It is the best way to reform Medicare. It deserves the support of every Member of Congress.

Doctors and hospitals across the country are worried about what these proposed cuts in Medicare would mean for them and their patients. Earlier this year, the Kentucky Hospital Association warned that the kinds of cuts being considered in Washington would seriously impact the services hospitals currently provide to seniors in my State. I would encourage my colleagues to talk to seniors, doctors, and medical professionals in their own States and see what they're saying. My guess is that it's a lot different than what some of the lobbyists and interest groups here in Washington are saying.

Some in Congress seem to be in such a rush to pass just any reform, rather than the right reform, that they are looking everywhere for the money to pay for it--even if it means sticking it to seniors with cuts to Medicare. If there was ever a program that needed to be put on a sounder financial footing it is medicare. And yet throughout the debate over health care, we don't seem to be focusing our attention on this vital issue. Instead, the same people who are unwilling to make the hard choices that are needed to fix Medicare now want us to trust them to create a new government program that will inevitably suffer from these same problems. It just doesn't add up, and Americans are beginning to realize it.

So on this anniversary, here is my message: Using massive cuts to Medicare as a way to pay for more government-run health care isn't the kind of change Americans are looking for. Americans want savings from Medicare to be used to strengthen Medicare, not to create a system that would increase long-term health care costs, force Americans off the insurance they have and like, and lead to a government takeover of health care that has the same fiscal problems that Medicare has.

Forty-four years ago today, President Johnson signed Medicare into law, saying that our Nation would never ``refuse the hand of justice to those who have given a lifetime of service and wisdom and labor'' to their Nation. Those of us in Congress have a responsibility to fulfill that vow. And the best way to do so is to work together on reforms that address the real problems in our health care system, problems like the ones we see with Medicare.

I have been encouraged, as lawmakers on both sides, and even the President, have acknowledged that the reform proposals we have seen so far are not where they need to be. Strengthening Medicare to make sure it meets the needs of seniors today and in the years to come would be a very good place to start.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, throughout the debate on health care reform, the administration has made a point of asking various stakeholders to come together and do their part: Doctors and hospitals are being asked to find significant savings, seniors are being asked to make major sacrifices, and so are the States. Every week, it seems, the White House hosts an event aimed at showcasing some sacrifice being made by one group or another--every group, that is, except personal injury lawyers.

It is a glaring omission, since everyone knows that the constant threat of lawsuits is one of the reasons health care premiums for families have skyrocketed more than 100 percent over the past decade and the primary reason many doctors today spend a literal fortune on malpractice insurance even before they open their doors for business. To take just one example, neurosurgeons in Miami can expect to spend more on malpractice insurance every single year than many families in Miami can expect to spend on a new home.

This is a very serious problem, and everyone knows it. Yet we do not hear a word about it--not a word--from any of the Democratic-led committees in Congress that are working on reform. It is not because the administration has not raised the issue. Last month, the President himself acknowledged the widespread use of so-called defensive medicine or the practice of prescribing drugs or tests that are not really needed just to protect oneself from the threat of a lawsuit. During the same speech, the President said we need to explore a whole range of ideas about how to scale back defensive medicine. Well, Democrats in Congress must not have been paying much attention to that part of the speech because I have not heard a single word on this issue from any Democrat since--not one. One exception was the recent suggestion by some in the administration that doctors are performing unnecessary surgeries just to make an extra buck. I think a better explanation is the one the President gave last month when he said doctors often

perform certain procedures just to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits.

The costs associated with ever-increasing malpractice insurance and defensive medicine are indeed substantial, and both are simply, of course, passed along to consumers in the form of higher costs for even basic treatments and procedures. Many Americans pay an even higher price when doctors decide the threat of lawsuits and the cost of insurance just is not worth it and decide to close down their practices altogether. Every State feels the effect of out-of-control malpractice suits. One study suggests that Kentucky alone is 2,300 doctors short of the national average--a shortage that could be reduced, in part, by getting a handle on malpractice suits.

I have spoken before about the effects a culture of jackpot lawsuits has on everyday Americans, on people such as Rashelle Perryman of Crittenden County, KY. According to an article in the Louisville Courier Journal, Rashelle's first two babies were born at Crittenden County Hospital, which is about a 10-minute ride from her home. But her third child had to be delivered about 40 miles away. Why? Well, the rising malpractice rates had forced doctors at Crittenden County Hospital to stop delivering babies altogether. They just could not afford the malpractice insurance.

When the threat of lawsuits drives insurance premiums so high that many doctors are forced to go out of business, that mothers across the country cannot find a local obstetrician, and that health insurance costs for everyone continue to go up, we have a problem that needs to be addressed. Yet every single one of the so-called comprehensive health care reform proposals Democrats are currently putting together in Congress completely and totally ignores this issue.

The only people who benefit from the current system are the personal injury lawyers who can end up taking up to a third of every settlement and, frankly, if it is appealed, an even greater percentage, and protecting them is not what health care reform was supposed to be about. Yet it is hard to escape the conclusion that this is precisely what is going on here. If the administration wants to be comprehensive in its approach, it should ask the personal injury lawyers to make a sacrifice, just as they have asked America's seniors, doctors, Governors, and small business owners to make a sacrifice.

Americans do not want a government takeover of health care. They want reforms that everyone can understand and that all of us can agree on. And nothing could be simpler or more straightforward than putting an end to the junk lawsuits that drive up costs and put doctors out of business. Americans do not want grand schemes, they want commonsense proposals. Medical liability reform would be a very good place to start.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I object.

Reserving the right to object, could the majority leader give me an indication of when we might turn to this matter tomorrow?

Early tomorrow afternoon?

Mr. President, as the debate over health care continues, it is important that we not lose sight of the fact that the American people expect results. No one was ever elected to Congress to push a problem down the road or to point fingers. Americans certainly want reform, and that is exactly what they expect us to deliver. At the same time, Americans have a right to expect that the legislation we pass actually addresses the problems they face and that we do not use the need for reform as an excuse to pass legislation that does not really help or that makes existing problems worse.

This is the nature of the debate we are in: Some in Washington seem to be rushing to push through so-called reforms just for the sake of reform, regardless of whether they actually help the situation, while others are insisting we take the time to get it right.

Fortunately, with each passing day, more and more Americans and now more and more Members of Congress are insisting that we take the responsible path to health care reform--even if it means hitting the reset button and meeting in the middle on reforms that all of us can agree on and that Americans can embrace.

Here are some of the cautionary notes we have heard from Senators just in the last few days.

One top Senator said:

It's better to get a product that's based on quality and

thoughtfulness than on trying to just get something through.

Last week, nine freshmen Senators wrote an open letter to the Senate Finance Committee calling for a solution that doesn't bankrupt our health care system. Here is what those nine Senators wrote:

In the face of exploding debt and deficits, however, we are

concerned that too little focus has been given to the need

for cost containment.

We are hearing the same things over in the House. One Congressman said on Sunday morning that:

The American people want to take a closer look. They want

to feel comfortable with it. We have a long way to go.

Another Congressman said he thinks Americans are ``shell-shocked'' after last year's financial bailout, the stimulus, the cap-and-trade bill, and other major bills approved this year.

Another Congressman, referring to health care reform, asked:

Why are we rushing? Why are we rushing? Let's get it right.

America's Governors are also calling on the administration and Congress to slow down and insisting that Congress take the time to produce the right reform.

One Governor recently was quoted as saying he:

Personally was very concerned about the cost issue,

particularly the $1 trillion figure being batted around.

Here is another one commenting on proposals to shift Medicaid costs on to already cash-strapped States. She said:

As a governor, my concern is that if we try to cost-shift

to the States, we are not going to be in a position to pick

up the tab.

Another Governor had the same concerns about Medicaid. Here is what he was quoted as saying in the New York Times last week:

Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage . . .

It's a 45-year-old system originally designed for poor women

and their children. It is not health care reform to dump more

money into Medicaid.

All these people have something in common: They all want reform. They have concerns about the proposals we have seen so far, and they have something else in common too. Every one of the lawmakers I have quoted is a Democrat--every one of them.

Some are trying to portray this debate as a debate between Republicans and Democrats. This is a distortion of the facts and is a disservice to the millions of Americans who want us to get this reform right. As I and others have said, the only thing that is bipartisan about the reforms we have seen so far is the opposition. The reason is clear: It costs too much; they don't address the long-term challenges in our health care system; they don't reduce long-term costs; they would add hundreds of billions to the national debt; and there is no way the American people will embrace them because all of them fall well outside the boundaries of the middle path Americans are asking us to take.

This is why so many within the President's own party are now standing and telling the administration to slow down and to reassess. This is why even traditionally Democratic groups, such as the AFL-CIO, are having second thoughts. Just last week, the AFL-CIO criticized a plan to tax so-called gold-plated insurance plans because of the impact it could have on workers. Why? Because they know that when politicians talk about raising tax on business, it is average Americans who end up shouldering most of the burden.

Americans don't want to lose the quality of care our current system provides, and they certainly don't want to pay trillions of dollars for a government takeover of health care that could lead to the same denial, delays, and rationing of treatment we have seen in other countries. They have heard the same stories we have--of someone with cancer being denied a drug because it costs too much or the woman who came here from Canada to deliver her babies because there wasn't any room in the neonatal intensive care units back home or they visited places such as the M.D. Anderson Center in Houston, TX, as I have, and saw how dozens of patients from other countries go there for treatments.

We don't know the exact circumstances that brought these people here, but we do know this: that they decided to come to the United States, in some cases traveling thousands of miles to do so, to get the kind of care that only America could provide.

Some people, for some reason, seem afraid to admit it, but the fact is, American health care is the envy--the envy--of many people around the world, and Americans don't want to lose it. That is why Americans are telling us we can reform health care without bankrupting the country or destroying what is so unique and special about our current system. That is why a growing number of politicians in Washington are hearing the people's concerns and speaking out. That is why many of them are now urging the administration to take a different path.