but we will have to watch for that, yes. and the over thing is, there's not going to be enough enforcement resources. moving people from where they are over from all the different agencies is not going to give us enough enforcement staff to do the whole job for the country. the ftc worked very hard. they said they had over 100 cases over five years. if you talk to any state ag, they would say we can bring it tomorrow. there's more people to do consumer protection at the federal level. >> yes, sir. >> i think you need to break your question, which is a great question into two parts. one part is more scam-like activities and i think this congress effectively delegated the ftc charge to go after foreclosure rescue scams where a lot of mortgage brokers are moving in. that kind of activity the existing authority clearly is sufficient to regulate and the additional authorities giving help. you break that from more

traditional and large scale sale of products such as mortgages, et cetera, and i think in that area the credit markets are so beaten down that i think that this agency would be up and running effectively to get ahead of the new products. >> okay, that's helpful. that's helpful. okay. thank you very much. >> the chair would extend to the members an additional time for one additional question. and the chair recognizes himself for one additional question. i want to get back to this area of concurrent enforcement. and i'm -- you know, are there any risks or down sides to consumers or industry with this whole idea of concurrent

enforcement between two agencies? i mean, can you predict or look into a crystal ball and tell us what you see in terms of down sides or harms to an industry or to consumers regarding this whole area of concurrent enforcement? anybody want -- mr. stinebert? >> well, i'll give it a try and go first. one of the whole things that i think the agency being proposed is supposed to do is have single source responsibility. then you take enforcement and you break that among current enforcement agencies and then you have a new agency that's supposed to be -- share some type of dual enforcement. it doesn't sound practical to me. we think that enforcement should continue to stay with the existing agencies. now, to your question,

congressman, about the timing and you mentioned the speed limit and people watching people going down the road. i don't think anybody would deny that the regulations or the speed limits were in place, but up until several years ago, that perhaps the regulations were in place but the enforcement and the oversight was not. but i think if you look today in all of these agencies, whether it be the ftc or the other agencies in washington, i think everybody has their radar guns out. and are certainly looking at consumer protection issues as well as credit and lending issues in general. i don't think there's ever been a focus in this area like there is today. and so to that respect, i think that going back to your question, mr. chairman, i think

that it's very important -- i think most important that there be continued responsibility between safety and soundness and the viability of those companies. and consumer protection. and i think it is unwise to separate those two entirely. i mean, we have gone through a good example with the gscs of trying to do that and finding out why that doesn't work and it would be very simple if that agency that is just concerned about consumer protection can make everything so safe that it's not really good for the companies offering those products or for the consumers themselves. there's always going to be risk in this agency that defines what that is and i don't think you can eliminate that entirely. >> i think it's a really good question. i would say that i think it's not so much of a risk as long as the rules of the game are clear. so long as you have the one

agency that's setting the rules and what it is that companies have to do. the fact that there would be multiple enforcers of those rules is less disconcerting because you would have clear standards and everyone would not what they are and you would essentially have this more cops on the beat analogy. and so that's why you could have state ags helping out and having the ftc helping out. you would just be getting more manpower but the rules would be clear. so really the success of it would depend upon what kind of rules are end up being produced from this process. and i guess i would just say that's why it works to have, for example, all the states can police medicaid fraud, for example, and it's not a risk because everybody knows what they're looking for. and so it would just be -- it would be really important for the agency that's created to have clear rules and if they see this a enforcement action that looks like it's not really in the spirit of those rules, the act as it's written, for example, if the state ag brings it, the cfpa could intervene and they could step into that action and make clear that's not -- that's a bad interpretation of their rule or it's a bad

enforcement action. so i think it's okay to have multiple law enforcers and probably necessary because there's not enough resources for all the fraud that's out there. >> miss hillebrand? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i had to think for a moment about your question to remember there already are six concurrent enforcing authorities. it's just the banking agencies haven't used that open public enforcement model to bring cases with the vigor and approach that the ftc has used so we already do have concurrent enforcement and the downside has been that many of the agencies, other than the ftc that have enforcement authorities also have other obligations that tie them very closely to the industry they regulate. at least with the concurrent enforcement authority with the cfpa and the ftc we won't have that problem and i think that's a good step forward. >> mr. chairman, i think that concurrent enforcement authority could work if done carefully, but i worry that there's too

much attention to the ftc as an enforcer. i prepared for this over the weekend when the website was down so i was reduced to the documents that i happened already to own. i owned a 2004 annual report. it happened to be in my files. i opened it up to consumer protection where the ftc has a good list of the range of activities in which the agency engages and that is part of what makes it a success. consumer protection policy. one, research and reports. two, hearings and workshops. three, advocacy. four, amicus briefs. five, consumer and business education and outreach. the ftc is not just a cop on the beat. it is an agency that has

economists, that does competition, that does consumer protection and uses a whole range of tools to develop expertise, to identify problems and to craft solutions. and if a huge part of what the ftc does as a matter of subject matter is transferred out and if the new agency has the exclusive authority to give guidance in this way, then we've lost a very great deal of what the ftc does, and i think that the consumers would be the worst for the it. -- the worst for it. >> i think ultimately the industry made two arrangements about the concurrent authority and the problems with it. the first is it's too much enforcement but as miss hillebrand said, as someone who spent years making priority lists, your list is way longer than you'll ever get to. and the problem with this bubble certainly wasn't bursting was not too much enforcement. the second problem which is more

subtle or real is an inconsistency in enforcement policy. and miss barkow appropriately says that this rulemaking authority, if it's clear, if the rules are clear enough certainly will solve the problem and i would further say with that, the cfpa is given the sufficient authority to make sure the enforcement is happening in a uniformed way but there's a second spot for consistency. you want a unified rule maker, when it comes to enforcement, this is where regulatory competition actually works because you're competing to be a better enforcer as opposed to competing to a race to the bottom so people will charter with you, which was a serious problem in creating this situation. and when you compete to do better, you are aware that if you don't do it and somebody enforces a situation you might get embarrassed, madoff, fcc, you have a market that essentially forces public entities to be aware of that.

that actually works and when it comes to udap authority, i want to say it's so important -- the state attorneys general and i'm patting myself on the back there because i was a small group who did this, we were the only ones out there screaming about and bringing these cases. the ftc was saying -- it's great 'cause they were going after different actors but we did one case where we got half a billion dollars back to people with subprime mortgages. followed by another case where there were 300 million and i thought that was too little and i'd left by then. i mean, this was a problem if you were on the ground you saw it. i mean, it was visceral. these people are utterly out of control. the state ags were able to enforce it because they had a different enforcement agenda. they were sitting in a different place. regulatory competition works in terms of an open enforcement law. >> the chair now recognizes mr. radanovich for one question. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i appreciate everybody's testimony. but mr. cox, what i thought i heard was that we need multiple

agencies having to do the same  job to make sure that the people are doing their job. that to me is a recipe for wasted spending but i do want to ask you a question about -- i believe it was miss sutton who was here earlier talked about a situation where an 84-year-old woman who owned her place free and clear was duped into a 30-year mortgage. i'd like to know whether or not there was family involved putting her up to that and that happened for reasons that wouldn't have anything to do with this current financial crisis. but i happen to represent a county in california, it's the epicenter of mortgages, frequently the number one county in the nation where mortgage defaults and foreclosures have happened. so i have a great appreciation for what's happening here and we had -- you'd hear tales of one in particular, non-english

speaking people were told to sign the papers. once they got there they were jammed with points and fees that they knew absolutely nothing about and were put into an uncomfortable situation, signed the mortgage papers, later lost the house. so i'm curious to know after we have spent, in reaction to this financial crisis, anywhere between 800 to $1.5 trillion. we get a rise in the unemployment rate that we're supposed to drop with all that spending. i'm a little leery of broad sweeping reactions to the problems that we're in. how does something like this -- i'd offer that to you, mr. cox and mr. stinebert, and anybody else who wants to respond to this thing, how would it help the person -- i'm not sure about the sutton case. i want to know sure if the family put that family up to an

poor, unfortunate elderly person up to that. but in modesto where the non-english people put points and they were quickly sold his mortgages and this guy was washing his hands and he was out of there. how do the broad sweeping change prevent that from happening anymore than what is currently on the books to prevent? >> thank you, ranking member radanovich. i will respond to that by also to mr. stinebert's earlier comment. that we all agree the regulation was there. there was an enforcement problem. we don't all agree with that. here's the -- the problem had two parts to it if you want to break it to its grossest problem. the first part was the type of products were being sold. they were simply way too high risk, way too complex and way to aggressively sold for average consumers to work through all the problems and understand all the costs and consequences and

the context of these. the great -- the great held up at the time as the great financial innovation, the payment option arm. it was sold so aggressively on its benefits but its risks were not clear to the average consumer, to my aunt. it was the kind of thing i could have sold her on if i was an evil person without informing her of the risk. so there's a product regulation problem that existed here. the fed -- if you read the fed's papers during this time and you put them right next to the industry's papers, you could change the titles. you couldn't tell the difference. there was one type of thinking. that needs to change. the second problem was a fraud problem. the fraud problem got so far out of control. i've never seen anything like it. you know, if you were at the level you were talking to the people and you saw this going -- if you talked to the ex-workers in these agencies, et cetera, and these companies that were selling these things, fraud was so rampant in this industry

that, you know, that was almost a separate problem from the product regulation problem. and so we also had a lack of enforcement particularly at the federal level on, you know, fraud but we fundamentally had a product regulation problem. i hope that responds. >> commenting back to mr. cox's earlier discussion about whether we should have multiple regulators is a good thing. i ask you if you're a business and you have multiple regulators and two and three regulators is competition really good if you're the regulated entity and the costs that are involved in that. i mean, so the ftc is in your office one week and having your staff gather everything else and the next week another regulator is in there. i could see where there's some contention where that is good. but you won't have businesses --

anyone that operates a business, small profit or a large business, which think of having multiple regulators and enforcers coming into your offices is necessary a good thing because all of those costs are eventually passed on to consumers. these do not happen in vacuums so, yes, there are protections, i think, that need to be in place and you're absolutely right about that. but i do think there's -- you can overdo a process, too. we want to have a process that protects consumers but is efficient for everyone involved. that there's -- it's efficient for the safety and soundness and the viability of the companies that are being regulated as well as good for the consumers that are buying their products. and i think that's an important thing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the chairman emeritus, mr. dingell.

>> chairman, i thank you for your courtesy. this question to gail hillebrand and to professor calkins. what authority will remain in the ftc to protect the consumers after the administration's plan has been adopted, if it's adopted in its current form. >> thank you, chairman emeritus. the ftc retains all of its authority to bring section 5 enforcement subject only to a staff-level consultation coordination, a discussion -- >> but would lose that authority? >> the ftc retains that authority. i'm going to give you a list of things it retains. it retains its section 5 authority. it retains its authority to bring cases under the statutes and rules for the enumerated consumer statutes. that's our alphabet soup and so on. it retains -- well, those are the big things that it retains.

it also retains its pure fraud authority. i mean, there are financial services and there are people who tell lies, who say sign up with me and give me your social security number and your checking account number and you'll never see me. it retains that authority. they are not selling financial information. they're selling lies. and we have recommended that it also be given the same kind of backstop authority that it now -- now has currently and would have under this proposal for the existing consumer statutes with respect to enforcement of the cfpa rules. that is not yet in the proposal. >> all right. now, what would it lose? what would ftc lose? what consumer protection jurisdiction would it lose? >> yes, the ftc would lose a jurisdiction that has been difficult for it to use. it's important but difficult for it to use which is its authority to develop unfair and deceptive acts and practices rules in the financial services area. i'm sure you're aware the last

time that authority was used was in the credit practices rule which came into effect in the mid-1980s. >> okay. now, why should that be taken away from ftc? >> if we were looking at just the ftc, that'd be no reason to take it away. but the -- >> there's no reason to take it away. >> no. i'm not quite finished. >> let's just go a wee bit further and explain to me why we should give it to some of those good-hearted folk, who led the fight for the repeal of glass-steagall, who deregulated banking and financial services and who left us this glorious mess, which we now have in the form of probably the biggest depression this country has had since 1929. now, why should we do that? >> we need to give that authority to an agency that can make one set of rules that applies to the bank provider and

the nonbank provider. >> i have no objection to taking care of the bank regulatory agencies. let them -- let them create them and let them do their thing. but why wouldn't we want the honest men and women at the ftc looking over their shoulder? and why wouldn't we want them looking over the shoulder of those good-hearted folks and mbas up in new york that created this mess? now, help me. why wouldn't we want that? >> we definitely want oversight. we want someone -- >> you like the idea of having the ftc sort of keeping an eye on those people? >> we like the idea of having an agency that can look at everybody, not just the nonbank providers keep an eye and we think -- >> and what about the banks that are going to be engaging in all kinds of things? that i have going to be engaging in real estate. they're going to be engaging in

issuing of bond securities. they're going to be engaged in all kinds of wonderful activities on derivatives which are really gambling devices. so why shouldn't the ftc retain its continuing and ancient jurisdiction over keeping honest men honest and maybe occasionally catching a rascal? now, why should we take that away from the ftc? >> mr. chairman emeritus, i respectfully -- >> you represent consumers. why shouldn't we just leave ftc as it is and let these other folk go about their nefarious business under the kind of weak minded regulation the treasury has traditionally given to these

institutions? you're speaking here for the consumers. i'm trying to figure out, do you really understand the consumers' needs or are you engaged in perhaps disregarding the consumers because these other folks have done a better job of telling you what a wonderful job they're going to do after they have brought about not one but two depressions? >> i'm looking at it from the point of view of the ordinary person who's trying to get a mortgage and they want to know -- i mean, the consumer doesn't think it's -- >> no, you're giving me a wonderful answer but it's to the wrong question. answer my question, please. >> the answer is -- >> why should we not -- why should we not keep ftc in its traditional jurisdiction of protecting consumers? when i was a boy, roosevelt tried to give ftc jurisdiction over the stock market. and you can't imagine the

outrage that this generated in new york because they were scared to death of the federal trade commission, which is under jurisdiction of this committee. we keep them honest. and we find that as soon as the sec got away from this committee, they all of a sudden became a wholly owned subsidiary of the securities industry and the banking industry. now, why should we sanctify that by stripping the consumers of the one remaining protection which they have. the ftc, in favor of giving it to a congregation of folks well-known to be influenced by some of the worst scoundrels in our society. >> are you ready for my answer? we believe that we need to put it in one place so that the nonbanks aren't saying, oh, don't regulate us because the banks can still do this.

>> we don't mind having this agency that would be created by the administration's proposal do that. what we want is to have the ftc there so as to sort of watch over these people and let them know that there's -- that there are honest men and women watching them so that the rascalality. >> we have the same goal but a different of perspective to get there. >> so then are you -- are you telling me that you like the idea of having the ftc continue the jurisdiction while the good hearted folk go about their nefarious business. >> we have full retention of ftc -- >> dear friend, we have talked about what ftc is going to lose. and you are apparently advocating the losing of it. i am not of a view that maybe we want ftc to lose that

jurisdiction and maybe we want ftc to be around to sort of provide a minor dampening of the riskality that is going to occur in the financial sector industry. now what is your objection to that? >> we believe that you need -- >> in just a few words, what is your objective? >> put the rulemaking in one place so it's very clear whose job it is. >> they raised the one stop shopping when they moved this whole thing across the hall. and since then, the whole financial services industry of the united states has to be bailed out in the amount of $700 billion, which was congregated by mr. paulson who came from that industry. and which -- and which has done nothing but enriched the same

rascals that caused the trouble. and it has not only enriched those rascals but it has given us something new to think about and that is it has seen to it that they've had the funds to pay the same scoundrels who made the mess enormous bonuses amounting to as much as $165 million. in one instance. obviously, this is the product of one stop shopping which i suspect you are telling me you support or maybe you want to tell me now you don't support. >> we're trying to end the ability to shop for your regulator by having one entity write the rules no matter what kind of charter and what kind of provider. that's our position. >> well, i have to say i think somebody else wrote your statement, but i thank you for your presence and mr. chairman, i thank you for your courage and your ability in bringing this event about. thank you. >> the chair thanks the chairman

emeritus. the chair thanks the witnesses. this hearing now stands adjourned. before we adjourn, i really wanted to let you know how grateful we are for you to extend your time with us and spend your time with us. by unanimous consent, i request that members submit all questions to be sent to the witnesses for the record within seven calendar days and the witnesses will respond promptly to the questions that is submitted to them. thank you so very much and safe travel. travel. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government? >> private benefactors. >> i don't know. i think some is government-raised. >> it's not public. >> probably donations. >> i want to say from me, for my tax dollars. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> q & a sunday. ronald and allis radosh on

president harry truman. >> no one knew on may 14th what truman would do. there was a press conference the day before. what are you going to do if the jews declare a state as they said they are going to do? truman said, i don't know. we'll have to see. but he had already decided and he had told only hiram whitesmith. >> and live now to the u.s. capitol as the senate convenes today to resume consideration of homeland security spending for fiscal year 2010. 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. most merciful and gracious god, who has led this nation through turbulent times in the past, keep us this day confident in the movements of your loving providence. ignite in our hearts the hope that out of the world's challenges and tragedies your

spirit can guide us to a desired destination. today, give our lawmakers a clear sense of duty and honor in every decision. may they live and work, not alone or by their own efforts, but in your strength and by your wisdom. may your justice purity and peace guide them to develop plans and make policies that will enable your will to be done on earth as it is done in heaven. we pray in your strong 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, july 9, 2009, to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform te duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks there will be a period of morning business for 95

minutes. senator durbin will control the first five minutes and the majority will control the final 30 minutes. the senate will then consider h.r. 292, homeland security appropriation bill. there will be 10 minutes of debate prior to the kyl amendment. there will be work towards completion of the appropriations bill. i filed cloture last night on the substitute amendment and the underlying bill, as a result germane first-degree amendments must be filed by 1:00 p.m. today there is a strong possibility, and i hope on my behalf that cloture won't be necessary. then we'll be able to complete action on the bill today. if we're unable to finish that bill, then we'll have cloture tomorrow morning and maybe into the weekend. i acknowledge the cooperation, support of the republicans in allowing us to move to the

defense bill, a very important bill and we're doing our best to accomplish what we set out to do this week and not have to be in this weekend. that would be better for everyone. we all have a lot of things to do. and this weekend if we have to be here, it would be a series of cloture votes and we hope that's unnecessary. mr. mcconnell: snawp. the presiding officer: the republican leader -- mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: over the past couple of weeks we have raised

questions over the nomination of judge sotomayor. these questions are driven by a growing sense based strictly on the record that judge sotomayor has allowed her personal and political views to cloud her judgment in the courtroom leading her to favor some groups over others. all of us are impressed by her remarkable life story it reaffirms not only to americans, but people around the world that ours is a country in which one's willingness to dream and work hard remain the only requirements for success. and, yet, it's precisely the truth about america that makes it so important that our judges apply the law the same way to one individual or group as to every other. this is why we've raised the questions we have and this is why we will continue to raise them as the confirmation hearings for judge sotomayor proceed. this morning i'd like to discuss an area of judge sotomayor's

record that hasn't been touched upon yet and that's her record on the fundamental right of free speech. this right to free speech was considered so important by our founders, that they included it as the first amendment in the bill of rights. along with the freedom of press and religion and the right to assemble and petition the government. it is one of the bedrocks of our government and of our culture. and it is one of the primary defenses the founders established against the perennial threat of government intrusion. so it's essential that we know what someone who's been nominated for a life tenure on the nation's highest court thinks about this issue. when it comes to judge sotomayor, her record raises serious questions about her views on free speech. let's start with a law review article that judge sotomayor co-wrote in 1996 on one particular kind of speech,

political speech. in the article judge sotomayor makes a number of truly startling allegations or assertions which offer us a glimpse of her thoughts on this issue. first, and perhaps more concerning, she equates campaign contributions to bribery. going so far as to assume that a quid pro quo relationship is in play any time anyone makes a contribution to a political campaign. she goes ton say -- quote -- "we would never condone private gifts to judges about to decide a case indicating the gift giver's interest. yet our financing permits extensive private including corporate financing of candidate's campaigns. raising again and again what the difference is between contributions an bribes and -- and bribes and how legislators and other officials can operate objectively on behalf of the

electorate." in the same law review article the judge calls into question the integrity of every elected official, democrat and republican alike, based solely on the fact that they collect contributions to run their political campaigns. she writes -- can elected officials say with credibility that they're carrying out the mandate of a democratic society representing only the general public good when private money place such a large role in campaigns? in my view the suggestion that such contributions are and it mount to -- and it mount to bribery. including the millions of americans who donated money in small and large amounts to the presidential campaign of the man who nominated judge sotomayor to the supreme court. her views on free speech would be important in any case.

they're particularly important at the moment, however, since several related cases are now working their way through the judicial system. case that's could ultimately end up in front of the supreme court. one particularly important case on this issue citizens united versus f.e.c. will be argued before the supreme court at the end of september. coincidentally the most recent supreme court decision on the topic passed through the court on which judge sotomayor currently sits, presenting us with another avenue of evaluating her approach to the question of free speech. with one important difference, in the law review article i already discussed we've got judge sotomayor's opinion about campaign contributions. in the court case in question, randall versus sorrow, we get a glimpse of her actual application of the law.

here's the background of the case: in 1997 the state of vermont enacted a law which brought into -- which brought about stringent restrictions on the amount of money candidates could raise and spend. the law also limited party expenditures. doing these limits is violating their first amendment rights, a group of candidates, voters and political action committees brought suit. the district court agreed with the plaintiffs in the case on two of the here it points finding -- two of the three points. the case was then appealed to the second circuit where a three-judge panel reversed the lower court and reinstated all limits in direct -- direct contradiction of nearly 20 years of precedence dating all the way back to the case of buckley versus valao. it was in buckley that the supreme court held that congress

overstepped its bounds in trying to restrict the amount of money that could be spent, so-called expenditure limits, but upheld the amount that could be raised, so-called contribution limits. at that point the petitioners in the vermont case sought a rehearing by the entire second circuit arguing that the -- was ground for review. oddly enough the judges on the second circuit including judge sotomayor took a patches they decided to let the supreme court clean up the confusion created when the three-judge panel decided to ignore buckley. traditionally errors like these are precisely the reasons that motions for a rehearing of an entire circuit are designed. according to the federal rules of appellate procedure, a review by the full court of what is damonly referred to as an rehearing is specifically called for where the proceedings call

into question questionable importance. what could be more important than following supreme court precedent and protecting and preserving the first amendment, but the second circuit declined. in the end the supreme court corrected the errors of the second circuit in a 6-3 opinion drafted by none other than justice breyer. here's what breyer wrote: we hold that both sets of limitations on contributions and expenditures are inconsistent with the first amendment. well established precedent and here justice breyer was citing buckley, makes clear that expenditure limits violate the first amendment. one of the principal requirements for a nominee to the court is a respect for the rule of law. in this instance, according to justice breyer, that respect for the law was lacking. more than two centuries ago the

states ratified the first amendment to the u.s. constitution to protect the right of every american for that moment and for all time to express themselves freely. congress shall make no law, it said, respecting an establishment rf religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of people to peaceably peaceablyassemble. you could say that the first amendment our forefathers -- that with the first amendment our forefathers adopted, the ultimate campaign finance regulation. and, yet, this issue continues to come up before the courts and will continue to come up before the courts. it's an issue of fundamental importance touching on one of our most basic rights an based on the writings and decisions of judge sotomayor i have strong reservations about whether this nominee will choose to follow the first amendment or steer the court to a result grounded in

the kind of personal ideology that she so clearly and troublely expressed in the law review article i described. it is not just this issue. over the past several weeks we've heard about instances in which judge sotomayor's personal views seem to question her even handed application of the law. just last week the supreme court reversed her decision to throw out a discrimination suit filed by a group of mostly white firefighters who had clearly earned a promotion. notably this was the ninth time out of ten that the high court has rejected her handling of a case. we've heard her call into question repeatedly over the years whether judges could be impartial in most cases and she has even said her experiences will affect the facts -- the facts -- that she chooses to see as a judge. now, madam president, americans have a right to expect that judges will apply the law even

handedly and that everyone in the country will get a fair shake, whether they're in small claims court or the u.s. supreme court. and whether the matter at hand is the right -- has the right to be treated equally or the right to speak freely, americans have a right to expect that the men and women who sit on our courts will respect the rule of law above their own personal or political views. and nowhere more so than on the nation's highest court. now, madam president, on another matter, it was actually a

politician from kentucky who introduced the expression "self-made man" into the lexicon. but even henry clay didn't follow as unlikely a path as norm coleman did to the u.s. senate. as norm puts it, he never even knew a republican or a lutheran before he left home for college. yet this middle-class son of brooklyn became one of the best senators the people of minnesota have known. he made sure to give them the credit even when the voters would excuse him for taking a little credit on his own. another great american politician said that the u.s. constitution was the work of many heads and many hands. norm always had the same attitude about his own career. he's grateful for the opportunities he's had, and he gives it everything he has. then he's grateful when his efforts on behalf of others succeed, which is more often than not. the day he got here, he was

asked how it felt. he had a simple response. he said he was humbled by the opportunity. i believe that what i can do well, my gift, he said is to serve people, and now i have this incredible opportunity to serve as a united states senator. six years later on the day he conceded defeat, his first impulse was again to thank others. he thanked his staff for the long hours and hard work they had put in on his behalf, and he said he'd always be grateful and humbled by the people of minnesota who had given him the honor to serve and even more grateful for the patience and understanding they showed over the last few months. it wasn't the outcome he wanted. it wasn't the outcome that his republican friends and colleagues in the senate wanted. but we couldn't have expected anything less from norm coleman than the class and graciousness he showed in the closing act of this phase in his career as a public servant.

as i said, norm came to be a republican senator from minnesota by rather unusual group. he was a campus activist in the 1960's, a rather prominent one at that. after college norm earned a scholarship to the university of iowa law school and came to love the people and the place. from there, he went on in minnesota to serve in the minnesota attorney general's office. later he would use his talents as chief prosecutor for the state of minnesota and then as mayor of st. paul, first as a democrat and then as a republican. and what was to go down as one of the most remarkable feats of bipartisanship in american politics, norm has the distinction of serving as the 1996 cochairman of the committee to reelect bill clinton and the 2000 state chairman for george w. bush's campaign. as a big city mayor, norm didn't disappoint. he showed a real knack for

bringing business and government together. he led a downtown revitalization effort, created thousands of jobs, brought the national hockey league to st. paul. he fought to keep taxes low. he left office with a 74% approval rating after two terms that a local magazine called by almost any measure an unqualified success. in 2002, norm was still thinking about how he could serve on the state level when he got a call from the president asking him if he'd run for the senate. he accepted the challenge and then he fought a tough and principled campaign against our late beloved colleague paul wellstone before paul's tragic death shortly before the end of that tumultuous campaign. norm grieved at paul's passing, defeated his replacement in the race and was sworn in two months later as laurie and their children and norm's parents looked on.

laurie summed up the day like this: incredible to think that he has this opportunity. norm didn't waste a day. an instant hit at republican events across the country, he kept up the same torrid pace in the senate he had set in his come-from-behind win the previous november. he pushed legislation that benefited minnesotans and all americans. and he never, never let up. norm spoke the other day about some of his accomplishments here. he mentioned a few areas in particular, including u.n. oversight, working with minnesota farmers and his work on energy independence. but he said it best -- he said his best ideas came from the people of minnesota. he was being humble. in a single term norm put together a remarkable record of results on energy and conservation, he played a key role in establishing the renewable fuel standard. he helped pass an extension of tax credits for wind, biomass

and other renewable fuels. he secured loan guarantees and tax incentives for clean-coal power, protected fish populations and supported conservation programs to protect minnesota's lakes, rivers, and wood lands. he led major anticorruption efforts including groundbreaking exposure of fraud at the u.n. he exposed more than $1 billion in wasteful medicare spending and uncovered serial tax evasion by defense contractors. norm was also instrumental in passing the childhood cancer act which increased funding for childhood cancer research. the proud son of a world war ii veteran, norm has been a true friend to all veterans. the first piece of legislation he introduced was a bill requiring the pentagon to cover travel expenses of troops heading home from service overseas. norm worked on a bipartisan basis to establish the first ever national reintegration program for returning troops and

he worked hard in the early years after 9/11 to strengthen homeland security. norm coleman's service in the senate has been marked by the same high level of distinction that marked everything else he's done in three decades in public service. today we honor our colleague and friend for that long career that we hope is far from over, and we punctuate an incredibly hard-fought campaign that some people thought might never end. in the end it didn't turn out the way many of us had hoped it would, but none of us were surprised by the graciousness with which norm coleman accepted the verdict. and all of us can celebrate the six years of dedicated service he gave to the people of minnesota. after another setback some years back, norm coleman said that the real defeat isn't getting knocked down. it's not getting back up. and i have no doubt that this is not the last we'll hear from norm coleman. he already has a legacy to be

proud of, but it's a legacy that's still very much in progress. more chapters will be written, and they'll bear the same strong hand and commitment to people and principle that he has shown in every other endeavor of a long and distinguished career. in private conversations, senator coleman often talks about resting on the truth of his faith. it is an untold washington story, the glue of faith that holds this city together. so as i say goodbye to senator coleman, i'd like to do so with words from the torah, which he knows well: the lord bless you and keep you. the lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. the lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. and on behalf of the entire senate familiar, i want to thank norm for -- senate family, i

want to thank norm for his service. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, leadership time be reserved. under the previous order, there will be a period of morning business for 95 minutes with the senator from illinois, mr. durbin, controlling the first five minutes, republicans controlling the next 60 minutes and the majority controlling the final 30 minutes with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: let me associate myself with the remarks of the republican minority leader, senator mcconnell relative to our colleague norm coleman. i enjoyed serving with norm, and we worked together on a number of issues during our service in the united states senate. i was actively supporting his opponent, al franken, in the minnesota race. and i thought, as senator mcconnell noted, that senator coleman showed extraordinary

grace in conceding after the latest minnesota supreme court decision. i think it was a ehref to -- a relief to all involved and to the people of minnesota to have two senators representing them here in this chamber. i wish senator coleman the very best in his future endeavors and thank again senator mcconnell for his remarks which i know speak on behalf of all senators from both sides of the aisle. senator mcconnell spoke a minute ago about the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the supreme court. this is a rare historic opportunity for the senate to consider this nomination sent to us by the president. it doesn't happen very often. in my career in the senate, my 13th year, this will be my third opportunity in the senate judiciary committee to actually ask questions of someone who aspires to serve in the highest court of the land, a lifetime appointment and a very important appointment in terms of our nation's history. the question that was raised by

senator mcconnell is entirely appropriate, and i commend him because his statement really goes to the heart of what this process should be about. it wasn't about the personality of the judge or any personal trait. it was about her beliefs and whether or not they are the kind of beliefs that we would like to see enshrined in her service as a supreme court justice. particularly senator mcconnell raised an issue which is i know very, very important to him. it's the issue of free speech in relation to political campaigns. i know this is important because senator mcconnell was -- took an exceptional position in being in opposition to the mccain-feingold campaign finance reform. if we'll remember, this is a reform which these two senators, one republican, the other democrat, brought to the senate in an effort to reduce the

impact of corporate contributions and large contributions in our political campaigns. it was their belief that the so-called soft money which avoided some of the restrictions that are applied to other contributions had gone too far in the extreme. senator mcconnell was not alone, but he really was in a minority in opposing the mccain-feingold position. even went so far as to file documents before the courts arguing that this was a violation of free speech. the courts did not find in his favor and ruled that mccain-feingold was in fact permissible and constitutional. now senator mcconnell comes to the floor and argues that judge sotomayor apparently doesn't agree with his point of view either. well, that is certainly senator mcconnell's right to do. but to question whether or not she should be a hroutd to serve on the supreme court because -- allowed to serve on the supreme court because she disagrees with senator mcconnell's views i

think is an unfair characterization of her position. keep in mind that judge sotomayor comes to this nomination with an extraordinary background. she brings more federal judicial experience to the supreme court, if she's approved, than any justice nominated in over 100 years and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the court in the past 70 years. she was first nominated by a republican president to serve on the federal court: president george herbert walker bush. and then she was promoted to the next level court -- the circuit court -- by president clinton, a democratic president. bipartisan support, approval of the senate both times. and no one suggested that her views were radical or not in the mainstream of judicial thinking in america. so i think that when senator mcconnell raises this point, it reflects the fact that his view of campaign financing, his view of restrictions on contributions is in fact a

minority position, one that the court has not approved of and most americans may not agree with. most americans believe we should keep a close eye on political contributions to make sure they don't corrupt our political process. we want to honor free speech. some believe that the decision in buckley versus valeo went to an extreme and argued that the expenditure of money in a political campaign was an exercise of free speech. that argument leads to the conclusion that a millionaire is entitled to more free speech than the common person who couldn't spend that kind of men -- money on a political campaign. we have been trying to move forward here a piece of legislation that will given even more disclosure on political campaign financing. it would require the electronic filing of campaign finance reports. we've been trying to move this forward. there's been resistance on the other side of the aisle. it is bipartisan and consistent with the goals of this congress for us to have this kind of

disclosure, for us to recognize that freedom of speech comes -- brings with it certain obligations and that judge sotomayor's rulings in cases relating to free speech have been entirely consistent with the values of our country and in the mainstream of this nation. next monday her nomination comes before the senate judiciary committee. the presiding officer: the senator has used his five minutes. mr. durbin: it will go on for several days and i will have a chance to speak then. i will yield the floor now. thank you. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mawvment in 1998norm coleman ran for governor of minnesota against the son of one of the most revered mesms this country, hubert humphrey and a noted wrestler, jesse ventura who was elected governor.

in 2002 norm coleman ran in a campaign against paul wellstone, a beloved member of this party who was tragically killed in an airplane crash just a week or so before the election, bringing into the race a former vice president of the united states, former united states senator and ambassador, walter mondale, and the whole country watched, was riveted by that race during the last week. norm coleman won that race. this past year norm coleman was a participant in a race that also riveted the nation. he was opposed by a well-known television personality, al franken, now a member of this body, and the race went on for two years with much publicity and then it went on for another eight months after election day. if norm coleman could have found

some way to make the 2000 presidential election, bush versus gore versus coleman, norm would have been a participant in every single one of the most spectacular races of the last decade. norm and i arrived on the same day in the united states senate in 2003. we not only were members of the senate family, which we often talk about here, and which extends to both sides of the aisle, we were members of the same class and are good friends. my wife, hone and i, -- honey and i, got to know norm and his wife lawyery and the mother of -- lori and the mother of their two children. we know of the love of his family and his deep religious faith. each of us in the senate have

enjoyed the good humor and cheer and civil relationship that norm has had with his colleagues, both democrats and republicans. but most memorable -- and the republican leader spoke to some of this -- is norm coleman's record of service to our country. chief prosecutor for the state of minnesota. mayor of st. paul, united states senator, strong, eloquent, effective voice for the senator of this country. a senator that -- an independent voice of the kind that our country and the republican party needs to attract and represent and continue to bring into our party and into our political process. the political campaigns of norm coleman have been more spectacular than those of any of us in the united states senate.

but the public service xapters of his life -- chapters of her life has been equally impressive. as this door closes, i'm confident new ones will open. when i was governor of tennessee, my chief of staff, a former marine, came in and said to me during my last year -- he said, governor, i'd like to say to you people will remember the last thing you do. and i had no idea why he said that to me, but i never could get it out of my -- of my mind. and i think it's pretty good advice. people will remember the last thing norm coleman has done in this campaign. he proved to be determined and courageous and in the minnesota tradition, a happy warrior, in attempting to make sure that every minnesota vote counted in this race which was decided by just a few votes.

but, then, when the minnesota supreme court made its decision, he immediately was gracious in accepting the rule of law and the court's decision and stepping aside and congratulating al franken. that is the picture of norm coleman that most minnesotans and most americans will remember. and that may have been the lars thing that norm did in this race. but i am sure that it is far from the last thing that he is likely to do in public life. madam president, norm coleman, after those three spectacular races, deserves an easy, humdr humdrum, conventional political race some day. and minnesota and the nation can hope that we will deserve and have many more years of norm

coleman's public service. madam president, i thank the chair, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mannea senator: i'm here to spek about norm coleman. norm and i first met when i was secretary of housing and urban development. and i had been the mayor of minutminneapolis-st. paul and is the mayor of orange county, florida, we kind of spoke the same language, if you will. we understood each other. we had both been involved in the politics and the challenges and responsibilities of being a big urban city mayor. i remember our discussions about the problems of the cities and about the opportunities norm had

been very successful in creating a new arena for the hockey team in st. paul, and this was, i know, a tremendously proud thing for him and an accomplishment he had had. little did i know that our paths would again cross near the senate. i remember being in miami at a radio station and there was a tv monitor on the screen during the election of 2002. and i remember it was a debate between norm coleman and former vice president and senator walter mondale. and i just remember being detained there watching him and thinking, what a tough spot he landed in. what a complicated race it had been through the tragic death of senator wellstone, and how proud i was of him, of this fellow i didn't know that well, but who i had met on a couple of occasions, and he was handling himself quite well.

it turned out he was successful in that race. and only a couple of years later we were reunited here in the senate as colleagues. mr. martinez: we both immediately found one another in the foreign relations committee of the senate. and norm, at that time, was chair of the western hemisphere subcommittee, and i found in norm someone uncommonly knowledgeable about the western hemisphere and carried out those responsibilities with a great, great sense of urgency. norm and i traveled in latin america together. we traveled to chile and to colombia, and perhaps a couple of other places where we conducted meetings trying to advance the united states agenda, promoting the rule of law, fighting against narco trafficking that is such a blight upon our cities and our communities and trying to improve the conditions of democratic rule in the region.

i have no doubt that if norm coleman was in the senate this week, woe have been -- he would have been side by side with us as we watched closely the events in honduras and tried to promote a reasonable, fair, and democratic outcome to that country's troubled current moments of their living. he was the original sponsor of efforts to build stronger relations with our neighbors to the south. i had the opportunity, as i said to travel with him, and i know that part of our trip to colombia, where a tremendous challenge lies ahead for the people of colombia as they fight for the rule of law and fight against the narco terrorists in that country. i remember our meeting with president uribe that he and i had. norm was also very committed and concerned about a stable middle east, about advancing the peace process in the middle east, but also about the security of israel. he was a real strong voice for a

strong united states-israel relationship. he was a clear voice on the need for us to stop and not allow iran to develop a capability that is nuclear and that would invite the opportunity for iran to carry out the stated wishing of destroying the state of israel. he was a friend of israel. he was also a friend of human freedom. i remember when norm was first in the senate, he came to the senate two years before i did, and during that time i was secretary of housing and urban development still, and i heard that norm coleman was traveling to cuba. said to norm, you know, as you travel to cuba, as a now sitting senator, i hope you will remember that there is a large and kroag dissident movement on that -- growing dissident movement on that island and they deserve the same position as if you were traveling to eastern

europe in the 190's. norm heard my voice -- 1990's. norm heard my voice and met with the dissidents while he was on the island. the cuban government frowns upon visiting dignitaries of anyone visiting with a potential opposition to a country that has not known democracy for a half century. norm coleman met with them and while in cuba made strong statements about the need for a democratic solution to the cuban situation, about the need for the people of cuba to have an opportunity to live in freedom and spoke highly about the dissidents. needless to say that is the last time that norm coleman was invited to visit cuba by the cuban government. i found a friend who knew the difference between freedom and oppression and could -- and clearly would stand on the side of freedom.

norm, as has been expressed here this morning, with great grace and courage, fought through a very difficult election. in addition to that, the ups and downs of all that went on in a recount and the legal challenges that followed. but norm, with great grace, moved aid side when the time was right -- moved aside when the time was right and when the legal challenges had been exhausted, he did so with grace and dignity that is the hallmark of norm coleman. norm and lori are my friends. i wish them the very, very best as they go forward in their lives. and as i know they will find other opportunities to be of service to the people of minnesota and to the people of the united states. and i might dare say also to the people of florida. norm has a great affection for my state where he spent a lot of his time in the cold and bitter months when it was a little more pleasant in my neck of the woods

than it would be in minnesota. we always welcome norm to florida. we hope he continues to visit us frequently where he has a multitude of friends, a multitude of people who love him, who appreciate him, and who thank him for his great service to his state and our nation and the great concern he has demonstrated to people who are oppressed and those who seek to live in freedom and peace without threat to their neighbors. madam president, i thank you and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. a senator: madam president, i'm pleased to join with my colleagues in making some comments about our former colleague, norm coleman. i welcome senator franken to the senate. mr. bennett: i congratulate al franken on his victory, but it

is no secret that norm coleman will be sadly missed here. i served with him on the homeland security and governmental affairs committee where he served as the chairman of the permanent subcommittee on investigation. this is a subcommittee that has an interesting history. it has a history of some demagoguery if you go back into the past. it also has a history of some accomplishment of the various senators who have served there. i think it unusual that a freshman senator would serve in that capacity and serve as if he were not a freshman, but a seasoned veteran. he took over that assignment. he went after a number of areas of controversy and with a persistence that served him and the senate very well, pursued a number of difficulties. so, with all of the things we have heard about norm coleman -- his intelligence, his grace, his

willingness to work hard and at the same time do so with a sense of class about him -- i want to add my tribute to his ability to take on the difficult assignment and follow it through. i wish him and his wife and his family well in their activities now. i won't go through the resume that the republican leader has established for us. i simply add my voice of gratitude for the opportunity of serving with norm coleman, and my best wishes for him in his future activities. he's a young enough man and a vigorous enough man that i think we will hear far more from him in the years ahead. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: madam president, i rise to speak this morning for a few minutes about my dear friend, now former senator norm coleman from the great state of minnesota. norm was a very unique individual in the united states senate. he grew up in new york, was educated in iowa and wound up living in minnesota. he was a student leader in undergrad school as well as in law school. so his leadership qualities were certainly recognized early on. norm grew up in an era right behind me, which was the era of big rock bands, and norm was right in with the majority of the crowd of young folks back then and was a roadie with a rock band for awhile and spent his 20th birthday at

woodstock. we used to joke about that a lot in some of our conversations. after law school norm obviously settled down in the state of minnesota where he joined the attorney general's office and eventually became the state solicitor general. and he prosecuted any number of cases in both those offices. he became the mayor of st. paul, minnesota, in 1993. and, boy, did he ever take over a town that was headed south and bring it back to be a totally revitalized community in a way like, frankly, i've never seen. when you talk to the people of st. paul today and you ask them about what norm coleman did for the downtown area of st. paul, a smile immediately comes to the face of those residents of st. paul. he created thousands of new jobs, brought in more than $3 billion of new development to the city.

and the one thing that st. paul residents as well as minneapolis residents will tell you today about norm coleman from the standpoint of his legacy as mayor is, he brought the hockey team back to minneapolis/st. paul, and that has had a tremendous economic influence on that community. and i think it's a real tribute to norm and his leadership that after being elected as a democrat in 1993, he became a republican in 1996 and then ran for reelection as mayor in 1997 as a republican and was again elected mayor of st. paul. norm ran for governor of minnesota in 1998, and as a testament to the character, the integrity and the dedication as a public servant of norm coleman, when he lost that race for governor, he was still mayor

of st. paul. and the day after that election, he was back at his mayoral office at 8:00 the next morning taking care of the people of st. paul. i was very privileged to know norm in a way other than just being a colleague. we were very close personal friends, having been elected together, classes tend to -- individuals within classes tend to hang together from time to time. norm and i enjoyed many social moments together outside of this chamber as well as many strong professional moments inside this chamber. i will have to say that as chairman of the committee on agriculture, of which norm was a member, there was no harder working member of that committee for his constituents, no more dedicated individual to agricultural interests in his state than was norm coleman.

in fact, during the farm bill debate last year, norm pounded on me every single day during the course of that farm bill debate about some issue that was of particular interest to his state. it may have been talking about some issue relative to ethanol, some issue relative to the issues surrounding corn, wheat or sugar beets. but whatever it was, norm was just a hard-working, dedicated man when it came to making sure that his constituents' interests were protected in that piece of legislation which is so vitally important to the state that he represented. i had the opportunity to travel with norm many times in the state of minnesota, and he likewise traveled in my state. i remember very well going to the minnesota state fair with

norm. and whaoeupl we were there, we visited -- and while we were there, we visited with some of his corn growers whom i had gotten to know on a personal basis as a result of my relationship with norm. i'll never forget that me coming from a cotton-growing state where we produce a fiber that is used in the manufacture of clothing, the folks in minnesota have developed a way to produce a piece of cloth from by-products of corn and ethanol production. and they gave me a shirt up there that day. it was a red shirt. and they hadn't quite perfected this procedure at that point in time. i had a tea shirt on underneath the shirt i had on. i took that t-shirt off. it was hot as twobgd that day. when we got -- it was hot as

could be that day. when we got back to the hotel i took the shirt off and i had a pink undershirt on. the corn growers reminded me of that and we laughed ever since. norm is not only a professional member of this body but he's a good guy. he's one of those individuals that folks on both sides of the aisle had, first of all, respect for as a member of this body, but also from a personal standpoint, norm was easy to get along with, easy to work with. and he wanted to do what was in the best interest of americans. his work on the foreign relations committee, particularly with respect to his investigation of the activities and the fraudulent activities ongoing at the united nations, i think, is unparalleled with respect to any investigation that i've seen take place during my years in the united states senate.

he uncovered an awful lot of fraud and abuse. and as a result of norm's dedicated work and his dogged determination, some changes have been made. and were norm to have come back to the senate, no question that he would have continued to pursue that issue and we would continue to receive benefits. we will continue to receive benefits from norm's investigative measures that were undertaken at the united nations. he -- i think his reputation as a fighter and as a strong advocate for minnesotaans is reflective in the way than handled his election. he fought hard in his election. it was very much an uphill battle. a lot of us had tough elections last year, but nobody had a tougher one than norm on a

day-to-day basis. but he wanted to make sure that the people who voted for him, the people who supported him and worked hard in his election all across the state of minnesota had their just due. and he wanted to make sure that he could look every minnesotan in the eye and say "i did everything i could do to make sure this election was fairly conducted and that i made sure that every single vote that i could possibly get was counted." at the end of the day when the election was finally decided, once again, in his very professional way he conceded and decided, as some of us have to do in politics from time to time that it's time to move on. we're going to miss norm coleman in this body. we're going to miss his family -- laurie and my wife are very dear friends. they communicated from time to time both while the two of them were here in washington as well

as being in communication back and forth while they were in their respective states. and we will miss that personal relationship. his daughter, sarah, his son jacob, are two very fine young people and certainly are reflective of the fact that they have been raised by two very, very good parents. so, to norm coleman, i simply say that we will miss you in the senate, but we're not going to let him go away. i still talk to him on a regular basis and will continue to do so and will seek his advice, his counsel on any number of issues because this is a man who has served the public just about all of his adult life. and he's done so in a professional way and in a way that all of us wish to emulate. congratulations to norm on whatever road life now takes you. with that, madam president, i

would yield the floor. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. i enjoyed hearing my colleague's comments about our friend, senator norm coleman, because i share those same sentiments, and i rise today to speak about the extraordinary service of this extraordinary individual. madam president, when i became the chairman of the governmental affairs committee in 2003, a freshman senator took over the position that i had held as the chairman of the permanent subcommittee on investigations. during the next six years i came to know senator norm coleman as an energetic, far sighted and

committed public servant. but most of all i came to know norm as a dear friend. as chairman and later ranking member of p.s.i., he showed unfailing leadership and extraordinary dedication. working with his colleague from across the aisle, senator levin, norm enhanced p.s.i.'s committee as the premier subcommittee. he undertook many complex and enormous investigations. under this team's leadership, the subcommittee was successful in ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse to the tune o of $14 billion. i remember particularly well an investigation that exposed tax cheats in medicare and in defense contracting.

madam president, another success resulting from norm's leadership was his highly successful and courageous oil-for-food investigation. norm's investigation uncovered billions of dollars of fraud in this program operated by the united nations. norm was focused, determined, and undeterred in his pursuit of the facts and in his pursuit of the truth. norm's abiding concern for upholding the public trust is rooted in his background. as a former prosecutor, he's a champion of the rule of law. as a former mayor, he understands the concerns of states and local governments. as a senator, he always worked

hard for the people he represented and for the people of this entire country. these traits were evident in his service as a member of the homeland security and governmental affairs committee. norm's hard work ensured that the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction had the resources and the authority necessary to do his work effectively. norm's keen insight into local government was invaluable during our extensive investigation into the failed response to hurricane katrina. and his insights, his critical insights helped to shape reform in so many areas ranging from our intelligence agencies, the postal service and government contracting. madam president, norm was also a

passionate advocate for education and for opportunity. his support for strengthening the pell grant program demonstrated his belief that the benefits of higher education should be available to everyone with the determination and the desire to pursue more education. in fact, madam president, the only quibble that i have with norm's public service dates back to his tenure as mayor of st. paul. his success in bringing professional hockey back to minnesota was certainly commentable. -- commendable. but it was based, as i understand it, that minnesota is

the hockey capital of the united states. now the people of maine know better, of course. but this was typical of norm's pride in his state. madam president, the past election brought great disappointment, but it also revealed character. norm ran a vigorous, honorable campaign under very difficult circumstances. he never betrayed his constituents nor compromised his principles. and when the final court decision went against him, he graciously conceded defeat. in fact, madam president, i had the opportunity to talk with norm right after the supreme court in minnesota ruled against him. and i was struck once again by

his determination to do what he felt was best for his state even though it was not best for him. i was also touched by his commitment, once again, to his constituents to moving on to ensuring that they had two senators representing them. he was not bitter. he was not hurt. he was at peace. he was at peace because he knew that he had served the people of his state to the best of his ability and with all his heart and tremendous intellect. madam president, it has been a true honor to serve with norm coleman in the united states senate and the american people, not just the people of

minnesota, are better off for his service. it has been a joy to develop our friendship, a friendship that i will always cherish and always continue. i will miss serving with norm day to day, but i know that i will see him many times. i wish norm and his wonderful family all the best in the years to come. thank you, madam president. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. reid: i ask consent that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i don't know much about the state of new york or the city of new york. but i do know there is a high

school there called james madison that has some pretty prominent graduates. as united states senator, bernie sanders from vermont went to also there, chuck schumer, went to high school there and norm coleman, a senator of minnesota, was also a graduate of that school, and i also understand that ruth bader ginsburg also graduated from that high school. i'm sure there are others. my message to norm coleman is that i've been involved in close elections. i lost an election for the united states senate many, many years ago by 524 votes. i won one, not too many years ago by 428 votes. so i have some appreciation for what norm coleman and his opponent, al franken, went

through. and my thoughts during these past eight months have been directed toward the difficulty they've had in their lives as a result of that close election. one of my elections, the one that i won by 428 votes, took six weeks. i can't imagine one taking eight months. it was a hard-fought campaign. almost three million people voted. it was decided by 312 votes. i appreciate, as i think the people of minnesota and the senate and the country, norm coleman not taking this to the supreme court or to some higher court. he could have done that and he didn't do that. it speaks well of him that he didn't do that. he has a lot of fans, of course, in the state of minnesota, as we all know. but also one of his biggest fans is a close, personal friend of mine in the state of nef, a man by the name of sirogech.

he is a man of accomplishment, having been born in iceland, came to america, raised -- in henderson, where i was raised. came, actually, from having nothing to being a wealthy man now, a prominent businessman. one of norm coleman's biggest supporters around the country was sig rogich. he was part of the tuesday team of the famous media that was developed for ronald reagan. he was a -- worked in the white house for the first president bush and as a is a very close, personal friend of the first president bush and is well known and part of the second bush team knowing him very well. my understanding sig rogich's

relationship with norm coleman is one that they were friends and that speaks well of both of them that they have such high-quality friends. norm coleman and his relations with me, mine being a democrat, his being a republican, were always very, very good. we spoke to each other often. he was always very courteous and always a gentleman with me. i never heard him say a negative word about me, and i can't ever recall ever saying anything negative about him. and to show that he did do some legislation that i watched very closely, one piece of legislation that he did was a piece of legislation that would allow people, when they filed their income tax return, to give part of their return to go to national guardsman or national

reservists who lose their jobs as a result of going into combat, and their families have trouble making the grade, that is, the few dollars they get from the military doesn't make up for what their house payments are and everything. and this is money that would be allowed to be put into a found to be admistered to allow this money to go towards the families of these people fighting overseas. i thought so much of that legislation, that i sponsored it. and it's now working its way through the senate and congress. a fine piece of legislation, and i acknowledge that i copied this from norm coleman. i wish norm coleman the very best recognizing these campaigns come to an end. he's a relatively young man and i'm sure with his educational background and his notoriety in the state of minnesota, that he has a bright future -- he will

have a bright future. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: i'm here today to speak about senator coleman who was my colleague for my first two years in the united states senate. as everyone knows, the minnesota supreme court issued its ruling on the outcome of last november's senate election. i, as i did this week, want to congratulate al franken for his

hard-earned and long-awaited election victory. he has had a good first week in the senate and we all welcome him. but i did want to take this time to talk about norm coleman. first of all, after six months without having a second senator, senator coleman made a very difficult decision, and he did it with such grace. he could have appealed that decision. he could have gone to federal court. it was his right. but he made a decision which he felt was best for the state of minnesota, and the state thanks him for that. and i personally thank him for that. i wanted to talk a little bit about what norm coleman meant to me, what it meant to me to have him as a colleague in the senate. when i first came in, norm had been the senator for many, many years, and he was very gracious to me, reached out with his staff. we basically got along from the moment i started to the end of his term as a senator.

and we worked very hard at that. when we had disagreements, we talked them out and our staffs would talk them out, because we felt the most important thing was that we represent the state of minnesota. each one of us knows norm in their own way, but i think all of us agree that this is someone who cares so much about his family. his wife, laurie, and their two children, jacob and sarah. theirs is a family that's known tremendous tragedy. two of their children died in early infancy from a rare genetic disease. while norm doesn't talk about this much, his reverence for life and devotion to his family are clear. second to his family has been his dedication to public service. it has literally defined his adult life. maybe it was sheer destiny that he found his way to the united states senate. after all, he's a graduate of james madison high school in brooklyn, which is also the alma mater of two of our senate

colleagues -- chuck schumer and bernie sanders. norm hit the ground running in politics and hasn't stopped. in college he was a student activist and in law school he served as the president of his class. immediately after getting his law degree, he joined the minnesota attorney general's office, recruited by my good friend, the legendary attorney general warren spannis. norm was with the attorney general's office for 17 years, most of that time doing criminal prosecutions, ultimately rising to the position of the solicitor general for the state of minnesota. in 1993, norm was elected the mayor of st. paul at a time when the city, especially its downtown, was suffering economically. during his eight years as mayor, he worked to turn st. paul around. building public-private partnerships, he redeveloped the industrial riverfront into a recreational green space, a new minnesota science museum was built overlooking the mississippi river. and most famously, he brought

hockey back to minnesota, securing a new national hockey league franchise that moved into the new arena. madam president, hockey is very important in minnesota. in 1998, norm was narrowly defeated in a three-way race for minnesota governor. the winner, of course, was jesse ventura, something that not many people across the united states expected to happen. i think norm once said that not everyone can say that you lose to a candidate whose previous career highlight was being killed by an alien creature in the movie "predator," but he took it in stride. in 2002, norm was elected to the senate under tragic circumstances. just days before the election, my good friend paul wellstone and his wife, sheila, and their daughter, marcia, and members of their staff were killed in a tragic plane crash in northern minnesota. norm became the senator. like paul, norm took his duties

very seriously, and i could see that in my two years as a senator. he cared deeply about the work that he did in foreign relations, some of which people never really talked about, never made the front page of the newspaper. but it was something that he cared deeply about. together we worked on several things in our state which were of key importance legislation to benefit our state. the most dramatic example of this spirit of cooperation was the response to the collapse of the interstate 35 bridge in 2007. 13 people were killed and 150 were injured, many with severe and permanent injuries. literally our cities came to a stop. for our state, out of this unprecedented disaster, this public trauma, was something that they immediately responded to. i still remember when senator coleman and i came in the very next morning, flew in with the secretary of transportation, mary peters, and already

billboards up, already billboards up literally 12 hours later directing people where to go with their traffic and how to get buses to get to where they had to go. as i said that day, a bridge in america shouldn't just fall down. but when one does fall down, we rebuild it. in the 72 hours immediately following the bridge collapse, norm and i worked together to secure $250 million in emergency bridge construction funding. representative jim oberstar led the way in the house. approval of this funding came with remarkable speed and bipartisanship. capitol hill veterans tell me it was a rare feat aided by a unity among minnesota's elected leaders across the aisle, across the political spectrum. and i'm pleased to report that just after 13 months after that come lapse, minnesota drivers were able to drive over a safe new bridge and eight-lane

highway. while the bridge is the most visible example, norm and i had many other opportunities to work together on issues that mattered to the people in our state. there was another minnesota disaster in august 2007 when severe flooding hit the southeastern corner of our state. we worked on this together along with congressman walls to ensure a rapid effective response by federal agencies to help communities, businesses and families in need. we worked together on the agriculture committee. we both served on that committee and we succeeded in passing a new farm bill that was very important to our state. we worked together with the bipartisan group of senators on energy legislation to move forward in unity. we worked together in securing federal funds for the security cost for the democratic and republican national convention along with our colleagues in colorado. i still remember standing before this chamber saying that i stood tall to obtain the funding to protect the security of the

republican leadership from across this country. we did that together. we joined together to secure educational benefits owed to our national guard and reserve troops returning from active duty overseas. we are so proud of our national guard in minnesota, the red bulls have served longer in iraq than any other national guard unit in the country. and norm and i worked together to make sure that we expanded the beyond the yellow ribbon program to help those guard and reserve who have really no base to go home to, but go home to little towns across our state. we worked on that together. our state has a proud tradition of representing both democrats and republicans to office. they expect us to work together. from the very beginning norm and i knew that that was part of our duty to the people of our state. that was part of our obligation. no matter if we disagreed on issues, that we were going to work together. so today i want to acknowledge my former colleague, norm

coleman, for the strength that he has shown during this go long campaign, for the grace that he showed last week when he made that difficult decision, and for the fine work that he did for the people of minnesota. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

khrob madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i'm here to talk briefly about food safety, something that i care deeply about. as you probably know, the last few food epidemics from the jalapeno peppers to the peanut butter would not have been solved except for the minnesota department of health. 13 people died with the last peanut butter one. it was only when someone died and was sick in minnesota that it got solved. clearly while we're proud of the

work we do, we have to bring this model out nationally. i'm proud to be doing a bill with senator chambliss to try to bring this model out for the rest of the country. i do note today "the washington post" had a strong editorial recommending that we do something to improve the food safety of this nation. i think it's worth whaoegd that editorial. they're talking about the need to get something done here. just this week the white house came out with their food safety recommendations which include, as i said, building a new national trace-back and response system, including clear industry guidance, a new unified incident command system and improved use of technology to deliver individual food safety alerts to consumers. we can truly do better. there is also a bill that looks at -- while the bill that senator chambliss and i focuses on the end of this problem, when a foodborne illness is out there, there's also a bill to prevent it in the first place, a

bipartisan bill in the senate. senator dick durbin is heading up that bill along with judd gregg, ted kennedy, richard burr, chris dodd, lamar alexander. senator chambliss and i are also sponsors of that legislation. the idea of that legislation is to beef up the f.d.a. to improve our capacity to prevent food safety problems. as we all know, the tragedy that happened in georgia where the information didn't get to the right people, where inspectors had come in, or not enough inspectors had come in. the information didn't get up the food chain, so to say. no one knew what was going on, that there were violations at this plant and 13 people died. that has to change. twaoef kpwaouf our capacity to detect and -- we have to improve our capacity to detect and respond. we also have in this pw*eul ways to enhance the u.s. food defense capabilities and to increase f.d.a. resources. we've seen recently the problem with the refrigerated cookie

dough manufactured by nestle, so we know this problem has not ended. and it continues on and on and on. madam president, i'm urging the senate to take action, first of all, on the food safety modernization act of 2009, a bipartisan bill to give the f.d.a. more tools to do what it does. we already see in the department of agriculture the good work the agriculture department does with certain foods, and we need to build on this work and make sure that we are able to catch these things before they get out into the food stream for the people of our country. secondly, when it does happen, when the -- when salmonella or something does get out there, we have to respond quickly. so i also urge the senate, as part of these tp*d measures, to pass the food food safety rapid response act, the bill that i have with senator chambliss. this is a smart bill. it uses these models of epidemiology tools that should

be used all over the country. it just shouldn't have to be the case that people have to get sick in minnesota before we solve this problem. according to centers for disease control, foodborne disease causes about 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths in the united states every year. we shouldn't be waiting. we should be acting on these two bills. we have a full agenda. but we have before us two bills that have bipartisan support. we haven't heard people attacking them. they are the way to go. we've got food industry people involved in both of these bills that also want to get them passed. obviously they don't want to keep losing profits because of food scares all over this country. let's get these bills done and improve our food safety system in the united states of america. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? pro*pl.

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i would like to join some of my colleagues today who have spoken previously in reflecting upon the service of our colleague, norm coleman. as we all know, the election process in minnesota has come to a conclusion. we have welcomed his successor to the united states senate. but i also want to just make some remarks about senator coleman's service here in the senate and sort of my recollections of that. obviously all of us come here motivated to do different things. we all have reasons that we want to be in public service, things that we want to accomplish. senator coleman obviously came from the state of minnesota, having been in an executive position, having served as mayor of st. paul where he accomplished some wonderful things for the state, not the least of which was bringing hockey to minnesota, which is something that any of us from that region of the country know it was greatly appreciated by the citizens of that, of his city and his state.

but came to the united states senate under unique circumstances. i recall having traveled around the country with senator coleman as we were campaigning together in 2002 trying to come to the united states senate and having an opportunity to get to know somebody. and when you travel with somebody on an ongoing basis, you get to know them not on a superficial basis the way that many of us here in washington get aacquainted. you get to know people on sort of the thin level. but you get a chance to really get a chance to get a glimpse into the soul of people when you're in circumstances, when you're in tough campaigns, and certainly norm was no stranger to tough campaigns. but as it turned out, in that 2002 election, norm was elected to the united states senate, i lost my election in 2002 and didn't come here until a couple of years later. but during the course of the campaigns and then having served with norm coleman and representing a neighbor state in south dakota, we shared a lot of

common interests -rplt there were things that we worked out on, whether it was agriculture or renewable energy or the economy in our state, trying to create jobs in the upper midwest of this country, norm coleman was somebody who more than anything else cared about results. and that, to me, you know, there is so much in some cases here, we get into the debates of the united states seantd the partisan lines -- senate and the partisan lines get drawn. the bottom line is that norm coleman cared about getting things done for the people of minnesota. and i think that's the kind of can-do attitude that he took his to job as mayor, to all the other areas of public service in which he was engaged during the course of his career in public life. but coming to the united states senate i'm sure had to be frustrating because this is a place where sometimes it's very difficult to see the result and the outcome of your efforts. but norm was someone who was

focused. he was intent on getting things done and getting things accomplish and during his service did some great things for the people of minnesota and the people of this country. i think he would tell you that coming to the senate -- and i would tell you the same thing, looking back on some of the things getting done and the debates over the confirmation of chief justice john roberts or justice sam alito, big debates in which we were all engaged, seeing good people like that put on the supreme court of this country, working in areas that are specific to our states, again, agriculture, renewable energy, putting energy policy in place that will drive, i think, america's future in terms of trying to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy and, obviously, trying to create more economic opportunity here in this country by promoting the energy source that's we have right here and particularly in places like the midwest where we can pro dice biofuels and wind,

those are the kind of issues that norm coleman was committed to. he understood the profound impact that they had on the citizens of his state of minnesota. and i also think, too, sometimes around here people tend to like, as they -- as we all do because we all are elected to represent constituent sis, but we are likely to make votes that are more political. but i have seen norm coleman come in here and make sometimes tough votes, but the votes that he thought were the right ones for the future of this country. that, too, is a quality that sometimes is lacking and can be rare in public life. and so i just wanted to express my appreciation for having had the opportunity to serve with -- with norm coleman in the united states senate. someone, as i said, who i thought was a tremendous reflection upon the state of minnesota, the people of his state. someone who was intent on doing

the right thing for the future of this country. and, frankly, someone, who in my view, brought an authenticity and genuineness to this body and to this world of politics in washington, d.c., that sometimes lacks in those qualities. he was sincere, he was genuine. you knew exactly where he was coming from. with norm coleman what you saw was what you got. and i was pleased to have had the opportunity not only to serve with him in the united states senate and to call him a colleague here, but more importantly than that to call he and laurie and their family friends. because that's something, too, that is rare in washington, d.c., and sometimes the united states senate. this place can be a lonely place, and when you develop the types of the depth of friendship that hi with norm coal -- i had with norm coleman, i find that to be very rare around here and something that i will treasure and remember for some time to

come. and i also know that norm coleman will continue in whatever he chooses to do next to serve the people of minnesota, the people of this country because for him it wasn't about the position or the title. it was about the difference that he made and is making and i know that he will continue to do great things for this country because whatever he chooses to do next, it will be with an eye toward how he can make a difference and contribute in a positive way to furthering and improving the quality of life for the people of his state and the people of this country. and if he were here today, madam president, i think he would probably also enter into some of the great debates that we're having. norm coleman, as someone who cared about fiscal responsibility, cared about future generation, cared about making sure that we secured a better an brighter future for those who will come after, i think would be probably be very troubled by many of the things that we see happening here in

the country and certainly things that we see happening even here with legislation that's moving in the united states senate. and as we look at the big debates, whether it's dealing with the issue of the reform of health care in this country, which is one-sixth of the american economy, whether it deals with the pass in the house of representatives, new natural energy tax that will impose a crushing burden on all members in minnesota and across the country, those are issues that i think we need to be really careful and we need to be really thoughtful and we need to really scrutinize these things as they come through the congress. and we saw the house move very quickly the week before last on a 1,200 page bill that impose as brand-new national energy tax on the people. we can debate how much that tax is going to be. but one thing we know is that everybody in this country is going to pay higher energy taxes. whether that's electricity,

whether that's fuels, whether that's natural gas, whether that's home heating oil, every american consumer, every american family, every american small business is going to see their energy costs go up because of the legislation that was passed in the house last week and if it is successful in passing in the united states senate. and i hope, madam president, that we can put the brakes on that. because it is not fair to the american people at a time when many of them are losing their jobs, at a time when many of them are struggling to make ends meet that we impose a brand-new, top-down bureaucratic heavy-handed mandate that will have a crushing effect and crushing impact on the economy and this country and increase the bills and the taxes that american consumers are going to pay. and so i hope that we will bring some reason to this debate. that the united states senate will not -- not act in the hasty way that the house of representatives did in throwing a 1,200 page bill on to the

floor, adopting a 309 page amendment in -- in a minimum amount of time. we all know that people didn't have an opportunity to read that bill. this is something that is a major consequence to this country and to our economy and we ought to do it with great regard for the american people in making sure that they're engaged. and i will tell you, having traveled my state last week that all of the public events that i attended, it was loud and clear people were unanimously opposed to the cap-and-trade national energy tax bill that is currently moving through the congress. and i described that and other things that are happening here, whether it's the government ownership of -- of the automobile industry or the financial system banks, insurance companies, there's a trend that we don't want to see continue on a long-term basis, which is why i introduced legislation called the government ownership exit plan, which would require the government divest itself and wind down its interest in these private companies in the next

year. and it gives an additional year, if necessary, if the treasury determines -- determines it is in the best interest of the taxpayers to do that. but we put an end date out there. that we don't continue with an indefinite, long-term ownership of the american economy by the federal government. that, madam president, is not consistent with the american way of doing things. that is not consistent with free enterprise and the free markets and the freedoms we enjoy in this country which have served in the foundation and made this american economy the strongest in the world. we need to return and get the federal government out of the ownership so that it's not controlling the day-to-day decisions made by these businesses and creating all of the inherent conflict of interest that comes with government ownership of private economy. i hope that we will move away from that ownership and that we will not use that as just the precursor to a take over of one-sixth of the american economy by having the government

take over the health care system. we all know that we have issues with the health care system. we need to get costs under control. reform our system and make it more affordable to more people in the country. but the one thing that we don't need is to have the government take over the american health care system, one-sixth of the entire economy of a cost that we know to be a minimum of $1 trillion and some estimates up to $2.05 prl costs to -- $2.5 trillion costs to have the government take over the health care system. these are the big debates before the united states senate, madam president. and it would be my hope, whether it is the cap-and-trade energy tax or the government takeover of the health care system, whether it is government ownership of auto manufacturers, insurance companies, or banks, that these are things that i think make most americans very uncomfortable. and i believe it's the role of the united states senate fought the brakes on to make sure that -- pro-put the brakes on to make sure that we're looking long and hard at what we're doing here. it is the wrong direction, wrong

path to pursue for this country. at a minimum we need to make sure that the way in which this legislation moves through here that it is not done hastily, that it is not hurried, that it's not rushed. that it isn't jammed through here that somebody has a political agenda they want to get accomplished and want to do it without allowing the american people to hear about it or the opportunity to read the fine print. i think when people read the fine print as they have with the cap-and-trade proposal, they will act in a vigorous way of having the federal government take over one-sixth of the american economy by taking over the american health care system. we can do things better. we can improve upon the health care system that we have today in terms of affordability, but the one thing that i don't think the american people want to see is the federal government imposing itself in the middle of decisions that ought to be made by doctors, patients, physicians, and consumers of health care and not by the federal government.

and that, madam president, is what is being talked about here in the congress and in the united states senate and i hope that -- that this will -- that we will be able to -- to get this thing -- put the brakes on, slow this process down so the american people can engage in this debate in what way that will allow their voices to be heard and make sure that politicians here in washington aren't going down a pathway that could lead toward rationed care, that could lead to fewer choices, that could lead to bigger bills for the american taxpayers and that could lead to more borrowing from future generations an depriving them and robbing them of a better and brighter future because we handed them a crushing debt. if you look at trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see and the notion of government taking over health care and the notion of a new energy tax that will drive up costs of energy for every american, these are policies that i think put the future of the american people in great peril and they need to be

engaged in it and we need to make sure we're not rushing these things through the united states senate. i will do everything that i can to make sure there is a full and fair debate and this we don't go down a path that allows the government to take over one-sixth of the american government and allow the government make decisions that should be made by health care providers an patients and we don't allow a new national energy tax to be imposed by the american people. these things are going to cost american families enormous amounts of money at a time they're trying to keep their jobs and make ends meet and trying to balance their own budgets at home. the american government ought to do what it can to balance its budget and not spending like drunken sailors and borrowing from generations in a way that will put the future of many americans -- many american families at risk. madam president, i yield the floor and the balance of my .ime. mrs. murray: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i yield back the remaining time on the democratic side. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2892, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 95, h.r. 2892, an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the kyl amendment number 1432 occur at 11:30 a.m. with the provisions of the previous order governing consideration of this amendment remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the vitter amendment number 1375 now be the pending business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, i understand this amendment is acceptable to both sides. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on the amendment.

without objection, the amendment is agreed to. mrs. murray: i move to reconsider and table the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i call up amendment number 1378 and ask

for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. so ordered. the clerk will report. mr. mccain: madam president -- the clerk: the senator from arizona be -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, i yield the floor. mr. kyl: madam president, i believe there is five minutes per side to debate the amendment that i have offered which is cosponsored by senator mccain. i would appreciate it if the chair would advise me when i have consumed two minutes, senator mccain will talk two minutes. madam president, the amendment is simple. it strikes $900,000 for an earmark for the city of whitefish emergency operation center in montana. the administration terminated funding for these types of projects in its 2010 budget submission. this operation center has not been subject to a congressional hearing nor has it been authorized by congress. it is a pure earmark and not

only did the administration not request funding for the project, it specifically zeroed out funding. senator feingold had an amendment that would have subsumed this project along with several others. that amendment failed. but he noted in regard to his amendment that while we may not agree on the appropriateness of earmarking in general, i certainly hope we can agree that certain things should not be earmarked including fema grant programs such as those that protect americans from terrorist attacks. madam president, i quote senator feingold because this is precisely the view of the 9/11 commission. and from page 396 of that report, it included this recommendation -- and i quote -- "homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. congress should not use this money as a pork barrel." the report goes on to state -- quote -- "in a free-for-all over money, it is understandable that representatives will work to protect the interests of their home states or districts. but this issue is too important

for politics as usual to prevail. resources must be allocated according to vulnerabilities." end of quote. and, madam president, that is why in its budget submission, the administration said this -- and i quote -- "the administration is proposing to eliminate emergency operation center grant program in the 2010 budget because the programs award allocations are not based on a risk assessment. also other department of homeland security grant programs can provide funding for the same purposes more effectively." so, madam president, you have the 9/11 commission saying that these programs should be eliminated. you have the administration saying in its budget submission that they should be eliminated from the budget submission. they should not be subject to earmarks. and that's why our amendment is being offered. the presiding officer: the senator has consumed his two minutes. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i want to thank my opinion friend and colleague from arizona for this amendment -- thank my friend and colleague from arizona for this amendment. it's all about there's been no analysis, no assessment, no

debate on the merits of using federal funds for a municipal improvement project. i'm sure that whitefish needs municipal improvement. so do cities and towns all over america. and why was whitefish picked? it might be of interest to taxpayers, whitefish, according to my information, has a population of 5,849 people. this earmark equals $153.87 per inhabitant. per inhabitant. there are cities all across america that are operating out of inadequate facilities, including my own state. all we've asked for is to have these prioritized according to competition assessment and recommendations by agencies of government rather than inserted in the bill as an earmark and without any of that. so from the previous votes,

madam president, we'll probably lose on this one, but i want to tell my friend from montana sooner or later the american people are going to reject this kind of pork barrel earmarking. $153.87 for every resident in whitefish, which may be warranted -- it may be warranted, but there is no assessment, there is no study, there is no rationale besides the fact that this was inserted in this bill without any scrutiny or authorization. madam president, we should reject this kind of practice, and this is an egregious example of it. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? i would ask that you notify me when i have three minutes left. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i want to thank the two senators for the debate. this is not an egregious expenditure. the senior senator from arizona talked about 5,800 people, 5,849

people. it is up to $8,500 now. that is not the issue. the issue is white house occurs here. this is a town. we've got -- the issue is whitefish occurs here. this is a town. we've got millions of acres of forest service land all around it north, south, and to the west. when we have emergencies, it isn't necessarily just terrorism. and they will tell you on the northern border terrorism is the biggest threat. on the southern border next to arizona it's illegal immigration. so not only do we have this emergency operation center. the potential -- the potential, but let's hope it never happens -- of terrorist threats coming down whether it's in the park or north along, in forest service lands, we also have the threat, a very real threat, again, of forest fires occurring. and they have happened with regularity. the current building one-third

the size it needs. it's 100 years old. it's in a seismic zone. we've got border patrol, forest service, d.e.a. all rely on local law enforcement. we've got radio interoperability between federal, state and county. the truth is that this is for the region. this money also leverages almost nine to one in local grants. $8 million, this $900,000 leverages. so the local community is stepping up and they're picking up their fair share. we don't want unfunded mandates put on local governments because we have national terrorist problems throughout this region, or potential i should say. and a big, big hit on potential. the presiding officer: the senator has three minutes remaining. mr. tester: the truth is members of the body, is that you can come up and you can look at a title and you can talk about it being egregious. but the truth is millions of

acres of forest, a national park, a border 60 miles away. we're talking about emergency services. the local community is supposed to pick up the entire tab for that? i don't think so, and i don't think that's fair. and that's why we have a $900,000 expenditure in this bill to help local governments meet the needs of this country. i reserve the rest of my time. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: who yields time? if neither side yields time, the time will be charged equally by both sides. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i'd like to reserve my final minute to have the last response. mr. tester: can i ask what the sponsor of the amendment has left for time? the presiding officer: he has 53 seconds. you have 2 minutes and 29

seconds. mr. tester: we have two senators for every state in this country. our forefathers drafted that out. the reason was because we don't dictate our population. we don't dictate our land mass either. we dictate our need. and the fact of the matter is millions of acres of forest service ground, a national park, one of the jewels of this country, to the east. a border to the north, where there are real threats that we need to make sure, and work with our neighbors to the north to make sure we don't have terrorist activity come across the border. the truth is the sponsor of this bill -- the sponsor of this amendment talked about the president zeroing out this program. well, why doesn't the amendment zero out the program? it doesn't. the sponsor cherry-picked one -- one expenditure in the bill and said this isn't the way we should be spending money. i appreciate that. we're having the debate here on that. but the truth of the matter is

this is much-needed for the security of this country and the security for the region. and so, i would -- yes? a senator: would the senator from montana yield? mr. tester: yes. mrs. murray: my understanding is over the last decade there has been 28 presidential disasters declared in that region? mr. tester: i believe that's correct. mrs. murray: 28 times in the last ten years there has been a major disaster responded to, whether it's a fire in the park, in the federal land or border issue or whatever. so this is not just about whitefish? mr. tester: it's not about whitefish at all. mrs. murray: it's about the entire region and the ability for all the different agencies to respond, is that correct? mr. tester: that is correct. mrs. murray: i thank the senator. that clarifies the importance for this emergency center. mr. tester: it's not about whitefish at all. it's about the region. it's about the area. it's about the location. and it's critically important that we get this money for this

project. and i appreciate the sponsor bringing the amendment up. but truthfully, this is not pork. this is something that will help the country meet its security needs. and with that, i yield the floor. mr. kyl: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i accept my colleague fromment's argument that this could be put -- colleague from montana's argument that this could be put to good use. that is why the 9/11 commission said quo kwoep homeland security assistance should be based on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. congress should not use this money as a pork barrel. all we ask is, as the administration did, that the money be allocated based on the risk assessment from the department of homeland security, not on the ability of a particular congressman or senator to get the money earmarked in a bill. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the page 396 of the

9/11 commission report be inserted in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. and urge my colleagues to support this amendment as at least one small step that we can take to demonstrate that we agree with the 9/11 commission and we agree with the administration that these grants should be based on risks rather than earmarks. madam president, i believe we need to ask for the yeas and nays, and i do that at this time. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeasia 36, the nays are 59. more move to reconsider. the presiding officer: the amendment is not agreed to. morrow move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. theft approval of the majority and minority leaders, and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, senator mccain has an amendment that he is going to speak to in a minute. i would just let all senators know, we are working our way rapidly through -- the presiding officer: the senate needs to be in order.

mrs. murray: madam president, i would just let all senators know that i really appreciate their cooperation. we are working through number of amendments on both sides that i'm hoping we can get through this afternoon. senator mccain will speak to his amendment now and we're thoapg have a vote around 2:00 to settle that and several others. so if you do have an amendment that you're working on and have some last language to work on, please get it done because we would like to finish this bill today. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madamr. mccain: ? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask for immediate consideration of amendment number 1378. the presiding officer: the amendment is pending. mr. mccain: i call up the amendment of the amendment is pending? the presiding officer: correct. mr. mccain: thank the president, and i think, madam president, i might -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. could you please take your conversations out of the senate

floor. mr. mccain: madam president, the -- what the amendment does, it strikes an earmark of $39.7 million for the advanced training center in west virginia, a training facility for u.s. customs and border protection agents. the center features a range of training environments, facilities, and et cetera. but i want to point out that the committee the administration requested -- the administration requested and the committee approved $33.3 million to operate eye equip the facility. you may not agree with that -- the presiding officer: the senator will be suspend. the senate is not in order. will the snowshes please kindly take -- will the senators please kindly take their conversations off the floor. mr. mccain: i think it is the senator from illinois. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

mr. mccain: madam president, i have no problem with the -- i have a problem with it but i'm not intending to have this amendment affect the $30 million which the administration requested to operate and equip the facility, and this amendment is not about that. what this amendment is about is the committee earmarked an additional $39.7 million to equip, furnish and expand the leadership academy at the center. let me be very clear, what the amendment does and does not do. it does not strike the requested funding for the training facility. it does strike an unrequested, unauthorized, unnecessary earmark of nearly $40 million that was added to this bill at the direction of the senior member of this body. so, i want to make that perfectly clear. when -- and i'm sure that there

will be opponents of this amendment, but have no doubt that it does not affect the $30 million that the administration requested. this is an additional $39.7 million to equip, furnish and expand the leadership academy. madam president, i think that it might be of interest to our colleagues that just today at 9:23 a.m., the c.b.o. is reporting year-to-date budget deficits tops $1 trillion. so we consider this amendment, which has an additional $39.7 million on it, in the light of the congressional budget office released its monthly budget review and its key points are, the federal budget is $1.1 trillion for the first nine months of fiscal year 2009. so here we are with a bill

loaded down with earmarks worth tens of millions of dollars on the very day that the deficit -- now the budget deficit tops $1 trillion. in fact it is $1.1 trillion. that's more than $800 billion greater than the deficit that was recorded through june 2008. outlays are 21% of $457 million higher than they were in the nine months of 2508 and revenues have fallen by 18% by some $346 billion. outlays for unemployment benefits so far this year are more than two and a half times what they were at the this point last year, about half of this increase is driven by higher unemployment rate and half is driven by legislation,