Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am going to proceed on my leader time.

Mr. President, Americans are eager for health care reforms that lower costs and increase access. This is why many of us are proposing reforms that should be easy for everyone to agree on, such as reforming our medical liability laws, strengthening wellness and prevention programs that would encourage people to make healthy choices, such as quitting smoking and losing weight and addressing the needs of small businesses without imposing new taxes that kill jobs.

The administration is taking a different approach to health care reform, and the more Americans learn about it, the more concerned they become. So it is good the President plans to spend a lot of his time in the days ahead discussing the administration's plan for reform because people need to know what the administration's plan is.

Specifically, Americans have concerns about losing the care they have and spending trillions of dollars for a so-called reform that could leave them with worse care than they have now, especially if it is paid for by seniors and small business owners.

One prospect Americans are extremely concerned about is that they will be forced off of their current plans as part of a government takeover of health care. Despite repeated assurances from the administration to the contrary, the independent Congressional Budget Office says that just one section of one of the Democratic proposals we have seen would force 10 million people off their current health plans.

Americans do not want a government takeover, and they certainly do not want the government to spend trillions of their tax dollars to pay for it, especially if the care they end up with is worse than the care they already receive, and especially if the money that is spent on these so-called reforms only adds to the national debt.

The President has repeatedly promised that his reform would not add to the debt. Yet both the House and Senate reform bills we have seen would do just that. This is why even Democrats have started to backpedal from the administration's plans.

One reason Democrats are having second thoughts is because the Director of the Congressional Budget Office has sounded the alarm over the administration's claims that its reforms would cut long-term overall health care costs. On the contrary, he said the administration's reforms would actually lead to an increase in overall costs. Concerns like these about costs and debt have been building slowly for weeks.

Another growing concern even among Democrats is the impact these higher costs would have on States in the form of higher Medicaid costs. At a time of tight budgets, this is something that Governors from both political parties are not very happy about.

For example, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has said, and I am quoting him directly:

I'm personally very concerned about the cost issue,

particularly the $1 trillion figures being batted around.

Expanding Medicaid might look like an easy way to expand access, but it will actually mean massive spending increases for both Federal and State taxpayers. This could be a devastating blow to States such as Kentucky and many others which are already struggling to pay the Medicaid costs they currently owe.

The administration's efforts to pay for its plans are not the least bit reassuring. The two main groups they are targeting are the last two that should be expected to pay for it: seniors, through Medicare cuts, and small business owners, through higher taxes.

To me, it is just common sense that in the middle of a recession the last thing--the last thing--we should be doing is raising taxes on small businesses. Yet both bills we have seen would do just that. Indeed, under the House bill, taxes on some small businesses would rise as high as roughly 45 percent. This means in order to pay for health care reform, Democrats would increase the tax rate on some small businesses to about 30 percent higher than the rate for big corporations. Taxes would go up so much, in fact, under the House proposal that the average combined Federal and State top tax rate for individuals would be about 52 percent--52 percent, Mr. President.

Let's consider that figure for a moment. To repeat: In order to pay for a health care proposal that would not even address all the concerns Americans have about access and cost--and which might even increase overall health care costs--Democrats in the House would raise the average top tax rate in the United States to about 52 percent.

The chart behind me was created by the Heritage Foundation and appeared last week in the Wall Street Journal. It shows that the House bill would raise the top U.S. rate above even France. Of the 30 countries the OECD measures, only Belgium, Sweden, and Denmark have higher rates, and five U.S. States would have tax rates even higher than both Belgium and Sweden.

The United States is in the middle of a recession. We have lost more than 2.5 million jobs since this January. Families are losing homes. The last thing they need is a government takeover that kills even more jobs, adds to the ballooning national debt, increases Americans' long- term health care costs, and leaves Americans paying more for worse care than they now receive. The proposals we have seen are not just incomplete, they are indefensible, particularly at a time of spiraling debt and ever-increasing job losses.

Maybe this is why the administration has started to insist on an artificial deadline for getting its reform proposals through. We certainly do not need to rush and spend $1 trillion to enact this flawed proposal by the August recess. The American people and members of both parties in Congress are calling on us to slow down and take the time to get it right.

Health care reform is too important to rush through and get it wrong. We saw what happened when some rushed and spent $1 trillion on an artificial

deadline with the stimulus. The American people do not want the same mistake to be made. Instead of setting a 3-week deadline on legislation that would end up affecting one-sixth of our economy, the administration should focus on meeting existing deadlines.

The Mid-Session Review of the administration's earlier predictions about unemployment, economic growth, government spending, and the outlook for the Federal deficit has traditionally been released in mid- July. Yet now we are hearing the administration may not release its midsession review until August, after Congress has adjourned and after the administration's artificial deadline for a Senate bill on health care.

The administration is also struggling to meet its decision to close Guantanamo by January 2010. The administration's task force on detainee policy has said it will miss its deadline for making recommendations. It seems premature to announce a closing date for Guantanamo without knowing where these detainees may be sent. The most recent delay is even more reason for the administration to show flexibility and reconsider its artificial deadline for closing Guantanamo.

Americans want Republicans and Democrats to enact real health care reform that reduces costs and makes health care more accessible. They don't want a government takeover of the health care system that costs trillions of dollars, is paid for by seniors and job-killing taxes on small businesses and that leaves them paying more for worse care than they currently have. Before the administration rushes to spend another trillion dollars, it needs to slow down and focus on fixing our economy and addressing the issues it is already falling behind on.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with sadness to honor the life of Mr. Mason Rudd, a good friend who died on July 5, 2009, at the age of 90. He was loved by many in my hometown of Louisville, KY, and he will be missed.

Mason will be remembered as an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and family man who did so much to make his adopted hometown a better place.

His American dream began at the University of Minnesota, where he funded his college education with help from a tennis scholarship, participation in ROTC, and by selling doughnuts. In 1939, he graduated with a degree in geology and petroleum engineering. After college, his service in World War II led him to believe that he survived the war for one reason--to

help others achieve and live better lives. And this he did.

Mr. Rudd spent a few years working as an engineer for Shell Oil and then selling fire engines in Iowa until 1952 when he moved to Louisville. There he established Rudd Equipment Company, which distributed heavy construction equipment. The company he built brought him a large fortune which would serve him well when he undertook his many altruistic pursuits.

Mason grew to love the city and especially the local university--the University of Louisville. He contributed $1.4 million to the creation of a neurology professorship at the University of Louisville after his first wife Mary suffered a fatal stroke. His help facilitated the $3.6 million Bass-Rudd Tennis Center at the University of Louisville as well as the endowment for the Rudd Program for Young Artists at the Kentucky Opera to train young singers.

However, more important than the money, Mr. Rudd contributed invaluable time and effort to the causes of health care and education.

Thirty years ago, this passion was clear to me when I served as Jefferson County's judge-executive and it was my responsibility to appoint someone to the county's board of health. I reappointed him to the board, just as those serving before me had and those after me did.

While serving on this board as well as in leadership positions at Louisville General Hospitals and Louisville's Jewish Hospital, his efforts provided everyone in the city with a healthier, safer life. His fellow members credit him with creating lead poisoning education programs, a hazardous-materials task force in the health department, a mandate on sewage treatment, and primary care clinics for the uninsured.

His efforts also extended to helping the Louisville Free Library Foundation during his 16 years on the board there. Because of him the library's book endowment is stronger and the children's reading program continues to grow. Most notably, in the year 2000 library fundraising efforts under his leadership made it possible to purchase computers for the library.

Mr. Rudd leaves behind his wife Peggy: his daughter Betsy; and his son Michael. The life he led in his 90 years stands out as an example of service to his community and country which all Americans should honor and strive to achieve. He will be missed.

Mr. President, I am going to proceed on my leader time.

Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the Judiciary Committee staff, as well as Senators Leahy and Sessions, for conducting a collegial, civil, and dignified hearing on the matter of the Supreme Court nomination. In my view, the hearing was in perfect keeping with the importance of the task before it.

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says the President ``shall nominate''--``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate''-- ``Judges of the supreme Court.'' It is an obligation that all of us in the Senate take very seriously, even though Senators have not always agreed on the exact meaning of the phrase ``advise and consent.'' In fact, it has been the subject of significant disagreement and struggle over the years.

I remember from my days as a young staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the debate flared up over the nominations of Clement Haynsworth and Harrold Carswell after a full century in which appointments to the Supreme Court had more or less been a sleepy Presidential prerogative.

It was during that time that I first grasped the danger of politicizing the process. By focusing on a nominees's

ideology or political views above all else, I feared the Senate would end up distorting its traditional role of providing advice and consent and weaken the Presidential prerogative of making appointments to the Court.

I was so concerned, in fact, about the potential dangers that I wrote a law review article on the topic, which I have repeatedly returned to over the years. Its purpose was to establish a meaningful standard for considering Supreme Court nominees that would bring some consistency to the process.

In the course of developing that standard, I went back and looked at the history of nominations, and I noticed something interesting: Every time a Senator had opposed nominees in the past, the reason for doing so was almost always based on the nominees's ``fitness''--even if it was perfectly clear to everyone else that the Senator's opposition was based on political or ideological differences.

What this polite fiction showed me, quite clearly, was that up until fairly recent history, ideology had never been viewed as an openly acceptable reason to oppose a nominee. And, in my view, this aversion to a political litmus test was a good convention and well worth following if we wanted to avoid gridlock every time the White House switched parties.

So I developed a list of fairly standard criteria that I had hoped would govern the process: A nominee must be competent; have obtained some level of distinction; have a judicial temperament; violated no existing standard of ethical conduct; and have a clean record in his or her life off the bench.

In short, a President should be given great deference on his choice of a nominee, and these criteria certainly allowed that. As a Senator, I have consistently applied these criteria to Supreme Court nominees by Presidents of both parties.

In adhering to this standard, I was confident I had history on my side. Despite a few notable exceptions, during the last century the Senate understood its advice and consent role to be limited to an examination of a nominee's qualifications, not his or her ideology. This attitude is consistent with the Framers' decision, after no little debate, to invest the President, not the Senate, with the power to nominate Justices. They did not want politics to interfere. And that is why it has always been my view that opposing a nominee to the Supreme Court because he or she has a different judicial philosophy than I do was not a valid reason for doing so.

During the Clinton years, I had no illusions about the ideology or political views of Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg's views on a number of contentious issues were well known and clearly different than my own, such as her view that Mother's Day should be abolished or that the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts should be criticized for perpetrating false stereotypes about gender.

Most Americans, and certainly most Kentuckians, do not think those kinds of things. Yet despite that, I and the vast majority of my Republican colleagues voted for Justice Ginsburg. Why? Because the Constitution gave the President the power to nominate. And, in my view, Justice Ginsburg met the traditional standards of competence, distinction, temperament, and ethical conduct.

The vote in favor of Justice Ginsburg was 96 to 3. The vote in favor of Justice Breyer was 87 to 9. I voted for both, just as I had voted for every previous Republican nominee to the high Court since my election to the Senate--consistent with my criteria and based on their qualifications.

In voting for nominees such as Ginsburg and Breyer, it was my hope that broad deference to a President's judicial nominees would once again become the standard. Even if the treatment of Republican nominees, such as Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, suggested that many Democrats felt differently than I did, it was still possible at that time to imagine a day when the traditional standard would reemerge. As it turned out, that hopefulness was misplaced and short-lived.

Things changed for good during the last administration. It was then that the Democrats turned their backs on the old standard once and for all. Ideology as a test would no longer be the exception but the rule. The new order was firmly established at a Democratic retreat in April 2001 in which a group of liberal law professors laid out the strategy for blocking any high-level conservative judicial nominee. The strategy was reinforced during a series of hearings in which Senator Schumer declared that ideology alone--ideology alone--was sufficient reason to block judicial nominees.

These events marked the beginning of a seismic procedural and substantive shift on judicial nominees, and the results were just as I had anticipated as a young staffer. Democrats would now block one highly qualified nominee after another to the appeals court for no other reason than the fact that they were suspected of being too conservative for their tastes.

Miguel Estrada was one of the first victims of the new standard. Because he had been nominated by a Republican, Estrada got no points for his compelling personal story, despite the fact that he had come here as a child from Honduras, went to Harvard Law School, clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court, and served as a prosecutor in New York and at the Justice Department. He was blocked by seven leadership-led filibusters--an unprecedented action for an appeals court nominee.

Opponents of the Estrada nomination were ruthless and eventually succeeded in driving him to withdraw from consideration after more than 2 years of entrenched opposition. He was not alone. Democrats employed the filibuster strategy against an entire block of Republican nominees on the insistence of special interest groups and in complete contravention of Senate tradition--often relying on the flimsiest of pretexts for doing so.

As a result, several widely respected, highly qualified nominees saw what should have been a high honor transformed into a humiliating and painful experience for themselves and for their families; the country was deprived of their service on the circuit court; and the standard I had articulated and applied throughout my career became increasingly irrelevant.

Despite my efforts to preserve deference and keep ideology out of the process, the proponents of an ideological test had won the fight; they changed the rules. Filibustering nominees on the grounds of ideology alone was now perfectly acceptable. It was now Senate precedent.

Some may argue that Republicans were no better since a few of them supported filibusters against two Clinton-era nominees, Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon. It is a flawed comparison. First, neither filibuster attempt got very far. And in both cases, the leadership--the leadership--of the Republican Party, including me, strongly opposed the effort.

Senator Lott, the then-majority leader at the time, voted in favor of allowing an up-or-down vote on both nominees, even though he would ultimately vote against them as nominees to the Ninth Circuit, as did I and the vast majority of our conference. It was our view that a President--and in that instance President Clinton--deserved considerable deference and that therefore his nominees should not be filibustered.

The new standard devolved even further during the Roberts nomination. Judge Roberts was a spectacular nominee, a man whose background and legal abilities, even according to Democrats, made him one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees in the history of our country. For him, Democrats came up with an even more disturbing test.

Ironically, no one Senator articulated this new test more forcefully than Senator Obama. In a floor speech announcing his opposition to John Roberts, Senator Obama was perfectly straightforward. Roberts was completely qualified, he said. But he still would not get his vote. Here is what Senator Obama said on the Senate floor:

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is

qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover,

he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that

makes for a good judge. He is humble. He is personally

decent.

The reason Senator Obama would vote against Judge Roberts, he said, rested not on any traditional standard, but on a new one, a standard which amounted to a kind of alchemy based on what he described as ``one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world

works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy''--what has come to be known as the ``empathy standard.''

So over the course of the Bush administration the rules completely changed. Not only had it become common practice to block nominees on the grounds of ideology, but now it was acceptable to reject someone based solely on the expectation that their feelings--their feelings-- would not lead them to rule in favor of certain groups. Suddenly, judges were not even expected to follow the fundamental principle of blind justice. Deference had eroded even more.

As I have stated repeatedly throughout this debate, empathy is a very good quality in itself. And I have no doubt that Senator Obama--now President Obama--had good intentions, and that his heart was in the right place when he made this argument. But when it comes to judging, empathy is only good if you are lucky enough to be the person or group that the judge in question has empathy for. In those cases, it is the judge, not the law, who determines the outcome. And that is a dangerous road to go down if you believe, as I do, in a nation not of men but of laws--which brings us to Judge Sotomayor.

Over the past several weeks, Judge Sotomayor has impressed all of us with her life story. And the confirmation process is not easy. I admire anyone who goes through it, which is why I was gratified by Judge Sotomayor's statement at the conclusion of the hearing that she was treated fairly by everyone.

But the first question I have to ask myself in deciding how to vote on this nominee is this: How stands the traditional standard for voting on nominees?

Deference is still an important principle. But it was clearly eroded during the filibusters of appeals court nominees early in the Bush administration, and it was eroded even further when Senators voted against John Roberts and tried to filibuster Samuel Alito. Moreover, the introduction of a new standard--the empathy standard--forces us to reevaluate again the degree of deference a President should be granted. Isn't it incumbent upon even those of us who have always believed in deference to be even more cautious about approving nominees in this new environment? I believe it is.

If empathy is the new standard, then the burden is on any nominee who is chosen on that basis to show a firm commitment to equal justice under law. In the past, such a commitment would have been taken for granted. Americans have always had faith that our judges would apply the law fairly--or at least always knew they should. Unfortunately, the new empathy standard requires a measure of reassurance about this. If nominees aren't even expected to apply equal justice, we can't be expected simply to defer to the President, especially if that nominee, as a sitting judge, no less, has repeatedly doubted the ability to adhere to this core principle.

This doesn't mean I would oppose a nominee just because he or she is nominated by a Democrat. It means that, at a minimum, nominees should be expected to uphold the judicial oath that judges in this country have taken since the earliest days of our Nation; namely, that they will ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor, to the rich, and . . . faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon them under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help [them] God.''

Looked at in this light, Judge Sotomayor's record of written statements suggests an alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice and therefore, in my view, an insufficient willingness to abide by the judicial oath. This is particularly important when considering someone for the Supreme Court since, if she were confirmed, there would be no higher court to deter or prevent her from injecting into the law the various disconcerting principles that recur throughout her public statements. For that reason, I will oppose her nomination.

Judge Sotomayor has made clear over the years that she subscribes to a number of strongly held and controversial beliefs that I think most Americans, and certainly most Kentuckians, would strongly disagree with, but that is not why I oppose her nomination; rather, it is her views on the essential question of the duty of a judge and the fact that there would be no check on those views were she to become a member of the Supreme Court.

In her writings and in her speeches, Judge Sotomayor has repeatedly stated that a judge's personal experiences affect judicial outcomes. She has said her experiences will affect the facts she chooses to see as a judge. Let me say that again. She has said 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 the ideal of judicial impartiality as an ``aspiration''--an aspiration--that, in her view, cannot be met even in most cases. Taken together, these statements suggest not just a sense that impartiality is not just impossible but it is not even worth the effort.

But there is more. It appears these views have already found expression in Judge Sotomayor's rulings from the bench. The clearest evidence of this is the judgment of the Supreme Court itself. The Supreme Court doesn't take easy cases. It only takes cases where there is no easy precedent, where the law is not crystal clear, cases where somebody's policy preferences can more easily make their way into an opinion. In this vein, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court has found that Judge Sotomayor misapplied the law in 9 of the 10 cases in which her rulings were brought before it. In this term, in fact, she is zero for three. Not only isn't this a record to be proud of, together with her statements about impartiality, it is a record to be scared of if you happen to find yourselves standing in front of Justice Sotomayor.

Her most recent reversal by the Court is a perfect illustration of how her personal views can affect an outcome. I am referring to the Ricci case in which a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court rejected Judge Sotomayor's decision, and all of them, all nine of them, agreed that her reading of the law was flawed.

This was a case in which a group of firefighters who had studied hard and passed a written test for promotion were denied it because not enough minority firefighters had scored as well as they had. In a one- paragraph opinion that a number of judges on her own court criticized as insubstantial and less than adequate given the seriousness of the circumstances, Judge Sotomayor flatly rejected an appeal by firefighters who had scored highly.

Here was a case where Judge Sotomayor's long history of advocacy for group preferences appeared to overtake an evenhanded application of the law. Judge Sotomayor didn't empathize with the firefighters who had earned a promotion, and they suffered as a result. This is the real- world effect of the empathy standard. If the judge has empathy for you, great, but if she has it for the other guy, it is not so good. That is why you can call this new standard a lot of things, but you certainly can't call it justice.

Judge Sotomayor's record on the Second Circuit is troubling enough, but, as I have noted, at least on the circuit court there is a backstop. Her cases can be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This meant that in the Ricci case, for example, the firefighters whose promotions were unfairly denied could appeal the decision. Fortunately for them, the Supreme Court sided with them over Judge Sotomayor. If, however, Judge Sotomayor would become a Supreme Court Justice, her rulings would be final. She would be unencumbered by the obligation of lower court judges to follow precedent. She could act more freely on the kinds of views that animated her troubling and legally incorrect ruling in the Ricci case. That is not a chance I am willing to take.

From the beginning of the confirmation process, I have said that Americans expect one thing when they walk into a courtroom, whether it is a traffic court or the Supreme Court, and that is equal treatment under the law. Over the years, Americans have accepted significant ideological differences in the kinds of men and women various Presidents have nominated to the Supreme Court, but one thing Americans will never tolerate in a nominee 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 a fine person with an impressive story and a distinguished background. But above all else, a judge must 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 basic and therefore the most fundamental standard of all upon which judges in our country must be judged. Judge Sotomayor does not meet the test.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I join my colleague, the majority leader, in extending my appreciation this morning to our marvelous Capitol police force. We were reminded in a very vivid way yesterday that they are on constant alert and that they are in constant danger.

Fortunately, incidents such as the one that took place yesterday are rare. We are all glad for that. And we are glad we have such a professional, well-trained, and courageous group of men and women to keep us safe day in and day out. They are always ready. On behalf of the entire Senate family, I want to express my appreciation for their hard work and their courage in the line of duty.

Mr. President, for the past several weeks I have come down to the Senate floor just about every day we have been in session, and I have brought a simple message: Americans want health care reform, and both parties want to deliver that reform. What Americans do not want is a government takeover masked as a reform that leaves them paying more for less. And they don't want us to rush something as important and as personal as health care reform just to have something to brag about at a parade or a press conference.

So it was perplexing to hear the President say yesterday that the ``status quo . . . is not an option.'' I cannot think of a single person in Washington who disagrees with that statement. No one is defending the status quo, no one. What we are defending is the right of the American people to know what they are getting into: the exact details and the cost.

That leads me to another distressing aspect of the administration's approach to this debate, the artificial timeline for reform. The President has said he wants to see a health care reform bill out of the Senate in 3 weeks and on his desk in October. His rationale seems to be the same as it was during the debate over the stimulus. The economy's in bad shape, so health care reform has to happen right away.

Certainly the two are connected. But the problem is that many of the Democrat proposals we have seen would not make the situation better, they would make it even worse. And due to our current financial situation, we need to be even more careful about how we spend our money, not less. We saw the consequences of carelessness on the stimulus bill. We rushed that, and Americans got burned. We must not make that mistake again.

But we can start with a point of real agreement: Americans want reform, but they want us to be careful.

An artificial deadline virtually guarantees a defective product-- virtually guarantees a defective product. Look no further than the drafts coming out of the House and Senate this very week. Both of them are shot through with weaknesses and deficiencies typical of a rush job. First, they cost way too much. According to early estimates, the House bill would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years and yet--listen to this--it still wouldn't cover all the uninsured; $1 trillion and it wouldn't cover all the uninsured. It includes a new tax on small business that could keep companies from hiring low-wage employees. It creates a new nationwide government-run health plan that could force millions off their current insurance. One of the worst parts is that advocates of the House bill want small businesses and seniors to pay for it; small businesses and seniors they want to pay for it. Businesses would pay through new taxes, seniors through cuts to Medicare, cuts that hospitals in my home State simply cannot sustain.

I have talked to the hospitals in Kentucky that are worried about the impact these Medicare cuts would have on the services Kentucky hospitals currently provide to seniors. I encourage all of my colleagues to talk to the people who care for patients day in and day out at hospitals in their own States and see what they have to say about this proposal. It may be a lot different than what some of the interest groups here in Washington are saying.

Small businesses are worried too. At a time when the unemployment rate is already approaching 10 percent, the new tax on small business will inevitably lead to even more job losses. Business groups across the country that have seen the details of the House bill are warning that it would certainly kill jobs. Under the House bill, taxes on some small businesses could rise as high as roughly 45 percent. Let me say that again: Taxes on small business up to 45 percent, meaning their tax rate would be about 30 percent higher than the rate for big corporations. So small businesses, which have created approximately two out of three new jobs over the past decade, get a bigger tax increase than big corporations. It is worth asking why small businesses, which created about two-thirds of the new jobs in this country over the last 10 years, get hit so hard under the House bill. Is it because they can't fight back as hard as big businesses? Either way, the House bill would lead to some small businesses paying higher taxes than big businesses, even though the U.S. corporate rate for all of our corporations is already one of the highest in the world.

The Senate bill is as bad. As currently written, the HELP Committee bill would increase the Federal deficit by at least $645 billion, at least that

much. If we add all the Medicaid changes the HELP Committee anticipates, it increases the Federal deficit by more than $1 trillion at a time when we are already spending about $500 million a day on interest on the national debt so far this year--$500 million a day in interest on the national debt so far this year. It too would kill jobs by requiring businesses to either insure all of their employees or pay a tax if they do not. It would levy a tax on those Americans who don't have or cannot afford health insurance. It also fails to reform malpractice laws. It spends billions of dollars on projects unrelated to the crisis at hand. It forces millions of Americans off of their current plans--forces millions of Americans off of their current plans--despite repeated assurances from the administration that it does not. And like the House bill, it creates a nationwide government plan that could lead to the same kind of denial, delay, and rationing of care that we see in other countries.

Health care reform is vital but it is not easy. If the House bill and the HELP bill are any indication, it is certainly not something that should be rushed. Both bills are too expensive, particularly for small businesses and seniors. They are too disruptive of the health care Americans currently have, and they are ineffective in addressing the health care problem in its entirety.

Americans have a right to expect that we will take enough time on this legislation not to make the same mistake we made on the stimulus. The House and Senate bills we have seen this week show we are not there yet, not even close. We need to slow down and let the American people see what they are getting into with these so-called reforms. We all want reform, but we want the right reform.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I ask my friend the majority leader, am I correct that after the four votes tonight, the next vote will be on Monday at roughly what time?

Mr. President, as Republicans and Democrats debate the best way to reform health care, Americans are increasingly concerned about the price tag and about who gets stuck with the bill. The Federal deficit suddenly stands at more than $1 trillion for the first time in history, and so far this year we are spending about $500 million a day in interest alone on the national debt. It is as if every single American gets up in the morning, walks over to the window, and tosses $2 out into the wind every day for the next 10 years. It is not a bad analogy, but that is what we are doing. And now the advocates of a government takeover of health care are talking about spending trillions more.

So Americans are worried about cost--and they have good reason to be.

Not only are we in a tough situation fiscally, we have no idea how much this reform will really cost. We know from experience with government-run programs like Medicare and Medicaid that early estimates often grossly underestimate what they end up costing. We know that some of the estimates we are hearing about health care reform are misleading. And we also know that the administration is building up a substantial track record of its own of dubious predictions that it has used to sell its ideas to the public.

We saw it with the stimulus. In selling one of the most expensive pieces of legislation in history, the administration said it had to be passed right away, with almost no scrutiny. If we did not pass it right away, they said, the economy would collapse.

Here is what the President said about the importance of passing the stimulus bill as quickly as possible: ``If we don't act immediately, then millions more jobs will disappear, the national unemployment rates will approach double digits, more people will lose their homes and their health care, and our nation will sink into a crisis that at some point is going to be that much tougher to reverse.''

As it turns out, the administration overpromised.

They predicted the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate from approaching double digits. We passed the stimulus, and unemployment is now approaching double digits. It was supposed to keep millions of jobs from disappearing. We passed it, and since then we have lost more than 2 million jobs. It was supposed to save or create between 3 and 4 million jobs. We passed it, and now the administration is backpedaling on that prediction too. Now it

says it is ``very hard to say'' how many jobs have been saved or created. The stimulus was supposed to have an immediate impact. We passed it, and it has not. Despite all the predictions about its effect on the economy, the administration now says it expects unemployment to continue to rise in the months ahead.

Now, in an attempt to pass an even costlier and far-reaching government action, a government takeover of health care, the administration is making similarly aggressive claims about the dangers of not approving its plan.

The administration says that if we do not pass its health care proposal then the economy will get even worse. It says that if we do not approve its health care proposal then the quality of everyone's health care will be jeopardized. It says that if we do not pass this trillion dollar bill now, then we will miss out on a chance to save money on health care down the road.

I do not know if these claims are accurate, and I do not believe the administration is making these claims in bad faith. But I do know that Americans got burned on the stimulus, and I know that some in the administration have said that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. So at the very least, Americans have a right to be skeptical about the administration's latest effort to rush through a major piece of legislation without allowing us to evaluate it. It is a worthwhile question: Why does the administration say we have to send them a bill that would essentially nationalize one-sixth of the U.S. economy when many parts of the legislation itself would not even go into effect for another 4 years?

Americans are right to be skeptical when administration officials say we cannot fix the economy without fixing health care, or that the Democrat plan for health care will not cause people to lose their current insurance when the CBO says it will, or that a government-run takeover of health care will not add to the ballooning national debt. After the stimulus, Americans have a right to be skeptical about all these claims, especially when they are told these reforms have to happen quickly, and especially when our experience with Medicare and Medicaid and government health care at the State level shows us that initial estimates and predictions can be way off the mark.

Senator Collins, for example, has discussed the problems they have had in Maine as a result of its attempt to create a government-run health plan, of what a disappointment that has been. Six years ago, Maine instituted Dirigo Health as a government option after advocates made the same promises about what it would do to bring down costs and increase access that the advocates of a nationwide government health plan are making right now in Washington.

Yet 6 years later, the Dirigo experiment has turned out to be a colossal, and extremely costly, failure. Despite initial promises, it has not covered most of the uninsured. And yet it has led to higher taxes on thousands of Maine residents who were already struggling to pay for private coverage. In short: Dirigo turned out to cause the same problems in Maine that some of us are predicting for all Americans if Congress rushes to approve a national government plan.

Americans want us to take the time necessary to make health care less expensive and more accessible, while preserving what they like about our system. Americans want health care reform, but they do not want to give a green light to a reform that only ends up costing them more for worse care than they currently have. The fact that Americans are increasingly concerned about how much health care reform is going to cost should not be a reason to rush. It should be a reason for us to take the time to get it right.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize an inspiring group of World War II veterans from the Commonwealth who visited our Nation's Capitol on the 65th anniversary of the D-day invasion. The noble work of the Honor Flight Program and the leaders at its Bluegrass Chapter made it possible for these World War II veterans to visit their memorial on the National Mall free of charge. I have been privileged to participate in previous Honor Flights from Kentucky, and I very much regret that my schedule prevented me from attending the one that took place on June 6, 2009. I hope to have the opportunity to join participants from my home State on Honor Flight trips in the near future.

I wish to express my tremendous gratitude to the 66 Kentucky veterans who were here that day for having served to protect our great Nation's principles from the enemies of freedom. As Americans, we are forever indebted to the heroic men and women of the U.S. military who defend this great Nation and all it represents. In fighting for prosperity and freedom around the world, the veterans of World War II risked everything, earning the title of the ``greatest generation.''

As General Eisenhower said in his message to the troops just before the invasion at Normandy: ``The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you.'' These words ring true, even after 65 years, as our military continues to challenge threats to freedom, democracy and the American way of life.

Our country continues to do its best to honor the incredible bravery and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. The Honor Flight Program is a reflection of the admiration and appreciation that all Americans have for the military. I take great pride in representing many brave veterans from Kentucky and in doing what I can to show our Nation's reverence for them.

The names of the 66 World War II veterans from the Commonwealth are as follows:

Richard Straub; George Hoffman; Robert Willman; Charles

Junkins; Norman Reiss; William Taylor; Mary Phillips; Walter

Brumfield, Sr.; Raymond Bumann; Lawrence Mayfield; Thomas

Crump; Albert Tomassetti; Eugene Heimerdinger; Fletcher

Williams; Paul Lawson; Millard Allen; Paul Jordan; Joseph

McConnell; Harry Greavesl; Robert Bohan.

John McCord, Jr.; Louis Stafford; Walter Martin; Stanley

Adkins; James Thomas; William Wilson; Harold Hoover; Kenneth

Elliott; Johnie Hayes; Peter Johnson, Sr.; Robert O'Bryan;

Frank Rose; Norbert Gnadinger; Martin Lambright; Robert

Zangmeister, Sr.; Walter Jewell, Jr.; James Keene; George

Pope; Richard Thompson; Orland Warth.

Raymond Ludwick; Arthur Lowe; Ralph Hammerle; Roy Six;

Arthur Wissing; Louis Guettzow; Howard Mather; Allen Kessler;

Harold Finnell; William Boyd; Wilbert Block; Claude Decker;

George Garth; Joseph Wilson; Lloyd Hoagland; William Zeitz;

Vincent Heuser; Oscar Disney, Jr.; Nat Bailen; George

Keltner; Richard Zogg; Taylor Davidson; Pauline Thompson;

Henry Hardy, Jr.; Abner McMaster; Stanley Fischer.

Mr. President, as both parties work together on reforming health care, Americans have been clear about what they want to see in a result. Americans want health care that is more affordable and accessible, but they also want to preserve the choice and quality that our current system provides.

We also know what Americans do not want. They do not want a government plan that forces them off their current insurance; denies, delays, and rations care; or costs trillions of dollars, only to leave millions of Americans with worse health care than they currently have.

And Americans certainly do not want us to throw together some patchwork plan that nobody has had a chance to look at, and then rush it out the door the way the stimulus bill was, just so politicians in Washington can say they accomplished something.

Americans are increasingly concerned about some of the proposals coming out of Washington, and they are concerned about the cost, about who gets stuck with the bill.

And they are concerned for good reason.

All the cost estimates we have seen for Democrat reform proposals have been staggering, and most of them only hint at what the true cost of these changes might be.

Moreover, some estimates claim to cover a 10-year period but actually only cover a 6 year period.

We also know from hard experience with programs like Medicare and Medicaid that government-run health plans are likely to cost far more in the long run than original estimates suggest.

And we have seen that with the current administration initial estimates and assurances are not always on target. Earlier this year, the Administration predicted the stimulus bill would keep unemployment below 8 percent. It is now approaching 10 percent.

So Americans are increasingly concerned about cost. This is why the advocates of government-run health care are scrambling for a way to pay for it. But in their rush to find the money, they have come up with some terrible ideas, such as forcing small business owners and seniors to pick up the tab through higher taxes and cuts to Medicare.

Let me repeat that: the advocates for government-run health care now want small business owners and seniors to pay for their plan through higher taxes and cuts to Medicare. This is exactly the wrong approach. Raiding one insolvent government-run program to create another is not reform. It is using old ideas to solve a problem that calls for fresh thinking. Medicare should be strengthened for future generations, not used as a piggy bank to fund more government programs.

As for tax hikes on small business owners, this is the last thing we should be doing to the people who have created approximately two-thirds of America's jobs over the past decade at a time when the unemployment rate is approaching 10 percent. According to the President of the National Federation of Independent Business, some proposals currently being considered in Congress could kill more than 1.5 million jobs. And there is strong evidence that low-wage workers, minorities, and women would be hardest hit. In the middle of a recession, we should be looking for ways to create jobs, not destroy them. We should be looking for ways to help workers, not hurt them.

Americans want health care reform. But they do not want so-called reforms that could costs trillions of dollars, that could increase insurance premiums, or that could cause millions to end up with worse care than they now have. And they certainly do not want a slapped- together plan that's paid for on the backs of seniors and small business owners.

Instead, Americans want us to work together on proposals that are likely to garner strong bipartisan support. I have listed many of these proposals repeatedly over the past several weeks, such as reforming medical malpractice laws to get rid of junk lawsuits and bring down costs, and encouraging wellness and prevention programs such as those that help people quit smoking and overcome obesity, programs that have already been shown to cut costs.

These are some of the commonsense ideas Americans are looking for on health care reform.

Health care reform will not be easy. But it does not have to bury our children and grandchildren deeper in debt when so far this year we're already spending an average of $500 million a day in interest on the national debt. The proposal I have mentioned should be easy for everyone to agree on. They would lead to measurable results. And they would not force anyone to lose the care they have, see cuts to Medicare, or foist higher taxes on small businesses.

Americans are concerned about the cost of reform. We should work hard to assure them that we are too.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin its hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The consideration of a Supreme Court nominee is always a historic event. Since our Nation's founding, only 110 people have served on the High Court, and 10 of those were nominated by George Washington. There are few duties more consequential for a Member of the U.S. Senate than to vote on a Supreme Court nominee.

This particular nominee comes before the Judiciary Committee with a compelling life story. Like so many other Americans before her, Judge Sotomayor has overcome great adversity. In this, she has reaffirmed once again that ours is a nation in which one's willingness to work hard and apply one's talents are the principal requirements for success. And yet, as we begin these hearings, it is important to remind ourselves that our obligation as Senators under the Constitution's advice and consent clause requires us to do more than confirm someone to a lifetime position on our Nation's highest court based on their life story. Rather, it requires us to determine whether he or she will be able to fulfill the requirements of the oath taken by all Federal judges, that they will, ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that [they] will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [them] under the Constitution and laws of the United States.''

The emphasis here is on the equal treatment of everyone, without respect to person, status, or belief, that everyone in America can expect that when they enter a courtroom, they will not be treated any differently than anyone else. That is what justice is, after all. And that is what Americans expect of our judicial system, equality under the law.

Now, President Obama has made it abundantly clear, as a Senator, as a candidate for President, and now as President, that he has a somewhat different requirement for his appointees to the Federal bench. He has repeatedly emphasized that his ``criterion'' for a federal judge is their ability to ``empathize'' with certain groups. That is a great standard, if you are a member of one of those specific groups. It is not so great, though, if you are not. So it might be useful to consider some of the groups who have found themselves on the short end of the ``empathy'' standard.

First, there are those who rely on the first amendment's right to engage in political speech. Then there are those Americans who want to lawfully exercise their right to bear arms under the second amendment. Next, those who want protection under the fifth amendment's requirement that private property cannot be taken for a public purpose without just compensation, and that it should not be taken for another person's preferred private use at all. Also, there are those who want protection from unfair employment practices under the 14th amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the law.

I mention these specific groups because Judge Sotomayor has had to handle cases in each of these areas. And looking at her record, it appears the President has nominated just the kind of judge he said he would, someone who appears to have ``empathy'' for certain groups who appear before her, but not for others.

As I discussed last week, Judge Sotomayor kicked out of court the claims of New Haven, CT, firefighters who had been denied promotions because some minority firefighters had not performed as well as a group of mostly White firefighters on a race-neutral exam. The Supreme Court reversed her decision in this matter, her third reversal just this term, with all nine justices finding that she misapplied the law. Her treatment of this case, the Ricci case, has been criticized across the political spectrum as ``perfunctory'' and ``peculiar,'' and it called into question whether her dismissive handling of the firefighters' important claims was unduly influenced by her past advocacy in the area of employment preferences and quotas.

I also spoke last week about provocative comments Judge Sotomayor had made about campaign speech, including her claim that merely donating money to a candidate is akin to bribery. It is her prerogative to make such statements, as provocative as they may be. But it is not her prerogative as a judge to fail to follow clear Supreme Court precedent in favor of her political beliefs. Yet when she had the chance to vote on whether to correct a clear failure to follow Supreme Court precedent by her circuit in this very area of the law, she voted against doing so. Ultimately, the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Breyer, corrected this error by her circuit on the grounds that it had failed to follow precedent.

There are other areas of concern.

Judge Sotomayor also brushed aside a person's claim that their private property had been taken in violation of the fifth amendment's ``takings clause.'' As in the Ricci case, her panel kicked the plaintiffs' claims out of court in an unsigned, unpublished, summary order, giving them only a brief, one paragraph explanation as to why. Moreover, in the course of doing so, she dramatically expanded the Supreme Court's controversial 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London. In Kelo, the Supreme Court broadened the meaning of ``public purpose'' that allows the government to take someone's private property. Judge Sotomayor, in the case of Didden v. Village of Port Chester, broadened the government's power even further.

Her panel's ruling in Didden now makes it easier for a person's private property to be taken for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on another private party. This result is at odds with both the plain language of the fifth amendment's takings clause, and with the Supreme Court's statements in Kelo. And, as in Ricci, she did it without providing a thorough analysis of the law. Her panel devoted just one paragraph to analyzing the plaintiffs' important Fifth Amendment claims. It is no wonder then that property law expert Professor Ilya Somin at George Mason University Law School called it ``one of the worst property rights decisions in recent years.'' Professor Richard Epstein at the University of Chicago College of Law called it not only ``wrong'' and ``ill thought out,'' but ``about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined.''

There is more. Judge Sotomayor has twice ruled that the second amendment

is not a fundamental right and thus does not protect Americans from actions by states and localities that prevent them from lawfully exercising their ability to bear arms. As with the Ricci and Didden cases, Judge Sotomayor gave the losing party's claims in these cases short shrift and did not thoroughly explain her analysis. In one case, she disposed of the party's second amendment claim in a mere one- sentence footnote. In the other case, which was argued after the Supreme Court's seminal second amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, she gave this important precedent cursory treatment, devoting only one paragraph in an unsigned opinion to this important issue, which is unusual for a case of this significance.

The losing parties in these cases might not have belonged to the groups that the President had in mind when he was articulating his ``empathy'' standard. But they certainly underscore the hazards of such a standard. They had important constitutional claims, and they deserved to have their claims treated seriously and adjudicated fairly under the law, regardless of what Judge Sotomayor's personal and political agendas might be. Yet it strikes me that the losing parties in these cases did not in fact get the fair treatment they deserved.

Indeed, taken together, these cases strongly suggest a pattern of unequal treatment in Judge Sotomayor's judicial record, particularly in high-profile cases. This pattern is particularly disturbing in light of Judge Sotomayor's numerous comments about her view of the role of a judge, such as questioning a judge's ability to be impartial ``even in most cases,'' asserting that appellate courts ``are where policy is made,'' and concluding that her experiences and views affect the facts that she ``chooses to see'' in deciding cases.

Republicans take very seriously our obligation to review anyone who is nominated to a lifetime position on our Nation's highest court. That is why Senators have taken time to review Judge Sotomayor's record to make sure she has the same basic qualities we look for in any Federal judge: superb legal ability, personal integrity, sound temperament, and, most importantly, a commitment to read the law evenhandedly. At the beginning of this process, I noted that some of Judge Sotomayor's past statements and decisions raised concerns. As we begin the confirmation hearings, those concerns have only multiplied.

Boiled down, my concern is this: that Judge Sotomayor's record suggests a history of allowing her personal and political beliefs to seep into her judgments on the bench, which has repeatedly resulted in unequal treatment for those who stand before her.

But that is what these hearings are all about: giving nominees an opportunity to address the concerns that Senators might have about a nominee's record. In this case, the list is long.

So we welcome Judge Sotomayor as she comes before the Judiciary Committee today. And we look forward to a full and thorough hearing on her record and her views.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. President, last week and again this morning, my good friend, the majority leader, came to the floor and said he wants to work with Republicans on health care reform. I welcome his comments. As a step in that direction, I would point out one of the major concerns Americans have about health care reform is the pricetag.

Last week, we learned the Federal deficit is now more than $1 trillion so far this year for the first time in our Nation's history. To give people an idea of how dramatically the Federal deficit has grown in just the last several months, I would note the current deficit for this year is $800 billion more than it was at this point last year--$800 billion more than at this point last year. So the need for fiscal discipline could not be greater than at the current moment. Yet all the Democratic proposals we are hearing on health care would only increase our Nation's already staggering debt without even addressing the full extent of the problems we all agree should be addressed as part of a comprehensive reform. Americans do, indeed, want health care reform, but they don't want to see their

children and their grandchildren buried deeper and deeper in debt without even solving the problem.

Every proposal we have seen would cost a fortune by any standard. Even worse, some of these estimates are totally misleading. In some cases 10-year estimates are based on proposals that wouldn't even go into effect for 4 years. In other words, what is being sold as a 10- year cost would actually cost that much over 6 years.

We also know from our experience with Medicare that cost estimates on health care often prove to be wildly inaccurate. When Medicare Part A was enacted in 1965, it was projected that in 1990 it would spend $9.1 billion on hospital services and related administration. As it turned out, spending in 1990 totaled almost $67 billion, more than seven times the original prediction.

Today, Medicare is already paying out more than it is taking in and will soon go bankrupt. So if history is any guide, the actual cost of reform could be far greater than the estimates we are getting now-- estimates that are already giving Americans serious sticker shock.

Also troubling are some of the proposals we have heard to pay for these so-called reforms. The advocates of government-run health care have been searching frantically for a way to cover costs, and they seem to have settled on two groups: the elderly and small business owners in the form of Medicare cuts and higher taxes.

As for Medicare, it is my view any savings from Medicare should be used to strengthen and protect Medicare, not fund another government- run system that is all but certain to have the same fiscal problems down the road Medicare does. Raiding one insolvent government-run program to create another is not reform; it is using an outdated model to solve a problem that will require a fresh approach and new ideas.

As for higher taxes, advocates of the government takeover of health care have set their sights on small business owners to help pay for the proposals. It should go without saying that this is precisely the wrong approach in the middle of a recession. Small businesses are the engine of our economy, and they have created approximately two-thirds of all new jobs in the last decade. At a time when the unemployment rate is approaching 10 percent, we need to help small businesses not hurt them. Yet according to news reports, Democrats in Congress are considering doing just that.

In recent congressional testimony, the President of the National Federation of Independent Business said some of these proposals could destroy more than 1.5 million jobs. Aside from killing jobs, these so- called reforms could actually cause millions to end up with worse care than they already have, and they could come at a higher cost to individuals and families in the form of higher premiums.

Some have also proposed raising income taxes and limiting tax deductions for charitable giving. Others are reportedly considering an increase on the employee Medicare tax which would take money out of the paychecks of American workers, a new national sales tax, and taxes on soda and juice boxes. These proposals would hit low-income Americans especially hard. All of these are bad ideas, but it is unlikely they would cover the long-term cost of the proposal we have seen so far in any event. The rest would simply be added to the national debt.

In his comments last week, the majority leader said health care reform is not a partisan issue. That is why some of us have for weeks put forward ideas that should be pretty easy for everybody to support, such as reforming medical malpractice laws to get rid of junk lawsuits, encouraging wellness and prevention programs such as the programs that help people quit smoking or overcome obesity that have been shown to cut costs, and increasing competition in the private market.

Americans would like for the two parties to work together to reform health care--to cut costs without sacrificing the things Americans like about our current health care system. Embracing the ideas I have mentioned and finding responsible ways to pay for health care reform is an obvious and commonsense place to start.

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

Madam President, over the past several weeks, my colleagues and I have raised a number of serious questions about the judicial record and public statements of Judge Sonia Sotomayor in connection with her nomination and upcoming confirmation hearings to the U.S. Supreme Court. These questions are driven by a growing sense, based strictly on the record, that Judge Sotomayor has allowed her personal and political views to cloud her judgment in the courtroom, leading her to favor some groups over others.

All of us are impressed by Judge Sotomayor's remarkable life story. It reaffirms not only to Americans but to people around the world that ours is a country in which one's willingness to dream and to work hard remain the only requirements for success.

And yet it is precisely this truth about America that makes it so important that our judges apply the law the same way to one individual or group as to every other.

This is why we have raised the questions we have. And this is why we will continue to raise them as the confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor proceed. This morning I would like to discuss an area of Judge Sotomayor's record that hasn't been touched upon yet, and that is her record on the fundamental right of free speech.

This right to free speech was considered so important by our Founders that they included it as the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, along with the freedom of the press and religion, and the right to assemble and petition the government. It is one of the bedrocks of our government and our culture. And it is one of the primary defenses the Founders established against the perennial threat of government intrusion.

So it is essential that we know what someone who has been nominated for a life-tenure on the Nation's highest court thinks about this issue. And when it comes to Judge Sotomayor, her record raises serious questions about her views on free speech.

Let's start with a law review article that Judge Sotomayor co-wrote in 1996 on one particular kind of speech, political speech. In the article, Judge Sotomayor makes a number of startling assertions which offer us a glimpse of her thoughts on the issue.

First, and perhaps most concerning, she equates campaign contributions to bribery, going so far as to assume that a ``quid pro quo'' relationship is at play every time anyone makes a contribution to a political campaign. She goes on to say that:

We would never condone private gifts to judges about to

decide a case implicating the gift-givers' interests. Yet our

system of election financing permits extensive private,

including corporate, financing of candidates' campaigns,

raising again and again the question of what the difference

is between contributions and bribes and how legislators or

other officials can operate objectively on behalf of the

electorate.

In the same law review article, Judge Sotomayor calls into question the integrity of every elected official, Democrat and Republican alike, based solely on the fact that they collect contributions to run their political campaigns. She writes:

Can elected officials say with credibility that they are

carrying out the mandate of a ``democratic'' society,

representing only the general public good, when private money

plays such a large role in their campaigns?

In my view, the suggestion that such contributions are tantamount to bribery should offend anyone who has ever contributed to a political campaign--including the millions of Americans who donated money in small and large amounts to the Presidential campaign of the man who nominated Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor's views on free speech would be important in any case. They are particularly important at the moment, however, since several related cases are now working their way through the judicial system--cases that could ultimately end up in front of the Supreme Court. One particularly important case on the issue, Citizens United v. FEC, will be reargued before the Supreme Court at the end of September.

Coincidentally, the most recent Supreme Court decision on the topic actually passed through the court on which Judge Sotomayor currently sits, presenting us with yet another avenue for evaluating her approach to questions of free speech--with one important difference: in the Law Review article I have already discussed, we got Judge Sotomayor's opinion about campaign contributions. In the court case in question, Randall v. Sorrell, we get a glimpse of her actual application of the law.

Here is the background on the case. In 1997, the State of Vermont enacted a law which brought about stringent restrictions on the amount of money candidates could raise and spend. The law also limited party expenditures. Viewing these limits as violating their first amendment rights, a group of candidates, voters, and political action committees brought suit. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs in the case on two of the three points, finding only the contribution limits constitutional.

The case was then appealed to the Second Circuit, where a three-judge panel reversed the lower court and reinstated all limits in direct contradiction of nearly 20 years of precedents dating all the way back to the case of Buckley v. Valeo. It was in Buckley that the Supreme Court held that Congress overstepped its bounds in trying to restrict the amount of money that could be spent--so-called expenditure limits-- but upheld the amount that could be raised--so-called contribution limits.

At that point, the petitioners in the Vermont case sought a rehearing by the entire Second Circuit, arguing that the blatant disregard of a precedent as well-settled as Buckley was grounds for review. Oddly enough, the judges on the Second Circuit, including Judge Sotomayor, took a pass. They decided to let the Supreme Court clean up the confusion created when the three-judge panel decided to ignore Buckley.

Traditionally, errors like these are precisely the reason that motions for a rehearing of an entire circuit are designed. In fact, according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a review by the full court, what is commonly referred to as an en banc rehearing, is specifically called for in cases where ``the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.'' And what could be more important for a lower court judge than following Supreme Court precedent and protecting and preserving the first amendment? But the Second Circuit declined.

In the end, the Supreme Court corrected the errors of the Second Circuit in a 6-3 opinion drafted by none other than Justice Breyer. Here is what Breyer wrote:

We hold that both sets of limitations [on contributions and

expenditures] are inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Well-established precedent--and here Justice Breyer was

citing Buckley--makes clear that the expenditure limits

violate the First Amendment.

One of the principal requirements for a nominee to the courts is a respect for the rule of law. In this instance, according to Justice Breyer, that respect for the law was sorely lacking.

More than two centuries ago, the States ratified the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the right of every American from that moment and for all time to express themselves freely. ``Congress shall make no law,'' it said, ``respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.''

You could say, as I have said many times, that with the first amendment, our forefathers adopted the ultimate campaign finance regulation. And yet this issue continues to come before the courts, and will continue to come up before the courts. It is an issue of fundamental importance, touching on one of our most basic rights. And based on the writings and decisions of Judge Sotomayor, I have strong reservations about whether this nominee will choose to follow the first amendment or attempt to steer the Court to a result grounded in the kind of personal ideology that she so clearly and troublingly expressed in the law review article I have described.

It is not just this issue about which those concerns arise. Over the past several weeks, we have heard about a number of instances in which Judge Sotomayor's personal views seem to call into question her evenhanded application of the law.

Just last week, the Supreme Court reversed her decision to throw out a discrimination suit filed by a group of mostly White firefighters who had clearly earned a promotion. Notably, this was the ninth time out of ten that the high court has rejected her handling of a case.

We have heard her call into question, repeatedly over the years, whether judges could even be impartial in most cases. And she has even said that her experience ``will affect the facts that [she] chooses to see as a judge''.

Americans have a right to expect that judges will apply the law evenhandedly--that everyone in this country will get a fair shake, whether they are in small claims court or the Supreme Court, and whether the matter at hand is the right to be treated equally or the right to speak freely. Americans have a right to expect that the men and women who sit on our courts will respect the rule of law above their own personal or political views--and nowhere more so than on the Nation's highest court.

Madam President, it was a politician from Kentucky who introduced the expression ``self-made man'' into the lexicon. But even Henry Clay didn't follow as unlikely a path as Norm Coleman did to the U.S. Senate.

As Norm puts it, he never even knew a Republican or a Lutheran before he left home for college.

Yet this middle-class son of Brooklyn became one of the best senators the people of Minnesota have ever known. And he has always made sure to give them all the credit, even when the voters would have excused him for taking a little credit of his own.

Another great American politician said the U.S. Constitution was ``the work of many heads and many hands.'' Norm's always had the same attitude about his own career. He is grateful for the opportunities he has had. He gives it everything he has. Then he is grateful when his efforts on behalf of others succeed, which is more often than not.

The day he got here he was asked how it felt. He had a simple response. He said he was humbled by the opportunity. ``I believe that what I can do well, my gift,'' he said, ``is to serve people, and now I have this incredible opportunity to serve as a United States Senator.'' Six years later, on the day he conceded defeat, his first impulse was again to thank others. He thanked his staff for the long hours and hard work they had put in on his behalf. And he said he would always be grateful to and humbled by the people had of Minnesota who had given him the honor to serve, and even more grateful for the patience and understanding they showed over these last several months.

It wasn't the outcome he wanted. It wasn't the outcome that his Republican friends and colleagues in the Senate wanted. But we couldn't have expected anything less from Norm Coleman than the class and graciousness he showed in the closing act of this phase in his career as a public servant.

As I said, Norm came to be a Republican Senator from Minnesota by a rather unusual route. He was a campus activist in the 1960s, and a rather prominent one at that. After college, Norm earned a scholarship to the University of Iowa Law School and came to love the people and the place.

From there, he went on to Minnesota to serve in the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. Later, he would use his talents as chief prosecutor for the state of Minnesota, and then as mayor of St. Paul, first as a Democrat and then as a Republican. In what has to go down as one of the more remarkable feats of bipartisanship in American politics, Norm has the distinction of serving as the 1996 cochairman of the committee to reelect Bill Clinton and 2000 State chairman for George W. Bush's campaign.

As a big-city mayor, Norm didn't disappoint. He showed a real knack for bringing business and government together. He led a downtown revitalization effort, created thousands of jobs, brought the National Hockey League to St. Paul and fought to keep taxes low. He left office with a 74 percent approval rating, after two terms that a local magazine called ``by almost any measure . . . an unqualified success.''

In 2002, Norm was still thinking about how he could serve on the State level when he got a call from the President asking him if he would run for the Senate. He accepted the challenge and then he fought a tough and principled campaign against our late beloved colleague Paul Wellstone before Paul's tragic death shortly before the end of that tumultuous campaign. Norm grieved with the rest of Minnesota at Paul's passing, defeated his replacement in the race, and was sworn in 2 months later as Laurie, their children, Jake and Sarah, and Norm's parents, Beverly and Norman, looked on. Laurie summed up the day like this: ``It's incredible to think that he has this opportunity.''

Norm didn't waste a day. An instant hit at Republican events across the country, he kept up the same torrid pace in the Senate he had set in his come-from-behind win the previous November. He pushed legislation that benefited Minnesotans and all Americans, and he never let up.

Norm spoke the other day about some of his accomplishments here. He mentioned a few areas in particular, including U.N. oversight, working with Minnesota farmers, and his work on energy independence. But he said his best ideas came from the people of Minnesota.

He was being humble. In a single term, Norm put together a remarkable record of results. On energy and conservation, he played a key role in establishing the renewable fuels standard. He helped pass an extension of the tax credits for wind, biomass, and other renewable fuels. He secured loan guarantees and tax incentives for clean coal power; protected fish populations; and supported conservation programs to protect Minnesota's lakes, rivers, and woodlands.

He led major anticorruption efforts, including a groundbreaking exposure of fraud at the U.N. He exposed more than a billion dollars in wasteful Medicare spending and uncovered serial tax evasion by defense contractors. Norm was also instrumental in passing the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act which increased funding for childhood cancer research.

The proud son of a World War II veteran, Norm has been a true friend to all veterans. The first piece of legislation he introduced was a bill requiring the Pentagon to cover the travel expenses of troops heading home from service abroad. Norm worked on a bipartisan basis to establish the first-ever national reintegration program for returning troops. And he worked hard, in the early years after 9/11, to strengthen homeland security.

Norm Coleman's service in the Senate has been marked by the same high level of distinction that has marked everything else he has done in three decades of public service. Today we honor our colleague and friend for that long career that we hope is far from over. And we punctuate an incredibly hard fought campaign that some people thought might never end.

In the end, it didn't turn out the way many of us had hoped it would. But none of us were surprised by the graciousness with which Norm Coleman accepted the verdict, and all of us can celebrate the 6 years of dedicated service he gave to the people of Minnesota.

After another setback some years back, Norm Coleman said that real defeat isn't getting knocked down. It is not getting back up. And I have no doubt that this is not the last we will hear from Norm Coleman. He already has a legacy to be proud of. But it is a legacy that is still very much in the works. More chapters will be written. And they will bear the same strong hand and commitment to people and principle that he has shown in every other endeavor of a long and distinguished career.

In private conversation Senator Coleman often talks about resting on the truths of his faith. It is an untold Washington story--the glue of faith that holds this city together. So as I say goodbye to Senator Coleman, I would like to do so with words from the Torah that he knows well:

The Lord bless you. and keep you; The Lord make His face

shine on you, And be gracious to you; The Lord lift up His

countenance upon you, And give you peace.

And on behalf of the entire Senate family, I want to thank Norm for his service. We will miss him.

I yield the floor.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the American people want health care reform. There is no question about that. But they have serious concerns about some of the proposals coming out of Washington, concerns that I have outlined on the Senate floor over the past few weeks. And Americans are also increasingly concerned about the way these proposals are being sold. Specifically, they are concerned that the same mistakes that were made on the economic stimulus bill are about to be made again--only this time, those mistakes would be all but permanent and would directly affect every single American family.

Here is what they are concerned about:

Earlier this year, advocates of the stimulus said that the bill had to pass right away, with minimal scrutiny and minimal bipartisan support. They gave the American people less than 24 hours to review one of the costliest pieces of legislation in history, and then they hoped for a good result. The reason for the rush is clear. Proponents of the stimulus were concerned that public support would start to fade if people got a closer look at the details. So they short-changed the debate and overpromised on results. And now their predictions are coming back to bite them.

Here is what they said at the time.

They said that if the stimulus passed, unemployment wouldn't rise above 8 percent. Unemployment is now approaching 10 percent. They said the stimulus was necessary to jumpstart the economy. Yet now, with about a half million jobs lost every month, they have started to admit that they simply ``misread'' the economy.

These were costly mistakes, and we can't take them back.

But we can prevent these same kinds of mistakes on health care. If the stimulus taught us anything it is that Americans should be skeptical any time someone in Washington rushes them into a major purchase with taxpayer dollars. We would walk away from any car salesman who tried to rush us into buying a car--even if it was a cheap one.

We should be just as skeptical of a lawmaker who tries to do the same thing with our tax dollars and trillions in borrowed money. And now that Americans are hearing the same kinds of arguments about health care that we heard about the stimulus, the taxpayer antenna should begin to go up.

Now it is time for advocates of a government-run health plan to actually take the time to determine what reforms will actually save us money and increase access to care while preserving the things people like about our system.

Taking time may be frustrating to those who want to rush a health care bill through Congress before their constituents have a chance to see what they are buying. But the fact that the public is increasingly concerned about government-run health care isn't reason to rush. It is reason to take the time we need to get it right--and to make a serious effort to get members of both parties to work out reforms that a bipartisan majority can agree to, several of which I have enumerated many times already on the Senate floor.

We should reform our medical liability laws to discourage junk lawsuits and bring down the cost of care; we should encourage wellness and prevention programs that have been successful in cutting costs; we should encourage competition in the private insurance market; and we should address the needs of small businesses without creating new taxes that kill jobs.

Advocates of government health care should also be exceedingly cautious about the predictions they make this time around. We already know that many of the promises that are being made about a government- run health plan are unrealistic--such as the claim that everyone who likes the insurance they have will be able to keep it and that the cost of such health care proposals won't add to the national debt.

As Democrats rushed the stimulus funds out the door, they also predicted it wouldn't be wasted. Yet every day we hear about another outrageous project that it is being used to fund. I have listed some of these projects in previous floor remarks, such as a $3.4 million turtle tunnel in Florida. Americans struggling to hold onto their homes and their jobs want to know why their tax dollars are being spent on such wasteful and needless projects.

Americans were overpromised on the stimulus. This time they want the facts.

Soon, the Government Accountability Office will issue a report that gives us an even greater sense of the problems with the stimulus. I am concerned that this report provide an even clearer accounting of the mistakes that were made with that bill--and the flawed manner in which it was sold to the American people.

Americans who are now waking up to headlines about the problems with the stimulus don't want to be told a few months from now that the people who sold them a government-run health care system misread the state of our health care industry, or that the health care plan they are proposing was based on faulty assumptions.

Americans don't want to wake up a few years from now with their families enrolled in a government-run health care system because some here in Washington decided to rush and spend a trillion dollars and let the chips fall where they may.

The American people don't want us to rush through a misguided plan that pushes them off of their health insurance and onto a government plan that denies, delays, and rations care. On the stimulus, Americans saw what happens when Democrats rush and spend. When it comes to health care, they are demanding we take the time to get it right.