Roland Burris

Mr. BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee of Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 9, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 9, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States.''

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, more than half a century ago, a young couple from Puerto Rico settled down in the Bronx with dreams of a better life. They didn't have much money, but they had a vision for the future. A vision that their son and daughter might be able to get a good education, find a rewarding job, and live out the full promise of the American dream. Today, their son Juan is a doctor and university professor near Syracuse, NY. And their daughter Sonia is about to become the first Latina Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This family's story could only take place in America. It is a testament to the greatness of our democracy that the daughter of a relatively poor family can grow up to attend the finest universities in the world, and even rise to the highest judicial body in the land. But it is not only her remarkably American story that will make Judge Sonia Sotomayor an excellent addition to the Court. Her legal background marks her as the single most qualified Supreme Court nominee in the last 60 years. After graduating from Princeton University and Yale Law School, she served as an assistant district attorney and then had a successful legal practice of her own. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush appointed Ms. Sotomayor as the first Hispanic judge on the U.S. District Court in New York State. Eight years later, President Clinton elevated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals, where she serves today. Throughout her distinguished career, Judge Sotomayor has been a prudent and thoughtful jurist. She has consistently exhibited the highest standards of fairness, equality, and integrity. She is a brilliant legal mind and a moderate on the bench. No one can argue with her professional qualifications for this post. And I believe that her personal background will lend a fresh and dynamic perspective to the highest court in our land. That is why I was proud to write to President Obama on May 15, urging her nomination. I am pleased that he shares my high regard for Judge Sotomayor, and I thank him for giving us an eminently qualified nominee to confirm. When we consider the makeup of the Supreme Court, we seek to build debate, not consensus. Judge Sotomayor's uniquely American story will bring diversity to the Court's rulings. And it is this diversity--of background, of perspective, of opinion-- that will lend legitimacy and integrity to each decision. As a former attorney general of Illinois, I have a deep understanding of these issues. Every legal opinion should be bound by law and the weight of precedent. The law must be grounded in sound and objective reasoning, and it is a powerful force in people's everyday lives. That is why we need jurists like Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Because, when five voices come together to render a court decision, it becomes the law of the land. There is no army, no threat of violence to back it up--just the quiet force of a written opinion. That is the wonderful thing about this democracy. And as a Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor will never forget that. She will be a strong addition to the highest court in our land, and I urge my colleagues to join me in giving her our utmost support. Let us come together to make history by confirming the first Latina Supreme Court Justice in American history. Let us renew our commitment to fairness, equality and diversity by confirming the most qualified nominee this Senate has seen in more than half a century. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURRIS

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

Mr. BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. President. Health Care Reform Mr. President, as the national debate over health care reform rages on, some complain about the inherent inefficiencies of government programs. Some are frightened by the prospect of Washington bureaucrats deciding what treatment people receive. But these skeptics always fail to mention the massive inefficiencies--and widespread denial of coverage--that is already present in the private market. Private insurance companies are accountable to two groups: their customers and their shareholders. The competing interests of these two groups make for a dangerous tightrope walk for insurers. Paying off too many claims, or keeping insurance premiums too low, may lower profits and anger investors. Paying off too few claims, or raising premiums too high, could cause consumers to choose a different plan--if one is available. The problem is that consumers do not have options. In the past decade, we have seen unprecedented consolidation in the insurance industry. We have seen over 400 corporate mergers involving health insurers over the past 13 years. Mr. President, 94 percent of the Nation's insurance markets are now considered ``highly concentrated,'' meaning they pose antitrust concerns. These localized monopolies stack the deck against consumers because there is no longer real competition or choice. The result? At the beginning of this decade, the five largest insurers increased their profit margins by at least 50 percent, and two of those companies increased margins by over 100 percent. It is not surprising that, as the cost of Medicare skyrocketed over the past decade, the price of health care insurance has increased at an even faster rate. While companies raise premiums, they also work on devious new ways to deny claims. Many insurers have created barriers to delay and limit care. Preauthorization requirements and burdensome, unnecessary paperwork mean that health care providers spend more time dealing with insurance industry redtape and less time treating their patients. Whole industries have sprung up around finding ways to deny insurance claims. One insurance company boasted that they are ``Managing the Spiraling Cost of Health Care.'' The company claims that their efforts can ``reduce paid claims costs by up to 10% without changing benefits or making claim system upgrades.'' This means taking advantage of consumers by denying claims based on mere technicalities. Any of my colleagues who believe insurance companies should decide on treatment options has never gone through the pain of a coverage denial. All of the extra paperwork and administration required to deny claims actually costs a good bit of money. And that cost is passed directly-- it is passed directly--on to the consumer. What some people do not want to tell you is that government programs are actually much more efficient, not less. Administrative costs for government insurance programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE, are around 5 percent. Private costs are as high as 30 percent in the individual market, 23 percent in the small group market, and 12.5 percent in the large group market. These numbers speak for themselves. The insurance industry has become distracted by their desire to maximize profits at the expense of those who need care. We cannot stand by and watch as the American people are taken advantage of, especially in a time of need when someone's health is on the line. That is why I am proud to support a public plan that will complete-- compete--with private insurers. This option would provide a low-cost alternative to the private market, bringing back competition and choice. It would press insurers to end their abusive practices and high profit margins, and would help eliminate redtape at the same time. No one would be forced to change insurance plans. No one would face higher premiums. And no one would need to fear that their coverage would be denied by a corporate giant for a few extra dollars' worth of profits. A robust public option would help make insurance available to those who do not have it, increase efficiencies, and reduce costs for every American. The time to act is now. We must not let another year go by without meaningful reform. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a strong public option. The time is now. It has been 50, 60, almost 70 years that we have been working on this program for health insurance for all Americans. It is time we get it done. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1390. Mr. President, as a member of the Armed Services and Veterans Affairs committees, I have addressed this Chamber many times about the need to keep our Nation's commitment to the brave men and women who-fight for this country. It is a commitment that begins on the day they volunteer for military service, and it extends through the day they retire and beyond. But just as we work to uphold our obligation to servicemembers who are in harm's way, we need to offer strong support to those who they leave here at home. Military families bear a burden that must not be forgotten. They, too, deserve our utmost gratitude. Mr. President, that is why we must increase funding for impact aid, a program which, in part, provides assistance to school districts that serve military families. Throughout my career in public service, I have been a strong believer in education as a powerful force to shape lives--to give people the tools they need and the inspiration that will help them succeed. But even when we see an improvement in scholastic performance at the national level, certain groups of students continue to fall further and further behind. Many children of Federal employees, including military personnel, fall into one of these groups. Military installations--and other Federal facilities--occupy land that might otherwise be zoned for commercial use. Because of this, local school districts suffer from a reduced tax base to fund their expenses. This limits the amount that can be spent in the classroom and leaves students at a serious disadvantage compared with children in neighboring towns. In North Chicago, IL--the home of the Great Lakes Naval Training Center--only half of the 4,000 students meet or exceed State standards. Even with some Federal assistance, North Chicago's School District 187 is able to spend just under $7,000 per student, per year. But nearby District 125 has the resources to spend nearly twice as much per pupil, and the school performs among the best in the State. An increase in impact aid funding would help to level this playing field, ensuring that the children of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are not at a disadvantage because of their parents' service. Impact aid funds are delivered directly to the school districts in need, so they do not incur administrative costs at the State level. This makes it one of the most efficient--and effective--Federal education programs. Scott Air Force Base is located near Mascoutah, IL--a community whose schools receive impact aid funding. The local school district is able to spend only $6,000 per year on each child, but 90 percent of the students meet or exceed State standards. If these are the results that some students can achieve with only $6,000 per year, imagine how well Mascoutah's schools might perform with even a small increase in available funds. It is impressive that school districts like North Chicago and Mascoutah are able to operate as effectively as they do, especially when compared to the national per-pupil expenditure of $9,700 per student. Mr. President, it is vital that we target Federal assistance to those who need it most. That is why I am proud to be a member of the Senate impact aid coalition, a group of 35 Senators devoted to protecting this important program. And that is why I believe that the $50 million we have set aside for schools that are heavily impacted by military students is a step in the right direction in our commitment to military families. It is time to make sure all children have access to a quality education, regardless of who they are or where they are from. I applaud Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their support of this funding in the past--and for including funding in the fiscal year 2010 Defense authorization bill. This funding will be significant to military children across the country. To students in North Chicago, Mascoutah, O'Fallon, and Rockford--and hundreds of communities in Illinois and over 260,000 students in 103 school districts across the United States. We owe them the same support we continue to show to their parents in uniform. And it is time to step up our efforts to meet that commitment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, throughout this Nation's history, our freedom--and at times our very survival--has rested squarely on the shoulders of the men and women of our Armed Forces. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am proud to know many of these brave warfighters we have. We rely upon their training and discipline. We depend upon their service and their sacrifice. In return, we owe them nothing but the very best. That means keeping our commitment to every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine at every stage in their career--from the day they report for training to the day they retire and beyond. We can start to honor this commitment in the most basic way by ensuring that their facilities are safe and adequate. That is why I plan to offer an amendment that would help eliminate vegetative encroachment on training ranges. Excessive vegetation can actually render training grounds unusable. If a training range is heavily overgrown, it can lead to dangerous situations, including fires and obstructive lines of sight. In a recent study by the U.S. Army, 70 percent of the facilities surveyed are experiencing limitations due to uncontrolled vegetation. This is unacceptable. We must take action now. My amendment calls upon the Secretary of Defense to perform a comprehensive study of training ranges across every branch of the military. We must develop a plan to reclaim any overgrown land for its rightful use by our fighting men and women of America. This will help us ensure that we can train them adequately and safely so they can fully prepare for any mission they are assigned to perform. But we cannot stop there. Our commitment begins on the day someone volunteers for service in the Armed Forces. But it does not end, even after their service has drawn to a close. That is why I believe it is important to extend dislocation benefits to every servicemember, including those whose service is coming to an end. Over the course of a career in the American military, a service man or woman and their family may be ordered to relocate a number of times--moving here, moving there, this assignment, that assignment. Each move can be quite costly. From basic travel expenses to the purchase of household goods to utilities to rent, it takes a lot to relocate an entire family. Since 1955, Congress has helped members of the service defray these costs by paying a ``dislocation allowance'' to each person we reassign to a new duty station. This eases the financial burden on military families and means that personnel decisions can be made without fear of breaking the bank--at least for most servicemembers, that is. Unfortunately, those who retire are not covered under the current system, despite the fact that their final orders may require a permanent change of station. So after years of supporting service men and women when we ask them to relocate, we abandon them at the time of their final move. We leave them to fend for themselves, even though the expenses they incur will be as high as ever, and even though their income has been reduced to half of what they had been paid during Active Duty. So we simply cannot stand for this. We cannot allow those who have served us honorably to be left out in the cold at the end of their careers. We must offer these benefits to all Members of our Armed Forces, even those who have been asked to move for the last time. That is why I am calling for a study to examine the feasibility of extending the dislocation allowance to retiring servicemembers. We should find a way to make this work. The cost of moving demands it. Our servicemembers support it. And, most importantly, it is the right thing to do for our troops. Colleagues, Members of this great body, let's come together to stand for those who sacrifice on our behalf and protect this great country of ours that allows us to do what we do in America, with freedom and opportunity. Let's provide our men and women in uniform with the support they need at every stage of their careers--from the first day of basic training to the day they are discharged. Cutting down on vegetation encroachment will keep our trainees safe and help prepare them for years of honorable service. When that service ends, dislocation benefits will help them retire with some measure of financial security. So I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting these initiatives I put forth. We owe our troops nothing less. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to Senator Thune's amendment regarding concealed carry reciprocity. This legislation ignores the explosion of gun crime plaguing America's cities and putting an unnecessary burden on local law enforcement. In my home State of Illinois, an entire generation of young people, many of whom live in urban areas, is being decimated with gun violence. On May 10 of 2007, a 16-year-old honor student named Blair Holt was shot to death while riding a Chicago city bus. When the shooter opened fire, Blair was shot while protecting a young girl with whom he was riding. The shooter was also a 16-year-old boy and an admitted member of the Gangster Disciples national street gang. Just the other day, justice was presented to him when he was given 100 years in prison by the judge. Similar tragic stories have only grown more frequent. In the first 6 months of 2009, Chicago alone logged 202 homicides, 84 percent of whom were shot to death. In comparison, in the same period of time, we lost 101 troops in Iraq and 99 in Afghanistan. The people of Chicago deserve better than life in a war zone. Hundreds of Chicago public school students have been shot so far this year. By the end of the school year in June, at least 36 had died. Over the Fourth of July weekend, while most of us celebrated our Nation's independence, Chicago suffered through an almost unparalleled torrent of gun violence: 63 shootings were tallied, and 11 of them were fatal. The carnage on Independence Day weekend led the Chicago Tribune to demand on July 10: ``Where is our courage? Where is the indignation over the slaughter of Chicago's children?'' This is far too high a price to pay for inaction. I will say it again: The people of Chicago deserve better than life in a war zone. Students deserve better than being gunned down in the streets after school and parents deserve better than having to raise families in the midst of a bloodbath. We must work vigorously to combat the rampant gun violence in our cities and urban areas. As a registered gun owner myself, I respect the second amendment and responsible gun ownership. However, I am deeply concerned about the devastating consequences of guns falling into the wrong hands. To this end, I strongly believe we should keep firearms out of the hands of children, terrorists, and criminals, and in solving this problem we need to provide local law enforcement officials with the support they so desperately need. Concealed carry regulation is an issue best left to cities and States and not the Federal Government. It is our job as Federal legislators to enact measures that strengthen States' law enforcement efforts instead of arbitrarily increasing their burden. A national standard of reciprocity would ignore the challenges local law enforcement struggles with on a daily basis when combating gangs and drug dealers in big cities. I am not alone in my opposition to the Thune amendment. I join the International Association of Chiefs of Police and State lawmakers around the country in recognizing that this legislation would severely hamper efforts to combat gun crime in our Nation's urban areas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 letters from the the mayor of the city of Chicago, Mayor Daley, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, as I said earlier, cities in every State face unique challenges that require tailored solutions. This is never truer than with the issue of gun control. It is imperative that States set their own standards for concealed carry permits and are not obligated to honor permits awarded elsewhere with different, potentially less rigorous requirements. We must not tie the hands of State governments regarding their ability to protect and serve their citizens. I think that this legislation moves our national gun policy in the wrong direction. In their assessment of the recent gun violence, the Tribune opined that ``The tragic loss of brave soldiers killed overseas grabs media headlines and fuels the raging fires of political debate. Meanwhile, in another war right here in our own backyard, the killings continue, almost ignored.'' We cannot ignore this horrific situation any longer. We must not be conned into believing that easier access to firearms will reduce firearm deaths. Rather than making it easier for people to bring concealed weapons into other States, I hope my colleagues will get serious about addressing the urgent problem of gun crime in our cities and among our youth. I urge my fellow Senators to not only vote against this amendment but to join me in working towards a real solution for this senseless cycle of death. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, today I rise to address a growing problem resulting from America's high levels of unemployment and economic downturn. Congress is working to design health reform that will provide access to quality, affordable insurance coverage for every American, but as unemployment numbers continue to rise, help may not come in time to avoid coverage denials on the individual insurance market and unbearable economic strain for those job seekers whose COBRA coverage has expired. The Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 codified 18 months of additional group rate coverage under employer sponsored plans following a triggering event such as job loss. This law has been instrumental in providing continuity of health coverage for families. The measure requires companies with over 20 employees to provide access to 18 months of continued coverage at the employee's expense, except in cases of firing for gross employee misconduct. Beneficiaries cover the additional administrative expense, and may be charged up to 103 percent of their original premiums. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act provided help with health insurance for families who lost their jobs after September 1, 2008 and through December of 2009. For those in this category, the federal government provides nine months of subsidized premiums, with beneficiaries covering 35 percent of premium costs. However, the downturn started well before September of 2008. For those that lost their job before September, and are still looking for work, the situation is dire. Many are quickly facing the end of their 18 month eligibility period for COBRA. They hear about health reform but have no idea when it may come. Insurance exchanges to guaranteeing eligibility and reasonable premiums on the individual market could take years to set up. In the mean time, those who could have afforded coverage under COBRA may instead have to resort to emergency room care and bankruptcy. The Emergency COBRA Expansion Act of 2009 will give job seekers the opportunity to continue their COBRA coverage for up to an additional 6 months. The bill applies to all of those utilizing COBRA benefits as of the date of bill passage, and would not extend anyone's coverage beyond 12 months from the date of bill enactment. A year from now, our country will be on the road to economic recovery, but in the meantime we need to help struggling families to stay insured and healthy.

Mr. BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, today I rise to address a growing problem resulting from America's high levels of unemployment and economic downturn. Congress is working to design health reform that will provide access to quality, affordable insurance coverage for every American, but as unemployment numbers continue to rise, help may not come in time to avoid coverage denials on the individual insurance market and unbearable economic strain for those job seekers whose COBRA coverage has expired. The Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 codified 18 months of additional group rate coverage under employer sponsored plans following a triggering event such as job loss. This law has been instrumental in providing continuity of health coverage for families. The measure requires companies with over 20 employees to provide access to 18 months of continued coverage at the employee's expense, except in cases of firing for gross employee misconduct. Beneficiaries cover the additional administrative expense, and may be charged up to 103 percent of their original premiums. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act provided help with health insurance for families who lost their jobs after September 1, 2008 and through December of 2009. For those in this category, the federal government provides nine months of subsidized premiums, with beneficiaries covering 35 percent of premium costs. However, the downturn started well before September of 2008. For those that lost their job before September, and are still looking for work, the situation is dire. Many are quickly facing the end of their 18 month eligibility period for COBRA. They hear about health reform but have no idea when it may come. Insurance exchanges to guaranteeing eligibility and reasonable premiums on the individual market could take years to set up. In the mean time, those who could have afforded coverage under COBRA may instead have to resort to emergency room care and bankruptcy. The Emergency COBRA Expansion Act of 2009 will give job seekers the opportunity to continue their COBRA coverage for up to an additional 6 months. The bill applies to all of those utilizing COBRA benefits as of the date of bill passage, and would not extend anyone's coverage beyond 12 months from the date of bill enactment. A year from now, our country will be on the road to economic recovery, but in the meantime we need to help struggling families to stay insured and healthy.

Mr. BURRIS

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

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

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee is hearing the testimony from the distinguished Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Today I rise in strong support of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe that while Judge Sotomayor's expansive legal experience makes her a logical choice, it is her background and unique perspective that will make her an ideal selection for a seat on our Nation's highest Court. Certainly no one can argue with Judge Sotomayor's legal qualifications. After graduating from Princeton University and Yale Law School, she served as an assistant district attorney and then had a successful legal practice of her own. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush appointed Ms. Sotomayor as the first Hispanic judge to the U.S. District Court in New York State. Eight years later, President Clinton elevated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals, where she serves today. Throughout her distinguished career, Judge Sotomayor has been a prudent and thoughtful jurist. She has constantly exhibited the highest standards of fairness, equality, and integrity. I was proud to write to President Obama on May 15 urging her nomination. However, it is not simply Judge Sotomayor's wealth of legal experience and long public record that make her the best possible candidate for the Supreme Court. Her life story will make her a dynamic and thoughtful addition to that august body. Born into relative poverty and raised in a housing project in the Bronx, young Sonia's childhood was remarkable in that it was overwhelmingly normal. She was not a child of privilege. Yet she had come to value her cultural traditions while also embracing the need for judicial objectivity and legal impartiality. This delicate balance is precisely what will make her such an important voice on the Supreme Court. As we consider her nomination, we must bear this in mind. When we evaluate the makeup of the Court, we seek to build dissent rather than consensus. We seek to engender debate among its members. Diversity--of prospective, of background, of opinion--lends legitimacy and integrity to judicial rulings. Throughout her career, Sonia Sotomayor has proven herself to be a moderate, restrained judge whose rulings are bound by the weight of precedent. Judgment must remain free from passion, but passion for the law cannot be lost. Ms. Sotomayor carries with her a lifetime of that passion--something I consider a valuable asset. As a Supreme Court Justice, Judge Sotomayor will bring much-needed diversity and a rich understanding of the American dream to every opinion she writes. All that she has she has achieved on her own merit, and it is this relatable quality that will lend fresh perspective to the Court. I applaud President Obama's nomination of Judge Sotomayor. As her confirmation hearings continue, we must ensure they are tough but fair. We must hold her to the same standard to which we would hold any nominee. And just as the Senate has confirmed her twice before, I am confident we will do it once again, with strong bipartisan support this time. It will be an honor for me to cast my vote in favor of her confirmation when the time comes. I look forward to the day when she takes her rightful seat on the bench in the highest Court in our land. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the subject of organ donation. Every day in this country, 17 people die while waiting for a donated organ. Typically, people wait 3 to 5 years before an organ becomes available, and the organ waiting list grows at a rate five times faster than donations. What we need are improvements to the organ donor registry system, to increase efficiency and share best practices between states. The Everson Walls and Ron Springs Gift for Life Act of 2009 is named in honor of two close friends and former NFL teammates, one of whom may not be here today were it not for the incredible generosity of ``living organ donation.'' Ron's struggle with diabetes led to the failure of both kidneys. Everson's decision to give Ron one of his kidneys, led them both to create the Gift for Life Foundation. The group spreads awareness of organ donation issues, particularly among minority communities, who suffer disproportionately from the organ shortage. This act will establish a National Organ and Tissue Donor Registry Resource Center to provide technical assistance to state donor registries. The center will also serve as a State registry information clearinghouse for the evaluation and development of best practices for donor registries nationwide. Further, the act will codify minimum operating standards for donor registries, and establish a grant program to develop, expand, and evaluate State donor registries. Finally, the act will create a study on the feasibility of establishing a living donor database in order to track the short and long-term health effects for such individuals. I urge the Senate to take action on this important issue. We must improve the functioning of our organ donation system. Thousands of lives hang in the balance.

Mr. BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the subject of organ donation. Every day in this country, 17 people die while waiting for a donated organ. Typically, people wait 3 to 5 years before an organ becomes available, and the organ waiting list grows at a rate five times faster than donations. What we need are improvements to the organ donor registry system, to increase efficiency and share best practices between states. The Everson Walls and Ron Springs Gift for Life Act of 2009 is named in honor of two close friends and former NFL teammates, one of whom may not be here today were it not for the incredible generosity of ``living organ donation.'' Ron's struggle with diabetes led to the failure of both kidneys. Everson's decision to give Ron one of his kidneys, led them both to create the Gift for Life Foundation. The group spreads awareness of organ donation issues, particularly among minority communities, who suffer disproportionately from the organ shortage. This act will establish a National Organ and Tissue Donor Registry Resource Center to provide technical assistance to state donor registries. The center will also serve as a State registry information clearinghouse for the evaluation and development of best practices for donor registries nationwide. Further, the act will codify minimum operating standards for donor registries, and establish a grant program to develop, expand, and evaluate State donor registries. Finally, the act will create a study on the feasibility of establishing a living donor database in order to track the short and long-term health effects for such individuals. I urge the Senate to take action on this important issue. We must improve the functioning of our organ donation system. Thousands of lives hang in the balance.

Mr. BURRIS

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

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the National Defense authorization bill that is pending before the Senate in reference to an amendment that would be on that bill. More than a decade ago, on a cold night in Wyoming, a young man was assaulted and killed simply for being who he was. The brutality of that murder shocked the Nation. But even more shocking was the motive for the crime. Matthew Shepard was targeted and killed that night for nothing more than his sexual orientation. The fact that the vicious attack could occur at all is hard to believe. But the fact that it was done out of blind hatred is simply too much to bear. So we must make sure Matthew Shepard's death was not in vain. We must shape a positive legacy from the ashes of this terrible tragedy. I believe this is the next chapter in the struggle against hatred and in the favor of equal rights. As we have been called to do throughout our history, I believe it is time to take action once again. I rise today in support of the legislation inspired by Matthew's tragic story. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act. If it becomes law, the Matthew Shepard Act will add ``sexual orientation'' to the definition of hate crimes under Federal law, giving law enforcement officials the tools they need to bring all violent criminals to justice. Many States already have hate crimes legislation on the books. I am proud to say my home State of Illinois is among them. But we need to make sure violent criminals face the same penalties in Washington as they do in Illinois and across the Nation. Hate crimes are assaults against individuals, but they tragically target an entire group of people. Matthew Shepard was not just a young gay man, he was a very young gay man. Colleagues, it is time to take a stand. It is time for the Senate to help end the hatred, to reaffirm our commitment to an America that is as free and as equal as our founders intended for it to be, to make sure that no American lives in fear because of who they are. As a former attorney general of Illinois, I have been fighting hate crimes for many years. Since the very beginning of my career, I have spoken out against injustice and worked hard to end discrimination. So I understand how important the Matthew Shepherd Act will be as we seek to bring criminals to justice for their actions. But some have expressed concern about this measure. I have heard from Illinois residents who worry that this may prevent them or their religious leaders from expressing their faith. As a deeply religious American myself, I would oppose any bill that restricts our freedom of speech or our freedom of religion. So let me assure my constituents and my colleagues that the Matthew Shepard Act applies to violent crimes, not religious speech. It will help us end murder and assault, but it will not affect the sermons people will hear every Sunday or the ability to preach the things they believe. A decade has passed since Matthew Shepard's tragic death. We must not let another year go by without the Matthew Shepard Act as the law of the land. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Hopefully, we will be able to have hate crimes as a crime on the books in the Nation as well as in our States. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. I need 3 or 4 minutes.

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

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I often have the opportunity to meet with the fine men and women who serve this country in uniform. Every day we demand the very best from each of them--and in return, we owe them the best we have to offer. That means keeping our commitment to this Nation's veterans. But it also means supporting our troops in the field--with resources, equipment, and--perhaps most importantly--sound leadership at the very highest levels. No one understands this better than GEN James Cartwright, the current Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Our committee met with General Cartwright just this morning. The Senate has been asked to confirm his nomination for a second term as Vice Chairman. And I rise today to offer him my strongest support. After speaking with General Cartwright, I am convinced that his long record of loyal service, impeccable judgment, and bold leadership make him the very best choice to continue in this important post. Up to this point, his tenure as a member of the Joint Chiefs has been marked by innovative thinking. Along with Admiral Mullen, General Cartwright has helped to shape the modern American military as we confront a range of new threats from across the globe. A native of my home State, General Cartwright was born in Rockford, IL, and began his service as a marine fighter pilot more than 30 years ago. He is a distinguished graduate of the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell Air Force Base, and has served all over the world. As an aviator, he put his extensive training to good use on the front lines of our global defense network. As a U.S. marine, he has never wavered in his commitment to the country we all love. And as a former head of the U.S. Strategic Command, General Cartwright has demonstrated his leadership skills and his deep understanding of the threats we face. He has led the fight for cyber security technology at the Department of Defense, helping to protect America from the evolving threats of the 21st century. He is a credit to the fighting men and women of our Armed Forces, and an asset to the elected leaders who depend on him every day. Time and again, he has answered the call. When Secretary Gates first recommended him for nomination 2 years ago, he understood that James Cartwright was someone we can rely upon. Today, as we consider whether he should remain Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I believe his record speaks for itself. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a speedy confirmation of General Cartwright. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, we have all heard that America's health care system is in crisis. But all too often, Washington loses sight of what is truly at stake. Some talk constantly about how much reform will cost, but without action more and more hard-working Americans will lose coverage. Soaring health care costs are increasing the burdens on the American people, American businesses, and our government. Today, our health care system stands on the brink of collapse. Over the past 2 years, 3.5 million Illinois residents, nearly 31 percent of the under-65 population, have been without health care insurance at one time or another. How can we allow American citizens to live in fear that the next cough or fever would put them in the poorhouse? There is a better way. Even for those who manage to stay insured amid the current climate of rapid increasing costs, the economic toll of paying for insurance can be crippling to middle-class families. Over the past 9 years, insurance premiums have more than doubled. By 2016 the projected cost of insurance for a family of four in Illinois will top $25,000 a year, meaning for a median income family in my State, nearly half of their earnings would be spent for health insurance. Obviously, this would prove disastrous to people in Illinois and across the Nation. The pressure of increasing premiums is hurting our economy from the business side as well. Small businesses in particular often cannot afford to provide care for their workers. In 2006 only 41 percent of Illinois businesses with less than 50 employees were able to offer coverage. Over the next few years, an additional 19 percent of American small businesses may be forced to eliminate their coverage as well. But there is a better way. From a government standpoint, we are currently spending 4 percent of the GDP on Medicare and Medicaid. By 2040, that number could reach 15 percent. This level of government spending would be unsustainable. There is a better way. Meaningful reform could cut costs for families, save small businesses, and even help pay down the budget deficit. Some still say the cost of reform is too high. But the choice is clear: We can invest in the right reform now, ensuring quality health care in the future and sustained cost reductions in the long term, or we can do nothing and watch as the cost of health care steadily increases until it drives our families--and our country--to financial ruin. My colleagues and I have real solutions. We can ensure that every single American has access to quality, affordable health care. We can save money on administrative costs and put an end to coverage denials due to preexisting conditions. With a shift in our focus from what we refer to as ``sick care'' and toward preventive medicine, we can keep people healthier, bolster our economy, and we can save money. This is the better way. I urge my colleagues to leave partisanship at the door and do what is right for the American people. We cannot afford to do any less. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURRIS

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

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