Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I think the Republican leader is here and he will go before me.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is holding a hearing to discuss the need to reform our Nation's outdated, underfunded, and overwhelmed food safety system. The focus, of course, in Washington right now is on health care. I truly believe we need to get a health care reform bill passed, and I will speak at another time about Medicare costs which the Republican leader addressed. It is my view that if we don't do anything to reform Medicare, we all know it is going in the red by 2017. We all know that if we continue the path we are following--if we don't bring higher quality standards into Medicare at lower costs--that is not good for anyone. It is certainly not good for our seniors. So based on my health care experience in my State and knowing what our State needs, we want to have that high-quality, low-cost focus, and that is what we are working to do on this bill. Today, I am here on another health matter; that is, the health of our food safety system. The hearing today and recent actions by the administration are good steps forward to ensure the safety of our food supply, but more must be done. The time to act is now. Why is the time to act now? Well, look at what has been going on. In the past few months, the recalls of peanut products, spinach, and cookie dough have shaken our confidence and trust in the food we eat. According to the Centers for Disease Control, foodborne disease causes about 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year. Last fall, hundreds of people across the country fell ill from salmonella. In this case, the source was finally traced to a peanut processing plant in Georgia. In the meantime, nine people died from salmonella poisoning, including three people in my home State, the State of Minnesota. The first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens. As Members of Congress, we must act quickly to pass tough new laws to strengthen our food system to ensure the health and safety of the American people. Americans spend more than $1 trillion on food every year, and when families go to the grocery store or out to eat or wherever they are going to get a bite to eat, they shouldn't have to worry about getting sick from the food they eat. I have joined with a bipartisan group of Senators to introduce the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, which would overhaul the Federal Government's food safety program. Other cosponsors include Dick Durbin, Judd Gregg, Richard Burr, Chris Dodd, Lamar Alexander, and Saxby Chambliss. I wish to particularly thank Senator Durbin for his long- time leadership on this issue. Whenever contaminated food is allowed to reach consumers, public trust in the integrity of our food supply and the effectiveness of our government is undermined. Think about it. The three people who died in Minnesota, one was an elderly woman at a nursing home. She was in perfectly good shape. She had a little piece of toast with peanut butter. That was it, a little piece of toast with peanut butter. In talking to her son, I learned so much about her and what a courageous woman she was. She ate one piece of toast with peanut butter. This bill will give the Food and Drug Administration the tools and authority for better inspections and a more responsive recall system. The bill will also improve our capacity to prevent foodborne outbreaks by helping food companies develop a national strategy to protect our food supply and allow the FDA greater access to facility records in a food safety emergency. Currently, the FDA does not have the resources to conduct annual inspections at the more than 150,000 food processing plants and warehouses in the country. Our bill requires annual inspections at facilities that pose the greatest risk to the American public and will go a long way toward ensuring the protection of our Nation's food supply. Think of it. Something such as a peanut butter facility, they don't think they are ever going to be inspected, no one is going to be looking, so they don't have that incentive every year to improve their food processing capability. They don't have that incentive. They don't worry that anyone is watching over their shoulder because they are not. This bill also takes steps to improve our capacity to detect and respond to foodborne illness outbreaks, but I believe there is still more that can and should be done. That is why, along with Senator Chambliss, I have introduced the Food Safety Rapid Response Act. This legislation focuses on the Centers for Disease Control, as well as State and local capability for responding to foodborne illnesses. The recent outbreaks demonstrate that there needs to be better coordination when responding to a food safety crisis. This legislation seeks to make these much needed improvements. In the case of both the jalapeno pepper outbreak last year and the peanut butter outbreak earlier this year, people had been getting sick for months before an advisory was issued. The breakthrough in identifying the sources of contamination didn't come from the Centers for Disease Control. Neither did the jalapeno pepper case, identified first as tomatoes, or the peanut butter case. It didn't come from the CDC or from the FDA, and it didn't come from the National Institutes of Health. The breakthrough in both outbreaks came from the work of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, as well as collaborative efforts with the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. This initiative has earned a remarkable national reputation. The Food Safety Response Act uses the exceptional work done in Minnesota as a national model for food safety. Why does someone have to get sick or die in Minnesota before a national outbreak is solved? They have a team of graduate students who work together under the supervision of the university and the department of health. They, together, figure out what is wrong. They make the calls together. They are like food detectives. Some people have called them ``team diarrhea.'' They figure out what is wrong, what goes on in other States. Sometimes a report in an individual county sits on a busy nurse's desk and they don't follow up on it for weeks and we are never able to piece together that information that figures out and solves the source of the outbreak. This bill would direct the CDC to enhance their foodborne surveillance systems to improve the collection, analysis, reporting, and usefulness of data on foodborne systems, including better sharing of information among Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as with the food industry and the public. Second, it would direct the CDC to work with State-level agencies to improve foodborne illness surveillance. Finally, this legislation would establish food safety centers of excellence. The goal is to set up regional food safety centers at select public health departments and higher education institutions. These collaborations would provide increased resources, training, and coordination for State and local officials. In particular, they would seek to distribute food safety ``best practices'' so other States can figure out how they can do this better so every food outbreak doesn't need to have someone get sick or die in Minnesota before it gets solved. Think about it. The two recent food outbreaks only got solved in one State. We have to use that model nationally. Dr. Osterholm, at the University of Minnesota, is a national food safety expert and is credited with the creation of the Minnesota program. He said the creation of regional programs modeled on Minnesota ``would go a long way to providing precisely the real-time support for outbreak investigations at the State and local levels that is sorely needed.'' At today's hearing, the Food Marketing Institute stated that the Food Safety Response Act would ``better coordinate foodborne illness surveillance systems and better support State laboratories in outbreak investigations with needed expertise.'' In Minnesota, we also have the benefit of working with strong leaders in the food industry, including SuperValu, Hormel, General Mills, and Schwann's. Their leadership has helped set national standards for food safety and response to foodborne outbreaks. Public and private collaboration is essential to improving our food safety response system. The annual costs of medical care, lost productivity, and premature death due to foodborne illness is estimated to be $44 billion. There is a lot at stake--both in terms of life and money. I believe we can do better. As a former prosecutor, I have always believed the first responsibility of a government is to protect its citizens. When people get sick or die from contaminated food, the government must take aggressive and immediate action. Congress must improve the FDA and bring it into the 21st century. I believe, together, the Food Safety Rapid Response Act and Food Safety Modernization Act, which I have introduced with Senator Chambliss, will strengthen food safety in our country and ultimately save both lives and money. We owe it to the American people to act quickly and pass this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue that has been very important to me for a long time, when I was a prosecutor as well as a member of the Judiciary Committee with the Senate; that is, domestic violence. I am here because I am submitting a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. A number of our colleagues are cosponsoring the resolution. I am also here on behalf of Pam Taschuk. The police in Lino Lakes, MN, knew Pam Taschuk and they knew her husband Allen. The police knew both of them because of the dozens of 911 calls that had been made about Mr. Allen over the last 15 years. He bullied his wife, their sons, and other people so many times that local police had set up a special tactical response plan just to respond to calls at the Taschuk house. Pam Taschuk was not your ordinary domestic violence victim, if there is such a thing. She was actually a juvenile probation officer and so many police I know in Minnesota knew her. They worked with her. She was a long-time probation officer and had worked in the field for years. She was also a social worker. So it goes to show you anyone can be a victim of domestic violence. In January of 2008, Pam called the police and reported that her husband had threatened to kill her, that Allen Taschuk had threatened to kill her. On August 25 of this year, Allen Taschuk bloodied Pam's nose, split her lip, and trapped her in their home overnight. He was arrested, but he posted bail and was released. On October 1, 2009, the Lino Lakes Police Department received the last 911 call they would ever get about Allen Taschuk. On that day, Allen Taschuk called 911 himself to preemptively report a shooting at his house. By the time the police arrived at his home, both he and Pam Taschuk were dead of gunshot wounds. This happened last month in our State. This looks like a murder- suicide. Of course, it looks like Allen killed Pam before finally turning the gun on himself. But we do not need to speculate about the final end order to focus on the sad prelude to this story--so many previous 911 calls, so many earlier acts of violence, yet another victim of what some domestic violence advocates have called the war at home; a war that affected Pam, their children, and the community at large. The most disturbing part of this story is Pam's death is not a tragic anomaly. Pam is one of 200 Minnesota women killed as a result of domestic violence since 2000. That is why I am submitting a resolution today to designate October National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, because Pam Taschuk and too many other women and children have to fight this ``war at home'' every day. In the past several decades, thanks to the work of many individuals and organizations, there has been a sea change in the way our society looks at the issue of domestic violence. Police, the courts, and the public used to consider it a private family matter. Not surprisingly, domestic violence was the No. 1 underreported crime in the country. Today, there is much more awareness, and we have started to pass critical legislation at both the State and Federal level to combat domestic violence. So there has been a lot of progress, but there is still a lot more to be done. Last year, a survey done by the National Network to End Domestic Violence found that in 1 day, while more than 60,000 people received help from domestic violence programs, nearly 9,000 requests for help went unanswered because the resources were not there. The current statistics are staggering. Currently, one in four women will experience abuse. More than three women are killed every day by their husbands or boyfriends. Millions of children witness abuse every year, some studies say as many as 10 million children. I remember the cases we had when I was county attorney for Hennepin County. When we looked at the records of someone who was an offender, we would find way back in the records that they lived in a home where there was domestic violence. In fact, statistics show that a child who grows up in a home where there is domestic violence is 76 times more likely to commit an act of domestic violence. That is why we had a poster framed in the hallway of our office. It was a picture of a woman with a Band-Aid on her nose, holding a little baby, and the words under the picture read: ``Beat your wife and your son will go to jail.'' We all must recognize as well that it doesn't take a bruise or a broken bone for a child to be a victim of domestic violence. Kids who witness this violence are victims too. Witnessing violence between adults in the home, especially when it is repeated and ongoing, inflicts a real trauma on kids that can have damaging effects for years to come. In many respects, ending the cycle of violence in communities begins by getting violence out of the home because a violent home is, in fact, a factory for producing a new generation of violent offenders. When I was a county attorney, I saw firsthand how domestic abuse harmed women and children, destroyed families, and challenged local law enforcement agencies, the court system, social service, and health care providers. We actually had a recent shooting of a well-respected and longtime police officer who was killed responding to a domestic abuse call. Both the prevention and prosecution of domestic violence were always among my top priorities when I was county attorney. We had one of the most landmark, cutting-edge domestic abuse service centers in the country, and still do in Hennepin County. Sheila Wellstone, whom we honored this month for Domestic Violence Awareness Month, would always point to the work in that center. It was a one-stop shop. It is hard enough for lawyers to get through the redtape of a courtroom. This was a place where a victim of domestic violence, man or woman, could get a protective order signed, fill out a complaint, talk to a police officer, with a play area for children. Also--and this was unique for this center--there were representatives from domestic violence shelters there so they could find a place to live. The other challenge I found we had in these cases was working with the victims so the case could be prosecuted after they filed the complaint. That is why it is so important we reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. It was landmark legislation when it was passed over 15 years ago. It has helped to train police so they do a better job dealing with victims and children of domestic violence. It also gives them a sense, when they go to the scene, of the kind of evidence they should look for. Many times victims get scared and decide not to prosecute. We have had many cases where we could prosecute with a reticent victim simply because of the evidence police were able to gather at the scene. The Violence Against Women Act created a new culture for police officers, judges, and those who work in the courthouse to treat this crime as the serious crime it is. It is a very important tool, and it must be reauthorized. As a member of the Judiciary Committee and one of two women on the committee, I look forward to working hard to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act in 2010. During tough economic times, we need to be extra vigilant against domestic violence. Millions of Americans have already lost their jobs, their homes, or their retirement savings. Some have lost all three. This kind of stress in the home and in the checkbook can lead to substance abuse and acts of violence. We need to make sure law enforcement has the tools it needs to protect families. That is why in the Economic Recovery Act, we included $225 million for Violence Against Women Programs and $100 million for programs that are part of the Victims of Crime Act. We also provided critical funding for law enforcement to keep cops on the street and support law enforcement programs and services through the Byrne Grant Program. There is so much at stake, and there is so much each of us can still do to make a difference. We have to remember that any act of domestic violence hurts not only the individual victim, it hurts their family and hurts our community at large. I will always remember a case we prosecuted when I was county attorney that brought home that point to me. It was a very sad case. The victim was a Russian immigrant. She was very isolated from the community, didn't have many friends, a victim of domestic violence, they later learned, over the years. Her husband murdered her one day. They had a little 4-year-old girl. I don't want to get into the gory details of what happened with her body, but he basically sickly brought her body to another State with the 4-year-old girl in the back seat. He later confessed to the crime, and there was a little service. I say ``little'' because the only people at the funeral service were her parents, who were from Russia, and her identical twin sister, the victim's identical twin sister. I was there, and the victim witness advocate was there. That was it. The little 4-year-old girl, I was told, had been at the airport when the plane came in from Russia to meet for the first time her grandmother and her now deceased mother's identical twin sister. When they got off the plane and came into the airport, this little girl ran across the airport and hugged that identical twin sister and said: Mommy, mommy, mommy. She thought it was her mother who had come back. That moment and that story always remind me that when we are talking about domestic violence, it is not just one victim. It is the children and it is our entire community. That is why it is so important we recognize Domestic Violence Month as well as reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. I thank Senators Leahy, Kohl, Feingold, Gillibrand, Crapo, Collins, Specter, Landrieu, Stabenow, Kaufman, Durbin, Brown, and Senator Burris, the Presiding Officer, for being cosponsors. I invite all other colleagues to join us. I am proud to come from a State that has long been a leader in a nationwide effort to end domestic violence. We opened one of the first shelters in the country in 1974, and we started one of the first programs aimed at addressing batterers in the early 1980s. The city of Duluth, MN, was the first city to mandate that its police officers make arrests in domestic abuse cases. The city of Duluth in northern Minnesota recognized before the rest of the country that violence is violence, whether it is perpetrated by someone you love or a stranger on the street. We can never stop working on behalf of women, children, and families everywhere to end domestic violence. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Burris as a cosponsor of the resolution.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I speak in support of extending unemployment benefits to provide much needed relief to jobless workers. Nearly 2 million Americans, including more than 13,000 Minnesotans, will exhaust their unemployment benefits by the end of the year. We are facing record high unemployment in this country. The number of Americans out of work has almost doubled over the past 2 years. People who want to get back to work are still facing a depressed job market, where there are six unemployed workers for every job opening. It is no wonder that I have received so many letters from my constituents, scores of people going to 60 job interviews, sending in hundreds of resumes. I thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership here; Senator Durbin, who just spoke; the majority leader, Senator Baucus, Senator Dodd, Senator Jack Reed, and my other distinguished colleagues in working with me to provide this much needed relief. I was so pleased that we were able to put together a proposal that included all 50 States because I simply could not explain to the people of my State that while people in Wisconsin who are unemployed would get extended unemployment benefits, those in Minnesota would not. Our States share a border, but when people suffer in one State, they also suffer in the other. This is a fiscally responsible solution that is fair and will provide for a State such as Minnesota, where unemployment is still high but below 8.5 percent, which was the mark that was used in the House bill. Unemployment is unemployment no matter where you live. Minnesotans without jobs do not suffer any less because our State's unemployment rate is slightly lower. Several constituents wrote to me earlier, when Minnesota's unemployment rate was around 8 percent. At that time, as I mentioned, the proposal from the House would have cut things off at 8.5 percent. After getting these letters and talking to people in my State, I decided that was not good enough. In one letter, Marilynn, from St. Paul, wrote: Unemployment may be 8 percent for the State of Minnesota, but in our house it's 100 percent. As Marilynn notes, unemployment is a national issue that does not simply begin or stop at State lines. Being unemployed in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, or any other State does not hurt any more or less than being unemployed in Minnesota. Deep, persistent unemployment hurts no matter where you happen to live, and the solution my colleagues and I crafted strikes the right balance in recognizing that fact. Mariann from White Bear Lake, MN, wrote: The tremendous stress of trying to search for an affordable job and raise two children on my own is overwhelming in itself. I cannot help that I live in one of the States with lower than 8.5 percent unemployment. And Brian from Anoka wrote: In fairness, what is good for one unemployed person should be good for all unemployed persons everywhere. As the Senator from Illinois knows, sometimes we get letters that are all the same, from groups that organize, but these were individual letters from citizens out there who are hurting and who actually looked at the paper, heard the news, and decided: Wait a minute, the House bill, at 8.5 percent, does not help me. I am going to be left with nothing. Simply put, this legislation in the Senate provides relief in a fair way to all those in need. This legislation helps jobless workers who desperately need relief. This legislation does not add to the deficit. This legislation is the right thing to do. Despite our best efforts, we have not been able to convince some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to agree that struggling middle-class Americans deserve an up-or-down vote on whether their unemployment benefits should be extended. While my colleagues can perhaps afford to wait in their States--maybe the unemployed people in their States aren't writing them these letters--the more than 13,000 Minnesotans who will exhaust their unemployment benefits by the end of December cannot afford to wait. They have already waited too long. The time to act is now. This is the decent thing to do, and in a stretched economy, it is the right thing to do. I know people are happy that we have started to see some good numbers on Wall Street. We need that. Maybe it will help us with our 401(k)s. But what do you say to Barbara, from Mahtomedi, MN, who understands Wall Street is doing well, but writes this: My husband has been looking for a job since March and without unemployment to help us out, I don't know what will happen. All four of us have been looking for steady employment for months. We drive old cars, bought a house within our means that we have been fixing up slowly by ourselves the past 22 years, buy everything used or on sale. Please don't let Minnesotans get left out in the cold--oh yes, don't forget about the heating bills coming in the next months. We need jobs and extending benefits will help us survive. And what would my colleagues who are now stopping this bill from coming to the floor say to Carolyn of Woodbury, MN, who writes: As of the early part of November of this year, I will have completed all my unemployment benefits. I have been looking for work daily since May of 2008 and have had several interviews but no offers yet. I like working, I am looking for work, I want to work and I am able to work but have not gotten any offers yet. Is there any chance that unemployment benefits will be extended? My unemployment is my only source of income and if I am not able to get that and don't have a job what will happen to a person like myself? The time for partisanship is over. This is about people's lives and their ability to survive and to continue to provide for their families. I am very glad this Senate recognized that an unemployed person in Minnesota needs as much help as an unemployed person in Wisconsin, but now it is time to get the bill passed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I would say 5 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I will need 3 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance of health care reform to the women of this country. Let me tell my colleagues how I got interested in this issue. When my daughter was born, she was very sick. She couldn't swallow. She was in intensive care. They thought she had a tumor. It was a horrendous moment for our family. I was up all night in labor, up all day trying to figure out what was wrong with her, and they literally kicked me out of the hospital--my husband wheeled me out in a wheelchair after 24 hours--because at that point in our country's history, they had a rule; it was called driveby births. When a mom gave birth, she had to get kicked out of the hospital in 24 hours. Well, I went to the legislature with a number of other moms and we said: Enough is enough. We got one of the first laws passed in the country, in the State of Minnesota, guaranteeing new moms and their babies a 48-hour hospital stay. My favorite moment of this was at the conference committee when there were a number of people who were trying to get the implementation of this bill delayed so it wouldn't take effect. I went there with six pregnant friends of mine. When the legislature said, when should this bill take effect, the pregnant women all raised their hands and said, ``now.'' That is what happened. That is what the women of America are saying today. They are saying, ``Now.'' They cannot keep having these escalating health care costs that are making it harder and harder for them to afford health care. I always tell the people in my State to remember three numbers: 6, 12, and 24. About 10 years ago, the average family was paying $6,000 for their health insurance. Now they are paying something like $12,000, a lot of them paying even more; small businesses, even more. Ten years from now, they are going to be paying $24,000, if we don't do something to bend this cost curve. Medicare is something that is so important for women in this country. It is going to go in the red by 2017. One of the things that really bothers me about the current situation is this preexisting condition issue. I couldn't believe what I found out last week: In nine States and the District of Columbia, women who are victims of domestic abuse or who have been victims of domestic abuse can be denied health care coverage because domestic abuse can be considered a preexisting condition. So they get abused and then they can't even get the health care coverage to help them. Maternity, being pregnant--these things can all be preexisting conditions, and that is something we need to stop. That is why I am so glad one of the major proposals in this reform is to do something about preexisting conditions. We also need to make sure preventive care--so important to women--things such as mammograms are covered in our health care plan. Finally, one of the things I know the Senator from Maryland has been such a leader on is aging parents. People such as myself, we have kids of our own and then we also have aging parents. We are caught in what they call the sandwich generation: taking care of our own kids and making sure our parents get care at the same time. Predominantly, a lot of women are in this situation. That is why the CLASS Act, which Senator Kennedy proposed and which is in one of the health care proposals, which allows Americans to use pretax dollars to pay for their health insurance and their long-term care insurance is so important. So I am glad for American women that we are moving forward on this health care reform. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I will be speaking about health care, but I did want to note, I was listening to my colleague and friend from Tennessee. I have invited him before, but in Minnesota we think our wind turbines are so beautiful, we have opened a bed and breakfast near Pipestone. Come, stay overnight, and wake up in the morning and look at a wind turbine. I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. We are excited about the power that wind has brought to our State. I wish to address the very important issue of health care. I first want to commend my colleague who is here with me today, Senator Cantwell, for her commitment to passing a proconsumer health care bill that is focused on reducing cost so that it makes health care more affordable to all people. I rise to speak about an issue that is an economic imperative--true reform in the way we pay for health care. If we don't act, costs will continue to skyrocket. The country spent $2.4 trillion on health care last year alone; that is, $1 out of every $6 spent in the economy was spent on health care. By 2018, national health care spending is expected to reach $4.4 trillion, over 20 percent of our entire economy. These costs are breaking the backs of our families and businesses. Premiums have doubled in just the last 10 years. We can see from this chart, in 1999, single coverage and family coverage. For single coverage in 1999, the premium was $2,196, the premium an individual would pay. Now it is up to $4,704. A family in 1999 paid $5,791. Now they are paying $12,680, a doubling of the premiums for families. All of the statistics, all the studies show if we don't do anything, if we just put our heads in the sand, we will see a doubling of those premiums again. A recent study by the Council of Economic Advisers found that small businesses pay up to 18 percent more than large businesses to provide health care insurance for their employees, often forcing these businesses to lay off employees or cut back on coverage. I met with farmers today. I have met with cattle ranchers. I met with people who are farming and trying their best--self-employed. I have met with a small business up in northern Minnesota in Two Harbors called Branite Gear, a backpack company. They make fine backpacks for our troops. Do you know how much the owner of that company now pays for health care for his family of four: $24,000. He said he now employs 15 people. If he would have known this back 15 years ago, when he started that company, he wouldn't have started it then. He is proud of that company, but his small business cannot afford to pay this kind of money. These costs are also breaking the backs of American taxpayers. At the current rate of spending, Medicare, such a crucial program for our seniors, a safety net, something they must have, is scheduled to be in the red by the year 2017. So those people who are 55 years old and want to have Medicare should care about cost reform. If you are 65 years old and you plan to live a great life until you are 95 or 100, you should care about a strong Medicare that isn't going in the red. A recent Congressional Budget Office estimate shows that the majority of the projected $344 billion increase in Federal revenues in 2010 are scheduled to go automatically to cover the rising cost of health care. To put it simply, my bottom line for health care reform is that we must get our money's worth from our health care dollars. Right now that is not happening. With 92 percent of our population covered, Minnesota is fortunate to have one of the highest coverage rates of health insurance in the country. Part of that is we have very good health care. We have a lot of nonprofit health care insurance agencies. We also have Minnesota Care which extends coverage to so many of our people who can't afford it. As any Minnesota family or business knows, the price of health insurance coverage has been going up faster than almost anything else, much faster than wages. People are worried about the stability of their coverage. That is where I have found unity between Democrats, Republicans, and independents. People want stability. They don't want to be thrown off because their kid gets sick. They want coverage, and they want their kid to have coverage. If they change jobs, they want to keep their coverage, and they also want more affordable health care. I have been pressing Senate colleagues and the administration to make sure we have reform that results in more affordable and more accessible health care coverage. The problem is, we are paying too much. We are not getting a good return all the time on what we pay. The solution must be to get the best value for our health care dollars; otherwise, costs will continue to wreak havoc on the budgets of government, businesses, and individual families. The root of the problem is that most health care is purchased on a fee-for-service basis so more tests and more surgeries mean more money. Oftentimes those surgeries and tests are completely unwarranted. We want quality, and we want outcome to be the measure of good health care. Quantity, not quality, is what pays right now. According to researchers at Dartmouth Medical School, nearly $700 billion per year is wasted on unnecessary or ineffective health care. That is 30 percent of total health care spending. My favorite story is about an HMO in the southwestern part of the United States that said: Let's look at a better way to treat diabetes. Instead of having people trying to get in to see their doctors, we will have them seen by nurses and nurse practitioners, and we will have it overseen by two endocrinologists. They actually saw health care professionals more often and quality went up. Costs went down. And guess what. They got reimbursed less for that system because of the way our current system rewards quantity over quality. This chart says $50 billion. The reason it says $50 billion is that an independent study from Dartmouth looked at how Mayo Clinic, one of our premier health care institutions, treats chronically ill patients in their last 4 years of life. Quality is incredibly high. What they looked at was the Mayo protocol; if we use that in hospitals all over the country, how much would we save? You would think it would cost more because it is higher quality. You would actually save $50 billion in taxpayer money every 5 years just for this set group of patients, if the Mayo protocol was followed, because they have integrated care. They work as a team, and they are careful and do what the patient wants. They put the patient in the driver's seat. In Minnesota we have several examples of this coordinated, outcome- oriented system, not just the Mayo Clinic but also St. Mary's in Duluth and Health Partners that has done some groundbreaking work with diabetes. As this chart shows, on spending per patient, just using the Mayo protocol for chronically ill patients, $50 billion would be saved every 5 years. To begin reining in costs we need to have all health care providers aiming for high-quality, cost-effective results. We must take significant steps to ensure that Medicare remains available for future generations. I want to be able to get Medicare and so do those people who are 65. To do that, we have to make the system efficient and cost- effective with the highest quality. Let's reduce those hospital readmissions, have less infections in the hospitals. Let's put those kinds of Mayo quality standards in place like we see at the Cleveland Clinic and other places across the country. These policy changes are important steps to make sure Medicare is paying for the outcome of treatment, not the number of treatments. We have seen basic outlines from the Finance Committee bill, but we haven't seen it yet. I support the committee's efforts to develop a national program on payment bundling. In too many places, patients must struggle against a fragmented delivery system where providers duplicate services and sometimes work at cross-purposes. To better reward and encourage this collaboration, we need to have better coordination of care and less incentive to bill Medicare purely by volume. Increasing the bundling of services in Medicare's payment system has the potential to deliver savings and start encouraging quality integrated care. When it comes to improving care, changing who pays the doctor isn't as much the issue right now, when we are looking at improved care, as it is changing that payment system. The lesson of high-quality, efficient States such as Minnesota is that someone has to be responsible for the care of the patient from start to finish. Bundling will help encourage hospitals, doctors, and post-acute care providers to achieve savings for the Medicare Program through increased collaboration and improved coordination. One of the interesting things I don't think people always know about is, they say: If we save money, will that mean worse care? The answer actually is no. It is the opposite. Does higher spending equal better care? In fact, when we look across the country, higher spending does not equal better care. In fact, it is the opposite. Here we have a chart that shows the highest quality care in the country with the lowest utilization, where they are most cost efficient. Maybe you know your doctor well. You go to the specialist they refer you to so you are not running around with your x-ray to 15 different specialists not knowing who is better. Look at this: highest utilization has the lowest quality care. Research has shown moving toward a better integrated and coordinated delivery system would save Medicare alone up to $100 billion per year. Because Medicare is the single largest purchaser of health care, linking payment to quality outcomes is essential to improve health care outcomes for everyone. We must also stop paying for care that doesn't result in quality results. Reducing preventable hospital readmissions--and I am hopeful this will be in the Senate bill--is vital to curbing the wasteful health care spending plaguing our national budget. In one year, hospital readmissions cost Medicare $17.4 billion. A 2007 report by MedPAC found that Medicare paid an average of $7,200 per readmission that was likely preventable. Who wants to go back in the hospital? I don't think anyone wants to go back in the hospital. So not only are we getting lower quality care because certain quality parameters are not met, we are also spending more money for it. I am encouraged that the Finance Committee's outline includes a provision that calls for reduced payments to hospitals for preventable readmissions. We know there are some readmissions that are going to happen. It happens all the time--preventable readmissions. Paying for quality results also means reducing hospital-acquired infections. We should not have to pay for an infection that comes as a result of a hospital stay itself. No one wants to get an extra infection in a hospital, and there are vast differences among hospitals in those infection rates. So let's put those quality protocols in place. Third, we need to better reward integrated care systems. At places such as the Mayo Clinic, a patient's overall care is managed by a primary care physician in coordination with specialists, nurses, and other care providers as needed. It is one-stop shopping. It reminds me of a football team. We do not have 10 wide receivers running around, running into each other, just like we would not have 10 specialists in health care. We have one quarterback who is a primary care physician, and then we have a team that works together. That is what we want to encourage in the health care system to save money. To better reward and encourage this collaboration, we need to encourage the creation of accountable care organizations. These are groups of providers that work together, as they do in Minnesota, to deliver quality, coordinated care to patients. We want to put incentives in that reward this kind of care. The President stood before his health care summit and asked: Why should Minnesota be punished when it rewards, when it creates this kind of good, high-efficient care? The sad thing is, right now it is because when we just base pay on volume and we do not pay any attention to what the results are or what the infection rates are or what the readmission rates are, we are not getting that kind of quality care people deserve. The last thing I want to focus on is something Senator Cantwell, who will be speaking after me, and I have been so focused on right now; that is, putting some kind of quality index in place. The proposal here is to move us toward a system that links quality to cost. Right now, we do not have that in place. I believe we need to do more in the finance bill than we even have in the House bill to get this value index in place. This is a bill I have introduced. Senator Cantwell is one of the lead sponsors, as well as Senator Gregg of New Hampshire. The indexing will help regulate overutilization because those who produce more volume will need to also improve care or the increased volume will negatively impact fees. This legislation will authorize the Health and Human Services Secretary to create a value index as part of the formula used to determine Medicare's fee schedule. By adding a value index, our bill uses cost measures that are structured to allow areas with justifiably higher costs--and we know there are different costs around the country--to compete on an equal playing field with lower cost areas. Rewarding value in this way would give physicians a financial incentive to maximize the quality of their services instead of the quantity. Linking rewards to outcomes creates the incentive for physicians and hospitals to work together to improve quality and efficiency. This proposal would also work in tandem with other proposals--like those being advocated by others and those I have mentioned today, the coordinated, integrated care, the bundling, and other ways--to improve the Medicare payment system. We know there are also other ways, and I will end with just mentioning these--that we can improve efficiency in health care spending: One, as a former prosecutor, I care a lot about this, to reduce Medicare fraud. Law enforcement authorities estimate that health care fraud costs taxpayers and costs those seniors on Medicare more than $60 billion every year. This is as much as 20 percent of total Medicare spending. There are ways, and we have some bills that have already been introduced, to greatly reduce this. Secondly, something the President raised in his speech before Congress is this idea of looking at malpractice reform. I can tell you, in Minnesota, in 2006, we had the lowest malpractice premiums in the Nation. Areas like ours, with more efficient care, tend to have lower malpractice premiums, and that is what our doctors want. One of the things we have is a certificate of merit system that has been implemented in a number of States and goes hand in hand with efficient care, requiring a medical expert to sign off on any complaint, and it has worked. We need to reform our health care system. I am so proud to be in the Chamber with my colleague, Senator Cantwell, a member of the Finance Committee, who has been, day to day, night by night, advocating for this kind of reform. We want our seniors to stay on Medicare and have the kind of safety net they deserve. We want people who are 55 years old to be able to get Medicare when they are the age to get Medicare. The way we do this is by actually increasing quality and decreasing costs. We do this in the State of Minnesota. We know we can do it in other places of the country. I plead with my colleagues on the Finance Committee that we have to look at the long-term costs if we are going to bring reform. We have outlined some ways to do this today. We look forward to working with people from all over the country. But this has to be a major element of reform. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in remembering the amazing life of Senator Edward Kennedy, a man beloved in the Senate and beloved in America. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Vicki, his children, and his whole family. Like so many others, I consider myself lucky to have worked with him. He was more than a colleague, he was a mentor and a friend. I remember that he used to send me a message, ``The lantern is lit,'' when we would have late night votes. It was his way of beckoning me and a small group of Senators--Senator Schumer, Senator Cantwell and maybe one or two others--to his office in the Capitol where he would regale us with stories as only an Irishman would. Ted Kennedy's wit and stories, his passion for a cause and his country and his love for the Senate made me want to go to work every day. He never gave up and he had a fiery zest for the legislative battles that was always tempered by a bipartisan pragmatism. I remember last year when we were working on the Medicare improvements bill, which was absolutely critical to Medicare recipients across the country. Seniors were counting on us to pass this bill, but we were just one vote short of the 60 we needed. But Harry Reid knew how to find that last vote. The afternoon of the vote, the doors of the Senate swung open and in walked Senator Kennedy. I will always remember watching him walk onto the Senate floor with then-Senator Obama and his son Patrick on either side of him. Every single Senator had made their way to the floor, and the gallery was full. Applause erupted as he walked out, even though it is against the Senate rules. Each of us gave him a tearful hug and kiss as he made his way to cast his vote. His very presence seemed to open the floodgates. Suddenly, a bill that was about to fail by one vote passed by nine as Republicans who had spent weeks blocking the bill suddenly switched their votes after Senator Kennedy. His presence was so persuasive that day because his colleagues knew these were issues he believed in deeply, and had spent his life fighting for. He never gave up on the good fight. Ted Kennedy, with his booming voice, gave a voice to the voiceless and stood up for those who had no one standing with them. As he said, ``We are all part of the American family and we have a responsibility to help members of that family when they are in need.'' Ted Kennedy did more than just speak these words, he lived them. Day in and day out on the Senate floor, he fought for justice and equality and opportunity for all Americans. I will give you just one example, after we tragically lost our friend and colleague Paul Wellstone, Senator Kennedy picked up his torch and helped get the Mental Health Parity Act through the Senate. His many achievements will be etched in the history books and his legacy will live on in the hundreds of laws that bear his name. But Ted Kennedy will be remembered for more than just his legislation, he will remembered for his heart and his humor and his zest for life. On a snowy winter day in Washington, DC, one year, one of my friends took his family to go to sledding and who should he see? Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd across the way, sledding down by the National Cathedral. This is the Ted Kennedy I will remember, a man who made the most of life, a man who loved his friends and his family and a man who worked each and every day to make this country stronger. While he will no longer walk onto the Senate floor, he will remain with us through the lessons he taught us and the memories he blessed us with. Today, let us honor his life by picking up his torch and continuing to fight the good fights, while also respecting those on the other side of us. Let us fulfill his dream of ``an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity.'' Ted Kennedy loved this country and was willing to work with anyone and find common ground in order to open the doors of opportunity for all Americans. He carried the weight of history on his shoulders, but rose up to become the lion of the Senate and one of the greatest legislators in the our country's history. Although he is no longer with us, he will continue to inspire us.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today, we mourn the loss of Officer Richard Crittenden, a true hero who gave his life in the line of duty. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, his son and stepdaughter, his grandchildren, the North St. Paul Police Department and the entire community during this difficult time. On Monday, September 7, 2009, Officer Crittenden was shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance. On that day, he made the ultimate sacrifice in order to protect a citizen in danger. Officer Crittenden was a dedicated officer who served the North St. Paul Police Department for 9 years. He is fondly remembered by those in the community as a ``great cop.'' I join my House colleague, U.S. Representative Betty McCollum, in saying that we are forever grateful for his service and bravery. As we mourn his loss, let us also pay tribute to all the law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day to protect our lives. As a former prosecutor, I gained an unending respect for all members of the law enforcement community. They serve on the frontlines every day to protect public safety and our communities. Let us never forget their service and their courage.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Cass Sunstein and his qualifications to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I thank Senator Lieberman for his leadership. I am going to try not to say the word ``OIRA'' in my remarks because it is a very difficult agency, and no one is quite sure what it does. But I can tell you it does something very important, which is to cut through the redtape for citizens and to try to get some sensible rules for this country. How do I know Cass Sunstein? Back in the 1980s I was privileged to have him as my law professor at the University of Chicago. I took his administrative law class, and he was also my adviser on the law review. His career as a legal scholar was just beginning to take off, but he was already making a very strong impression as a teacher. I think many of my fellow classmates believed he was, in fact, their favorite teacher. When we first saw Cass Sunstein in class, he looked like a boy in a man's suit. He was so thin but with such enthusiasm. These were the days before white boards, and he would always get a lot of white chalk on his black suits, which he seemed oblivious to, but he was far from an absent-minded professor. He would race along a mile a minute in his lecture, a fountain with a never-ending stream of ideas. He was never boring, which is a tough standard for law students. Today Professor Sunstein is one of the Nation's most thoughtful and respected legal scholars with a distinguished record of accomplishments. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, a professor at the University of Chicago for 27 years, the author and coauthor of more than 15 books and hundreds of scholarly articles. By a large margin, Cass Sunstein is the most cited scholar on any law faculty in the United States of America. One envious observer said: If you look at what he's written and done, he should be 900 years old. What are the concerns of his academic work? The overriding concern is we have smart, science-based, cost-effective policies to protect public health and safety, to promote energy security, and to strengthen our economy and financial system. In a recent book Professor Sunstein coauthored called ``Nudge,'' he wrote that by knowing how people think, we can design rules and policies that make it easier for Americans to choose what is best for themselves and their families. In other words, Cass Sunstein believes the best types of rules and regulations are the ones that encourage American consumers and businesses to make good decisions without demanding that they do so. I thought a lot about his work when Congress debated the first-time home buyers tax credit which helped spur home sales after months of decline again. Again, if you shape policies and programs that are easy to understand, that provide incentives, that give Americans control over their fate, you get the right results. That is why it is so important we confirm Cass Sunstein to this critical post. His pragmatic, sensible approach to policy and regulation will help make our Federal agencies work smarter and ensure that our government works better for our citizens and for our businesses. It is no surprise to me, as Senator Lieberman just discussed, the kind of support that Cass Sunstein has gathered. The Wall Street Journal editorial board has been positive about his nomination. You have heard the support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, 13 Nobel Prize winners, and C. Boyden Gray, who served as White House Counsel under both Presidents Bush. While all these individuals and organizations are supportive, what they say about Cass Sunstein is what I have always known about him. He is a pragmatist. He cares about ideas, but ultimately he cares about the right results. I have heard time and time again from the people in my State office about the redtape and regulations citizens run into on an everyday basis with the U.S. Government. It is time to put someone in this job who actually sees that connection, is able to connect human behavior with what those rules are, and make those rules make some sense. He has the intellect, the ability, and the force to get this done, and I am proud to support his nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. As Senator Dorgan was discussing, it seems to me that the people don't always think about the ripple effect. I know Nevada has suffered because of some of the economic downturn with tourism. Could the Senator talk a little bit about what he has seen in terms of other businesses that have lost business when we don't promote tourism the way we are supposed to? I think that is something people don't think about. They think about the big airlines, the big hotels, but they don't think about the ripple effect on some of the other jobs that matter.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, as the Senator from Nevada was discussing, all of us were home in the last month. I heard a lot about health care and I know we will be having an extensive debate and doing some very important work in this area. I heard a lot about the economy. Well, this bill is about an industry that one out of every eight Americans is employed in--one out of every eight Americans. And if there is something we know we can do, which we know we can do in this bill to help promote more jobs in this country without costing taxpayers any money, this is the time to do it. I first thank Senator Dorgan from North Dakota for his tireless work for years on this bill. I was listening as Senator Ensign went through all of the wonders of Nevada. And we all know there is some great tourism there. But he failed to mention Teddy Roosevelt Park in North Dakota, a place I have been visited myself. And, of course, I hope many people have come to the Mall of America in Minnesota as well as a lot of our beautiful forests and lakes. Every State has something to be proud of when it comes to travel. Today we have the opportunity to help this industry with the Travel Promotion Act. We should not let it go to waste. As was mentioned, I am the Chair of the Commerce Subcommittee that deals with tourism. But I also come from a State that values common sense. And supporting legislation that will create jobs, generate spending, and reduce the deficit, all at no cost to the taxpayer, is the definition of common sense. Look at the numbers. This bill is expected to bring in 1.6 million new international visitors each year--1.6 million. And you know how much they spend? They spend $4,500, on average, when they come here. You can do the math: some 1.6 million new visitors times $4,500 every single year in this country. In fact, some economists expect the bill to generate $4 billion in new spending and $321 million in new Federal tax revenue. It is estimated to create 40,000 new jobs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will reduce the budget deficit by $425 million over the next 10 years. Remember those numbers: $4,500 per person for every new visitor; 1.6 million new people every year coming to our country; $4 billion in new spending, 40,000 new jobs. Costs to the taxpayer: zero. During these tough economic times, how could we not pass this bill right now when we know it would do so much good? This past summer I visited, along with my family, many areas in our State and we did tourism hearings and various events around this bill. In Northern Minnesota, I will be honest, at first I thought: Well, they want tourism, it is a big industry in our State, but do they care about this bill. That is when I found out that they do care about this bill. Because so many visitors traditionally have come down from Canada. And some of the barriers in getting the visas processed, and the barriers at the border have affected tourism up in northern Minnesota, in places such as Grand Marais and International Falls, and Bemidji, and the Brainerd Lakes area, home of the statue of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox. Minnesota shares this border with Canada. I was very surprised at how much interest there was in getting this bill passed. They understand that we want to promote our country internationally, like other countries which Senator Dorgan and Senator Ensign have pointed out have done for so long. But they also want to make it easier to process these visas. As you know, this problem started way before the economy started having trouble. It occurred after 9/11 where, for very good reasons, there were some tighter visa requirements put in place. The problem is, we have gotten so behind that a lot of people who are living in, say, France think: Well, am I going to go to America where it is maybe going to take months to process my visa? Maybe I will go over to England or maybe I will go to Japan. And so we need to speed up that process. We know that tourism creates good jobs that cannot be outsourced. It increases sales for local businesses and it brings in tax revenue for local and State economies. One of my favorite examples is Duluth. It is not Las Vegas but listen to this story. Duluth is a port city that was hit hard by recessions of the 1970s and the early 1980s. My dad is from northern Minnesota. We would go up there a lot. I could see how much that community was hurting during that time. At one point it was so bad that they put a famous billboard on the edge of town that said: Will the last one out please turn off the lights. Well, the lights are still on in Duluth; they are as bright as ever. A lot has to do with the promotion of tourism. The city has transformed itself on the beautiful shores of Lake Superior into a popular tourist destination, welcoming nearly 4 million visitors each year with an annual economic impact of over $700 million. We know that the tourism industry is feeling the effects of the economic downturn. On top of that, as I mentioned, the United States has seen its decline in the tourism industry in the past decade. As we see here, the U.S. share of the world travel market has decreased by nearly 20 percent, costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue. When a traveler decides to go somewhere else besides the United States, there is a ripple effect throughout our economy. You think about the hotels, of course; you think about the airlines. But you know who else you should be thinking about? You should be thinking about that person who is working making beds in the hotel or the waitress who is working in the restaurant where people would stop by on their drive or you think about the florist who is getting those flowers ready for the business conference. These are all jobs, those are all jobs in this economy. Last year nearly 200,000 travel-related jobs were lost, and the Commerce Department predicts that we will lose another 247,000 jobs this year. We can do something about this. We can bring in more travelers, we can create more jobs, and we can boost our economy. That is why we need to pass the Travel Promotion Act. First, this bill will create the Corporation for Travel Promotion, a public-private partnership to promote the United States as an international travel destination, and finally establish a coordinated national tourism program. Senator Dorgan has some amazing blowups of some of the work that you have seen in other countries. Just look. Indonesia has its own tourism program. The Bahamas entice people to go there; Scotland, Taiwan, South Korea; Australia with their kangaroo. What do we have right now? Nothing. Individual cities are going out there, places such as New York, places such as Las Vegas. It is not so easy for some small resorts in Minnesota or North Dakota or Vermont or New Hampshire to do that. But this is the chance where we can actually promote our country internationally. And we are in major competition for international travel, but we are not competing. In 2005, Greece spent more than $150 million on travel promotion; France spent $63 million. That is what we are up against. It is time for the United States to catch up to the rest of the world. It is time for us to play on an even playing field. Second, the bill will establish the Office of Travel Promotion in the Department of Commerce to work with the Corporation for Travel Promotion and the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to make sure that international visitors are processed efficiently. It is time to cut through the redtape so we can get the people who are going to these countries to come to our country. We have always been a country that has opened our arms to people who want to come and visit. We have been proud of that, because we know that it does not only have an economic benefit, it has also a diplomatic benefit. People who visit the United States are 74 percent more likely to have a favorable opinion of our country than those who have not visited. As we enter a new era in our international relations, travel can play an important role in building bridges between Americans and people from across the globe. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, this legislation will not cost taxpayers a dime. I say to Senator Dorgan, it is a very good way to begin this session, to begin it by looking at something that is paid for by combination of private sector contributions and a small fee on international travelers, non-U.S. taxpayers, who are entering the United States. This is commonsense legislation. When you think about the positive ripple effect that will happen as more international visitors visit our country, it will increase sales for businesses ranging from airlines to hotels, to those little flower shops. It will increase revenues in our local economy, and it will increase jobs. The United States is home to some of the world's wonders. And the Travel Promotion Act will give us the tools we need to promote the United States as a premiere travel destination. As Chair of the Commerce Subcommittee that includes tourism, I have seen how important tourism is to communities, both small and large across our country. We have the opportunity to boost travel and boost our economy. We cannot let that go to waste. I am glad we are debating this bill today. I am looking forward to this vote and the days that we have here to focus on this. But I urge my colleagues to support this. They have been home. They know people are crying out for jobs. They know this is something at no cost to the taxpayers, bipartisan support, which will help to get us there. Let's get this done. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I wish to first thank the Senator from Washington for her excellent remarks on Judge Sotomayor. During this hour, we have heard from several of my colleagues, all strongly supporting Judge Sotomayor. I have talked about, first of all, her growing up and her difficult circumstances. I spoke about her work as a prosecutor and the support she has received from her prosecutorial colleagues. I have talked about her work as a judge and read extensively from a letter from Louis Freeh, the former Director of the FBI and former Federal judge, about her work as a judge. Now, in the final part of my talk, I wish to address some of the other issues that have been raised with respect to Judge Sotomayor. I have to say, I woke up this morning to the radio on my clock radio and heard one of my colleagues who decided he was not going to support her, in his words, because of the ``empathy standard.'' I kind of put the pillow over my head. I thought: He must not have been sitting in the hearing because she was specifically asked by one of the other Senators about how she views the cases. They specifically asked her if she agreed with President Obama when he said: You should use your heart as well as the law. She said: Actually, I do not agree with that. I look at the law and I look at the facts. So people can say all kinds of things about her, if they would like, but I suggest they look at her record. My colleagues in the Senate are entitled to oppose her nomination, if they wish; that is their prerogative. But I am concerned some people keep returning again and again to some quotes in the speeches, a quote she actually said, a phrase, that she did not mean to offend anyone and she should have put it differently. When have you 17 years of a record as a judge, what is more important--those 17 years of the record of a judge or one phrase which she basically said was not the words she meant to use. What is more important? In the words of Senator Moynihan: You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. So let's look at the facts of her judicial record. This nominee was repeatedly questioned, and I sat there through nearly all of it. She was questioned for hours and days about whether she would let bias or prejudice infect her judgment. But, again, the facts do not support these claims. In race discrimination cases, for example, Judge Sotomayor voted against plaintiffs 81 percent of the time. She also handed out longer jail sentences than her colleagues as a district court judge. She sentenced white-collar criminals to at least 6 months in prison 48 percent of the time; whereas, her other colleagues did so only 34 percent of the time. In drug cases, 85.5 percent of convicted drug offenders received a prison sentence of at least 6 months from Judge Sotomayor, compared with only 79 percent in her colleagues' cases. A few weeks ago, I was in the Minneapolis airport and a guy came up to me, he was wearing an orange vest. He said: Are you going to vote for that woman? At first, I did not know what he was talking about. I said: What do you mean? He said: That judge. I said: Actually, I want to meet her first. This is before I had met her. I said: I want to ask her some questions before I make a decision. He said: Oh, I do not know how you are going to do that because she always lets her feelings get in front of the law. This guy needs to hear these statistics. He needs to hear the statistics Senator Gillibrand was talking about, the statistics that when she had served on the bench with a Republican colleague, 95 percent of the time they made the same decision on a case. So then I guess you must believe that these same Republican-appointed judges are letting their feelings get in front of the law if you take that logic to its extreme. So 95 percent of the time she sided with her Republican-appointed judge colleagues. During her hearing, Judge Sotomayor was questioned about issues ranging from the death penalty to her use of foreign law. That was repeatedly mentioned that she might use foreign law to decide a death penalty case. What do we have as the facts? What do we have as evidence? There was one case she decided when the death penalty came before her, and she rejected the claim of someone who wanted to say the death penalty would not apply when she was a district court judge. She never cited foreign law. There was no mention of France or any kind of law anywhere in that decision. Those are the facts in her judicial record. In no place has she ever cited foreign law to help her interpret a provision of the U.S. Constitution. I believe that everything in a nominee's professional record is fair game to consider. After all, we are obligated to determine whether to confirm someone for an incredibly important lifetime position. That is our constitutional duty and I take it seriously. But that said, when people focus on a few items in a few speeches that Judge Sotomayor has given, phrases which she has basically said she would have said differently if she had another opportunity, you have to ask yourself again: Do those statements--are they outweighed by the record? Are they outweighed by the facts? Check out all these endorsements of people who have actually looked at her record, have looked at how she has come out on decisions. You have an endorsement from the National District Attorneys Association supporting her; you have the support from the Police Executive Research Forum; you have support from the National Fraternal Order of Police, not exactly a raging liberal organization; you have the support of the National Sheriffs Association. Again, these are the facts. These are the facts my colleagues should be looking at. You have the support from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. You have the support of the Major Cities Chiefs Association; she has the support of the National Association of Police Organizations; she has the support of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; we have letters supporting her from the Detectives Endowment Association; from the National Black Prosecutors Association; from the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. The list goes on and on and on. Those are the facts: Unanimous top rating from the ABA, the American Bar Association. Those are the facts. I believe, if we want to know what kind of a Justice Sonia Sotomayor will be, our best evidence is to look at the kind of judge she has been. I wish to address one more matter that I mentioned at the Judiciary hearing, when we voted for Judge Sotomayor, and that has been a point that irritated me. There have been some stories and comments, mostly anonymous, about Judge Sotomayor's judicial temperament. According to one newspaper story about this topic, Judge Sotomayor developed a reputation for asking tough questions at oral arguments and for being sometimes brisk and curt with lawyers who were not prepared to answer them. Well, where I come from, asking tough questions, having very little patience for unprepared lawyers is the very definition of being a judge. As a lawyer, you owe it to the bench and to your clients to be as well prepared as you possibly can be. When Justice Ginsburg was asked about these anonymous comments regarding Judge Sotomayor's temperament recently, she rhetorically asked: Has anybody watched Scalia or Breyer on the bench? Surely, we have come to a time in this country when we can confirm as many to-the-point, gruff female judges as we have confirmed to-the- point, gruff male judges. We have come a long way, as you can see from my colleagues who came here during the last hour. We know that when Sandra Day O'Connor graduated from law school 50- plus years ago, the only offer she got was from a law firm for a position as a legal secretary. Justice Ginsburg faced similar obstacles. We have come a long way. But I hope my colleagues in this case will also come a long way and look at the record and look at the facts. As I have said, people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. In short, I am proud to support Judge Sotomayor's nomination. I believe she will make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. She knows the law, she knows the Constitution, but she knows America too. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for her fine remarks. As she was talking, I was realizing she is a pioneer of sorts, being the first woman Senator from New York who took over as Senator having two very small children. I have seen them and they are small--babies--and she has been able to manage and do a fine job in her role of Senator while being a pioneer as a mother at the same time in the State of New York. With that, it is a good segue to introduce my colleague from the State of Washington, Patty Murray, one of the first women to serve in the Senate. I love her story because when Patty started running for office she was working on some school issues and she went to the legislature. One of the elected legislators actually said to her: How do you think you are ever going to get this done? You are nothing but a mom in tennis shoes. She went on to wear those tennis shoes and wear them right to the floor of the Senate. I am proud to introduce to speak on behalf of Judge Sotomayor my colleague from the State of Washington, Patty Murray.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for her strong words in favor of this very strong nominee. I was talking earlier about the experience that Judge Sotomayor brings to the bench as a prosecutor. For me, it means she meets one of my criteria for a nominee because I am looking for someone who deeply appreciates the power and the impact that laws and the criminal justice system have on real people's lives. From her first day in the Manhattan DA's office, Judge Sotomayor talked about and understood how it was important to view the law as about people and not just the law. But when you talk about people, it means you have to look at their cases, it means you have to look at the law, and you have to look at the facts. One of the things we learned in the hearings was that sometimes Judge Sotomayor had to make very difficult decisions. When she was a prosecutor, she had to turn down some cases. Although she was, by all accounts, more aggressive than other prosecutors and took on cases many wouldn't, when she was a judge she sometimes had to turn down cases, turn away victims, as in the case involving the crash of the TWA flight. She actually disagreed with a number of other judges and said as much as she found the victims' families and their case to be incredibly sympathetic, the law took her somewhere else; that the facts and the law meant something else. You could see that in a number of her cases, which is part of the reason people who have looked at her record don't think of her as a judicial activist. They think of her as a judicial model--someone who, in her own words, has a fidelity to the law. What are we looking for in a Supreme Court Justice? Well, I think actually one of Sonia Sotomayor's old bosses, Robert Morgenthau, said it best. He came and testified on her behalf, and he quoted himself from many years ago when speaking about what he was looking for when he tried to find prosecutors for his office. He said: We want people with good judgment, because a lot of the job of a prosecutor is making decisions. I also want to see some signs of humility in anybody that I hire. We're giving young lawyers a lot of power, and we want to make sure that they're going to use that power with good sense and without arrogance. These are among the very same qualities I look for in a Supreme Court Justice. I, too, am looking for a person with good judgment, someone with intellectual curiosity and independence but who also understands that her decisions affect the people before her. With that, I think comes a second essential quality--the quality of humility. I am looking for a Justice who appreciates the awesome responsibility they will be given if confirmed, a Justice who understands the gravity of the office and who respects the very different roles the Constitution provides for each of the three branches of government--something Judge Sotomayor was questioned on extensively in the hearing and made very clear she respects those three different roles for the three different branches of government. Finally, a good prosecutor knows their job is to enforce the law without fear or favor. Likewise, a Supreme Court Justice must interpret the laws without fear or favor. I am convinced that Judge Sotomayor meets all of these criteria. She has been a judge for 17 years, 11 years as an appellate judge and 6 years as a trial judge. President George H.W. Bush gave her the first job she had as a Federal judge in the Southern District of New York. Her nomination to the Southern District was enthusiastically supported by both New York Senators--Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Senator Alfonse D'Amato. So she was first nominated by George H.W. Bush, supported by a Republican Senator, and as Senator Shaheen noted, confirmed unanimously by this Senate. Judge Sotomayor, as I noted before, has more Federal judicial experience than any nominee in the past 100 years. I think the best way to tell what kind of a Justice she will be is to look at what kind of a judge she has been. One person who knows a little something about Sonia Sotomayor as a judge is Louie Freeh, the former Director of the FBI, who served as a judge with her before he was the Director of the FBI. He actually came--again, a Republican appointee--and testified for her at her hearing. He didn't just testify based on a review of her record, he testified based on his own personal experience. He was actually her mentor when she arrived as a new judge. I want to read from the letter he submitted to the Judiciary Committee. Louis Freeh writes: It is with tremendous pride in a former colleague that I write to recommend wholeheartedly that you confirm Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor has the extensive experience and the judicial qualities that make her eminently qualified for this ultimate honor and I look forward to watching her take her place on the Nation's highest court. Freeh goes on to say: I first met Judge Sotomayor in 1992 when she was appointed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As the newest judge in the storied Courthouse at Foley Square in lower Manhattan, we followed the tradition of having the newly-minted judge mentored by the last arriving member of the bench. Despite the questionable wisdom of this practice, I had the privilege of serving as Judge Sotomayor's point of contact for orientation and to help her get underway as she took on a full, complex civil and criminal case docket. Into this very pressurized and unforgiving environment, where a new judge's every word, decision, writing and question is scrutinized and critiqued by one of the harshest, professional audiences imaginable, Judge Sotomayor quickly distinguished herself as a highly competent judge who was open-minded, well-prepared, properly demanding of the lawyers who came before her, fair, honest, diligent in following the law, and with that rare and invaluable combination of legal intellect and ``street smarts.'' Louis Freeh, a Republican-appointed judge, goes on to say: To me, there is no better measure by which to evaluate a judge than the standards of the former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota-- Mr. President, I like this part-- --and nationally renowned American jurist, Edward J. Devitt. A former Member of Congress and World War II Navy hero, Judge Devitt was appointed to the federal bench by President Eisenhower and became one of the country's leading trial judges and teacher of judges. A standard Jury Instruction textbook (Devitt and Blackmun) as well as the profession's most coveted award recognizing outstanding judges, the Devitt Award, bears his name. I recently had the honor of participating in the dedication of a courtroom named for Judge Devitt. The judges and lawyers who spoke in tribute to Judge Devitt very ably and insightfully described the critical characteristics which define and predict great judges. But rather than discuss Judge Devitt's many decisions, particular rulings or the ``sound bite'' analyses which could have been parsed from the thousands of complex and fact specific cases which crossed his docket, they focused on those ultimately more profound and priceless judicial qualities. He goes on to talk about those qualities of a good judge. 1. Judging takes more than mere intelligence; 2. Always take the bench prepared. . . . 3. Call them as you see them. He then goes on to say: Sonia Sotomayor would have gotten an ``A plus'' from the ``Judge from Central Casting,'' as Judge Devitt was often called by his peers. I think that says it all. You have Louis Freeh here testifying in behalf of Judge Sotomayor. As I read earlier, you have dozens of her former colleagues, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, writing about what kind of prosecutor she was. Every step of the way she impressed people. I see we are now being joined by the Senator from New York, my distinguished colleague, who also will be speaking in favor of Judge Sotomayor. Senator Gillibrand had the distinguished honor to introduce Judge Sotomayor when she so eloquently spoke at the hearing. I am very honored to have her join us here today. I will turn this over to Senator Gillibrand.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I thank him for those strong remarks on behalf of Judge Sotomayor, strong remarks for a very strong nominee. More importantly, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I thank Senator Leahy, and Senator Sessions, for the way they conducted the confirmation hearing, the dignity that was shown to the nominee in that hearing. I think that was very important to the process. We may not have agreed with the conclusions that some of our colleagues reached, but no one can dispute the hearing was conducted civilly and with great dignity. This is a nominee who shows great dignity every step of the way. Today I will be speaking in support of Judge Sotomayor's nomination, but first I am going to be joined by several of my esteemed fellow women Senators, including Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire, who is here already, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Gillibrand of New York, and Senator Murray of Washington State. We all know this nomination is history making for several reasons but one of them, of course, is that Judge Sotomayor will be only the third woman ever to join the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We know she is incredibly well qualified. She has more Federal judicial experience than any nominee for the past 100 years. That is something that is remarkable. But I do think it is worth remembering what it was like to be a nominee for this Court as a woman even just a few years ago. It is worth remembering, for example, that when Justice O'Connor graduated from law school, the only offers she got from law firms, after graduating from Stanford Law School, was for legal secretary positions. Justice O'Connor, who graduated third in her class in law school, saw her accomplishments reduced to one question: Can she type? Justice Ginsburg faced similar obstacles. When she entered Harvard Law School, she was 1 of only 9 women in a class of more than 500. The dean of the law school actually demanded she justify why she deserved a seat that could have gone to a man. Later, she was passed over for a prestigious clerkship, despite her impressive credentials. Nonetheless, both of these women persevered and they certainly prevailed. Their undeniable merits triumphed over those who sought to deny them opportunity. The women who came before Judge Sotomayor--all those women judges--helped blaze a trail. Although Judge Sotomayor's record stands on her own, she is also standing on those women's shoulders. I am pleased to recognize several women Senators who are here today to speak in support of Judge Sotomayor. The first is my great colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, having looked at Judge Sotomayor's whole record, as Senator Shaheen has pointed out, her 17 years on the bench and the fairness and integrity she will bring to the job, I am proud to support her nomination. When Judge Sotomayor's nomination was first announced, I was impressed by her life story, as was everyone else, which all of us know well by now. She grew up, in her own words, ``in modest and challenging circumstances,'' and she worked hard for everything she got. Her dad died when she was 9 years old, and her mom supported her and her brother. One of my favorite images, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, from the hearing was her mother sitting behind her every moment of that hearing, never leaving her side, the mother who raised her on a nurse's salary, who saved every penny she had to buy an Encyclopedia Britannica for her family. That struck me because I know in our family we also had a set of Encyclopedia Britannica that had a hallowed place in our hallway, and that is what I used to write all my reports. Judge Sotomayor went on to graduate from Princeton summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa before graduating from Yale Law School. Since law school, she has had a varied and interesting legal career. She has worked as a private civil litigator, she has been a district court and an appellate court judge, and she has taught law school classes. But one experience of hers, in particular, resonates with me. Immediately after graduating from law school, she spent 5 years as a prosecutor at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. I want to talk a little about that because it is something she and I have in common. I was a prosecutor myself, Mr. President. You know what that is like, to have that duty. I was a prosecutor for Minnesota's largest county. As a prosecutor, after you have interacted with victims of crime, after you have seen the damage that crime does to individuals and to our communities, after you have seen defendants who are going to prison and you know their families are losing them, sometimes forever, you know the law is not just an abstract subject. It is not just a dusty book in the basement. The law has a real impact on the real lives of real people. It also has a big impact on the individual prosecutor. No matter how many years may pass, you never forget some of the very difficult cases. For Judge Sotomayor, we know this includes the case of the serial burglar turned killer--the Tarzan murderer. For me, there was always the case of Tyesha Edwards, an 11-year-old girl with an unforgettable smile, who was at home doing her homework when a stray bullet from a gang shooting went through the window and killed her. As a prosecutor, you don't have to just know the law, you have to know the people, the families, and you have to know human nature. Judge Sotomayor's former supervisor said she is ``an imposing and commanding figure in the courtroom, who could weave together a complex set of facts, enforce the law, and never lose sight of whom she was fighting for.'' As her old boss, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said: She is a ``fearless and effective'' prosecutor. Mr. President, before I turn this over to my colleague, the Senator from Michigan, who has just arrived, I thought it would be interesting for people to hear a little more about Judge Sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor, so you can hear firsthand from her own colleagues. This was a letter that was sent in from dozens of her colleagues who actually worked with her when she was a prosecutor. They were not her bosses necessarily but her colleagues who worked with her. This is what they said in the letter. We served together during some of the most difficult years in our city's history. Crime was soaring, a general sense of disorder prevailed in the streets, and the popular attitude was increasing violence was inevitable. Sonia Sotomayor began as a ``rookie'' in 1979, working long hours prosecuting an enormous caseload of misdemeanors before judges managing overwhelming dockets. Sonia so distinguished herself in this challenging assignment, that she was among the very first in her starting class to be selected to handle felonies. She prosecuted a wide variety of felony cases, including serving as co-counsel at a notorious murder trial. She developed a specialty in the investigation and prosecution of child pornography cases. Throughout all of this, she impressed us as one who was singularly determined in fighting crime and violence. For Sonia, service as a prosecutor was a way to bring order to the streets of a city she dearly loves. Her colleagues go on in this letter: We are proud to have served with Sonia Sotomayor. She solemnly adheres to the rule of law and believes that it should be applied equally and fairly to all Americans. As a group, we have different world views and political affiliations, but our support for Sonia is entirely nonpartisan. And the fact that so many of us have remained friends with Sonia over three decades speaks well, we think, of her warmth and collegiality. Mr. President, I see that my colleague from Michigan has arrived. I will continue my statement when she has completed hers, but I am proud to have Senator Stabenow, the Senator from Michigan, here to speak on behalf of Judge Sotomayor, and I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I seek to clarify with the chairman an effort across two States to address the growing issue of bovine tuberculosis. I have asked the subcommittee to provide funds for a joint effort between the University of Minnesota and Michigan State University in support of research to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis and ultimately eradicate the disease from cattle, deer, and other wildlife. My colleagues from Michigan and I understand the negative economic impacts bovine tuberculosis impose on our States' agricultural industries. In fact, agriculture is the second largest industry in both States, and this research is key to protecting our economies. However, it is my understanding that this research effort may have been mistakenly associated with Michigan's ongoing eradication efforts.