state legislatures, state courts, and all kinds of rules and regulations can be produced that limit or eliminate this kind of problem. we can't fix it. you can say why is it that important? after all, life is filled with problems. and when judges are talking about their problems, the lawyers all not as if it were very serious because they want the judge to think they're being taken seriously. ..

>> people do in fact have very, very different points of view. and they have decided to resolve their differences under law. and that is a kind of miracle that has taken us about 200 years or more to a cobblers. and andrew jackson was the one who also said when john marshall made a decision that the cherokee indians were entitled to their land, he said john marshall made his decision and now let him enforce it. >> what he did was he kicked the indians out. after the supreme court said it was their land. >> and ordered my ancestor winfield scott to drive them out. >> really? >> really. >> well, you have made up for. [laughter] >> making pretty unhappy i can say that. >> so, you see why?

you start thinking of what would happen if people do not have confidence in the fairness of the judiciary. and it isn't just the judges problem. it's your problem and mine and everybody else's. that sort of a commercial message here. >> i won't pick up from where you left. i will be very brief because you did not come here to listen to me. i will begin in and with one simple observation about judicial selection. it is that the task of judging is quite interesting. because ultimately judges are the guardian of our system of law. and yet at the same time, they are subject to a system of law. and so in the two years i was in office, department of justice, during which time the president nominated about 200 judges, and we made a list of about 30 justice nominees or so in anticipation of an eventual

vacancy. the overriding criteria, the overriding question that we asked was does this judge had the intellectual humility to interpret the law, and yet still be subordinate to the law. and that's a straightforward as it gets. the federal constitution protects independence, independent to do what? to judge according to law, to correct minority legal rights against majora tour in encroachment. and to govern, to govern our country. to help guide our country according to the constitution, not to act as platonic guardian of the public good. independence from what? political pressures? partisan politics. majoritarian impulses. all the reasons why justice o'connor and justice breyer decry the judicial election. because it is all the reasons

why we have judicial independence in the federal system. but judicial independence comes with it a certain cost. that is, the danger they judge once in the room will get what we call roe by disk, which is the arrogance that comes with judicial office that will lead him or her to act outside the bounds of the law. and so what checks are there in this democratic system to that kind of encroachment of judicial power, this type of intellectual humility, institutional respect for the rule of judges is certified by justice o'connor and justice breyer even though they were nominated by different president. disagree fundamentally on the matters of law. but both have that essential respect for the role of the judge. and that's all that you can ask for.

in selecting a judge. i like to analogize it to investing for the long term rather than speculating for the short-term. in selecting judges you want to be a war and other. you don't want be an ivan bowl ski. [laughter] >> because you can always ask a nominee what he or she would do in a particular case, in a particular controversial issue, or even a particular political movement. that's what you get. when you get an answer is short-term speculation. that doesn't give you a sense as to how good of an individual this is as a judge who appreciate his or her role in a democratic society, and who has an intellectual, and philosophical framework to guide decision-making in the long term. i will trade short-term cases always for a long term vision of the appropriate role in a democratic society. and that's why we have a system

that we have, the built-in bureaucratic tension between the president as the nominator and the senate as the advice and consent or in the federal system. and you have this ongoing question at the state level, should we have elected judges or appointed judges if appointed by whom, and if they are appointed, once they are appointed by the by election or an american election, are the mechanisms by which they can call them from office, how should a tenure be, and for what purpose, for what reasons can they be removed from office. those are all the same questions that at the state level they struggle with an answer in our constitution, which is how do we go about selecting, confirming and rewarding judges for acting like judges. that is, protect our rule of law and not to violate a. >> but the framers of the constitution did for federal judges was to say, the federal

judge serves not for life, for good behavior. that means the judge can be removed by impeachment, for high crimes and misdemeanors. we have not had a supreme court justice actually removed. proceedings were brought against justice chase, but at the end of the day he wasn't removed. other federal judges have been, unfortunately, a few times. the framers also provided to cant reduce the federal judge's salary during the so-called term of office. now states all have limited terms of office for their judges. it has been suggested by people from time to time that we ought to limit the terms of federal judges also. that would take an amendment to the constitution. and that's very hard to come by, i must say.

so probably isn't going to happen. >> i want to pick up from your opening comment. with regard to quite literally the positive selection. i am obviously from texas. tom phillips is a friend, and certainly i am not here to defend the process of judicial selection in texas, but there was a very interesting letter from the editor last week with regard to this issue. defending judicial elections. basically because of what i might say is a fairly well justified distrust. of texas governors, and this is not a partisan point, but of the way the state political system runs and the argument is that this writer would like to have some input. so with regard to justice o'connor's initial comments, you mention very forthright and candidly that all of the names

on the attorney general's list were republicans. and i am wondering if looking around for the kind of selfless judges you described, how many of them were democrats as against republicans? now we have an obama administration, if one makes any republicans to megaliths. i think the last cross party appointment was president eisenhower's william brennan, lewis powell was obligated because he was a southern democrat, still in the early 1970s. but presidents pick members of their own parties certainly for the supreme court. certainly by and large for what the constitution calls inferior federal judiciary. so how do you answer the letter, how do any of you answer the letter writer saying, look, what you believe this want to do is substitute an alternate form of

politics for a transparent? >> that is so wrong because under a merit selection system, which i helped design for my home state of arizona, we set up a bipartisan commission of citizens to consider applications of people who want to be a judge. they let anybody apply. now those applications and those records are open to the public. everybody can find out who has applied and they can weigh in. the hearings when the interview these people are open to the public. and they ask that the person who wants to be considered filed forms and answered questions. that is also open to the public. and the commission, if not dominated by lawyers, there are a handful of lawyers on the commission, but by and large its citizens and they have to be of both political parties. now, i don't see how you can get more open than that or more

fair. and the commission has worked very well in making recommendations. they have to give at least three names and both political parties to the governor's. we have had governors in arizona, a republican governor recently who appointed a democrat to the supreme court. i think that's about as there as you can get. so maybe texans are different. [laughter] >> i should know. i was born in texas. but anyway, i think you can have a very fair system and i wish more states would do it. >> i would say this. i think that letter writer is on something. and i think the reason that this kind of stuff got going in the first place and the reason that elections were brought in is that people did distrust the political process of governor appointment. but those were somewhat different days. i like to think, i think it was a jimmie walker when he became mayor of new york running on the

reform. may be it wasn't walker. but let's say it was walker. he ran on the reform ticket, and his whole slogan was imi own man. that was his slogan. he got elected and oppressive who are you going to appoint police chief? he said i don't know. the boys and told me me yet. [laughter] >> that was a different era. maybe, maybe. but here is change. there is no perfect system by any means. i was pretty careful to focus my remarks on the campaign contribution aspect of this. when i grew up in california, there was an elected system of a kind, but the governor would appoint to fill a vacancy, and then there was a retention election. there was really a contest. i mean, it just didn't happen. so it approximated an appointed system with some public input. missouri has a system like that. there are many different ways of

skinning the cat. but i think what we are afraid of now, is that when you look at all ways, it's gone too far. particularly with the campaign contributions. i say that in a way in picking up on what he said. and also what you said, sandy. very, very interesting. they are just appointing republicans. will democrats just appoint democrats. that tends to be true. i can't do much about that. and what i think of it as even my campaign contribution remarks is part, to me, of a bigger problem. and a bigger problem, if i'm asked as i sometimes am what is the biggest problem facing the judicial system, these are the words i use. it's not the campaign contributions, but the campaign contributions are a manifestation of them.

it is the people more and more think of judges as junior league politicians. all of the messages that come to people tell them that. you try and think of how many cases you read about in the newspaper in our court that were not 5-4 and did not involve a major issue which happens to be about 5% or 10% when you have those put together. how often do you read about any of the 30 to 40% of the cases that are unanimous. how often do you read an article about a judge that, like the articles 40 or 50 years ago, did not have in it clinton appointee, reagan appointee, in parentheses afterwards. so the message is that the public gets are these are

political people deciding things for political reasons. and that's so far from the truth. but it could become the truth. i find it a big problem. and you say, well, judges are human. there's no perfect system, but to talk about it in terms of politics is a distortion. and i use the word distortion and not falsity. but it is a serious distortion. and my problem is to go back to those people in front of me every day. and so it seems to me that there are many fronts that are necessary to use to attack this problem on so that those people who are in front of us every day will continue to have faith in the system that depends for its existence on their faith. the faith as he said there is no way to predict how the judge will behave. its internal. and you say what are the reward for a judge, zero.

i mean, no, that's even an exaggeration. but near zero. its internal. it's not an external and not one of you knows and there isn't one person in the united states who knows what i just wrote a dissent that there are some who know, about 10, and it depended heavily on reading of the record of a thousand pages of what happened in the state of arizona, and is it, was i to do that record was i honest in what i said. i know and maybe a few others know, but you don't know what does "the new york times." nor does the people who praised it. nor do the people who criticize it. a handful. and so i had to live with myself. what i live in a system which continuously in reality, that's what i listen to praises me for being honest. and they don't talk to me, but i

hear them. do you understand what i'm saying? is building in a certain kind of institution and it takes years to build the institution. decades. that we who work in it, that's our reward, to work in an institution like that. and there are hundreds and thousands of judges who are not on the supreme court of the united states who don't get to talk to audiences. who don't have whatever mystique goes with that title and they have to act every day exactly the same way. and get the same kinds of rewards. all right. anyway. you see the point and i want you to see why i worry about this erosion, and it's there, of competence in the system. [applause] >> justice o'connor, if i can turn to you again for a moment. i suspect you are tired of being reminded of your first miss. i am interested in one of your

last items because i would to stanford law school. you are the last person confirmed who did not go to harvard or yelled law school. [laughter] >> one of the best also. >> do you think that that is simply a factoid or does it say something about perhaps a two narrowcasting of the net? >> i think that it is desirable for president selecting supreme court justices to look beyond harvard in jail, if i may say so. >> but why? >> and to look much more broadly and not to require that the only people considered are those who have served on the lower federal court as a district or appellate court judge. i think some diversity of background and experience is a

good idea on the u.s. supreme court. all nine of the justices at president are products of the u.s. court of appeals. and i guess most of them are harvard and gail, aren't they? >> yes, sir. >> what about stanford? >> it used to be stanford now and then but that seems to have changed. but anyway, i think it's good to have some diversity after. >> i agree. one other question about diversity. the last sitting justice who at the time of his appointment was living west of the appalachians was anthony kennedy. now just as buyer mention he was born in california but i think it's fair to say that when you are appointed, the story said you were from cambridge, massachusetts,. >> it was not always accurate. i grew up in san francisco. i'm very sorry i'm from san francisco.

>> do you think it would be a good idea if there were judges for more justices from west of the appalachians, and it should president obama be concerned about that kind of regional diversity when there is a next vacancy? >> i can make one little remark about that. i can remember when justice byron white decided to retire from the court. and he was from colorado. the supreme court during my years there had a number of cases involving water right issues and disputes between different western states overwater issues. now believe me, if you live in the west and its about water, it's important. and you would be amazed how justices who are just a product of beast of the mississippi do

not understand water lockout in the west. and this is kind of a specialized area. and i was very concerned when byron white step down, because i could see the immediate effect of people on the court who just didn't understand those issues. so i would love to see a few more from the west, to tell you the truth. >> i may point out that justice breyer succeeded justice white. do i remember that correctly? also presumably did not have much really hands-on experience with water law, or with american indian law. >> i am from san francisco. i went to a lower high school and if you want to know what has an effect upon a person in america is where you went to high school. and at the time it was their. >> he fits the qualification. >> thank you. [laughter] >> do you want to weigh in? >> no. all i can say is easterners can

empathize with westerners. >> empathy is important. what about the confirmation process? has it become too much of a quasi- ritual either right or circus, depending on your point of view, to be genuinely helpful, either to the senator's actually cast a vote, or to the i think reasonably fast members of the public who will watch these confirmation ceremonies. >> you are asking us? we were confirmed. and we were appointed. you get it? e.g. as in. we did not appoint anyone and we didn't vote to confirm anyone. so asking me or i guess sandra about this confirmation process is like asking for the recipe for chicken à la king from the

point of view from the chicken. [laughter] >> i'll take a crack at being a chef. i also, the primary part of my job is actually to guide nominees through the confirmation process, both in a republican senate and after the midterm election in a democratic senate. and so it was a very interesting experience. we have one rule, and probably go to serve through the point of your questions. and the one rule is never take the bait. this is a kabuki dance. it's a local theater. don't take the bait. don't ask questions. there are ways to answer them. don't lie. just don't take the bait. you know, take for example, are you in favor of affirmative action? well, senator, let me say

categorically that discrimination is unconstitutional and illegal in our country. and making judgment based on race is bad holocene. that said, questions will arise all the time how we apply this and i will not know until the specific facts. there will be harsh questions about personal finances, hersh harsh questions about demeanor and the like. it's just a ritual whereby if you can show that you have the temperament, the ability to rise above it all. then i think you will be confirmed. but if you do take the bait, then that is a doomed confirmation process. >> i can tell you one thing about my own, which is not anybody else's, but i bet this experience is shared. it's stressful. >> very. >> i'm sitting there on one side of the table, and there are 17 sinner17senators on the other s.

and also on television and i'm not used to that. luckily i was very boring and people kept turning it off, which was tagged as. [laughter] >> suddenly they will have what they want to ask. they are the ones who were elected. i'm not. and if they ask things that too many people don't want them to ask, and they do that too often, someone else will be elected. so what i see this as, is from a beige and i hope, i knew perfectly well that the people who are looking at those televisions, images, if enough of them don't like what they see, i will not be confirmed. now i was lovely and i think people are ready tolerant to tell the truth. i think americans, when they look at such a thing are interested. they are trying to find out, will he be fair, i don't think they are, maybe some are, but i have confidence in the sense that the vast majority are not looking at this ideologically.

they want to know more or less who this person is. i don't know if that's true but that was my belief. it had a happy ending for me. i was confirmed. but if i had not been, i hope, not knowing, i would've had the maturity to look at it in this way. that this is a window of democratic input into the selection of a person who will go to a court from which he is almost impossible to have him removed. and yet that person will have a lot of authority and ability to make decisions that affect millions of americans. we don't want for the reasons i have said to have such a person as a judge be easily removable. because he or she is there to protect people from these swings of public opinion. but in the normal constitutional

compromise, we have a way in a democratic system of having an input into this process leading to the selection of a person who is removed from democracy in the nature of the job. all right? that's not a terrible compromise. and if you don't like the system as it has evolved, or if you think that it's far too much in the direction of a kabuki theater, then the solution to this is to explain this to people through the bar and the other institution of molding opinion in a democratic society, and believe me, if people begin to share that opinion it will change. and if they don't, then it won't. and nothing i could say would make a different. >> i suspect the senator's love the senate hearings on supreme court justices because it

carried gavel to gavel on the television and they sit there looking very erudite. they can get all dressed up and ask intelligent questions. and they love it. think what they would have to pay for that if they paid for in normal circumstances. [laughter] >> so it's not going to change. believe me. they just love it, and that's why the senate never had public hearings in the years before television. this is a product of our tdh, i'm afraid. but on the plus side, and there is very little on the plus side. [laughter] >> but on the plus side is that americans get to see for themselves a little bit of the character and presentation of the nominee. and that may be their only chance. they may never have another chance to see this person and listen to them talk and form an impression. so to that extent i would think people would sort of like if. >> of course, we are talking

supreme court nominations. i very serious redoubt in a district court nomination or circuit court nomination covered on television. although they may be very illuminating. to other lass before we turn to questions. i think that i am correct in saying that justice o'connor is the last person appointed supreme court who had run for elected office. and elected to an elective office. you are i think majority leader in the arizona. >> arizona senate. >> and you are the last person appointed to the supreme court from a state court. justice breyer i know from his having visited a very wonderful visit when i was teaching the law school three years ago, and justice breyer visited my class. you spoke in a notably and movingly heartfelt way about your service on capitol hill. as council of the senate

judicial committee. and i think that you are the last person appointed to the supreme court whose experience has been on capitol hill, rather than executive department. and as we talk about various diversities, whether it's regional, the school you have to go to, would the court benefit from having successor sometime to justice o'connor who would actually run for elective office and one elective office and actually experience the problem as elective office? and would we benefit in the future and having somebody who worked on the hill rather than, say, in the consul or the office of solicitor general has distinguished as those offices are? >> equally, absolutely. absolutely. of course.

and i think that's a reason why justice o'connor is very much missed. >> especially on the hill because the hill is a strange creature. and also state capitals are strange. you focus, you study american government basically as institutions that never experienced congress are i think you can study the presidency and the court without having experienced it bit i don't think anyone can appreciate the hill as a living institution. >> congress is stranger than the executive branch which you serve in? executive branch and a number of ways is pretty strange, but people in the department of justice may just think, look more naturally to people in the executive branch as potential judges than people who have india's crazy legislative world? >> sure.

but remember the legislative, the lawmaking power of which the primary task of judges to interpret the law is in the legislature. and unless you have a special appreciation for that process, you may tend to be more formalistic in terms of the view of the law, the process, rather than the experience you. i don't know which way it cuts, but it may well be that, we shouldn't see how they are made. it may well be that insight, which a lot of people have, it may be useful. >> i think that we ought to turn now questions and comments from the audience. there are some microphones, and if you would go to the microphone i will call you. and if you would please identify yourself before your question or comment.

>> richard gordon, and has been. justice breyer, the west virginia case, west virginia supreme court case was fascinating that you have a defendant company losing at the trial court $50 million verdict, a huge verdict. and files an appeal. during the course of the appeal there is an election to the court that's going to hear the appeal. and a man who is not on the court run for a seat on the court, and excess of $3 million from the defendants who are about to be heard by the court which constitutes two thirds of what the man got in his entire election campaign. goes to the court. sits on the court pictures the appeal and vote in favor of his contributor. and somehow this is allowed to happen and actually gets to you. where are the standards? where are the process of

retrieval for this gentleman? shouldn't there have been standards? and the broader sense the supreme court of the united states own standards for recruits who are notoriously unknown. shouldn't you lead a bit more on that? >> as i said, we held that violates the constitution. but your point is would it be important to have recruiters will standards in the state. and in that state, that prevented it from getting to us, that was my point there are all kind of institutions. as far as our refusal to standards, we all follow the ada standards. the normal judicial standards for a lower court. everyone of us follows that. so there's no secret. there is no secret about it. and the standards are complicated and so forth.

there is one difference in the supreme court in respect to recusal in the lower court. the difference in this when i was on the court of appeal, suppose i have a close question on trent 12. i could i'd either accuse myself or not. i might as well recuse myself quite frankly paraguay go into in depth? they can always get some other judge. one judge really is as good as another. so it doesn't matter. there are loads of judges they can begin to decide this case. in the present court, it makes a difference. it could well. if there are nine of us there is no way to get some again, i refuse myself it's going to be 4-4 and that means when there's a close question, really think about it and then if i think the duty to set is greater than the reasons for retools all i will set. because you are not free just to decide everything to recuse

that's what makes it more standards. but quite often when i'm having a tough time, there's nothing to repent me, which there is nothing to prevent me from talking to my colleagues about it, which i sometimes do, and all of us do that. and so i think it works out the same in the court with the exception that i mentioned here and you might find it, you see, you say this would have been the lower court, this would have taken himself out of it. yes, but maybe he thought, why not? and i don't have that luxury where i am now. >> yes. >> my name is christine bowling from bogotá, colombia. watching all the coverage surrounding the current nominee, i must admit as a lay woman i have been somewhat confused. given the i guess dictionary definition of impartial and i guess the importance of a

diverse supreme court body, and you mentioned that today. with regard to that now infamous quote about the current nominee being perhaps a good choice even her particular racial, economic and gender background, i wonder if any of you would like to comment as to whether or not, where you fall on that side of the debate? whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. >> i will start to you guys warm up. aristotle started first, right. is a rule of law is the rule of reason. what is the rule of reason, but the ability to convince another person of your own state of knowledge. and so we are in sort of a unique culture in that we all

recognize and respect the individuality of personal experiences. and each one of us, it doesn't matter where we came from, is individual in our experience. but we also recognize the respect of knowledge. and so were the difficulty comes is what does one mean by the word empathy? if by empathy you simply recognize that we are all individuals, we carried to the table individualized experienc experiences, then fine. that's all part of being human and being understanding. and our ability to understand each other and the reason, do law across the differencdifferences like that, is exactly not only legitimate but desirable in selecting a judge. but by personal expenses or specific empathy, you mean that there are certain barriers that one cannot cross intellectually

in order to achieve a rule of reason, and therefore the rule of law, then it seems to me that i would not be only illegitimate, but i'm just in a system of a democratic rule of law. and i know that we are all human. i know that judges are human also. i know that there is sin in the world and god does isn from time to time but that doesn't mean we aspire to send. and likewise, it seems to me that even though judges are human and sometimes they are overcome by passions or prejudices or whatever, and so that they violate their oath of office to be impartial to religion, we shouldn't aspire to it as a criteria. and i suspect, actually i know because they said this publicly, that neither president obama or justice sotomayor has personal

expenses net negative, unjust in the sense of the word and i guess that's what the confirmation hearings will end up trying to eliminate. >> on aristotle just one moment. aristotle also spoke about the importance of equity. and i worked for a district judge, spoke quite often about the importance of an equitable conscience as well as what he would sometimes referred to as blind rule following. and it does seem to me that he might be stacking the deck in favor of a very particular model of law, and not being sufficiently sensitive to the importance of context. and human realities that will emerge in any given case. i think it's a strip search case that was decided last week where justice an ginsburg spoke quite candidly about the importance of

being able to look at the world from the perspective of a 13 year old girl who was being forced into a strip search. >> but they agreed with her. so it cuts both ways, doesn't it? >> the question is what would aristotle have thought about that. but back to the question. >> i'm sorry. let's go back and forth. >> my name is richard. i'm from cleveland, ohio. i am involved with the board of visitors at duke law school where i served with sandy for many years. one of the programs we have at duke as a public law program to try to promote a public understanding of law and its relationship to society. and we have educational goals for the public. transform a compassionate and compelling case or description of how a judge, what their mindset should be in the citing the case, how they should approach their duty.

in a non-selfish way. how do we get the message across to the public so that they understand that when they hear these confirmation hearings, when they see judges, it isn't about winning or losing this specific parochial issue that may be of interest to them, but a process that's critical to our government. the supreme court is one of the few institutions i think still held in very highest esteem of the american public. can they be of help to this? >> perhaps they are being a help today. i understand this is being televised. maybe some americans will watch it and understand a little better. but the role of the court really is. >> they are spending an enormous amount of time on this. enormous. and it is such a good question because her answer and mine to this is, sort of abstract and

general and impossible as it sounds, the only way to do this is when someone is in the 11th grade of high school, by the end of that year he or she understands the rudiments of how democratic government works. so with annenberg foundation as kathleen jamieson working on films explaining supreme court cases and she will explain it. and they are in 44000 classroo classrooms, which is diverse. and then she had some other project going with teachers. it's such a big country, that you at duke on that board are a tiny bit necessary part. and so are we. and what we tried to do, and she has, does it as much as anybody if not more, is every chance you get, even it drives people to distraction, repeat what it is

basically that we deal. repeat what it is to be a judge. plead with people to go to their legislators and ask them to require civics. and over and over and over. and didn't prepare materials so that the lawyers, and there are a million in this country, on law day can go to the judges and state judge, it's all here, the questions and answers. i would like you and me to go to the ninth grade in that high school over there on the first of may and the lesson plan is here and the teacher can just read it the night before, and there's a television film with it. and the kids will love it. okay. that requires so much work on the part of so many people, but i think there just is no other way. i think this is my cue to mention justice o'connor's website. >> it's also key to mention one of the conversations that will

follow this secretary of education duncan. because one of the things that justice o'connor pointed out rather shockingly, i didn't realize this, but he points out in his speech that one presumably unanticipated consequence was no child left behind was the minds of civic education in the public schools. arts education. but my daughter teaches at harvard law school and this is the topic that kind of obsesses her, that it is just a vanishing from the american school system. >> really sad. >> yes, sir. to. >> thank you. my name is nikki urban and i am a proud resident of los angeles. [laughter] >> i love los angeles. >> i love la. my question for the whole panel is wonderfully segued by the prior discussion about public

service, and i really service about tenure in your opinions on the tenure of supreme court justices. i believe that the european union court of justice has a tenure of 15 years. and what justice o'connor is doing and has been doing over the past couple of days i think is wonderful. you are the first supreme court justice i have laid eyes on. and i learned a lot about the court from you and for me as well, justice breyer. and i wonder if it wouldn't be a win-win for our country if supreme court justices have a fixed tenure of, say, 20 to 25 years after which you could go on tours like this. >> that's fine except he would have to change the constitution could have you tried to do that lately? [laughter] >> it's tough. >> i know the prospects are dim and i sat in this morning's constitutional lecture with professor levinson, and i know that that's, you know, that's a

long shot. but you know, i believe that if there was a campaign perhaps by the night of you that this would be an engaging conversation for us. as great as the greatest teachers and principals are, you as examples of our judicial system i think our unparalleled. an idea for the afternoon. >> justices can step down. i did. justice souter did. so maybe it will take care of itself. >> that's great. >> you would have to have a term. if you had an 18 year term as opposed to lifetime it would be fine. it would make no difference whatsoever. you have to have a long term as you recognize. you don't get used to the job until three or five years. and it is a job where experience helps. 18 years is fine. but the problem is just what justice o'connor said, and i get very nervous when people want to find statutory gimmicks in order

to try to get around the problem. because this is an area where you have to think clearly and simply. so i would be very nervous of some gimmick statute. and i would think the way to do it would be a constitutional amendment. and there we are. i will tell you an interesting story, a very, very old judge. it was either holmes. i think it was supposed to be homes, but don't hold me to it. where the court said, now there is judge field who is obviously all. and we think by the way he was just lost. so we please go tell him it's about time for him to step down. so holmes goes to see him in his house, in his apartment. he is sitting there in holmes said do you remember justice field when you were first on the court, and the judges pointed

out to you that justice greer had gotten along in years, and he was having a hard time keeping track of these arguments. it was about time for him to retire. and they asked you to go to him and to explain that to him. and field looked at him and he said yes, i remember. and a dirty years day's work i have never done. [laughter] >> that's great. >> mark whitaker with nbc news and washington. justice o'connor, if i recall correctly, and your decision and the university of michigan affirmative action case, you said that one of the reasons you thought that we still need affirmative action in some form is that in order for our institutions to have legitimacy, they needed to reflect to some degree the diversity of the

population. do you think that also applies to the judiciary? and to what extent. does it supply up to apply to the supreme court should that argument have any place in the debate over the current nominee? >> i think that it's helpful in our country, that people can look at the supreme court bench and have some reason to think that it is somewhat reflective of our society. with no women on it. i didn't think it was. with one woman on it i thought that was a very small beginning. we are getting another one. i think that helps. and we have a nominee who also is hispanic. that probably will encourage hispanics who live in this country. we have an african-american on the bench, and that probably is

an encouragement to african-americans. so we are not totally correct of diversity on that bench at this point. i think we can do better. >> and if that is one factor, how do you weigh that factor against other factors that should go into the selection? >> that's up to the president and the senate. they can wait until they are perfectly capable of that. you don't have to ask a supreme court justice. we are lucky to get there i guess. >> quite right. >> but i think that's one of the concerns that any president would have in selecting someone. >> when you are offering advise to potential nominees for the district or circuit court, to what degree did diversity concerns of the kind just described go into your judgment? >> a different kind of analysis than michigan, obviously because judicial positions are not entitlements, as they are in educational processes.

and the decision is not based on, it's a political decision. it is for the president and the senate to judge. that said, president bush had this rather i guess i'll take would be a good description of it, standard called affirmative access that everyone keeps asking what is affirmative access. and nobody could say what affirmative access is an every knew what affirmative action was. i think the way it worked in practice for us was something like, if we go into the president and we say we have a seat that is open in new orleans, and here is the name of the candidate, that the committee recommends. and it happens to be a white male. the president will lower his reading glasses and say, are you sure? we said, yes, this is what everybody had agreed to. and he starts asking the next

question. who else did you look at? who are the top three besides this guy? and at the top three turned out to be all white males also. he will cycle back, do your homework or if we go back, another round goes around. and we come back to the president, and the same, similar name comes into it and he asked the question, and by the way, he says fine. if this is the best recommendation then i will trust you. but i want to make sure that you have not been television tunnel. for you not to find an african-american in a predominately african-american district that seems odd to me. those are the type of questions that are asked in a very practical manner. >> charlie firestone from the institute of society programs. justice o'connor, you have been a tremendous job in making the importance of g. chari, an

important issue for all of us in civic education. the answer is transparency. so holmes i would like to know why the supreme court does not make its arguments available to the public through televised arguments? >> you mean the oral arguments? they are available is just a question of when they are available at why don't we have television in the courtroom? >> we do have television and a lot of courtrooms. >> you do, but why do we not have television in the supreme court to have the oral argument? because people i guess and most people there think the negatives outweigh the positives at this moment. the negatives, the positives, the positives are obvious that the positive it would be quite educational for people to see. and i think what they discover is nine people who do their job in an institution that works pretty well. and they would see that some of these issues that they think are so obvious one way or another

artist very far from obvious. i like to think in that respect a very minor issue, but it turned out to be important about a term limits issue, whether that violated the constitution. mike goodes, that was a interesting argument. every argument you had on one side you had one on the other. jefferson thought one store. so there would be a tremendous education of that. you say why not do it? there are arguments on the other side, and i can tell you what they are. i am not necessarily endorsing one or the other. the arguments on the other side in the supreme court are one, people would worry because of the symbolic value of the court. that the television would then be in every courtroom in the country, including all the criminal cases where you have concerns about witnesses and jurors and intimidation and so forth. the second argument that people sometimes make is that it wouldn't be understood very well that this oral argument is only 5% of what goes on.

most of it is in briefs. and the third, and people relate to human beings, you know. and what our job requires is not to focus on those particular individuals in the cases. and that's probably the most important thing. nature of our job is to worry about the 300 million people who will have to live under this rule of law, interpreted one way or another. and those people are not in that courtroom. rather, there are two lawyers and there is a plant and a defendant. and people might, being people, as a very nice quality about human beings, they focus on individuals. you meet somebody, you relate. you see them in a picture, you relate. you see them and hear about them in a radio, still, new story, he's a statistic. you can hardly keep your eyes open. but that is a characteristic of human beings. so there are concerns there.

now, which way those concerns bounce out, i don't know. it hasn't really come up very much. people have different views on that and i am not going to express my own view one way or the other on this. we are moving in a direction where more and more is on television. and maybe people adapt to it more and more. but at the moment that's all i can say. >> any further? >> no. >> i obviously haven't convinced you. [laughter] >> i'm just trying to explain to the argument on the two sides. i forgot one which is important. psychologic. psychological argument. is important psychologically. everyone of us, while you're there, there, while i am there, not one of us thinks that we are doing it any minute what 99% of the people think we are doing, which is doing what we want. i think almost all the time i am not. we are trustees.

that's what we think of. we are trustees of an institution. and that institution has served america well in the past. okay we hope in the present. and who knows about the future. and so some of us may think that if we were to go for something, with implications of change we know not what, be careful. that's called being very conservative about working major changes on this institution. that's not a logical argument. it's a psychological argument. but i wouldn't understate its importance in the architect of the supreme court was a talented man named gilbert. one of the features he put in the court in the courtyard to hold the beautiful lamps up work tortoises. now, why did he do that? it's because justice moves slowly. and why does it justice move

slowly? it's because it's better to be sure than sorry. okay? >> i think i speak for all of us in thanking justices o'connor, breyer. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we take you live now to the u.s. capitol as the senate convenes. after general topic speeches, the senate takes up homeland security department spending for fiscal year 2010. around 12:15 al franken is to be sworn in as minnesota's new senator. a break for party meetings at 12:30 and in a return to legislative work at 2:15. this is live coverage on

c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain will now lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god before you nations

rise and fall; they grow strong or wither by your design. help our nation to embrace righteousness and to strive for unity and renewal. lord, hasten the coming of your kingdom where pain, tears, and death will be no more. may america's example of right living prompt the world's nations to gather in the light of your presence. teach all nations the way of peace so we may plow up battlefields and pound weapons

into liberation tools. teach us to talk across boundaries as brothers and sisters united by your love. today help our senators and all who labor with them to work with the renewed sense of their accountability to you. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, tuesday, july 7, 2009, to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable roland burris, a senator from the state of illinois, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following remarks from the two leaders the senate will proceed to a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak up tone minutes each with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the second half. following morning business the senate will begin consideration of h.r. 2892, the homeland security appropriations act. around 12:15 today senator elect

al franken will be sworn in to be the united states senator from the state of minnesota. at 12:30 the senate will recess for the weekly caucus luncheon. the senate should consider roll call votes throughout the day as we consider the homeland security bill. prior to leaving that subject, mr. president, i would hope that senators would be ready to offer amendments on this. we have a rule 16. but this is a wide jurisdiction bill. there should be lots of opportunity for people to offer amendments. and i would hope that they would consider doing their amendments as soon as possible the we're not going to spend day after day after day on this bill. we need to move appropriation bills as quickly as we can. i want people to have the opportunity to offer amendments. we'd be happy to look at time agreements if that is appropriate without any preconditions let's move to this bill. let's get it done as quickly as possible. mr. president, h.r. 2454 is at the desk.

it's my understanding it is due for its second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill for the second time. the clerk: an act to create clean enterjobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming and transition to a clean energy economy. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings on this legislation. the presiding officer: the bill will be placed on the calendar. the majority leader. mr. reid: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the american people want health care reform. there's no question about that. but they have serious concerns about some of the proposals coming out of washington. concerns that i've outlined on the senate floor over the past

few weeks. americans are increasingly concerned about the way their proposals are being sold. specifically they're concerned that the same mistakes that were made on the economic stimulus bill are about to be made once again. only this time those mistakes would be all but permanent and would directly affect every single american family. here's what they're concerned about: earlier this year advocates of the stimulus bill said that the bill had to pass right away with minimum scrutiny and minimal bipartisan support. they gave the american people less than 24 hours to review one of the costliest pieces of legislation in our history and then they hoped for a good result. the reason for the rush is clear: proponents of the stimulus were concerned that public support would start to fade if people got a closer look at the details. so they shortchanged the debate an over promised on results and

now the predictions are coming back to bite them. here's what they said at the time: they said if the stimulus passed unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%. unemployment is now approaching 10%. they said the stimulus was necessary to jump-start the economy. yet now with about a half million jobs lost every single month, they've started to admit that it's simply misread the economy. these were costly mistakes and we can't take them back. but we can prevent the same kinds of mistakes on health care. if the stimulus taught us anything at all, it's that americans should be skeptical any time someone in washington rushes them into a major purchase with taxpayer dollars. we'd walk away from many car salesmen who tried to rush us into buying a car even if it was a cheap one. we should be just as skeptical of a lawmaker who tries to do the same thing with our tax dollars and trillions in borrowed money.

and now that americans are hearing the same kinds of arguments about health care that we heard about the stimulus, the taxpayer antenna should begin to go up. now it's time for advocates of a government-run health care plan to actually take the time to determine what reforms will actually save us money and increase access to care while preserving things people like about the current system. taking time may be frustrating to those who want to rush a health care bill through congress before their constituents have a chance to see what they're buying. but the fact that the public is increasingly concerned about government-run health care isn't reason to rush. it's reason to take the time we need to get it right and to make a serious effort to get members of both parties to work out reforms that a bipartisan majority can agree to. several of which i've enumerated many times already here on the senate floor. we should reform our medical liability laws to discourage junk lawsuits an bring down the

cost of care. we should encourage wellness and prevention programs. we should encourage competition in the private insurance market. and we should address the needs of small businesses without creating new tax that's bill jobs. advocates of government health care should also be exceedingly cautious about the predictions they make this time around. we already know that many of the promises that are being made about a government-run health care plan are simply unrealistic. such as the claim that everyone who likes the insurance they have will be able to keep it. and that the cost of health care proposals won't add to the national debt. as democrats rush the stimulus funds out the door, they also predicted it wouldn't be wasted. yet every day we hear about another outrageous project that's being used to fund. i've listed some of these projects in previous floor remarks such as the $3.4 million turtle tunnel in florida.

americans struggling to hold on to their homes and jobs are wondering why tax dollars are spent on wasteful and needless projects. americans were overpromised on the stimulus. this time they want the facts. soon the government accountability office will issue a report that gives us an even great sense of the problems with the stimulus. i'm concerned that this report will provide an even clearer accounting of the mistakes that were made with that bill. and the flawed manner in which it was sold to the american people. americans who are now waking up to headlines about problems with the stimulus don't want to be told a few months from now that the people who sold them a government run health care system misread the state of our health care industry or that the health care plan they're proposing was based on faulty assumptions. americans don't want to wake up a few years from now with their families enrolled in a government-run health care system because some here in washington decided to rush and spend a trillion dollars and let

the chips fall where they may. the american people don't want us to rush through a misguided plan that pushes them off of their health insurance and on to a government plan that denies, delays, and rations care. on the stimulus americans saw what happened when democrats rush and spend. when it comes to health care, they're demanding we take the time to get it right. now, mr. president, on one other subject. last week the supreme court decided the case of richie versus d destafono where the ciy of new haven connecticut discriminated against mostly white firefighters by throwing out a standard promotion test because some minority firefighters had not performed as well as they had. in this case the supreme court was correct, in my view.

the government should not be allowed to discriminate intentionally on the basis of race on the grounds that a race neutral standardized test which is administered in a racially neutral fashion results in some races not performing as well as others. yet, regardless of where one comes out on this question, there are at least two aspects of how all nine justices handled this very important case that stands in stark contrast to how judge sotomayor and her panel on the second circuit handled it. and which called into question judge sotomayor's judgment. first, this case involves complex questions of federal employment law. namely the tension between the laws protection from intentional discrimination, known as dis-- treatment discrimination and from overt discrimination.

it also involves important constitutional questions such as whether the government, consistent with the 14th's amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law may intentionally discriminate against some of its citizens in the name of avoiding possible discriminatory results against other of its citizens. every court involved in this case realized that it involved complex questions that warranted thorough treatment. every court, that is, except for judge sotomayor's panel. the district court, which first took up the case spent 48 pages wrestling with these issues. the supreme court devoted 93 pages to analyzing them. by contrast judge sotomayor's panel dismissed the firefighter's claim in just six -- a treatment that her colleague and fellow clinton

appointee called remarkable, prefunctory and not worthy of the weighty issues presented by the firefighters' appeal. it would be one thing if the case presented simple issues that were answered simply by applying clear precedent, but the supreme court doesn't take simple cases. and at any rate, no one buys that this case was squared -- was squarely governed by precedent, not even judge sotomayor. we know this because in dismissing the firefighters' claims, judge sotomayor didn't even cite a precedent. moreover, she herself joined an en banc opinion of the second circuit that said issues in the case were -- quote --

"difficult." so to quote the national journal's stewart taylor, the way judge sotomayor handled the issues in this case were peculiar, to say the least. and it makes one wonder why her treatment of these weighty issues differed so markedly from the way every other court has treated them and whether her legal judgment was unduly affected by her personal or political beliefs. second, all nine justices of the supreme court, every single one of them, said that judge sotomayor got the law wrong. she ruled that the government can intentionally discriminate against one group on the basis of race if it dislikes the outcome of a race-neutral exam and claims another group may sue it. or as judge cabranas put it, under her approach, employers can reject the results of an employment examination when the results fail to yield a racial

outcome. in other words, fail to satisfy racial quota. no one on the supreme court, not even the dissenters, thought that was a correct reading of the law. justice kennedy's majority opinion said before it can intentionally discriminate on the basis of race in an employment matter, the government must have a strong basis and evidence that it could lose a lawsuit by a disgruntled parbgt claiming a tkeus -- party claiming a discriminatory effect. even justice ginsburg said before it intentionally discriminates, the government must have at least a good cause to believe it could lose a lawsuit by a disgruntled party. but not judge sotomayor. she evidently believes that statistics alone allow the government to intentionally discriminate against one group in favor of another if it claims to fear a lawsuit. stewart taylor notes why this is problematic.

as he put it, the sotomayor approach would -- quote -- "risk converting federal antidiscrimination law into an engine of overt discrimination against high-scoring groups across the country and allow racial politics and racial quotas to masquerade as voluntary compliance with the law. under such a regime, taylor notes no employer could ever -- could ever -- safely proceed with promotions based on any test on which minorities fared badly. it's one thing to get the law wrong. but judge sotomayor got the law really wrong in the ritchie case. and the new haven firefighter suffered for it. to add insult to injury, the perfunctory way in which she treated their case indicates either she didn't care about their claims or she let her own experiences, planning and overseeing these types of lawsuits with the puerto rican appeal defense and education fund affect her judgment in this case. as has been reported before she

was on the bench, judge sotomayor was in the leadership position with this puerto rican legal defense group for over a decade. while there, shimon toward the group's -- she monitored the group's lawsuits and was described as an ardent supporter of its litigation projects, one of the most important of which was the plan to sue cities based on their use of civil service exams. she's been credited with helping develop the group's policy of challenging these types of standardized tests. in a way, judge sotomayor treated the firefighters' claims in the ritchie case, what president obama means when he says he wants judges who can empathize with certain groups. is this why judge sotomayor herself said she doubted that judges can be impartial even in most cases? it is a troubling philosophy for any judge, let alone one nominated to our highest court, to convert empathy into favoritism for particular groups. the ritchie decision is the

tenth of judge sotomayor's cases that the supreme court has reviewed. they reviewed ten of her cases, and it is the ninth time out of ten that the supreme court has disagreed with her. in fact, sheets 0 for 3 -- she is 0 for 3 during the supreme court's last term. the president says only 5% of cases that federal judges decide really matter. i don't know if he's right, but i do know that by necessity, the supreme court only takes a small number of cases, and it only takes cases that matter. and i know that in the supreme court, judge sotomayor has been wrong 90% of the time. in the ritchie case, her third and final reversal of this term, judge sotomayor was so wrong in interpreting the law that all nine justices of all ideological skraoeups -- stripes disagreed with her. as we consider her nomination to the supreme court my colleagues should ask themselves this important question: is she

allowing her personal or political agenda to cloud her judgment and favor one group of individuals over another regardless of what the law says? mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time be reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business for one hour with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise to speak in morning business. the republican senate -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: senator kphabg kopbl complete -- mcconnell completed his statement and i would like to respond.

i'm not surprised he opposes sonia sotomayor, the president's nominee to the supreme court. he stated earlier that he does not believe she should take this important position. i disagree. sonia sotomayor comes to us having first been nominated for a federal judgeship under republican president george h.w. bush and then nominated for a promotion to the circuit level -- next higher bench -- by president clinton. so she has enjoyed bipartisan support in her judicial career. in fact, she brings more experience on the bench to the supreme court if she wins this nomination, if it's approved by the senate, than any nominee in modern memory. so there is no question that she was qualified both under a republican president and democratic president, and now she brings that accumulated experience in this effort to be part of the supreme court. i met her. she has met personally with over 80 united states senators and

talked to them, answering every question they had about her background, her approach to the law. i think she is an outstanding candidate. her life story is one that is inspiring to all. she was raised in public housing in queens, new york. there's been some mention of the fact that she was -- was a volunteer attorney for the puerto rican legal defense fund. it is a fact that she is of puerto rican national descent. when she was nine years old her father passed away. her mother, a strong willed and energetic person raised her and her brother. her brother is a medical doctor. she is an accomplished attorney. she went to princeton university and graduated with one of the highest academic honors and then went on to yale law school where she also was acknowledged of being one of the most outstanding law students of her class. this is a person who comes to

this job with a resume that as a lawyer myself i look at with a great deal of envy. she is an extraordinarily gifted person. there could be questions raised about any judge's ruling on any case. but the fact is i believe she has a record that is just unparalleled in terms of of judicial experience. so i hope that those who listen to senator mcconnell's remarks will reflect on the fact that judge sotomayor is an extraordinarily talented and gifted person. if senator mcconnell is going to oppose her nomination, i hope someone on this side of the aisle will join us in a bipartisan effort to make her part of the u.s. supreme court. now, senator mcconnell also was critical of president obama and the president's attempt to deal with the economy that he inherited from the previous president. the economy was in the worst shape we've seen it since the great depression when president obama was sworn into office. it wasn't, as he said, his choice to face that kind of an issue or challenge, but it was the reality of what he faced.

he did the right thing. he said i'm not going to stand idly by and with more people facing unemployment, businesses failing and people losing their savings. i'm going to try to save and create jobs here in america so that we don't see more people in the unemployment lines. now, i supported that. luckily three republican senators at the time joined us, or otherwise we could not have passed it. so we had a bipartisan vote supporting president obama's recovery and reinvestment package. senator mcconnell, the republican leader, opposed it. he came to the floor today to say that we wasted our money on this stimulus package and that we should be very skeptical of these things. the fact is the republicans in the senate had nothing to offer as an alternative. their alternative was to stand idly by and watch the economy continue to descend, continue to deteriorate. and maybe with a little prayer

and hope that it would turn around. that's not good enough. president obama said let us first in this stimulus package take at least 40% of all the funds that i'm asking for and give it back to americans in tax breaks for working families. families need a helping hand the president said. i voted for that. i think that was sensible. the president made that decision. senator mcconnell thinks that's wasteful to give tax breaks to working families. at least he said it was wasted. i don't think it's wasteful. i think it's a good thing to do to try to revitalize the economy. the president said let's invest in things that will pay off for a long time to come. let's put money into infrastructure. let's build things that will serve our economy and serve america and let's create good-paying jobs to do it. i thought that was a sensible thing. the president said let's look to the next generation of needs in america. let's make sure we're investing in energy products which will pay back in years to come.

another good investment from where i'm sitting. he also said give a helping hand to those unemployed, a little extra money for them each month to get by. it wasn't a lot, but for many families it made a difference. he also said give the unemployed a helping hand so that they can keep their health insurance. if you lose a job, you lose your health insurance. think about that if you're trying to raise a family. the president said let's try to reduce the premiums that unemployed people will pay. now, senator mcconnell comes to the floor and says this was a waste of time and a waste of money for us to make that kind of investment in america. i think the president did the right thing. and i would commend to senator mcconnell, the republican leader, the latest pew poll which shows when the americans were asked if america's economy is on the right track or wrong track, they come in with the highest number -- 53% -- on the right track, 39% wrong track that we've seen in months. there's a feeling we have a long way to go.

still too many people unemployed, too many businesses failing. but at least we're on the right track toward recovery. it may take some time. nobody predicted this would be fast or easy but the president showed leadership inheriting a bad economy. the major thrust of the remarks from the senate republican leader day after day has been an opposition to health care reform. i will tell you that i think that the republican leader's out of step with america. america understands that we tpwhaoed to do -- we need to do something about our health care system. we're spending twice as much per person for health care in america as any nation on earth. twice as much. and the outcomes, the medical outcomes, unfortunately, don't reflect that kind of major investment. in other words, we are wasting money on our current health care system. that has to change. so what we need to do is to preserve those things in our health care system today that are good and fix the things that are broken. and that's what the president has challenged us to do. this is not something new.

this challenge has been waiting for 15 years, since former president clinton tackled it, and, unfortunately, couldn't pass it. and we've seen our health care costs in america continue to skyrocket and our costs for health insurance following in track. now we've got to do something about it. time and again the senator from kentucky comes to the floor and says we're rushing into this. i would just say to him that in the year 2008, the senate finance committee, under chairman max baucus, held ten hearings on health reform and a day-long bipartisan summit with the finance committee's ranking member republican chuck grassley. this year the finance committee held two reform-related hearings, three round tables, three walk-throughs of policy options and closed door sessions to discuss the issues on a bipartisan basis. the "help" committee also considering health care reform has held 14 bipartisan round tables, 13 committee hearings

and 20 walk-throughs. democrats aren't rushing this through. we have taken this in an orderly way, trying to analyze one of the most significant challenges ever facing congress. time and again senator mcconnell has come to the floor and argued that americans should be afraid of change. be a frayed. be very afraid. well, this is not a fearful nation. or a nation which accepts challenges and does our best to try to find solutions. we have a good and caring nation of people who want to make certain that the -- at the end of the day that we reduce the cost of health care for everyone bringing it more in line with efficiency and effective medical care and we also pick up the 50 million americans who have no health insurance and give them protection, bring them under the umbrella of protection. we shouldn't be afraid of that challenge. why would we be afraid of it? we know if we don't tackle it,

it will continue to cost us more and more money. one of the things that the senator from kentucky says repeatedly, which is just plain wrong, is that under the proposals coming before the senate, the government can take away your health insurance that you have today. i'm sorry that the senator is not on the floor. i'm certain that some members of the staff will alert him to the fact. i would like to read from the language of the "help" committee bill which is presently being considered. this language makes it abundantly clear, in fact, says directly that we can had keep our health care plans, that they won't be taken away. that is something that most americans want to have the benefit of having. let me read this. the "help" committee bill that is going to be considered by the senate. here's what it says: nothing in this act or an amendment made to this act shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such

individual was enrolled prior to the date of enactment of this title. that's what it says. you -- if you like your health insurance today, nothing we do in health care reform will take that away from you. it's expressly stated. time and again senator mcconnell comes to the floor and says just the opposite. the government's going to take away your health insurance. the clear language of the bill says, no, that is not our intention. that's not what we're going to do. i'm also concerned when i read or listen to the senator from kentucky talk about government-run health care. he says it in negative term as if the government's involvement in health insurance and medical care is inherently wrong or misguided or in effective. here are the realities. 45 million americans, out of 300 million americans, 45 million currently are covered by medicare. the senator from kentucky want to eliminate medicare, a government-run health care plan? i'm waiting for him to say that

on the floor. he's never said it. another 60 million americans are under medicaid, which provides health insurance for the poorest among us and those who are disabled. so 105 million americans today have either medicare or medicaid. that's one-third of america being covered by government-run health care. that's a reality. and most americans understand that there are very positive things to be said for those plans. would we do without snake would we abolish it? i wouldn't be part of that. over the years medicare has brought dignity and great medical care to millions of seniors across america. i think it is a program that solved us well. so a question was asked recently by cnn. in general would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs an provide health care coverage to

more americans? the numbers that came back on may the 15th, by cnn, 69% of the american people favor that statement. favor more government involvement in health care to reduce costs and expand coverage. only 29% posed. so the position being argued by the republican leader on the floor doesn't reflect america's feelings about health care. i would just say if senator mcconnell feels the current health care system is just fine and we shouldn't work to change it, he doesn't -- i'm afraid, reflect the feelings of most americans. we can do better and we need to do better on a bipartisan basis. we need the cooperation on the republican side of the aisle in a bipartisan solution that won't compromise the values of the health care system, but give people a health care program that won't be taken away by a health insurance company bureaucrat, something the family can afford, something that small businesses can afford. we can do it.

we shouldn't be afraid of this. america has tackled bigger cal mention the past. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. kaufman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: i rise to speak about the vital role that federal employees play in keeping america safe, prosperous an free. on the fourth of july we celebrated the 233 independence. ordinary americans have chosen to give their energy, time and tall meant the service of our government. many have given their lives. all federal employees, as i said previously, are bound together by a shared sense of duty and willingness to sacrifice. when the founders added their signatures to the declaration of independence, they did so with faith in their fellow americans. that the 56 names were joined in spirit by millions of others in their own day and for generations to come. they knew that building a nation requires more than just a handful of patriots.

it entails the active participations from citizens from all walks of life. that is why a decade later when the framers assembled in philadelphia to draft our constitution, they did so with an expectation that regular citizens would be the form and substance of our government. indeed, they knew firsthand the value of service above self. this virtue would leave countless americans who fought for freedom become the first generation of federal employees. the founders and framers had good cause to predict such participation among citizens beyond their appointed role. the classical history and writings rain that fliewnsed them are -- writings that filled them are part of the sacrifice had that inspire america's service. many are familiar with the story when the armies approached the walls of rome.

horacious ran to the bridge where he alone held off the enemy as his compatriots destroyed the bridge. with this act of courage, he prevented the capture of rome he was not a professional soldier. he defended with pride. that title of greater honor than any other, citizen. he he gave his life so that others could remain free. his act is an example of the kind of sacrifices that ordinary citizens are willing to make when they know freedom is in jeopardy. americans look to classical figures when their own liberty yeas uncertain. it is this common willingness to risk safety an personal gain that sets apart a th commonwealh of citizens from a nation of subjects. mr. president, it is these same qualities that make our federal employees so worthy of praise.

on the fourth of july i thought of ordinary americans who serve their country in periless situations. many risk harm while defending the liberties and values. as i've said before, our federal employees exemplify the american value of service above self. throughout our history federal employees have traveled to dangerous corners of the globe in order to represent the american people abroad, promote peaceful international cooperation and provide aid to those in need. john beganville wa grannville fo serve his country. a native of new york, near buffalo, he studied at fordham and clark university before joining the peace corps. he went to west africa. while there he applied for and received a full body fellowship to continue to live in that

country and conduct research on the society and development. john, committed to serving his country and helping others, joined the foreign service. he worked for the u.s. agency for international development in kenya before heading to sudan in 2005. it was a dangerous assignment that year. the sudanese government signed a cease-fire to end a war. john's assignment was to distribute radios to villagers. with democratic elections approaching these radios would give the local sudanese access to unkressorred broadcast. -- uncensored broadcast. i can attest the importance of providing free news. it also promotes hope and understanding which help deter the spread of extremist views. john worked for the dedicated

team of a.i.d. officials to distribute these radios. one of the co-workers said that john was the glue that held the group together an kept up their spirits throughout the mission. on new year's day 2008 john was gunned down by four militants who targeted his car for diplomatic plates. he was only 33 years of age. his loved ones back home remembered him as an unselfish humanitarian, the consummate professional and someone who worked with energy and imagination. he was an active member of the st. john church community and a mentor who inspired others to follow in his footsteps. john granville believed in the importance of service as part of citizenship. he crossed the ocean and stood on the other side. like horacio risking his own safety an service to this nation. he told his mother that despite the danger of the work, he would

not want to be doing anything else. there are thousand of foreign service officers, a.i.d. workers all over the globe. these it ha dedicated men and wn leave behind family, friends, and community and are often in dangerous parts of the world where crime, whacks and terrorism is very real. all too frequently their sacrifices and achievements go unrecognized. on occasion they make the ultimate sacrifice. mr. president, because we just celebrated the fourth of july, let me return for a moment to the founding generation. those first americans who sacrificed for liberty, established more than our republic, they left us with a democratic legacy that reminds us every day of our rights and duties as equal citizens. the dissend enters of those ref -- descendants of those

revolutionaries inspired a powerful message. the paintings in the rotunda narrate the story of how america achieved its greatness. taken as a whole these eight paintings celebrate the evolution of american citizenship. the turning point of this narrative is highlighted by the iconic portrayal of the drafting of the declaration of independence. but the last painting in the cycle is the most poignant and recalls a climatic moment in the development of our citizenship, washington at the height of its popularity willing to yield his power and authority back to the people by resigning his commission. with his sacrifice in that moment the american people were truly free and those who laid out the cycle of painting did so reclaiming this birth of the american citizen ship. no american should ever rule arbitrarily over another.

it is this notion of citizen this governs the relationship between the american people and our federal employees. as a commonwealth of citizens we entrust our fellow americans to work in the government to perform that task so known by the men who wrote and signed the declaration. they constituted a government deriving its just powers. their work to protect our lives, preserve our liberty enable all americans to pursue happiness. i call my colleagues to join me and honor and recognize the sacrifice made by john granville and all americans who gave their lives in service of our nation. their names will forever be indescribed on the eternal declaration. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous

consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: wo*ubgz. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the time of the majority be preserved. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, the last few years i've traveled all over this country talking to people about health care. after listening to countless americans, including two town hall meetings last week, i proposed in the past health care reforms that would have ensured health care coverage was more affordable, accessible, portable and suitable for all american families. health reforms need to be consistent with our american values of freedom, choice, and limited government. the key to these reforms is put to our citizens in charge of their own health coverage rather than being stuck in a job because the job provides health care. losing health insurance if the economy causes you to lose your

job, we need to change our system and allow americans to obtain coverage options with a tax credit for policies not limited by state boundaries or government dictates. just this past week i had the great good fortune to visit two of the finest health care institutions in this country. first i spent time with hundreds of patients, doctors, nurses and health care leaders at the world-renowned m.d. anderson cancer center in houston, texas. i heard from patients who had come to this center of excellence from 90 countries and states, including arizona. why patients come to the united states of america from all over the world is because the highest-quality health care is in the united states of america. and i repeat: the fundamentals of this discussion and debate sometimes goes astray from the fundamental fact that the highest-quality health care in the world is available in the

united states of america. the key to it and our challenge is to make that health care available and affordable to all americans. and the path we're on will destroy the quality of that coverage and will in fact make health care the same as it is in other countries and the reason why they leave there to get high-quality health care in the united states of america. it's the best our system, because innovation and technology is allowed to flourish. later in the week in my home state of arizona, i visited one of the premier children's hospitals in the country. phoenix children's hospital is a tkesty nay medical facility for all children around the southwest and in the country. at phoenix children's hospital, i also met with patients, physicians, nurses, medical executives and average

arizonans. during this visit not one health care provider in phoenix told me they wanted more government control over health care. in fact, they told me the opposite. p.c.h. has experience with medicaid. and time after time i was told of the problems providers face every day with the government medicaid program. the program is a vital safety net for low-income, but we have to recognize the important lessons we have already learned about government running health care programs. during these events i was repeat lid told that we need -- repeatedly told that we need reform. they told me about the problems they face in the government-controlled medicare and medicaid programs, both with massive unfunded liabilities. they want a stable system that keeps costs under control, gets everyone covered, pays fairly, encourages innovation and maintains america's standing as providing the best health care

in the world. but none of them told me that we need more government control of health care or government-controlled health insurance. i listened to americans. i'm worried that they're not being heard here in congress who control the agenda in the white house and the senate. if president obama and the democratic leaders were listening, we wouldn't have a bill before us that costs too much, taxes too much, covers too few and puts government in control at every turn. this country has fought for over 200 years for the fundamental values that i fear are being erodedably the -- eroded by the other side's appetite of one size fits all. first, this administration takes over the banking industry. then they take over the auto industry. along the way, they tell us a $787 billion in more and bigger government along with $1.8

trillion of debt this year alone is the answer to our ailing economy. now they're telling the american people that they were not aware of the economic situation, and guess what? they're going to want another stimulus package. i think that idea would be soundly rejected by the american people. and now they're telling the american people that we must rush to pass a new government health care plan that we can't pay for, will increase taxes and kill jobs. mr. president, we're talking about one-sixth of the gross national product of america and it's pretty obvious the other side wants to jam this through in the next four weeks. they still haven't come up with ways to pay for this grandiose takeover of the american health care system. americans are losing health care coverage every day, and that gets back to the issue of

affordability, not quality. but the democrats can't produce legislation that responsibly makes coverage available to all americans without trillions of dollars in new spending. this weekend, after a four-week delay, we finally received new provisions in their new government-run health care plans. here's what we know about the legislation before us. the congressional budget office says the preliminary cost estimate for the new language they reviewed was nearly $900 billion in new spending. the other side says this is a cost reduction from an earlier version of the bill. don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors. after an inexplicationable four-year phase-in that delays several provisions in the democratic bill in an effort to hide costs through accounting techniques, the bill will actually spend $1.5 trillion when it's fully implemented and that's not counting the hundreds of billions of dollars in

medicaid spending promised by that legislation. c.b.o. also tells us the "help" committee bill still leaves over 30 million americans without coverage. mr. president, for all the spending being proposed, don't you think we should be covering more than 40% of the uninsured? and when the final numbers come in, don't be surprised if the cost of this -- quote -- "rush proposal" is at or above $2 trillion. what's worse, the sponsors can't tell us how we will pay for such a massive price tag. my colleagues and i plan to continue talking to the american public. i suggest the other side in the senate talk to all americans about what they need rather than making these decisions for them. again, mr. president, we cannot risk running through a legislative proposal in the next four to five weeks and be sure that we're not making serious

and fundamental mistakes. and the serious and ph-d mistake is the -- and fundamental mistake is the approach to this legislation which is that the quality of health care in america can and must be preserved. it's the cost that needs to be brought under control, and we can bring those costs under control by innovative techniques, by competition, by allowing americans to go all across america and get the health insurance of their choice, the same way that we've been able to redouse costs in other -- reduce costs in other sectors of our economy as technology has improved the quality of our lives. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i'm glad i was here to hear the thoughtful comments of the senator from arizona, his leadership on the health committee and try to make sure

we help americans have access to health care they can afford and that we do that in a way that leaves them with a government they can afford and with choices so that they don't have government in between themselves and their doctors has been very important. and i thank him for his leadership. the senator talked about spending and debt. and if during my week in tennessee last week i heard anything, it was about too much debt. people are genuinely worried about the amount of new debt and spending in washington. but if i heard anything else last week, it was about too many washington take overs. senator mccain mentioned some of them. he said banking. he talked about student loans. he mentioned perhaps the health care industry. and he mentioned the automobile industry, which is what i'd like to talk about for a few minutes this morning. yesterday was good news for general motors. the judge in the bankruptcy case apparently approved a plan that

by the end of the week should free general motors from bankrupt circumstance and we could have a new -- from bankruptcy, and we could have a new g.m., which i wish great success because general motors has made contribution to our state of tennessee. the saturn plan produced a good car, although they never made any money for one reason or another. but they made a great contribution to our state. so the good news is that general motors is out of bankruptcy. the bad news is that the united states government still owns 61% of general motors as well as about 8% of chrysler. and it was paid for with real dollars. $50 billion or so in taxpayer dollars went to buy 61% of general motors. well, i have a solution which i'd like to discussion offered by the senator from utah, senator bennett, the senator from arizona, senator kyl, the senator from kentucky, senator

mcconnell and i. our amendment would direct the department of treasury within one year after general motors comes out of bankruptcy, to distribute all the government stock in general motors and in chrysler to the 120 million americans who pay taxes on april 15. in other words, a stock dividend. give the stock to the people who paid for it. the idea is pretty simple. i paid for it, i ought to own it. not only would that stop the incestuous political meddling. washington can't seem to keep its hands off the car company. it would generate a fan base of 120 million americans who might be interested in the success of general motors, a little more interested than they are today. think of the green bay packers. the fans own the team, and the fans are even a little bit more interested in who the quarterback might be than they might otherwise be. if 120 million americans owned a little bit of general motors,

the new g.m., they might be a little more interested in the next chevy, and it might help that company succeed. but i can suggest one thing that will make sure the company doesn't succeed, and that is to keep the ownership of general motors in washington, d.c. with medaling politicians interfering with the executives and workers who are designing and building and selling cars, or who i might say ought to be designing, building and selling cars. now when i first suggested that what we ought to do is just give the stock to taxpayers, i think some of my colleagues thought -- mr. president, about how long do i have remaining? the presiding officer: the senator has 6 minutes. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i think some of my colleagues thought i might be facetious. but this is a very normal corporate event. it's called a stock dividend or stock distribution, or a corporate spinoff. in 1969, procter & gamble did a

spinoff with clorox, its subsidiary. it decided its subsidiary, clorox, wasn't a part of the core businesss of procter & gamble anymore so it gave shares of clorox to people who owned the major company -- procter & gamble. time warner did it with time warner cable in march of 2009. pepsico did it with its restaurant business in 1997. that was k.f.c., pizza hut and taco bell. it is the simplest way to solve the problem. the president said he doesn't want to micromanage the company. he wants to sell it. but the president has fired the president of general motors, put in the board and called the mayor of detroit and said he believes the headquarters ought to be in detroit instead of warren, michigan. and you have the chairman of the house financial committee calling up saying don't close the warehouse in my district. and senators from tennessee and michigan and other states saying

please put a plant in our place. we have 60 committees that could be having the general motors and chrysler skraoufs drive in their congressionally approved hybrid cars to washington, d.c. all day while they ought to be figuring out how they could make a carousel better -- car sell better than some other company. let's get the stock out of washington and into the hands of taxpayers. i have twice presented a car czar award to try to put a spotlight on the political meddling in washington, d.c. once i gave it to barney frank who called up the general motors president and said, don't close a warehouse in my district and general motors didn't. once i gave it to myself an met with the g.m. people and said please put a plant in my district the today i would like

to -- district. tied would like to present it to a real car czar. there is an article about lieutenant general placipa who was the car czar of romania. i ask unanimous consent that following my remarks that this article about what he learned as car czar be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, madam president. basically he says the united states is far more powerful than great britain was then and no american should be capable of destroying its solid economic base. i hope that the u.s. administration and others will look closely at history and prevent the ought mow motive -- automotive industry to not follow the romanian cars. how the president of romania decreed that the ulset parts were to be manufactured at 166 existing romanian factories in

exactly parts of the country that corresponded to the voting districts. can i see that happening here in the united states. we already have congressmen saying don't buy a battery in south korea, buy one in my congressional district to put in the chevy volt. they might buy it from south korea because it would make the chevy volt a success. it reminds me of an article in "the new york times" in 1989 talking about the soviet cars called the lotta, which were jokes and the difficulty that the soviet union had, the jokes about the lotta, what to you call a lotta with twin tailpipes? a wheel baro. why do they have heated windows, so you can keep your hands warm while pushing them in the snow. in other words, we politicians don't know anything about making cars and we shouldn't pretend that we do.

the american people know that. they don't like the fact that we spent $50 billion by bailing out the car companies. they like it worse that we're sitting on 60 committees acting like we can help them succeed. the single most important thing that we can do to celebrate general motors coming out of bankruptcy this week is to pass the amendment that we have offered which would give all of the stock that the government has in general motors and chrysler within one year to the 120 million americans who paid taxes on april 15. the rationale is very simple. they paid for it, they should own it. that would begin to stop this trend we're seeing every day and every month in washington of too many washington takeovers and move us back in the direction that we ought to go to rebuild a great car company and to get jobs flowing in this country again. i thank the president and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank the chair. how many time is left? the presiding officer: 12 minutes remaining. mr. sessions: i thank the chair and express my appreciation to the senator from tennessee for his insightful comments. it is an tangled web we create when we start owning automobile companies of which we know nothing about. i would just say, madam president, we are looking forward next week if -- working as hard as we possibly can to ensure we have a -- a very fine confirmation hearing in the judiciary committee for the justice nominated -- judge nominated to be justice of the supreme court by president obama, justice sotomayor. i want to share a few thoughts about that. some matters that i think are important for us, my colleagues

to think about as they study this issue and work to do the right thing about it. the president's nominee is, of course, his nominee, it's our responsibility, the only opportunity the american people have to know anything about this process is really the hearing in which the nominee has to answer questions and respond and senators make comments and ask questions. madam president, when we elevate one of our citizens to a federal judgeship, we give them an awesome responsibility and particularly so when they're elevated to the supreme court. they are the final word on our constitution, how those words -- how the constitution and our laws are to be interpreted. some judges, i have to say, have not been faithful in their responsibilities. they've allowed their personal views and values to imin fact,

in my -- impact that, in my view. we ask judges to take on a different role than they have in private practice. we ask them to shed their personal beliefs, their personal biases and, yes, their personal experiences. we ask them to take an oath to impartial justice. our wonderful judicial system, the greatest the world has ever seen, rests upon that first principle. it is an ad adversarial system, cross-examination. it is designed to produce and -- other rules as a part of it are designed to produce truth -- objective truth. the american legal system is founded on a belief in objective truth and its acertain train ability. this is the -- asker i asker is.

their words don't really have mean. words are just matters some political powerful group got past one day and they don't have concrete meanings. you don't have to try to ascertain what they meant. indeed, a good judge -- a good theory of law is to allow the judge to update it or change it or adopt how they would like it to be. and i would suggest, madam president, this is not a healthy trend in america. and it impacts this nation across the board in so many, many ways, but i think it's particularly pernicious when it comes to law if that kind of relative mentality is -- takes over. so this notion of blind justice,

objectivity, impartiality is in our legal system from the beginning and it should not be eroded. a judge takes an oath -- every judge takes this oath. and it sums up, i think, so well the ideals of the fabulous system we have. a judge takes this oath -- quote -- "i do solemnly swear that i will administer justice without respect to persons and to do equal right to the poor and the rich and that i will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the constitution and the laws of the united states, so help me god." close quote. well, i guess the court hadn't gotten around to striking their oath yet, at least the part that says so help me god. but those phrases have been

attacked around the country by federal judges in many, many instances. so i must say this oath -- i've got to say this -- stands in contrast to the president's stated standard for judicial nominees. and i'm concerned based on her speeches an statements that it may also be the judicial philosophy of judge sotomayor. in 2005 then senator obama explained that 5% of cases, he believes, are determined by -- quote -- "one's deepest values and core concerns and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." close quote. he means a judge's personal core concerns, values, and empathy. well, according to the president in 5% of the cases where issues are close, it's acceptable. i think we must draw from his

statement, that it's acceptable for judges to not set aside their personal beliefs, to not discard their personal biases, to not dispense with their personal experiences as they make rulings, as they decide cases, which is what judges do. according to the president in 5% of cases lady justice should, we may say, remove her blindfold, take a look at the litigants, reach out and place a thumb on the scales of justice on one side or the other. i think this is a dangerous departure from the most fundamental pillar of our judicial system, judicial impartiality. that's why judges are given lifetime appointments. they're supposed to be unbias, impartial. well, whatever this new empathy standard is is not law.

it is more akin to politics than law. whenever a judge puts his or her thumb on the scale of justice in favor of one party or another, the judge necessarily disfavors the other party. for every litigant who benefits from this so-called empathy, there will be another litigant who loses not because of the law or the facts, but because the judge did not empathize or identify with them. and, anyway, what is empathy? what is empathy? is this your personal feeling that you had a tough childhood or something prejudice that you have, you're protestant or catholic, your et ethnicity or race? is that what empathy is? it has no objective meaning, and

that's why it's not a legal standard. the oath of impassionality to equal justice to the rich and the poor alike is violated, i suggest, when such things infect the decision-making process. so with this as his stated standard, the president has nominated judge sonia sotomayor for the supreme court of the united states and thus far our review of her record suggests that she may well embrace this president's notion of empathy and i will share a few thoughts on that. on a number of occasions over the years judge sotomayor delivered a speech entitled "women in the judiciary." in it she emphasizes that she accepts the proposition that a judge's personal experiences affect their outcome. saying -- quote -- "in short i accept the proposition that a difference will be made by the president -- presence of women on the bench and that my experiences will affect the

facts i choose to see as a judge." close quote. in fact, in one speech she rejected another women judge's view that a woman and man should reach the same decision in a case and she explicitly rejected that concept. she reaffirms -- quote -- "i simply do not know what that judgment will be in my judging, but accept there will be some differences based on my gender and experiences. it has imposed on me." so i think this would tend to be a rejection of the aspiration, the ideal of impartiality that is fundamental to our legal system and to our freedoms. in the latest speech judge sotomayor takes a giant step expressing a desire to draw upon her experiences in her judging. she states "personal experiences affect the facts judges choose

to see. my hope is that i will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas where i'm unfamiliar. i simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my jumging, but i -- judging, but i accept that there will be some base the on my gender and heritage." close quote. are the days now gone when judges should see that taking office is a commitment to set aside their personal experiences and biases and views when they put on the robe? gone are the days when judges even aspire to be impartial? in that same speech which has been given a number of times judge sotomayor goes one step further saying -- quote -- "i willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the

differences resulting from experience and heritage, but attempt continuously to judge when those opinions sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." close quote. so she says a judge should attempt to -- attempt continuously to judge when those opinions and sympathies and prejudices are appropriate. that means a judge's prejudices. it's appropriate to use them in a decision-making process. i think. so, mr. president, i find this to be an extraordinary judicial philosophy. some may say you're making too much of it, that empathy sounds fine to me. i don't have any problem with that. empathy is great perhaps if you're the beneficiary of it. the judge is empathetic with

you, your side of the argument. but it's not good if you're on the wrong side of the argument, if you don't catch a judge's fancy or fail to appeal to a shared personal experience. and this approach to judging as expressed in her speeches and writings appear to have played an important part in the new haven firefighters case that senator mcconnell mentioned earlier. these were the 17 firefighters who followed all the rules and studied for the test. and it was publicly set out how the promotions would take place in that department. and a number of people passed, but a number of people didn't, and there was a number of minorities who did not pass. and they wanted to change the test after it had been carried out, change the rules of the game after it had been carried out because they didn't like the results. this is a results-oriented question. bowing to political pressure,

the city government looked at the test results and the statistical data and changed the rules of the game. they threw out the test. this was challenged by the persons who passed. and the district judge then agreed with the city in a 48 or so page opinion. and it was appealed to judge sotomayor's court. in one paragraph only, she agreed with that decision, even though it raised fundamental important constitutional questions, really important questions. and she concluded that the complaining firefighters were not even entitled to a trial, that the pretrial motions and so forth were sufficient to deny

them the remedy that they sought and to affirm the city's opinion. in one paragraph. well, the u.s. supreme court disagreed with that. they wrote almost 100 pages in their opinion and reversed. all nine justices voted to reverse the decision. it was not 5-4. five of the justices, the majority, ruled that based on the facts and evidence that had been presented prior to trial, that the firefighters were entitled to total victory and be able to win their lawsuit. this is a pretty significant reversal, i have to say. so the question is: did she allow her prior experiences and beliefs to impact her decision in that case? i would just point out that she was an active member of the

puerto rican appeal defense fund where she spent a number of years working on a -- on cases like this and filing litigation and challenging promotion policies in cities around the country, which is a legitimate thing for a group to do. but they did take a very aggressive standard that criticizing test and the standardized process of testing. and, of course, her stated philosophy is that a judge should use life experiences in reaching decisions. and we do know that she believes that a judge is empowered to utilize his or her personal -- quote -- "opinion, sympathies and prejudices" in deciding cases. and we do know her particular life experiences with the legal defense fund were contrary to the claims brought by the new

haven firefighters. we know that she was a leader and board member and chair of that organization's litigation committee. according to "the new york times," she -- quote -- "met frequently with the legal staff of the organization to review the status of cases" according to "the new york times," she was -- quote -- "involved and was an ardent supporter of their various legal efforts." and she oversaw as a board member and litigation chair several cases involving the new york city department of sanitation, which challenged a promotion policy because hispanics comprised 5.2% of the test takers, but only 3.8% had passed the test. they declared that was an unfair result and challenged the test.

in another involved new york city police department on behalf of the hispanic police society. another one involved police officers in a discrimination case challenging new york police departments lieutenants' exam claiming that that exam was biased. so under her leadership, the puerto rican legal and defense fund, before she became a judge, involved itself in a series of cases designed to attack promotion exams because the group concluded that after the fact, after the test that not enough minorities were being promoted. so it sounds a lot like this firefighters case that we talked a good bit about so far. and so we're left to wonder what role did the judge's personal experiences play when she heard the case. did her personal views, as she has stated -- quote -- "affect

the facts she chose to see?" the presiding officer: senator, the republican time has expired. mr. sessions: madam president, i would ask for one minute additional time, unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: so those are important questions, and we'll ask about that and give her a full and ample opportunity to respond. i did want to raise these issues. the firefighters were denied pro motion. under her stated policy, her prior background, they are left to wonder was the reason perhaps they lost in her court because she brought her background and her prejudices to bear on the case and did not give them a fair case? very few cases are taken by the supreme court, but the supreme court did take this one to the

benefit of the firefighters and reversed this decision. all nine justices concluded this was improperly done and five of them rendered the case in favor of the firefighters as the case existed then. madam president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, it's my understanding that the senator from north carolina is going to make a unanimous consent request. is that correct? a senator: the senator is correct. i believe the senator from nebraska as well. mr. burr: i would ask unanimous consent to be recognized after the senator from nebraska, is my understanding, for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. is that what the leader -- mr. durbin: and the time suggested for the senator from nebraska is how much? mr. johanns: madam president, i anticipate ten minutes and would ask unanimous consent to

speak for ten minutes. mr. durbin: my only hesitation is the fact that we're having a senator sworn in at 12:15 and there's going to be a speech to be given before that by his colleague. we also wanted to have an opening statement along the bill. if i could ask the senators -- i won't object. but if i could ask that it be closer to the five-minute mark, i think we'll be able to achieve all that in a timely fashion. if i could say in the unanimous consent request that the senator from nebraska be recognized for five minutes. mr. johanns: five minutes. mr. durbin: five minutes in northbound. and the senator from north carolina up to ten minutes. i know you said you wouldn't use up to ten minutes. and that we be protected with whatever time is used by these two republican senators be allocated to the democratic side for morning business, which we're not likely to use. i make that unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. johanns: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: madam president, over the last several days during the recess, i spent a lot of time posting a series of discussions on health care. i met with doctors and hospitals, underwriters, small business owners and uninsured nebraskans. many of them feel as if they are one illness away from a crisis. the economic slowdown has only heightened that fear. their concerns are real. and i would suggest that we are in a place as a congress to act carefully to address them. we need to create a health care system that protects patient rights, lets them see their doctor, and that is affordable. but i'm concerned about the discussion that is occurring today. the american people deserve true solutions. specifically, i have reservations about a government-run public plan.

some, i would suggest, are sugar coating this new bureaucracy. however, the more you learn about it, the more you realize there's nothing optional about it. in my judgment, it's a one-way ticket to a single-payer, government-run health care system, one that will compromise patient access to quality care. it's really impossible for private industry to compete with the government. the government can fix the prices, pick the rules. they can have the only feasible plan, the government plan. that close call at the plate doesn't call the runner out, in other words. the foul ball magically becomes a home run. some will say government-run option will increase competition, keep the insureds honest. left unsaid is that government offered payments on medicaid and medicare are causing enormous cost shifting today, increasing

health care costs for other. underpayments for medicare and medicaid are estimated to be about $89 billion. that's an additional $1,800 for each family. hospitals and doctors literally told me that they could not keep their businesses open on the medicaid and medicare reimbursement rate. so the creation of another plan, a government plan, will only rob from peter to pay paul. eventually there will be no private insurance companies left to bear the burden. the bottom line is that government doesn't balance the books and it views itself as not having to. washington seems happy to just keep on printing money, raising taxes. how can private business compete with that? if a government-run public plan was truly going to compete, it would face the same regulation, the same risk that the private industry feels. no bailouts.

does anyone really think the bill's proponents would honestly allow it to go insolvent? look at a.i.g., spwafrpbg, general motors -- citibank. the city with a competitive government option, i feel is a fairy tale. a government-run plan will undercut the private market. i'm not defending the private insurance industry. far from it. but we need to be honest with the american people. an uneven playing field is not right and it won't benefit americans. the effect i fear will be longer waiting lines, less innovation and rationing care. in canada the average wait time for radiation treatment is seven weeks. i can't imagine asking americans to wait the same time. there are some in washington who have their heels dug in on a single-payer plan. it contradicts the president's promise. he said over and over again that people will be able to keep

their health care, but americans beware. one study estimates that 119 million people will shift to the government plan. they won't choose that. their employer will choose it for them. we can't fault employers who are trying to save money. in the committee draft, business that is employ 25 or more employees will be required to pay an annual penalty of $750 per employee. but that's no penalty compared to the cost of private insurance. in 2008, the average employer's cost for an individual in an health care plan was $3,900, so you can seep why the shift would -- see why the shift would occur. ultimately people won't have a choice. their employer will make the choice and they will be forced to the government plan. to promise otherwise is misleading. even the president has recognized that that shift is going to occur.

i conclude my comments today, madam president, by saying don't be fooled. a government plan that literally does level the playing field means that people will go to the government plan and eventually you won't have a private insurance industry that is viable. thank you, madam president. mr. durbina senator: madam pres? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: one of the privileges of being a united states senate is that we have an opportunity to meet extraordinary people every day, whether you're the senator from illinois or the senator from nebraska, extraordinary people walk through our door every day of the week. but sometimes, madam president, we get to meet amazing individuals that we can honestly call heroes, heroes that lay their life on the line and sacrifice themselves for our

freedom. master sergeant brendon o'connor, a medic in the special forces group is one of those very special people. in june of 2006, he he he was deployed to afghanistan in support of operation enduring freedom, his group was stationed in kandahar. mr. president, we've all heard news reports an heard of suicide bombers driving cars loaded with explosives into markets, and crowded areas killing -- killing innocent men, women, and children. we've all heard accounts of suicide bombers strapping explosives to their weighs and walking into a market and intentionally killing individuals, they have been branded as religious zellrots willing to die for their cause. oftentimes they recruit suicide bombers in other ways and go

into villages and hold the family hostage and instruct the young man and family and say if they don't errey out a suicide mission, they will kill the rest of the family. brendon's team was tracking one of these thugs that was notorious for this type of recruitment. they tracked a terrorist to a small village. brandon's team set a perimeter to route out the war lords. they proceeded to sweep a village hoping to surprise the local taliban leader. their arrival was tipped off to the taliban. they fled minutes before the u.s. soldiers arrived. having found evidence of taliban's existence the soldiers knew it was only a matter of time before they engaged the enemy. that first skimmish started the -- skimmish started the next day

at dusk. there were eight special u.s. ops, took some small arms an rocket-propelled grenade fire but it didn't last long. the taliban attacked and the u.s.-led forces several more times over the next day and night, but never amounting to much. the u.s.-led forces deny even sustain a single injury during that firefight. after having arrived on wednesday evening sporadically fighting the taliban for two days, brendon's team decided it was time to take the fight to the enemy. on that saturday master sergeant tom mahulok led a small recon group to a small village. the team was comprised of four special op forces and a dozen afghan army. sergeant muhollik was able to get close enough without being

detected. once he assessed the situation, the sergeant thought he could take the compound with the simple recon team. he ordered two of his soldiers, staff sergeant bennie and staff sergeant first to cover sergeant mohallik and the eight remaining afghan army contingent. when the u.s.-led recon team launched its first attack on the taliban, they were greeted with heavy machine gun fire. the first fire suppression team returned fire, however the machine gun nested had a tactical advantage over the team. they had the higher ground. matt was struck first by a bullet that grazed his neck and stunned him for a moment. matt regained his senses and he and joe returned fire as much as they could. the taliban had them pinned down. an r.p.g. round came and struck

the staff sergeant first directly in the leg. didn't explode, thankfully, but badly wounded was staff sergeant joe first. staff sergeant bennie was tending to the sergeant's leg, he was shot through the soldier. the only one left with a was a young afghan soldier who stayed with them. staff sergeant mohollik radioed for help. at the main perimeter brendon o'connor got the call and put a team together to go get his wounded soldiers. when brendon's team got to the area the taliban had taken positions along the route into the wounded -- leaving the wounded soldiers only one path. brendon instructed his team to take up positions to support the wounded and to started on his mission to save the lives of these soldiers. at first brendon started crawling through an open field with his gear on. he quickly realized this wasn't

going to work. under a hail of small arms, r.p.g. and machine gun fire, brendon removed all of his armor, crawled to an open field to get to the two wounded. brendon couldn't locate the two soldiers by sight, only by calling and as he heard them he would get closer and closer. when he arrived at the two wounded, he had to make a quick decision about joe's injuries which were light threatening. he got staff sergeant bennie quickly taken care of and instructed him how to get to safety. staff sergeant kol bert wasn't so ease -- colbert wasn't so easy. he started to brag him, but couldn't do it the entire way. as if brandon's team action wasn't heroic enough, this will send chills down your spine. this time during the fight it

was estimated nearly 300 taliban fighters engaged the u.s. force, 300. i say approximately because several afghan army members who accompanied brendon's team fled by this point. as brendon's cover came to an end, he pulled joe under his soldier and ran across an area while 300 taliban fighters were shooting at him. god was watching brendon that day. god saw one man risk his life to save another. god saw fit to save brendon from harm as he carried a wounded soldier to safety. unfortunately joe first died soon after brendon got him back because of a massive blood loss. staff sergeant matt bennie survived because of brendon's leadership under fire. the battle that had gone on for three days was coming to an end.

the u.s. had air support that escorted them out of the area. all told the u.s.-led force killed 125 taliban fighters and only lost two of their own with one wounded. they were not able to capture or kill the war lord at that time due to the losses of the taliban that day in that strike u.s. forces got him several weeks later. for their heroics in combat master sergeant tom mahollk and matt bennie were awarded the star. brendon o'connor was awarded the distinguished service cross for his valor. it was the first time a member -- of the seventh special force group had been awarded the medal since 1964. it is an honor to have brendon and his family in washington today. he's joined by his beautiful wife megan i his children ryan,

darby, and dillon. mr. president, it is this type of story that we rarely hear about on the "nightly news". but this store was to a-- this storiestories with so amazing t0 minutes" did a piece on it. master sergeant brendon o'connor is a person that other warriors that have proudly served this country hold in their highest regard. he's a soldier that understands the price of freedom. the united states senate salutes master sergeant brandon o'connor today. i thank the president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.r. 292, which the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2892, an act making the appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010 and

for other purposes. mr. reid: the bill has been reported, is that right? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. reid: i call an amendment that's at the desk on behalf of senator inouye and senator byrd. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the anti. the clerk: the senator -- the amendment. the clerk: the senator from nevada proposed amendment 1373. strike all after the enacting clause an insert the following: mr. durbin: i ask to dispense with the reading of the substitute amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we turn to the fiscal year 2010, department of homeland security appropriations bill. the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee, senator robert c. byrd of west virginia is home from the hospital, which is good news, improving daily and eager to return to the senate as soon as he can. excuse me. senator byrd has been in regular consultation with his staff in

the development of this bill that was approved by the appropriations committee on june 18 by a vote of 30-0. this is bipartisan bill. i want to thank senator cochran and senator voinovich of ohio who joins me on the floor for the cooperation in developing this bill and i want to thank the chairman of the appropriations committee, senator daniel k. inouye for his support. the establishment of the department of homeland security after the devastating's events of 2001 was one of the most ambitious federal reorganizations since the department of defense was created after world war ii. it was the official position of the bush administration that the department could be created at no cost to the taxpayer. this translated into a department with aging assets, an inability to praf for and respond to -- prepare for and respond to natural disasters and future threats. in response congress on a bipartisan basis increased

homeland security spending by an average of -- annually above the president's request. these increases were invested in border security, chemical security, port security, transit security, aviation security, and cybersecurity. congress ensured that state an local partners in homeland security have adequate resources to equip and train the first responders. this has paid off making the nation more secure in making us better prepared for disaster. we have a lot more work to do. the committee-reported bill totals $42.9 billion of discretionary budget authority, an increase of 7% over the last fiscal year -- current fiscal year 2009. chairman byrd has set five major goals for built. number one, secure our borders and enforce immigration laws. number two, protect the american people from terrorist threats and other vulnerablities. prepare for and respond to all

hazards including natural disasters. number four, support our state, local and tribal private sector partners in homeland security with resources and information and give the department the management tools it needs to succeed. to meet these goals chairman byrd provides in the bill working with senator voinovic voinovich $10.2 billion for customs and border protection including an initiative to combat drugs. $5.4 billion for immigration and customs enforcement including increased funds for the southwest border initiative and the secure communities and criminal aliens programs which identify dangerous criminal aliens for deportation when leased from prison. $7.7 billion for the transportation security administration including a $513 million increase for the purchase and installation of explosive detection systems at the airports. funding is included for 50

additional air cargo inspectors to meet the august 2010 mandate for 100% air-cargo screening. the bill provides $143 million for surface transportation including 100 additional inspectors and 13 additional security teams to improve the security on the transit security systems. .9 billion for the coast guard for security for cutter number four and provide long lead materials for nsc number five. it includes for fast-response cutters, 40 medium-sized response bows and funding for inner operational centers which are required by the safe port act. $4.2 million is provided for the first responders act includin including $887 for urban area security grants, $950 million for state homeland security grants and $350 million for

emergency management performance grants. port security grants receiv receive $350 million and transit railroad bus grants receiv receive $356 million. the bill includes $399 million to combat the evolving cybersecurity threat. since its inception the department of homeland security has had significant management problems. the committee bill includes funding increases and clear direction to strengthen procurement and information technology systems at the department. this is a good bill. by focusing on the five goals that chairman byrd has established for this bill, we provide the resources and information necessary to build confidence in our ability to secure america. i urge the adoption of this bill. and i yield the floor to the ranking republican on this appropriations subcommittee, senator voinovich of ohio. mr. voinovich: i thank senator

durbin, and i would like to acknowledge -- the presiding officer: the senator the senator from ohio. mr. voinovich: -- the cooperation that we received from senator byrd and his staff and we're pleased that senator byrd is out of the the hospital and recuperating at home. i appreciate the fact that the senator from illinois has stepped in to pinch-hit for him this morning. i would like to concentrate on some of the highlights that i think need to be underscored. the bill recommends a total of $44.3 billion in appropriations to support programs and activities in the department of homeland security. of this amount, $42.7 billion is for discretionary spending. this is roughly $145 million less than the president's total discretionary request and is consistent with the subcommittee spending allocation. in addition, $1.4 billion is

provided for coast guard retired pay as the only mandatory funding in this bill. and $241.5 billion is provided for coast guard overseas contingency operations to be transferred to the coast guard. and instead of being appropriated in the defense appropriations bill, is being appropriated here. the bill includes significant resources for border security and enforcement of our immigration laws, for continued improvements in security of our nation's airports, for the coast guard's operations and deep-water program, recapitalization efforts and for helping our citizens prepare and recover from natural disasters, and for equipment and training our nation's first responders. senator durbin has indicated there is much in this bill to recommend. it funds a number of the department's highest priorities

at or above the requested levels, and i'm pleased that the secretary of the department of homeland security understands that we have tried to the very best of our ability to fund her priorities. i'll not list all of the bill's funded recommendations, but i do note some of them. funding is provided for border security, including the funds to support 20,063 border patrol agents, 33,400 detention bets, and $800 million for continued work on the border fence and improved radio communications. starting in fiscal year 2005 significant increases have been provided for border security and immigration enforcement. this bill alone provides an increase of $880 million from the fiscal year 2009 level excluding emergency appropriations. progress has been made with

these investments. fewer people are illegally crossing our borders. this can be seen in the decrease of apprehensions of aliens along our borders. from over 1,000,985 -- in other words we've made it more difficult for 475,000 illegal aliens to cross our border. more fencing and personnel have allowed the border patrol to increase the miles over which it has effffective control. from 241 miles in ofbgt 2005 to -- in october of 2005 to 600 in october of 2008. additional agents detention beds have allowed customs enforcement to increase total removal of aliens, from 246,000 removals in fiscal year 2005 to 347,000 in

fiscal year 2008. we are making progress, but we still have a long way to go, and it will be at great expense. in particular, i'm pleased the bill includes funds above the request to implement a biometric air exit capability. as the chief sponsor of the secure travel and counterterrorism partnership act of 2007, expanding and improving the visa waiver program is one of my top priorities. the visa waiver program has become an important national security tool because under that law, countries who participate in the program are required to share information on terrorists and criminals, report lost and stolen passports and maintain high counterterrorism and document security practices. since enactment of this law eight new countries have been accepted into the program and we're seeing great improvement in the security practices of the 27 countries that were already participating in the program.

i've just returned from lithuania and latvia where i was joined by several other members of the senate, including senator durbin. two countries that were recently admitted into the visa waiver program. from a public diplomacy point of view, it has been a home run and has been well received by government officials and citizens alike. i was up in latvia, and they pointed out to me that general mullen was in latvia, which should have been the biggest thing in the newspaper that day that he was there, or the next day, reporting on his being there. and the thing that just blew him away was the fact that latvia was approved for visa waiver status. it was so well received by the people of latvia. i must note, however, the two areas which continue to be of concern to me. one is the way this administration has budgeted for disasters. the president's fiscal year 2010 request for disaster relief is

only $2 billion. we know now from fema estimates that this is not enough to pay for the declared disasters already on the books. based on current needs, an appropriation of $5.8 billion is required. i understand we cannot afford that within the discretionary spending of this bill, but i am hopeful that this is addressed in future budgets. this administration has worked hard to break the cycle of requesting emergency funding for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. yet, no one has suggested fixing the way we budget for natural disasters. last year alone, $11.7 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations were provided for disaster relief. we cannot continue to kick the can down the road, relying on supplemental emergency appropriations to pay for known costs. katrina was a catastrophic event. exceptions were made to regulations and policies to speed assistance to those

struggling to recover from the enormity of the losses. but now some of these exceptions to the regulations are becoming the standard rather than the exception to the rule. this kind -- it's kind of interesting that at the time of katrina, i comment that had we were doing some things that we ordinarily don't do in a fema environment and predicted that what we were doing in katrina would become the role model for other disasters that have been experienced by state. and the fact of the matter is more and more states now are asking for more and more money, fema money because they're saying you did it in katrina. why can't you do it in texas? why can't you do it wherever else we have a disaster? this has got to change if we're going to handle federal spending and do something about the deficit. in addition, this bill provides almost $16 billion for border and immigration enforcement. $16 billion.

and that does not even include coast guard funding to protect our maritime borders. this is a 99.6% increase for u.s. customs and border protection, u.s. immigration and customs enforcement, and u.s. visit from fiscal year 2004 levels in the first department of homeland security appropriations. a significant increase. and i think that the citizens of our country should know that. they have been talking for a long time that we haven't been doing the job in securing borders. i must tell them that we are doing a much, much better job than ever before because we're allocating the resources necessary to get the job done. i've often wondered, though, if there was another way we could secure our borders and deal with the 11 million or so illegal immigrants other than by drastically reducing resources for border enforcement. in 2008 the u.s. removed 347,000

individuals. in fiscal year 2009, $5.6 billion is available to locate, detain and remove unauthorized aliens. at the current pace of removal, it could require a further investment of $272 billion in 31 years to locate and remove the estimate the 11 million unauthorized aliens in this country. we must ask whether we are willing or can afford to make that kind of investment enforcement rather than investing time in comprehensive immigration reform. i appreciate very much the courtesies of the distinguished senator from west virginia, as i mentioned, and his staff and all the members of the appropriations committee during our appropriation of this bill. i believe it reflects our careful consideration of the president's budget request for the department and our best efforts to address the department's resource requirements. i look forward to considering amendments which senators may suggest to this bill and to work throughout the appropriations process to ensure the department

has the funds to carry out its duties and responsibilities. in closing, madam president, i'd just like to point out that the president's budget was received on may 7 and the appropriations committee is working diligently to move forward on the passage of our 12 appropriations bills. two of the 12 fiscal year appropriations bills were reported on june 15 and two more reported on june 25. another five are scheduled to be considered and reported by the committee this week, two this afternoon and another three on thursday. the house considered and adopted its version of the fiscal year 2010 department of homeland security appropriations bill on june 24. it's unfortunate that senate consideration of this bill could not have occurred that same week, which would have put us in a position now to go to conference with the house. expeditious consideration of the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills by the senate is required

if the congress is to complete its work on all 12 appropriations bills by october 1. i have long been concerned about our failure to complete our appropriations work on time and the consequences of inaction, and i intend to speak at greater length on that during our consideration of this bill. but i do want to note that a letter dated march 24, 2009, to the majority leader, which included the signatures of all republican members, asked that the legislative schedule for this session -- quote -- "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 and transparent process on the senate floor." end of quote. the letter goes on to point out, for a variety of reasons over the past several years, the senate has failed to debate, amend, and pass each of the bills separately prior to the end of the fiscal year, which for a former governor and mayor i can't understand.

far too often this has resulted in the creation of omnibus appropriations bills that have been brought to the floor so late in the fiscal year that senators have been forced to either pass a continuing resolution, shut down the government, or consider an omnibus bill. these omnibus bills have not allowed for adequate public review and have clouded what should otherwise be a very transparent process. the letter further points out that president obama, on march 11, said he expects future spending bills to be -- quote -- "debated and voted on in an orderly way and sent to his desk without delay or obstruction so that we don't face another massive last-minute omnibus bill like the one that we had this year." so let us proceed with this bill and dispose of the amendments senators may wish to offer without unnecessary delay, to allow us to complete our appropriations work this session. and i'd like to add that it is incumbent -- incumbent -- on our side of the aisle to make sure amendments are relevant and

germane. mr. president -- madam president, i recommend this bill to my colleagues for their consideration and support. and i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that eric savany of the homeland security subcommittee be granted floor privileges for the duration of debate on the pending legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. voinovich: i ask unanimous consent that carol cribs of the appropriations committee staff be granted floor privileges during consideration of the fiscal year appropriations bill and any votes that may occur in relation thereto. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inouye: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: today the senate begins consideration of the homeland security appropriations bill which was passed by the house and marked up by the senate committee late last month. this week the committee on appropriations will meet to consider five additional