[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 170 (Tuesday, November 17, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11422-S11424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, as I address this Chamber today, there is 
a broad consensus across the country that our health care system is 
broken. It simply doesn't work for Americans anymore. Everyone agrees 
that we need real comprehensive health care reform. In order to 
accomplish this, I believe we must include a strong public option to 
restore competition, cost savings, and accountability to the health 
care insurance industry. In fact, I have stated before that I will not 
vote for any reform measure that fails to include a strong public 
option.
  A few of my colleagues are still not convinced. Some have honest 
questions. But there are others who are not interested in winning this 
argument on the merits. A few of my colleagues across the aisle are 
trying to stop this Congress from passing any health care reform at 
all. Some of my distinguished Republican friends have said our 
proposals are simply too expensive. They say a trillion dollars is too 
high a price to pay for a better health care system.
  I beg to differ. We already pay far too much for health care. Our 
reform bill would reduce costs over the long term. It would allow 
consumers to hold insurance companies accountable for the first time in 
many years. It would restore real competition to markets that are 
currently monopolized by a few big corporations. It would accomplish 
all of that without adding to the budget deficit. Yet my colleagues 
continue to insist that health care reform would be too expensive. 
Despite the number of Americans suffering under our broken system, they 
want to talk about fiscal responsibility instead of health care reform. 
My Republican friends have simply lost their credibility when it comes 
to this issue. They say they would not support reform that will save 
lives and improve health outcomes for millions because it costs too 
much. Yet under a Republican President, they were willing to write 
bigger and bigger checks to benefit the wealthy.
  In 2001, when President Bush asked Congress to pass tax cuts that 
mostly helped the super rich, the total cost came to $1.35 trillion 
over 10 years. That is more than $300 billion more than our health care 
reform bill, and it provided significant benefits to far fewer 
Americans.

  More than half of the current Republican caucus was serving in the 
Senate at the time of this vote. Did they try to block the bill? Did 
they stand up and say: $1.3 trillion for the super rich--that is 
wasteful, irresponsible, and far too costly? No, they did not.
  When President Bush called, they answered. My Republican friends 
voted in favor of this massive spending program, even though it added 
more than $1 trillion to the deficit.
  Many of the same people now want to put the brakes on a deficit-
neutral health care reform bill designed to help millions of ordinary 
Americans.
  Later in 2003, just as this country began to spend hundreds of 
billions of dollars to conduct two wars, President Bush asked for yet 
another tax cut. This tax cut also benefited the richest of the rich 
and added $330 billion more to the deficit.
  But did my distinguished Republican colleagues urge fiscal 
responsibility? Did they demand that the President explain how he would 
finance the wars or balance the budget before they voted on another 
massive tax cut? No, they did not. Their vocal support for fiscal 
responsibility was nowhere to be found. Once again, they voted 
overwhelmingly for the second round of tax cuts.
  Yet as I address this Chamber today, a few of the same Senators are 
doing everything they can to stop us from passing health care reform.
  I would urge the American people to consult the record for 
themselves. The same voices that now oppose extending health care 
coverage actually supported spending significantly more money to pad 
the bank accounts of the richest people in this country.
  It is the same story for expensive programs such as Medicare Part D. 
More than half of the Republicans still in the Senate voted for $400 
billion of new spending back in 2003. Almost all of these distinguished 
Senators voted time and again to fund the ongoing wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, which have cost the American taxpayers more than $1 
trillion and far too many American lives.
  I do not mean to suggest every single one of these spending programs 
was a bad idea. But I would like to point out that when my Republican 
colleagues talk about ``fiscal responsibility,'' they are talking about 
an issue on which they have lost their credibility. They recklessly 
added trillions of dollars to the deficit under a Republican President, 
but today they oppose health care reform even though it will be paid 
for by cost offsets. Their actions simply do not match their words. 
They are placing cynical politics ahead of good policy.
  So I have a question for my Republican friends who have been Members

[[Page S11423]]

of this Senate since 2001: If they supported almost $2 trillion of 
deficit spending for tax relief for the rich, then, I ask them, exactly 
how much are we allowed to spend for health care that will benefit 
millions of people across this country?
  Mr. President, 45,000 Americans die every single year because they do 
not have insurance and cannot get the quality care they need. Without 
competition in the industry, insurance companies have raised premiums, 
denied benefits, and refused coverage to millions. So I ask my 
colleagues: How much is too much for this Congress to spend to save 
these lives?
  My colleagues like to talk about responsibility, so I put it to them 
that the only responsible course of action is to pass this health care 
bill, and pass it now. That is the reaction we need.
  Unfortunately, there are some in this Chamber who are not interested 
in addressing the issue of health care reform. There are some who do 
not want to have an honest, open debate on the subject. They want to 
kick the can further down the road, as our predecessors have done time 
and time again for the last 100 years.
  That would be the easy answer--to leave it to someone else to solve 
the difficult problem of health care reform after the problem has 
gotten even worse, to settle for the status quo or put a band-aid on a 
gaping wound and hope that future legislators will muster the political 
will that a century of lawmakers has lacked. There are some in this 
body who would settle for this.
  But I believe the American people deserve better. Especially in 
difficult times, they demand better of their representatives in 
Congress. So I say to my colleagues, as great leaders have said to us 
time and time again throughout our history: Let's seize this moment to 
do what is right, not what is easy. Let's summon the will to succeed 
where others have failed.
  It is time to deliver on meaningful health care reform. It is time 
for competition, cost savings, and accountability in the insurance 
industry. It is time to be honest with the American people.
  Friends, colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--this is no time for 
partisan games and empty rhetoric. This is time for action. Millions of 
Americans are counting on us to make health care reform a reality, and 
we must not let them down. I will say that again. We must not let them 
down.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Judge David 
Hamilton to be a Seventh Circuit Appeals Court judge. I have serious 
concerns about this nomination and will be voting not to confirm him.
  During his time as a Federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the 
Southern District of Indiana, Judge Hamilton has issued a number of 
highly controversial rulings and, more importantly, has been reversed 
in some very prominent cases. In my opinion, these decisions strongly 
indicate that Judge Hamilton is an activist judge who will ignore the 
law in favor of his own personal ideology and beliefs.
  For example, in one case, Judge Hamilton succeeded in blocking 
enforcement of an informed consent law for 7 years. In that case, 
called A Woman's Choice v. Newman, Judge Hamilton struck down an 
Indiana law requiring that certain medical information be given to a 
woman in person before an abortion can be performed. The Seventh 
Circuit overruled Judge Hamilton's decision, stating:

       For 7 years, Indiana law has been prevented from enforcing 
     a statute materially identical to a law held valid by the 
     Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the 
     Fifth Circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the country 
     (other than one district judge in Indiana) has held any 
     similar law invalid in the years since Casey . . . Indiana 
     (like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) is entitled to put its law 
     into effect and have that law judged by its own consequences.

  That was the circuit court overturning Judge Hamilton. It seems to me 
that Judge Hamilton went out of his way to make his finding and 
actually block the Indiana law. That is not the proper role of a judge.
  In addition, Judge Hamilton has shown hostility against the 
expression of religion in the public square. In two prominent cases, he 
ruled against public prayer in the State legislature and religious 
displays in public buildings, and in both cases he was reversed. In the 
case of Hinrichs v. Bosma, Judge Hamilton enjoined the speaker of the 
Indiana house of representatives from permitting sectarian prayer. 
Judge Hamilton ruled that the Indiana State legislature was prohibited 
from starting its session with prayers, specifically those that 
expressly mentioned Jesus Christ, but that it would be permissible for 
a prayer to mention Allah. The Seventh Circuit overturned Judge 
Hamilton's decision in Hinrichs, and subsequently the Indiana house 
passed a resolution 85-to-0 opposing Judge Hamilton's ruling.
  Then in Grossbaum v. Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority, 
Judge Hamilton ruled that a county could prohibit the display of a 
menorah in a nonpublic forum. The Seventh Circuit unanimously reversed 
Judge Hamilton, noting that the judge disregarded relevant Supreme 
Court precedent to reach his ruling and that he failed to recognize a 
rabbi's first amendment right to display the menorah as symbolic 
religious speech.
  Judge Hamilton also ignored clear statutory mandate so he could 
impose his own personal beliefs when sentencing criminal defendants. 
Example: In the 2008 case U.S. v. Woolsey, Judge Hamilton disregarded 
an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a life sentence on a 
repeat drug offender. The Seventh Circuit reversed the decision, 
admonishing Judge Hamilton, specifically stating that he was ``not free 
to ignore'' prior conviction because ``statutory penalties for 
recidivism . . . are not optional, even if the court deems them unwise 
or an inappropriate response to repeat drug offenders.''
  In another case, U.S. v. Rinehart, Judge Hamilton used his court 
opinion to request clemency for a police officer who pled guilty to two 
counts of producing child pornography. In this case, the police officer 
had engaged in and videotaped ``consensual'' sex with two teenagers.
  In addition, in writings and speeches, Judge Hamilton has indicated 
that he approves of the concept that judges should make policy from the 
bench. For example, he has embraced President Obama's empathy standard, 
a standard so radical that even the new Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor 
had to rebuke it at her confirmation hearings. In response to written 
questions for his confirmation hearing, Judge Hamilton answered this 
way:

       Federal judges take an oath to administer justice without 
     respect to persons, and to do equal right to the poor and to 
     the rich. Empathy--to be distinguished from sympathy--is 
     important in fulfilling that oath. Empathy is the ability to 
     understand the world from another person's point of view. A 
     judge needs to empathize with all parties in cases--plaintiff 
     and defendant, crime victims and accused defendant--so that 
     the judge can better understand how the parties came to be 
     before the court and how legal rules affect those parties and 
     others in similar situations.

  To empathize with the parties is not the proper role of a judge. 
Rather, the proper role of a judge is to apply the law to the facts in 
an impartial manner, and that is what we refer to as blind justice.
  Further, in a 2003 speech, Judge Hamilton endorsed the idea that the 
role of a judge includes ``writing footnotes to the Constitution'' 
through evolving case law. He said:

       Judge S. Hugh Dillin of this court has said that part of 
     our job here as judges is to write a series of footnotes to 
     the Constitution. We all do that every year in cases large 
     and small.

  Oddly enough, the last time I checked, it was the role of Congress to 
write laws, not the judicial branch. Judge Hamilton's personal bias has 
been noted by lawyers who practice before him. In fact, statements of 
local practitioners in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary described 
Judge Hamilton as ``the most lenient of any judges in the district.'' 
Another quote: ``One of the more liberal judges of the district.'' 
Another quote: ``Goes out of his way to make the defendant 
comfortable.'' Another quote: ``He is your

[[Page S11424]]

best chance for downward departures.'' Lastly, ``in sentencing, he 
tends to be very empathetic to the downtrodden, or to those who commit 
crimes due to poverty.''
  Contrary to how the White House has tried to characterize Judge 
Hamilton, I believe that the record amply demonstrates that Judge 
Hamilton is an activist judge. He has taken radical positions, and a 
number of his rulings indicate that Judge Hamilton will impose his own 
personal beliefs and values in cases. We should not promote an 
individual whose track record clearly demonstrates that he will carry 
out an outside-of-the-mainstream personal agenda on the Federal appeals 
court. For these reasons, I will oppose the nomination of Judge 
Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit. If he was going to serve on a circuit, 
as many times as he has been overruled, it would be more appropriate 
for him to be on the Ninth Circuit, where a lot of those decisions on 
appeal are overturned by the Supreme Court--about 9 times out of 10.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.