i want to especially mention, this is a piece of legislation that -- that senator reid has worked on, but senator ensign is a lead republican cosponsor, senator martinez, senator nelson from florida. we have cosponsors from across the spectrum. why? because this issue of asking people from around the world to come to america, it's not controversial. it can't possibly be partisan. it is certainly job creating. here's what some news participates around the country have said about it. the "sacrament "sacramento be rh -- "the los angeles times" -- considering they have spent mounds of money on nothing to promote tourism, might do well

to express a little money on wooing travelers. >> "doesn't it make sense to encourage that no cost to taxpayers foreign visiters to come here and leave us some of their money? there's no good reason not to pass this bill." the "dallas morning news" -- "travel promotion act is a sensible first step towards putting the welcome mat back on america's doorstep." and the list goes on. now, mr. president, i don't come from hawaii or florida or california. i don't come from what would be considered a tourist mecca. i come from the northern great plains. oh, it's got a lot of tourist destinations there, the badlands in north dakota some of the most beautiful areas in our country. there are so many destinations with such wonder to attract people to our region of the country. it's where lewis and clark and this epic adventure of theirs decided to spend the winter, mind you.

they spent the winter in what is now just an area about 40 miles north of bismarck, north dakota. and we celebrated the 200th bicentennial of the lewis and clark expedition and we had a lot of people come from around the tworld see that. the fact is, every -- the world to see that. the fact, is every state in this country has something that it is anxious to show the twocialtiond say look at us, look at what we're doing here, look at how beautiful this part of america is. and so what has happened is we have been unilaterally disarmed since 9/11 to say, well, we're worried about who's going to come into this country. we certainly want to keep terrorists out. we sure do, absolutely. but that message ought not be mixed with the message that we don't want to encourage foreign travelers to come to this country to vacation and to experience what america is. so at last, at long, long last, a group of us, republicans and democrats, have said, you know, if we disagree on so much, how

about if we agree on tourism? can we agree on promoting trav travel, to say to the english, the italians, the spaniards, the french, the folks from india and thailand and china and elsewhe elsewhere, you're welcome to this country, we want you to come to this country, we want you to see what our country's about, to experience this country is to have a sense of wonder about the greatest democracy, the most significant and longest surviving democracy on earth. and to go home with that understanding of what a great country this is. that's what we want. and even -- even as they come here, and as i indicated, we don't -- by the way, we don't believe that our nearest neighbors, mexico and canada, are irrelevant. we have a lot of people coming from mexico and canada, and god bless them, they are great neighbors. we welcome them. we are told they spend on average about $900 to $1,000 per trip.

the foreign travelers from overseas, by contrast, spend about, $4,500 per trip. it's why this is such an unbelievable job generator. people that come here and spend significant money here and purchase the hotel rooms and the rental cars and go to the tourist attractions and do the things that people who want to experience america routinely do not only create a lot of jobs, boost economic activity but also give us the opportunity to show the rest of the world that this is an extraordinary place and to go home and tell their neighbors they just went to one of the greatest places on earth. so the travel promotion act of 2009. now, my hope is that after having battled some here on so many different issues and having cloture votes on everything and then 30 hours postcloture while we all stand around with our hands in our pockets, shuffling our exphiewz so on, my hope is

that perhaps this is issue, this is the one time, this is the occasion where everybody might say, do you know something, there is something we agree on, that is noncontroversial, that makes sense, that creates jobs, that expands the economy and represents the best of sending american values abroad and that is the travel promotion act. if, perhaps, next week we get to that point, i think the american people will have believed that we've done something good. so i'm really pleased to be the lead sponsor. this is the -- we did this in the last congress, did not get it passed. this congress i believe we will. my comment -- my commendation to the majority leader and thank you for -- thank him for putting this on the agenda. my thanks to senator ensign an and -- and as the lead cosponse other the republican side, but so many -- lead cosponsor on the republican side, but so many other republicans said yes, count us in, this makes sense, we want to be a part of crate creating and expanding jobs and giving people in the rest of the

world to understand we welcome them here. mr. president, i yield the floor. let me ask unanimous consent if i might to ask that ryan douglas and christopher feldon and lisa hone, congressional fellows with the commerce committee, be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of s. 1023. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mrs. clone cher: mr. president, i'm here -- ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i'm here to speak in support of the travel promotion act. i first want to thank the senatosenatordorgan, the senatoh dakota. i have visited the teddy roosevelt park. and i want to thank him for his great leadership on this bill over many years. i also want to thank senator ensign for his leadership. i believe this legislation will help our economy to do better to create jobs without any taxpayer expense. as the chair of the commerce subcommittee that is includes tourism, i recently held a hearing, a well-attended hearing with many senators and people

there to examine the state of our tourism industry during these troubled economic times. i want to thank my ranking republican, senator martinez. we did it together. and i also held a field hearing in duluth, minnesota, to highlight the importance of tourism to mid-sized and smaller towns in the united states. during the hearings, we heard the importance of tourism and travel to our economy and the urgent need to increase international travel to the united states. as you know coming from colorado, the presiding officer, senator udall, america has so much to offer our travelers, whether it is the mountains of colorado, or as senator kaufman is here, the beaches of delawa delaware, whether it's stunning national landmarks like the grand canyon, mount rushmore and the statue of liberty. whether its our oceans, our lakes, our rivers, our mountains, forests and beaches, whether it's the scenic country towns or the bright lights of the big cities. and whether it's centers of fun and entertainment, like las

vegas or disney world or duluth. from the heartland to the coast, every state has an economic stake in the tourism industry, which is now a major part of the american economy. throughout the united states, many communities have discovered and developed economic potential. i keep using the example of duluth because at some point in the 1970's, the economy was so bad there, they actual had a billboard so that when you drove out of town, it said, "the last one to leave, please turn off the lights." well, that billbored isn't there anymore, as -- billbored isn't there anymore, as tourism is a beautiful part of their economy, with beautiful lake superior, beautiful museums and aquarium, children's museum and it's really changed the life of that town. tourism creates good jobs that can't be outsourced. one out of every eight americans is employed in our travel economy. each year, travel and tourism contribute approximately $1.3 trillion to the american economy and international visitors, as senator dorgan just

noted, spend an average of $4,500 per person. in economic terms, international tourism to the u.s. counts as an export. instead of shipping our product to a customer overseas, the customer is coming here to spend money on our goods and our services. last year, travel and tourism experts accounted for 8% of all u.s. exports. 26% of all u.s. service exports. in fact, tourism is one of the few economic sectors where we enjoy a substantial trade surplus. travel is a part of the fab risk our state and our country -- fabric of our state and our country, and over the past decade, we know it's been stretched to the brink. while more people around the world are traveling, a smaller percentage of them are visiting the united states. now, this isn't just about our -- our troubled economy right now. this was going on long before. it actually started after 9/11, where for good reason security measures were put in place. but some of those good reasons have turned into very difficult

times for tourists to come over and that needs to be fixed. that's part of this bill, to make it easier for tourists to visit our country. since 2000, the u.s. share of the world travel market has decreased by nearly 20%, costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue. last year, nearly 200,000 travel-related jobs were lost. the commerce department predicts that we'll lose another 247 jobs this year. remember, this isn't about airport c.e.o.'s. this is about the -- the people that -- the janitors that work at the airports, this is about the maids that are doing the beds, this is about the rate rests that are working at the restaurants of course, this is about the people that do the flowers for the hotels and for the banquets and for the business traveler. these are real jobs in america. this has always been a country that opened its arms to people from around the world. that's why we're so great, and we have to bring that back. we have to bring people in to visit this country. the travel promotion act will do just that, and by boosting

travel to the u.s., it will give a boost to our economy. so it's a win-win for the tourism industry, for jobs for america, and for the american people. senator dorgan went through the bill. i did want to emphasize that not only will this consist of travel promotion and promoting our country like other countries have been doing for years and been leapfrogging us in this market. additionally, this legislation will establish the office of travel promotion in the department of commerce to work with the office of travel promotion and the secretaries of state and homeland security to encourage travel and to make sure that international visitors are processed efficiently. it doesn't cost taxpayers a cent, as senator dorgan pointed out, and economists expect it should generate billions for our economy. according to the analysis by oxford economics, this tourism program is estimated to attract 1.6 million new international visitors annually and create $4 billion in new spending in our country, creating 40,000 new jobs.

we know we need to bring back business travel. we shouldn't let a few bad actors influence the decisions of good companies around this country. we know that we have to look this summer for affordable deals for families and people staying close to home. we want our minnesotans to go fishing in minnesota. mr. president, i would love to ask you if you know how much money alone people spend in minnesota on bait and worms every year. well, i will tell you the answer. it's probably never been uttered before in this chamber. $50 million a year, minnesotans and visitors to our state spend $50 million a year on bait and worms for recreational fishing. just to give you an idea of what we're talking about when we talk about tourism spending. i stroj urge my colleagues -- i strongly urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. i'm proud to be a cosponsor and look forward to working on this bill on the floor in the days to come. that's the conclusion of my remarks. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of

mong businesmorning business wis permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. klobuchar: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: i'd like to ask consent to speak in morning business for 25 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i rise today to discuss president obama's nomination of sown ya sotomayor to -- sonya sotomayor to be associate justice of the united states supreme court. justice sonya sotomayor has impeccable legal credentials and a record of excellence and integrity. equally important, she has the experience not only to make an excellent justice but also to have a significant impact on a court that today reflects too narrow a lice of america. -- a slice of america. judge sotomayor's deep preervetion how the law affects -- appreciation of how the law affects the lives of ordinary americans is borne from her compelling personal background. as well as her times as assistant district attorney, a commercial litigator, and later as a judge.

once confirmed, she will become the first hispanic justice and just the third woman to serve on the nation's highest court. what do we make, then, of the assaults on the character and record of the seemingly exemplary nominee? unfortunately, this seem to be a remedy of more than two decades of culture wars over supreme court nominees. as someone who was present at the beginning of these wars, i've seen them develop into elaborate political dances where both sides trade charges that are predictable and often baseless. some of these attacks, such as charges of racism and bigotry, deeply undermine our national dialogue. i am encouraged to note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen not to join in these attacks, and many, in fact, have condemned them. other attacks are equally predictable. from the general charge of extremist to particular instances of political "gotcha" wrenching statements out of context in order to paint a distorted picture of the nominee's record. at some level, partisan assaults

are expected in the supreme court nomination process, but in the case of judge sotomayor, they're especially divorce from the body's good-faith exercise of its duty to advise and consent. it is one thing to attack a nominee's judicial philosophy when the president is trying to reshape the court based on judicial philosophy or when the balance of the court is at stake or when the senate and president are deeply divided. none of these situations apply to this nomination. judge sotomayor is a well qualified, mainstream jurist who does not threaten to tip the balance of the court and who is likely to be confirmed by a substantial margin. although these partisan attacks take many forms, today i'd like to address one persistent, unhelpful and baseless charge, that of so-called judicial activism. what's especially unhelpful about calling someone a judicial activist is many times it is an empty epithet.

divorced from the real accessment of judicial temperament. as frank esterbrook puts it, the charge seplty. i'm quoting from him: everyone wants to appropriate and apply the word so his favorite approach is sound and opposite activist. then activism just means judges behaving badly. and each person wants to fill in a different definition of badly. end of quote. in other words, the term activist when applied to the decisions of a supreme court nominee is generally nothing more than politically charged shorthand for decisions that the accuser disagrees with. that's not to say the term judicial activism is necessarily without content. if you want to take it seriously, it might mean a failure to defer to the elected branches of government. it might mean disregard for long-established precedent. or it might mean deciding cases based on personal policy preferences rather than the law. i think it's fair to say that

based on any of these definitions, the supreme court's current conservative majority has been highly activist. let me give you a few examples. in united states vs. morrison decided in 2000, the rehnquist court struck down a key provision of the violence against women act. rather than considering the fact finding of a democratically elected congress the court went out of its way to oppose its own judgment. the senate held after hearings and made findings and voted 95-4 in favor of that bill, an activist court chose to ignore that and formed its own view of the proper role of the national government for that shared by both congress and the states. the same year the court decided in kimmel vs. florida board of regents the five-justice majority concluded states could not be sued by private citizens

for age discrimination without their consent because of a general principle of sovereign immunity. this is another decision that was simultaneously conservative in terms of the policy outcome and activist in terms of the judging. it was conservative because it expanded states right and contracted antidiscrimination rights. it was activist both because it struck down the considered judgment of congress and because based not at all on the text of the constitution, but instead on the policy preferences of the five justices. in its dissent in kimmel justice stevens said -- and i quote -- "the kind of judicial activism manifest in such cases represents a departure from the proper role of such court that it should be opposed whenever the opportunity arises. end of quote. with the addition of chief justice roberts and justice alito, the conservative majority of the current court has continued to be highly activist. even though the two newest

justices are not always candid about what they're doing. in fact, the charge has been leveled against justices alito and roberts by no less than authority, by justice scalia. in a campaign finance case, the courts struck down key provisions of the bipartisan campaign reform act. again,, this was more than a failure to defer to a democratically elected body. the court effectively overruled controlling precedent of mcconnell vs. f.e.c. while pretending it was doing no such thing. justice scalia called this full judicial restraint. in much the same vein in a case called hime vs. freedom from religious foundation justices roberts and alito were part of a majority that overruled long standing precedent on taxpayer standing while claiming they were not doing so.

again justice scalia called their bluff attacking justice alito's opinion. of course in both cases justice scalia wanted to overrule the cases in question expressly but at least he was honest about his intentions. there's parents involved in community schools vs. seattle school district 1. in thahat case the court rejectd local school authority in the area of voluntary integration of public schools. area of voluntary integration of public schools. the chief yeah, it works for us. yeah. hey, if they ranked "sportscenter" anchors, where do you think i'd be ranked? - i don't know. - come on. i'd rather not get into it. come on, pick a number between one and 10. well... i'm not sure you'll be in the top 10. i'm in the top 10, roger.

♪ >> you get the name on that thing. it's the greatest summer of your life. >> ludwig scores. >> it's anyone's game. >> [crowd noise]. >> scores! >> [cheers and applause]. >> scores. >> game 7 is a 1 game, winner takes the trophy home. >> i will meet you in the school yard, baby for all of the marbles on friday night in detroit. >> when you talk about the nhl top defensemen, the penguins ralph scadari doesn't get much ink. he is overlooked on the team with malkin and sidney crosby. but since tuesday night he's dominated most of the chart having saved the penguins season in the final seconds. for more on him and the stanley

cup finals we welcome in espn.com's e.j. hradek. any chance that dan will throw pads on him and put him in goal for game 7? >> [laughing]. well, he gave a good try out there the other night in game 6 in the crease there. scadari is one of tose guys who doesn't get a lot of attention in pittsburgh. he is a guy who is there really just to make a safe play on his end and defense against other teams top players. an interesting story. he came out of long island. we don't have a lot of hockey players in long island, new york. he played college hockey at boston college. i saw him play at boston college. i wasn't sure he would ever play in the national hockey league. but he's been in the league for a couple of years now. he will be called up again. him and hal gill to show down the red wings top guys.

a lot of what happens on friday night will be determined by some of the guys we don't talk about all the time. >> that's always the way it ends up being with a game 7. there is extra time between game 6 and 7. what are foth both teams saying about the momentum? >> well, mike bob babcock has gone out of his way that momentum, he doesn't buy into it in the series. things happen in hockey games that change momentum on each night and several times throughout the game. i buy into that. i don't think, for example, pittsburgh winning game 6 and detroit losing. there are 2 games off. they will refocus. 2 teams with 1 chance to win a stanley cup. i don't think there will be a carryover from game 6. i think the teams really like to have the extra day off particularly the older guys or some of the guys who are dinged up a little bit. i thought in game 6 there were 2

days off between games 5 and 6. you really saw a much more uptempo game. everybody benefited from the extra day off. they had their skating legs. that's what you will see again in game 7. that's great for all of us who are watching and fans the game. you will see guys who had rest and are ready to go and give their best effort in game 7. i think that's the benefit for both teams going forward. >> e.j. hradek, turn to one of the better story lines for this series. marian hossa. it's not his inability to not be able to score in this one. but he's gone for long stretches of not being a factor in the series. is he trying to be the guy too much? >> yeah. we talked to marian. he's been very accessible to the media. he is not hiding from the questions. he was asked the other day if he

feels that he tired. he said i do feel that way. he said he left pittsburgh, look less money and took a 1 year short term deal to go to detroit and said i went there because i have a better chance to win stanley cup. he did not leave a bad team to go to a champion. he left a team that went to the final last year. here he is finds himself in a situation where his decision will either be vindicated if they go forward here. or if they lose, he kind of looks like the guy who made a really bad decision. the penguins offered him a lot of money over a long term to stay there. he is dealing with a lot of internal pressure. i don't know if he has any other lingering injuries. he doesn't seem like the same guy. he is staying on the perimeter and not driving to the net and been very light on the puck.

by that, he just gets knocked off the puck more easily than the hossa we have come to know. a terrific story line. he could be the hero in game 7 and it would be an amazing thing to watch. >> hero or goat. a lot of times with these players, we find out after there have been lingering health issues. e.j. hradek in detroit. we always appreciate the time. enjoy game 7 tomorrow night. >> will do. >> top stories ahead. phil mickelson makes a return to the pga tour just weeks after he and his wife discovered that she has breast cancer. that's hades. you are watching espnews presented by: @@úúxx