in dealing with international bodies and in international conferences, in and counsel administration officials on international negotiations, treaty interpretations, in treaty implementations. as we move forward in the future as a country, one of the biggest debates that we're going to have is what role does american sovereignty play in the world tnd how important is it? and there's a difference of philosophy here in washington today. so as we review this nomination, it is very important to us, particularly republicans, that we start from the foundation in our state department, if we will act in the best interest of our country and the american people and that our interest as a country are paramount in how we deal with the rest of the world. of course, that does not mean that we don't try to support

other countries as best we can. but the fact is the role of the federal government is to protect and defend our people and our interests. so we need to make sure that this key advisor to our state department in our international relations believes those principles. many of mr. koh's supporters claim that the allegations that had been voiced against him, such as undermining the constitution, are unjustified. however, mr. koh's own writing suggests otherwise. for example, in 2004 -- in a 2004 law review, an article titled "international law as part of our law," mr. koh states -- and i quote -- "u.s. domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating u.s. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law. not simply to promote american

aims, but to advance the broader development of a well-functioning international judicial system. in justice blackmun's words, u.s. courts must look beyond narrow u.s. interests to the mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime and whenever possible, should consider if there is a course of action that furthers rather than impedes the development of an ordered international system. certainly we want good relations to countries all over the world, and we're looking at making treaties of various kinds. but this idea of a smoothly functioning international legal regime when it subordinates the interest of the american legal regime should cause all of us to stop and think. our protection, our prosperity,

our defense, everything we are as a country depends first on our sovereignty as well as as our support of other nations depends on our sovereignty. and this idea of a global world order of some kind is frightening to many people, including myself. so this looks -- i mean, what we're hearing mr. koh say is it appears to reinterpret our own constitution to comply with rules of foreign and international law. instead of first protecting and defending our constitution and seeing how we can interface with other governments. frankly, mr. president, this statement should frighten american citizens who believe in upholding our constitution, and i hope it will get the attention of my colleagues. certainly the president has the right to nominate anyone he wants, but it is our role as a

senate to provide advice. and in this case i think disclosure to the american people of this nominee and how he might direct our state department activities. in 2002, in a hearing before the senate foreign relations committee, mr. koh testified in support of ratification of united nations treaty on the convention of the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. not only did mr. koh testify in support of ratifying this treaty, he opposed any conditions to ratification of the treaty, even those proposed by the clinton administration. this includes the very important condition stating that the treaty is not self-executing. it has no domestic legal effect absent an act of congress. our rules here are that the president can sign a treaty, but it has to be ratified here in

the senate before it is executed. and to insist that once this is agreed to by the administration that it become self-acting violates those principles. mr. koh also claims that allegations by those who oppose the treaty due to its promotion of abortion, the legalizeation of prostitution and the abolishment of mothers day are untrue. however, one only needs to look at the policies issued by the committee, the united nations body charged with monitoring country's compliance with their legal obligations under the treaty, to know that mr. koh's claims are untrue. for example, on may 14, 1998, the committee interpreted the treaty to require that all states of mexico should review their legislation so that where necessary women are granted access to rapid and easy abortion. in february 1999, the same

committee criticized china's law criminalizing prostitution and recommended that china take steps to legalize it. this does not represent american values. also in february of 2000, the committee made the following outrageous statement regarding byelarus' celebration of mothers' day -- and i quote -- "the committee is concerned by the continuing presence of sexual stereotypes and by the reintroduction of such symbols as mother's day and a mother's day award which it sees as encouraging women's traditional role." as these former soviet republics, countries all over the world looking to america for guidance as they develop their democracies and institutions of freedom, these kind of things coming out of the united nations are are concerning. and i certainly don't want this same philosophy coming out of our own state department.

mr. president, how can anyone argue that ratification of a radical treaty like we've discussed will undermine sovereignty -- will not undermine sovereignty. it's pretty obvious it would. in a speech entitled a world drowning in guns published in the fordham law review in 2003, mr. koh states "if we really do care about human rights, we have to do something about the guns." that something is a global system of effective controls on small arms. in that same speech mr. koh also expressed his disappointment that the 2001 united nations gun control conference had not led to a legally binding document. he urged that the next steps be the creation of international arms registries, giving nongovernmental organizations like the international action network on small arms power to

monitor government compliance with international gun control and stronger domestic regulation. in a may 4 column in "human events" brian darling of the heritage foundation writes, koh advocated an international marking and tracking regime, or tracing regime. he complained that the united nations or united states is now the major supplier of small arms in the world. yet, the united states and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way. koh advocated a united nations governed regime to force the u.s. to submit information about their small-arms production. mr. koh supports the idea that the united nations should be granted the power to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations. mr. koh feels that the u.s. should establish a national

firearms control system in a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters of guns to comply with international obligations. this regulatory regime would allow the united nations members, such as cuba and venezuela and north korea and iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on american citizens. this is not constitutional government in america. taken to their logical conclusion -- and i'm continuing the heritage quote here -- mr. koh's ideas could lead to a national database of all firearm owners as well as the use of international law to force the u.s. to pass laws to find out who owns guns. all who care about freedom should read his speech. senators need to think long and hard about whether koh's extreme views on international gun

control are appropriate for america. let me just cover a couple of other things. this one about the iraq war. mr. koh published a commentary in the hartford current on october 20, 2002, entitled "a better way to deal with iraq." here's just an excerpt from that article -- and i quote -- "i believe that terrorism poses a grave threat to international peace and security. i lost friends on september 11 and have shared in the grief of their families. i believe that saddam hussein saddam hussein is an aoefpl and dangerous man who daily abuses his own people and who wishes no good for our country or the world. i fear his weapons of mass destruction and believe they should be eliminated. yet, i believe just as strongly that it would be a mistake for our country to attack iraq without explicit united nations authorization. i believe such an attack would

violate international law." we need to think for a minute and digest what this means. even though mr. koh believed that attacking iraq would be in the best interest of america and the world, he believed that we should wait on explicit directions from the united nations before we act. both this commentary and his testimony before the senate foreign relations committee demonstrate that mr. koh's belief that if our president and congress empowered by our constitution decide military action is needed to defend our nation from harm, that we must get united nations' approval or actions are illegal. this is an incredible position for the chief legal advisor to the state department to adhere to. some may argue that mr. koh's position on the iraq war is merely a principled liberal position. however, his belief that countries -- the presiding officer: the senator has spoken for ten

minutes. mr. demint: i ask unanimous consent for one more minute just to conclude. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. demint: thank you. i would encourage my colleagues just to look at the record. mr. koh has a very winsome personality which i appreciate. but the record gives us many reasons for concern that the state department may not be acting in the best interest of our country under his legal counsel. i think the president -- i thank the president, mr. president, and i yield back, yield to the leader. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: mr. president. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 84, h.r. 2918 which is the legislative branch appropriations bill. once the bill is recorded, the committee substitute amendment which is at the desk and is the text of s. 1294 as reported by the senate appropriations committee be considered and agreed to, the bill as thus amended be considered original text for purposes of further

amendment by the points of order under rule 16 be preserved. provided further points of order under the budget act and budget resolution be reserved to apply as provided under those measures. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. demint: reserving right to object, mr. president, i have no problem to going to this bill, but we have been working with members on our side of a finite list of amendments that we would like considered on this bill. i'm happy to work with the distinguished leader to obtain an agreement. if he would like me to cover some of those amendments today, i will. at this point i will object to the motion to proceed and hope that we can work out an agreement. mr. reid: if i could ask my friend? the presiding officer: objection heard. mr. reid: you can offer an amends you want. we don't care. we just want to get on the bill. and if -- we'd be happy to work with the senator from south carolina at that time to come up with a list of amendments. the amendments are all governed

under rule 16. i have a letter here. i've all day held off reading it. a letter signed by every republican senator, including the senator from south carolina. let me read this letter. the letter is written to me. "dear majority leader: as you develop the legislative calendar for the rest of this fiscal year "-- this letter is dated march 24. "we believe it is critical to allocate an appropriate amount of time for the senate to consider vote and initiate the conference process on each of the 12 appropriations bills independently through a deliberative process on the senate floor. for a variety of reasons over the past several years the senate has failed to debate, amend, and pass each bill separately prior to the end of the fiscal year. far too often this is resulted in the creation of omnibus appropriations bills that have been brought to the floor solely in the fiscal year the senators have been forced in the past to continue resolution, shut down government or consider an omnibus bills. these omnibus bills have not allowed for adequate public review and clouded what should

otherwise be a transparent process. as our president said on march 11, 2009, president obama, he expects future spending bills to be debated in an orderly way and sent to his desk without delay so we don't face another last-minute omnibus bill like this one. the senate should begin floor consideration of the appropriations bill to ensure an appropriate time is given to examine and vote on amendments to the bill. we believe the senate should pass at least eight of the appropriations billings by the august recess. we will consider using all available procedural tools to guarantee regular order for appropriations bills. noting your intentions, we hope you'll plan accordingly as you work with the leadership of the house to develop the legislative calendar for the rest of the fiscal year. thank you for your time and consideration. signed by every one of the republicans, including my opinion friend from south carolina. now i have here, the manager of now, now i have here a wild-eyed liberal from nebraska, ben

nelson. if this is not place to start there is no one with a more measured place than the senator from nebraska. he's an experienced legislator. he's been governor of the state. he understands problems. he's in addition to that a fine person. why can't we move to this bill? i say to my friend from south carolina, we're happy to work on a finite list of amendments, but all we want to do is legislate, to get on this bill. this man has been here for days -- that's not true. since yesterday to go to this legislation. so i would hope my friend would allow us to go to this bill. we'll work with you. senator nelson is one of the most reasonable people i've ever worked with. so i don't see what fear my friend from south carolina should have by going to the bill. we have no games we're playing. we are not going to try to cut anybody off offering amendments. there will come a time, perhaps, when i will talk to the

republican leader and say: have we had enough of this? mr. demint: senator, i'm prepared to grant a unanimous consent to move ahead right now if i can be guaranteed seven amendments, three by myself, two by senator coburn, and two by senator vitter, and i'll be glad to describe what those are if you like -- mr. reid: the only thing that -- as i want the -- as i told -- told you in my opening statement here, we'll -- the appropriation bills have a little different rules than just a regular bill. but we -- we're happy to work with you and i'm -- i'm curious to find out what amendments you're interested in. would you run over them with me? mr. demint: yes, i'd be glad to. and, again, this is a trust, but

verify. we have had a few problems with getting amendments on some other bills, so i just want to make sure that we're in agreement and there are no surprises. i've got three amendments that we would like and one is related to the capitol visitors center. the other is related to rescinding unspent stimulus money, and the other is asking for a g.a.o. audit of the federal reserve. senator vitter has an amendment related i believe related to our pay raises as well as a motion to recommit the, i -- i guess someone is going to have to explain that one to me. senator coburn has a transparency of senate expenses amendment as well as an -- something about enumerated powers. so -- mr. reid: minority powers? mr. demint: enumerated powers of the constitution.

these are our amendments an if we can just get an agreement now that these can be included, we would be glad to proceed. mr. reid: i say to my friend, and i served as chairman of this subcommittee for a number of years an enjoyed it very, very much. it appears that the g.a.o. from the little knowledge i have, would be within the confines of this bill very clearly. let's see what else. the c.v.c., the capitol visitors center, looking at senator nelson, the capitol visitors center would be with keeping in this bill. without going into detail at this time, everything that is not something that is subject to a rule 16 or some other problem because it's an appropriation bill, we're happy to work with you. we have no problem. but as far as guaranteeing votes on this stuff, i can't do that. mr. demint: i appreciate the

leader's position. and i will just object and agree to work with you. and if in the next few hours or some we can get general agreement or compromise, if that's possible, we certainly don't want to hold this up. but we would like to participate in the debate with a few amendments. mr. reid: mr. president, i understand that the senator is going to object. i do say he can't have -- we -- we want to go to the bill. we want to play by the rules. as it says here in order to press for a more transparent process, we will use all procedural tools for regular order on appropriations bill. i want regular order on appropriations bills. i think you could check with your own floor staff. i can't guarantee votes. i can't guarantee all of these matters are germane. because we have different rules on appropriation bills. so i think it's another indication of where we're just wasting time that -- people's

time. i made my case. i'll come here tomorrow and try again. we're happy to work with the senator from south carolina. and i say to my friend from south carolina, i understand that you're well meaning. i understand that. there's nothing that i -- you know, you're not a sinister person or trying to do something that is evil, bad, but i just think that sometimes we would be better off as indicated in the letter i do receive from you going to the bill and following the regular order. that's what i want to do. mr. demint: if the senator would yield just for clarification. regular order would be a motion to proceed, debate, cloture. what we're trying to do here is to shortcut the regular order with the unanimous consent, which i'm very willing to grant with some assurance that's we will have some -- assurances that we will have some

amendments. just for clarification, if we went through regular order, i think your request is to bypass regular order, and i'm more than willing to agree to that if we can get some assurances that we'll have amendments. mr. reid: you have every assurance there will be amendments. i repeat, there are certain things i can't agree to because i don't -- you know, there's -- someone might want to file a second degree amendment to the amendment you want to offer. but i'm -- i'll be happy to work -- have my staff work with you through the evening and see what we can come up with. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: mr. president, i thank the leader, for reading the letter i sent to him some time ago and i want to thank him for actually trying to bring forth an appropriations bill. i hope that we can figure out some resolve to this. i think it's very important to our country that we actually go through an appropriations process that's thoughtful and i thank you for attempting to do

that today. mr. reid: will my friend yield for a brief moment? mr. corker: yes. mr. reid: i want to go to the bill. i want to follow regular order. that's what i was asked to do. and i'm happy to have my staff work through night to see if we can agree on a finite list of amendments. but senator nelson is the man to do that. he's a wonderful person, i've already said. i'm just disappointed that it is such a struggle to get things done. mr. corker: mr. president, if i could talk back to the respected leader. i thank you for bringing it forth. i do think it's important that we work through eight bills before the recess ends or begins and i hope that over the next couple of hours that you and the distinguished senator from south carolina hopefully can reach some resolve that is an accommodation and we can move through this. and i thank you very much for your patience.

i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: